text
stringlengths 49
12.1k
| label
int64 0
1
| label_text
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|
Absolute must see documentary for anyone interested in getting to the bottom of this story. Told with unflinching eye and with gripping style. If you think conspiracy theories are for paranoid disturbed people, this could change your mind. Something for you feds too: A good model for government coverups! If you like your news all tidy and easy to consume this is not for you.
| 1 |
positive
|
Yes, said title line does actually appear in this movie. Why? I'm not sure. When the line was actually being said, didn't somebody in the crew filming, at some point, laugh? I would have liked to see the outtakes from this movie, mostly because I think they would be more entertaining than the movie itself.<br /><br />Helmed by director Jim Gillespie, ("I Know What You Did Last Summer,") comes a teen slasher movie that seems to assume we haven't ever seen a teen slasher movie before. Of course, he's not to be given all the blame. There are also three writers responsible, and this is somehow based on a video game that's still in production. The title of said game is "Backwater," but upon looking for information on it I came up with absolutely nothing.<br /><br />And so we begin the movie... I would like to say before I continue that I wasn't expecting this to win an Oscar. When I am in the right mindset, I enjoy a fun horror movie to pass the time. I think there exists an opportunity for an effective, original, and smart slasher movie. "Venom" is not this movie.<br /><br />There is almost no character development at all. That's fine. You don't expect a whole lot. However, instead of a well-knit cast of a few, this movie decides to introduce us to the following many horror movie cliché characters...<br /><br />1. The Final Girl: She has just broken up for her boyfriend. This means that at some point in the movie when they are in peril, they will decide to get back together again. Which more than likely means he will die and she will be the last remaining survivor of the movie. "Eden" is played by Agnes Bruckner, without much enthusiasm, I might add.<br /><br />2. The Boyfriend: He's just around to co-exist with The Final Girl until his demise. Sure, he can save her, but he's doomed and we know it. "Eric" is played by Jonathan Jackson.<br /><br />3. The Bimbos: Usually horror movies only feel the need for one of these, but here we have two. They shoplift, they steal, they might show their breasts, (not in this case,) or they might possibly be alcoholics. A staple of the genre. They also wander around in dimly lit areas all on their lonesome, usually saying things like, "Hello? Is there anybody there?" "Tammy" and "Patty," suitably named, are played by Bijou Phillips and Davetta Sherwood.<br /><br />4. The Jackass: Sure, he looks pretty, but he's the idiot in the movie that's inserted purely to be an idiot. He says stupid things, does stupid things, has obviously never seen a horror movie, and is one of enjoyable kills you watch this kind of thing for. "Sean" is played by D.J. Cotrona.<br /><br />5. The Girlfriend: She loves the Jackass even though pretty much nobody else does, and she's usually the one left alive for a while so she can scream and cry until she starts tripping and gets left behind. "Rachel" is played by Laura Ramsey.<br /><br />6. The Creepy Janitor: In this case, The Creepy Gas Station Attendant. Enough said. "Ray" is played by Rick Cramer.<br /><br />I could continue, but I think you get the picture. The remaining characters aren't so much common as they are equally killable. There's "The Gay Guy," (Pawel Szajda as "Ricky,") who definitely got robbed as far as screen time is concerned, and "The One Who Knows What's Going On." Of course none of that matters, because at first everyone always thinks that one's crazy. "Cece" is played by Meagan Good.<br /><br />There are a couple other characters, namely a deputy played by Method Man, but he and others are killed off pretty quickly and get even less character development than the following clichés.<br /><br />So, you're probably thinking, "why does this movie require such a deep analysis? It's just a summer horror flick, for cryin' out loud!" Based on that question, does it deliver the goods? Yes, and no. The acting isn't particularly convincing, even given the amount of talent involved. Bijou Phillips was hailed for her performance in Larry Clark's Bully, and Agnes Bruckner has been an up-and-coming talent for a while now.<br /><br />So, what about the gore? There's some. That's really about it. A lot of the juiciest bits are cut-aways. Namely a scene involving somebody's face and a sandblaster used to remove paint from cars.<br /><br />To the filmmaker's credit, there are a couple interesting scenes. I liked the bit where part of a house was literally ripped off so that the unstoppable villain could get to the characters.<br /><br />If this had all been centered around a smarter screenplay in which the characters didn't make the same dumb mistakes literally hundreds of horror movie characters had made before them, it might have made for a more enjoyable experience. All of the most interesting characters are immediately killed off in the first third of the movie and then it just becomes a not-particularly-interesting countdown until we know it's just The Creepy Janitor and The Final Girl.<br /><br />I suppose I must be a little jaded, but as a horror film fan, I'm left wondering why I should have bothered when I could easily have written a better screenplay myself. I won't even mention the numerous instances of terrible CGI.
| 0 |
negative
|
This program was shown in an early morning time slot on SPACE, a cable sci-fi station. I am amazed that anyone would pay for this or broadcast it; it is incredibly amateurish.<br /><br />The entire show is a sequence of short monologues or scenes performed on a set that looks like a closet with a bunch of circuit boards taped to the wall. There is very little continuity between scenes, and no plot. A typical scene revolves around some lame joke or special effect and is only a minute or so long. The dialog makes little sense and the special effects look like Photoshop filters. The actors are all adults, but I have literally seen high-school plays with better writing and sets. This program is an embarrassment.<br /><br />Perhaps each scene would work as an interstitial; a filler between shows instead of commercials. Stringing all the scenes together makes the limitations of the material extremely obvious.
| 0 |
negative
|
The original title always struck me as a rather overblown definition for a bunch of gun-toting saddle-tramps. Still; their screen presence was at least underscored by a top-quality group of actors to support Yul Brynner. Most were movie stars in their own right.<br /><br />However; this first sequel was a pale imitation, with a group now composed of largely B and C list players, who were more mediocre than magnificent. It was a similar set-up. Brynner's 'Chris' had to recruit yet another team of gun-toting saddle-tramps to sort out the Mexican peasants' problems again. Another tyrant was giving them grief.<br /><br />With the originality and freshness of the first movie now spent, this remake had little else to offer. The budget was evidently very limited. This was reflected not only in the cast, but also in the below-par script, which borrowed much from the earlier classic. It was also more than half an hour shorter than John Sturges' original. Yet we still had a reprise of the agonising and moralising that made even the first a little turgid at times. However, here there was no decent acting, action or location work to balance things up. Filmiing was less expansive. It failed to convey the broad sweep of landscapes that were a great part of the original.<br /><br />Generally; it just lacked imagination. The first movie had been a smash-hit, and this pedestrian sequel was evidently put together as quickly and cheaply as possible in order to cynically cash-in on former success. And it shows. There's very much a 'made for TV' feel about it.<br /><br />Not recommended.
| 0 |
negative
|
My friend & I rented this movie and within the first 5 mins we had no idea what was going on. It felt like it should have been over within the first 15 mins. It was a terrible movie, my little brother could have been a better actor than some of the ones in the movie, and the plot (if you can call it that) was full of holes. Never would I recommend this movie to my worst enemy, yet anybody I actually like.
| 0 |
negative
|
If you want to see a true thriller, rent this!!! It's not from the director or screenwriter of "Scream", doesn't feature overacting, overpaid "TV" actors passing off as "stars", and is not a run of the mill special effects bonanza. Instead you'll get a top-notch, edgy, very strong (in violence) yet thrilling nailbiter.
| 1 |
positive
|
There are so many '10 Best' lists which could easily fit "The Dead" - Best Screen Drunk, Best Literary Adaptation, Best Use Of Music Not Specifically Written for the Film, Best Use of Poetry, Best Screen Speech, Best Ensemble Cast and finally, perhaps, Best Film Ever Made. This was John Huston's last and greatest film, adapted by his son Tony from James Joyce's short story and set on the evening of the Feast of the Epiphany in the Dublin of 1904. It is confined, largely, to one setting, the home of the Morkan sisters, and not a great deal happens in conventional 'dramatic' terms. They entertain their guests; there is singing, dancing, recitations and much small talk but watching this film you can't imagine anywhere else you would rather be than in this company.<br /><br />Finally, of course, it is 'about' much, much more. It is about love, loss and regret, those stable mainstays of great drama. In the film's closing scenes the tenor Bartell D'Arcy, (Frank Patterson), sings a song, 'The Lass of Aughrim' which conjures up in the mind of Gretta, (Anjelica Huston), wife of Gabriel, (Donal McCann), the ghost of her first and probably greatest love, a boy who died in all certainty of a broken heart at the age of seventeen, and suddenly Gabriel realises he has never really known his wife and that he has not been the great love of her life, after all. Emotionally, these scenes are incredibly powerful, firstly as Gretta recounts the circumstances of her lover's death and then as the voice in Gabriel's head sums up his own feelings. This is great cinema, the monologues superbly delivered by Huston and McCann.<br /><br />But then all the performances are extraordinary. This is ensemble playing of the highest order and while it would be invidious to single out one performer above another, has the screen ever given us a more likable, genial or convincing drunk than Donal Donnelly or has poetry ever been delivered with such passion that Sean McClory, (the IRA man in "The Quiet Man"), brings to his reading of Lady Gregory's translation of 'Donal Og' here? Added poignancy is to be had, of course, from the knowledge that Huston himself was close to death when he made this film which seems to me the culmination of his life's work. Death may well be its central theme but viewing this film is a life-enhancing experience.
| 1 |
positive
|
Like so many other reviewers on here, my memories of this show are universally warm. In fact, so fond are said cherished memories, that I recently purchased the DVD box set in order to revisit that happy and carefree period of childhood, whereby I used to sit utterly mesmerised, as I watched the ongoing quest of Monkey, Pigsy, Sandy, Tripitaka and later Yu Lung a horse/dragon/man (you'll really need to watch it to understand), when the much loved show initially aired on BBC 2 on Friday evenings, as I recall.<br /><br />Well, I'm pleased to say that even after all these years and now viewing this with adult i.e. more cynical(!) eyes, the show has lost none of its inimitable charm.<br /><br />Simply wonderful entertainment, from the magical characters and their comical interactions with one another to the perhaps not so special effects (which actually serve to heighten the fun) and of course, not forgetting the hugely memorable opening title sequence from the first season, the passing of time has not in any way, shape or form diminished any of Monkey's spellbinding charm.<br /><br />As Monkey himself would probably say, 'Oi! You there! Go out and grab yourself some nostalgic fun.'
| 1 |
positive
|
By far this has to be one of the worst movies I've ever seen in my life. I watch practically every movie that is on at night (either showtime, hbo, cinemax, etc). "Three" AKA "Survivor Island" keeps you in as much suspense as watching paint dry only to let you down even more miserably. If you want to feel like you just wasted what seems like an eternity on the worst film ever created then by all means watch this movie. I must have screamed at a minimum 900 times from the idiotic twists. If I had 4 hands I'd give this movie 4 thumbs DOWN.<br /><br />In my personal opinion, I believe the only people who would like this movie are those with terrible morals.
| 0 |
negative
|
In all the episodes, I never saw any real action or drama or comedy.<br /><br />The plot is so repetitive.<br /><br />****Somebody gets something old and then somebody else tells them a little bit about it and how much it's worth and who made it and where it comes from and how much it could sell for and if there was any work done to it.<br /><br />Sowhile I watched about 30 of these, i realized...there is no drama....nobody ever loses a limb or life or gets divorced or hit by a car or air-plane.<br /><br />There are no car chases or explosions- not even a horse race with old carriages.<br /><br />All those guns and swords and nobody goes on a violent killing spree...what gives? No pshycos, no axe-murders, no-gun-totting old Englishmen in bad suits...just yap yap yap...you have an old tea set and it came from the country of Germany back in 1602 - blah blah blah...<br /><br />I'm still waiting for somebody with a time machine to go on screen and ask about it, but no...it never comes to be and the only thing that happens is that some stuffy Englishman or woman serves up some crap about something old being sold in Boston or China during the Ming Dynasty - big EFFIN deal.<br /><br />Can't anybody ever kidnap one of the leads and hold them for ransom? Is there no alien spacecraft that will obliterate the entire floor? Who the hell writes this stuff as a series and expects us to stay awake? This is about as entertaining as watching paint dry - only with commentary.<br /><br />There's no sex, there's no comedy or romance, no action, no suspense, no action, no drama, no mystery or martial arts.<br /><br />This show sucks! What ever happened to supermodels wearing thongs and spewing lasers from a futuristic weapon? Antiques Roadshow - More like grab a blanket and pillow and go to sleep show...
| 0 |
negative
|
If you are home on a weekend, very bored and lack the will to move, with absolutely nothing better to do with your life for the next couple of hours you could enjoy making fun of this movie. The acting and script and general movie making of this film isn't actually all that bad, which is why it makes it possible to actually sit through this. This is defitnly a movie they would show in high school health class to teach the dangers of pre-marital sex. Or they could also show it to teach the dangers of very lame music - that 'rock' band Brian Austin Green is in is really terrible, I think thats a much greater threat to society than unwed parents.
| 0 |
negative
|
It's too bad iameracing wants to deny the reality of Faulkner's and Clarence Brown's purpose in the creating of the story and film of "Intruder In The Dust". I suppose the burden of a history of racism is difficult for any Southerner to bear and I can understand that. But to say that this film was not specifically about racism is ridiculous and inaccurate. YES (to borrow your use of the upper case) iameracing, there are many many many places where blacks and white people in the South get along quite well. But to deny the way that black people were and sometimes still are forced to live, the conditions and injustices they have had to endure are not imaginary. Sometimes black and white people got along because of genuine affection and understanding. Sometimes it was only as long as blacks 'knew their place'. The point of making Juano Hernandez character (in film and print) a somewhat prickly type, not warm and fuzzy, was to underscore the fact that bigotry is wrong in and of itself and human rights are just that for everyone regardless of whether we like a particular individual or not. <br /><br />It would do iameracing good to stop denying the existence of racism and the great harm it has done to Americans of all stripes. The fact is that black people (among others) did not, as a rule, not an exception, receive the benefits of the justice system as even-handedly as whites. Segregation, discrimination and lynching are historical fact. People like iameracing might claim these things were not as widespread as some think and would probably love to exonerate their ancestors and heroes from any connection with such behavior. It would be a wonderful thing if iameracing's Southern ancestors (if any)never participated in any of the horrible racist actions that mar this country's history and I hope they didn't. If that is so congratulations to them but that fact, if true, does not erase the fact that others did. And even if the horrible things that were done to blacks in the South (and other areas, let's not forget the Draft Riots of the Civil War Era)were only half as numerous, only a third, does that make them any less horrible? Is the murder of ten children the hanging of ten men the sexual assault of ten women any less horrible than the same things happening to a hundred? <br /><br />Iameracing asks us to get the "Mississippi Burning" chip off of our shoulders before we see "Intruder In The Dust", well I ask you, did the murders of the civil rights activists happen or not? Why should that be forgotten? Forgiven? Maybe. But in order to prevent their recurrence they cannot be forgotten or revised into minor occurrences. The racism that is displayed in "Intruder In The Dust" is displayed there quite purposely. It is there to make a point. <br /><br />On a cinematically historical level it is also ridiculous for iameracing to discount the racial angle. Any viewer of films that were filmed before the 1960's knows that black actors/characters/extras were usually deliberately cast. To judge from our movie history; wars were always fought by middle aged white men; There were no black people in the Old West; it was possible to walk down a street in a major city and never encounter a black person; there were no black hospital orderlies,taxi drivers,clerks, salespeople etc. Blacks were almost never cast with regard to a role unless race was a factor. If Falukner (and Brown) had wanted to tell a simple murder story he probably would not have made the Hernandez character black. <br /><br />Racism exists iameracing. Probably for different reasons I am sure, we both wish that it didn't but it does. Wanting things to be the way we would like them to be probably can't be helped but it still does not make them so.
| 1 |
positive
|
A good story, well-acted with unexpected character twists eg. vicious murderous gangster Bryan Brown teaching his son macrame. Although it succeeds as an action drama where you hope the good guy (Ledger) and his gilrfriend succeed, it also has some hilarious ironic black humour eg. the bank robbers who become radio competition "winners" and their reaction, the busker's revenge etc. Well worth watching.
| 1 |
positive
|
I tend to be inclined towards movies about people who choose to cross the barriers of censorship, and express what they really want to express. Eric Bogosian's character of Barry is like Howard Stern, but much more intelligent. The character itself is very fascinating. As an Oliver Stone film, I guess I was expecting more. The film sags a bit during the third act. Plus, it's pretty obvious that "Talk Radio" is based on a play, with its long dialogue scenes. But overall, the film works. Bogosian is great in the lead, and the fact that he also wrote the play from which the movie was based on probably helped him. If you want to check out one of Stone's greater films, I better suggest you check out "JFK" or "Salvador." This is not his best work, but a good movie nonetheless.
| 1 |
positive
|
Occasionally on talk shows a good topical debate sparks some interesting opinions from the audience, unfortunately there is always some desperately sad person seeking acceptance who will end any interesting debate instantly by getting up and saying the proverbial "Everyone should get along and love each other" as they know they are guaranteed to get applause and affirmation, as no one would dare disagree.<br /><br />Well they are the same people who marked this film as good, why did they do that? INSECURITY. Anyway that's all I'll say on that matter.<br /><br />The Film, it starts of reasonably interestingly so you hope it will build, and if like me you've settled in with a nice couple of glasses of wine and some cheese then you will give it even more of a chance simply because you can't be bothered to move.<br /><br />But then you daydream, you wander, your mind drifts of onto other things, why? because the Director did too! he took his foot off the gas, and then he realized 'ooops' so to compensate he accelerates hard, but then he drifts again, and again so do you, the story slows, the plot thins and almost disappears, you even wonder to yourself 'so what happened again?' as you ponder your screen will show Nick Nolte running around with some supposed purpose, but you will have long since cared as to what he is doing and he will appear as nothing more than a screen saver in the background to your day dreaming.<br /><br />Michael Moriarty who plays John Converse has an amazing ability to speak without moving his lips or indeed his face, somewhat like a ventriloquist, he must have gone to the Nicolas Cage school of expressionless facial acting, or he was attacked by the Phantom Botox injector.<br /><br />Tuesday Weld was to play Marge Converse, but instead she played Mia Farrow to perfection.<br /><br />In all there are hundreds of thousands of films to see, so leave this one to one of the last, you see I've just wasted an evening watching it when I could have watched or done something else, learn by my mistake, nights off relaxing are precious so don't waste one watching this boring tale, do anything else, dust off that old game of Cluedo, practice gurning for the evening or have an argument with a loved one, trim your nose hair, get rid of unused files on our laptop, it will be time better spent what ever you should choose.
| 0 |
negative
|
What can I say about this band, I was hooked in 68, I was a ten year old kid, I grew up on the Blues though my Dad, then these guys from the Midlands came along, a fusion of Country rock, Heavy Rock and Blues, I wish I could have got to see them live in the early years, I was lucky enough to be there in 79(Knebworth) that was the best concert I've seen to date, I hope a full version of that hot August night will be realest soon. This CD gave me a chance to see the boys over and over again, The Song remains the same is great but This CD gets down to the nitty gritty.<br /><br />Long live the Zepp.
| 1 |
positive
|
It's hard to know exactly what to say about this ever so bland and dull little film. The story is predictable when not completely laughable. It's all a matter of "dutiful gestures" which, as presented here, carry absolutely no conviction. Yes, the MGM "production values" are gorgeous, and yes, Ms. Lamarr was exquisitely beautiful, but she and the great Spencer Tracy have absolutely no "chemistry" together - and that's the only thing that would have made this parade of cliches at all effective... It's my understanding that this movie received poor reviews when it was originally released; the passage of time has not improved it.
| 0 |
negative
|
Great subject matter, director, and cast somehow adds up to a truly abysmal film, told in that flat, semi-documentary style that was so popular around the time this film was made. (And hello, this is NOT a film-noir!) The lackluster, overly complicated, over-populated story has no arc, no focus point, little excitement, and staggers from one scene to the next with no discernible purpose, other than as a valentine to the supposed and highly doubtful cooperation between the American and Mexican governments on the issue of illegal immigration. <br /><br />The scene that made me HATE this film is when Montalban and Mitchell make a daring escape from their captors, race to presumably save Montalban's injured partner from being murdered by a goon with a gun driving a piece of farm machinery, Montalban says something like, "quick - we must try to save him," but instead of doing so they lie on their stomachs and watch in agony for about 5 (!) minutes of screen time as the machine bears down on Murphy and FINALLY runs him over (or so we assume - the machine simply stops, another goon detects the presence of the two "rescuers" and shoots at them as they run off again.) Scene over. The whole thing is so horribly filmed and utterly anticlimatic. There's nothing worse than a protagonist (ostensibly, Montalban, though he's off screen for over half the film) who doesn't even try. Jeez, Ricardo, do SOMETHING!<br /><br />I know it's Anthony Mann, but hell, not ALL of his films are classics, people. How bad does an old movie have to be around here to get anything lower than a 6 rating?
| 0 |
negative
|
What could have been a good story was destroyed by the ludicrous time travel scenario. If something was altered in the past that changed evolution and humans never developed, the time machine would never have been built. If something from the past was brought into the present, it would have no effect on the past.<br /><br />I really wish film producers would run their ideas past an actual scientist before finishing the script. Even if you suspend reality and assume time travel is possible, you have to stick to logic.<br /><br />OTOH, Ben Kingsley seemed to be having a great time with his over the top performance. All of the other actors seemed to be doing the best they could as well. It was the writing that left them twisting in the wind.<br /><br />"Back to the Future" handled it better.
| 0 |
negative
|
Fellow Giallo-fanatics: beware and/or proceed with caution
for this movie isn't exactly what it appears to be. It surely looks like a Giallo, with its juicy VHS cover (showing a busty naked girl and a big bloodied knife), rhythmic title and the names of two veteran Italian actors in the cast (John Phillip & Fernando Rey), but it's basically just an erotic thriller without much of a plot. The version I watched is presumably harshly censored with a running time of barely 77 minutes but then still there's a severe lack of suspense, character development and most of all sadistic (and typically Giallo) carnage. "Eyes Behind the Wall" can briefly be summarized as the gathering of a bunch of perverted characters and the extended depiction of their sexuality issues. It's an interesting effort notwithstanding, because writer/director Giuliano Petrelli (his only film) clearly attempted to do something special, but the overall result is unsatisfying and regrettably tame. Inspired by Hitchcock's "Rear Window", the main character is a frustrated elderly and wheelchair-bound writer. He and his much younger lover get their sexual kicks from spying on the single male tenant living across the road. The tenant, respectively, likes to perform gym exercises around the house whilst being naked and clearly has bisexual desires. Wheelchair guy sends his wife over and they have sex. Then, there's also Ottavio the butler who repeatedly rapes schoolgirls. Are there any normal characters in the story? Well no, of course not! The film benefices from a continuously ominous atmosphere, with a moody soundtrack and nifty photography, but none of it ever leads anywhere so it's all just sleaze & sex without significance. There's a truly bizarre twist/revelation at the end of the story, but it comes too late and too randomly to boost up the overall quality. Not recommended to fans of Italian horror/cult cinema, but maybe it is great viewing for psychology students, to analyze the characters Freud-style.
| 0 |
negative
|
Critics love this movie. I personally found it senseless and tasteless. This is the millionth time I've fallen into the "critics love it" trap and came out wishing someone would throw boiling hot water on my testicles because it was less painful than watching the movie. There are many scenes that are completely unnecessary. A warning to Animal lovers: Don't see this movie if you don't want to see sheep killed and molested.<br /><br />If you want to see a good Asian film, see Afrika. If you want to see a film about escaped convicts, see the Gene Wilder/Richard Pryor classic Stir Crazy. Avoid 9 Souls like the plague.
| 0 |
negative
|
I'm a dance teacher and was looking forward to some good dance routines in this film. How sad to have been subjected to such a painful experience. <br /><br />I had major problems with Jennifer Beals and her character. I found Alex extremely repellent. Beals' face is so young, sweet and innocent, and this very incongruous with Alex's very disturbing lewdness, especially in that disgusting restaurant scene. She also has the temper tantrums of a toddler. It is very difficult to believe that Nick would keep coming back to such a moody teenager after her frequent rantings and ravings, especially after she opens the door of a moving car and chucks a stiletto at him, opting rather to walk home - in the middle of the road - with only one shoe!!!. And what about after her idiotic behaviour after the night at the ballet. In fact, the whole romance was very disturbing - the 30 something year old man going after a girl who looks about 16. Yuck. <br /><br />As for the dancing, I'm afraid this 80s style is totally dated. What on earth was that TV dance sequence about in the club? Who was supposed to be dancing? I wasn't even sure if it was a woman or a man in drag! And even that famous final sequence is pretty disappointing, especially given the context of an audition for a ballet company. The camera shots of her leap actually ruin it's effect because you can't see what she's doing. And what on earth was she doing when she went past each of the panel pointing at them? And as many other comments have pointed out, she would NEVER get into a ballet company on the strength of that audition - perhaps that's why they don't actually say at the end whether she was successful or not, the closure is the fact that she overcame her fear in the end. Of the 'Flashdancers', I actually thought the best sequence belonged to Cynthia Rhodes (Penny in Dirty Dancing). You could see that she was a real dancer, and her acrobatics were very impressive. This is of course if you can get past her appalling costume and makeup. <br /><br />There were two good bits in this film - the ballet dancers stretching when Alex goes for the first time to apply for an audition - they look so lovely and classy, and at least this helps to underline the difference between her current dance career and the one she aspires to. The other good scene was the break dancing in the street. I also liked the ice skater's parents, they were funny.<br /><br />Some other random points - who was Hanna and how did Alex get to know her? What was an 18 year old doing living in a converted warehouse all alone? How did she afford that lovely barre and all the furniture?Where were her family? Was that scene in the 'nude' club really necessary? The person who wrote in their comment that it was something like a Disney film needs their head examined. And anyway, what happened to the ice skater? <br /><br />Many people said the film was poor but they liked the message - don't give up hope, keep on trying, and your dreams will come true. Watch "The Little Mermaid" instead.
| 0 |
negative
|
The Captain and Tennille have released a very good 3 DVD package with minimal editing. Unlike most variety show releases these shows have not been hacked to bits. The musical and dance numbers are included with the skits just as they were when first broadcast. I suspect that some musical numbers on the DVD may have been edited into shows in which they did not originally appear but have been unable to verify that suspicion. I've noticed a few inconsistencies between what is on the DVD and program information I've found on the net. I've been unable to verify whether the net information is inaccurate or if the musical performances have been edited into the shows on the DVD. Whatever the truth may be, I'm very appreciative of the efforts made by the production company. I wish every variety show released would show the same respect for the format. I would guess about half the shows broadcast are included. I believe they ran into rights problems on the shows which weren't included. Hopefully those issues can be resolved and a Volume 2 can be released sometime in the future. There are some individual music videos along with a dance rehearsal among the extras. I recommend this DVD to any C&T fan.
| 1 |
positive
|
I think I've finally seen the Worst Movie Ever Made, and it hurts me to say that. As a big fan of indie cinema, gay or otherwise, I had high hopes. Several minutes into the film, however, the sheriff appeared and has my vote for the worst actor of this or any other century. His performance, and the dialog he was forced to perform, caused me the unusual step of stopping the DVD in its track. Hours later when I screwed up enough courage to press the play button again, it was no better.<br /><br />Aside from the sheriff and his cartoon-racist deputies, the film has an attractive cast for whom I felt genuine sympathy since they had such a miserable script. The idea behind the film is fine - using lynching of gay men in the "New South" the same way it was used on black men in the Old South, leaving "strange fruit" hanging from the trees.<br /><br />With an accomplished writer and director, we might have had a movie. Instead we get fake detective work, platitudes about homosexuality, and a cliché with a the one good white man trying to save the day.<br /><br />I have no doubt that racism still flourishes. The FBI is currently investigating a white school bus driver in the back woods of Louisana who forced the black kids to get to the back of the bus. But this town is a cartoon, and it is hard to believe anything you see or hear.<br /><br />There a few subplots in a weak attempt to try to make the main character more three-dimensional, but for the most part, they also fail miserably.<br /><br />For the truly masochistic, the DVD contains some deleted scenes that will leave you running for cover.<br /><br />The is probably the first movie that makes me believe that writer/directors should have to pass a test and get licensed before they can make a film. Although I would look forward to seeing several of the cast members in better films, I would be hard-pressed to witness anything else from this director.
| 0 |
negative
|
This is another notorious Mexican horror film: however, while the original Spanish-language version is quite tame, all sorts of gore and nudity were inserted for the English-dubbed variant (prepared by Jerald Intrator - who did similar duties on THE CURIOUS DR. HUMPP [1967/71] - and, like the U.S. version of that film, had previously been available on DVD through Something Weird/Image)! <br /><br />I watched the original first and, while no great shakes, it was fairly engaging - especially with a plot as familiar as this one was: a doctor goes beyond the call of duty in attempting to save the life of his terminally ill son; he even has a hulking, game-legged assistant (played by Carlos Lopez Moctezuma, who had essayed a strikingly similar role - though in a more sinister vein - in THE CURSE OF THE CRYING WOMAN [1961]). I know that several Mexican films mingled horror with the "Lucha Libre" (Wrestling) genre but I had never watched one myself; this element is present here - in fact, the heroine is a wrestler - but the two styles are, perhaps thankfully, kept apart (that said, the wrestling sequences are competently done, with some of the moves proving highly amusing).<br /><br />The doctor's son is transformed into a monster (looking like The Incredible Hulk with mud splashed over his face!) after having had an ape's heart transplanted into him - but, then, when this is replaced with that of a comatose female wrestler, he stays this way and grows a pair of fangs to boot (shouldn't he realistically have turned into a transsexual...though I guess that wouldn't have been very interesting)!! The climactic rooftop sequence in which the monster kidnaps a child and meets his demise at the hands of the police is reminiscent of THE GHOST OF FRANKENSTEIN (1942). My favorite unintentionally funny moments in the film, however, occur when the doctor, trying to comfort his son, tells him that he'll soon be cured - only to turn his back soon after on the verge of tears - and also the impatient look he gives his crippled assistant (as the latter staggers slowly into the car) when they're about to chase the monster who has escaped from the lab.<br /><br />The alternate nude scenes work for the film (these were actually done by Cardona himself for a racier Mexican version entitled HORROR Y SEXO) but its reputation is largely based on the added material showing over-the-top violence, such as an eyeball being gouged out of its socket, a scalping and even a person's head being torn off. There are also several graphic operation inserts which, however, give rise to a goof: while it's made clear that only two people are involved in the operation, we see a third pair of hands constantly holding an oxygen mask to the patient's face! <br /><br />The film is also said to be a loose remake of Cardona's own black-and-white horror film DOCTOR OF DOOM (1962) but, since I haven't watched that one, I can't say how much of it was actually pilfered for NIGHT OF THE BLOODY APES...
| 0 |
negative
|
Istanbul is a big , crowded city between Europe and Asia.Too many types of people living together there for hundred years.In this documentary movie you can see how music can give description about the culture of the owner race.<br /><br />You would be able to hear too many types of music including rock , hip-hop , arabesque , alternative and more. Some of the musicians are famous in Turkey , some of them are famous also in Europe. The rest are just street musicians. Their music tell viewers , different faces of a city. <br /><br />Impressive !
| 1 |
positive
|
Is it full moon tonight? OH! It doesn't matter they can change whenever they want cuz of that drug! What was I thinking if its full moon tonight?! Geez<br /><br />I really like this movie, there's romance, suspense, horror, and hot stuff ;) I like the first half of the movie when the guy saves the girl from killing herself by bungee jumping and catching her. That was really cool. The setting of this movie is in the city of love which is Paris in France. The cemetery scenes are nice, it gives you chills not knowing what will happen there or who's behind the walls. The scenes that makes you jump out of your seat is really cool. Even they got me on that scenes. His friend who died and the girl whom he killed in the cemetery but still shows themselves to the lead character(sorry I forgot his name), was really funny. The actors did a good job plus the make-up crews. The part when they're all partying in an abandoned church, I can't believe people would that because even though that's an abandoned church, that is still God's house. I bought this movie long time ago, and I do not regret buying it. I'm a horror-movie-lover. I give this movie 5 stars out of 6. For the people who are open and loves movies like this, give it a try, you might like it.
| 1 |
positive
|
1st watched 7/19/2003 - 1 out of 10(Dir-Brad Sykes): Ridiculously lame 3D movie which pretty much follows the plots of many 80's teen slasher flicks. Stupid kids go to a known murderous camp site, become hunted by an unknown masked man, and then we try to figure out who, if anyone, is going to live. We really don't care who's behind the mask but even that's not hard to figure out if you've seen any of these kinds of movies. What a waste of a 3D viewer despite somewhat decent 3D effects.
| 0 |
negative
|
This was a great show...I don't remember much about about it but remember watching it and loving it. I remember the mother and the father. I really like the Grandmother. She was like a grandmother you really couldn't appreciate until you became an adult. She was very knowledgeable and no nonsense. My favorite song on the show was Sardines in the Morning. (that might not be the title) I remember after seeing that show and hearing that song that I went to Cleveland Ohio to visit my cousins and me and my sister sang that song so much that by the time we left all of my little cousins were singing it too. I too would love to find this on DVD.
| 1 |
positive
|
Hello all! I went to this movie without any expectation though I knew Maniratnam would've given an excellent film! I was stunned!! The backdrop is the struggle between the tamils settled in Sri Lanka and the government. The story is about how an young girl Amudha who lives with her foster parents at Chennai, India leaves to Sri Lanka in search of her real mother. The high points of the film are the performances of every actor and actress and ofcourse, the cinematography, editing and all other technical details. Full marks to the cast and crew. I have to mention about the cinematography as it brings out the war in such a way that you feel yourself being there. Excellent work! Though the war sequences reminded me of Saving Private Ryan, such a work was never attempted on Indian Screen. Overall the movie is great! And hats off to Mr.Maniratnam.<br /><br />Mani Ratnam has once again proved that he is a director who can take Indian cinema to great heights! I would love to watch this film again and again. An excellent film and a must see.
| 1 |
positive
|
I never realized what a fabulous dancer Lana Turner was until I saw this movie. She was only 19 years old and gorgeous. What a pleasure to watch her dance with George Murphy. The story line was typical for its day but the dancing was really special. I never tire of watching Fred and Ginger but Lana Turner in this movie was just as terrific. I always thought of Lana as a so-so actress who tended to over act. She should have done more dancing and less of the Maddam X and Peyton Place roles. I had a new appreciation for her after seeing this movie and her wonderful dancing. Too bad the "Academy" doesn't give an "Oscar" for dancing.
| 1 |
positive
|
One of the greatest movies to come out of the 80's, Dirty Dancing was a low-budget film with high-budget returns. With a soundtrack that makes you want to get up and dance, to a love story that all of us wish we could live (at least if you're female), this is a movie that you will want to watch over and over again.<br /><br />The music, which is what drives the movie, is upbeat and flows well with the emotions which are drawn from the viewer. From classic '60's hits like "Love Man" by Otis Redding and "Big Girls Don't Cry" by Frankie Valli to pure '80's hits like Eric Carmen's "Hungry Eyes" and Frank Zappacosta's "Overload", Dirty Dancing is a mix of fun and sensual, showing the transformation of a young girl from shy teenager into a blossoming womanhood, all against the beautiful backdrop of a summer romance that we all hope and wish turned into more.<br /><br />The dancing in "Dirty Dancing" is not to be forgotten. Cynthia Rhodes shines in her role as Penny, a dancer who could challenge even the most fluid and lithe gymnasts. Patrick Swayze does more than a fantastic job and shows off more and more of his skills, not just as an actor, but dancer and singer as well. And Jennifer Grey shines as Baby, while her transformation in dancing portrays her transformation in status as well.<br /><br />All in all, Dirty Dancing is one of the best movies of all time, and well worth watching at least once. It's doubtful that the first beats of the Ronette's "Be My Baby" in the opening title won't snare your attention and draw you in to a magical world of sensual dance and musical enchantment.
| 1 |
positive
|
This movie is excellent. Not because it does anything special or new, but because it is consistently great in all of its parts. No part stands out as being "ground-breaking" or "stellar", but all parts are far above mediocre, and that makes, to me, an excellent movie.<br /><br />I own several copies of this movie, and may acquire it on collectors DVD or Blu-Ray, someday (holding off right now due to high blu-ray prices, and of course the face that I don't have a blu-ray player... but that's beside the point of this review).<br /><br />It stars off sort of ordinary, but quickly turns into a drama filled with tension, some action, strongly portrayed characters, and a well though out plot which keeps you interested until the very end.<br /><br />Wait, no, it does NOT start out ordinary.<br /><br />It starts out sort of like what a Qun. Tar. movie WISHES it could be. With an awesome scene where an attempt to buy coffee and a donuts goes... very, very wrong.<br /><br />By the end of the movie, nothing was as it seemed, and a few people are dead, and a few people are very rich. I won't tell you who... watch and enjoy! Overall rating: 10/10, A**, Excellent!
| 1 |
positive
|
While this isn't one of Miss Davies' very worst films, it is pretty bad. And it's sad that in a revisionist fashion, recent IMDb raters have deliberately over-inflated the scores on some of her films to make up for her being slighted in the past--or so it seems. For years, conventional wisdom has been that Davies was a terrible actress and only got the roles she got because her beau, William Randolph Hearst, bought her way into Hollywood. This certainly is the image created in Orson Welles' CITIZEN KANE. It is true that Hearst did use his considerable wealth and clout to build Davies' career. With all this money, it's not surprising that she made some excellent films and it isn't surprising that people got snippy due to all the extra attention she got. Sleeping with the man who finances your films is bound to get noticed. However, despite this edge, she also made a decent number of bad films and I think we really need balance when it comes to the scores of her movies. After all, no rational person could believe that as of today (1/5/08), PEG O' MY HEART and two other Davies films recently shown on Turner Classic Movies (THE FLORODORA GIRL and MARIANNE) deserved the exceptionally high scores--ranking them higher than such films as HIGH NOON, BEN HUR, THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES and ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT!! In fact, MARIANNE would now rank as the fifth best movie ever according to IMDb with a score of 8.8!!! Considering most people out there don't even know who Marion Davies was AND most of her movies were financial disasters, this is a serious problem!! However, she was a much better actress than CITIZEN KANE implied and initially broke into films before she began sleeping with Hearst.<br /><br />What sets PEG O' MY HEART apart from these two other movies, is that MARIANNE and THE FLORODORA GIRL were pleasant little films--while PEG O' MY HEART is in some ways just terrible. Much of the reason was the terrible miscasting of Marion. While her French accent in MARIANNE was cute, in PEG her Irish accent just sounded bizarre--not particularly Irish. Plus, and perhaps I'm mistaken, but her continual use of the word 'ye' makes her sound like she should be doing Shakespeare, not a film set in 1933 Ireland! Also, there was a bizarre insistence that Marion should be the consummate multi-talented star--so they had her not just act but dance and sing. The singing actually fit the scripts in some of her films, but here it seemed out of place and seriously detracted from the film. It just seemed like you could almost hear Hearst shouting out "see--she IS a great actress---look at her sing and dance". Sadly, Marion just looked uncomfortable and out of place in many of these scenes. But for me, the biggest problem was the idea of having 36 year-old Marion playing such a youthful role. It was obvious that the character she played at the beginning of the film was supposed to be like the ones Mary Pickford played in the teens and twenties--complete with the pig tails and plucky attitude. Miss Pickford COULD carry off these roles even though she, too, wasn't a girl any more. But here, Marion had put on a bit of weight and looked at least 30. No offense--she looked fine for her age--but she DID NOT look like a teen! <br /><br />Oddly, with the millions that Hearts spent on Marion's career, he never realized that the most important thing he needed to spend his money on was a good script and one that fit Marion's talents. Believe me, I have rated several of her films very high (I especially adore SHOW PEOPLE), but here she just couldn't help but flop--this film was a turkey.
| 0 |
negative
|
It seems that Hack has been described as un-realistic... but that's what TV is. TV is meant to provide an escape from everyday life and I feel Hack does a great job in that regard. Add to this the slow process of revealing his past and engaging/interesting plots; you just can't seem to get enough. Plus, with such great actors as David Morse, Andre Braugher, and even little Mathew Borish, what more can you ask for. So if you are looking for an involving experience and have a liking for "underdog" characters, I suggest giving Hack a chance, especially now that it's finally getting off its feet.
| 1 |
positive
|
Surely one of the lamest shows ever to be produced on these shores and thats saying something. Even many of the lead actors didn't stick around for the duration. The fact that it ran for eight years is a sad indictment on the average intelligence and cultural nous of the Aussie viewer. It went round and round in circles, with repetitive gags and poorly-drawn characters. Arthur MacArthur, for god's sake. did they actually pay the writers of this show? I wonder if anyone checked their qualifications. There were tired gags about rural people and second-rate farce situations that were poor imitations of a thousand English and US sitcoms that had gone before. I think that's what I hate about it so much, that it appears no one involved wanted to make it memorable, original or clever, instead opting for the lowest common denominator each time.
| 0 |
negative
|
Beyond The Clouds is a hauntingly beautiful, elegiac work of art. The overall softness of the light that this movie is bathed in, makes you want to touch the screen. The autumnal mood conjured up could only been achieved by a director who has seen many summers of experience. Or, to put it another way, an old man. I know of no other movie that captures and uses the softness of light and seasonal mood with such ravishing quality as Beyond The Clouds. Nearly all the people in this film are beautiful, unless your idea of a beautiful woman is a pneumatic blond bimbo, that is. The dialogue doesn't really matter too much, not that there is much of it anyway, and as for storylines, forget it. Some films exist just as visual experiences, this is one of them. Don't bother if you want "simple entertainment",this not for you.<br /><br /> I could enthuse about the visual perfection of this movie for days, but I won't. If you are at all interested in cinematography, photography, film direction etc., watch this film.
| 1 |
positive
|
Burt Reynold's Direct's and star's in this great Cop film, Reynold's play's the Sharkey of the title, who is a tough cop whilst working in undercover a drug bust goes wrong, and is demoted to vice, <br /><br />The machine of the title refer's to the motley crew Reynold's's assemble's to bring down a crooked governor who is involved in high class prostitution Cocaine and contract murder,<br /><br />The motley crew is played by Brian Keith, Blackploitaion favorite Bernie Casey, Richard Libertini,(as alway's quirky as an ace sounds-man) Charle's Durning, as the chief, The beautiful English rose Rachael Ward play's Dominoe a $1000 dollar's a night hooker whom Reynold's's protect's and eventually fall's for, When staking out an apartment used by the governor.<br /><br />Italian actor Vittorio Gassman, play's the High stake's pimp, who has a deadly gang of triad's at his disposal, And Henry DeSilva, play's His psychotic brother hit man who is highly strung On prescription painkiller's and angel Dust,<br /><br />The action packed finale see's the remaining member's of the 'Machine' Engaged in a deadly shootout with Desilva, which culminate's in one the Most spectacular stunt's ever put to Celluloid,<br /><br />Alas Hollywood has ran out of idea's and is contemplating a remake of Sharky's Machine! Why bother a 25th Anniversary Special Edition DVD would be ideal, not a silly ass remake,
| 1 |
positive
|
H.G. Cluozot had difficulties working in France after he had made "Le Corbeau" in 1943 which was produced by the German company and later judged by French as a piece of anti-French propaganda. Louis Jouvet, an admirer of Clouzot's work, invited him to direct a thriller "Quai des Orfevres" where he played an ambiguous police inspector investigating a murder that happened in Paris Music Hall. Without each other knowledge, the seductive cabaret singer Jenny Lamoure (Suzy Delair) and her jealous piano-accompanist husband Maurice who is madly in love with her (Bertrand Blier, father of director Bertrand Blier) trying to cover up (without each other's knowledge) what they believe to be their involvement in the murder? Enters tenacious policeman (Louis Jouvet) who is determined to discover the truth. Jouvet practically stole the movie with wonderfully cynic and sentimental in the same time performance. "His character, his eagle-like profile and his unique way of speaking made him unforgettable." "Quai des Orfevres", witty and atmospheric observation of human weaknesses was a great comeback of H.G. Cluozot, the fine director, "French Hitchcock".
| 1 |
positive
|
This film was released soon after the Conan films, a sort of female Conan, Red Sonja played by Sylvester Stallones ex-wife Brigitte Nielsen. She's not a very good actress unfortunately as proved in Rocky IV and Cobra. The whole film feels cheap, but strangely Arnold Swarzenegger appears in this film but not as Conan, although he looks, acts and fights like Conan from the two Conan films, I don't know what thats about. Anyway he only appears about every twenty minutes and doesn't hang around for long. Maybe Arnold filmed this in his time off from filming Conan the Destroyer or something? Anyway the film is way to slow and boring for an action film, skip this and watch Conan the Barbarian instead.
| 0 |
negative
|
Though not Hal Hartley's best work (my personal favorite is "Surviving Desire"), there is still much to like about this movie, especially for fans of Hartley's dialogues. Even to audiences new to Hartley, I would definitely recommend this movie over the sophomoric "Dogma." This movie is more intelligent, truer to its source material (the Bible), and more fun than any of the other pre-millennium apocalypse movies.<br /><br /> This movie is actually part of the French "2000 As Seen By." (2000 Par Vu) series; as such, it is perhaps even a lower-budget film than Hartley's other works. While the need for simple scenes shot with digital camera is understandable in this context, the main problem with this movie is the unfortunate overuse of the blurry/jittery effect. I'd be happy to never see this effect used in a movie again; especially at the beginning, it almost makes the movie unwatchable. But overlook this flaw, and you'll be treated to a fine film. Especially notable is Magdalena (played by P.J. Harvey) relating how Jesus saved her from being stoned to death; a short scene I found surprisingly moving. (Despite the fact that it was NOT Mary Magdalene that this happened to; the woman in the Bible was unnamed.)<br /><br />
| 1 |
positive
|
this is the worst film I've seen in a long long time, never mind the fact that so many useful things keep appearing on this island "how convenient!!!!", the acting is beyond poor from the outset, its like one of those really badly scripted soft porn films on channel 5, a complete waste of time, and i cant remember the lead actors name but i cant believe he still gets work!!! I've never seen him act "I've seen him in lots of films... But I've never seen him act. here are a few of the blaringly obvious errors, apparently petrol lighters still work even when they've been soaked in sea water!!! also according to this film you can walk into the sea naked but come out wearing bikini bottoms (I'm guessing the camera man and editor were students)there are plenty more errors but I'm ranting now, besides its no so much the errors as the cast the script and the whole film avoid at all costs
| 0 |
negative
|
Well, I don't normally think there's such a thing as a HORRIBLE movie, but this is pretty damned close! The best acting performance in the whole thing was Snoop Dogg, who has one line in a 10 second scene. I agree with the "glad it was short" review. The music videos at the end were cool though.
| 0 |
negative
|
I can't help but be completely annoyed by this sitcom. It's like they didn't even bothered trying ro write good comedy, just rehash third rate jokes and hope it sticks. The worst of all this is that it's all so damm uninteresting and lacking in every way.<br /><br />To make things worse leading man Kevin James has a permanent "I'm so funny" smug grin on his face that would be tolerable if only he once delivered in the comedy department, which he doesn't, he just lies there doing nothing like a big unfunny baby. Which takes me to the relationship between the Heffernan's- easily the most insincere and poor representation of a married couple on any TV show, really headache inducingly obnoxious Remini spends the whole show as if it where a violent chore to even be around her own husband. Jerry Stiller yanking the few laughs on the show is doing a 100% repetition of his role as Frank Costanza in Seinfeld only this time his hints mostly tread on water due to the inability of the central duo in recognizing a joke even if it flew by them. The episodes just drift along in a stream of nothingness, their jobs add nothing and their interaction is even worse.<br /><br />This is not even a waste of talent, there is no talent here, this is a laughless creative desert.
| 0 |
negative
|
Whew! What can one say about this bizarre, stupefying mock-u-mentory about Ed Wood's cross-dressing fantasies?? Well, one word that comes to mind is incoherent! Wood uses raw slabs of innocuous, incidental stock footage, and then builds a "story" around them - and what a story!! Wood himself stars as Glen, a regular Joe who just happens to enjoy lounging around in his fiancee's lingerie and sweaters. I think what Wood wanted was a plea for tolerance for all the Glens of this world by showing that Glen is just like all of us underneath, only in angora. Ummm...ok. But then, we get this very bizarre montage of some horny devil, a chick in bondage, some rude, pointing people, some moore stock footage, and finally an emaciated Bela Lugusi,playing some kind of twisted, invalid Puppetmaster. Lugosi is a howl, spouting out such rubbish as "Beeevaaare...the beeeg greeeen dragon that seeets at your doorstep: he eeeets leeetle boys, puppydog tails, and beeeeeg snails!" Um, ok, Bela... :=8/ There is a strange, twisted type of Wood logic going on here. Afterall, he does remind us that "7 out of 10 men wear hats, and 7 out of 10 men are bald". Hmmm, must be that alien/cross-dressing/habidashery cowspiracy-thang!! Glen or Glenda stars a plethora (whatever that is...) of reliable Wood schlock-actors, including Lyle Talbot, Delores Fuller, and Timothy Farrell, and Wood manages to coax every bit of wretched, amateurish non-talent out of each one. Everybody by now knows Bela's sad story: by the time Wood used him for this flic, he was probably jonesing for another fix and needed the moolah, but even for him this is depth heretofore unreached. One of the MooCow's favorite Wood mooments comes with the stock footage charging buffalo scene - it is sooo loopily demented!! The MooCow says "Puuuull de schtriiiiings", and git yer hooves on a copy of Glen or Glenda - you won't believe it! :
| 0 |
negative
|
All ambiguity about Michael Myers has withered away thanks to this series' chronic habit of arseholing about with its continuity and pulling relatives out of nowhere. This entry introduces the potty angle that he's not just a psycho killer but is actually controlled by runes, which appear as a star constellation every Halloween, and a cult is using him to... erm, well, this film is far from coherent and I lost track of the plot after a while. The movie hemorrhages credibility so profusely it doesn't have a drop left by the end. Why does Michael put one victim's clothes in a washing machine? Why does an otherwise empty corridor have a deadly spike sticking out of the wall? Does getting electrocuted really make your head explode? And so on. It's left to Donald Pleasence, in his penultimate film role, to produce some wonderful little moments from the pile of dreadful dialogue he's given.
| 0 |
negative
|
I rented this film because I enjoy watching things with Lauren Graham in them. Well, she was the highlight. Everyone else seemed complete separated from the picture. You kept looking around you at those watching the film with you going, what? However she provided some clarity, as she was the only normal character in the picture, which actually isn't saying much for the film. Personally it was too far fetched for me. However, I am glad I rented despite the fact I would never want to own it. I still feel that Lauren Graham proved to be a strong actress and even thought she was not the main character, she seemed to steal the movie. My husband and I were happier and cared more about her character ending up with Josh's character than we were about the two main characters.
| 0 |
negative
|
"Eighteen" (2004) tells the story of Pip Anders, a depressed and extremely cynical young man who is estranged from his dysfunctional upper/middle class family and living on the streets of Vancouver. On his 18th birthday, he receives a cassette tape and player from his recently-deceased grandfather, relating his memoirs of his own 18th birthday, spent serving with the British army in France, trying to help a mortally-wounded comrade avoid capture by the occupying Germans. As Pip listens to the tape (Ian McKellen provided the voice of his grandfather), we see the scenes he is describing as flashbacks, alternating with daily scenes of Pip's life, as well as more recent flashbacks filling in the dark secret why Pip left home and finds it impossible to trust anyone who is nice to him.<br /><br />An ambitious second film from writer/director Richard Bell ("Two Brothers"), with a polished look, excellent photography, well-developed non-stereotypical characters (with gay and straight treated equally), and commendable efforts in emotionally and physically-demanding roles from some talented new actors (especially Paul Anthony as Pip and Brendan Fletcher as his grandfather at 18). There is also a noteworthy turn by Alan Cummings as a priest who tried to help Pip, and a small supporting role played by Thea Gill ("Queer As Folk"). The complex story - in the director's own words in his DVD commentary - is meant to drive a "vortex of emotion" pushing Pip to his breaking point, and it certainly accomplishes that. My only criticisms are that the overall effect is too "schmaltzy" or artificial for an audience to truly identify with, much of the supporting dialog (and the ending) too contrived and predictable, and the direction needed to be sharper to curtail sloppy overacting in some scenes. I do recommend it, 7 stars out of 10, including extra points for a noteworthy effort.
| 1 |
positive
|
So Seagal plays a DEA detective named John Hatcher who lost his partner on a drug investigation into, surprise surprise, Colombia! Not to brag or anything, but my father was born and raised in Colombia (hence my last name), and now he's a doctor in California, so no matter what the movies would have you believe, there are some things other than drug dealers and cocaine that come out of Colombia!<br /><br />At any rate, in a drug bust gone bad, Hatcher loses his partner and accidentally kills a naked Colombian prostitute, inspiring him to go to confession, somewhere that I have never seen him go before in any of his movies, before or since. It was actually pretty interesting. Seagal has a tendency to come off as almost asexual the way he never gets much involved with women other than as a plot device and the way the occasional seduction attempt, whether by a stripper or by a lover, never piques the slightest bit of interest from him. He's all get-the- bad-guys all the time. <br /><br />But in the confession booth, he confesses to having lied, sold drugs, falsified evidence, and even slept with informants in order to get the information he needed to put the bad guys behind bars (I hope I'm not getting in trouble with God by telling you this
). The priest tells him to go to his family, so he decides it's time to retire from the force. <br /><br />The next third of the movie is an exercise in the paper-thin characterization characteristic of Seagal's films. Marked For Death is the story of Seagal against a band of mystic Jamaican drug dealers, and these guys have no discretions about pushing their products in broad daylight.<br /><br />Hatcher goes back to visit his old high school coach, Max (a minimal effort by Keith David), and right in the middle of practice there are some of these dread-locked crackheads sitting right there in the bleachers peddling crack to some bookworm-looking high school girls.<br /><br />Maybe I just had a sheltered experience in high school, but I didn't know crack dealers and crackheads hung out AT SCHOOL in the MIDDLE OF THE DAY. At any rate, it's not long before Hatcher learns how evil these guys are. They're not just peddling crack to high school kids, but the coach has been losing football players regularly to their drugs, they engage in smartass stare-downs with Max, and since that's not enough, his 13-year-old niece died in their crackhouse.<br /><br />Ah, OK. We get the picture. I'm sure they also torture puppies and beat up old women, and maybe steal candy from children too, just for good measure. Is it really this hard to establish who the bad guys are? 13-year-old niece died in their crackhouse. Wow.<br /><br />Anyway. Not only does the movie not know how to develop villains without resorting to what basically boils down to movie name-calling, where evil deeds are shallowly assigned to them through dialogue, but they also don't know how they should act. <br /><br />The leader of the drug dealers, is named Screwface, and I suppose that alone should tell you something about the kind of movie this is. Screwface is a cartoonish Jamaican man with these bright, bizarrely green eyes, which I am guess must be an important part of his character because he spends a good majority of his screen time with his eyes half bulging out of his head. His favorite means of intimidation is to scream really loud in his wildly overblown Jamaican accent with his face quite literally less than an inch away from whoever he's yelling at. This guy likes to get so into guys' faces that he has to turn his head to the side so their noses don't touch. All I could think about was how the poor guys would deal with his breath.<br /><br />Man, they do not want you to forget that these guys are Jamaican, by the way. Their accents are so exaggerated and overblown that for most of the movie it's nearly impossible to understand them. Not that it matters. It doesn't matter what they're saying, all you need to know is that everything that comes out of their mouths is some kind of evil drug-related thing, they're just the psychos that peddle drugs and kill people. The movie must have been a huge hit in Jamaica!<br /><br />My biggest problem with the movie is that the theatrics, particularly of the bad guys, as I've described, are spectacularly goofy, even for a Seagal film. They are so cartoonish and weird that it's impossible to take them as anything other than a goofball b-movie creation, something slapped together to provide fodder to whom Seagal can distribute his characteristic brand of smack-down retribution. <br /><br />But there is also a bizarre kind of mysticism in the movie that just makes it all come off as weird. For example, a mystic, I guess you would call her, at one point puts some kind of curse on Screwface by (if I remember correctly) spitting mouthfuls of Bacardi onto a live rooster that's hanging upside down before beheading it and dripping its blood onto a picture of Screwface. Hmm. Interesting. <br /><br />Sadly, it's this same woman that warns Hatcher that his family has been "marked for death" by these people, meaning they've got some voodoo hex on them. Not to belittle anyone, but if I was told that my family had been cursed by people like that, I would just laugh at it. Hatcher doesn't strike me as the kind of guy to take much stock in freaky voodoo curses! <br /><br />But the set-up, as you can see, is pretty standard for a Seagal film. Unique villains, I guess you could say, although not very impressive. Definitely the weirdest film of Seagal's early career
| 0 |
negative
|
This is an adaptation of an Edith Wharton work, whose writing is amazing. Sadly, this movie never shakes the feeling that these 20th century movie people don't grasp the 19th century repression and desperation Wharton's work depicts. Ward and Dalton aren't so bad, but Alicia Witt's wooden performance made me wince. She was supposed to be playing the restless element of the story, but she stood like a stick the whole movie long, and I never believed a word out of her mouth. When she asks Sela Ward "Why can't I move you?" near the end of the film, I couldn't help but answer: "That's what I've been wondering for the last hour and a half!!!"
| 0 |
negative
|
I am disgusted and appalled by the positive reviews this movie is receiving. Not only is it hokey, manipulative, and melodramatic. It's also shamelessly offensive. The character of Radio `Gooding Jr.' is paraded around as a cute little stuff animal, like a puppy that's so cute you just want to take him home.' This mentality is shameless; Radio is never treated as a human being, but as a manipulative device to draw sympathies from its audience. Even more atrocious are the film's numerous moments, in which Radio gets hit in the head/trips/falls over/etc. These moments of slapstick comedy had the audience howling with laughter merely purely because, `it's funny because Radio is retarded' This is shameless, Now I do not feel that the word `retarded' is an appropriate word at all to describe the mentally disabled, but this seems to be the stance the film is taking, `Radio is retarded, but that's okay, because he's cute and we like him.' Gooding's portrayal seems better suited for a John Water's film than an inspiring family drama. To add insult to injury the film is incompetent on every level, Debra Winger is uninspired in the role as the `stereotypical housewives' that the very reminder of her heinous monologues insights laughter in all who see the film. The Score by John Horner is pure sap always overlaying its tear some score over the tired cinematography. Ed Harris is decent in a role he could have slept through, but manages to retain much of the audience's attention throughout the film. In conclusion, if you consider yourself a decent human being, ignore this travesty of a film, read the book, but otherwise skip this dire film on an interesting character from American history.
| 0 |
negative
|
I'm always interested to see neglected movies that appear to have good credentials, but in this case the film's neglect appears justified. Evidently based on some actual incidents during WWII, the film just doesn't connect with the viewer for some reason that it is not quite clear to me. One very likely reason is that - in the print I saw on TCM, anyway - none of the scenes where the Germans talked among themselves were given titles. This interesting directorial concept - to let the non-German speaking viewer just guess from "context" what the Germans are saying to each other - is, in my book, an utter flop and helps to lock the viewer out. Also, the way the movie begins - just dropping us into a very confused situation without much setup - is disorienting. Brian Keith is pretty good here, but the reputations of "The Great Escape" and "Stalag 17" will not be challenged by this flick.
| 0 |
negative
|
Am I the only person who believes this American version is far better than the 1934 English film? The English version has no suspense, looks antique and very low budget, and has unexceptional acting (except for Peter Lorre). The 1956 version, besides having top production values, shows James Stewart as the perfect 'innocent' American abroad, and gives Doris Day her best role ever. Of particular note is the music - the music of the American film is almost classic; compare the "Albert Hall' sequences of both, and you will agree that the Bernard Herrmann music is far more exciting than the original version (even though it's basically the same music!). The only flaw in the 1956 film is the ridiculous encounter in the taxidermy shop. I would appreciate any argument that can prove to me that the English version is better.
| 1 |
positive
|
I thought this movie was really good. It ends up showing the viewers in the end that Leila should of kept what she had. Leila was sick of her husband Jim, who was more worried about work then her. He was so into his work that he forgot their anniversary. He was also very sloppy. She couldn't take it anymore so she left to see if he would miss her. The movie shows that he misses her, he even tries to make up for the night he messed up. He goes to her and tries to bring her home. She ends up finding another man named Schuyler. He seemed like the man she always wanted neat and notices her. In the end she sorta foreshadows by when she look at Schuylers shoes and the way he let his cigar ashes fall on the floor the way Jim did the same kinda thing. Jim ends off making lots of money and cleaning himself up. Leila thinks in the end that she should of kept her husband because thats all she really wanted and he did changing.
| 1 |
positive
|
Ever went on Youtube? Well, the definite question to that is YES. Do you see the boatloads of ICarly and Nickelodeon rants? No definite answer.<br /><br />Many people think ICarly is a dull and idiotic program, and others think it's the best program on the face of the Earth. I have seen many of the loads of reviews panning ICarly in the head and some giving it a bouquet of roses. In my opinion, Icarly is for the kiddies, but the show is just awful.<br /><br />If you did not read the last review, here are reasons 1-8: #1: Steryotypes #2: Goofed-up drama #3: Everything is silly(taco truck for example) #4: Carly thinks she's nice but she's mean #5: Anyone over the drinking age is stupid #6: Sam is petite but strong? #7: No real companies #8: Mean teachers<br /><br />#9: The webshow overuses 3DFX. Just look on the webshow to understand what I mean. #10: The webshow also spills personal information. #11: Almost every famous thing is insulted. Icarly insults the Japanese race, Solitare, Mercades-Benz, and Pac-Man, to name a few. #12: There are too many reoccuring jokes(Sam's obsession of meat, Freddy's computer, Gibby pulling his shirt off, etc.) #13: The video games based off the show suck. #14: Freddy has a lack of masculinity. Why? It's getting unoriginal. #15: The show is targeted towards a female audience. I also hate shows directed to a male audiences too, so I prefer Icarly to be for both genders. #16: The words "nub" and "no chiz". #17: The overuse of laugh tracks.<br /><br />Part 3 coming in early Spring! Just in time for Spring break!
| 0 |
negative
|
First off, I never got into Dr. Who until recently. Honestly, I never got the opportunity to watch any of the previous incarnations (pun intended) since it was never "big" here in the US as it is everywhere else.<br /><br />That said, I must say (obviously) that after finishing the 2nd season, that this is one of the best sci-fi shows I've ever seen.<br /><br />Now, I watch a lot of Sci-Fi shows from all over and this show stands out.<br /><br />The first season was tops to begin with, with Christopher Eccleston in the title role and I thought he was terrific. Of course, so was the lovely Billie Piper who just adds such humanity and warmth to the character of Rose that no one could've done it better. Let's not forget Camile Coduri as Jackie and Noel Clarke as Mickey/Ricky who are just a blast to watch. Then there's David Tenannt. At first, I thought he was too gawky-looking to play the character (his ears!!), but after watching the 2nd season, he fits in just fine. His sharp acting and physical comedy is almost flawless. He's great with snappy dialog and can turn serious without batting an eye.<br /><br />Aside from the great acting from the cast is the acting from most of the guest actors that have appeared. A lot of them are veteran actors but some are new to me and are damn fine.<br /><br />The production and direction of the show is top notch. Occasionally, there'll be some cheesy effects here and there, but that's always been a factor in the original series and, like those episodes, is negligible.<br /><br />My favorite thing of all about the series: The stories. Writing folks, is always the key to great entertainment. Russell T. Davies has written many of the episodes along with a few other writers and they have done an excellent job. They've managed to bring excitement, ingenuity, intelligence and fun with clever concepts and great dialog. I also appreciate the fact that they can breach the older Doctors' past story lines and enemies well (my friend explains much of this to me while we watch the show) and respectfully.<br /><br />I won't mention anything about the 2nd season and how it ends since the Sci-Fi channel just started airing the 2nd season.<br /><br />I wouldn't want to spoil it. It's so much fun and excitement. You'll never want to take your eyes away nor miss a word of dialog.<br /><br />It really is that good.<br /><br />PS: Thanks to the producers for Nicholas Briggs back! **EXTERMINATE!**
| 1 |
positive
|
what was the quote by archbishop tutu at the end of the film about a person's past? this film was very disturbing to watch in the sense that it was a true story and to think that humanity is still so cruel after all these years makes me ashamed <br /><br />everyone is human and everyone has the right to live their life in peace and harmony <br /><br />live and let live<br /><br />if anyone knows the quote please let me know Thank you<br /><br />this film should be shown a lot more publicly as true events as horrific as these shown in the film should be known to all in the hope that things will change sooner rather than later.
| 1 |
positive
|
It is terrible! It is like somebody gave a kid a faulty video camera and $30 and told them to make a film. Even then you'd get a better and more professional film than this. The story is so dumb you can say there isn't one. I don't think the guy who made this knew what to do at all -- watching foreign art movies all day long isn't enough to make somebody an instant director. The acting is very bad, really kindergarten level and the writing is just plain awful. The only scene I didn't hate was the one with the caravan accident but even that only means it was just slightly less horrible than the rest of the film. How do people get finance for this stuff? I don't mind alternative films but shouldn't they at least not be a big steaming pile of cow manure? I would call 'Price of Milk' amateurish if it wasn't an insult to amateurs. This would not even be a good film if you were drunk or drugged!
| 0 |
negative
|
All the way though i was thinking to myself "Oh god why!" At the very beginning i thought "Right it might be average," but the acting and plot on most parts was atrocious.<br /><br />Every part in it was so predictable, even though the first movie seemed to bare a large resemblance to the ring, it was a half decent movie, but this just seemed to take all the good things about the first and made them terrible. Some bits made everyone in the audience wet themselves, Eg. The part were Geller falls off the building had me in stitches. My girlfriend had to keep telling me to quiet down i was kept commenting on what was bound to happen next, and more times than less i was right.<br /><br />Why does going into the house make her come after you, it doesn't make sense. It was a poor excuse for a lot of killings, and no really depth was seen at all.<br /><br />You can see everything coming, which just left you feeling that there was no point in watching. Oh shes behind her ... didn't see that one coming *yawns*.<br /><br />Surely these people must have thought to... oh i don't know, carry a knife round or at least try and fight back, instead of being eaten but someone hair? At best during the movie i was very mildly scared (and i mean mildly), i was just crying out for the credits, as they rolled i exhaled a short "Oh thank god." If you haven't already, don't waste your' time and money on this; pointless, plot less, sorry excuse for a sequel!
| 0 |
negative
|
This movie is based on the novel Island of dr. Moreau By H.G. Wells. It's a fairly good one too, it's at least better than the version by John Frankenheimer.
| 1 |
positive
|
I just watched this film at an advanced screening. I had not read the book, and knew nothing of the story, but went because the book was voted "Book of the Year" by two local colleges. So I cannot compare the book with the movie as others have done.<br /><br />In short, I thought this was an incredibly moving story. The acting was believable, and the insight into Afghan culture and political history was both interesting and shocking. My oldest friend is Iranian-American, and so I felt an affinity for certain Middle Eastern values and traditions that were portrayed in the movie, as they reminded me of the times I spent with his family.<br /><br />The themes of friendship, family, human values, and courage under fire are universal, and are well developed in the film. I won't list the plot details, as these can be obtained elsewhere. But based on the film's technical aspects, the acting, and, above all, its heart-wrenching story, I would definitely recommend this movie.
| 1 |
positive
|
The Quick and the Undead is, finally, the first movie to actually render its own storyline null and void. It is, essentially, one gigantic plot hole.<br /><br />Aside from that, the acting was quite bad, character motivations nonexistent or unbelievable and there wasn't a single character worth hanging our hat on. The most interesting cast member (who had great potential to be a dark horse protagonist) got snuffed halfway through the proceedings.<br /><br />What the Quick and the Undead DOES serve as is an excellent example of how to do good color-timing. It looked excellent, when you take into account budget considerations.<br /><br />Unfortunately, it plays out like a guy got his hands on a hundred grand and watched a few westerns (most notably The Good, The Bad and The Ugly) and then just threw a bunch of elements haphazardly into a movie... "you know, they have movies where characters do THIS! Does it fit here? No, but who cares! They do it in other movies so I should do it here!" <br /><br />Maybe a good view for burgeoning cinematographers and colorists (first-year film-schoolers). Otherwise, a must-miss.
| 0 |
negative
|
How on earth this film isn't more widely regarded is beyond me.<br /><br />I picked it up for £1, and I'm not exaggerating when I say it's the best pound I've ever spent on a film.<br /><br />The thing that usually lets films about the club scene down is either the music or the actual scenes filmed in clubland.<br /><br />Here, the music and club scenes are completely credible,using some big tunes of the time, and filmed in real clubs, with people actually looking like they want to be there.<br /><br />The performances from the actors are of a high standard all round, although Jason Donovan in particular for me stands out (he was playing Frank N Furter in The Rocky Horror Show in London at roughly the time this must have been filming, so his drag phase was in full flow!), and of course Tim Curry who's eloquent drug land boss is convincing.<br /><br />Simply put, if you're a fan of British film you have to see this, it matters not a jot if you're into clubbing as the film is strong enough as a story anyway.<br /><br />Highly recommended.
| 1 |
positive
|
This must rate with the worst films I have ever seen. It just wasn't funny. My wife fell asleep. I suppose if you are the sort of person who goes all gooey eyed at the sight of a dog then it may do something for you. If you expect a comedy film to have some humour in it then you will be disappointed unless you find an English radio announcer saying the f word a lot hilarious. The strippers in the club kept their underwear on so there wasn't even a bit of nudity to relieve the boredom. What did happen in the strip club made no sense at all. There was a great deal of mumbling by the lead character with whom I developed no sympathy at all. Mena Suvari was hardly in the film, presumably just there to make people think it was a serious attempt at producing a film. The bad guys were unconvincing and carried as much menace as a dead sheep.
| 0 |
negative
|
Nothing to spoil here at all but this could be a SPOILER so beware.<br /><br />Special effects were on the level of a video game -- about five years ago, or perhaps of the original Star Trek. The acting was just pathetic -- some cheesy looking blonde treking across the desert while a voice in the background droned on. And on. And on. This was the trek and drone half that I actually made it through. Progress is interrupted by a few fights. Ships blow each other up for no real reason that is apparent episodically. Again, it's not that there is a real fight that you would expect from a movie, more like a cheap video game. Boi-ing! Boi-ing! Ship explodes. Next ship. Apparently some of the ships are looking for the blonde. Here in the far future, ships must be nearsighted and astigmatic because many of them pass directly overhead of the stylishly dressed futuristic babe in black but never see her. <br /><br />Then there are a couple of choreographed fights that look like something put on by high school kids. Again, the crude video game mentality is prominent. The combatants shift to "Fight Mode" by flipping something on their wrists, and a loud computerized voice echoes and flashes "Fight Mode". That must be a dandy design if you are trying to sneak up on somebody. Then you go to a big power station which looks just like a current day power line tower and plug in to charge back up. LOL, I'm not kidding, you can't make this stuff up, it's like watching a freaking video game from about 2000 only the acting is better in the game.<br /><br />More trekking. Then she shows up at "The City". (Lame sound trek gets even lamer here.) She gets into a fight with a mech robot of the future who cannot hit her with his big gun, even though she runs right in front of him, about five feet in front of him. Obviously robots of the far future are about as useful as toaster ovens in a fight. She throws sand in its eyes and beats it to death by throwing rocks at it. rofl, I was at about 95% of tolerance by that point, my nausea circuits flashing red.<br /><br />In the next scene she ends up strapped to a rocket with some rope. I kid you not, tied right to the outside of a rocket. This is supposed to be an advanced form of transportation. At that point I bailed. <br /><br />This movie is an utter disgrace for a movie made at the present time. Just a freaking disgrace. There was a drippy story but the movie distracted from it -- somebody droning on about "mother" constantly. <br /><br />I gave it a two because there were a few scenes which displayed some pretty nice artwork of a science fiction nature as background. Unfortunately the plot, acting, action, cinematography, and narrative distracted from this artwork and degraded it. No kidding.
| 0 |
negative
|
This often maligned movie is a must for fans of Blake Edwards, Julie Andrews, Henry Mancini, or Hollywood musicals. Other writers have commented on the shifts in tone, the confusion of plot, etc., but the film has many things to recommend it. The score is one of Henry Mancini's best (and he has written many wonderful ones), several songs are sung to perfection by Andrews, Julie's performance is nuanced and she is decked out in some beautiful clothes, (she is at her absolutely loveliest here), the on-location shots are breath-taking, and there are some funny Inspector Clouseau-type sight gags to boot. Rock Hudson basically phoned in his performance, but he is passably good. A real curiosity item in that it was the last major film Julie did for about 10 years and, in many ways, is a precursor to Victor/Victoria. It is lovely to look at and listen to. When will it be available on DVD??? When it is, I for one would like both versions--the longer and shorter, director's cut. Since it was lampooned in S.O.B., they would make a great two-pack!
| 1 |
positive
|
This meandering tale of mob revenge is simply not very interesting, even with Ed McMahon in a ripe role as the chief heavy. Jim Brown kicks ass effectively, Gloria Hendry proves again that she can bring life to even the poorest roles, and Brock Peters is decent as The Cop Who Plays By the Book. It's still dull and badly constructed, and even the print shown on cable is now emasculated of its original James Brown score.
| 0 |
negative
|
The revisionist history -- making the evil Marquis de Sade a semi-heroic romantic -- is mind-boggling enough. But the atrocious acting, amateurish cinematography and terrible dubbing make this film achingly bad. The only reason to keep watching is that almost all the women in the film are gorgeous. And, amazingly, being tortured for days, with hands bound overhead, apparently doesn't detract from a woman's beauty, hairstyle and makeup. My guess is that the producers filmed mostly in Russia, choosing women for their looks -- and willingness to work cheap -- rather than acting ability. If you decide to watch this because you have nothing better to do, or are a film student looking for bad examples, fast-forward through every scene not involving nudity.
| 0 |
negative
|
Altman is very proud of the fact that people in his movies talk over each other, because, he says, people do that in life. Well, people also cough, burp, go off on tangents, etc. The point is that just because people actually do something doesn't make it compelling cinema. That's one issue.<br /><br />The bigger issue is that this just isn't a very clever or direct or hitting or relevant satire, in 1988 or 2004. Garry Trudeau is still living in the 1960s and thinks everyone except a small core of Republican elected officials is a 60s-style hippie liberal. I mean the guy still trots out Zonker in his strip - a character that is a complete anachronism, yet Trudeau still employs him as if he is representative of a large stripe of American youth.<br /><br />Don't get me wrong. I am a conservative, but I'm not saying that this is bad because it's got a liberal bent. It could take a liberal tack and be funny and relevant, but it's not. It is mainly a vanity piece with a bunch of prominent celebrity liberals (including the odious, repellent Ron Reagan, Jr.). At times it feels unscripted, and the rest of the time it has a snarky air of self-importance and "aren't we oh-so-clever?"-ness.<br /><br />Someone said that this show insists it has a cult following. I think its cult status is more wished-for than actual. I'm certain there are two or three people out there who taped all the original episodes in 1988 and still have them, but if that is the standard, then every show ever aired is a cult classic to some degree. If Tanner didn't have the names Altman and Trudeau attached, it would be another forgotten HBO production from the 1980s. Instead, it's presented as hard-hitting, incisive political commentary from guys who are at the top of their game. The reality, however, is about as far from that as possible. Pat Paulsen's presidential satire is more relevant than Tanner ever was, and he's been dead for a decade.
| 0 |
negative
|
I stumbled upon this movie whilst flipping channels on the teevee late one night. It has continued to hold my interest some twenty years later, because of the important real-life lesson it teaches us about the dark side of human nature. And although it tells a true story that takes place in WWII, it is amazingly apropos to the ugly things happening in Europe today.<br /><br />If you thought "ethnic cleansing" as it's called today, has anything to do with race or ethnicity, you'll think differently after viewing this story.<br /><br />I guess I'd been pretty naive in thinking that evil follows any prescribed set of rules. Evil is as evil does.<br /><br />This movie teaches a valuable lesson, and I recommend it especially to e.g. church groups or civil rights organizations.<br /><br />I don't expect it will be too easy to find and rent, but I'd really like to see it again, because there is one amazing scene in it which gives a totally unintentional yet interesting glimpse of the banal intricacies of "race expertise". In this scene, the protaganist, who was taken prisoner by the Nazis at the beginning of the war, is "discovered" by an SS race authority, and ushered into a room. There the two play a sort of guessing game, where the SS officer is able to determine where our hero (Anthony Quinn's character) came from -- and where his ancestors came from. Well "come to find out" that Quinn's character isn't a member of an "inferior" race after all, but to the contrary, he's a perfect, archtypical Aryan! Which doesn't mean a whole lot to Quinn's character, who is more interested in talking about the towns, rivers and mountain ranges that the SS guy had just been naming... Nevertheless, being a perfect Aryan archetype has its perks. Among other things, he gets to leave his job in a slave labor factory where he wears striped rags, and into a slave modeling job where he gets to wear tailored Nazi uniforms. Yeah, it's a better gig for sure for a guy who always did appreciate wearing nice clothes... until the Allied armies arrive, and recognize his face from magazine covers.<br /><br />
| 1 |
positive
|
Another pretentious film from Vicente Aranda. If "Juana la loca" shinned of the same, at least its quality was superior (mainly thanks to the great performance of Pilar López de Ayala), but "Carmen" is boring and full of topics (ardent brunette with a dagger in the stocking, poor man dragged to madness due to passion, Sierra Nevada gangs, "toreros",...)<br /><br />Obviously Paz Vega is a pretty woman, but about its talent there're more doubts, and Sbaraglia role is so stupid that results almost incredible. The script is weak and and Aranda's presumptuous character influences the entire film. With these ingredients the result could not be good.<br /><br />Not the worst film I've seen, but a complete failure, in my opinion.
| 0 |
negative
|
Director Michael Ritchie and actor Robert Redford's second documentary-style drama, 'The Candidate', is a political satire that still seems fresh and pertinent today. So it's a pity that 'Downhill Racer', made a short time before, seems so dated by contrast. The music is ugly, and the perhaps innovative ski-ing sequences are now standard in televisual coverage of the sport. The world of ski-ing seems strangely amateurish (probably accurately, given the time the movie was made, but it's hard to relate to today's professional world), and the theme of Americans in Europe likewise seems hundrum in an age of ever easier travel. Perhaps the biggest problem is the flat plot, centred on the arrogant but enigmatic hero; unfortunately, it's a dreary performance from Redford, offering us little insight into his cares or motivations. And a character-driven film without much of a character is never a good bet. I expected much, but sadly this is a boring movie.
| 0 |
negative
|
Topical? Certainly. Entertainment? Probably - but only on removal of any shred of the viewer's common sense. Reality? Only in so much that it was made on this planet.<br /><br />How thousands of people were supposed to have died as a result of a 5-metre wall of water in a city liberally littered with buildings in excess of 25 metres high is quite beyond me. Carlyle's line to the effect of "How could anyone survive that?" when the shot shows forests of buildings with several floors above the water is completely laughable. Further, if someone commits themselves to an area (under water) where one cylinder of air is not enough (i.e. they are going to die), why not use the simple expedient of taking more than one cylinder? Clearly, the writer thinks that people in stressful situations cannot count beyond one (one cylinder, one floor).<br /><br />Rather than watching this tripe, you would be more informed and entertained by throwing the DVD away and reading the pricing information on the cellophane outer wrapper.<br /><br />Pitiful, truly pitiful, and a terrible waste of the on-screen talent.<br /><br />As for the sexist propaganda suggesting that only women can see through the problems to illuminate the solutions to be effected by the expendable men: yet more PC 'tosh'. Small wonder that First Blood, Delta Force, Navy Seals and other such movies of little or no merit will always have a following while this blatantly politically-motivated bilge is peddled.
| 0 |
negative
|
The incomparable Paul Naschy, horror film icon of Spain, lends his talents to this entertaining if not scattershot film. What begins as an action flick ends up a horror story. All I can say is just sit back and enjoy the ride.<br /><br />Paul Naschy plays a cold-hearted hit-man hired by some shady Japanese diamond hunters (one of which is his flame who is carrying his child) to swipe a cache of diamonds from a Belgian businessman. When the deed is done, the allure of the diamonds is too tempting for Paul to dismiss so he kills his Japanese cohorts. His girlfriend, whose brother Paul killed, vows revenge and chases Paul through the forest, shooting him up and leaving him for dead. However, Paul is found by an egghead with two horny daughters and brought to his estate to recuperate.<br /><br />At the estate, the two daughters, Silvia Aguilar and Azucena Hernandez, fight for Paul in his weakened state, with the busty Silvia Aguilar determined not to lose out to the sweet and prim Azucena. But things get hairy for Mr. Naschy who begins to see the ghost of the daughter's long dead mother on the estate grounds. Couple this with the Japanese lass looking to finish the job of killing Paul and he gets pulled from two sides.<br /><br />STORY: $$ (The story goes a number of ways and doesn't fully satisfy. The script builds up a fight for Paul between the daughters but Silvia, whose character seems assertive and volatile, simply lets Azucena win in the Paul Naschy sweepstakes without putting up a fight. Personally, I would have preferred the ghostly apparition story to the revenge seeking of the Japanese woman)<br /><br />VIOLENCE: $$$ (You get gunplay, a blown-up babe and pigs eating some poor schmuck alive. Gore hounds will not be letdown with this Naschy flick).<br /><br />ACTING: $$$ (Paul Naschy, as always, is fun to watch but he does spend a bit too much time in bed recovering from his wounds. Starring with him again are the luscious Silvia Aguilar and the beautiful Azucena Hernandez, who teamed with Mr. Naschy in the little gem "The Craving." Both girls do a fine job).<br /><br />NUDITY: $$$ (You get very brief glimpses of both Aguilar and Hernandez but they are strategically placed, keeping the naught bits covered. Full nudity is supplied by the two lesser appealing actresses: the Japanese woman chasing Paul and the African maid that works for Silvia and Azucena).
| 0 |
negative
|
Honest to God, the Outline pretty much says it all. The planet Andromina (not to be confused with Aunt Jemima) is represented by a cheap L.A. stripclub. There's no strippers, so the most recent male visitors go off to recruit strippers.<br /><br />The men get mistaken for kings or arrested for spying on women (although despite the fact its a planet of women we only get two women who participate in any girl-girl sex scenes), and eventually, as always happen in science fiction cliche movies everywhere, the women become convinced that men are good for something. Well, not the men who made this movie, at any rate!<br /><br />But boy, do we get to see a lot of that something, in prodigious amounts of softcore sex and nudity. This one has less plot then usual for such flicks, so change the channel if you don't like this kind of movie, and grit your teeth if you're into this kind of thing.
| 0 |
negative
|
Where do I begin? The story was so bad, it must have been written in a high school film club! The acting was so wooden I felt sorry for the actors! One actor even reminded me of what a deer must look like when staring into a car's headlights! Another actor has this constant look of being constipated! But it was the dialog that takes the cake! <br /><br />Our hero says to his captors - all holding submachine guns - if you lay a finger on a female prisoner you will be dead. Moments later, the strongest guard, built like a truck, and the only women prisoner go at it. When our fearless leader, who has this very annoying raspy gangster voice catches wind of this transgression, he calmly walks up to the guard, while machine guns are trained on him, and in a split-second snaps this giant guy's neck like he was breaking a tooth pick! He then gets back in line while all the villains with their machine guns do absolutely nothing, but essentially yell at him!<br /><br />I could go on and on! This movie is camp gem; and if you have any sense of humor, it's guaranteed to make you laugh so hard your eyes will tear!
| 0 |
negative
|
I must, in light of the encomia of praise for this flick from viewers, assume once again the role of the turd in the punchbowl, as Lowell Weicker used to say, I am scratching my head at the sheer number of laudatory comments. "The African Queen" this ain't. The period flavor is wonderful, yes. The acting is fine, but no actor no matter how great can bring life to the seemingly endless stream of perfectly tedious and insignificant party and dinner table conversation here, and I care not how much of it is taken from Joyce's text. Imagine spending an hour and a half as a fly on the wall at a Christmas dinner of a not particularly interesting group of people (it's not clear to me that it's a family, as one person suggested), having to listen to their mundane table talk, and you have the essential experience of this movie. Absolutely nothing happens. And nothing important is said, but it is said at interminable length. As I said, the popularity of this movie is a mystery to me. Speaking of mysteries, watch a good one rather than this.
| 0 |
negative
|
This is another Sci-Fi channel original movie staring Rhys Davies where its hard to decide whats worse, the acting, or the writing/directing/producing (John Sheppherd helms all three.)Basic story: obsessed exobiologist captures chubacabra monster,smuggles it in a cargo container aboard a cruise ship it escapes and the blood bath begins. Clichéd sci fi cast of the sturdy captain with the beautiful daughter, handsome hero and mad scientist. Captian calls in a terrorist alert for the ship (since of course wouldn't believe a monster story.)No dramatic Helicopter drop of the Navy Seals here. Budget only allowed for entire force force of eight seals to arrive in a fiberglass fishing boat and ride a ships wench aboard. Puleeze. Also cheesy computer animation of the ship you could do better on your computer. I also loved when the Seal commander looking thru standard binoculars from ten miles away was able to see three people jump of the ship. If the Sci-Fi channel is going to continue original movies I hope they realize there audience is not kindergarten level and purchase better scripts and directors. If this were direct to video you would find it in the 99 cent bin.
| 0 |
negative
|
Early 80's creature feature concerns a long abandoned gold mine that some intrepid miners are determined to check out. Naturally, they find no gold down there but one very hungry monster that slithers along in search of prey.<br /><br />While I have to be honest and admit I found it dull at first (I personally prefer the thematically similar "The Boogens"), it actually grew on me as it went along. Now, the characters aren't too interesting nor the actors either. The closest to an interesting character is Morgan, played by Keith Hurt. In any event, female lead Terri Berland is quite good looking and Rolf Theison makes his domineering jerk an easy person to hate. The writer played by effects man Mark Sawicki wears thin quickly.<br /><br />It begins in a comfortably predictable enough way, with a nighttime set piece in which two victims are claimed to get things off to an acceptable start. The monster itself is intriguing for its design (as you can imagine, it gets revealed a bit at a time until late in the game) and for being the product of stop motion animation when this process was no longer used very much. Director Melanie Anne Phillips (directing under the pseudonym of David Michael Hillman) and crew deserve some credit for their creation of atmosphere. They manage to make the film look quite claustrophobic and gloomy, and their use of lighting works well. The film does build in intensity towards a pretty good ending. Suffice it to say, they do the best they can on their low budget.<br /><br />An obscure little item worth looking into for die-hard horror buffs.<br /><br />7/10
| 1 |
positive
|
It's the one film I almost walked out of, and would have if my friends hadn't been in the movie theatre with me. Normally, even if I don't like a film, I think it's still worth sitting through it to the end. That way, you can really claim to have given it every chance to redeem itself. But with The Million Dollar Hotel, it was so dreadful I just badly wanted the experience to end as quickly as possible. I think I probably would not have been so sourly disappointed if this film had been made by a lesser director, one I didn't normally like so much. But coming from Wenders, it was all the more shocking to behold. I know Bono from U2, a good friend of Wenders's, wrote the script to this abysmal film, and I wonder why Wenders let him, as buddy-buddy as the two may have been. "Stick to the day job, Bono", is a sentence that easily springs to mind whilst viewing this mess. Pretentious, disjointed, a mish-mash of every possible contemporary film stereotype, a naive and transparent attempt at coming across as kooky and daring, with the most irritating characters I have ever set eyes upon, especially the leads, Jeremy Davies, Milla Jovovich and Mel Gibson, none of whom I dislike normally. The happiest ending I could have wished for would have been for a nuclear bomb to be dropped on their collective heads so as to get it all over with as soon as possible. On a positive note, the first five minutes of the film are extremely good, with an extremely stirring soundtrack from U2. But the film's opening shots make the rest of the film (which takes a spectacular nose-dive from then on) all the more disappointing as they are a promise of cinematic quality that's just never delivered, not even close.
| 0 |
negative
|
This delightful movie tells the story of buds. And it's incredible. You'll laugh, and you'll smile, and you'll laugh. It's really all about the laughs. When Jon Bon Jovi is funny in a movie, it's a heck of a movie! 'nuff said. Now go watch it!
| 1 |
positive
|
The film opens with the director talking to the camera and saying he is going to show a story about Brazilain street kids whose families live in poverty and must steal and kill to survive. In fact the main character (Pixote) was played by an actual street kid only 11 years old. What follows was one of the most brutal, depressing and horrifying film I've even seen. I saw it about 17 years ago (on a double bill with "Black Orpheus") and have never forgotten it. I don't think I ever want to see it again--it was just too much. <br /><br />SPOILER AHEAD!!!! The scene which will not leave me is when Pixote meets a prostitute who has to abort her own fetus. You don't see her do it...but you get a quick glance at what she got out. It's almost 20 years later and just recalling that scene upsets me. SPOILER END!!!!!<br /><br />The movie gets more brutal as it goes along and ends the only way it can. What's all the more harrowing is stories like this really did happen in Brazil in 1981...and are STILL happening today.<br /><br />A harrowing brutal film...but it should be seen if you can handle it. I'm surprised this got an R rating--I've seen X rated film that are less graphic. A 10.
| 1 |
positive
|
The Toxic Avenger... <br /><br />The idea of this movie is that a person that the common population would call this person a looser and then after being thrown into a barrel of toxic waste, mutated into a superhero that is completely disfigured sounded OK even for 1985. This movie is listed as a horror... I even have read of a cult following with this series.... <br /><br />Now this movie even given when it was made was so bad that I couldn't stop watching... the acting is horrible even for an independent film that I think was to be the horror part of this movie...<br /><br />drug dealing, sumo, Godzilla entrance.... I'm all for movies that promote anti-drugs... heck I even like Godzilla and well sumo... I'm not into it but even still I think that the heights of sumo would love to give this movie the 1000 hand slap and ground salt into the eyes of the people that made this movie... <br /><br />Personally I am almost ready to write to the film company that made this and ask them for the 87mins or so of my life back.<br /><br />To me 1 out of 10 is too high it's too bad that there isn't a 0 (zero) or even negative integers to place on a movie here.<br /><br />In other words this movie is J-U-N-K...... would rather watch paint dry and deal with explosive diarrhea then have to watch this movie ever again... I would be the first person that would use not only the packaging of this movie as kindling but I would be up for a good'ol movie and script burning.
| 0 |
negative
|
Director: Tay Garnett, Ford Beebe, Cast: Mike Mazurki, Vic Christy, Fritz Ford, Tay Garnett.<br /><br />Based on the number of comments I see on IMDb, this seems to be a forgotten movie. This seems rather ironic to me because it is actually one of the first movies that I remember. My mom took me and my little brother to see this film at The Garland theater in Spokane when it first came out in the mid 1970's and I still remember it.<br /><br />I am going by memory here but I believe this move is about a trapper who was accused of a crime which he did not commit and the law goes after him. I believe it to be set in 1800's Alaska. A narrator tells the story of the trapper played by Mike Mazurki. Really, this is a very good film with a great setting. It could be compared to the 1981 film Death Hunt with Charles Bronson. The two films have a very similar story line. The main difference between the two is Death Hunt is an adult orientated film whereas Challenge is a family friendly film. <br /><br />Mike Mazurki and Tay Garnett were both rather old when this movie was made which I find rather impressive when one considers that this movie was filmed on location in the wilds of Alaska. This was the last film made by Tay Garnett before he died which was just a few years later. They both had been around since the silent era.
| 1 |
positive
|
This film is BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, and BORING!!! It's not the worse film I ever saw, on the contrary, but.......how shall I put this.......IT'S BORING! There is some very nice scenery and some clever dry wit but that's about it. If it was advertised as a travelogue I would rate it a 7 but it's supposed to be a film with a plot, some drama, and for god's sake a point or a satisfying conclusion.<br /><br />I read some of the comments on this board about this films and I wondered if they saw the same movie as I did.<br /><br />See this film (yawn) at your own risk........one thing for sure- it really is rated correctly= G RATING! (Which most stand for GOD AWFUL BORING!)
| 0 |
negative
|
I have never seen this movie on its own, but like many others who have already commented, I saw it as an episode of MST3K. Really terrible 70s television schlock. But someone saw its potential because it's just been turned into a $125 million flop called The Island.<br /><br />And to the person who asked whether there were ANY good movies made in the 70s, I want to remind her that it was a golden age for American film with directors like Robert Altman and Martin Scorcese first coming into their own. Not to mention little things like Star Wars (1977). Just a reminder that the 70s were far more creative than the 21st century has been so far.
| 0 |
negative
|
A tough sell: British playwright Ronald Harwood adapts his autobiographical stage drama into loud, bellowing film about WWII Shakespearean theatrical troupe saddled with an aged, blustery, brilliant-but-unreliable star at the end of his tether. The actor's effete assistant works diligently to get his master coiffed and costumed for a production of "King Lear" (during an Air Raid!), yet both men are losing their grip on their unraveling situation. Based on the waning years of actor Donald Wolfit, whose dresser was Ronald Harwood, this acclaimed production would seem to be a welcome haven for scenery-chewing thespians. Unfortunately, Albert Finney (at this point in his career, not at all elderly) seems too robust and quick-thinking to play the actor; Finney (and Oscar-nominated director Peter Yates) cannot modulate Sir's moods and bouts of coherency in a way that makes sense to us, so that in one scene he's stopping a train with the commanding echo of his voice, and in the next he's curiously falling apart. With such a wreck of a human being in the midst of failing health and aptitude, one would assume a dedicated assistant would go to great lengths to protect his boss (and his future), yet servant Tom Courtenay prods and badgers and goads Finney to carry on rather than rest. Courtenay, who played this part on stage (and was nominated for an Oscar alongside Finney for Best Actor), is far more attuned to his role, and eventually his bleating commands and confusion achieve the only real feeling in the film. These two, thankfully, do not peck at each other's heads, and scenarist Harwood is careful not to fall into a love-hate pattern (which could possibly be perceived in the film's first act); but, without a juxtaposition of servant vs. celebrity, there's nothing much to behold in this portrait except for the deterioration of narcissism, the hint at what once was. *1/2 from ****
| 0 |
negative
|
who's responsible for these "behind the scenes" things? who are these actors? did they crawl out from beneath rocks? 'yuks, lots of yuks!' no. no yuks for me. only loathing and shame that i am a human being. i have to avert my eyes from the set, it's so embarrassing. in fact, i changed the channel.<br /><br />i've always had a problem with robin williams' non-stop 'i forgot my lithium today' rantings, but at least he's funny once in a blue moon. watching someone who isn't funny at all impersonating robin williams is like having each tooth in your head pulled slowly and sadistically, without novocaine, for all eternity.<br /><br />please stop making these absolutely horrifying TV movies. please.
| 0 |
negative
|
I wish I could have given this a Zero. Sure I'll admit that I also mistakenly picked this up thinking it was the Spielberg version. A clever marketing ploy releasing it at this time and being prominently displayed at the video store. However, I was willing to give it a go anyhow - I wish I wouldn't have.<br /><br />Where do I start? I have read some of the other reviews here and have to say I disagree with anyone who thinks any of the acting was good - sorry even C. Thomas Howell stunk. None of the performances were any good. Not a one.<br /><br />Even if the acting was decent the dialog is terrible! "Ginormus" and "dick skinners" just doesn't really cut it.<br /><br />Now as for the story well - it was terribly adapted and must have been edited by a 5 year old. The main character is constantly running into situations that are way convenient - or at least appear that way due to how the film was edited together. For example he is trying to get to a place called New Hope to find his brother. During a brief break someone just randomly hands him the directions to New Hope. What the hell is that? When he gets to New Hope he just happens to stumble onto his dying brother. Then there is the part where he has been traveling away from his destination for days and just happens to come across the car his wife and son were traveling in. He was going in a different direction then they were how did that car end up where he was? He has a black back pack that randomly appears and disappears throughout the film. There are parts of the film where the characters are just waking up in the morning and then two seconds later it is night - or worse yet dusk of the next day. I also can't forget the main character and the preacher falling through the floor of a house for no reason - we don't find out until later that an alien has landed on the house. Which reminds me of the moment when they are walking and suddenly find themselves standing under an alien they didn't notice. What the hell, the aliens are like two stories tall with huge bodies and multiple legs - how could they miss it? There is one point where an alien kills a random citizen, supposedly by spitting some kind of junk at him - but you never see the stuff fly it just appears on the guys face. The special effects in general are terrible. The entire movie is like a bad "train wreck". When we finally get to the end, after this guy trying to get to DC to find his family, they just appear. No searching no asking questions nothing. Just oh there you are I am so happy - the end.<br /><br />I am sorry if my review rambles a bit but this movie was so bad I had a hard organizing my contempt. Please save yourself the time and don't watch this sneakily displayed pile of cinematic stench. It is quite possibly the worst film I have ever witnessed. I would rather have been getting a root canal - It would have been less painful.
| 0 |
negative
|
A heroic young trail scout leads a large party of pioneers along THE BIG TRAIL to the West, with Indian attacks, natural disasters & romantic complications all part of the adventure.<br /><br />As sweeping & magnificent as its story, Raoul Walsh's THE BIG TRAIL is a wonderful film, as entertaining as it was more than seven decades ago. With very good acting and excellent production values, it lives up to its reputation as the talkies' first epic Western.<br /><br />John Wayne, pulled from obscurity for his first important movie role, looks impossibly young, but he immediately impresses with the natural charm & masculine authority he brings to the hero's role; he quietly dominates the film with the attributes which would someday make him a huge star. Marguerite Churchill is fetching as a lovely Southern belle who slowly warms to the Duke's attentions. Dialect comic El Brendel is great fun as a Swedish immigrant beset with mule & mother-in-law woes; his appearance in a scene signals laughs for the viewer.<br /><br />Looking & sounding like a human grizzly bear, Tyrone Power Sr., vast & repulsive, makes a wonderful villain. Slick cardsharp Ian Keith is a sophisticated bad guy. (His famous physical similarity to John Gilbert is very apparent here.) Silent movie character actor Tully Marshall is impressive as a wily old mountain man who helps guide the wagon train. Corpulent Russ Powell, as a friendly fur trapper, puts his vocal talent for making nonsense noises to good use. Sharp-eyed movie mavens will spot Ward Bond as one of the Missouri settlers.<br /><br />What will surprise many modern viewers is that THE BIG TRAIL was filmed in an early wide screen process, called Grandeur. More than living up to its name, the picture looks marvelous, with Walsh showing a mastery of the new technology. He fills the screen, every portion of it, with action. Notice during the crowd scenes, how everyone is busy doing real work, which adds so much to the verisimilitude of these sequences. Walsh deserves great credit for being one of the first directors to use wide screen. In addition, the film is blessedly free of the rear projection photography which blights so many older films. It should also be stressed that it is only natural that the soundtrack sounds a little primitive; talkies were still in their cradle. That Walsh was able to use a microphone at all, with most of the scenes shot out of doors, is more kudos for him.<br /><br />THE BIG TRAIL was not a box office success. In 1930, William Haines' comedies were the big money makers and the public was looking for fare other than intelligent Westerns. Most of the cast slipped into obscurity, including Wayne. It would not be until 1939, when John Ford rescued him in STAGECOACH, that John Wayne's legend would begin in earnest. And despite its grand & sweeping vistas, it would be another 25 years before wide screen caught on with Hollywood, largely as an answer to the economic threat from television.
| 1 |
positive
|
I watched this film with my family over a long Thanksgiving holiday weekend. I am thankful that someone insisted that we watch it, though I didn't pay much attention until the end of the film when a head shearing seems promised, but, alas, doesn't happen.<br /><br />On the other hand, I watched this movie some years later and loved its liveliness, absurdity, sparkle, and just plain fun. I think that the film has a female tone. Women are not exploited in it even though I am sure that someone might think that the movie is pure exploitation. I think the movie plays with tropes of the period.<br /><br />I keep thinking someone ought to remake it. And flesh out some of the implications in the original.
| 1 |
positive
|
Screen treatment of the comedic Broadway success "The Gay Divorce" (a title which was considered too scandalous for American moviegoers, though it was used in the U.K.) concerns a man and woman (Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers) meeting under embarrassing circumstances while she's in the process of divorcing her spouse; they dance, argue, make up, dance, argue some more and dance some more. Betty Grable is very appealing in a brief bit (singing and dancing in the number "Let's K-nock K-nees" with overtly sissified Edward Everett Horton), but the star-couple looks distressed and unhappy throughout. The surroundings are screwball-sophisticated yet the characters are not more than one-dimensional. *1/2 from ****
| 0 |
negative
|
I ended up liking this movie but it was not the easiest to get through. What makes the movie great is the music and the scenery. The songs are beautiful and the musicians are talented. A great job was done to show different settings for the Rom people.<br /><br />However, the viewer was not guided enough. A more in depth history of the Rom people would have been nice. Only a fraction of the of the spoken words were given English subtitles. In addition, more explanations about the settings and who was their and some of their challenges would have been appreciated too. It would have helped if there were a narrator too explain about customs, dress and music.
| 1 |
positive
|
A brilliant film by the great John Waters. The characters are unforgettable. The acting, script, and camera-work only enhance the overall greatness of this film. Perversion as an art-form. A must see for all. Easily a perfect 10!
| 1 |
positive
|
What I enjoyed most in this film was the scenery of Corfu, being Greek I adore my country and I liked the flattering director's point of view. Based on a true story during the years when Greece was struggling to stand on her own two feet through war, Nazis and hardship. An Italian soldier and a Greek girl fall in love but the times are hard and they have a lot of sacrifices to make. Nicholas Cage looking great in a uniform gives a passionate account of this unfulfilled (in the beginning) love. I adored Christian Bale playing Mandras the heroine's husband-to-be, he looks very very good as a Greek, his personality matched the one of the Greek patriot! A true fighter in there, or what! One of the movies I would like to buy and keep it in my collection...for ever!
| 1 |
positive
|
Let's summarize how dumb this movie is with two details : Arnold to Antichrist : "Let's see who is meanest" said with a straight face. And you can tell they were not trying to be funny.<br /><br />How do you think Arnold will battle the evil of all evils?<br /><br />Blessed Water, A crucifix, a priest..nooo! with a bazooka, yes not even Satan expected it they're so clever.<br /><br />After an engaging beginning (which reminds you of Devil's Advocate) it goes nowhere. Somebody get me those two hours of my life back. Don't ever watch it, rent it, lest buy it.<br /><br />
| 0 |
negative
|
4 out of 10<br /><br />A somewhat unbelievable storyline with some haunted-house type "shocks" that really don't fit in.<br /><br />Gary Oldham's performance is very erratic...not so much the quality of the performance but the consistency. His character does not behave in a consistent manner. Sometimes calm/relaxed/methodical/thoughtful, sometimes violent/loud/almost crazed. It's just not believable. <br /><br />Have many 80s movies dated badly? Will they be more enjoyable 20 years from now?<br /><br />
| 0 |
negative
|
This isn't a very good movie, but it is easily the best Troma Studios film I have ever viewed. Lloyd Kaufman - the "brains" behind Troma - isn't concerned with a good plot or even making a moderately entertaining film. His chief concern is making something bizarre. And his definition of bizarre oftentimes mirrors my definition of terrible cinema.<br /><br />In this film we have the titled character Luther - whose favorite pastime isn't Baseball, but biting the heads off of chickens - receiving his release from lockup. The board has deemed him rehabilitated despite the fact that he doesn't speak - he merely clucks like a chicken - and has a set of razorblade dentures at his disposal. Of course, once Luther is set free, he goes about causing mayhem, first at a grocery store and later at a farm house.<br /><br />VIOLENCE: $$$$$ (Lots of violence in this oftentimes tasteless flick. Luther sinks his razorblade chompers into a poor elderly lady waiting at a bus stop and then spends the rest of the film terrorizing the mother and daughter at the farmhouse).<br /><br />NUDITY: $$$$$ (Stacy Haiduk delivers some noteworthy skin in his picture, as the former Lois Lane (I can't recall which Superman edition she was from) gives us a shower scene followed by a romp in bed with her boyfriend - a guy who just doesn't have any chemistry with Ms. Haiduk. The extended shower scene footage in the DVD extras gives the viewer quite a bit more of Stacy. She is quite something).<br /><br />STORY: $ (Forgettaboutit!!!! Whitey Styles' screenplay may just be the worst ever written. The way in which Luther is released from the asylum completely throws all credibility out the window. His dialogue is something that a pre-schooler might write and the actions he writes for his characters border on the absurd. It's as if Styles spent ten years without human contact and completely forgot how people react in certain situations).<br /><br />ACTING: $$ (The film belongs to Edward Terry who actually does a decent job as the Geek. He is quite menacing in a stupid barnyard fashion. Joan Roth as the mother does a super job in support but Haiduk and her boyfriend's lack of chemistry made their roles awkward at best).
| 0 |
negative
|
<br /><br />A few years ago I bought a movie called The Cellar. I had heard that it was supposed to be a great movie, but it turned out that it was a flop and a B-Movie.<br /><br />The story is good, but there are no good effects in the movie. (Maybe they didn't have enough money for that on the budget???).<br /><br />If you choose to watch this movie be sure to watch it three times. The first, only and last time!!!
| 0 |
negative
|
I loved this show. I think the first time I tried rocky road ice cream was due to this show. Wasn't the shop located like right on the beach or something? I actually wrote back and forth with Marci for several years. I lost touch and wish I could reconnect now as adults. Anyone know where she is now? I wish they would put it out on DVD. I seriously doubt that since I think there maybe like five or six people who even remember the show airing in the first place. They just don't make shows like this anymore, do they? I wonder if it would still hold up in this day and age. Do you guys know anyone that could burn DVD's of the show they taped on VHS? I'd be willing to pay(within reason).
| 1 |
positive
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.