text
stringlengths 49
6.21k
| label
int64 0
1
| label_text
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|
an awesome made for the sci-fi channel movie which by far surpasses many of the poor previous efforts they've churned out. Bruce Campbell is on superb form as a possible investor who gets caught up in a bizarre experiment led by a delirious professor,Stacey Keach,and his half-wit assistance,Ted Raimi. The film is pure b movie gold and its great to see Keach and ram up on screen with Bruce, and the fact that a lot of the film works purely on Bruce's comic slapstick acting is what make it hilarious, and makes me ask the question, why isn't this guy getting more of his scripts commissioned?, it indeed a sick world. Definitely worth a watch.
| 1 |
positive
|
The best part in this movie is the first one, located in Sicily, I suppose. Crialese shows a good talent for photography and the movie start is delightfully surprising. The rest of the story is quite boring. Crialese uselessly insists on stereotypical situations and characters, trying to melt neorealistic suggestions and video-music technique, Fellinian surrealistic remembrances and a very annoying and completely off-topic soundtrack, leading the whole thing towards an end which gives you the sensation of an exaggeratedly long story cut abruptly short. Frankly, this is a real overrated movie and Crialese is a real overrated director.
| 0 |
negative
|
This is a masterful piece of film-making, with many themes simmering and occasionally boiling over in this warts and all study of the poet's bohemian, self-indulgent wartime years that span the aerial bombardments of London and the outward tranquillity of a Welsh coastal retreat - the borderlines between friendship, lust and love, dedication to art and experience versus practical concerns, jealousy, rivalry, cowardice and egotism versus heroism and self-sacrifice and more. A mature, subtle script that suggests and occasionally brings into dramatic focus the underlying tensions is well served by perfect performances (apart from the odd inappropriate smiling that Keira Knightley is prone to, though perhaps under direction this time as the other characters themselves often mention it). But above all the exquisite visual composition of each moment, with inventive and elegant use of close-up, camera angle and lighting, including pointillistic faux home movie footage, is a wonder and joy to behold. It's as continuously beautiful to look at as a Bertolucci, but the relationships here are more convincing and the narrative more engaging than some of that master's work. A very rare type of film these days - it holds the attention and stirs the emotions without abandoning artistic integrity and succumbing to manipulative, superficial shortcuts.
| 1 |
positive
|
I actually own this movie which is the MST3K version called "Cave Dwellers" which is really the only way anyone could really watch a movie like this. If it weren't for Joel, Crow, and Tom Servo constantly making wisecracks, it wouldn't be possible to sit through this piece of crap. You have a hero called Ator who looks a lot like Jeff Spigoli in Fast Times at Ridgemont High and appears only slightly more intelligent, just without being stoned. He takes on cavemen (the cave dwellers?) invisible guys, a giant snake (with a bunch of anal retentive snakes that like to line up all the skulls to face the same way), invents a hang glider which suspiciously looks like a modern aluminum one with some cheap vines wrapped around it, and then does battle with the evil John Saxon-looking dude. Then he rides off on his horse across the tire tracks where someone's been four-wheeling.<br /><br />Yes, I got most of that from MST3K, which as I said is the only way to watch this turkey of a movie. If it weren't for that, it would get zero stars.
| 0 |
negative
|
I'm a huge fan of both Emily Watson (Breaking The Waves) and Tom Wilkinson (Normal) and was amused to see them upstaged by Rupert Everett (Dellamorte Dellamore) in this shockingly rather minor movie that had all the ingredients to be so much more. The too brief scenes in which he portrays a languid, infinitely entitled, worthless son of a rich Lord are spot-on and entertaining. But for a love triangle there was remarkably little chemistry to speak of between anyone. The music was annoyingly movie-of-the-week quality, and the voice-over jarring and totally unnecessary. Clearly the work of a first-time director with a small budget who either lacked or didn't sufficiently heed good advice. Too bad.<br /><br />I can appreciate how the people you kind of hate at the beginning are the ones you kind of like at the end, and vice-versa, so there is some sort of character arc, at least in terms of perception. For example, Watson's character, while refreshingly honest to her husband about her feelings for another man, began to grate on me near the end, particularly when she announced to her husband that she simply had absolutely no control over her actions, and later when she simply declared that she would be moving back into their marital flat, with no asking of permission, no apologies offered. And I went from disliking Wilkinson's control freak / moral relativist character to sort of understanding him and not really wanting him to change (unlike his wife).<br /><br />This movie awkwardly morphed from a whodunit to a "Love Story" or "Steel Magnolias" illness drama without sufficiently informing me of the fact, so I was left distractedly guessing what the next plot twist might be long after they had all been revealed (Was it the Lord driving the car? The Lord's dog?). The scene where the Lord visits Wilkinson and relates how brave Watson is, the bestest nurse any dying boyfriend could ever ask for, Florence Nightingale incarnate, etc. was OK until he started over-the-top sobbing like a baby. Good God! If you ask me she's just another flitty rich person with way too much time on her hands, and so she drives her hard working, well providing spouse crazy with unnecessary drama. Her screwing around was just another way to occupy her empty life; the dying guy thing was an added bonus for her as it somehow made her previous actions completely above reproach.<br /><br />Look, everyone would have been better off if Wilkinson had just left her for his secretary, who seemed to appreciate him for who he was. Instead he acted like an abused dog, his open craving for his wife's affection increasing with every kick she gives him. I'm not anti PC or anything, it just didn't ring true, even after taking into account all of the harsh realities of middle age we all tend to face. The ending for me was (and not the director's intention I am certain) depressing. The movie spent the last 80 minutes convincing me that these two people just don't belong together, so I found no joy in the promise of their relationship continuing. I'm not above wanting my emotions manipulated by a story, it just has to be somewhat plausible and not hackneyed. Is that asking too much?<br /><br />My score: 4/10
| 0 |
negative
|
Although allegedly autobiographical, this movie demonstrates very little insight both into the protagonist's psychology (resulting in a flat, fragmented characterization) as well as into larger-scale historical processes, and my hope of either learning something new or improving my understanding of contemporary Iran remained unfulfilled. Instead, I found my sensibilities somewhat dulled as a succession of bearded Islamic villains replaced each other taunting, torturing or killing the wantonly victimized prototypical middle-class Iranian whose Western cultural sympathies were patent (and whose exoneration the movie quite blatantly seeks.) The deeper understanding the movie does seem to demonstrate is that of the mass-media market, as it serves to nourish prevalent occidental folk-ideologies (i.e. a "crowd pleaser"). <br /><br />What redeemed the movie from being outright boring was its creative animation - genuinely minimalistic imagery which, nevertheless, always kept the screen rich, expressive and unambiguous - no small fete for which I do give it some stars.
| 0 |
negative
|
Perfect double bill for the horribly corny "Beverly Hillbillies" is this equally atrocious, lame brained 'comedy', "Son in Law". Country girl Rebecca goes to wild California to attend college, only to be assaulted by the lifestyle. 'Resident Adviser' "Crawl" helps her settle in, and soon the two are good friends. Bec decides to bring the wacky "Crawl" home for Thanksgiving, with obvious "fish out of water" results.<br /><br />The only other comic angle Steve Rash (aptly named ) achieves here is a sexual one. This he bludgeons us with, but to no avail. Both comic aspects fail dismally, and you know the film is groping when "Crawl" hijacks the combine harvester and writes his name in the corn field.<br /><br />Dramatically the movie falls short too, with several attempts at family and personal counselling from "Crawl" misfiring. Between them Pauly Shore and Carla Gugino manage to raise a couple of smiles, but little else, while the rest of the cast are mere fodder. The problem is it's nearly impossible to actually like "Crawl", and you'll find yourself spending the whole flick wondering why Rebecca would want to spend a moment with him. However, if you're a fan of unintelligent comedy, "Son in Law" is right on the mark.<br /><br />Sunday, November 10, 1996 - T.V.
| 0 |
negative
|
Let me start off by saying I love Japanese cinema, literature and culture generally. I've seen many Japanese movies and enjoyed them, but "Portrait of Hell" (aka Jigokuhen) makes itself ridiculous. The two characters who dominate the action -- the "evil lord" in his privileged bubble and the "stubborn, crazy artist" are pure types with zero subtlety or nuance, and all their actions emanate from cartoonish extremes. The film wants to show horrible scenes of violence and raw emotion but many of these scenes are so over the top they actually become laughable and the overall feeling is that of a made-for-TV movie that went off the rails. If this rarely screened movie falls in your hands or comes to your town, spare yourself and give it a pass.
| 0 |
negative
|
Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy are the most famous comedy duo in history, and deservedly so, so I am happy to see any of their films. Ollie is recovering from a broken leg in hospital, and with nothing else to do, Stan decides to visit him, and take him some boiled eggs and nuts, instead of candy. Chaos begins with Stan curiously pulling Ollie's leg cast string, and manages to push The Doctor (Billy Gilbert) out the window, clinging on to it, getting Ollie strung up to the ceiling. When the situation calms down, Stan gets Ollie's clothes, as the Doctor wants them both to leave, and he also manages to sit on a syringe, accidentally left by the nurse, filled with a sleeping drug, which comes into effect while he is driving (which you can tell is done with a car in front of a large screen. Filled with some likable slapstick and not too bad (although repetitive and a little predictable) classic comedy, it isn't great, but it's a black and white film worth looking at. Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy were number 7 on The Comedians' Comedian. Okay!
| 0 |
negative
|
When Las Vegas came out one review described this show as, quote "A harmless bit of fluff". Needless to say that after seeing a dozen or so episodes I think this description is right on the money. An assortment of pretty boys and strutting model types play out an assortment of paper thin stories while all the time trying to pretend they are serious business people. One dimensional characters, in a one dimensional setting, pursuing one dimensional stories. That pretty much sums up Vegas. I still watch from time to time to see if the show is trying to evolve and take itself a little serious but alas to no avail. So far.
| 0 |
negative
|
The future of fantasy never looked so dark! Christopher Lambert gets to fight the evil demon Grendel in this grim looking trashy fantasy-epos. "Epos" I said? Er... there's only one location, so you can't really call it an epic adventure, can you? The location is a medieval/futuristic 5 inch tall castle, so how did they manage to cram in all the actors? Oh, I get it, those where special effects. A miniature. Silly me.<br /><br />Here's some reasons why you might want or NOT want to watch this motion picture:<br /><br />- Lambert gets to do his sword-swinging tricks over again like he did in Highlander.<br /><br />- The sets and costumes are amazingly cool (if you're a 12-year-old).<br /><br />- Rhona Mitra has a voluptuous pair of knockers which she likes to show off through-out the whole movie.<br /><br />- ...er, Christopher Lambert has white hair...<br /><br />- Every time they start fighting, this over-the-top raving techno-soundtrack gets going. So why are these medieval slayer-dudes fighting while they should be dancing.<br /><br />- They don't have electricity in this castle but they do have speakers installed which seem to work fine. So where's the amplifier? I guess they borrowed it from the techno-dj who delivered the soundtrack.<br /><br />- Watch it for the climax in the end which features an outrageous demonoïd CGI creature coming straight out of any Playstation 2 survival-horror game.<br /><br />If all this got you interested, then go watch it (at your own risk), but don't tell anyone I told you to. I strongly suspect Pinhead visiting the set while shooting, because this movie has no soul. Anyway, if you want to see beautiful Rohna Mitra really show some skin, then watch Paul Verhoeven's HOLLOW MAN.
| 0 |
negative
|
this movie had me stuck in this endless loop of thinking about it for days afterward...granted i am not the movie snob that some folks around here appear to be, but i thought this was amazingly well-acted, and a powerful creation, if lacking a little subtlety in exectution. i happen to admire movies that can effectively recreate the sensation of watching a stage play, it creates an inharmonious eeriness that works well with this flick. i am also a great fan of alan rickman, so that might be my bias. personally i found the lack of spatial landmarks a good thing -- this could in fact be anywhere, and probably is. i say go easy on what was a powerful experience for me, and likely for anyone involved in any sort of political activity.
| 1 |
positive
|
I don't know why IMDb lists all the Ghoulies films as theatrical releases.. They were all straight to video films. Same with the Puppet Master series. Why hasn't anyone noticed this yet? Right, somehow you've stumbled across Ghoulies IV, probably raiding through an old abandoned video rental store from 1993. You looked in the discount section and found this...Look at the back and front covers. What do you expect, The Shawshank Redemption? There is no need to review this film so critically. It is the fourth GHOULIES film! I bought it on DVD for 6.50 because... it was 6.50.. I knew it wasn't Kubrick material. And I was right. An unremastered DVD with no extras, not even a trailer, boasts an uncared-for film.<br /><br />It actually contains the star of the first Ghoulies film, Peter Liapis... who really didn't get many 'big' roles apart from those two films. And I don't see why... He's not too bad an actor and is pretty fun. But I guess if you're gonna take a lead role in the Ghoulies films, Scorsese and Tarantino will lose interest. Also present is his idiot sidekick Bobby Di Cocco, who despite having a very small resemblance to Al Pacino (very small), retains none of his acting ability... A complete idiot who's just awkward to watch. Then there's Stacie Randall - obviously a porn star, I don't need to look that up. She does look quite sexy, though her costume, her character and everything she does drags down the films credibility, which is no easy task for such a film.<br /><br />Then there is the Ghoulies themselves! Who also manage to let us down. Ghoulies III made them start talking, mistake no. 1, but Ghoulies IV takes it a step further. Instead of being puppets, this time the Ghoulies are in fact KIDS in COSTUMES!!!! The filmmakers decided to run that extra mile to insult the films viewers. Also, there's only TWO of them, and they're not the main highlight of the film, as they don't appear in a lot of it. However, at times they are MILDLY amusing... And they're not evil this time either.<br /><br />This really is hilariously bad stuff, it's amazing that I was actually able to enjoy it. I dunno why... Some of the black humour is actually funny, though the script is mostly effortless. Imagine Satan's only threat to you being that he will "kill you, slowly...painfully...".<br /><br />But at least Full Moon had no involvement this time. Did they? Yeah, a very bad and cheaply made film with 0 production value, but not so bad as to be in the ranks of Puppet Master 1/2, Lawnmower Man 2, Surviving Christmas or even Ghoulies III.
| 0 |
negative
|
Being raised at the time this movie was released has probably influenced my shallow mind, but still, this isn't a bad movie by any means. It's a movie about a hostage situation involving a prep school populated to some extent by endearing teenage boys who can't seem to get out of trouble. What's wrong with that? It doesn't have any big special effects, but so what? Who needs special effects? Cinema's decline began around the same time that special effects were popularized. A coincidence? I think not. It turned movies with potentially good plot and feelings and turned them into a big, substance-less light show for innocent kids and the self-medicated. Well, you know, not all movies need special effects. About three fourths of the movies on the IMDb top 250 are without special effects, but almost all of the Top Grossing movies of all time have some special effects. Think about it: Star Wars, E.T., Ghostbusters, etc. All good movies, but the rest of the top-grossing movies are usually cliched tripe with non-sensical plots and lots of eye candy. Well some movies don't need ny of that junk.<br /><br />Excuse me for going off on a tangent, which I normally do, but I'm just so fed up with that special effects junk. Back to the point: Toy Soldiers is simply a great movie. I admit, some of the content is a little corny and ripped off, but so what, every movie rips off another to some extent. Think of Resovoir Dogs. Countless "appreciation" sites dictate the fact that beloved Quentin Tarentino, who I admit I like, has copied many, many, many movies in the making of his first major film Reservoir Dogs. Many say that the entire plot is ripped off almost scene for scene from japanese and chinese gangster movies which Mr. Tarentino loved so much, and probably still does. Sorry once again for the tangent.<br /><br />Toy Soldiers is fun. It has the whole insubordination from teenagers to unwanted members of authority, i.e. hostage takers. It's fun to see kids take over when they're being held to something they don't want to do. Hell, teenage angst-inspired rebelion was the key topic to a great majority to 80's comedies. Plus there's the tension and thrill of having the characters use fire-arms and knock out the bad guys, etc. Plus there's some emotional points to the film. When one of the characters dies the others have to cope and adjust. It's not perfect acting but it beats most of the other tripe out there.<br /><br />In short, Toy Soldiers is exciting, interesting, and fun. How dare you jaded blowhards rate this movie poorly! Shame on you all!<br /><br />Personal rating: 8/10
| 1 |
positive
|
Seriously, where is Al Pacino's Oscar nomination for this one? Is it that we take him for granted at this point in his career? Pacino here is extraordinary.. He gives a complex, heartbreaking performance as Shylock, the Jewish money lender.. the movie as a whole was quite great, with beautiful shots of Venice to look at and a pitch perfect score to listen to.. the other actors all do a fine job as well, but the real reason to see this is Pacino.. I have seen all the nominated Oscar performances of 2004, and I must say that Pacino was snubbed.. blame it on the anti-semitism associated with the play, the lack of campaigning by the studio, the late release date with no major push, or most likely, all of the above.. in my mind, the best performances of the year belong to Jamie Foxx in Ray, Don Cheadle in Hotel Rwanda, and Al Pacino in The Merchant of Venice..
| 1 |
positive
|
This movie is about a young couple running away to start a new life in LA, who end up being stalked by a psycho at a deserted rest stop. Actually, it's really just about the girl (Nicole), since her boyfriend literally disappears within a few minutes. The movie gets going extremely fast, and early on you wonder how it could possibly stretch its story out to feature length. It isn't long before you realize that the movie does this by simply wasting time with unnecessary scenes that go nowhere.<br /><br />The story is not only paper-thin, but unstructured, stupid, and incoherent. Minutes after the disappearance of her boyfriend and car, Nicole finds a mobile home at the rest stop. She sees the flashing of a camera, and KNOWS that people are inside, but she easily gives up on trying to get their help when no one answers her door knocks. After she is informed by the killer that her boyfriend is in danger, she walks around the rest stop, doing all sorts of stupid and unnecessary things. This includes turning on a TV (and even looking amused when she thinks she's stumbled onto a porno movie, even in this dire situation), sitting around, wandering, and drinking from a bottle of liquor for hours on end. She does all this KNOWING that her boyfriend has been abducted, that the killer is still on the loose and stalking her, and without taking any actions to ensure her immediate safety (she doesn't bother to lock the doors or remain alert). Oh yeah, she tries using a radio to call for help, but why even bother when there's a mobile home with people inside RIGHT THERE at the rest stop? It really seems like the script writer forgot about this important fact while writing this part of the story.<br /><br />There's no sense of entrapment or ever-present danger in this story. The heroine freely wanders in and around the various buildings at the rest stop, and the killer only drives in occasionally to scare her, before driving off again. There's NOTHING stopping Nicole from simply taking off (even if the rest stop is a long way from anywhere else, that's better than sitting around), but she chooses to stay anyway. At one point in the movie, the main character even ACKNOWLEDGES that she can run off, but doesn't.<br /><br />The story doesn't go anywhere, and instead just jumps from pointless segment to pointless segment. Nicole finally gets inside the mobile home, and it turns out that the inhabitants are a family of sheltered, presumably inbred or psychotic religious fanatics. They seem willfully ignorant or uncaring about the killer's actions (but there's no indication that they're connected to him in any way), and then kick Nicole out after several minutes.<br /><br />In the next irrelevant segment, the main character wanders into the bathroom building. She discovers one of the killer's previous victims (a young woman named Tracy), who is still alive and locked in a closet. For some strange reason, Tracy starts vomiting ridiculous amounts of blood. Nicole goes off to fetch a crowbar to pry open the closet door, and when she returns a minute later, both Tracy and her pool of blood have disappeared without any explanation. What was the point? Nicole finds a bulletin board showing many missing persons, and sees that Tracy had disappeared in 1971. So, was Tracy a ghost or something? The writer never bothers explaining.<br /><br />Next, a cop shows up in the middle of the night to man the police office at the rest stop, which had been conveniently left unattended for the entire day so far. Nicole tells him all about what's been going on, and when the killer drives up in his truck outside the office, the cop goes outside to confront him. What does the police officer do, knowing that something is seriously wrong? He goes up and calmly talks to the killer (who Nicole had even pointed out to be the guy who was stalking her), and buys into the killer's lie that he was simply driving through and needed directions. Seriously. The cop then talks to Nicole outside, totally unaware as the pickup truck turns around and runs him over.<br /><br />The cop quickly starts telling Nicole that he's a goner who's "lucky to be breathing" still, yet he strangely doesn't die for quite a while. The two of them do some more pointless talking, and the all-important fact that he has a gun is annoyingly not even mentioned for too long a time. When the two of them finally try to use the gun, Nicole stupidly wastes most of her bullets blindly shooting at a door when the killer was possibly behind it. With two bullets left, the policeman tells Nicole to use one to euthanize him. She fires one into his mouth, and he lays still for a few moments, with a chunk blown out of his head. Then, he suddenly and inexplicably yells out "You missed!" and she has to shoot him again. Completely cheap attempt at shock.<br /><br />Nicole finally confronts the killer
and fails. The movie ends with a scene taking place not long from then, with a woman arriving at the now strangely much more active rest stop. In the bathroom building, she hears Nicole crying for help in the closet (locked in like Tracy was). She gets a policeman to go inside and check it, but he finds an apparently normal and clean closet. The cop leaves, thinking he's been tricked. A battered Nicole is seen coming out from behind some boxes in the closet (she would have been easily spotted if the cop had spent all of 10 seconds looking), apparently too stupid to have said or done anything when the policeman was there. WOW.<br /><br />This movie is apparently the first in a new line of "quality" direct-to-DVD movies, marketed as being too extreme for theaters. In reality, it's just more cliché, B-Movie garbage.
| 0 |
negative
|
This movie is stupid, made by stupid people. The plot I suppose works well enough for a Horror movie, but the actions these characters take is insanely STUPID! Like, incredibly non-sensical stupid to the Nth degree! Basically the whole movie consists of these 4 idiots being captured, repeatedly, despite having many, many easy ways and opportunities to overcome their captor. It does not make one lick of sense and is not entertaining whatsoever. Stabbing yourself in the eye is more is more rational, and probably more fun than watching this.<br /><br />****SPOILERS**** The ending is hilarious!! The only good part of the movie! I nearly died laughing at the end! That whole stupid movie, and it ends with the dumb girl getting shipped off in a crate to white slavery in Asia!! Hilarious! I thought it was a totally awesome ending to a really sh!tty movie.
| 0 |
negative
|
This movie was horrible and the only reason it was even made was because the story appealed to the far-left. I consider my self a moderate, so I was able to see this film as the pile of garbage it was. While I'm not a Bush fan, your dislike for GW is not enough of a reason to see this movie.<br /><br />To start, the movie was shot on such low-grade film that it comes off as cheap, rather then artsy. Additionally, the characters are seriously lacking in depth. Chris Cooper's character was a poor parody of George Bush; better suited for Saturday Night Live then a Dramatic film. The rest of the characters are walking clichés and are poor facsimiles of other characters from much better movies.<br /><br />Avoid this movie at all costs!
| 0 |
negative
|
I gave this movie a chance only because it had very good reviews. After seeing the trailer I thought - what an unfunny movie full of clichés. But I decided to give it a shot because trailers often don't portray the movie very well. What a waste of time... The movie is worst than the trailer and after spending 2 hours watching it, I couldn't recall one single line that made me laugh. The funniest parts of the movie were the CSI parodies, but that also is pretty passé. I couldn't relate to any of the characters nor hope that they will be together, because I found them utterly stupid. The plot is extremely predictable and inconclusive. Unintelligent comedy for people who are either still in high school or feel that way mentally.
| 0 |
negative
|
This movie has the feel of a college project over it, who wants to do a blair witch project meets saw theme. But it isn't successful. The cinematography is poor, and the acting even more so. The characters, in my opinion doesn't come off as being credible at all. The editing of the film isn't really working as intended either. There are a lot of poor effects, which I believe are put in there to try and add a horrid effect. But to me it just gives me a feeling of indifference.<br /><br />I would stay away from this movie, unless you are a dedicated movie freak, who likes to watch "different" and indie "horror" movies. However, I believe this movie is not worth watching, for the average person. You will get no pleasure out of the poor effects, and the handycam feel, which this movie bestows on it's viewers.
| 0 |
negative
|
Always enjoyed "DOA",1950,which starred Edmond O'Brien and was very curious about this film. Dennis Quaid,(Dexter Cornell), was a professor who loved his wife and finally found out she was having an affair with one of his students. Dexter gets involved with Meg Ryan(Sydney Fuller), who was a student in his college class and at the same time had a big crush on him and wound up having a one night stand and in some ways loved him deeply. Dexter learns that he received a drink which had bad contents and would cause him a great deal of health problems! If you like Dennis Quaid and love Meg Ryan you will enjoy viewing this film, Meg gave an outstanding performance and kept this picture worth watching!
| 1 |
positive
|
I give "Flashdance" a lowest rating of 1 out of 10 because it's nothing more than a series of music videos with a movie short surrounding the music videos, in order to clock in as a feature length film. Since when does that count as film? Jennifer Beals plays Alex Owens, an aspiring 18-year-old dancer, who, incomprehensibly, has a job as a welder in a Pittsburgh steel factory. Not a line of work most older women find their way into, much less 18-year-olds fresh out of high school. Meanwhile, at night she works as an exotic dancer, who never actually takes off her clothes, in a greasy spoon bar called Mawby's. Yet looking at the well choreographed and well polished dance routines the girls do every night at Mawby's, you would think they were working at the best casino on the Las Vegas Strip.<br /><br />Alex ends up having a predictable romance with her boss, Nick Hurley (Michael Nouri), who is about twice her age. After resisting Nick's advances, because going out with the boss isn't a good idea, she wastes no time in going all the way with him after their first date. Alex and Nick make no effort to hide their relationship on the job, which makes no sense given how it is likely to look to Alex's co-workers.<br /><br />When Beals isn't being doubled for the many dance sequences in the movie, her character spends most her time throwing temper tantrums. Alex's dream is to get an invitation only audition at the prestigious Pittsburgh Conservatory of Dance. Inexplicably, when her boss/boyfriend helps her get the audition she's been dreaming of, she's throws one her tantrums. She angrily tells Nick she isn't doing the audition because of his intervention, and then gets out of his car in the middle of a busy tunnel. This is just one scene that leaves you wondering what the hell the makers were thinking when they were making this.<br /><br />Of course, Alex does eventually get her audition at the Conservatory. She puts on a dance routine before the Conservatory board that is so ridiculous that you would think it was in a movie marketed to the MTV generation. Oh yeah, it is a dance routine in a movie marketed to the MTV generation.<br /><br />I don't think I can judge whether or not Beals can actually act well on the basis of what I saw in "Flashdance". This is because the character she is forced to play is so poorly written, that I don't think it is a fair litmus test of her acting abilities.<br /><br />You have to hand it to the makers of "Flashdance" though. This movie is proof that the poorest film making can be covered up by a slick marketing campaign. In this case a best selling and award winning soundtrack and music videos for said soundtrack in heavy rotation on MTV. If they had devoted more of their energy to the writing of the script, then they might have been able to come up with a plot and a story with characters that I cared about. Instead what we get are stock characters put in ridiculous scenes any viewer with a functioning brain can't take seriously. A truly forgettable "film".
| 0 |
negative
|
Along with Cops, The Goat is one of Keaton's two funniest shorts. Which makes it one of the best shorts ever made. This has an decent "plot" for a short, and it forms a perfect line on which to hang some great gags. Keaton is mistaken for an escaped convict (how the mistake happens is a classic) and then must elude the authorities. Best gags - the bread line and t he "elevator".
| 1 |
positive
|
**Spoiler* It gives away the very irrelevant ending**<br /><br />At the beginning of this movie, there was a brief intro to the world of gore by the master of gore movies, H.G. Lewis. He talked about how this movie was lost, and then found years after the director's death. He also talked about how gore movies were measured by the amount of stage blood used in it. Blood Feast was a 2 galloner, 10,000 Maniacs was a 5 galloner. But, then he goes and claims that Dr. Gore was a 15 galloner. I want to know where half of the 15 gallons went. Watching the movie, I saw very little near 15 gallons. Agreed, there was a fairly large amount of blood, but no where near 15 gallons. Some of the dismemberment scenes were definitely pretty gory and realistic, strings of flesh and all, but I wouldn't say 15 gallons.<br /><br />"END!!! ENNNNNNNNNDDDDDD!!!" Does that sound familiar? That's what you should have been saying near the last half of this movie. After the Igor character was tossed into the acid bath, the movie slowed to a painful crawl. There was no coherent end, as it didn't fit into anything the 90 minutes before it provided. She drove off in a van with a total stranger, BIG DEAL! That's what happens when you keep an individual (I won't say person, because she doesn't qualify as a person) very innocent about the world around her. The doctor teaches the girl that a man is to be loved, so every man she meets, she loves.<br /><br />Even though H.G. Lewis told us at the beginning of the movie that we may not like the acting, the directing, or even the gore... I will go with choices A and B. BOTH WERE TERRIBLE!! It was enough to give me bad dreams of cut editing and people with shifty eyes as they talk to one person. But, I made it through the movie, and came out stronger. Too bad I couldn't say the same after finishing ROBO C.H.I.C.<br /><br />This was a BAD movie. I can usually take my doses of vinegar in good stride, but every once in a while, you get a movie that bites back. I think this movie took off an arm or a leg (haha... *sigh*) Admitted, I did enjoy the stare down scenes, where the good doctor stared at his future victims and opened his eyes REALLY wide and just stared. It was VERY similar to Fuad Ramseys in Blood Feast when he stared at that lady in his catering shop, and did not use his power after that. I guess this movie picks up where Fuad's powers left off.<br /><br />*Final Judgement* The movie should have stayed lost. Good day<br /><br />-Scott-
| 0 |
negative
|
Superbly adapted to the screen and extremely faithful to Mary Webb's period novel, this film is a true masterpiece. Aside from the exceptionally talented rising star, Janet Mcteer as the lead and one or two established actors, the film used mostly little known names. Yet the drama was all the more convincing for that. The social and personal tension is almost tangible and I felt as if the cast were reacting each other's character as though they would have done in real life. I saw that one commentator asked if Janet McTeer really had a hare-lip, a testimony to just how good was her characterisation. I saw this on TV when it was first shown, taped it, then later the tape was sadly lost. But it remains clear as anything in my mind. If you have any fondness at all for the social period, it's an absolute must see.
| 1 |
positive
|
"Two wildlife photographers are traveling through the Amazon River basin on their latest assignment. While trying to capture the wildlife of the area on film, our photographers cross paths with a game hunter, who is stalking the animals for another reason. Looking to eliminate the witnesses to his illegal activities, the hunter decides to
" according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis. <br /><br />Handsome guide Peter Brown (as Jim Pendrake) takes pretty blonde Ahna Capri (as Terry Greene) and her good-looking brother Tom Simcox (as Art Greene) into the Venezuelan jungle, to admire the view, and take wildlife pictures. After they hook up with hunky big-game hunter William Smith (as Caribe), psychological dramatics surface. <br /><br />A pivotal scene, with Mr. Brown reposing in the "vee" of a tree, and sharing a cigarette with Mr. Simcox, is nicely staged. The circular direction reappears in the later "fight" between Brown and Mr. Smith; and, it is effective. Simcox' early sex romp adds nothing to the story; it could have been cut, to take advantage of what seems like flirting between the Brown and Simcox characters. An attraction between Brown and Ms. Capri could have been played up, also. <br /><br />The music, including Jim Stein's "Love All Things That Love the Sun", is fine; but the film needs to be re-tracked, to cut out animals which do not appear on screen. And, there is far too much superfluous footage on display. "Piranha" is a case where less would have been more.
| 0 |
negative
|
Cactus Flower is what I call a "pizza movie" -A personal favorite that never fails to satisfy. Perfect for an evening at home with a pizza. Knowing all the lines (and what lines!) by heart only enhances the enjoyment.<br /><br />Since so many others here have retold the plot, I'll simply add the correction that Bergman's character, Miss Dickinson, was a nurse-receptionist, meaning she was a skilled nurse -and therefore an educated person -not "just" a receptionist.<br /><br />Bergman's performance in this film -and the film itself- was largely dismissed at the time, but today's audiences will marvel at her range; not just the impeccable comic timing, but the ability to make us believe her character is unaware of her own feelings while revealing them so clearly to Toni and to us. While the general plot stretches credibility, Bergman's performance is compelling: honest and utterly believable.<br /><br />Also a standout is Jack Weston's performance as the Matthau's old friend and co-conspirator, Harvey. No one could deliver a zinger like Weston, and I.A.L. Diamond's script gives him plenty. For example: "That's such a big, dirty, rotten lie it has class." Weston excelled at slightly seedy characters because he exuded a warmth that allowed you to forgive his characters' flaws. <br /><br />The film is a fairly straight adaptation of the Abe Burrows play (which was itself adapted from a French play by Barillet and Gredy). On Broadway Matthau's role was played by Barry Nelson. Bergman's by Lauren Bacall, and Hawn's by Brenda Vaccaro. It ran for 1,234 performances (three years) and was nominated for two Tony Awards (Vaccaro and Burt Brinckerhoff, who played Igor).<br /><br />For me, the film's score, written and adapted by the legendary Quincy Jones is another highlight. The main theme (A Time For Love Is Anytime) is performed by Sarah Vaughn over the opening and closing credits. It is also insinuated in different arrangements throughout the film, most notably as the romantic piano music underscoring Berman's speech to Hawn in the record store. Jones also created covers of popular songs from the period (To Sir With Love, I'm A Believer) for the night club scenes. As with all of the film's elements, there is a tremendous amount of talent, taste, and professionalism evident. <br /><br />In my opinion, few modern romantic comedies can hold a candle to this classic. It's great to finally have it available on DVD. Time to call for a pizza...
| 1 |
positive
|
I saw this ego-centric "effort" at achieving a film of "epic" status in the company of several native Russian family members. Five people gave 5 different reactions, from Mikhalkov worship to my cynicism.<br /><br />I saw a movie that looked like Mikhalkov took a lot of "Canal +" money, put some of it in his (and other's) pockets and turned the project over to a bunch of film students. I counted at least 4 different "styles" in the movie. There is no way that the same director is responsible for these different scenes. Contrast these for yourself:<br /><br />·Cadets polishing shoes with a dog.<br /><br />·Train station scene (saying goodbye to Andrei).<br /><br />·Outdoor panorama shots.<br /><br />·Ormond talking through the keyhole.<br /><br />·Initial attempt on the Grand Duke and later chase scenes to get Andrei back to sing in Figaro.<br /><br />·Fencing sequence<br /><br />Julia Ormond is faster than superman. Learning about his transfer belatedly, she gets all the way across Moscow in one minute to say goodbye to Andrei.<br /><br />The Russian natives felt that the impression given of Russian life was "caricature" and not history. They called it "tourist postcard" Russia.<br /><br />They were all proud that a Russian director/producer/fixer has managed to break into the "big time" and be able to waste over 30 million dollars of other people's money while maybe putting a little into local pockets during filming.<br /><br />If you want to "think" you have seen Russia go see this movie. Drink some coffee before you go.
| 0 |
negative
|
This is a cute film starring Spanky, Alfalfa and Buckwheat from the "Our Gang" comedies. Set in the South during the Civil War, it may seem a little odd to see Buckwheat as Spanky's slave, but this film is as charming as the best of the shorts with the same cast. This was the only Our Gang feature film, and I highly recommend it over The Little Rascals remake from 1994.
| 1 |
positive
|
This movie shocked me. It was so realistic and the story was incredible touching. They talk German and Russian, which makes it more believable and real. This is a must-see movie. The actors are great too. Really a good piece of work. The plot takes place within a German troop in WWII. They have to go to Stalingrad, Sovjet, to fight against the Sovjetian armies. You get more connected with every soldier in this group and follow them through all the perils as they get captured within Stalingrad. They get face-to-face meetings with death, blood, grief and the coldness of Russia. This is a must-see-movie and you cant afford not to see it.
| 1 |
positive
|
The movie isn't too bad, up until...<br /><br />The main problem is with the ending, so it's a pretty major spoiler...<br /><br />For the time it was made, it's a beautiful movie, and does get a lot of it right.<br /><br />However...<br /><br />In the book, Sam succeeds and lives his dream, whereas in the movie, he gives up and goes back to the city, completely destroying the "you can do what you put your mind to" theme of the book.<br /><br />This movie is a desecration, and instead of remaking classics that don't need redone, the Hollywood types who haven't any better ideas should do this one, right this time.
| 0 |
negative
|
A very bizarre bringing to the screen of William Shakespeare's tragic love story.<br /><br />The Que family and the Capulet family have a long running hatred of one another which often results in violence. The hatred has something to do with a film company and the fact that everyone is pretty much crazy. In the middle of all of this insanity are Tromeo and Juliet, literature's most famous "star crossed" lovers that fall for each other at first sight and problems arise when they realize whose family the other belongs to.<br /><br />The film follows the basic plot of the original play remarkably well and key scenes even use the original, or close to original, lines. But the infamous Troma bizarreness pervades the film from beginning to end. That makes for a movie that is definitely not for all tastes, but it is nonetheless pretty inventive. Tyrone (Tybalt in Shakespeare) has a particularly funny death scene. 7/10<br /><br />Many differently edited and rated versions exist. Each contains violence, profanity, drug use, and sex, all with a big dose of bizarreness.
| 1 |
positive
|
On paper this looks a good film . Michael Caine plays a tough and ruthless boxing promoter who's son is up for a title eliminator . The pity is that when the story is transferred from paper to my television screen it loses a certain everything . I had hoped we'd be seen emulating his definitive role in GET CARTER and as the film progresses it does seem to take on the qualities of a tough gritty revenge thriller but the whole tone of the film jumps around so much you'll be confused as to what genre it's trying to fit in to . For example Caine ( Who you can't believe in as Billy " Shiner " Simpson , he's simply Michael Caine ) has a laugh out line as he refers to someone as " Hattie Jacques " then in a supposedly humorous moment has his henchmen break someone's arm . Oh how I laughed . I mean it's supposed to elicit a laugh the way it plays out on screen isn't it ? But these seems at odds with the way the rest of the film plays out <br /><br />Obviously director John Irvin doesn't know what approach to take with Scott Cherry's screenplay . Irvin isn't a bad director and is well regarded for his war films such as THE DOGS OF WAR and HAMBURGER HILL but he's ill suited to this type of violent drama and one can't help but feel he might have been intimidated somewhat by a living legend like Caine . Caine does give the impression he's just doing it for the money and the well known faces in supporting roles like Landua and Cranham are basically just cameos who could be played by anyone
| 0 |
negative
|
I, like many this evening braved the frigid winter and long lines to see what I had anticipated to be one of the best movies of this year. However, I was left sadly wanting in many ways after the credits rolled. But to be fair, there were redeemable qualities (although very few). Let's start with what worked. First, the Lycans: on point in every way from their terrifying physicality to their sheer ferocity. The action: sublimely visceral when it did occur. Nighy/Victor and Sheen/Lucian: Perfect. Now, what did not (and there is plenty). This was less a movie and more a collage of sequences (and do not expect to see any supporting characters from the other movies except Raze and Tannis). Profoundly missing was a well written storyline and anything of real substance to bring these pieces of film together. The story seemed to start right in the middle at the cusp where Lucian had made up his mind to rebel. Therefore, there was no context; no tension; no sense of betrayal the devices needed to make everything else work. Moreover, it ended at where the climax should have begun (which needed to be after the feud had simmered for a bit). Oh and it was way too short. Purist will also find offense in some liberties taken to certain facts previously revealed in the first two movies
but judge that for yourself. In the end, this movie lingered to long on what should have been brief "background" scenes (e.g. various council scenes), and as a consequence we never really got to know or care about the principal players...or the movie (ouch). -D
| 0 |
negative
|
Otto Preminger's "Porgy and Bess" stands, to date, as a great American musical. I believe it is time bring this film out onto VHS and DVD for countless generations to view, admire, and absorb its wonderful music.
| 1 |
positive
|
Set mostly in the back streets of Toronto NG is a dark , mysterious journey that takes the viewer into the minds of a young man and woman ( Vern and Sarah ) , each of whom has a fascination with riddles and a disastrous incident in their past . Fine dialogue and first-rate casting propel this low key, noirish journey into the girl's search for the meaning behind the word puzzles that keep appearing in her life. Aided by her , anything but enthusiastic, male friend, the two of them reach the end of their quest , but with a price to be paid. The film never intends to answer all of its mysteries , but does an excellent job in the exposition of several plot twists
| 1 |
positive
|
I think vampire movies (usually) are wicked. Even if the film itself isn't all that good, I still like it 'cos its got vampires in it. But this stinks. It really does give vampire movies a bad name.<br /><br />For a start, the cheapness really shows. I'm not usually that bothered about low budget films - one of my favourite all-time movies is El Mariachi which only cost $7000 - but I hate this. The actions a load of crap as well, resorting to a 'stylish' wobbling camera which gives you headache.<br /><br />Theres not much more to say other than don't watch this. I bought it for £1.50 as it was an ex-rental and I feel cheated out of my money, even for that low price.
| 0 |
negative
|
This is quite possible the worst movie ever made. I know people talk about how horrible Ed Wood movies were (Plan 9) but this movie makes Plan 9 look amazing.<br /><br />Chuck Norris makes a cameo, for what reason I have no idea. Perhaps to ruin his movie career. Aside from Chuck Norris, the movie's cast consists of extras in daytime soaps and Mike Norris... that's right, Chuck's son.<br /><br />This director doesn't even have a resume and I have no idea where the plot or screenplay originated. This must've been green lit by a horrible Southern Baptist minister that somehow had a 3rd cousin that owned a studio (which I'm sure has since been shut down).<br /><br />I don't really know what else to say about this movie. I would like to give you a plot summary but I'm lost. There is something about Jesus and Satan... some eternal battle. Other than that there are Indians. And a bunch of freaky kids that don't know how to act... they're just awkward and should not be on camera. I don't know what was going on most of the time but I know the movie was a great laugh. Mike Norris pushes his daughter (on her bike) into the street somehow... but in the shot he's in the middle of the park. So somehow she learns to ride her bike with speed equivalent to that of The Flash and gets hit by a car or bus... I don't know. But she's dead. This is actually the funniest scene in the movie. I know that sounds sick but once you see Mike raise his hands in victory and then hold his head and scream in terror... you'll understand. It doesn't show the daughter getting hit or anything... you just have to assume she got hit by some vehicle. But, the movie's not clear. So maybe it was completely unrelated and she died from cancer. Anyway... after that the movie gets really confusing and I have no idea what really happens. I am a Christian and I have no idea why this movie was made. I don't see any value for this movie in a religious or non-religious sector. This is probably the first thing they show students in Film-making 101... this is what you DON'T want to do.<br /><br />Just see it... you'll hate it and me for suggesting that you see it.
| 0 |
negative
|
Few people realize it, but there was world literature in the ancient world before the Greeks came on the scene. Besides the literary remains that are in the "Old Testament" of the Jews, there were considerable works from Mesopotamia and Egypt. The summit of the former were the religious poetry and "The Epic Of Gilgamesh". The Egyptians produced many poems, but there main addition was a tale of adventure of a traveler and physician called "The Story Of Sinuhe". It is from this work (actually a fragment, that we don't know the ending of) that the novel "The Egyptian" came from.<br /><br />The story is unique (as is the movie). "The Egyptian" was a best seller in the early 1950s, and Darryl Zanuck decided to take a chance making it: yes he wanted a showcase for his girlfriend Bella Darvi as Nefer, as well as the rest of the cast (Victor Mature, Edmund Purdom, Peter Ustinov, Michael Wilding, and Gene Tierney), but he was aware that these films rarely made large box office. One can chalk up this as an example of Zanuck trying something different.<br /><br />The number of movies that deal with ancient Egypt are very small. "Land Of The Pharoahs", "The Egyptian", "The Ten Commandments" (both De Mille versions), "Moses", "Holy Moses!", "Cleopatra", "The Mummy" (all versions), "The Scorpion King". If there are 20 films about ancient Egypt it's is tremendous. But "The Egyptian" is unique. While the second "Ten Commandments" discusses Ramses the Great (Pharoah Ramses II - Yul Brynner) and his father Seti I (Cedric Hardwicke), and the films on Cleopatra deal with her, few other names of ancient Egypt crop up in film. Egypt's greatest Pharoah was Thutmose III, who conquered most of the known middle east of the era of 1470 B.C.E. or so. No film about him has appeared, nor of his usurping predecessor, history's first great female ruler Hatschepsut. But the only known Pharoah who attempted a religious revolution that approached what the Jews (and later the Christians) attempted - a type of monotheism - is the subject of "The Egyptian". This is Pharoah Akhnaton.<br /><br />In reality Akhnaton was practicing a personal form of monotheism that was not meant for public consumption. But it angered the priestly class who worshiped Amon, rather than Aton. Due to our uncertain historic records (although Akhnaton's official records - the "Tel-el-Amana" letters - are quite complete as far as they survive), we do not know if the Pharoah was killed in a palace coup or not. However he died, he was succeeded by a young brother or son of his whose name is better recalled than any other Pharoah except Ramses: Tutankhamon.<br /><br />This film is actually quite good as far as it goes. Wilding makes a good natured Akhnaton, who is too weak to be as effective as a religious reformer is supposed to be. Mature is good as the ambitious (and - outside the film - ultimately successful future Pharoah) Horemheb. Tierney and Purdom do well in their lead parts and Ustinov is good as Purdom's friend. Also good is Ms Darvi, in a large supporting part. In a wonderful cameo is John Carridine, as a philosophical grave robber. The film is certainly worthy of viewing, as one of the few attempts to show part of the history and culture of Ancient Egypt.
| 1 |
positive
|
Hard to imagine what they were thinking of when they made this movie (i.e., the writers, directors, producers, actors, editors, etc.). Christopher Plummer, veteran of 129 movies, frolics along among scores of other actors with apparently no more motivation than to collect a paycheck. I guess there is nothing wrong with that, but once they are paid that doesn't mean anyone has to watch it.<br /><br />It bugs me that there are actually good reviews for this movie here at imdb. Art? If you want to see art go to an art gallery, don't watch this movie. Comedy? Watch a re-run of the Flintstones, about the same plot with less time wasted.<br /><br />Dabney Coleman gives his usual performance, for better or worse. And some of the young actors may have gotten some good experience from doing this movie. But Plummer???? It was embarrassing to watch his performance, in fact I was positively transfixed on him throughout the movie, knowing this was Plummer of Sound of Music fame! I see from his bio that he called Sound of Music "sound of mucus", so guess he didn't like it as much as the 100's of millions who liked him in it.<br /><br />I wonder if today he was asked, how do you rate Sound of Music compared to Where the Heart Is, what would he say.....?<br /><br />Probably something like "Where the Money Is"....
| 0 |
negative
|
I have always liked the Carry On films, with their double-meaning sexual innuendo dialogue and moments of slapstick comedy, but I can see why the critics give this one two stars. Basically, many British people are gathering on a coach to go on a Spanish holiday to an island called Elsbels to the Palace Hotel. What they didn't know is that it is not completely built, plus they have to share bathrooms with their neighbours, they have crap draws, and many other complications and complaints that the owner Pepe (Peter Butterworth, putting on quite an amusing accent, e.g. peace sounding like the bad P word). Starring Sid James as Vic Flange, Kenneth Williams as Stuart Farquhar, Charles Hawtrey as Eustace Tuttle, Joan Sims as Cora Flange, Barbara Windsor as Sadie Tomkins, Kenneth Connor as Stanley Blunt, an apparently crap (I personally can't remember who he is) Jimmy Logan as Bert Conway, June Whitfield as Evelyn Blunt, Hattie Jacques as Floella (a ridiculous hag character, not as memorable as her usual Matron), Bernard Bresslaw as Brother Bernard, Sally Geeson as Lily, Carol Hawkins as Marge, Jack Douglas as Harry and Patsy Rowlands as Miss Dobbs. I admit it is not great, but there are just enough dialogue gags, and of course Babs in the shower, and going to to her bum with that iconic whistle, and later a rapid rip off of her bra. Okay!
| 0 |
negative
|
This flick is a waste of time.I expect from an action movie to have more than 2 explosions and some shooting.Van Damme's acting is awful. He never was much of an actor, but here it is worse.He was definitely better in his earlier movies. His screenplay part for the whole movie was probably not more than one page of stupid nonsense one liners.The whole dialog in the film is a disaster, same as the plot.The title "The Shepherd" makes no sense. Why didn't they just call it "Border patrol"? The fighting scenes could have been better, but either they weren't able to afford it, or the fighting choreographer was suffering from lack of ideas.This is a cheap low type of action cinema.
| 0 |
negative
|
I should start off by saying I have something of a love-hate relationship with musicals. Some of them are fantastic, some are downright crap. So I expected Hair to fall into one of those categories. However, it didn't, falling instead in the middle.<br /><br />The songs aren't brilliant, though the "Sodomy" song did make me smile a lot, and everything is rather dated looking. But the movie didn't draw me in as others have, such as Rocky Horror. Although that's a bad example, since for years I hated Rocky Horror, then all of a sudden I got it and have loved it ever since. Maybe Hair will be the same. Although I doubt it will get as much exposure as Rocky Horror due to the language and nudity content, so I doubt I will get the chance to have it grow on me. Gettit? Hair....grow...oh suit yourself.<br /><br />Anyhow, I didn't get to see the last fifteen minutes or so due to a technical glitch, which was a shame, since I would have liked to see how it ended, especially after reading some of the reviews here.<br /><br />Not a film for the casual cinema-goer, but definitely one for musical lovers. I really hope they don't re-make it, though, since I think any such re-make would end up a shallow, pale, PC version of the original.<br /><br />Worth a look for lovers of the genre.
| 0 |
negative
|
<br /><br />***************************MILD SPOILERS AHEAD**************************<br /><br />We Dive at Dawn is an English made movie with John Mills in the lead role. The second time I watched the DVD version was on a big screen TV and I must say the movie is better than I thought the first time I saw it on the samll screen. May be it was the big screen viewing that helped?<br /><br />I still say the first few segments of the movie are muddled, but once the submarine leaves the dock and begins its mission, the movie takes off too! The search for the German battleship named the Brandenburg and the adventures which went along with it were absorbing and the detail shown in the movie are interesting!<br /><br />I'm increasing my rating to 7/10. If you enjoy WW II films, I think you'll find this one interesting once the submarine gets underway. Some of the men on the sub have quite a sense of humor, too!
| 1 |
positive
|
There are places for political commentary in film, but "Masters of Horror" is not one of them. I get enough of this stuff from Newsweek and every other editorial in the newspaper. Now I've got to watch this in horror movies? C'mon! All I wanted was a good zombie schlock film, not another "Bush is bad!" rant. If Joe Dante wants to express his politics, let him go on Air America. And if you must insist on making a "message" film, be a little more sly about it. This had all the insinuation of being slapped in the face with a dead fish.<br /><br />By the way Joe, do you really want the left-wing voting block to be associated with brain-dead zombies? Might want to think about that before making another political horror movie (God help us).
| 0 |
negative
|
A recent re-issue of the French crime film (original title 'Du Rififi Chez les Hommes'), with its famous 20-minute silent jewel heist sequence, now comes in the US in a gorgeous new print from The Criterion Collection with improved subtitles and some extras. Jules Dassin was an American (born Julius Dassin in Middletown Connecticut) who was forced to make films in Europe because he was Blacklisted. Rififi was well publicized in the US and did well in art houses. Later Dassin became a lot more famous in the US for 'Never on Sunday' (1960) starring his wife, the Greek actress and political activist Melina Mercouri. (Greece was again glamorized and popularized for Americans and others with Anthony Quinn in Mihalis Kakogiannis' 1964 'Zorba the Greek', which was even a big hit in Cairo.) The new Rififi DVD includes a recent interview with Dassin. I did not previously realize that one of the main robbers, Cesar the Milanese, was played by Dassin, who stepped in when the original actor became unavailable. He's one of the most memorable characters, a dandified Italian safe cracker who speaks no French.<br /><br />Although this classic has all the trappings of French film noir--the black and white twilight world of well lit apartments, shiny black cars, men in suits, the nightclub scenes, including a dramatically filmed and lit title song performed at the club, the stony faces and the Gauloises in hand or mouth--I don't think it's as atmospheric or has quite as distinctive a style as Melville's films do. But there's the mesmerizing robbery, which still holds up today as a tour de force. It goes like clockwork, with a fine sense of craft and teamwork among the robbers. Some nosy cops are efficiently dealt with. Things quickly go wrong after they go home and distribute the loot when one of the players gets sloppy and gives a dame a ring with a million-dollar bangle in it. Has there ever been a heist film whose perps lived happily ever after? <br /><br />It's the wordless heist sequence that guarantees this a special place, and Dassin, an American director who had an unusually varied and exotic career, deserves full credit for that. He took a novel so conventional he was going to reject it, and added some key elements that make it special. In the event, he couldn't pass on doing the adaptation: he needed the money too much. Jean Servais, who plays the lead character Tony le Stephanois, was an actor rather down on his luck. His grim face is perfect for the role. He was later to play the lead in Dassin's He Who Must Die (1957), which used French actors in Greece for a political tale. 'Topkapi' is a somewhat disappointing 1964 caper film (it pales compared to 'Rififi') that also got US distribution. It does have a good setting, but it's wasted, gone all bland and bright and prettified. Of Dassin's post-Hollywood oeuvre, 'Never on Sunday,' with its catchy theme song and charismatic heroine, is the popular choice (and won Best Film at Cannes 1960); 'He Who Must Die' the political choice; 'Rififi' the genre choice. An odd piece is his 'Phaedra' with Mercouri and Tony Perkins (1962). Purists of tough-guy Hollywood genre work would eschew these and favor Dassin's early films, which include a prison drama, 'Brute Force' (1947);a cop flick, 'The Naked City' (1948); and two hard core noirs, 'Thieves' Highway' (1949), and 'Night and the City' (1950). Personally I tend to like French noir and American neo-noir spinoffs better than the original American noir source material--hence my enduring fascination with 'Rififi'. But Dassin is rather unique in having not only made Hollywood noir but then going over to Paris and producing a memorable example of its Fifties French derivative.
| 1 |
positive
|
i love this show. i hate when it goes to season finale because it feels like forever until the season starts again!! i have followed this show since its pilot then all the way threw from where rusty starts college and see's Casey his sister to now where he's dating Dana.. love this show cant wait until Monday night!! Also i am so glad that cappie and Casey finally got back together that was driving me crazy!!! As for Evan and rebecca i hope they get back together which it just feels like they will by the finale. i just looked it up about the main part of the cast and i am so SHOCKED that Casey Cartwright(Spencer Grammar)is Kelsey Grammar's daughter!!! that just surprises me so much and the other thing that's a huge SHOCKER is that she was born the same year as me and that she was born on my baby brother birth date with my year and i had been watching her the whole entire time and had no clue!!
| 1 |
positive
|
Why do people make bad movies? Didn't anyone working on the picture know that what they were making had no point? There is something about this picture that threw me off, besides the fact that I found this "movie" to be unrealistic, pathetic, and POORLY ACTED. I admire them for the try, but the "actors" in the movie at times seem to be trying to hard and no single character has substance or says anything mildly intelligent. This movie deserves zero stars. But I did not have that option, so it gets a 1.
| 0 |
negative
|
Conquerer of Shamballa shows what happens when creators of an Anime fail to understand what their fans want. I as a fan did not want a 1920's Evil Nazi movie. What I would have liked to see is a real final showdown between Ed and Dante, as we don't REALLY know what became of her. I also would have liked to get Ed back to his world much sooner and have him stay there, to finally get a chance to be normal. You know, raise a family with a certain blonde mechanic, that sort of thing. No, instead I got a convoluted plot involving Nazi mystics, Fritz Lang and about ten minutes of Al, a joke of a Cameo by Roy Mustang and only one Armstrong joke, one short joke and no Winry hitting Ed with a wrench. Above all, it just didn't feel like Fullmetal Alchemist to me.
| 0 |
negative
|
I can't believe that Isaiah Washington and Ice-T were in this mess! The plot (and I use that term very loosely) centers around an army of rats that terrorize an urban apartment complex--at least I think that's what it was about. The script made no sense at all, I couldn't have cared less about the characters and the camera-work consisted of repeatedly showing shadow images of rats standing on their hind legs or running. Running is what I should have done. As an African American male, I often read pleas from my brothers and sisters to "support African American films." I try to help out, but enough is enough. No one should watch garbage like this for any reason whatsoever. Please, brothers and sisters, don't produce any more direct to video rat turds like this. Please!
| 0 |
negative
|
We still really love the movie and soundtrack "Valley Girl". I have owned it on video for eons and wore out the original soundtrack. I have several friends with whom I get together and we have "80's Raves" - parties where we get together and play 80's music and run "Valley Girl" on the big screen - and we're all in our 30's now. We have an AWESOME time.<br /><br />It's all in good fun, like, ya know?
| 1 |
positive
|
Let me clarify that. This is not a "good movie", but I am so glad it is out there, I am so glad I saw it, and for the role that it plays in my DVD collection, it is sublime. It is the ultimate PG-13 romp, it is college as we imagine it will be when we're freshmen in high school, it requires so much suspension of disbelief that it may as well be taking place on Mars. It is so wholesome that even when it tries to be dirty it wouldn't make your grandmother uncomfortable. Watching it requires so little sophistication, (in fact, thinking too hard about what's happening will get in the way of your appreciation of this work), it makes me feel like I'm 12 again. And that kind of experience is worth more than $9.99.
| 1 |
positive
|
Seriously, folks...I was getting ready to actually write the Razzie Council and recommend this movie as Razzie Champ for 2007...until I got on IMDb.com and realized its copyright date was 2006 and not 2007. Seriously, though, this movie could have easily been a Razzie Champ. This movie sucked! How in the world this piece of crap was overlooked even for a Razzie nomination in 2006 is beyond me, because it easily could have competed with Basically, It Stinks, Too for the 2006 Razzie Championship.<br /><br />I rented this movie on the recommendation of a female neighbor of mine who told me, "Oh My God, after seeing this movie, it's going to be a long, long time before I ever stop at a rest stop ever again!" I couldn't believe how not scary and awful this movie was! Possible spoilers below, not that you'll be missing out on anything.<br /><br />OK, first of all...the problem...the rest stop itself. Obviously the director of this piece of crap doesn't know the first thing about women. The toilets in that rest stop were on the same level as the one in the movie Trainspotting. I don't claim to know everything there is to know about women, but one thing I do know is that women, for the most part, are total and complete hygiene/neat freaks. Given the choice between taking a crap on either of those toilets and possibly catching something or squatting in the woods, a woman is going to opt for squatting in the woods. I know, because I've gone camping with them before, and they have no problem squatting in the woods. So right there...major plot hole and untruth.<br /><br />Second of all...she comes out of the rest stop, and her boyfriend who drove the car is nowhere to be found, not him nor his car. He just left. She starts screaming his name, wondering where he is. Ummm...hello? You're standing on wet mud...did it ever occur to you to look down for some tire tracks? I mean, his car is gone...it didn't just get up and fly away. And actually, that makes me think...I actually was looking down at her feet, and there weren't any tread marks in the mud. How...exactly...did that happen?<br /><br />Third...the Bible thumping mobile home family with the freak midget in the back taking Polaroid pictures...Wtf!?!?!?? They made absolutely no sense at all, and it's as if the director just threw them in to be weird for the sake of being weird. They made no sense at all and had no place even being in the movie.<br /><br />Fourth...Oh My God, this...I mean, finally...near the end of the movie...she finally sees the escape hatch on the ceiling inside the rest stop. I'm like, "You...dumb...bi**h. You've been locked up in this rest stop for all this time...and you just..now...see...the escape hatch on the ceiling?" I mean...it's like they threw that in just because the killer tossed gasoline on the floor through the window and was getting ready to light a match. So she needs to get to higher ground to avoid being burned, and...oh, look! A perfect reason for her to get to higher ground! An escape hatch on the ceiling! It's like...Why didn't she go through that before? Most people in that situation would have seen that from the moment they were locked in that rest stop and gotten the f**k out of Dodge. When they showed that escape hatch at the end of the movie, I was like, "You have got to be kidding me."<br /><br />Fifth...what was the deal with all the of people she encountered continuing to just disappear? The girl in the broom closet in the rest stop? The dumb cop? Her at the end of the movie when she ended up in the broom closet herself? It was never explained. Personally, when they did this, I thought to myself, "Oh, Christ on a cracker, it's her. She's the killer. Wonderful. She killed all of those people, doesn't remember doing it, and the writers of this movie just ripped off a certain French horror flick that I can't mention on IMDb.com or I'll be blacklisted for giving away the ending (that movie sucked, by the way, too, people)." But it wasn't. She wasn't the killer, and the whole deal with the dead people disappearing was never, ever explained. Oh, for the love of God, people, stay away from this movie! This movie sucked balls, and I have now got a serious bone to pick with my neighbor. It's on the 2 for $1 rack at Family Video, don't even rent it if someone gives it to you for free!
| 0 |
negative
|
I`ve seen this movie twice, both times on Cinemax. The first time in it`s unrated version which is soft-core porn at it`s best and the second time in a trimmed down (cut all the sex and most of the nudity out) version which was entertaining in a typical beach movie sort of way. The unrated version has a tremendous sex scene with Nikki Fritz, a dude and a bottle of oil which is out of this world (no pun intended). Unfortunately, in the trimmed version that scene is almost completely chopped out, as are all the other sex scenes. Rated or unrated it is still fun to watch all the siblings of bigger stars (Stallone, Sheen, Travolta, etc;) trying to act. We also get appearances by B-queen Linnea Quigley and Burt Ward (Robin from the old Batman series).
| 1 |
positive
|
Spreading panic from Broadway to Bombay, 1957's The Giant Claw boasts perhaps the ultimate flying monster in movie history. Described by one terrified Quebecois witness as "La Carcagne she's de devil in de storm with de face of de wolf and de body of de woman with wings, bigger than I can tell," it doesn't say much for Canadian women since when we finally see it in focus it's a cross between an overgrown buzzard, a chickenhawk and Gonzo the Great. But this isn't just any old giant turkey impervious to rockets, invisible to radar and with a taste for swallowing parachutists whole and pecking away at the United Nations Building, it's an extraterrestrial giant turkey from an anti-matter galaxy millions of miles from Earth that's come here to build a nest: "No other explanation is possible." Luckily for humanity Jeff Morrow, test pilot and "chief cook and bottle washer in a one-man birdwatching society," invents a weapon to disable its impenetrable shield so they can hit it with everything but the kitchen sink but don't worry: Morris Ankrum's general assures him "We've got kitchen sinks to spare, son." just in time for a last-minute clinch with co-star Mara Corday. Some of the dialogue has dated rather unfortunately "I admire your spunk, and you keep climbing on our backs whenever we've messed up" and strangely enough it's nowhere near as much fun as a film with a giant flying turkey should be, but the beast itself is such a truly memorable creation for all the wrong reasons that it's hard to dislike even if you are liking it for all the wrong reasons. And full marks to the cast for delivering gem after gem of direlogue with a straight face: "Honest to Pete, I'll never call my mother-in-law an old crow again!," "The only trouble is that the last time I talked to a chaplain there wasn't any telephone line to the one and only place where we can get the kind of help we need" and the immortal "There it is now, attacking the United Nations Building!"
| 0 |
negative
|
Best Years of Our Lives is a film that slipped under my radar for years--I had heard about it, but never had the opportunity to watch it. Thanks to TCM On Demand, I was able to watch it uncut and commercial free.<br /><br />What surprised me about this film was how quickly it was made after the war. The film frankly deals with the people who were wounded in the war, both physically and mentally. It manages neatly to encompass nearly all the varieties of war experience within three characters.<br /><br />We have the Air Force officer, who was a veteran of the early European bombing campaign. Because of the horrific attrition rate amongst the crews of the bombers, the Air Force at that time had a reputation for cranking out officers who quickly rose through the ranks. Such was case with this fellow who went from a lowly soda jerk in civilian life to a Captain and bombardier of his B-17. He also suffers from PTSD, called "battle fatigue" at the time.<br /><br />We have the Army non-com who served in the Pacific, and suffered through the horrors of that campaign. His story is opposite that of the Air Force fellow in that he goes from a prestigious job as a banker to a lowly grunt in the Army and rises to the rank of Sergeant. From the stripes on his sleeve it is clear that he is the highest level of Sergeant, yet he is still on the front line.<br /><br />Finally we have the Navy Seaman, who is part of the faceless support staff, commonly referred to as REMFs (Rear Echelon MFers)by the fellows on the line. Ironically, he suffers the worst physical wounds when working as a mechanic below decks on a Navy ship, his ship is struck, presumably by a kamikaze and is sunk with loss of 400 lives. He is pulled from the water but his badly burned hands are amputated and replaced with prosthetic hooks.<br /><br />BYOOL tells the story of how these three meet on a transport plane they have boarded for home, and how they readjust into civilian society.<br /><br />What impressed me most about this film is that despite the obvious issues that face the three protagonists, it never descends into melodrama. The Navy kid, played by an actual amputee, is placed into situations where we might feel sorry for him, yet the script never lets us feel that emotion. The Army sergeant is clearly an alcoholic, and the story points that out, but never dwells on it. The Air Force captain struggles with the loss of status when he is forced to return to the drug store he soda jerked in (now bought out by a large chain) and take a demeaning job to support his ungrateful and disloyal wife.<br /><br />The script allows plenty of opportunities for all these characters to come to some dramatic climax regarding their plights, but it neatly avoids that. But for the overly dramatic score, the director has tread around exploiting the obvious.<br /><br />In one scene that well represents the entire movie, the daughter of the Army sergeant (Frederic March) is having a discussion with her father and mother regarding the Air Force captain. Despite his marriage, they have fallen in love, and she is determined to break up the marriage which is obviously troubled. Now we've seen thousands of scenes typical of this where the father blusters angrily and the daughter ends up running away to her room in tears, slamming the door and falling on the bed. Later, Mom shows up, consoles daughter and offers words of motherly wisdom, and everybody lives happily ever after.<br /><br />In BYOOL, this scene plays out completely differently than the cliché I have described above. Sure the conversation gets heated, but all parties are reasonable, and there is a serious and timeless discussion of the nature of relationships that has some of the best dialog I have seen.<br /><br />Ultimately, BYOOL is a highly satisfying film, with honest performances from the entire cast. Technically, it is well shot, the editing and cinematography frame, but never overshadow the gripping narrative. Despite the score, which is cliché and over-dramatic, I give this film the highest rating that it clearly deserves
| 1 |
positive
|
I have wracked my brain for another film that reminds me of this one. I really can't come up with one. I think it's because most of the films that take on this topic (war, peace, violence) are in a fixed documentary style.There are some terrific ones out there, all of them better known than USA T.M., I'm sure, but they are intended to be informational and to bring your emotional response to the surface through intellectual means. This DVD, in some ways may seem more intellectual but it really isn't. It is philosophical, maybe, but it bypasses the information mode and goes directly to the same place that a piece of music does. It makes you feel but sometimes you don't even know why. You are just taken somewhere on a wave of feeling. When you watch it, notice how well it is put together. It may not be for everyone but it is for everyone who look for a rare cinematic creation that respects you.
| 1 |
positive
|
I can think of no movie that better captures the concept of grace, in a theological sense. The well-intentioned religiosity of a small congregation, gone awry after the death of their leader, robs from them the very thing they preach: grace. The costly gift of a humbled Parisian culinary genius returns them to their calling to love one another, and humbles an aging general concerned that he's wasted his life. CHOICES is a central theme, as well as grace. At the same time, artistic gifting is recognized as having a powerful, transcendent role to play in everyday life, and the life to come. Impossible to improve or ignore. This is a life-changing film for those who hear its message.
| 1 |
positive
|
The chemistry between Sally Hawkins and Elaine Cassidy was incredible. They were thoroughly convincing and genuinely likable in their roles. Imelda Staunton played the conniving Mrs. Sucksby brilliantly. Despite the fact that she was a dastardly opportunist, she somehow managed to have you sympathizing with her in the end. Rupert Evans played the slime-ball gentleman with sheer charm and snark. He was a scene stealer. The story itself was very unique, as was the manner in which it was told. The Victorian England setting featuring two lesbian lead characters was intriguing and delightful. There were some fantastic and unexpected twists and turns that really kept the audience engaged in the story. A wonderful cast and excellent story made this film superb.
| 1 |
positive
|
I have to say that some of the other reviews of this film I have read show very little understanding of it or the original TV series it stemmed from. Dad's Army was a sitcom and therefore had humour and so is bound to have put a smile on the face of the dire situation. However the series carried very many serious messages such as the episode 'Branded' about the bigotry and ignorance that was attached to conscientious objectors. The film was faithful to the series and was simply like an extended episode. So I'm afraid the reviewer who claimed that Columbia improved the humour was quite wrong and let's face it - the BBC sitcoms of this period beat anything that came out of America hands down. Also comments referring to propaganda were also way off the mark. The Homeguard were people considered unfit for frontline service who still wished to serve. They were very brave men who knew they were sentenced to death as soon as they signed up as Hitler announced that anyone who did so would be executed if and when Britain was invaded. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to set the record straight as it is always good to actually speak and comment on what has been seen rather making it up as you go along I find.
| 1 |
positive
|
There is something about true stories that makes them so much more interesting than fiction. I guess it is the fact that truth has always been stranger than fiction. The Falcon and the Snowman tells the true story about Christopher Boyce and his buddy Daulton Lee. Boyce (Hutton) is a former alter boy and intellectual, trying to find an occupation that can support and entertain him. His FBI father is able to pull some strings and get his idealist son a job working in the defense department. Boyce has few responsibilities and seems to be complacent drinking and goofing around with his co-workers. However, as time goes on, Boyce starts to learn top secret information that causes him to doubt the morality of his government. The idealist Boyce soon sees the illegal operations that the CIA is carrying out in above all places, Australia. Boyce eventually decides that he will leak some of the top secret info he is privy to, to the KGB. Of course, Boyce's mistake is the assumption that because the USA is doing bad things, the USSR is the good guy. Over time, Boyce and his drug-dealing buddy Lee (Penn), start to sell their top secret information to the KGB. What was once idealism, turns into capitalism and espionage. The strength of this movie is the incredible performances by Hutton and Penn. Although one of them starts off with the best intentions, they will both soon find themselves in an unending downward spiral. Great direction, music, everything. Not only a great film, but one of my all-time favorites.
| 1 |
positive
|
Firstly, this is NOT an adaptation of a Stephen King book, short story, novella, or anything else. From EW's Web site, and their review on the show when it first aired, "...he never writes down to his audience, and he never betrays contempt for his subjects. His first original work for television, Stephen King's ''Golden Years'' (CBS, July 16, 9-11 p.m.), is no exception."<br /><br />The series was apparently going to be (as others have mentioned) an ongoing series, which is why we never saw the ending after the cliffhanger they left us on. But this was never quite made clear to the viewers who were left wondering how it all ends??<br /><br />When the series came out on videotape, it touted itself as having the "never-before-seen ending!" It should have said, "the should-never-be-seen ending!" <br /><br />*** Spoiler ***<br /><br />The very ending was the only significant part changed for the video (though parts of the whole were left out), and that changed ending was what destroyed the story. For example, rather than our two intrepid FBI agents realizing that they were now labeled as bad guys and on the run from the evil Jude Anderson of The Shop (as originally broadcast), Jude simply walks up to them... And they shoot him. Bang, dead, and no real emotion to speak of in the scene. Ditto on the bit with Harlan and his wife going poof. Whereas the original ending left us with a spectacular cliff-hanger, on the video, they simply get out of the cock-a-doodie car.<br /><br />*** End Spoiler ***<br /><br />It was a sad ending to a rather well made mini-series, and makes the video completely not worth buying, or even renting. Sincerely, save your money and your time.
| 0 |
negative
|
This movie is very scary with scenes where the Devil uses Gabriels horn to open Heaven and pull the good angel-dogs out and imprision them on Alkatraz. The devil sings and dances to a few songs about the joys of being bad, and at one point, eats a live rat.<br /><br />We got this movie free with a pizza. You get what you pay for.
| 0 |
negative
|
Saw the film at the Hollywood Film Festival in Oct '04 . Mark Robertson took a huge chance writing an extremely difficult part for his first film and it paid off big in his casting of Kelly Overton. I had a strong feeling she came from the theater so I looked her up here and ...surprise, I'm right. More Hollywood actors should follow her lead, give up the expensive acting classes and get back to theater because only with that kind of training will you be prepared for a ride like this. For all the great things I can say about the film and the director (and there are many) I just can't stop talking to people about Kelly Overton's masterful performance. We'll be seeing a LOT MORE of her work, no doubt. <br /><br />Congratulations to Mark and Kelly on a daring film. Get it out in the theaters so I can bring all the people I made want to see the film ASAP!
| 1 |
positive
|
Gritty drama? Emotionally powerful? Blah! The BBC has lost out big time to masterful productions such as The Wire, Sopranos and Carnivale from HBO. Okay, so the budget may be a lot smaller but 'The Street' last night was badly acted, predictable, unrealistic, stereotypical, insensitive and a big fat waste of time. TV (British TV) is not as good as it used to be and is falling further and further behind the American productions.<br /><br />There was no sense of brutal violence from the 'local gangster'. There was no indication that this man was 'insane' enough to beat up a man he has respected for such a long time. There was no remorse when he did it and this shouldn't be the sort of character that would back down when Bob Hoskins called his son a pansy, in a display of 'bravery'.<br /><br />I wish I was more eloquent to express my disdain for this show, but I am not and although I can't prove my point well enough, believe me when I say that this was rubbish, shock TV, that provides no real inward looking perspective on life.<br /><br />1/5 stars.
| 0 |
negative
|
Guest from the Future tells a fascinating story of time travel, friendship, battle of good and evil -- all with a small budget, child actors, and few special effects. Something for Spielberg and Lucas to learn from. ;) A sixth-grader Kolya "Nick" Gerasimov finds a time machine in the basement of a decrepit building and travels 100 years into the future. He discovers a near-perfect, utopian society where robots play guitars and write poetry, everyone is kind to each other and people enjoy everything technology has to offer. Alice is the daughter of a prominent scientist who invented a device called Mielophone that allows to read minds of humans and animals. The device can be put to both good and bad use, depending on whose hands it falls into. When two evil space pirates from Saturn who want to rule the universe attempt to steal Mielophone, it falls into the hands of 20th century school boy Nick. With the pirates hot on his tracks, he travels back to his time, followed by the pirates, and Alice. Chaos, confusion and funny situations follow as the luckless pirates try to blend in with the earthlings. Alice enrolls in the same school Nick goes to and demonstrates superhuman abilities in PE class. The catch is, Alice doesn't know what Nick looks like, while the pirates do. Also, the pirates are able to change their appearance and turn literally into anyone. (Hmm, I wonder if this is where James Cameron got the idea for Terminator...) Who gets to Nick -- and Mielophone -- first? Excellent plot, non-stop adventures, and great soundtrack. I wish Hollywood made kid movies like this one...
| 1 |
positive
|
Certainly this film has the ring of truth about it, as it purports to be based on actual occurrences at a Marine base. It deals with the attempted cover-up by the local Marine commander of unacceptable conduct by a Marine major which resulted in his being shot to death by his former girl friend, a Marine captain. The man and woman had been lovers, but the captain attempted to break off the relation when she discovered her boy friend was married. He continued to stalk her, going so far as to fire his side arm in her direction at one time. Finally he broke into her home, attacked her with a knife, and was shot twice with her service pistol and killed. The civilian prosecutor ruled the killing self defense, but the Marines decided to charge the captain with murder. The major, you see, was a decorated hero from Vietnam, and an old friend of the commanding colonel at the Marine base. The captain, too, had made some enemies in her motor pool command, rejecting some male advances in a very butch style.<br /><br />There is considerable psychological freight motivating and controlling the actions of the principal participants in this drama, which the very capable cast gets across nicely. The director and editor, however, seem determined to obscure the happenings as much as possible with frustrating flashbacks and shifting points of view. You're lucky if you know where you're at most of the time. Bear with them, though; it's a worthwhile story as the captain's court martial trial unfolds, and it seems every man's hand is against her, even her attorney at times. <br /><br />The verdict? Well, after all, this is rather a suspense story, so you'll have to see for yourself. There is a kind of "pacifist" message folded into the film, but forget about that. Sure, "war is hell", but sometimes it can't be avoided. We'll need those Marines then, even if they aren't always the best champions of fair play internally. As Kipling says in his poem "Tommy Atkins":<br /><br />"It's Tommy this and Tommy that, And Tommy wait outside. But, it's room for Mr. Atkins, When the troopship's on the tide."
| 1 |
positive
|
**SPOILERS** The killer in the movie doesn't wait a second as we see him sneaking into a girls shower and hacking her to death taking her severed and bloodied arm as he makes his getaway. We then get this official looking prologue, as if were watching a true story, stating that a number of gruesome murders were committed in the late fall of 1985 in a small mid-western collage.<br /><br />Grandfatherly looking, and hearing impaired, Sheriff Ron Delboys is baffled by this murder and later when the murders of local collage students, all women, continues his run for state senator is in jeopardy with him bumbling the investigation at every turn. There's at least two times when Delboys says that they'll never be another murder as long as he's on the case and within minutes another murder happens.<br /><br />Finding a golden amulet at the scene of each murder the sheriff's daughter, the collage librarian, Tina finds this reference book about Withcraft indicating that the amulet is a symbol of a witches cult that originated in the early 1700 just after the Salem Witch Trials. This cult was out to avenge the 19 accused witches hung by the local townspeople back in 1692 and they went out at night killing men and women of authority and taking off with a body part. When the body parts would form a complete person they would be burned in an occult midnight bonfire ritual.<br /><br />You never get a handle to what's exactly happening in the movie "Blood Cult" not just because it's totally disjointed story but it's ever more outrageous and grad-school level acing especially by Charles Ellis playing the butterfingered sheriff Ron Delboys. Getting himself into more trouble then even the on the loose killer could have gotten him into. The bumbling Sheriff Delboys ends up with his head busted coffee spiked as well as almost burned alive, after being dismembered. The only reason he wasn't is because he seemed to have dreamt it all up while under the influence of some strong and unnamed drug.<br /><br />There's a weird dream sequence in the movie suggesting that a number of highly respected members of the community are members of the Witches Cult that's responsible for the sorority murders. The movie doesn't bother to explain at all if the dream, that the drugged Sheriff Delboys had, was a dream or actually a real experience on his part by dropping the whole thing as if it were cut out of the movie!<br /><br />Getting out of the hospital and staking out the collage sorority house, while munching down a bag full of McDonald cheeseburgers, Sheriff Delboys finally comes face to face with the killer. Shefiff Delboys find out to his shock and amazement that not only does he know who he, or she, is but he's also willing to let the killer escape!<br /><br />The very first straight to video motion picture and it shows. Not only would no one it their right mind be crazy enough to pay admission, at least with the video you can tape over it Thank God, to see this disaster but no movie-house owner would dare play it on their screen without the danger of the outraged patrons, in a justifiable show of righteous indignation, tear the place apart!
| 0 |
negative
|
As an indie filmmaker, I try to at least make a decent film . This piece of ____ was beyond low budget. It was shot on video and not 24P mini-DV at least. The look and feel of this was just baaaad. I met the director a few years ago at ShowBiz Expo in LA and he was talking about that book, Film-making for dummies that he was putting together. I thought this little video was going to be something but I guess I was wrong. He could have brought the value up a little by shooting 16mm film instead of that awful video. The plot was stupid as well as the acting and all the fake green screen and sound and the whole nine yards. I had a choice tonight to rent any movie and made the wrong choice. Damn!!!!! I did buy JoyRide which was a hell of a movie. Maybe the director should read real motion picture books on film-making and not try to cut corners when trying to make a low budget flick. Maybe he should learn from the masters who made, Night of the living dead and The Evil Dead and Chain saw massacre. just to name a few of the all time low budget great hits. This is one video that should have stayed dead. I cannot call it a film because he did not use film.
| 0 |
negative
|
I was just watching a Forensic Files marathon on Court TV. The episode was identical to the plot of this movie, right down to the incest secret and the affair-with-the-sister subplot. I don't recall any Based on a True Story disclaimer, but the case does have MOW written all over it. Apparently it chronicles the real homicide of Ruby Morris by her husband Earl, sentenced to 25 years to life for her murder. Just goes to show you, truth can be stranger than fiction, because I thought the Lifetime plot was contrived and a more than "a stretch" insofar as believability goes. I'm with the other posters who said the acting was bad. I didn't notice it with all of the players, though. It was really the lead character, the daughter, whose performance was bad.
| 0 |
negative
|
Man, the '90's really were an horrible decade for movies. The movies are lacking in a good style and also the storytelling is often lacking.<br /><br />This 6th entry into the long running Halloween-series is certainly a bad one. You just never really get into the story because it isn't a very well constructed and build-up movie.<br /><br />It's simply a poorly done film, that also suffers from its imagine-less writing and non-compelling characters that are in it. Dr. Loomis seems to be in it just for the sake of being in it. It's a real shame that this had to be Donald Pleasence last film-role. It's nice and also sort of suiting that his last role is in an Halloween movie but he definitely deserved to be in a better one.<br /><br />There is never a sense of real danger in the movie and the character of Michael Myers just never comes across as threatening or scary. Perhaps it's because he's featured too prominently throughout the movie, from pretty early on already. He does his usual stuff again but without too much class or originality. Also the attempts to uncover Myer's past don't really work out, for the main reason that it just doesn't get explained very well. It's obvious that the script went through various re-writes before- and also very possibly during filming. Several scenes even got re-shot or added after the first cut turned out to be far from pleasing. <br /><br />The movie more often looks and feels like a made for TV one. This is also due to the lack of some real good gore. As an horror movie it really is lacking in basically everything to make this a good or even original one to watch.<br /><br />So far the worst out of the series!<br /><br />3/10
| 0 |
negative
|
This a lovely and charming epic fantasy with lots of heart. I got lost in this sweet film watching it at the Mann's Chinese Theatre in Hollywood. It's truly romantic with a touching message.The artwork and the effects are visually striking and the fact that the director is an amazing artist is so apparent. The frames are like watching moving art. It also has a strong and talented cast of actors. What a wonderful surprise to see Joss Ackland, he is just a fairy-tale perfect King. Sarah Douglas is terrific as the villain and Christine Taylor and Tom Schultz make a lovely romantic pair. The fact that the movie was made on a ridiculously tiny indie film budget just blows me away. It may not be the slick Hollywood stuff we're inundated by but it's a really nice movie to rent and enjoy curled up on your sofa on a rainy Saturday. Don't forget the microwave popcorn. That's my advice. Just enjoy it.
| 1 |
positive
|
From the English accents to the so unnecessary violence after violence. Showing Moses as a murderer. People who actually believe in the Old Testament will just sit there and shake their heads. I am not a religious person at all. But even i felt as though the writers of this movie were trying to turn us all against God and the Jews.When Moses picked up that rock and threw the first stone at the woman to kill her for committing adultery. I wanted to stone the writers. I can't believe in this day and age that Hallmark and ABC (Disney) would attempt to show such garbage as this. Don't we have enough problems in this world already?
| 0 |
negative
|
I had long wanted to watch this romantic drama (with a WWII setting) and, now that I have, all I can say is that it's a veritable masterpiece of Russian cinema! <br /><br />Soviet films are known for their overzealous propagandist approach but, thankfully, this one's free of such emphasis - with the interest firmly on the central tragic romance between a promising artist and a vivacious girl, doomed by the outbreak of war for which he gladly volunteers but from which he'll never return. The girl (a remarkable performance from Tatyana Samojlova) is also loved by the young man's cousin and, when she doesn't receive word from her boyfriend, gives in to the latter and marries him. He, however, is an aspiring concert pianist bitter about the war having curtailed his chances for success and, knowing too that the girl's still devoted to the soldier, begins to neglect her. Finally, word reaches the girl of her loved one's death but, by the end of the film, she has learnt to accept this as a sacrifice to their native country and is content to live with her memories of him.<br /><br />The film features some truly amazing camera-work which makes extremely judicious use of the screen space and, by frequently adopting tracking, tilted and high or low angle shots, renders great power to the unfolding emotional drama. Individual sequences are equally impressive - two in particular: the stunning scene, frenetically edited and sped-up to boot, in which the girl saves an abandoned boy from being trampled by a truck; and the young man's premature demise in an unfortunate incident at the front, undoubtedly one of the best of its kind I've ever watched (with the sun moving away from him, symbolizing the life that's seeping out of his body, as he imagines the wedding day he'll never have!). Also notable, however, is the scene where the girl goes to look for her parents in her home that's been hopelessly devastated during an air raid; as is her final violent capitulation to the concert pianist - which she tries to resist by repeatedly slapping him in the face - taking place during a later air raid and making particularly effective use of a set of billowing curtains!<br /><br />Disappointingly, the R1 DVD of this outstanding film is a bare-bones affair (the RusCiCo edition features a few supplements but, being an export, tends to be heavily overpriced and hard to track down to boot!); Criterion released it in conjunction with another war-themed Russian classic, BALLAD OF A SOLDIER (1959) - which my pal at the local DVD rental outlet has told me is forthcoming... <br /><br />The only other film I've watched from this director is the Arctic epic THE RED TENT (1969; albeit via the much-shorter U.S.-release version!), a star-studded international production based on true events; given the unmistakable artistic quality of THE CRANES ARE FLYING, I regret missing out now on his famous documentary I AM CUBA (1964) a number of times when I was in Hollywood late last year: apart from receiving a one-week theatrical run, it was shown more than once on TV accompanied by a feature-length "Making Of"!!
| 1 |
positive
|
I have NEVER fallen asleep whilst watching a movie before.<br /><br />I did with this one.<br /><br />Avoid at all costs, give your time and money to a worthy cause instead.
| 0 |
negative
|
The plot outline of this movie is similar to the original. Someone gets kidnapped, the prince is incest with saving her, Odet turns into a Swan, the turtle/frog/puffin first the "bad" magician as best they can, and in the end.... Anyways, there is not much new here. With the exception of a lack of well known voice talent. Sorry, no Palance nor Cleese and thus Jean-Bob was a disapointment.
| 0 |
negative
|
I saw it last week and the sketch about the Korea towns was funny . Very tongue in cheek and suitable to the political climate. Full points to the writers and Spike for that. The part where he makes the translator pull a rickshaw and throws out Korean words could have been pulled off only by Spike. This is a brave attempt by Fox . This is a brilliant show and I hope that it pulls off . My wife and I have been TIVOing it regularly and although it clashes it with a couple of other programs we watch it now on MySpace. I hope Fox dedicates full resources to the show and makes it daily. I can't wait to see Bobby Lee on his show . With people like Bernard Abedalla behind the show this is on the right track. Also Mary Mae as his wife looks beautiful.
| 1 |
positive
|
Alien body-snatchers in the desert. Little blue rocks that look like they are made from cheap plastic. The overall storyline isn't bad if you like that kind of thing but the acting is so far beyond poor that it amazes me that some of them actually entertained my in The X Files! And the special effects? Hello?! Where did they get their FX crew from, Secondary School? I mean, come on; there was so much more they could have done! It was amateur and extremely basic. I didn't particularly enjoy it (and my Dad fell asleep during it!) And of course our hero falls in love with the leading lady! Its so typical and highly predictable. Bleugh!!!!!
| 0 |
negative
|
This movie really is that bad, and I'm normally a sucker for bad movies, but this was too much. Seeing this is like OD'ing on pure SUCK. Now, you may think you've seen the bottom of the barrel. You may have waded through every title from Full Moon and Troma, all the movies of Edward D. Wood Jr, Uwe Boll, Albert Pyun and direct to DVD-flicks from faded men-of-action. You may even have seen Death Tunnel, Ghost Lake and a vast array of the movies that MST3K covered, but in their original form. But you do not know truly awful film-making until you have seen Darkhunters. And if you haven't, you shouldn't. Don't bother. Not only is this movie amazingly poorly written, directed, shot, edited, acted and splattered in crude, cheap aftereffects. First of all, it's a pretentious mess. But not good, Greenaway or Lynch-style pretentious or hilariously messy in an Ittenbach or early Waters sort of fashion. It's the kind of pretentiousness that comes when someone incredibly stupid thinks they've come up with something incredibly smart. Sort of like M. Night Shaymalan (sp?), only that man seems like a freakin' messiah when compared to this trainwreck (and this coming from a rampant Shaymalan hater). It's also boring. Not heavy going-type boring, which is okay, if the movie awards your patience. Darkhunters does no such thing. It's boring in a "Oh my fu(king God, if I see another shot of a cat set to an obnoxious audio cue I am going to fu(king kill myself!"-kind of way.<br /><br />Btw. anyone who claims to like this film is a boldfaced liar and anyone who claims this film is complex or deep knows what their mother is like in bed.
| 0 |
negative
|
A long overdue concert release, Rush-in-Rio DVD is both compelling and disappointing. This slick two-disc set shows Rush at their finest. After 30 years of honing their unique sound, it's great to have this record of one of the most talented rock bands ever.<br /><br />The concert features over two dozen songs, a documentary, and three songs that feature multi-angle viewing. Packaged in a bi-fold holder with sleeve and a small insert, it's priced very well for the amount of material it contains.<br /><br />I'm a Rush fan of the late seventies to early eighties period, and this DVD comes through big, with half of the show highlighting songs from that era. I won't list the songs, in case you want to be surprised. If you attended the Vapor Trails tour, then you'll know what they'll be playing.<br /><br />Playing in Rio to their biggest crowd ever, Rush is a huge crowd pleaser here. In fact, that was one of the first things I noticed that was peculiar about this show. Throughout most of this two hour concert, you hear and see the crowd, actively chanting and dancing wildly to the music. At first, it's heartening to see the fans give Rush a well deserved response. But after several songs, I was ready to hear and see more of the band and less of the crowd. This is in no way a slam of the crowd of Rio. More power to them! It's a critique of the final editing of the DVD.<br /><br />Which brings me to my second and main reason "I hate it". The video editing is terrible in my opinion. Save for the multi-angle view bonus cuts, the entire show is a frenzy of visual chaos. It's like the director wanted to see how spastic he could make it. I count changing camera angles, on average, between every one and four seconds, constantly! After about three or four songs, my head and eyes were ready for a break. Which is too bad, because I would have liked to have sat through the whole show, like I was able to at the concert last year. Maybe this fast-cut editing is the latest craze for concert DVD's, but I really think it's an annoyance and detraction from the overall experience. As stated before, I wouldn't mind it for a song or two, but the whole visual aspect of this disc is hurried, or RUSHed. It's really ironic, because all the previous concert clips I've seen of Rush, mainly from Moving Pictures, are strictly straight-filmed, with little switching back and forth. It's almost boring, visually speaking. This DVD has taken it to the other extreme. I know a lot of dyed-in-the-wool Rush fans will vehemently disagree with my statements, but that's just my impression of it.<br /><br />The bottom line: If you're a Rush fan, you'll buy this DVD regardless of my review, or any other. I still would have bought it after I had read my review. Just don't get expect a "normal" concert. Who knows, the things mentioned above might not bother you.
| 1 |
positive
|
Surprisingly good film made in the wake of the Exorcist concerning a young woman who becomes possessed by a spirit after she goes to a de-sanctified church to restore a life size and life like crucified man . The piece was Christ and the two thieves, however Christ was long ago sold off. Trouble starts once the figure is removed from the cross and it seems to come to life and seduce the woman. From that point on it becomes a battle for the girls soul. Creepy, scary and much better than you think the film works because its cast sells the events which are decidedly adult. It helps that these are real people who are flawed so its easier to relate to them. I really liked this film, and seeing it again for the first time in at least a decade I was shocked at how good it is. Definitely better than any of its myriad of schlocky titles makes it seem.
| 1 |
positive
|
This is a case where the script plays with the audience in a manner that serves only in extending this story to 90 minutes. Story starts out in 1969 where a young girl named Faith (Cameron Diaz) travels to Europe with her boyfriend Wolf (Christopher Eccleston) but she dies under mysterious circumstances. Then in 1976 Faith's sister Phoebe (Jordana Brewster) decides to travel to Europe as well and try and find out what happened to her sister. In France she looks up Wolf who has stayed there and she wants him to help her retrace the steps her sister took and answer some questions. He is reluctant but decides to travel with her. Along the way he fills in the gaps of the occurrences and tells Phoebe that Faith had joined up with the Red Army who are an extremist group that is involved in terrorism. Phoebe and Wolf engage in a romance and this complicates the trip to Portugal where Faith died. Their is several things wrong with this film and it all has to do with the script. First, the romance between Wolf and Phoebe is all wrong and does nothing for the story. It rings completely false and comes across as forced. It seems weird that Wolf would engage in a romance with his dead girlfriends sister. Secondly, Wolf knows completely what happened to Faith but only lets out little chunks of information every 15 minutes or so. Wolf will look at Phoebe every 15 minutes and say, "There is something I didn't tell you"! Gee, thanks a lot Wolf! If Wolf had come clean the first time he talked to Phoebe then the film would have been over in about 30 minutes. Another thing that bothered me was that I don't think this film recreated the 1960's at all. Diaz wears hippie clothes but the time period just didn't ring true. I did enjoy a few things like the authentic locations where the film was shot. It is a very good looking film and the scenery is beautiful. The performances are all good especially by Brewster and Diaz. Besides "The Fast and the Furious" I had never really seen Brewster in anything. But after watching her performance in this film I came away very impressed. She's very good here and I hope better roles come her way. The script is told in a very contrived way and the film never comes across as believable.
| 1 |
positive
|
Eric Phillips (Don Wilson) is a secret service agent who prevents the assassination of a senator however along the way he finds a conspiracy and has a tracker on his tail. The tracker by the way is bent on terminating Phillips. The most obvious inspiration for this low budget cheeseball action flick, is of course Robocop and while that film had some imagination and real energy, this just has a real life kickboxing champ running away from a robot. The movie isn't so awful as it is just empty and repetitive. The story is written in clichés and the characters are set up to be cut down by the various gunfire. Don Wilson, as usual, is terrible in the lead role.<br /><br />*1/2 out of 4-(Poor)
| 0 |
negative
|
The first, and far better, of Kevin Kline's two gay roles. (The second is the dreary "De-Lovely" in which he played Cole Porter.) Inspired by Tom Hanks' emotional acceptance speech for "Philadelphia" in which he outed his high school drama teacher, the nominated film in this version was obviously more "Forrest Gump" than "Philadelphia". Here the Hanks character is played by Matt Dillon.<br /><br />The reaction scenes in most of the film are very funny and, as has been often pointed out, are especially effective as done by Kevin himself, Debbie Reynolds, Tom Selleck (a brave move since he was himself the target of such rumors, which he denied!), Bob Newhart and Joan Cusack as the eventually jilted bride-to-be.<br /><br />Tom Hanks' actual teacher criticized the graduation scene saying people don't act that way in real life. But this is a farce and not real life. That being said, it is not as effective as it might be and the misdirection of the final "wedding scene" which makes it look like Tom and Kevin are about to get hitched I found rather pointless, annoying and a cop out.<br /><br />The highlight of the film for me is, of course, Kevin's scene with the how-to-be-a-real-man audio tape and it is hilarious but certainly not at all realistic when the tape reacts to Kevin's actions.<br /><br />On the whole, a hoot!
| 1 |
positive
|
After spending half an hour examining Rumors, a gay bar located outside Tupelo, Mississippi, SMALL TOWN GAY BAR shifts focus to the murder of Scotty Weaver in Bay Minette in order to demonstrate the risks run by the interview subjects. But there is a problem here. Bay Minette isn't near Tupelo, as the film implies. It isn't even in the same state. It is actually about three hundred miles away in coastal Alabama.<br /><br />Director Malcom Ingram doesn't exactly rush to point out this fact, nor does he bother to mention that while Bay Minette itself is little more than a wide spot in the road, it is actually about two deep breaths away from the major metro area of Mobile, Alabama--which has a noticeable gay community, quite a few gay bars, and even a congregation of Metropolitan Community Church. If Ingram is disingenuous on these points, one has to ask if he is on others as well.<br /><br />Speaking as someone who was born, raised, and continues to live in Mississippi, I have to say that I find most of SMALL TOWN GAY BAR a lot of hooey. Neither Meridian nor Tupelo, the communities upon which Ingram focuses, are as rural, small, or as isolated as he would have you imagine, and gay bars are indeed more common in the state than the film implies. That said, Ingram rather blithely ignores the fact that the absence of a gay bar does not mean an absence of a gay community, and in doing so he demonstrates a rather profound ignorance of southern culture, which tends to hold those who frequent bars--be they gay or straight--in low esteem.<br /><br />SMALL TOWN GAY BAR is, in my opinion, an instance in which a film maker came to his subject with a personal agenda in hand and then proceeded to film the agenda. Do gays and lesbians living in rural Mississippi face major, sometimes frightening challenges? You bet they do--but that's no excuse for fiddling with reality to such a degree. The DVD includes a commentary track and a number of deleted scenes, but I found the feature film itself so ridiculous that I didn't waste any time on them.<br /><br />GFT, Amazon Reviewer
| 0 |
negative
|
I'm trying to understand what people liked about MirrorMask. I am an avid film viewer and hobbyist film maker. As I was telling friends during my lunch hour, MirrorMask may well be my biggest movie disappointment of the year. Just like the short Moongirl, the film missed its marks. Several times during the movie it made attempts at humor. It sets you up for the laugh. Instead of making you laugh, it leaves you feeling empty. The jokes reminded one of the recent Star Wars films. They weren't funny unless you were five. And the acting felt similarly terrible. I've seen actors actually act in front of a blue screen. And I've believed it. But not in this film. Not for a second.<br /><br />This film takes a formula and tries to apply it with pretty artwork
And though the script is totally workable and the special effects quite beautiful, it has no heart to it and fails miserably. I left the film shaking my head and considered leaving the theater. I felt hallow and miserable and still haven't gotten the sour taste out of my mouth from it. I love independent film. I encourage people to view independent films to support them. But not this film. This film shouldn't have been made. At least, not like this. Why did the director miss the marks so clearly? They were clearly setup
Not just the humor. But the emotions. The drama. Even the lines were poorly timed and delivered. It was like the film walked on three legs instead of four. Its steps are awkward and miss timed. And it could fall over with the slightest push
Don't see this film. I don't care who you are. It isn't worth your time.
| 0 |
negative
|
John Waters owes me 2 hours of my life back. I saw a sneak-preview screening of this way back in 1990, and I'm still in pain. Not before or since have I seen such a terrible piece of filmic waste spewed upon the screen. There is nothing positive I can say about this film. Acting--awful; plot--ridiculous; music--atrocious. Following the movie, my friends and I demanded our money back from the manager of the theater. He explained that, since it was a free screening, he couldn't give us anything in return, no matter how much agony we were suffering through. How Johnny Depp's career survived this trainwreck of a movie is anyone's guess.
| 0 |
negative
|
Okay maybe it was because I happen to be in Yangchun China when I saw this movie. Maybe it was because I finally had something on TV I could understand or at least read the subtitles, or maybe it was just funny. Whatever it was this movie was worth the time.<br /><br />I had just arrived for my foot and head massage when they gave me the remote so I could watch TV. Usually I would turn the darn thing off but I stumbled upon this crazy movie and got hooked.<br /><br />The plot if you could call it a plot sort of revolves around a cooking competition and sort of is a love story and the food in this movie is the real star. If you like Iron Chef and many of the other cooking shows currently in the reality TV mode, then you will love the scenes with food in this movie.<br /><br />It goes fast and the subtitles are so fast you better be up on speed reading for this one. However the action is mostly slapstick so you don't always have to read the entire subtitle to get the idea.<br /><br />The main actress is lovely eye candy and the main actor isn't bad to look at either. They are both worth watching. Finally if you have some time to kill and want a good laugh this isn't a bad choice for both.<br /><br />I don't speak a word of Chinese but I was totally able to understand the cultural humor of this film. For those who do speak Chinese maybe it is even better. Overall I give this an 8 out of 10 and currently I am even looking to find a copy to have while I stay in China, and keep for when I come back home, it will be a nice reminder for me of my time in Yangchun and a silly afternoon at the massage salon watching a silly movie.
| 1 |
positive
|
As a devotee of Ms. Frank, I remember being so excited that the play was being re-made for TV. That is, until I saw it... This film is a prime example of how IMPORTANT casting is, and how directing plays such an important part in creating the sense of purpose. The casting of any CENTRAL role is CRUCIAL to a production of this sort...shows like AUNTIE MAME and MAN OF LA MANCHA are totally dependent on the charisma of the lead actor. And in the cast of this movie, the whole thing is destroyed by the atrocious casting of Melissa Gilbert in the lead role. There is not ONE SINGLE MOMENT that Ms. Gilbert even comes close to inhabiting the sensitive, mature spirit of Anne- Ms. Gilbert is "white-bread" throughout the movie... the only time I was close to tears was during the reading of Anne's most haunting line: "I still believe, in spite of everything, that people are truly good at heart"- this is spoken by Ms. Gilbert so rushed, so lacking in conviction, that she might has well burped and achieved the same effect. Film and dance legend Marge Champion was the dialogue coach for this production- she should have refunded her salary! Despite Ms. Gilbert ruining DIARY, other performances are satisfactory for the most part- special kudos to Joan Plowright as Edith, Scott Jacoby as Peter and Clive Reville as Mr. Dussell. Maxmillian Schell does not have the deep-rooted soul and spirit as Otto as does the creator of the role on stage and film(Joseph Schildkraut), but he's okay. Doris Roberts and James Coco as The Van Danns are relatively superficial in their parts- they're shrill and bombastic, but again, only on the surface. This COULD be due to the fact that the pacing of the project is way too rushed(as noted in previous postings)- this film clocks in 45 minutes shorter than the film version- the difference owing to the pauses for dramatic effect, which apparently is necessary to propagate the appropriate MOOD for the story. This is NOT mandatory viewing, especially for youngsters learning about Anne Frank for the first time- stick to the original film version, and or even better, the TV production of ANNE FRANK: THE TRUE STORY starring Ben Kingsley, which is the CLOSEST thing to capturing the heartbreak and reality of Anne's situation ever filmed! Note: Especially appalling is the fact that Melora Marshall, who plays Anne's sister Margot, is NOT included in the opening credits along with all the other members of The Secret Annex... she's listed in the post-credits along with the actors playing Miep and Mr. Kraler. If I was Ms. Marshall, I would have SUED!
| 0 |
negative
|
... but I laughed. A lot.<br /><br />I saw 'Astérix et les Vikings' at a public screening during the World Cup. The sound was lousy, it was too bright to see the screen properly - but I still enjoyed myself immensely. The names of some of the characters had me rolling on the floor: Smsix, Abba, Vikea... All not very witty, but in good Astérix tradition. Some very good jokes, but also some that not everybody seemed to get.<br /><br />The only thing I didn't like were the voices of Astérix and Obélix, in the German version at least. The voice actors are very well-known around here, which was the only reason they were casted, really. They don't fit the characters at all.<br /><br />All in all, a good way to spend some time (and if it's free, like in my case, all the better) and to have a couple of laughs. 8 out of 10.
| 1 |
positive
|
In a lonely road in Cape Girardeau, Missouri, a black man driving a car is chased and hit by a truck, falling off-road and dying. His daughter Cassie Robinson calls her former boyfriend Dean and asks him to investigate the mysterious accident. Sam and Dean see that three Afro-Americans and the Caucasian Major of the town were killed in weird accidents on the same road. When the truck threatens Cassie, her Caucasian mother Mrs. Robinson tells a tragic racist murder that happened thirty years ago, and the brothers realize that they have to fight against a hatred spirit in a ghost truck.<br /><br />In this episode, Dean discloses his first and unique love to his brother, surprising Sam and showing that he has feelings, but also that his hunting wish is stronger than his love. The story is only reasonable, touching in the delicate theme of racism in an efficient manner and blending it with a supernatural event. My vote is seven.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Rota 666" ("Route 666")
| 1 |
positive
|
Once again, I am amazed that Thomas Gibson did not come to the head of the pack earlier in his career. In this film, Gibson once again demonstrates his ability to grasp a character regardless of sexuality, social status or nationality. Gibson plays a very convincing gay male of the late 20th Century. Tender yet not effeminate, afraid of the basic tenets of love, Gibson's character touches a variety of emotions. Also worthy of praise is Cameron Bancroft's performance. His need to be the heterosexual conqueror as opposed to his best friend's "homosexual conquests" provides dynamics for the relationship that are in many ways unexpected. Bancroft and Gibson's chemistry is apparent from the first scene they appear in together. There are many "panels" in this quilt. From gay relationships to straight relationships; from heterosexual relationships to the exploration of lesbian love; this film travels across the broad spectrum of sexuality while having the story of a serial killer at its core. My only regret is that it took 6 years since its release before I discovered this movie! I look forward to seeing it again and highly recommend it to any fan of Bancroft, Gibson or Director Denys Arcand.
| 1 |
positive
|
To start this movie was sick. Here your wife is dying and you go strutting around town with this blond chic by your side. Then your wife dies and within 2 months you are together with this chic. Hank (James Brolin) is definitely moving fast throughout this movie. I called him Fast Hank. Fast Hank marries this beautiful lady and before you know it she is having sex with his best friends. The part that gets me is when she is "doing it" in the barn with Kevin and gets caught by another one of Hanks friends. Kevin gets up and leaves, she drops her robe and BAM!! Right into the arms of this other guy and they start "doing it" right then and there. I guess he is finishing up what Kevin started. HOW GROSS!!!! I am like this is lifetime movie??? Its a typical OLD MAN YOUNG WOMAN movie that says you can have my body if I get your money...
| 0 |
negative
|
I just adore this film! I love all characters and I can watch it again<br /><br />and again...and I use to listen to the soundtrack again and again.<br /><br />Although I have seen it about two years after it was made and I<br /><br />have never been such youngster as Jip and company I can<br /><br />understand them and I love their stories. And if somebody thinks this film is crap, I disagree and I say it is<br /><br />full of positive energy and friendship and love...and full of youth!<br /><br />The weekend has landed...enjoy it!
| 1 |
positive
|
NIGHTS IN RODANTHE brings back to the screen two talented actors in Diane Lane and Richard Gere in a simply beautiful story of a man and a woman hungry for something more in their lives than they have at present. The chemistry between Lane and Gere is magical from the first scene in the film to their last embrace. The locations, beauty of their attraction for one another when it unfolds when they first meet, and the story that follows, and as they begin to know each other with the attraction they feel towards each other is real, is romance that is projected to an audience with tender care. James Franco in another micro role is just the right casting, and the elegance of Lane in combination with the beach house, is a true Fall 2008 film to remember forever, as was THE NOTEBOOK.
| 1 |
positive
|
I have not managed to completely block out this film from memory even though it has been two years since I've seen it.<br /><br />Don't get me wrong - I have long forgotten the main story line - the relationship between Kidman and Law, that made no impression on me but it was the torture scenes in the film that really struck me. I cried for about two hours straight after wards. <br /><br />It had never previously occurred to me how people, in war time, could take advantage of something as pure as a mother's love. We see several examples of this here - in both the scenes with Natalie Portman and with the mother with her fingers in the fence for keeping her son hidden at home. I was shocked at these scenes and will probably never watch the film again as a consequence because the scenes even now are perfectly clear in my mind. However, I am glad I watched the film simply because it has made me more aware to the horrors of war and the horrible cruelty that mankind can inflict on it's own. <br /><br />The blonde albino character has been top of my list of most evil bad guy ever since I saw the film. His horrible sneer and lack of any human feeling for the people he tortured really hit a nerve with me. At one point I wanted to get up in the cinema and kill him myself (see the movie pushed me over the edge of reason,it only occurred to me afterward that I'd only be hitting a big screen - that shows the film's power and intensity at least). <br /><br />I recommend the film for it's sheer experience not for the entwined love story but for the manner in which it depicts war without needing a battlefield.
| 1 |
positive
|
A very good movie about anti-semitism near the end of WWII. The scene that really speaks loudly of the ignorance of these people is the meeting at the church when the priest is giving his speech against the "international money grubbers and communists". It sounds amazingly like the speeches that Adolph Hitler used to force down his peoples' throats, yet none of the meeting attendees seem to make this comparison.
| 1 |
positive
|
The monster will look very familiar to you. So will the rest of the film, if you've seen a half-dozen of these teenagers-trapped-in-the-woods movies. Okay, so they're not teenagers, this time, but they may as well be. Three couples decide it might be a good idea to check out a nearly-abandoned ghost town, in hopes of finding the gold that people were killed over a scant century-and-a-half before. You'd think that with a title like "Miner's Massacre" some interesting things might happen. They don't. In fact, only about 1/10 of the film actually takes place in the mine. I had envisioned teams of terrified miners scampering for their lives in the cavernous confines of their workplace, praying that Black Lung Disease would get them before The Grim Reaper exacted his grisly revenge, but instead I got terrestrial twenty-somethings fornicating--and, in one case, defecating--in the woods, a gang of morons with a collective I.Q. that would have difficulty pulling a plastic ring out of a box of Cracker Jacks, much less a buried treasure from an abandoned mine. No suspense, no scares, and a couple of embarrassing performances. Somebody forgot to tell the writers that "Fool's Gold" refers to the genuineness of the gold, not the people who are looking for it. 3/10
| 0 |
negative
|
The best thing about this flick is that it seems like they used a lot of stuff left over from the Pearl Harbor attack in Tora Tora Tora. My favorite was the shot of the P-40 crashing into the row of parked P-40s but filmed from the top of a hangar or crane. Unfortunately it just gets worse from there.<br /><br />There's two black guys and two white guys as American POWs, as well as some Filipinos POWs and Japanese guards. The ranking POW of the Americans is a white naval Lieutenant, which is of course an O-3 in the navy. At any rate, he's in need of a haircut, badly, distractingly badly. Hockey hair does not belong in a WWII movie. Oh, and he's a racist. He doesn't want to share quarters with the 'negros'. Of course in real life, he wouldn't want to share quarters with the white enlisted guy either. I think the Geneva Convention has a clause about officers quarters and enlisted but that wasn't the point here. Oh well, I think plot is secondary to other issues in this flick. He gets put in his place and pretty much spends the rest of the movie as a look out and running the air pump for the divers.<br /><br />But once you get going, it's not a bad story line. The japs want the divers to raise the silver thrown out by the Americans before Corrigador fell. The Filipino resistance wants them to take their time. And the POWs do their best to help. A potentially good story and not that badly done I guess. A bit unbelievable when the POWs use camp made re-breathers to swim between the POW camp and the Filipino village, every night. Maybe I'm not that picky when I know going in that this is not a blockbuster film. I guess that's why it comes on a 20-pack DVD war movie collection for five bucks.<br /><br />The 70s music did not belong in this movie or any WWII movie. It's quite distracting to say the least. The acting was not that bad. Probably better than I could do.<br /><br />Not being a fan of football, at least I found out that Jim Brown is a real person and not somebody Richard Pryor made up. That in itself was worth the 25¢ I paid for this movie.<br /><br />Worth watching on TCM or paying a quarter for. <br /><br />One star for being a war movie, another for being WWII and one more because I'm feeling generous.
| 0 |
negative
|
Just watched on UbuWeb this early experimental short film directed by William Vance and Orson Welles. Yes, you read that right, Orson Welles! Years before he gained fame for radio's "The War of the Worlds" and his feature debut Citizen Kane, Welles was a 19-year-old just finding his muse. Besides Vance and Welles, another player here was one Virginia Nicholson, who would become Orson's first wife. She plays a woman who keeps sitting on something that rocks back and forth courtesy of an African-American servant (Paul Edgerton in blackface). During this time a man (Welles) keeps passing her by (courtesy of the scene constantly repeating). I won't reveal any more except to say how interesting the silent images were as they jump-cut constantly. That's not to say this was any good but it was fascinating to watch even with the guitar score (by Larry Morotta) added in the 2005 print I watched. Worth a look for Welles enthusiasts and anyone with a taste of the avant-garde.
| 0 |
negative
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.