text
stringlengths 49
6.21k
| label
int64 0
1
| label_text
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|
To be fair, I didn't see a lot of this show. Probably because it wasn't as good as the original M*A*S*H, but I seem to recall them moving it around on the weekly schedule. Some shows just aren't worth the trouble of following around every week. But I really did try at first, so it wasn't all bad. Maybe I just kept expecting it to improve, but I can't give this show a 1. In all honesty, I can't give it any more than a 2 either.<br /><br />It wasn't MASH (I'm not going to type those stupid *'s every time). And it was trying to be MASH without putting forth any effort, like it would just magically happen. Well guess what? No magic. The best I can do here is to compare it to other shows.<br /><br />Trapper John, M.D. was a much better show by far. However, they should have called it B.J. Hunnicut, M.D. because Pernell Roberts looked exactly like an older BJ, but nothing at all like Trapper John. Keep everything else the same, just change his name and the name of the show. Presto! After MASH wasn't the only sequel to completely bomb and dishonor the original. Archie Bunker's Place was a lame follow-up to All In The Family. It had no heart, no conflict, no depth all of the things that made All In the Family so memorable. Likewise, MASH was funny because the doctors were reacting to the impossible absurdity of war. Remove the war and you remove the drive for 99% of the humor. Potter can't yell at Klinger for wearing a dress, because Klinger isn't wearing a dress, because he's not trying to get kicked out of the Army, because he's already out of the Army, because the war is over. (breathe) All of the jokes became forced because there was no motivation for anything. The least motivated was the viewer, to stay around and watch the show.<br /><br />And from what I remember, the whole show seemed to be Potter, Klinger, and Mulcahy just standing there unnaturally, facing the audience like a trio of Vaudeville performers. It was reminiscent of Good Times, where they spent 90% of the show standing behind that couch and talking to the audience, trying to make it look like they were having natural conversation. They weren't. And it felt even less natural on After MASH.<br /><br />Another random tidbit I recall is that the people who made MASH never got any royalties from the spin-off. The studio used the absurd excuse that After MASH was really a spin-off of the movie MASH (which they owned) and not the TV series. Nice try, but Mulcahy was the only one of the three in the movie, and he was never deaf. I guess studio execs will do anything for a buck. Anything other than make a worthwhile sequel, that is.
| 0 |
negative
|
This music is totally out of touch with the film, showing up now and then as wagnerian bombast and Lone Ranger hurry-up, otherwise nonexistent. The acting, outside of the two principals, is nonexistent. It would have been an excellent student film. The Russian soldiers are just models trying to act. The constant interruptions with wow-explosive-camera angles and monocolor clips of pieces of people were quite irritating, but that's just a personal feeling. The story line isn't worse than others, actually not worse than most, completely ignoring logic and reason and reality. At least nobody walked in front of a machine gun for three minutes without being hit. The three top-level bad guys were campy.
| 0 |
negative
|
This movie has some good performances, as others have pointed out, but suffers (as others have pointed out, except for the people who apparently are either friends of the filmmaker or the cast to otherwise explain why they would deem this a "10") from some self-conscious and self-absorbed film school padding and excess plots. This is the type of plot that Sex In The City could handle in a half hour episode, so there was no reason for it to be even an 88 minute movie. A perfect example of wasted footage is the fast forwarding montage in the first third of the movie. Some of the back story is merited, but too much time, for example, was spent on Daria character with the anal sex boyfriend and on the back story for Paulie, who was not a realistic character, although the actor did a decent job with the lines he was given. <br /><br />The worst aspect of the movie was the level of amateurish parts: from typos in the typed material, to bad jumps and edits, poor camera positions, angles, lighting problems throughout and, most glaringly, a poorly written script with a badly developed concept. If the writer (also the director and lead) had collaborated with someone, he might not have ended up with a 100% rotten score on Rotten Tomatoes, which further belays the ability of anyone to truly believe the people who gave it a 10 on the rating system here.
| 0 |
negative
|
Awful, waste of time. There is no camp or trash value in this one. Seen better amateur movies done by 10 to 12 years old kids in movie clubs.<br /><br />How on earth someone can spoil movie about vampires and lesbians? <br /><br />It's not a movie to put together a few vampire / sadomasochism enthusiast in a same room and just shoot it.<br /><br />Could not find anything good about the film. There was no plot, no real actors, no real special effects, no humor. A few overweight Goths touching each other cannot be called a sex scene. Nothing at all.<br /><br />Well, cemetery was nice but one should shot a vampire movie during dark. <br /><br />Purpose was probably good: make a trash movie in a spirit of Ed Wood. Problem is that one cannot make a bad movie intentionally. It takes talent and an effort to make a "real" movie. Ed Wood might have lacked money but he sure had effort. These guys lacked everything. Ed Wood was a genius compared to these guys.
| 0 |
negative
|
A lot of things in this futuristic satire are more theoretically funny than actually funny (though it does have some laugh-out-loud moments) but a lot of that is because it seems to have been cut by the studio to better appeal to exactly the idiots it's mocking. Many situations aren't allowed to develop, there's obvious overdubbing of expository material, and worst of all a narrator explains EVERYTHING (most of which needs no explanation), probably because some preview audience didn't understand what was going on. In other words, a movie about dumbing down has been... you guessed it.<br /><br />One hopes that a longer, better version of this comedy will eventually surface on DVD, and it will become the cult fave it deserves to be, but even in this mutilated and somewhat comic- spirit-diminished form it's one of the more memorable films of the year-- a screech of disgust against our culture and all the ways it's become trashified, stupidified and uglified in the name of appealing to the yahoos. I watched it right after Land of the Dead, George Romero's latest milking of the single idea that consumers = zombies, which is basically the same point Judge is making; yet where Romero's counterculture viewpoint (now zombies = underclass that needs to revolt against the rich) seems hopelessly out of date, Judge's take is fresh, dead-on and far more disturbing. Just listen to the yahoos in your movie audience whooping it up for President Camacho's State of the Union just like their counterparts on screen, and you'll know that we're all doomed.
| 1 |
positive
|
I was given the solo "Summertime" in 5th grade for our spring choral concert. From that time on, a great appreciation for Gershwin's music arose in me. I love the haunting melodies of this opera by Gershwin. Back when I was in 5th grade (around age 10), I got the LP to practice with and also love the soundtrack very much. I recommend seeing this movie and if you can get the soundtrack, get it - you can sometimes find it on eBay - an old, used LP. I have been searching and searching to try to find the soundtrack on CD. The songs on this have marvelous musical arrangements and I truly wish it would be put on CD for purchase and also wish they would restore the movie and put it on DVD. This is truly a great work that I think present and future generations would enjoy and benefit from. Some may think the movie slow and dull, but I find it quite the contrary. Although Poitier and Dandridge have dubbed musical voices, I think the voices fit the faces and personalities well. A person's speaking voice and singing voice may be quite different. Porgy and Bess, and the songs in this opera, will always have a special meaning for me.
| 1 |
positive
|
and nothing else.<br /><br />One of my friends bought the Problem Child Tantrum Pack (contains the first two "Problem Child"s in one disc), and we decided to watch the sequel because it was "funnier".<br /><br />There were many funny moments in the movie (the vomit scene, that's all I need to say.), Nippy the dog after eating CHOW DOWN, and numerous others. The movie is nothing but toilet humor, but it's hilarious. Other than the funny moments, though, this movie has little to offer.<br /><br />John Ritter annoys the crap out of me, because it sounds like he's reading out of a book. The man can't act in this one, sorry.<br /><br />Although I can't say if I would find the movie funny now...(we were blown when we watched it), it's a perfect movie for a rainy day...but nothing else. Don't expect Oscar material on this one, guys.
| 0 |
negative
|
I have never before voted 1 for a movie on the IMDB, but for this one I am sorry the scale doesn't go down to -10.<br /><br />All I can say abou this movie is that I saw it in a Sneak Preview, and it was my worst movie experience ever. I don't mind the stupid jokes. I can live with the silly story. But when I see those dumbly grinning "main characters" with their pseudo-foreign speech (only Germans will understand what I talk about), I felt I kind of loathing I never thought I was capable of. (If they had left them out, the thing may actually have been acceptable...).<br /><br />There's not much more to be said about this one. You may laugh once or twice, because it's so ridiculous, but that doesn't make it any better. It is definitely not funny.<br /><br />If you live outside of Germany, be happy and rejoice that this awful work will most likely never make it to your cinemas.<br /><br />If you do live in Germany, avoid this movie at all costs.
| 0 |
negative
|
This movie is a mystery. It's not scary, it's spooky. You'll probably jump at some points and for some of it you'll be scratching your head to figure it out. It unfolds its mystery through the main character Eve and her psychotic college project at an insane asylum, Don. He needs her to search for some clues to vindicate himself from murdering his mother, and once Eve agrees to help him, she completely opens up pandora's box and unleashes some very strange things, including Malachi. I won't go into Malachi, but I thought the way that played out was complete genius. I know movie buffs won't regard this movie with the same prestige as other classics because it doesn't have anyone very famous in it (Angelina Jolie's brother was excellent, but maybe he should have asked his sister to show her face just so this movie could get some recognition) but I do think the way the Malachi ending works is something to talk about. I've recommended this to my friends, definitely worth the purchase or rental price.
| 1 |
positive
|
Bad, a lot a crap. It copied simone, also a bad movie! Them flips when "loretta modern" sang was lame. That internet scenes made it worse. And Roscoe loves a "hologram"! Thats plain stupid! I give 0 stars! Because they copied, the plot was stupid, THE WHOLE MOVIE WAS THUMBS DOWN ALL THE WAY!
| 0 |
negative
|
Josie is a reporter from a newspaper is set a task to go back to high school as she is going to be 17 again. .<br /><br />As she is there, she remembers some really awful stuff thats happened to her the first time she was in Highschool as we see in flashback scenes.<br /><br />In the flashback they show that (little spoiler) Josie was kind of a nerd in high school and was picked on a lot and one day the cool guy tells her that he is taking her to the prom, only on the prom night as she leaves her house she gets egged by the ass hole and his bitch. what a horrible thing to do (some will find this hard to watch as it so nasty and it will make you feel warmer to Josie).<br /><br />I did not find this movie that funny but there was some really funny stuff in the office scenes a lot more funnier then anything that happened in the school.<br /><br />This movie did have the perfect happy ending, as it did bring tears to my mum and sister eyes. The acting in this movie was not outstanding, it was good for the most part of the movie, there is some poor acting in some parts of the movie.<br /><br />I going to give this movie 7 out 10.
| 1 |
positive
|
Those reviewers who have complained that this movie lacks plausibility or has problems of construction are missing the point. This is a wonderfully camp romance, with plenty of Play, gypsies! Dance, gypsies! music, that both sends up exotic love stories and celebrates them. Buttoned-up Ray Milland makes an amusing foil for a Dietrich with black hair, tattered scarves, and tons of jewelry. The character's eagerness to feed Milland and look after him more closely resembles the good German hausfrau Dietrich was off the set than her mannered vamp roles. Censorship being in force, it's made clear that they share a caravan on platonic terms only, with Milland fighting off Dietrich's advances with a determination remarkable for a heterosexual bachelor who might be killed any day. His only excuse is that she smells, so perhaps a stuffy, fastidious Englishman might indeed be put off.<br /><br />In the small role of Milland's young companion on his secret mission, Bruce Lester adds a note of camp of a different kind. We are told at the beginning that he hero-worships Milland, and indeed he rather fawns on him. When, after they are separated, he meets Milland, now transformed into a brown-skinned gypsy with a shirt open to the waist, his glowing appreciation of the disguise even further suggests that not only Dietrich is romantically infatuated with Milland.<br /><br />Despite the wonderfully improbable characters and sequence of events, the growing love of Milland for Dietrich and his acceptance of the non-rational aspects of life is rather touching. And when, on their last night alone before he escapes, he says that each of them now contain half of the other, the two have become one, and then darkness falls, I think we can assume that the censor decided to give them a break! One goof--at the beginning, Milland, who is supposed to be English, refers to a lieutenant, using the American pronunciation. (The English say "leftenant.") Since Milland was British, he must have been saying it that way because the American movie-makers feared that American audiences would be distracted and confused by the British style.
| 1 |
positive
|
'Rise of the Footsoldier' follows the unrelentingly cruel journey of gangster Carlton Leach and his associates through drugs, violence, sex, violence, guns, violence and did I mention violence?<br /><br />Protagonist Carlton Leach (Ricci Harnett), member of the I.C.F (Inner City Firm); a group of football hooligans turned professional gangsters, guides the audience through the events leading to the 1995 'Range Rover Killings', in which three gang members fell victim to particularly vicious professional 'hits'. Leach's success as a doorman and talent for locating aptly violent friends to control unruly punters at a local nightclub launches him into the company of notorious drug dealers and gangsters, profitably benefiting from the 80s/90s rave scene and drug culture.<br /><br />Opening with brutally realistic shots of the dead men, the viewer is left thirsty to understand what happened, but left wholly unsatisfied. The next 2 hours meander through a series of countless character introductions. Each of these basically establishes yet another typical 'hard man', shows him assaulting usually undeserving victims, before probably coming to an even nastier end. What little emotional understanding the audience is allowed to form for a few of the characters (for example a family man blamed for missing drugs) is quickly destroyed when they are either anti-climactically killed, or their storyline left unresolved. The hints of a plot introduced in the beginning are inadequately concluded with vague impressions of how the murders occurred, as the events are slotted into place with little reward for persevering with the hazy muddle of previous events. <br /><br />This film has been made with a standard formula in mind, for an audience who prefer violence and 'ard nut' slang to an actual storyline. 'Rise of the Footsoldier' borrows too much from 'Football Factory', leaving out the good bits, demonstrating no moral ramifications of hooligan subculture or establishing empathy with the protagonist. The violence, although brilliantly shot, seems excessive and implausible because no one is around long enough for the audience to form an emotional attachment. The implication that the gangs are untouchable by the police is fair enough, but machete-wielding doormen regularly committing blatant murder in public places pushes the imagination of even the most willing viewer. The audience are left bewildered as to the relevance of many key events and developed characters that had no knock on effect on the eventual conclusion. Attempted 'gritty-realism' is further destroyed with a substance called 'Truth Serum', which the Turkish Mafia use to coax honest answers from unwilling individuals. This is NOT the genre in which to invent psychologically unrealistic drugs, and renders the interrogation almost absurd.<br /><br />The actual scenes of violence (before becoming repetitive) hold some tension, spliced with rapid flashes of colour or the end of a film reel. Seamlessly choreographed brawls coupled with obligatory but effective shaky hand-held camera work saves the film, but unfortunately the plot (or lack there of) limits it to a niche demographic.<br /><br />In essence, the events this film is based on aren't deservedly represented, and an adequately sequential storyline is sacrificed for stereotypical characters and an unoriginal plot. This film has a place in the market, but if you like a bit of brain with your brutality this one isn't for you. <br /><br />http://www.obsessedwithfilm.com/
| 0 |
negative
|
The United States built the atomic bomb in order to show their superior military power and to end the Second World War. The movie Fat Man and Little Boy is a portrayal of the efforts of American physicists to invent the technology necessary to create the bomb, and the tension that existed between the scientists and the military over the potential uses of the bomb, and even the acceptability of its creation. The scientists thought that the bomb should be created as a deterrent, a mechanism that would halt the war by wasting as little life as possible. Fist, they saw themselves as in a race with German scientists, who were attempting to build nuclear weapons themselves. When the Germans were defeated, many scientists hoped to stop work on the bomb project, as they knew that the Japanese did not have the technology necessary to build a nuclear weapon, and therefore did not pose a threat of massive loss of life. Those who favored the continuation of the Manhattan Project hoped that the bomb would be used as a demonstration, inviting the Japanese head of state to view its deployment upon some tiny deserted island. This massive display of force, they felt, would be enough to win the war-no killing would be needed. The US military, under the direction of General Leslie Groves, hoped all along to used the bomb as a actual weapon to be deployed against the enemy, first against the Germans and then against the Japanese. Because of the persistence of Japanese soldiers on the small Japanese islands, the US decided to drop the bomb on populous cities in order to end the war, first Hiroshima and then Nagasaki. The display of that vast amount of force also served notice to the rest of the world that the US was the dominant military power, a message aimed especially at Russia, whose growing military power and economic weight in Eurasia threatened our preeminent world position. Fat Man and Little Boy was a movie that had good intentions in mind, but muddled them rather badly by the choice of actors, script, and cinematography. One of the main points of the movie was the struggle between the military view of science for killing, and the scientific view of science for knowledge. The keystone of this conflict is the continued disagreements between General Groves and Dr. Oppenheimer. Mr. Newman does his job in the part of the General, craggy, massively angry, and radiating his dependence upon the success of the project. Dwight Schultz, on the other hand, never puts up much resistance at all to the General's demands, always looking rather weak, deflated, and phlegmatic in his audiences. John Cusack presents a stunningly unsympathetic character in as flat a role as I have ever seen-it looks like he is just reading his lines. Laura Dern seems to be suffering from the same malady. None of the characters are helped by the script, which is almost childishly ridiculous in the way it attempts to explain scientific concepts unscientifically, offers the most unrealistic stock relationship between Mr. Cusack and Ms. Dern imaginable, doesn't even give us the cheap thrill of watching the army drop nuclear bombs on Japan, and relies heavily on voice-over-a technique that is evil anytime, even when explaining a characters true innermost thoughts, or for the narration of something that cannot be possibly show on the film medium, but is used here to read some absolutely trite selections out of Cusack's diary. The cinematographer offers us several shots of the ominous shadow of the two bombs, which might be striking if it didn't look like they were cardboard cutouts instead of bombs, the fake atomic fire really does look fake-and why use it when the stock footage on hand is so genuinely stunning and realistic--, and the pervasive brown tone doesn't seem to be thematically appropriate. Besides that, it's not a bad movie.
| 0 |
negative
|
This may be the most tension-filled movie I have ever seen.<br /><br />In fact, it's so nerve-wracking, I haven't been able to watch it again after viewing it two years ago, but I will since I have the DVD. There were a couple of scenes in here that are almost too much to watch....so if you've got problems and need to "escape" for an hour-and-half this film will get your mind off anything else. <br /><br />The Russian actress Marina Zudina did a super job in facial expressions alone, which she had to do since her character in here is a mute. She plays a cute and wholesome makeup artist for a sleazy filmmaker. After the day's shooting is done and "Billie" is about to leave, she hears something. She takes a peek into the room where they were filming and discovers they are now shooting a "snuff film" and actually killing someone. Billie's eavesdropping is discovered and she runs for her life as the killers go searching for her in this big warehouse-type building.<br /><br />There are two extended scenes in which our heroine is running for her life and both of them will wear you out. The first I described above. The second scene, the climactic one, goes on too long and isn't as well done as the first. In fact, the film should have been trimmed a bit but, overall, since it's so good at keeping our attention, then it served its purpose as entertainment.
| 1 |
positive
|
This is a 100% improvement over the dross of a third movie and it's one hell of a good time. This is a John Hughes movie meets The Devil's Rejects. I really enjoyed this movie and it really stands out as the savior of the series. I thought Jennifer Tilly played Tiffany really well and Brad Dourif in Chucky's shoes once again really makes this movie shine. Actually they're the only good parts of the movie. I got rather bored with Katherine Heigl and Nick Stable's scenes. It's as if they were thrown in there as a sidetrack and someone to save the day. But Chucky and Tiffany were great to watch and I really liked the black humor to it. I thought it made the movie stand out more. If you want one hell of a good time then be sure to check this out.<br /><br />7/10.
| 1 |
positive
|
This was a very strong look at prejudice and group mentality. The cast is composed of superb actors doing a remarkable job. The sets are beautiful and just a bit stylized. The art direction is top notch along with great cinematography. The story is taut and shows how prejudice and bigotry can flourish easily. It is disturbing for its realistic violence and protrayal of a fairly typical community. I was very impressed.
| 1 |
positive
|
After 30 minutes..mostly fast forwarding, deleted it off my recorder. The first Critters movie was self-consciously fun, The "conversation" between the critters just before Granny blows them away off the porch, for example. This film just limps along, waiting for someone to shoot it and put it out of your misery.<br /><br />I can't imagine anyone who worked on this turkey being proud of it.<br /><br />One was fun, four just was awful. Don't bother even if the alternative is watching reruns of a TBS "700 Club" fund-raiser, you'll at least get some good laughs there (and the "alien" makeup is more believable..grin).
| 0 |
negative
|
I can not believe I even wasted a NetFlix rental on this complete piece of CRAP. How long did it take to make this film? 15 minutes? On a budget of what? Fifteen bucks? I can spend a few hours with my Sony Camcorder and come up with something better than this treacherous lump of bile, and it's even available on DVD!?!! A very sad thing to think classics like The Stepfather have not been released on DVD but this chunk of steaming dung makes it to the format. Here's hoping my rating of ONE ONE ONE ONE makes the overall (already) pathetic rating of 2.5 go DOWN.
| 0 |
negative
|
The screen writers for this mini-series should have been sentenced to the guillotine themselves. They butchered a very fun story and squandered the talents of Richard E. Grant. The only thing the writers kept from the original books was the name. All of the characters were totally altered and the story was not the same. I strongly suggest watching another version of the Scarlet Pimpernel. Any other version is better than this one.
| 0 |
negative
|
Turning Isherwood's somewhat dark and utterly brilliant novel into light comedic romp could easily have been a recipe for disaster, but somewhow it wasn't . The story moves at a zanily rapid pace and the black and white imagery is gorgeous, as are Harvey and Harris as they ham their way through a wacky Weimar Berlin. Fun!
| 1 |
positive
|
Dolemite is one of the best movies featuring a pimp as a hero, who takes down the man, meanwhile hooking up with all the finest women that the ghetto has to provide. Mind you that these women know karate, and are fine foxy ladies.<br /><br />SPOILER--the end fight scene is pretty crazy, with Dolemite ripping the heart out of Willy Green. Make sure your copy is unrated.<br /><br />Plus there are a cast full of innovative brilliant characters like the Hamburger Pimp, Reverend, Mayor, Queen Bee, and others. The apparel is great, and the sets are full of 70's style. There are a few mess-ups in the production, such as boom mikes accidentally appearing, among other things, but that adds to the charm and laughs.<br /><br />I would recommend drinking a 6-pack before and during this movie, and keeping squares and the man a far distance away.
| 1 |
positive
|
When I first looked at the back of the cover of this film, it seemed like me and my friends could be looking forward to 82 memorable minutes. And it certainly was memorable. Puckoon was the kind of movie where you keep asking yourself how this was possible. How it was possible that it was released on DVD at all. Out of all of the movies available at the video rental store that night...we might just have picked the worst. And yes, they had Tomb Raider. Absolutely nothing in this movie amused me even slightly. Who came up with the idea that it would be funny if the narrator could change the story by suggestions from the main character? Out of all the stupid things you can totally ruin a movie with, this is now my favourite. The character Foggerty, the village idiot, played by Nickolas Grace is the most annoying character since they started making movies in color. If there is one single movie that you definately not should see this year, please let it be Puckoon, cause I don't think it can be any worse. I still wonder if this just might have been the worst way I have spent my money, and take my word for that I have made many lousy purchases over the years.
| 0 |
negative
|
This film is good in it's genre and that genre is naturally action with a little/average budget. Looks like Van Damme delivers greatly better performances when he has a good director guiding him. There is your basic bar brawl, alley scene and mostly a lot of gun fighting. Some basic drama, but nothing too deep. Isaac Florentine directs an OK action flick if you ignore the weak plot and the holes in it. But the person who steals the show is: <br /><br />Scott Adkins. How come this guy isn't a massive Arnold Schwarzenegger caliber action star that I don't know. Director Isaac Florentine has made a movie with Scott Adkins before called Special Forces (2003) which has some unbelievable martial arts talent that will satisfy the most demanding kungfu enthusiastic. Another amazing Scott Adkins feature is Undisputed 2. Check this guy out and make a noise, this guy needs to get super action star status and he needs to get it now!<br /><br />What else can I say about the movie? It's Van Damme stepping up a notch from some of his most recent work. No Oscars here for sure, but you already knew that. But never the less it has a nice little town feel and I could find worse ways to spend my time. So I'm giving this a solid 7 out of 10 in it's genre.
| 1 |
positive
|
I was quite impressed with this movie as a child of eight or nine. The gangsters seemed very real and threatening to me, and I could see why people would have been afraid of someone like Dillinger. Seeing it as an adult, it seemed almost comical, owing to the overdone narration and jarring details like Thirties gangsters driving cars that looked like they were from the Fifties. There is a certain gritty, unglamorous reality to the way the criminals are portrayed, but the overall effect is more like a bad soap opera. The most memorable and most unintentionally funny bit that sticks with me is the scene where Ma Barker and her sons are shooting it out with the FBI and the sons are killed. The narrator says something like " Perhaps in that moment, for the only time in her life, Ma Barker became a real mother". This is meant to be a moment of great tragedy and pathos, as Ma finally realizes how she's destroyed her family out of her own greed, but instead, it provokes laughter. A very odd film that is rarely shown anywhere these days. Gangster movie buffs might enjoy it, but more as a curiosity than a real movie.
| 0 |
negative
|
Alice (Florinda Bolkan), a translator living in Italy, discovers that she has a memory loss and can't recall the last couple of days. She starts to follow a trace of memory fragments, which leads her to the small town of Garma. People in the town seem to recognize her and she's beginning to suspect that the re-occurring nightmares of astronauts conducting horrible experiments has something to do with her own amnesia.<br /><br />The movie is interesting and the plot is good, but it's a bit to slow moving and arty for my taste. The plot takes some nice twists and it's really hard to figure out where it's heading. Florinda Bolkan is good in her role (but even better in "Flavia the Heretic") and it's always nice to see "star" child actor Nocoletta Elmi. Klaus Kinski's role is too small though. This is not a movie for the die-hard gore hound or exploitation addict, but still a very nice hour-and-a-half mystery.
| 1 |
positive
|
I thought that this movie might be a good spoof, or at least a good independent comedy like Friday. Instead it was more like something someone in high school would make with their parents' camcorder. It wasn't just the low budget that makes this film bad (many great films have been made on a low budget), it is simply a bad movie and it wasn't even bad enough to be good camp. Case in point: for the first ten minutes of the movie nothing happens except the 3 main characters sit in their room smoking dope, put on their makeup, and then answer a phone call. You keep waiting for something to get story moving, but it never comes. The sound was so bad I had to turn the TV up all the way just to almost make out what they were saying (which wasn't interesting anyways). If I pay to rent a movie I will usually suffer through it even when it's bad, but it was all I could do to sit through 20 minutes. It looks like the person before me felt the same way because they didn't rewind the tape and left off about the same place I did. The only reason I gave this a score of 1 is because the rating system doesn't have negative numbers.
| 0 |
negative
|
This is a true gem of a TV film. Based on a completely untrue story, it follows the course of the down-and-out football league club through their course in the English FA cup, where mayhem ensues and the players all sport seventies styles. The ending is unexpected, the performances are great, and Nick Hancock shows that he CAN do something other than host sports shows. My only regret is that I didn't tape it.
| 1 |
positive
|
I hate football!! I hate football fans! I hate cars! but this film was the funniest thing I have seen in quite some time. <br /><br />I was given the great opportunity to see this film at the weekend, and all I have to say is I laughed till I cried, and when is it going to be available in the UK and Denmark. Girls, this is one football film you will need to see, its hilarious!<br /><br />The fact that this film started out as some crazy commercial for a telephone company is just amazing, the guys may not be well known actors, but this is good down to earth real humour, with real people, and I for one applaud them for taking this to the screen.<br /><br />WELL DONE!
| 1 |
positive
|
I believe, that this is a heart tugging film. Richard Donner (Directed the top grossing film "Superman"), had done a great job directing this film. Some of the segemets were good, and several were horrible because, Bobby (Mazzello) was beatened by The King (Baldwin, and especially their dog, Shane attacked the King which meant that he paid for what he had done to Bobby.<br /><br />Elijah Wood, portrayed a good role in this film. The memorable scene in this, he dreamt that he took the buffalo's advice about Bobby being battered. Lorraine Bracco, (Pre-Soprano)had portrayed an impressing role.<br /><br />I give this film *** out of four!!!
| 1 |
positive
|
I just watched this movie for the first time after finishing the book last week. What's the problem here? Folks admit that the performances are great--I mean, Lange is stellar!--and that the film is good-looking, but it's got less than a '6'! I don't get it. Come on! The writing's not that bad!<br /><br />Having read a lot of Pulitzer-winning novels, and having seen a lot of the films based on them, I think a better-than-decent job was done in bringing the screenplay together. I thought the paring down of all the dialogue in the novel was executed almost perfectly. This story had a pretty hefty amount of dialogue in it, and the story really came through on the screen despite the fact that only a portion of it was used.<br /><br />**BOOK SPOILER PART** I was, however, a little disappointed in the Ginny-tries-to-kill-Rose subplot's being omitted. I thought that was one of the more emotionally jarring parts of the book, but it was probably a good bet to leave it out. Avid movie-goers, more than avid readers, I think, tend to be less forgiving of protagonists pulling antagonistic stuff. It's apt to confuse Johnny Lunchpail and Joe Sixpack.<br /><br />If you loved the book, you will like the movie. If you hated the book, you will likely hate the movie.<br /><br />********<br /><br />Rog
| 1 |
positive
|
Having watched all of the Star Trek TV series episodes many times each since the 1960s, most being quite good to superb, and only very few being mediocre, my opinion is that this one is the worst of all.<br /><br />In fact, I think it's so poorly executed as to be an embarrassment to the series. It's not that the story is so bad, although it's not particularly outstanding in any way, but the acting is just abysmal on the part of the two lead characters, meaning those other than the regulars in this case. Barbara Anderson gives her weakest performance ever as the daughter of a mass killer, and who is on a mission of a sort. She practically calls in the role from a phone, and shows no real emotive abilities here. Although usually she's never used as more than a pretty face in most of her film/TV roles,usually small parts, she has done much better.<br /><br />Arnold Moss as her father gives new meaning to the term 'Ham' and is the only actor ever on a 1960s Star Trek episode that outdid William Shatner in this area, and actually makes Shatner look superb by comparison. And he gets to play a Shakespearian actor no less, which gives him more impetus to overact, and he does so.<br /><br />Other than these two leads being so weak, the story is such that anybody with any sense at all can tell who the killer is within the first 15 minutes. I say this because I told my brother the whole plot ending at the first commercial break when we were watching the original 1966 broadcast as pre-teens. His reply was, Yeah, you're right.<br /><br />Skip this one and watch the much superior Menagerie episodes which were originally televised right before.
| 0 |
negative
|
Assault on Precinct 13 is the absolute dumbest film I've seen since Charlie's Angels 2. The shame lies in the fact that they had a good cast and a good premise to work with. <br /><br />SPOILERS ............................................................. I know they've said this movie is a remake descendant of Rio Bravo but did the writers of this film actually watch Rio Bravo? Besides the fact that Rio Bravo is a western classic, the premise of the film was that the sheriff (John Wayne) had to keep a prisoner accused of murder from being liberated by his brother and his gang. No one wants to liberate anyone in Assault on Precinct 13. They want EVERYONE dead. So, my first question would have to be, WHY NOT JUST BURN THE WHOLE PLACE DOWN FROM THE START? Why "assault" the place at all? I know the contrived plot turn was suppose to be clever and shocking but it didn't make sense and/or was presented properly. If the veteran cop was in on it from the start, why the need for this whole movie? If the veteran cop suddenly cut a deal at the back door during the siege, how did he even get the chance? As soon as he appeared at the door he would've been shot and they would've had their entry point. It's all just FUBAR. <br /><br />What part of any city can an all out war take place at a police precinct (complete with helicopters and massive explosions) but no one notices?? However, as soon as there's a fire they have to "leave before the fire department shows up"?????? How did they plan to cover up the chaos that was happening outside?? Police issue bullets in the walls, bullet casings, footprints, equipment usage, and the fact that there were going to be no bodies of "Bishop's men" to be found? How about those police snipers? How could they possibly miss so badly so often? I like the fact that when the two detainees tried to run, the snipers were foiled by two tiny mounds of snow. As if it's not possible to shoot a high powered riffle through a pile of snow. <br /><br />The set up was interesting although ridiculous but the movie just went off a cliff when they decided to kill that particular character with a bullet to the head for absolutely NO REASON at all. I know the makers of the film were going for shock but all they got was disgust at the cruelty and the anger of the audience. Don't you think that part of the reason why this thing is bombing at the box office is the fact that word of mouth has everyone telling friends and family to stay away from this one? That particular scene has to be a big part of that word of mouth (that and the fact that every plot turn is dumber then dirt). The conclusion remains steadily stupid as the villain pauses to deliver an Austin Powers-like diatribe instead of killing the helpless people who he has finally captured. I know several people have mentioned the closing scenes that take place in the woods of Detroit city (>snicker<) but why did Ethan's character just wander off in to the woods in the first place? He doesn't even look to see if the SUV with the secretary and his friend gets away? They just cut to him prowling slowly in the woods, pistol in hand. GACK. I could go on but won't. All I can say is that you want to avoid this stupidity at all cost.
| 0 |
negative
|
Really? Is this necessary? How can somebody make such a film? Disgusting!!! Seteven Seagal with funny hair and fat like an elephant. Stunts all the time, cars persecutions with an annoying soundtrack. Not to mention the Ending. Completely nonsense with the presence of the little girl.<br /><br />Steven Seagal wants to be Robin Hood!!! Well, at the beginning a fortune teller answers something, nobody has asked. Seagal's wife has nightmares and she can see the future. They must be kidding. Steven Segal passes out after a car persecution, and I know he can't act. It was terrible. Nothing can save that film.<br /><br />I lost 90 minutes of my life! See you
| 0 |
negative
|
What i hate most in this garbage is the arrogant attitude of the film makers and network execs who foist this nonsense on the public because they really think the audience is so stupid, so undeserving, so tasteless as to deserve these kind of cons. There is an inherent entertainment is seeing disaster movies and with the magic of today's CGI effects artists are given powerful tools to explore what before was denied them. With that allure we sat down to watch some mayhem and destruction. Well, guess what, the only mayhem we saw was in the ads touting next Wednesday's episode. What a let down! But wait, there was even a bigger one. The script itself was the bigger disaster! And then there was the direction and the flaccid acting by everyone involved in this turkey. But we knew this before right?! We knew that effects alone do not an entertainment make, but yet the network bozos who Okayed this TV movie didn't care about that because in their mantra is the everlasting line "never underestimate how stupid the audience are". These guys must actually live by this motto, and I am so fed up of it. No wonder the audience has abandoned US drama in droves and pitched their camp in reality shows. at least in those programs no one is trying to make it look like anything different from what it is: intellectual pornography. Well, Category 6 is worse than that because it assumes to be different and "original". Yes this was a disaster movie alright but the disasters are not what they advertised!
| 0 |
negative
|
This movie was amazing!!!! From beginning to end, the movie is packed with fun, laughs, music, enjoyable rock music, hot chicks, more music, action, drama, and the f-bomb.<br /><br />Although some scenes are entirely bizarre and unfitting, they were fun to watch and enjoyable. All in all this movie left you feeling great and happy. Especially those that love rock music.<br /><br />The soundtrack is great, the laughs are plentiful, and the storyline is simple, entertaining, yet complex. You have to see this movie if you love rock music!<br /><br />Overall Vote: 10 out of 10!
| 1 |
positive
|
What an absolute joke of a movie. The case for this film would have you believe it is Duel meets Jeepers Creepers meets Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Three good films in their own right and you would think, using their blueprint, MM couldn't go far wrong. Well that's what I thought, and I was very, very mistaken! <br /><br />We follow two college students as they travel miles across the desert to reach a wedding. They pick up a girl (no she doesn't get her clothes off), then they get chased by a Leatherface rip-off in a Monster Truck, whom they aptly name F**kface (AKA Monster Man).<br /><br />The Monster Truck I will admit is a very cool vehicle, but the less than suspenseful chase scenes ruin it's potential.<br /><br />So MM decides he's got a bit of a grudge against these guys and chases them for a bit, they loose him for a while and stop at a bar full of amputees, then they go to a motel where lead character Adam sleeps with hitch-hiker Sarah (though they both wear underwear!). Then they are caught by MM, taken to his home where they escape death and try to kill MM, but fail, hence the set-up for the sequel. Apart from a minor 'twist', that's it.<br /><br />If you can get past the first 2 minutes where Adam's friend Harley pops up from hiding in the back of Adam's car to try to scare him, with no explanation as to how Harley even got there, how long ago or how Adam even failed to realise without thinking you hate it already, then you may just enjoy this film.<br /><br />Monster Man has very poor cinematography and direction which is immediately off-putting. This is the kind of movie that you'll be able to pick up as one of those films in a box set of 20 horror movies that you've never heard of.<br /><br />What is so irritating is Blockbuster stock so many of these poor quality films that are shot on digital by some amateur film students, and that's exactly what MM is (though IMDb states this particular director was born in 1961).<br /><br />The acting throughout this film is atrocious. The script, which the writer obviously considered to be funny, is irritating and childish. You get the impression only one draft was written before they started shooting. In fact, the script is do dire a lot of the film seems improvised, full of those boring, un-entertaining conversations that are only funny or important to the actual people involved. Imagine you filmed yourself and your buddies having a conversation, sure, points are funny TO YOU, but mostly it's trash. That's what the script for MM is like.<br /><br />Don't watch it for the gore either it's fairly minimal and there are much better gory films out there (Bad Taste, Evil Dead et al
) <br /><br />Jeepers Creepers 1 & 2, even with their cheesiness and plot holes, are far superior to this film. Compare the intro of Jeepers Creepers to the intro of Monster Man and you'll see what I mean.
| 0 |
negative
|
Avoid this movie. If you are expecting "The Poseidon Adventure" (1972), you may experience nothing more than a case of the 'bends'. This film offers nothing more than two extremely-long, and drawn-out, hours of complete boredom.<br /><br />The cast members act as if they are angered by the irritation of a bathtub of water overflowing on a bed of an insignificant's petunias. The script is totally unrealistic, and the film does not even have the feel of a disaster movie. In fact, everything about this movie is bad, with the exception of Tom Courtenay. It is unfortunate that such a fine actor got swept away, by a flood of misrepresentation, to appear in such a washout. When this movie was being made, the Poseidon must have turned over, in its watery grave, in a sea of shame. And, Shelley Winters will rise again, from the dead (direct from the Poseidon), to haunt anyone who dares to see this pathetic movie. I rate this film a 1 out of 10, but it really deserves a zero. This movie will make you want to avoid, or completely turn against, water. And, it will leave a bad taste in your mouth. It may even make you want to see "Jaws" (1975), and befriend a great white.
| 0 |
negative
|
I was enticed into watching Shark Hunter by the comments posted on IMDB. The movie was bad but the shark was cool blah blah blah. So I rented it. Bad idea. This movie was bad on so many levels that I'm glad that I had the option to fast forward. The shark itself is ok. It's appearance is decent and it is the only thing saving this movie from getting a 1, (I gave it a 2). The acting is incredibly bad and the dialogue is just as deplorable. I wasn't expecting much but I was continually surprised by this suckfest. Antonio Sabato Jr. is some kind of biologist or scientist or something, I wasn't really paying attention. He goes down with the expendable crew of this submarine to find out what happened to this underwater station that the shark took out of course. By the way, all the scenes that show someone working underwater are not underwater. First of all, if they are just going down to find out what happened to this station, what's with all the huge tranquilizer darts and the harpoons and stuff. Are these things that you normally carry with you when investigating a accident. The shark theory was advanced by Antonio while on the way so it not like they went in knowing what they were up against. Antonio and this young college student, horrible actress by the way, just jump to the controls of the sub when the sub is in trouble. What is with that? Unless everyone is getting some kind of sub training before leaving high school I find this a little silly. The director seems to think that if crew members are working in the background then it is a good idea to put someone welding in the background. Metal crafting is very important when your on a sub I guess. Anyway I could go on but I've said too much already. Bottom Line: Go to your local video store, rent this video and then destroy it. Then send email asking IMDB to remove all record of this movie from their site. All memory and evidence of this movie must be destroyed. We can do it if we work together.
| 0 |
negative
|
Corey Haim plays a kid who teams up with a dog to take out a giant troll and OSA hit-man (Michael Ironside) with a 30/30 and homemade bombs (Which plays plausible considering Haim) Oh and he also protects his mother and girlfriend as well in this watchable yet disappointing adaption of a decent story. Corey Haim is terrible, of course but the movie's sheer momentum as well as Ironside's imposing presence make this at least a modestly effective film. Still the plot is ridiculous and it would've been nicer if we could've seen a monster or at least more gore. At least it's something different. Also it's fairly likely that this film will be the last teen movie for awhile to show a teenager making pipe bombs.<br /><br />Matt Bronson 2/5
| 0 |
negative
|
What a surprise. A basic copycat of the comedy classic 'The Nutty Professor' only naughtier. Funny guy Tim Thomerson (who steals the show as Blinkin in Robin Hood-Men In Tights) is downright hilarious as the anal retentive Dr. Jekyll and the sex crazed Hyde. <br /><br />The one scene that is really funny is when Dr. Lanyon (Mark Blankfield) catches Jekyll in bed with his daughter and says: <br /><br />"how dare you take advantage of my innocent daughter."<br /><br /> Jekyll replies, "but sir, I'm going ahead with the operation."<br /><br />Lanyon replies back, "oh. Well in that case fu** your brains out!!!"
| 1 |
positive
|
I first saw this film in Austria when it first came out, and I was entranced by it. It is a passionate and deeply moving work that should be experienced by all connoisseurs of motion picture art. What a shame that it has never been released in DVD format. Perhaps one of these days that will be rectified, as it would be a shame indeed if one of the best films ever made was forgotten and left to fade away in some film vault forever.<br /><br />Why is it that 'B' movies like 'American Wedding' and 'Eurotrip' get widescreen and fullscreen releases, and often a special edition with multiple commentaries and extras, while great art pieces like 'The Dead' are all but forgotten?
| 1 |
positive
|
The film, Heaven's Gate, was a good view, although still tedious at over 4 hours. But the film took great license - as usual with Hollywood. James Averill (Chris Christopherson), and "Elle" were actually married in real life. Their main contribution to the Johnson County war, was to start it by being hanged. Well, by starting it, I mean it came at the beginning, not the end. Here's the real scenario: James Averill and Ellen Watson were secretly married because one homestead could be given to each family. By filing as single individuals, they could get two homesteads. They chose homesites on Crazy Woman Creek actually controlling the water above the land held by a powerful member of the Cattleman's Association. He offered to buy them out repeatedly, which they refused.<br /><br />Although characterized in real life as the owner of a brothel (Cattle Kate), and a prostitute herself (and also in the film), there is no real evidence that was true. It is known that she bought many head of sick cattle, nursed them back to life, and was later accused by the Cattleman's Association of receiving the cattle in trade for "lewd acts'. In the end, she was accused of rustling - an act almost certainly untrue. So much for this part of the myth of the "American West", which is a gooble-de-gook of myths spanning a time period of about one hundred years.<br /><br />In real life, she and Jim Averill were surprised one day by several members of the Cattleman's Association, taken in hand, and promptly hanged. Those perpetrating the injustice were never brought to trial. But that was the first link that led to the murder of Nate Champion, and the start of the Johnson County war.<br /><br />Quite different from the Hollywood version which shows her shot at the end. <br /><br />Other than that, I think the main problem with the film was the editor, who could have made the action a faster pace by more skillful editing.
| 0 |
negative
|
OK I watched this movie. Someone needs to kick me. WHY must the Olsen twins insist on subjecting the world to this putrid torture? This was another movie of watching the Olsen twins travel to an exotic location, meet some cute guys,look pretty and have everyone drooling over them.the direction,the plot development,ugh the acting. i don't know about the U.S., but in my country it is considered extremely stupid to hop onto the bike of a guy u met like,10 minutes back. though i'm now convinced that these girls will never learn to act, i really hope that one day we'll get to watch a movie with an original,even slightly plausible plot.
| 0 |
negative
|
This is not the kind of movie that really merits critical attention. It's not going to win any Oscars - it's really not a very good movie at all. Heck, it's not even really a movie - just a string of short disgusting, gross-out skits strung together in an effort to make entertainment. And as much as every critical bone in my body cries out to give this movie a failing score, gosh darn it, I'm going to give it a much better score. The kind of people who are going to enjoy this movie are not the kind of people who really care what critics have to say, so I'm not going to give some snobby critique of Jackass's quality of surreal existentialism that permeates and commentates on how our society....oh forget it.<br /><br />What's to say? There's no plot development, no character development - no real beginning - there's a semi-enjoyable end that's not nearly as funny as the skit that precedes it, and everything in between reeks of improper, bathroom humor that junior high kids laugh at. It's actually pretty funny.<br /><br />Leave at the door all your preconceptions of a good movie. Jackass: Number Two is just gross-out crap. That's really all it is. I do give the filmmakers this, though: they come up with some pretty imaginative stuff. You'll probably cringe several times throughout, want to throw up a couple times, wiggle and shift uncomfortably as the people on screen do death and vomit-defying stunts. Vomit, crap, urine, semen....virtually every bodily fluid can be seen in Jackass: Number Two. There's nudity, sexual humor abounds, and so on and so forth.<br /><br />It's entertaining. If you're the kind of person who finds this stuff enjoyable, then you will probably really like Jackass: Number Two. I laughed several times. Like I said, it's pretty imaginative stuff. I never once wanted to vomit - though I do have a pretty strong stomach. Just accept the movie's premise: a bunch of idiotic guys do weird crap for fun. Once you get past that, accepting it and going with it, you'll enjoy it. The only flaw in the movie is the sheer excess of all the weird and disgusting stuff. There are several very imaginative, very disturbing skits, but it drags in many places as they do ones that are less interesting. Towards the end things pick up, but in the middle of the movie the drag hurts the overall film's quality. In a half hour TV show this isn't a problem, but with film length celluloid, it's inevitable that boredom will ensue at some point. After awhile the gross crap just becomes desensitizing.<br /><br />On the whole, though, Number Two is an entertaining, imaginative, and above all, disgusting comedy that will leave you with a feeling of pain, nausea, and hilarity. Go see it if you must, but hey, if you know you don't like this kind of stuff, don't bother. You'll just be disappointed.
| 1 |
positive
|
Not to be confused with Michael Ritchie's nasty 1975 beauty pageant spoof, this "Smile" is a down-turned example of those good intentions paving the road to hell.<br /><br />The film parallels two stories: an impoverished Chinese father sacrifices his wife and son to raise a facially-deformed orphan named Ling (Yi Ding), and a TV-spawned Malibu family act out "Gidget Get Birth Control." Katie (Mika Booram, the third Olsen twin) plays a spoiled, self-absorbed high schooler distanced from reality. Her teacher (Sean Astin) paves the way for a school trip to China aimed at showing students how to work with deformed children.<br /><br />The film uses deformity as a means of suspense by treating Ling like the Frankenstein monster. Kramer continually masks her deformity through hats, hoods and camera placement. This approach exploits the freak show quality inherent in the material. She may be uncomfortable with the way society views her and Kramer's answer is to cover her up until the big reveal. Why disturb your audience with such unpleasantness? We see her face briefly at the end and only minutes before closing-credit snapshots of her after surgery disclose a swan beneath the harelip. It is not good enough to give the girl a reason to live; what is imperative is Ling being equally as hot and popular as Katie.<br /><br />Funding for the film came from a trust established by the late Roy Rogers and Dale Evans. They envisioned a heritage of quality family films. Give me "Son of Paleface" any day.
| 0 |
negative
|
This movie may bear some historical importance, and it sure seems astonishing how well the facts are together, the setting, the rocket, the space suits, the surface of the moon, all scream "a classic" - but in the end, the result makes a pretty dull movie for todays eyes, and the 50ies tech scenes you might hope for in a movie like this are by far not enough to reward sitting through all the tacky dialog and predictable plot developments. The characters and plot may reward a scientific sociological analysis, but bear too little entertainment value many times.<br /><br />Much of this movie seems like a good movie for nine-year-olds. The mature themes, the human drama and the violence are kept to a level suitale for children as well.<br /><br />The images of the earth and the moon seen from space may actually be more accurate than the ones in "2001", but so what if their use is dramatically inefficient. Especially 2001 may seem like a stretched out meditation over themes of this movie, and, has Star Wars not somehow modelled it's space-scrolling opening titles on the opening titles of this Film? But then again - the inheritance is marginal.<br /><br />If its a real groundbreaking and mega-influential mature 1950ies Sci-Fi classic you are looking for however, check out "Forbidden Planet".
| 0 |
negative
|
I've already commented on this film (under the name TheLegendaryWD). But I see there are others who have commented since. All I can say is: WHAT THE F**K!?". I cannot believe that a whole 16 people have commented on this film or even seen this movie. Add to that the fact that a couple give it great reviews (probably the makers of the film who went to one of those places in a strip mall that provide internet service and wrote a good review - seeing as how there is no way they could or would pay for their own internet provider... just look at their movie). Although I still admit I got a soft spot for this movie. I thought that some of the other people writing about this one might have it confused with another... until I read the reviews... especially the person who identified the tag line on the front of the box: "The Ultimate in Frontal Lobotomy" (what the f**k is that supposed to mean anyway? "frontal" lobotomy?)... I totally forgot about that until I read it in the review. People, we are a select few... I say we meet once a year to view this film... wait, does anyone still have it? If anyone does have it please contact me... I'm dyin' to get drunk.
| 0 |
negative
|
The most stupid of Seagal's movies I've ever seen. The final scene is just crescendo of stupidity. My recommendation - if you really like Steeve Seagal's movies, NEVER , NEVER rent or buy this one - do not repeat my mistake and keep a good impression of him, which I've lost
| 0 |
negative
|
I first seen this movie like a year and a half ago and I loved it, I decided to get the DVD last year for my birthday.. It has the right amount of suspense, action and drama.. This movie is about prep school called The Regis School and its packed with rebellious kids, in which one kid William Tepper (Sean Astin) has a hard time adjusting due to prior rejections from other schools cause they couldn't control his rebellious act and now at The Regis School committing more acts of a rebellion there school gets taken over by terrorists on a random day and which the real reason is because the leader Luis Cali's (Andrew Divoff) father has been sent to prison,and the leader will do anything including killing the students, setting bombs and so forth in order to get his father back.<br /><br />Along side William Tepper, is his rebellious friends at the Regis School, one in particular is Joey Trotta (Wil Wheaton) in which this guy holds a troubled past of living in a Mafia family and being sent to The Regis School because of hating his father for who he is and which now he must deal with these terrorists taking over the school, so William, Joey and there friends must band together to stop these terrorists from violent acts and hazardous tactics.<br /><br />This movie was really awesome and I believe people should notice it more because when people think of a good hostage movie they would say "Die Hard" and even though I would have to agree with them, they need to recognize that Toy Soldiers was a good thriller, it sure had my heart beating because the students are my age and I would be scared to confront terrorists like these if they took over our school ... But overall this movie is really worth a good 112 minutes of your time and If I had a decision to rent or buy it... I WOULD BUY IT! I recommend it with a lot of hype! 8/10
| 1 |
positive
|
Blade is a dark, gloomy, but significent vampire movie and is one of the best ones. A bit of gore, but nothing really that bad. Wesley snipes played a strong role as he eliminates the vampires. Not really like buffy, because thats too tame but Blade delivers a decent plot and it's the kind of movie that you would probably like to watch on a dark stormy night....thats at best viewing!<br /><br />87%
| 1 |
positive
|
FOUR FRIENDS was first billed on HBO in 82 as a sleeper hit. Having heard the term 'sleeper' when 14, back then - I was anxious to see one. (!) Boy - was I surprised! That film! I hadn't really fallen in love with a non-special effects film outside of TREASURE OF THE SIERRA MADRE - much less a 'hippy flick'...but having had grown up with a couple of hippies - I understood the power behind Mr. Penn's film. FOUR FRIENDS is definitely one of a kind. The script is so personable - and that cast!!! Craig Wasson defines Danilo Prozor SO well! He just personifies the 'writer type' to a tee - both smart and clumsy (the scene at the window...) and strong yet so very vulnerable. For me - he captures what it's like to be so taken with agirl that it lasts over a decade...and I have always found solace in the character - and in the film. Throughout the 80's FOUR FRIENDS was a partner in crime to me - and I caught the movie whenever I could on HBO - even if I had to stay up until 5AM! And still, always at the end - there is a sense of loss when all those wonderful characters part from the viewers on the beach. Jodi Thelen personifies "that girl" to the hilt - it is so hard not to be charmed by her. This movie really stands the test of time. Every once and a while I check out my video of it...or show a friend...and it STILL gets a solid reaction. I've known women who absolutely fall in love with Georgia! So many levels..! Just an incredible little 60's piece of humanity. Very special, very magical. I recently found THE NOVELIZATION of FOUR FRIENDS by Robert Grossbach - and it's even more detailed that the movie! Actual dates of events, etc. A real find! And what's more - haha - I found the novel while thumbing around in a used book store...in Omaha, NE of ALL places!!! Guess you have to have an eye for her! When I was in L.A. in 92 working as an extra - I went into a ruddy lil memorbilia shop - and there were a TON of stills from the film!!! Unfortunately - I was broke and couldn't indulge...but boy, those photos of Georgia and the guys all together just went right through me! I met director Joe Sergant on the set of SKYLARK in Emporia, KS in summer of 92...and we spoke about FOUR FRIENDS - very cool! Also...working at a video store in Omaha in 98 - waited on a female who was a relative of Jim Metzler..! Told her to pass the word on that there was some kid in Omaha who was just fanatical about the film - and had gotten the utmost out of it. Once again - the movie captures everything that's in Danilo's character's heart...great, great work --- one of mssrs Tesich and Penn's finest efforts. Steve Tesich is sorely missed. An incredible writer. "Isadora Duncan!!!"<br /><br />- C.
| 1 |
positive
|
I love the book. It's full of passion, romance, tension... and the movie drags along taking two spunky stars with it. Kylie Minogue was already a major star in Australia, having starred in Neighbours and releasing her first single. The decision to cast her in The Delinquents was surely a marketing ploy. For me, it didn't pay off.<br /><br />Kylie may have been great in Neighbours, but she was far too sweet and innocent to play the feisty Lola... and, she wasn't of Asian descent as Lola was. Charlie Schlatter was an excellent Brownie, but there was no chemistry between him and Kylie.<br /><br />By and large, the movie was boring. It dragged on, it lacked the passion of the book, it focused heavily on Kylie and in general, was completely disappointing.
| 0 |
negative
|
I suffered the watching of this movie at Sitges Festival last month. If there would be a possibility of "unfilm" a movie to avoid its existence, this should be the first in the list. María Lidón isn't a director, she is just a dumb woman that pretends that holding a camera with the hand and shout "action" makes her a professional film maker. What a mistake! The movie itself is pointless and a total waste of good actors that could be doing something better in another project. Val Kilmer does nothing but place his face in front of the camera. His character don't have specific weight in the movie. The same thing can tell about Joss Ackland, Vincent Gallo or Joaquim De Almeida. It's a shame the way Rade Serbedzija's character has been written. WARNING SPOILERS<br /><br />He spends most of the time alone in the tunnels talking with himself in the way (now I'm doing this, now I'm low of bats, I'll search in my bag, now I'm turning left, now I'm turning right...) only to bring the audience a clear idea about his actions. It's simply nonsense and proves the lack of talent of the director. END OF SPOILERS<br /><br />The usual joke about this piece of garbage among the audience was that the title of the movie itself brought the clue about the rating everyone should give it: ZERO
| 0 |
negative
|
I consider myself lucky that I got to view a wonderful movie with two marvelous actors. "Kramer vs. Kramer" was great to me because I think I could relate to it.<br /><br />Unfortunately, my parents are divorced. Even though I was older than Billy in this movie, I felt his pain and confusion. Having two parents who you thought were happy and end up hating each other is the worst. Through this movie, actually, I think it made me realize that my parents are people too, and they had as just much pain as my sister and I had.<br /><br />Back to the movie, this was a good one. Yes, it's dated and Meryl and Dustin are very young. But I would recommend this for a lot of people, because I think most can relate in some way. There are funny, sad, happy, and relieving moments that are carried away terrificly by these great actors. It's a good movie and deserves more credit than a 7.5.<br /><br />9/10
| 1 |
positive
|
Now any Blaxploiation fan will recognise the ingredients: big Afros, topless babes, surreally bad fashions and some 'jive' talk. In this case add in a lead who can't act, a plot that makes little sense, editing by someone with no hands who has been blindfolded and the most god-awful fight scenes and you have 'TNT Jackson'. Not quite bad enough to be good, but not good enough to be bad, this is a wonderful mess from start to finish. I especially loved the endless continuity errors and the lead's white stunt double.<br /><br />This is so '70s bad Far Eastern martial arts meets black power that it hurts, but boy it hurts so good! I am ashamed to admit that I almost enjoyed it.
| 0 |
negative
|
Seven Ups has been compared to Bullitt for the chase scene, but does not come anywhere near matching Bullitt. Bullitt has a beginning that builds builds builds. When McQueen leaves the seedy hotel, gets into his Mustang, which is parked under the Embarcadero Freeway (now torn down) and notices the Charger sitting nearbye, you know you are about to see something spectacular. From that moment on, when McQueen starts that car, begins the best car chase sequence ever filmed. Adding to it is a terrific Lalo Schriffin If I remember correctly sound track. This goes on for a long time before you actually hear the first tires squealing. That shot of McQueen's Mustang suddenly appearing in Bill Hickman's rear view mirror is unmatched for visual impact. Hickman's look of surprise and double take really adds to the effect. Then of course, San Francisco is unmatched for the setting of cars racing up and down hills and around bends. Also, Bullitt being filmed in the 60s when cars were still "Hot" (Mustang GT and Dodge Charger) made for a better set of wheels then two boring, smog device laden Pontiacs in the 1970s Seven Ups. Bill Hickman was the driver of the bad guy car in both movies. I saw him sitting at an insider movie preview once on the Univeral lot when I was doing movie reviews for a paper. They gave it a good try in Seven Ups though with the chase scene. Seven ups had a few "jumps" over little hills, (Yawn) but of course they were not San Francisco hills. The Seven Ups chase, where they are actually going fast, is longer than the go fast sequence in Bullitt. But the scene of a single shotgun blast totally blowing the hood OFF of Roy Schieders Pontiac is the height of absurdity. Strictly Hollywood, I would say, except that it was filmed in New York.
| 1 |
positive
|
It's possible to have a good time with this film while, at the same time, regretting all that it isn't. In the 1980s, a raffish U.S. congressman (Tom Hanks) engineers support for Afghan partisans resisting the Soviet Union.<br /><br />Hanks is in breezy, hail-fellow-well-met form as roguish, politically incorrect Charlie Wilson, first glimpsed sharing a hot tub with three deeply available looking women. If only the film had the same air of insouciance; but apart from Philip Seymour Hoffman's turn as a cynical CIA agent, it tries to be perceived as patriotic too. Aaron Sorkin's trademark staccato dialogue serves its purpose, but the story is no more plausible than one of Wilson's tall tales. And there's an oddly unspoken subtext: Wilson's Afghan pals later mutated into the Taliban and other anti-western groups, leaving the world worse off than it was when these events occurred.
| 1 |
positive
|
I'm generally not a fan of high school comedies, they rely heavily on humor in bad taste and rarely stray far from clichéd story lines and characters and downright dull dialog. However, I've had my share of guilty pleasures, particularly when I was still in high school myself. Seeing the oh-so-recognizable teacher figures get their butts kicked always cheered me up and an occasional laugh could also be the case. These movies only work if at least one of the characters is an instantly likable one, this was not the case in 'Cheats', especially not the protagonist. Of course, it didn't help that the actor in play was one of the most irritating, no-talent, arrogant kids I've ever seen in a comedy.<br /><br />To act in a comedy is no joke, it's hard to be funny: the delivery has to be just right or the material goes to waste. In this case there wasn't much good stuff to begin with and the jokes that were half-funny were screwed up professionally by the cast.<br /><br />This movie felt 3 hours long, the director never heard of pacing obviously. Stay away from this one, there are many other enjoyable teen comedies out there such as 10 Things I Hate About You, Who's Your Daddy and Superbad.
| 0 |
negative
|
Bring Back The A-team was a hour- long special screened on Channel 4 in the UK of last year and hosted by presenter and comedian Justin Lee Collins, the show attempted to track down and reunite the fellow cast members of the A-Team together, for the first time ever on TV. This has been something which has never been attempted before by anyone. Well, not by anyone that I know of, that is.<br /><br />Justin makes a great presenter, and his eccentric personality and humorous banter shone throughout this programme. The attempts he makes in getting hold of the cast members is ever so funny, but also he was very persistent and eager to fulfil this task too, which is a credit to him i'd say. Mind you, he is great on TV anyway- be it by presenting a show such as this, or the Friday Night Project with his co-host, Alan Carr.<br /><br />There were appearances and interviews with Dirk Benedict- the Faceman himself, Dwight Schultz- aka Howling Mad Murdock, Marla Heasley who played Tawnia Baker, Jack Ging aka General 'Bull' Full Bright, the creator of the A-team, Stephen J Cannell and the big man himself, Mr T aka BA Baracus. They were just fascinating to watch and hear what they had to say about the programme that became a global hit during the 80s, as they reminisce and relive the good and bad moments of the show: both during and behind the scenes. Unfortunately, no George Peppard but of course he is already in heaven, understandably and strangely enough no Melinda, who played Amy.<br /><br />I just didn't understand why she wasn't featured in the show. Okay, she was axed after 3 seasons or whatever, but she was the first and original female member of the A-Team- only to be replaced Marla's Tawnia and so it would've been great to see and hear her side to the A-team story, in addition to the other cast members.<br /><br />All in all, Bring Back The A-Team was a great documentary style of show. Perhaps, this could've been spread out more by means of which this could've been a six-part documentary. But nonetheless, this was a great effort on the part of JLC. Recommended
| 1 |
positive
|
The trailer to this film focused so much on the chain (of course, because it's so sensational) that it missed most of the movie, which is about a developing, although rather simply drawn, relationship between Lazarus and Rae as they attempt to recover from their past pains with each other.<br /><br />Of course, with the premise of a nymphomaniac in chains, it's no surprise that there's plenty of implied sex involved. However, at it's core, Black Snake Moan is a basic tale of redemption and the healing power of helping another person along. Maybe it's just me though, but I think poor Lazarus should've had his story focused on more. He's a hurting man after his wife leaves him, but we never fully see how helping Rae resolve her past pains heals him too. It's just implied that it does--in essence, he plays the wizard that helps the young Rae overcome her curse, through a big ol' chain and some blues.<br /><br />I like the story, but I wish it were a bit more even and didn't have to rely on the sensational. The side characters were fairly decent, if simple and I liked the music. The acting was good enough, although I can't be certain if the Rae character is fully believable. But that might just be my naivety.<br /><br />All in all, I liked the film, but I wasn't compelled by it. Maybe it's that I'm too critical, but the story seems a little too convenient to be fully believable and so, while it all seemed very cool, I could never truly buy it. The chain thing was a little too far-fetched for me. Still, this can provide some entertainment for those looking for dramatic redemption stories with a shot of the blues. 7/10
| 1 |
positive
|
When I first saw this show, I was 9, and it caught my attention right away when Stewie was trying to call Lois on the phone in the hotel. I laughed and kept on watching. When the episode was finished, i wrote down the name of the cartoon and watched it regularly. This separates itself from the Simpsons and other shows on say, Cartoon Network because the jokes are more mature, not too much, but it's TV-14 for a reason. The quick film cuts after each punch line and cute, funny movements and behavior of the characters make it special. Talented Seth Macfarlene is the creator and the voice of quite a lot of characters in the show. A good theme song, and a crazy family that there's always something funny, makes this my favorite cartoon along Sealab 2021 and Aqua Teen Hunger Force. Check it out it's funny stuff.
| 1 |
positive
|
About five years ago, my friend and I went to the video rental store to get something to watch. My friend saw Space Truckers on the shelf, and so we got it. Once we got home and started watching it, we realized what an absolute piece of crap it was! A beer can floating in space? A guy taking a dump in a toilet? A guy with a mechanical dick who tries to arouse a women by saying, "Whizz, whizz!"? WTF!!! The dumbest, stupidest, most retarded, horribly throne together piece of trash my eyes have ever been exposed to. My friend and I still refer to it as THE worst movie we have ever seen. Only one other movie has come close to its crappiness (and that would be the stupid Jackie Chan flick, "The Medalion"). If you eyes ever see this piece of junk on the shelf at your video store, proceed to do the following: 1. Take it off the shelf and throw it to the ground. 2. Stomp on it for at least 30 seconds. 3. Proceed to set it on fire in a contained facility (bathroom stall). 4. Lastly, take it to your local hazardous waste management facility immediately so that it may be properly dealt with.<br /><br />STAY AWAY FROM "SPACE TRUCKERS"!!!!!!!!
| 0 |
negative
|
The most obvious flaw...horrible, horrible script. This movie had a potentially good story, but it was ruined with bad dialogue, continuity problems, things that were never explained, gaping plotholes, sub-plots that went nowhere, and just plain stupidity. Not to mention the awful, cliched directing of Sandra Locke. Not even two great performances could've saved this movie. So it didn't matter that Devon Gummersall and Rosanna Arquette give horrific performances. The thing is, they're better actors than this movie would have you believe. The best of the Arquettes, Rosanna Arquette (Silverado, After Hours, Desperately Seeking Susan) has some fine moments - like a great scene in the beginning when she painfully pulls her handcuffs off - but gives an overall weak performance, by her standards. And Devon Gummersall (Dick, When Trumpets Fade, and the brilliant My So-Called Life) is much worse, acting with no conviction or emotion what-so-ever. But I won't lay blame on the actors, who have been good in other roles. The script is awful, and the bad direction doesn't help. Do me a favor...avoid this movie.
| 0 |
negative
|
Yes, why? Among the filmmakers that came out in the 80's and 90's Gus Van Sant is one of my idols. There are others, a few. Steven Sodebergh, PT Anderson, Tim Hunter, Danny Boyle, Martin Donovan, Harmony Korine, Wes Anderson. Idiosyncratic, infuriating some times, but consistent, surprising, unpredictable. Their names make me switch on the TV, go to a video store or even buy a ticket and go to a movie theater. Van Sant's "Psycho" however, gives me pause. Why? I wonder. A shot by shot massacre of one of the perennial classics. The color was jarring, the performances, atrocious. What was Vince Vaughn doing? Was it a parody? A bad joke? What the hell was it? Anne Heche as Janet Leigh? Who dressed her? Viggo Mortensen with a cowboy hat. Viggo is a superb actor but in this case he couldn't make us forget John Gavin and if Julianne Moore had been introduced to the world through this performance there wouldn't have been any "The Hours" for her, "The Minutes" maybe. So, here I am, bad mouthing the work of one of my idols. The crashing question remains: Why, Mr. Van Sant? Maybe, in the words of President Clinton, because he could. I'm afraid that's no excuse.
| 0 |
negative
|
(Some Spoilers) Early 1930's educational movie about the horrors of contracting a social disease and the consequences that come along with it: blindness madness loss of ones abilities to function as well as infecting other people with it, even one's unborn children, and finally death. "Damaged Lives" is far ahead of it's times in educating it's viewers about the dangers Venereal Deasise. viewed now over 70 years after it's release back in 1933 is as good, if not better, then the many films about that subject made back in the 1940's 1950's and even 1960's.<br /><br />Donald Bradley, Lyman Williams, is a top executive of a major shipping company who's been going study with his girlfriend Joan, Diane Sinclair, for some time. both are finally planing to get married and raise a family. Out at a party one evening Donald meets Elsie Cooper, Charlotte Merriam, and together they have one drink too many and before you know it end up spending the night together in Elsie's home. <br /><br />Thinking nothing of his one night stand with Elsie Donald later marries his long time love Joan and they both plan to have a child, or so they thought. At the office Donald get a panicked call from Elsie telling him to come over to her place right away about something very important. Rushing over Donald finds out, to his horror, that Elsie has a sexual infection that she got from her boyfriend Nat, Harry Myers, and that she may have given it to Donald, and he in turn may have infected his wife Joan. Telling Elsie that she's wrong about him being infected and that she should seek medical attention Elsie shoots herself as Donald is just about to leave. <br /><br />Getting over Elsie's tragic death Donald gets another surprise later when his doctor Dr. Bill Hill, Jason Robards Sr, comes over to his office telling him to immediately come with him to the hospital to talk to Infectious Disease Specialist Dr. Vincent Leonard, Murray Kinnell, about his wife Joan who's just been admitted there. The terrible truth about Donald and his wife Joan hits him like a bolt out of the blue and leaves him speechless, just like it did Joan earlier. Both have been infected and the infection is the dreaded and unspeakable,back in the 1930's, infection called Venereal Disease. <br /><br />Told by Dr. Leonard that it would take some two years of treatment for both Donald and Joan to be completely cured it leaves Joan in a state of dangerous suicidal thoughts. Later in the film Joan, feeling that she has nothing to live for, closes all the windows in her and Donald's apartment and turns on the gas stove, full blast, in order to kill herself and Donald who was asleep at the time. <br /><br />Honest film about the ravages of Venereal Disease and the damage that it does to those who are infected by it, both psychically as well as mentally, and how it could be cured if given immediate medical care instead of hiding it from one's doctor and keeping it hidden, for fear of shame and embarrassment, until it's too late.
| 1 |
positive
|
This is an unusual film because although it was made by Twentieth-Century Fox because it's one of the few pairings of Barbara Stanwyck and her future husband, Robert Taylor. Barbara Stanwyck had been making films for many different studios (RKO, Paramount and Selznick) at about the time she made THIS IS MY AFFAIR, but Taylor was an MGM contract player so he only appeared in this film because he was loaned to Fox--something studios occasionally did during this era.<br /><br />The film is interesting because many real-life people have roles in the film, though the piece is otherwise pure fiction. You'll see actors playing William McKinley, Teddy Roosevelt and Admiral Dewey. I can't recall any film with McKinley or Dewey in it as a character, though I do remember Roosevelt from THE WIND AND THE LION and a couple other films. Three cheers for seeing a "lesser President" in a film as a major character! <br /><br />The film begins with McKinley taking a young lieutenant (Robert Taylor) aside and asking him to be a special agent for him--and telling no one--not even the Secret Service. That's because the President fears that someone within the agency is tipping off a gang that has been making a long string of robberies--all based on inside information. So it's up to Taylor (who is NOT known for his manly roles--especially at this stage of his career) to pose as a thug and find the gang responsible AND the inside man.<br /><br />However, there are two serious complications. First, while he is able to find the gang members, one of the gang member's step-sister is Stanwyck. Taylor finds that he's fallen in love with her but he must also do his duty and turn them in to the authorities. Second, because McKinley is the only other person who knows the truth, SERIOUS problems develop when McKinley is assassinated and Taylor is on death row for the crimes!!! <br /><br />The film did a nice job of creating a story and placing it within a historical context. While today most people don't remember McKinley nor remember that he was assassinated, the film is set in this interesting time period. The acting is pretty decent, as the stars are supported by Victor McLaglen and Brian Donlevy, though I must admit that Donlevy's role was pretty tame and ordinary compared to many of his other film roles. Overall, it's very interesting, well written and not too sappy in the romance department. A good outing for all.
| 1 |
positive
|
"2001: A Space Odyssey" is set in 2001 and the main character is HAL. A computer. That's right, a computer who talks and thinks entirely on its own. This was made in 1968 and to think by 2001 it would be conceivable that computers would talk is a joke. If this was in 3064, a talking computer that had emotions and made its own decisions would be considered just as moronic as this. There is nothing in this film that provokes any kind of emotion. It provokes two reactions and one is called: sleep. It starts with nothing, but a pitch black shot for well over two minutes. Then, the first shot we see that has some kind of lighting is "The Dawn of Man" sequence. So, if it's in chronological order, the blackness prior to this, is the birth of the world? <br /><br />During "The Dawn of Man" sequence out of no where, a huge monolith comes from
out of the ground, from the sky, we'll never know where it comes from, but for one reason or another it's there. The monkeys go Apesh!t once they find this monolith that only man could have made, but that's the catch
man hasn't evolved yet. So, who made it and where did it come from? What is its purpose? The monkeys find a tool. The monkeys use bones to fight an opposing group of monkeys. The monkeys with the weapons are now the dominating group because they have used their mind to gain an advantage. The more advanced monkeys, and more importantly smarter and more innovative monkeys, are the dominate group as they have taken over the watering hole.<br /><br />We quickly jump into space, millions of years later, where we see a bunch of spaceships floating around to classical music. We can see the earth, the moon, the sun, the universe and for a film made in 1968 the visual effects are stunning, but outdated. The score is legendary. The cinematography is spectacular. The editing is atrocious. There are countless shots of boxy looking space ships floating in outer space for, what feels like, an infinite amount of time. Once we board the ship there isn't much to talk about. For the next hour Kubrick shows various shots of life in outer space. Kubrick shows us the life of an astronaut, which is very boring, and we completely get the message. The spaceships interior and exterior are bulky and outdated looking. Remember what the first cell phone looked like? Me neither, but that's what the future looks like in 2001. All the characters have clothes and hairdos that resemble 1968. The chairs are decorated in bright red colors and oddly shaped because we all know, in the future, we're going to be sitting in weird looking chairs. The computer screens are hideous looking and this is obviously prior to HDTV because the clarity is atrocious. All the TV sets look like they're from 1968, so it's not all that futuristic. Like all films set more than 20 years in advance, they look terrible and unconvincing. Just because this is Kubrick, we shouldn't say, "Well, that's how you would think it looks." No, I wouldn't. Just, like I wouldn't think a computer would be talking to me in the year 2047. It's not going to happen and if someone made a film right now, set 30 years in time and had a talking, self thinking computer, I would laugh at the stupidity of it. Just like I did with "2001". <br /><br />HAL is the liveliest person, shoot
I just called him a person. HAL is a computer, but he has more life than any of the muted characters in the film and he actually thinks he's alive. HAL is the only thing that's lively and he sees the humans as his maintenance men taking care of him while he does all the work. HAL "reads" the lips, of one of the very few conversations between Dave and Frank, and he "sees" that they are planning to turn him off. This is where the only dramatic part of the film enters- An ensuing battle between a red light and a guy in a spaceship trying to get into the bigger spaceship. Oh, the drama. Once HAL thinks he has the upper hand, Dave makes his way back into the spaceship, proving mans ingenuity. Dave proceeds to terminate HAL. HAL, pleads for his life as he slowly fades away, which, like everything else, seems to take forever.<br /><br />The final act is just as tedious as the first two. Once again, the monolith that the Apes found appears at the end. It comes out of nowhere, again. Then, an infant is born in a placenta-like shield overlooking the earth from space. What is Kubrick saying? Is it about transformation? Dave to an infant? Is man evolving again? Is Kubrick saying this is the end of man and the start of
whatever that alien looking thing is? Maybe I'm going crazy trying figure out what this crazy director is trying to say, but the more I think about the more the beginning and the ending make sense. There are so many questions left unanswered, especially for the purpose of the monolith. If you can make it through the film it should spark some thought. <br /><br />In the end the film struggles with getting to where it wants go. The first act and the third acts are strong, but the second act meanders around, hovering in one place for what seems like eternity. There is some intriguing stuff in the film that will provoke some thought if you give it a chance. Once the start of the film makes sense the ending works much better, even if you still don't what Kubrick is trying to say, which I don't.
| 1 |
positive
|
I love Umberto Lenzi's cop movies -- ROME ARMED TO THE TEETH is my favorite -- and his DESERT COMMANDOS pretty much legitimized the Italian Euro War phenomenon by managing to actually be a pretty good movie. Give him guns, machines, some guys to run around talking tough and it's hard for him to miss.<br /><br />What a shame it is then to encounter his EATEN ALIVE and CANNIBAL FEROX. They could have been by anybody, really, and one watches them with a sense that he was under contract, was told what kind of films to make, was assigned a cast & crew and given a budget, deadline and script. Lenzi then went out and executed his films the same way that a guy at McDonald's fixes a batch of French Fries. Of the two, EATEN ALIVE is the more original -- which is kind of amazing considering that it features extensive footage copped from three other cannibal movies -- and easier to enjoy than CANNIBAL FEROX, though not much.<br /><br />I will let others outline the plot: What fascinated me about the film is how staged it all looks, and yet what a somewhat infamous reputation this film has as some sort of all-out assault on good taste. It isn't, though the film is an exercise in bad taste, complete with a title-earning scene where two of the pretty supporting ladies are quite literally sliced up and eaten alive by cannibals which is the film's high point. The problem is that Lenzi lets us get a good, long look at the cannibal feast scene and it has the convincing ring of a 3rd season STAR TREK episode complete with a fake jungle set for the really gory close up shots. And I don't know about anyone else, but if someone was slicing off pieces of my person and eating them I wouldn't just lie there and look distressed.<br /><br />My problem with the film might be that I have a lot of respect for Lenzi as a filmmaker, and again this could have been directed by anybody. All of your cannibal movie conventions are touched on but it never feels like they are filmed with any real conviction, other than to try and bully Ruggero Deodato out of the sandbox. The two directors certainly must have known each other and either had a sort of juvenile rivalry or an actual dislike for each other's work and a conscious need to upstage them. Lenzi invented the cannibal genre with MAN FROM DEEP RIVER, Deodato blew it away with JUNGLE HOLOCAUST, Lenzi fired back with EATEN ALIVE, Deodato blew him (and everyone else) away with the superior CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST, and Lenzi fired a last parting salvo with CANNIBAL FEROX, which is about as realistic as that Krazy Glu commercial where the guy superglues his hardhat to a girder and hangs in midair.<br /><br />This film is less desperate and a bit more hesitant to push viewers into the abyss with everything holy than FEROX, which remains as a sort of misguided attempt to upstage CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST. This one is more of a mish-mash, with an interesting jungle adventure crossed with a Jim Jones like suicide cult -- the cannibals seem like they were added as an afterthought rather than the reason for making the film. I think that fans of the genre will have a better impression of the film than fans of Lenzi's films looking for something new by the formidable director. It isn't as entertaining as SLAVE OF THE CANNIBAL GOD, adventurous as his own MAN FROM DEEP RIVER and certainly lacks the wallop of CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST. Combine those considerations with the recycled footage, stomach churning scenes of animal violence, misogynistic scenes of sexual violence and stagy, wooden methodology of film-making and what you get ends up being an OK jungle thriller with two or three standout scenes, and Umberto Lenzi was capable of so much more.<br /><br />4/10; Gore freaks will go nuts however.
| 0 |
negative
|
This was one of the worst movies I have ever seen! The only advantage seeing this movie is that the next movie can't possibly be worse. It's childish as hell (but Children aren't allowed)
| 0 |
negative
|
Enjoyable film that gives you romance, women-on-the-verge psychodrama, work place sexual harassment, adultery, and fashion. It's all there. Typical characters found in corporate America. Joan Crawford is the usual long time employee bitch executive who feels the need to be such because she's with the big boys. Hope Lange is the entry level ambitious employee whose determined to get to the top by using her mind and not her body. Their personal lives is the subplot. <br /><br />Wardrobe for the film is great but someone forgot to tell Stephen Boyd's hairstylist that "a little dab will do ya!" The amount of Brylcream in Stephen Boyd's hair is distracting at times. His character's relationship with Lange's character was never fully developed which I found disappointing. Overall the movie is enjoyable. <br /><br />Rating: 8/10
| 1 |
positive
|
This is a crummy film, a pretender to a genre of surprise ending movies. And a genre that has been done so much better before. The plot limps along, with a predictable ending. (Yawn) The characters are unlikeable, and some are so unlikeable they are almost unwatchable. Matt Dillon, a fine, intense actor is totally miscast here and is stiff and mannered. The others are forgettable. Much of the dialog is sophomoric, again a pretender trying to be witty. I wouldn't hire the screenwriter to write my grocery list. Yes, it's that bad, veering from misogynistic to just plain gross, as in beyond frat-house gross. With so much real talent out there, I'm really surprised this movie ever got made. It shows the total lack of imagination of the office suits...
| 0 |
negative
|
Planet Earth has suffered a terrible environmental disaster so humanity now survives underground split in to different religious cults . What caused the catastrophe ? I have no idea ? why is humanity split in to different ecclesiastical factions ? I have no idea . Since the surface of the Earth can no longer support human life how are the humans able to grow crops in order to feed the population ? I have no idea . What sort of producer thought this screenplay deserved to receive funding ? I have no idea <br /><br />SHEPHERD is one of these films that creeps up late at night on cable channels . The sort of film where you consult the IMBb to see if it has any merits . The number of people who've commentated on SHEPHERD on this page hasn't yet reached double figures and this is a film that was released nine years ago . Perhaps the people who have never seen it are the lucky ones ? <br /><br />As for the rest of the plot it's very routine . Grumpy former cop Boris Dakota whose wife and child died several years previously meets a woman and her child and it's up to him to save their lives , almost like a futuristic western . Throw in a former wrestler who now runs the God channel , a fascist Christian bloke who's trying to snuff out Boris , a ventriloquist , some T&A for the sake of it and you've got a mess of a film . I guess after seeing this Neil Marshall's DOOMSDAY is possibly a masterwork of cinema in comparison
| 0 |
negative
|
I have had more boring stretches of 80 minutes in my life, but none are coming to mind right now. Hell Ride is based on the retro cult 70s theme that Tarantino brought back, and did right, in movies like Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs. The problem with Hell Ride is, unlike PF and RD, the story is garbage and so is character development. How many movies does Bishop think he can blatantly steal from? The brief case in Pulp Fiction, the air gun in No Country, etc. etc. Speaking of Bishop what the hell is he doing acting in this movie? I couldn't help but laugh at those scenes where he's standing with his pelvis trusted out, desperately trying to seem like some hardened biker. Nothing in this movie is believable. And why Dennis Hopper? Did they really need the Easy Rider motif too? I blame Larry Bishop, for his horrible plot and dialogue, not to mention his failed attempt at the leading role. Don't bother watching this movie, it's a waste of time.
| 0 |
negative
|
I laughed at the movie! The script, the acting please don't we deserve better? But now the filming, some of the camera angles were interesting. I did enjoy the film, but it's not to be taken seriously though. I liked it. If it had a new cast and scriptwritter it would be better than all right. It's worth a look!
| 0 |
negative
|
"Committed" is all about Graham as an irrepressible optimist who goes in search of her self-estranged husband who has gone in search of himself which all leads to a sort of kookie, upbeat comedic odyssey involving a bunch of side characters and issues. A fresh, fun, and unpredictable little flick, what "Committed" lacks in story it makes up for in good naturedness and subtle morals and maxims. If you enjoy this little chick flick, which received slightly above average reviews by critics and public alike, you might want to check out Lisa Krueger's hit Indie "Manny & Lo" (1996). (B)
| 1 |
positive
|
'Steamboat Willie (1928)' is often erroneously touted as the first Mickey Mouse film, though that title actually goes to 'Plane Crazy (1928).' The source fuelling this common misconception is probably an episode of "The Simpsons," which places the origin of Itchy the Mouse in a 1928 short called 'Steamboat Itchy,' obviously a parody of this cartoon. Interestingly, 'Steamboat Willie' was itself a parody, spoofing the latest Buster Keaton release, 'Steamboat Bill, Jr. (1928),' though the connection stretches little beyond the title and the general story setting. In this Walt Disney short, Mickey Mouse takes charge of a river steamboat, much to the annoyance of Captain Pete the cat, who spitefully casts him aside. But Mickey is not to be outdone in nastiness. Far removed from the pleasant, wholesome Mickey that more recent generations enjoyed, this little mouse cares only for numero uno, inflicting pain and displeasure on a series of farm animals in order to provide music for his own amusement.<br /><br />First there's the laughing parrot, which cops a bucket and a large potato to the head. Then a goat is cranked by the tail to provide music ("Turkey in the Straw") from a guitar it has swallowed. A cat is swung around by its tail, a goose throttled about the throat, and a piglet viciously booted. For a children's cartoon, 'Steamboat Willie,' directed by Walt Disney and Ub Iwerks, certainly has some mean-spirited humour, though I also noticed similar elements (though not quite to this extent) in some later Disney shorts, like 'Gulliver Mickey (1934).' Let's not forget Minnie Mouse, of course, who suffers treatment for which she could today sue for sexual harassment! The jokes may be crude, and the animation perhaps even more so, but this cartoon delivers a bucket-full of laughs, and it's easy to see why this little rodent became one of the most beloved characters in cinema history. If you're a fan of Mickey Mouse, or Disney in general, this is one steamboat you can't afford to miss.
| 1 |
positive
|
For Native Mongolian speakers the film lacked emotion and emphasis. Used too many non Native speakers especially Jamukha. Too many diversions from the actual history. Terrible terrible subtitle!!! I wonder where and who did that subtitle. It was both in English and Thai. I wonder how bad the subtitle was in Thai if the English subtitle was soooo bad! Described the one of the greatest leader's life very uninteresting. There are better films made by Mongolian directors with very low budget from 1980's. Honestly, I'm wondering if the film critics of Academy award is that lenient or what? Only good thing was some good CGI in some fighting scenes only moderately... not over the top CGI
| 0 |
negative
|
15 Park Avenue, well the name mystifies initially being an address from New York and film being set in Kolkata. However as the story unfolds, one realize the thin line that director tries to walk between Relationships, Social Cause and of course the world of Schizophrenia. I would say Aparna Sen is one director who has so much more to say and has so less time at disposal. Well no doubt she has managed to make a good movie. In a way she makes us realize that probably each one of us is looking for our own '15 Park Avenue'. Its an unending search within each of one of us...<br /><br />The powerhouse performance from Shabana Azmi is a treat to watch. Her screen presence brings whole lot of life into the scene. Indeed it was surprising to see her in such a powerful act after long because I expected it to be all the way Konkona Sen's terrain. Shabana makes you feel skin deep of an elder sister who is running the whole show for a rather unfortunate family and during this time she almost forgets to live her own life. She burdens all her ambitions and desires with ailing 18 year younger sister ( who is more like a daughter to her ) and an aging mother played by veteran Waheeda Rehman. As for the leading actress from Guide ( that's how I can recall her instantly ) there is hardly anything to say except few lines and tear drops here and there. Ever dependable Rahul Bose plays another pivotal role in the film, he shows the emotions of a middle age man with repent on his face to near perfection. This man really amazes me with the variety of work he has done. From a musician in Jhankar Beats to a liberal Muslim in Mr. & Mrs. Iyer and so many others
. He is one versatile I really wish if he had some more shots in the first part of the movie as well. The cameo in the movie is by Shefali Shah (remember Satya and Monsoon Wedding). She looks really beautiful and depicts the role of a mother of 2 kids with real ease. She gives you a glimpse of today's Indian woman who is modern in approach but still conventional when it comes to her husband's prior relationships. <br /><br />The focus of camera has been Meethi, portrayed by Konkona. She and her schizophrenic world constitute the nucleus of 15 Park Avenue. She has really worked hard for the character but there are times when she is not able to relate with the audience. The fateful accident of her life tries to rope in sympathy and it has been only partially successful. <br /><br />The movie tries to address quite a few things in one go starting from the unique world of a disabled person to the unequal status of a female even in today's modern India and also the twisted relationships in a tattered family. And I believe Aparna has succeeded to certain extent. The helplessness of Meethi while she works as a journalist in a rural eastern state really gives us all a naked picture of the country we are so proud of. <br /><br />Well after I finished 15 Park Avenue, there was a sense of unquenched thirst within me. I wanted more out of this movie to drench me emotionally. It has been a commendable effort on the part of director except few hiccups. Must watch for all those who like to see a different cinema, something with a strong purpose.
| 1 |
positive
|
I watched this film on ITV and I enjoyed it a lot. It was very watchable and very funny. Julie Walters and Rupert Grint were perfect in their roles. Julie Walters gets a special mention since she creates a wonderful diverse interesting character to watch. Ben's character is kinda shy and Stoic but the changes he goes through are wonderfully acted out by Rupert Grint, I would definitely say he has a future in acting after Harry Potter.<br /><br />Laura Linney is quite good in her role as Ben's over protective mother, the only thing they went wrong with is by making her too....Villain-y. Ben's father was also an interesting contrast to his mother, and in the end he is quite honourable too. The only character i wasn't keen on was Bryony, she was a bit plain and unnecessary i thought.<br /><br />Overall this is a great comedy drama that is very easy to watch. one of my favourite films of the year easily.
| 1 |
positive
|
Even a awful 1 is to much for this film, everything form start to finish made you cringe. I don't think it would be possible to cram more overly clichéd moments, into one piece of mind numbingly numbingly waste of film.<br /><br />Prisoner cell block H meets Thunderbirds, hell even Virgil's expressions were more life like than his son.<br /><br />I haven't even finished watching this and I'm on here now.... Oh no, the cheesy clapping of 3 actors and a backdrop done by a child with adobe premiere. This truly is the end of my "I've started so I'll finish watching it" phase.<br /><br />Oh joy, the credits have come to rescue me. (and relax)
| 0 |
negative
|
Step Up is a fair dance film about some kids that get their big performance break. The film is average in every way with little more for the viewer. A jock fights external prejudices to become a dancer with an accomplished partner and a teach who sees something special. The acting was fine, but the dialog and directing had little to add to overcoming a predictable story. None the less you still feel quite good about the outcome of the film. There were some dark scenes and some typical generalizations about dancers that went a little overboard. This is a class B+ film with moderate continuity errors and dialog mishaps. The scenery was good and the characters held true to life. It is worth the watch if you like that kind of film.
| 0 |
negative
|
Kate is a jaded young woman who has trouble meeting and dating guys. Throughout the movie, you get to meet several of her loser boyfriends. And throughout the movie, you are subjected to Kate's cynical negative outlook on love and relationships. This negative viewpoint is continued throughout and presented as Ultimate Truth. I had a real problem with this. Why would anyone want to be taught about love, life, and dating from someone who is obviously so messed up? It would work if that was the joke, but it is not. For the jokes in the movie (which are neither funny nor original) to work at all, you have to believe what Kate is saying: that all relationships inevitably end up with bad or no sex, that the highest level a relationship can evolve to is when you are able to fart in front of your partner... You get the idea.<br /><br />There is no movie in recent memory that comes close to upsetting the stomach as much as Love & Sex. Why did the filmmakers waste their time on such trash? Every joke in Love & Sex is something that I have experienced in another movie or in my own life. There is NOTHING original or creative about the story, the production, or the style. It is cynical, dumb and pointless. Mind numbing!
| 0 |
negative
|
I just found the entire 3 DVD set at Wal-Mart in the bargain bin for $5.50, so I thought I would take another look. Total of 13 hours to watch it all (26 episodes). I was born in 1948 and saw most of them on TV in the sixties. Many independent stations repeated them for many years.<br /><br />Better than I expected actually, time has been kind to the obvious sincerity of it's creators, and to the obvious gratitude and respect they give to all the Allied fighting men and women. More abstract and arty than a straight forward documentary, but very truthful in it's depiction of the causes and final results of WWII. That war was greatly dependent on sea transportation, and the final victory was dependent on who achieved the final mastery of the world's oceans. The Allies were the ones who were able to do it.<br /><br />Interesting too, to see how they try to strike a balance between big events, and the individual soldiers and sailors that made them happen. The score is impressive, if a bit too much by today's standards. I read somewhere that Robert Russell Bennett contributed just as much as Richard Rodgers to final score. I imagine that Rodgers provided all the major themes, and it was up to Bennett to fit them to the images. Great job!<br /><br />Should be seen by every ruler, or potential ruler. A warning to tyrants that wars are eventually won by ideals, determination, and the supplies to back them up. Logistics: their quality and delivery will determine the eventual victors. The Allies outproduced and surpassed the material quality of the Axis, attacked their very source in the process, and insured their eventual defeat.<br /><br />Sorry to see that the producer, Henry Salomon, lived a very short life. IMDb's facts were rather skimpy, I have to find out more about him. He did a few more outstanding documentaries before his early death. Might have more to say at a later time<br /><br />Trivia: I had all 3 LP records made of the background music, pretty good overall. Unfortunately, the producers decided to add sound effects to the last one, relegating immediately to just novelty status, rather than for serious music listening. Too bad too, because it contained some interesting but more minor themes in the series. Silly stuff like 16 inch guns firing, torpedoes being fired, bulldozers, planes...just for kids mainly.<br /><br />RSGRE
| 1 |
positive
|
I love this movie ! I think I've seen it 5 times already (it was quite a success in France and they often play it on TV). Ok, it's a thriller and there is great tension. But mostly (and specifically in the second part) it is absolutely hilarious ! And very original. The directing and photography are just splendid.
| 1 |
positive
|
OK so this is about 30 minutes of gore with no story whatsoever. There is no spoken dialogue, no subtitles, not even any real characters. You see three people in the entire movie (that are alive) and two are just there for very little reason. The main guy has no emotion and just mutilates corpses for no apparent reason. That is the entire movie. I love to see very gory movies, especially since in America real gore just isn't very common in modern movies. So yeah the gore effects were pretty cool. But it just isn't really disturbing. Why does everyone think it's so disturbing? There are no characters at all, there are just 3 living people and 3 corpses. No one has any personality or back story. You see three corpses being hacked apart and you can't really identify with it unless you just identify with death itself and how this could very well happen (despite the guy losing his job and going to jail very shortly after.) To be disturbing the viewer has to care and to care they have to identify with the victim. For example in a good horror movie you should really care about the main character. Here it's just a guy and a corpse. It's as deep as a puddle made from only a single rain drop. They never give you any reason to care about anyone in the movie. All it is a guy hacking up a few bodies, then he has sex with a body. Now with the sex scene here is an odd thing about it, he makes sure to wear gloves but doesn't use a condom. So he couldn't care less about catching some weird STD from having sex with a corpse but as long as his hands don't get messy there is no problem, now that is really logical. I don't really dislike the movie, I liked that it was very gory but when it ends there is no reason to watch it again, no reason to even care, and it just isn't a very compelling movie. I say if you can find it for under 10 dollars then you might as well get it but if it's more than that it just isn't worth it.
| 0 |
negative
|
"Plots With A View" of 2002 is a delightful little comedy like only the British could do it. The film's sense of humor is both mildly morbid and black and yet very lovable and sometimes very slapstick-ish. It's the only film by director Nick Hurran I've seen so far, and while I am not intending to watch any of his other films at the moment (I'm not a big fan of romantic comedies), this one is highly enjoyable and very funny. The film takes place in a little town in Wales, where Betty Rhys-Jones (Brenda Blethyn) is married to the town's drunken and adulterous major (Robert Pugh). The local mortician Boris (Alfred Molina) has been desperately in love with Betty since their childhood, but has always been too shy to confess his love to her. Apart from being desperately in love, Boris has some other problems, as the eccentric American mortician Frank Featherbed (Christopher Walken) has opened a funeral flourishing business in the same town... The film's odd, very British wit should amuse everybody with a sense of humor, and the story sometimes becomes quite bizarre. Also, "Plots With A View" profits from a wonderful cast. Brenda Bethlyn, who has already proved herself to be a funny lady in 2000's "Saving Grace", plays the lead, and she is once again very funny, and very lovable in her role. Alfred Molina, who plays her shy admirer, delivers a great performance as always, and Robert Pugh fits perfectly in the role of Betty's sleazy husband. Beautiful Naomi Watts is also great as the husband's 'secretary', I'm becoming a bigger fan with every film I see her in. The greatest role, however, is played by the incomparable Christopher Walken (one of my favorite actors). Walken is brilliant as he always is in the role of the eccentric Mortician who arranges funerals that are quite unorthodox. Overall, "Plots With A View" is a vastly entertaining little British Comedy that I highly recommend!
| 1 |
positive
|
I remember when this NBC mini-series aired when I was in high school. After reading the novel, I thought I'd check out some adaptations. Didn't expect much out of a TV mini-series, but now I might have to check out some more. This is actually excellent, and the best possible film version that could be made. Writer Simon Moore, who wrote the teleplay for the original Traffic mini-series, upon which the Soderberg film was based, came up with a brilliant narrative conceit which helps the story flow very smoothly: he frames Gulliver's adventures as flashbacks, with the actual story beginning as Gulliver first returns home (everything having happened on one journey). Gulliver, played by Cheers' Ted Danson, is sort of crazy-seeming when his wife, Mary Steenburgen, welcomes him back into his home. Unfortunately, the house is now owned by the local doctor, James Fox, who has designs on Steenburgen. Gulliver seems merely disturbed at first, but when he starts telling stories of tiny people, that's all the evidence Fox needs to throw him into an insane asylum. All four of Gulliver's travels are related in this version, in the same order as the novel (the only time this has been done on film). I love the way his present situation reflects his flashbacks. Gulliver's small son, whom he has never met before, reminds him of the Lilliputians. The doctors who observe him in his cell from a mezzanine loom above him and remind him of the Brogdingnagians, and the doctors' scientific inquiries remind him of the insane scientific experiments and theories of the Laputans and the professors at the Academy. Finally, when he is put on trial he is reminded of the Houyhnhnms and the Yahoos. The cast of this thing is amazing, and includes Peter O'Toole, Ned Beatty, Alfre Woodard, John Gielgud, Kristin Scott Thomas, Omar Sharif and Warwick Davis. The biggest flaw of the mini-series is that the acting is really uneven. You have all these fine actors, but the lesser characters are often played by actors who were probably fine in episodes of L.A. Law, but don't do well in a costume drama. Ted Danson isn't especially great, although he has a few sequences where he excels. It's probably better that he didn't attempt one, but all the other characters of the film speak in an English accent. Steenburgen is actually pretty good at it, and is quite good overall. Another flaw the series has is that the adventures happen a tad too quickly. It's not believable that Gulliver spent eight years away from home, as is claimed. But, in general, it captures Swift's tone and purpose very well, while, with its structure, adding a new emotional level.
| 1 |
positive
|
Diane Lane, Mickey Rourke, Rosario Dawson & Thomas Jane.....Not a bad cast in my opinion however they were totally wasted in this movie.<br /><br />There was no real direction, there were no unusual turns, in fact the whole movie was very predictable from start to finish. Mickey Rourke had a really annoying sidekick who did nothing but irritate you from the start. Rosario Dawson was totally wasted and there was hardly any point in even having her character in the film.<br /><br />I really do believe this is one of those straight to DVD movies that everyone will forget about very quickly which is a shame as the movie could have been so much better.
| 0 |
negative
|
Bobby and Mikey are two little boys who move across the country with their divorced mother to start a new life. Soon after the family settles in, their mom marries "The King" who ends up being an abusive stepfather, especially to Bobby. So Bobby decides that he will "fly away" from the abuse in his birthday present.<br /><br />This movie was difficult to watch, especially the abuse scenes. It was hard to watch an innocent, playful little boy become abused and turn into a sullen scared, and withdrawn young man. The acting is excellent.<br /><br />I cried throughout the last half of the movie. There were some funny scenes in it too like the Monster Brew and the dog that finds the pop bottles.<br /><br />I wouldn't suggest letting little kids watch it. It was a movie that was painful to watch and yet it really really flew away.
| 1 |
positive
|
Another winner from that 50s , 60s era that I love so much for the comedic value they give with each viewing these days .Corman never lets you down with these films , they take themselves seriously and they have very low budgets , a recipe for good watching for sure . Ed Nelson a very competent actor got started with Corman as well as many other favorites who show up in Superman and many of the westerns of the day . The costume is pretty bad and the sound of the alien speaking , well the reverb was a little off but thats the beauty of it . Film making for the love of it , not looking for perfection just digging the action of doing it , it comes thru . These films are a fun time ! Even better is the MST3K version !!
| 0 |
negative
|
I will always think of Mr. Firth as Dorian Gray, if I live to be 100.<br /><br />Perfectly acted and directed, bringing Oscar Wilde's insight, wit and humor alive with an absolute and utter perfection unusual in television.<br /><br />More proof that the BBC more than makes up in talent what it doesn't always have in money.<br /><br />A must have for all Wilde fans-and indeed for everyone else. Inspired and perfected, every one of the actors looked exactly right for the role and every shot was well done.<br /><br />By the end I found that I loved every single character in a way that no other movie of the type had ever inspired. Watch it, then try to watch another version. It's just not the same, is it?
| 1 |
positive
|
I love a film that mixes edge-of-the-seat suspense, laughs, style, good acting, and a bit of self-parody. Hitchcock consistently carried this off, and in "Le Cercle rouge" Jean-Pierre Melville does the same. I was sorry when this long film ended. <br /><br />I agree with the English commenter who found remarks by one of my compatriots chauvinistic. I love French films, Italian films, English films, Indian films--and the increasingly rare good American films. I also feel the writer who panned the film for being not even a good copy of an American gangster film, missed the point completely. But I guess it's like jazz: either you get it, or you don't, so why waste time trying to explain.<br /><br />Just see "Le Cercle noir" and be prepared to be deliciously entertained.
| 1 |
positive
|
This documentary was very amateurish. It could have been made by college students. Assuming that it was, my grading is as follows. Content : C, Sound Quality : F ,Cinematography : F ,Acting : D, Soundtrack : F, Casting : C, Boobshot : A ......Overall Grade :D<br /><br />I found myself getting seasick as we walked down the streets with the characters,bobbing up and down with each move of the cameraman'step.My mother-in-law even changed the batteries in her miracle ear and she could not hear the muffled dialog. Extensive post production editing and CGI would not help this bomb. These students would "barely" pass my course.My advise...don't waste your time or money for the one "A".
| 0 |
negative
|
I give this a 10 out of 10, not because the plot was hard to uncover because it wasn't... but because it leaves one caring for the characters. The acting, by all the cast, is superb, especially Joan Hickson, and it's a marvellous episode because of it's heart. <br /><br />Miss Marple is called upon by Jason Rafiel's dying request to investigate, and solve, a murder that happened some seven or eight years previously, and she has to discover who, why and when as she goes along. Mr Rafiel is the same Rafiel as was in A Caribbean Mystery and so there is a sense of a connection here. <br /><br />Nemesis is definitely one for the amateur psychologists among us, and if you are one of those who is only happy with lots of blood, guts and rip-roaring action sequences, then you won't like it. But if you are like me, one who loves knowing about PEOPLE and discovering what makes them tick, then Nemesis is the one for you.
| 1 |
positive
|
This is a perfect movie to watch with a loved one on a cold and snowy night. If you like a few laughs with your horror then this is the movie for you. The makings of a real cult classic. It has everything you would want to see in a horror movie. A beautiful girl, A hero, The buffoon, A MONSTER TRUCK and of course a family of mutant satanic killers. This one is full of blood,guts and gore. I strongly recommend watching this one in the wee early morning hours, and be careful of who sees you being entertained by the sounds of Monster trucks, Bad {But Funny } One liners and our Hero eating eye ball stew. Not as good as the Evil Dead but a close second. Just remember WARNING..... Do NOT EAT BEFORE VIEWING THIS FILM...
| 1 |
positive
|
It didn't take too long after Halloween had kicked off the slasher boom for the category to be cursed by continuous mediocrity. As early as 1983 the genre was already struggling to release more than three decent offerings per year and by '88 the stalk and slash flick had become pretty much the whipping boy of horror cinema. By that time major studios were all aware that repeating the tired formula was no longer a lucrative direction, which left it up to independent and mostly inexperienced filmmakers to continue the legacy that John Carpenter had created. Although there was still an impressive number of features hitting shelves in 88, most of them were weakly produced and taken as a whole they were eminently unappealing. With that said there were a couple of gems amongst the rubble. Scott Spiegel's Intruder in its uncut form was a superb gross out classic, whilst Evil Dead Trap proved that the cycle had not yet completely run out of style and panache. William Lustig's Maniac Cop was successful enough to launch a franchise and two years later Dead Girls and Mirage proved to be the last beguiling breaths of life in the ailing category.<br /><br />It was the continual release of schlock like Berserker, Blood Lake and Rush Week that cursed the slasher movie to eight years of obscurity. It finally took the big budgeted flamboyance of Wes Craven's Scream to provide the necessary resuscitation. Having not heard anything about Demon Warrior before I came across it unexpectedly, I instantly assumed that it was part of the low brow trash that led to the downfall of the slasher phase. But with that said the movie boasts an intriguing premise that sits comfortably beside Scalps and Camping Del Terrore as another welcome addition to the Native-American influenced catalogue.<br /><br />A truck pulls up on a woodland road and out step two laughably dramatised rednecks. The hillbilly lumberjacks are only on screen for around for ten seconds and then they are murdered by an unseen menace. Next we meet a troupe of five young adults that are heading to the same location for a spot of shotgun-target-practice on some of the local wildlife. The area is owned by Neil Willard and has been passed down through three generations of his family. His Grandfather stole the land from an Indian medicine man that was rumoured to have left a curse on the property. According to legend, every ten years a Demon Warrior with an extreme hatred for mankind stalks the forest reaping revenge on those he deems responsible for the pilfering of the tribe's home. It wouldn't be much fun if those myths were a falsehood, so regular as clockwork a maniacal assassin turns up with a taste for blood. Will the kids be able to stop this phantom killer
?<br /><br />Demon Warrior is best described as a bigger budgeted (but still woefully cheap) re-imaging of Fred Olen Ray's Scalps. The bogeymen from both films are virtually identical and the director even throws in a scalping sequence to confirm my suspicions. Things start promisingly with some crisp Friday the 13th-style first-person cinematography and a couple of shock-jolts that were composed with finesse by director Frank Patterson. Thomas Callaway did a good job with the photography and the tribal-drum score makes a refreshing change from the more traditional late-eighties synthesizer rubbish. Flourishes of suspense are juxtaposed with a couple of credible directorial embellishments and there are even a few attempts at humour. The killer looked successfully creepy in demon attire and the inclusion of a bow and arrow as the main murder weapon was a deft touch from the director.<br /><br />Fred Olen Ray's notorious slasher was notable for its stark and credibly unsettling atmosphere. Unfortunately despite being produced on twice the budget, Demon Warrior never comes close to the film that it so desperately emulates. Rumor has it that the majority of the actors were drafted from the Texas Baylor University and were not even paid for their inclusion in the feature, so of course it goes without saying that the dramatics are appropriately abysmal. I especially enjoyed the hilarious John Langione an 'Italian' Native American (don't ask) that portrays about as much emotion as the trees in the forest that surrounded him. Warrior started with some credible glimpses of panache from the director that actually led me to believe that this could be a welcome inclusion to the slasher index. Unfortunately, the poisonous cocktail of heinous acting and an ending plucked directly from stupidsville seriously changed the initial plan I had in mind for a rating. It's a shame that the dramatics were so scraped from the bottom of the thespian barrel, because at times Demon Warrior showed flashes of potential.<br /><br />All in all, Patterson's movie is a mixed bag of ideas some of them were good, but mostly they were staggeringly mediocre. Because this was released at a time when the slasher genre had been watered down to avoid the scissor happy censors, there's really no gore worth mentioning. Even the scalping sequence is relatively tame compared to Olen Ray's graphic depiction. Demon Warrior has the odd moment of credibility, but not often enough to warrant a purchase. Not as bad as the aforementioned Berserker, Blood Lake et al, but not really THAT good either
..
| 0 |
negative
|
Leslie Nielson is a very talented actor, who made a huge mistake by doing this film. It doesn't even come close to being funny. The best word to describe it is STUPID!
| 0 |
negative
|
William Petersen (that C.S.I guy) has a small uncredited role but it's the best part of the movie. His character comes across smart ass and tough, and it's a fun surprise to see him in this. He has a range that allows him to play just about anything. After his 5 minutes, it goes from looking cool to just nothing much. It leaves you hoping that his character will reappear in the movie but after 20 minutes you give up hope. The movie itself is pretty poor. Worth a watch on TMN or a pick up at the library but not much more. Too much of it reminds you of L.A Confidential except that where that movie starts to get complicated upon itself, this one is so loose, it steers everywhere but where it should. 2 out of 5 stars
| 0 |
negative
|
In this day and age in which just about every other news story involves discussions of waterboarding, images of Abu Ghraib, or tales of forced detentions at Guantanamo Bay, Gavin Hood's "Rendition" is about as up-to-the-minute and timely a movie as is ever likely to come out of the entertainment mills of mainstream Hollywood. It's not, by any stretch of the imagination, a perfect film, but neither does it merit the caterwauling opprobrium it has received at the hands of critics from all across the ideological and political spectrum.<br /><br />The term "rendition" refers to the ability of the CIA to arrest any individuals it suspects of terrorist dealings, then to whisk them away in secret to a foreign country to interrogate and torture them for an indefinite period of time, all without due process of law. Anwar El-Ibrahimi is an Egyptian man who has been living for twenty years in the United States. He has an American wife, a young son and a new baby on the way. He seems a very unlikely candidate for a terrorist, yet one day, without warning or explanation, Anwar is seized and taken to an undisclosed location where he is subjected to brutal torture until he admits his involvement with a terrorist organization that Anwar claims to know nothing about.<br /><br />On the negative side, "Rendition" falters occasionally in its storytelling abilities, often biting off a little more than it can chew in terms of both plot and character. The ostensible focal point is Douglas Freeman, a rookie CIA agent who is brought in to observe Anwar's "interrogation" at the hands of Egyptian officials. The problem is that, as conceived by writer Kelley Sane and enacted by Jake Gyllenhaal, Freeman seems too much of a naïve "boy scout" to make for a very plausible agent, and he isn't given the screen time he needs to develop fully as a character. We know little about him at the beginning and even less, it seems, at the end. He "goes through the motions," but we learn precious little about the man within. Thus, without a strong center of gravity to hold it all together, the film occasionally feels as if it is coming apart at the seams, with story elements flying off in all directions. A similar problem occurs with Anwar's distraught wife, played by Reese Witherspoon, a woman we never get to know much about apart from what we can see on the surface. Gyllenhaal and Witherspoon have both proved themselves to be fine actors under other circumstances, but here they are hemmed in by a restrictive screenplay that rarely lets them go beyond a single recurring note in their performances.<br /><br />What makes "Rendition" an ultimately powerful film, however, is the extreme seriousness of the subject matter and the way in which two concurrently running plot lines elegantly dovetail into one another in the movie's closing stretches. It may make for a slightly more contrived story than perhaps we might have liked on this subject, but, hey, this is Hollywood after all, and the film has to pay SOME deference to mass audience expectations if it is to get itself green lighted, let alone see the light of day as a completed project.<br /><br />Two of the supporting performances are particularly compelling in the film: Omar Metwally who makes palpable the terror of a man caught in a real life Kafkaesque nightmare from which he cannot awaken, and Yigal Naor who makes a surprisingly complex character out of the chief interrogator/torturer. Meryl Streep, Alan Arkin and Peter Sarsgaard also make their marks in smaller roles. Special mention should also be made of the warm and richly hued cinematography of Dion Beebe.<br /><br />Does the movie oversimplify the issues? Probably. Does it stack the deck in favor of the torture victim and against the evil government forces? Most definitely. (One wonders how the movie would have played if Anwar really WERE a terrorist). Yet, the movie has the guts to tread on controversial ground. It isn't afraid to raise dicey questions or risk the disapproval of some for the political stances it takes. It openly ponders the issue of just how DOES a nation hold fast to its hard-won principle of "civil liberties for all" in the face of terrorism and fear. And just how much courage does it take for people of good will to finally stand up and say "enough is enough," even at the risk of being branded terrorist-appeasing and unpatriotic by those in power? (The movie also does not, in any way, deny the reality of extreme Islamic terrorism).<br /><br />Thus, to reject "Rendition" out of hand would be to allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good. "Rendition" may not be perfect, but it IS good, and it has something of importance to say about the world in which we now live. And that alone makes it very much worth seeing.
| 1 |
positive
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.