text
stringlengths 49
12.1k
| label
int64 0
1
| label_text
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|
J Carol Nash and Ralph Morgan star in a movie about a mad scientist in love with a pianist's daughter. When his advances are spurned he injects the father with a disfiguring disease so that she will be forced to come to him to get a cure.<br /><br />God this is awful.Its dull and boring and you'll nod off before the pianist gets uglified, I was on the verge. Yea it picks up once things are set in motion but this is one of those old movies better remembered then seen again.<br /><br />If you must see it come in late<br /><br />4 out of 10
| 0 |
negative
|
Well, I got and saw this movie based on the rather high score here (7.1 now), and some of the good reviews. Usually IMDb is a good guide when it comes to score, though in this case I was very much deceived.<br /><br />The movie is a present-day detective story, with Vinnie Jones as the investigator journalist, who investigates the death of a construction worker. Mixed with this is a made up Dickens' novel (called The Riddle, set in the 18th or 19th century), which also deals with a murder story. Both story lines are connected through the discovery of an unpublished manuscript.<br /><br />Sounds interesting? It could have been, however this movie horribly fails in a number of areas : 1) Acting. Mediocre at best, but it is watchable. No worse than your average UK sitcom, though for a movie one expects a little better. Especially with a score of over 7. 2) Music. The music used is simply horrible, it distracts and it is annoying. Especially the pub music, and the music which plays in the journalist's apartment. 3) Storyline. This is a big joke. There are gaping plot holes everywhere and even the obligatory love story is so unrealistic that it's almost funny. Furthermore, without going into any detail, I can safely say that the ending is absurd, and one of the worst pieces of acting and storyline of the year. 4) Camera-work. At times camera positions and views are distracting, and serve absolutely no purpose to the "story".<br /><br />I'm a bit of a movie fanatic, and watch on average 1 to 2 movies a day, but this is easily the worst movie I've seen in months. Don't waste your money or your time on this rubbish.
| 0 |
negative
|
"Are You in the House Alone?" belongs to the pre-cable TV days when the networks were eager to offer an alternative to popular TV shows. It is well-made thriller with a talented cast and credible situations. Kathleen Beller plays a High School student who gets a series of threatening letters. Everyone seems to think that it is nothing more than a prank but Beller is really scared. Tony Bill and Blythe Danner play Beller's parents, Ellen Travolta (John's sister) is the High School Principal and Dennis Quaid has one of his earliest roles as a cocky rich kid. It's a competent chiller with a still relevant social message. Beller is lovely - if you are 30 or older, you will remember that she was very popular among youngsters. Blythe Danner, who I usually don't like, gives a truly moving performance. Nice little film.
| 1 |
positive
|
I went to see this because of snipes / statham, but honestly, Chaos is terrible. This movie has absolutely nothing going for it - it should not have been made.<br /><br />Don't read this review if you don't want to read spoilers, cause I'm going to address a lot of plot-holes here.<br /><br />First of all - the opening scene. It's the great big event that made the two semi-lead characters (Statham and Snipes) turn crooked. But it's boring and mundane. Only at the very end we get to see what really happened and by the time you won't care anymore. Also - this whole event, where one bad guy and his hostage get killed is hardly big enough news to fill hundreds of newspaper articles, as referred to in the movie.<br /><br />Then the bank job - it doesn't get off the ground for any second. The bank robber makes some un-needed references to chaos theory (which has NOTHING to do with the whole story, by the way). The way Statham gets summoned is very 'Die Hard With a Vengeance', but more boring. Then the things that happen in the bank are strange and pointless. -What's with the safety deposit box. There seems to be some plot unfolding there, but then, it doesn't. -Why go through the trouble of stringing up two people, when it leads to nothing? It involves a lot of preparation and it's used for nothing at all! -Why doesn't the SWAT leader listen to the officer in charge when he tells them to stand down?<br /><br />And this is only the first 10 minutes. It keeps getting worse and worse. <br /><br />-The whole romantic / love interest story (with the 'he wasn't just a better cop, he was a better man' remark to finish it of) is painful to watch. It's just pointless -Why would Statham's character point out the change in camera position in the footage reviewed from the bank. This essentially leads to finding the 'virus' that will get him all the money. -Why go through the trouble of forging some guys signature and killing him, but then NOT kill the guy that can identify you.<br /><br />I could go on for ages (really), but it's like this movie is... pointless. The whole script is a mess. The 'smart' references to chaos theory are really laughable and quite pathetic. The plot 'twists' can be seen from miles away and the lead characters seem to be making mistakes all the time. It is really painful to watch a movie like this, where the audience is taken for granted as dumb popcorn crunching people, of which the director hopes they won't see all the plot holes and the over-all ridiculous script. The 'explanation scene' at the end only adds to insult. It is really, really not a good movie. In any way.<br /><br />People who come to see an action film don't get what they come for. People who come to see a cop-buddy movie don't get it. People who come to see a smart thriller don't get that. In essence, everyone gets the same - a huge disappointment and a waste of time and money. Do yourself a favor and skip this one.
| 0 |
negative
|
Wow! In my opinion, THE NET is an excellent, nail-biting, edge-of-your-seat techno thriller that will leave you feeling good all over. When I first saw it, I was feeling good all over for days. When Angela (Sandra Bullock) went to Mexico, I thought to myself, "That is a really nice place to vacation." From the moment Jack (Jermey Northam) and Ruth (Wendy Gazelle) began chasing her, I thought to myself, "Don't let anything bad happen to her! Please!" I also took quite a few deep breaths to prevent myself from screaming any more than I already had. On the bright side, if you ask me, the house was very luxurious and spacious. In conclusion, I give this excellent, nail-biting, edge-of-your-seat techno thriller four stars.
| 1 |
positive
|
Ben Marshall, a teen ager from a religious background, is made aware about the financial situation at home by his domineering mother Laura. She suggests him to find a temporary job in order to contribute to the household. In fact the family has taken a widower, to board with them. Robert Marshall, the father, is a pastor at the local church; he'd much rather be in the country watching birds than tending to the souls entrusted to his church.<br /><br />The job Ben applies is with an older actress, Evie Walton, who wants him to do things for her around the house. "Dame" Evie, as she calls herself, is a woman of a certain age whose career has died maybe because she was not that great. In fact the only memorable appearance seems to be in a soap opera which was popular but she'd rather forget about it. Evie, who is a compulsive liar, tells Ben she's dying, only to forget it conveniently, later on when she comes clean to the boy. <br /><br />Ben is obviously in awe of the larger than life personality of his employer. He has been taking driving lessons. Evie asks him to take a camping trip, which he does against his better judgment. He knows that it will provoke his mother's fury. Not content with that, Evie decides to go on to Edinburgh, where she has been invited to read at an arts festival. It is this trip that solidifies their bond. Ben gets to meet and taste the pleasures of the flesh with a sympathetic Bryony.<br /><br />When Ben gets back, everything crumbles at home. His mother, who has been having an affair with a parishioner, decides to leave the family in favor of the young man she has been having an affair with. Ben and Evie's relationship survives the test of time. He also begins to see his own father in a different light. <br /><br />Jeremy Brock, the writer of "Driving Lessons" and other memorable English films, takes his first directorial job with this engaging comedy. The mixture of show business and religion, loyalty and friendship, are explored in his screen treatment making it a fun time at the movies. We have seen the similar situation before as in "Billy Elliott", where Julie Walters plays a nurturing role with a younger man. We had read the film was based on Mr. Brock's own experience while working Dame Peggy Ashcroft when he was young. <br /><br />Julie Walters, who plays Evie Walton, is perhaps the best excuse to watch the movie. She always delivers. Ms. Walters is a welcome presence in any film she appears and she does wonders with her fake "dame". Laura Linney, a luminous player herself, doesn't quite get our sympathy with her icy mother. Rupert Grint, famous for his Harry Potter's movies plays Ben, the young man who sees in Evie a kind soul. Nicholas Farrell is the betrayed father. Michelle Duncan has a small role in which she shines.
| 1 |
positive
|
"One Crazy Summer" is the funniest, craziest (not necessarily the best), movie I have ever seen.<br /><br />Just when one crazy scene is done, another emerges. It never lets you rest. Just one thing after another. The soundtrack is great. The songs are the right ones for the scenes.<br /><br />It is also a clean movie. Little that is dirty in it.<br /><br />Of course, it has the story of the guys you wouldn't trust with your lunch money, taking up a challenge, and winning over people with more resources. Who'd want to see it if they failed? There is a serious side, in that parents and children do not live up to each others' dreams. One should always have an open mind, and weigh all the options. This applies both to parents and children. In "One Crazy Summer", the parents are wrong. This is not always the case.
| 1 |
positive
|
I have a hard time putting into words just how wonderful this was. Once in a while you see a film that just sticks with you. "You Are Alone" is that movie (for me). The film is constantly in my head and in my heart. I replay the scenes mentally every day and analyze them and go through the emotions all over again, as if I am seeing it for the first time.<br /><br />There is nothing I did not like about the movie. Amazing soundtrack!!! The ending was perfect. Very emotionally stirring!!! It was compelling and riveting.<br /><br />I adored Jessica Bohl and her performance was the greatest I have ever witnessed. I admired Brittany's strength (what a strong woman).<br /><br />The tag line is "When your darkest moments come to life". We never know what we are capable of doing. Everyone says oh I would never do that, when really we have no idea what we would do in a situation. We are very capable of anything and this movies delves straight into that subject. The honesty of the movie may be my absolute favorite part.<br /><br />Thank you Gorman Becherd for a perfect piece of art!!!!
| 1 |
positive
|
Imagine yourself trapped inside a museum of the dark middle Ages and a resurrected vampire and his maniacal sidekick are chasing you. Where is the absolute last place you want to hide? I'd say inside the uncanny Virgin of Nuremberg torture device, because there's a good risk you'll get brutally spiked to death. And yet, the elderly lady in this film stupidly runs into her spiked coffin. "The Vampire's Coffin" is a rather disappointing sequel, as director Fernando Méndez doesn't re-create the Gothic atmosphere of the 1957-original but puts the emphasis on comical situations and dialogs. No more ominous castles with eerie cobwebs and dark vaults, but confused doctors and clumsy assistants that provoke laughs instead of frights. The story opens inside Count de Lavud's final resting place, where an eminent doctor and a hired assistant steal the coffin in order to examine the corpse at a private clinic. Naturally the wooden stake gets removed from his heart, and the vampire count comes to live again, immediately enslaving the petty thief to do his dirty work. The vampire has his eye on a beautiful female patient at the clinic, and it's up to Dr. Enrique Saldívar to rescue her soul and to destroy the bloodsucker. "The Vampire's Coffin" uses a limited amount of locations and there's very little action. The whole film would actually be pretty boring if it weren't for a handful of memorable sequences and decent acting performances. The photography is amazing, though, with the sublime use of shadows and darkness. This is most notably during the scene in which Count de Lavud stalks a young woman through the deserted streets of little town at night. It's the only truly worthwhile scene of the whole film, the rest is fairly mediocre and déjà-vu.
| 0 |
negative
|
This movie is important to those of us interested in western history because it makes use of authentic techniques in its production.<br /><br />The scenes of the wagon train are particularly authentic; so far as I know, it contains the only scenes ever filmed illustrating the techniques for river crossings at a bluff. The horses and mules have to be lowered to the river level and the wagons let down by ropes and pulleys. The scene is such that I could watch it over and again just trying to get a feel for what a crossing was like...and the early travelers did it time and time again while crossing the country.<br /><br />Melodrama aside, this picture is as authentic in dress and style as they come and worth watching for that alone.
| 1 |
positive
|
In A Minute To Pray, A Second To Die, Clay McCord (Alex Cord) is an unhappy outlaw with a ten thousand dollar bounty on his head and degenerative epilepsy.<br /><br />Realizing his days as an outlaw are numbered, he wants desperately (though somewhat reluctantly) to take advantage of an amnesty being granted by rough and tumble territorial governor Robert Ryan, (excellent performance) who badly wants McCord to renounce his ways and accept the amnesty as an example to others while in the bandit hub of Escondito, outlaw Mario Brega plans to kill McCord to stop that from happening.<br /><br />Also starring Arthur Kennedy, Aldo Sambrell and a slew of other familiar European faces, this is co-written and produced by (American) spaghetti western pioneer Albert Band, also responsible for the pre-Leone film Gunfight At Red Sands.<br /><br />Though the solution to the main character's "epilepsy" is lifted straight out of Howard Hawks' El Dorado, the script is solid, pretty fresh and unpretentious. This has a great balance of action and story and Alex Cord is great in it. He really should have been a bigger star.<br /><br />In defense of the shorter (well dubbed) English version: personally I'm past that age where the longer version is always the better version and the ending where McCord is ironically gunned down by grimy bounty hunters after his pardon, is needlessly nihilistic and completely destroys the film's message about hope and redemption.<br /><br />Call me old-fashioned, but I rooted for McCord and felt he earned that happy ending!
| 1 |
positive
|
On a dark, gloomy New Year's Eve night, an ill nurse, her life slowly ebbing away, demands that David Holm be presented to her at once. We don't yet know who David Holm is, or why this nurse wishes to see him, but her only dying wish is to speak with him just one more time. On the other side of the town, nestled comfortably amongst the gravestones of the local cemetery, Holm (Victor Sjöström, who also directed) and two of his drunken associates merrily await the coming of the New Year. "Here we can tell just when to drink the New Year in," exclaims Holm, casting a finger towards the large clock tower that looms through the darkness. Little does he know, however, that he will not be alive to greet it.<br /><br />To pass the time, Holm cheerfully recites a ghost story. He'd once had a friend name George, "a merry fellow" who was "smarter than the rest of us." On one New Year's Eve several years ago, George has broken up a potentially disastrous brawl, fearing that the final man to draw his last breath before midnight would be condemned to drive the phantom chariot for the next year, doing Death's bidding and collecting the souls of the deceased. "And, gentlemen, George died last New Year's Eve!" concludes Holm happily, not bothering to contain his mocking skepticism of the man's beliefs.<br /><br />As fate has it, of course, an unexpected violent encounter results in Holm's death, just on the stroke of midnight. As the man's transparent spirit rises gingerly from his earthly body, he witnesses, to his horror, the distant approach of a phantom carriage. The driver, a frail cloaked figure - a sickle clasped tightly in his hand - steps down from the carriage and approaches. We are astonished to discover that the driver is none other than a decrepit George, preparing to pass on his ghastly duty to this year's successor.<br /><br />Considering the era in which 'Körkarlen' is made, the special effects in this film are absolutely superb. Cinematographer Julius Jaenzon used double-exposure photography to create the eerie, ghostly silhouette of the carriage and its damned driver. Even today, the end result is highly effective. A particularly impressive scene involves the phantom chariot travelling to the ocean floor to retrieve the soul of a drowned man. Another scene, eerily reminiscent of Jack Torrance (Jack Nicholson) in Stanley Kubrick's 'The Shining,' involves Holm breaking down the kitchen door with an axe in order to reach his fleeing wife and children.<br /><br />Genuinely ominous and unsettling in its execution, Victor Sjöström's 'Körkarlen' is a fine work of cinema, successfully portraying Holm's steady alcoholic decline, his inevitable day of judgment, and a final hopeful possibility of redemption.
| 1 |
positive
|
I am writing this with 10 minutes left before the film finishes. I feel comfortable writing it now, because unfortunately I know exactly how this film is going to end.<br /><br />The premise is simple enough, rabid dog on the loose in a small town, kills people. Great - simple plot for a good fun camp 80s horror.<br /><br />Uhh ..no.<br /><br />The main problem is this is based on a book (Stephen King) and you can tell that is should not have really been adapted to film, at least not with the same plot. Why? Cuz its boring! The first 45 minutes tries to build depth to its main characters and create suspense. It however lasts too long (half the film!) - the characters are unlikeable and we never care for them anyway, and it just about creates zero suspense. The easiest film (according to plot and time) to compare this to it the classic Jaws. Everything that Jaws does right, Cujo does wrong. Jaws created good characters and a genuine feeling of dread. Cujo does neither. Jaws effectively creates a scary, creepy villain in its shark. Cujo has a dirty St Bernard running about growling and jumping, and not a lot else. Jaws is exciting and unpredictable. Cujo is a tireless bore that remains predictable right to the end.<br /><br />Also confusing is the plethora of subplots that just act as boring red herrings to the films main plot.<br /><br />If this film was rewritten for the big screen and had a better director this could have been good. But it wasn't. It was a waste of 90 minutes of my life.<br /><br />People on here are saying this is one of the best King adaptations - Im sorry you could not be more wrong. The Mist is a hundred times better, Thinner is 10 times better and even the one with the cats is twice as good! This in my opinion is one of the worst! The only good thing was the action scenes with the dog looked real, even though they were dull.<br /><br />Films ended now, and it didn't get any better. Avoid.
| 0 |
negative
|
Pavarotti and the entire cast are superb in this beautifully filmed opera by Giuseppe Verdi, the world's finest composer of operas. The coloratura soprano is particularly spectacular with her perfect pitch. The title role is well-enacted and well-sung. The entire production is as perfect as one could expect.<br /><br />A masterpiece of cinematography!<br /><br />
| 1 |
positive
|
I couldn't agree more. The book is one of Dean Koontz's best novels and this film is a total travesty. I watched about half of it then threw the tape in the bin in disgust! I have NO idea what the idiotic director was thinking making this piece of crap but I would rather poke my eyes out with a sharp stick than watch this useless movie again! Everything about this film is just wrong. First the main character is changed from an ex marine to a high school KID. WHY??? Second the love of his life in the book becomes his mother in the movie! hem I bet Freud would have something to say about that! LOL. The dog is cute enough and the best thing in the movie and completely outcast everyone else! Also a main character who helps them in the book betrays them in the movie. There really is nothing good to say about the film except that at least it's relatively short at an hour and a half or so. If anyone hasn't seen the film yet do yourselves a favour! READ THE BOOK! It is so much better than this worthless waste of time!
| 0 |
negative
|
I wish I had something more positive to say about Devil Fish, but I honestly can't seem to come up with much. I can't even come up with many of those "so bad, it's good" kind of moments. Devil Fish is just plain old bad. The plot is completely derivative (Jaws, anyone?), the acting is wooden, the characters are uninteresting, the special effects are beyond bad, and the score is annoying. Add to that the seemingly inept direction of Lamberto Bava and you've got one stinker of a movie. I think, however, that the film's biggest sin is its lack of a budget. It doesn't appear that Bava had much to work with. By 1984, the Italian film industry was in full decline especially as far as genre films go. The funding available to Bava was most probably very meager. Film's like Devil Fish that rely on special effects just never had a chance to be good. It's not the only Italian film to suffer this fate. There are a number of Italian movies made in the mid-80s whose ideas and concepts far exceeded what anyone could realistically have expected given their budgetary limitations. <br /><br />However, having said all that and noting the film's many weaknesses, I can't bring myself to rate Devil Fish lower than a 3/10. I've even considered rating it higher but can't because I realize how bad a movie it is. Why don't I rate it lower? Well that's hard to explain. Despite the many problems found in the movie, there's something about Devil Fish that I inexplicably enjoy. It could be as simple as my love for low-budget, cheesy, Italian movies. Maybe my taste in movies is horribly skewed, but I enjoy what I enjoy.<br /><br />The Mystery Science Theater 3000 treatment of Devil Fish is actually very enjoyable. I rate Devil Fish a 4/5 on my MST3K rating scale. The guys do a fine job of poking fun at the movie's many flaws. One very astute observation comes very early in the commentary when Tom Servo notes, "Just because you can edit, doesn't mean you should" highlighting yet another of the many weaknesses to be found in Devil Fish.
| 0 |
negative
|
The film isn't perfect by any means but despite this it is very fun and amusing to watch. I am the first one to agree that Victor Fox isn't really that attractive and his music and style are pretty cheesy. I also agree that the film has some odd distractions and some scenes don't work well. So what? If it makes you smile and you enjoy it who cares? Does every film have to make sense? Does every film have to be perfect? No. A person could get razed admitting that they love this film. Again, so what? It's got lovable characters, it's well shot, the acting is mostly good, it never becomes too maudlin or dramatic, it's quirky. Look at how many people love I Dream of Jeannie. Is it perfect? Heck no! And while this is very different, I say check it out and you'll be in a good mood after you see it.
| 1 |
positive
|
When I think of a 1970s-period film, this is not what I think of. I don't want a monotonous, one-song Robin Trower soundtrack; I want a soundtrack punctuated with the top-40 bubblegum songs of the day that epitomized the '70s. The generic karaoke-style disco music during the prom scene was especially annoying. The acting (if you can call it that) was very wooden, and seemed just read from script in monotone. The film quality and camera work was horrid; the dialog murky, the script seemed thrown together without much thought and the plot was thin if not nonexistent. I can't believe people are giving it the high ratings I've read here. Basically a forgettable, poor attempt at recreating a beloved era of the past. Two stars is all I can come up with. Sorry, guys.
| 0 |
negative
|
I read the other comments here about this movie before watching it. If you've read them, you will know that they are almost all negative. I really don't understand that. I admit that it is far too long (it needs about a half hour cut out to speed it up a bit). The music is often inappropriate. But, strong performances by Ford and Thomas are indeed enough to carry this. With all his fame as a movie star, I'd forgotten that Harrison Ford really can act! This role as a man who has defined himself based upon a lie is remarkable. I find it completely believable that he wants all the details he can get so he can see what was real and what was deception. Thomas is always wonderful and this is no exception. Her initial denial which leads to confusion and then to inner calm is tremendous. This movie is never going to be on anybody's list of great flicks, but it isn't that bad. I'm glad that I waited to see it on video, but it is worth the $3 or $4.
| 1 |
positive
|
After watching this movie, I felt as if I had just eaten a box of stale, chewy cracker jack only to find no prize inside. This movie has real promise: porn stars in a skinemax feature! Unfortunately, someone forgot to tell the producers that WE LIKE SOME T&A IN OUR T & A FLICKS!!! Sure, we get a few quick flashes and a couple of "bathing in the creek" scenes. But where's the sex? How can you have four girls, "sorority girls" no less, in this type of movie with only one, pitiful 5 second lesbian scene? Good night, USA Up All Night provides more titillation! Look, we don't watch this type of movie for great cinematography, screenwriting or action. We want to see some kink! What a letdown.
| 0 |
negative
|
This is a VERY good movie. I give it a 10.<br /><br />It's very different in that it's kind of a long stalking scene all the way through. The fact that the main character is mute is used throughout the story in a very believable way.<br /><br />She sees a murder (for a snuff-movie) and decides to run but is chased (this takes quite some time). I won't reveal the rest of the movie for it would spoil the experience, but rest assured: it's very believable, well played, very intense and has some nice surprises plus a great ending.<br /><br />Don't miss this movie.
| 1 |
positive
|
As a European, the movie is a nice throwback to my time as a student in the 1980's and the experiences I had living abroad and interacting with other nationalities, although the circumstances were slightly different. Klapisch (the director) went to the New York Film School from 1982-85, so one would think that he is drawing on this experience.<br /><br />It is interesting how the film balances the message that "one should not generalize" with the notion that "for every stereotype, there is some underlying truth". For example, the Italian character is based more on the pothead aspect than on any well-known Italian stereotype. The German character features a few more tried and tested stereotypes. But the most stereotypical aspect about the movie is not a character but the central theme of infidelity. As a critic observed, infidelity is as crucial to French film as class is to British film.<br /><br />Both the main character and his girlfriend are played as not entirely likable, which I think is deliberate and great.<br /><br />It may be unintentional, but some of the nationals have elements that could be taken as a metaphor for their countries' perceived role in the EU. The British woman has a fling with an American (who is an entertainer - like a 1980's US president) while the Frenchman shows himself as the natural leader (when the landlord shows up).<br /><br />Although Europe is not as diverse as New York, it is striking that we see only two non-white characters. One is a Chilean woman with indigenous features, who despite appearing the age of our main character is not portrayed as a potential object of interest. Another is a Gambian-Spanish or rather Gambian-Catalan male who appears a bit invented.<br /><br />One might ask why Klapisch chose protagonists who were all from long-established EU member countries in Western Europe. While these nationalities reflect what he and I would meet as students in the 1980's, I believe exchange programs in contemporary Europe are much more diverse. The Erasmus program encompasses some 30 countries from Iceland to Eastern Europe, many of which are not EU members. I do understand, however, that the choice of nationalities that are more familiar to the majority of the viewership may have been deemed necessary not to distract from the contrast Klapisch wants to create between the Peoples' Europe and the Bureaucratic Europe.<br /><br />Despite minor gripes a great movie that made me consider going back to Europe to live. A French friend of mine, also an expatriate in the US, captured our shared feelings in this piece of contradiction "If Europe was more like the US, I would leave in a heartbeat".
| 1 |
positive
|
A look at three geishas who are way past their prime. Now they look back on their pasts with fondness and bemoan their present. Kin (played by Floating Weeds' Haruko Sugimura) has sworn off men and has made a good living as a moneylender; everyone on the block owes her. The other two, Nobu and Tamae, wish they could land husbands, but are not foolish enough to believe they ever will. Meanwhile, their children - one has a son and one a daughter - are both about to get married (not to each other). Tamae is irked at how much prettier her daughter has become than her, and bitterly tries to convince her not to marry the man. Nobu's concerns about her son are more legitimate in nature, but they are also (understandably) self-serving. After her son leaves, she'll be alone. A bit into the film, two of Kin's former clients come looking for her, one a man so obsessed with her that he tried to get her to commit double suicide with him, the other one of her handsomest clients. Unfortunately, he comes for her money, not her love. The way I've described the film makes it sound unrelentingly depressing, but it's really not. Sad, but not fatally so. It's more bittersweet. Unfortunately, I only marginally liked Late Chrysanthemums. The story seems better when I look back on it, but it is very slow and dull. I actually nodded off twice during the film, and I wasn't at all tired before I started it. This is the kind of film that I can appreciate more than like; it reminds me very much of my reaction to a couple of Ozu's more famous films. 7/10.
| 1 |
positive
|
Despite a small handful of nicely executed scenes, this entry (the fourth) feels tired. Toshiharu Ikeda, who directed the superb MERMAID LEGEND and the seminal Japanese splatter film, EVIL DEAD TRAP, shows little enthusiasm for the stale premise.<br /><br />A miscreant becomes obsessed with an outwardly conservative woman who reluctantly appeared in a porno photo shoot. Predictable stalking, harassing, assault and rape ensues.<br /><br />The staple of roman porno is sex. And sex mixed with violence. Both potentially exciting subjects, to be sure, but not when so little effort is made to make them fresh. A masturbation scene in which a woman forces pencils up her opening (via condom) is too little kink to late.<br /><br />The series' rain motif continues and the film's final scene brings relief.
| 0 |
negative
|
This episode of Buffy was one of my personal favorites. Also number three of Joss' personal favorites as well. The episode featured very little dialogue and despite that the good folks at the Emmy's decided it merited a nomination. Unfortunately it didn't win. When Hush first premiered it received about 6 million viewers, which was the highest rated episode of season four. That should tell you something. Even though there was very little talking it managed to intrigue people enough to tune in. Those gentlemen characters (who were played my mimes) were some of the scariest creatures the show has produced (or any network TV show I've seen). Nothing is creepier then a bunch of silver teethed men coming at you with a scalpel while smiling away. I think that despite the lack of dialogue the actors did a fantastic job on the episode.
| 1 |
positive
|
Nothing could be more appealing than the idea of a good love story featuring Kristin Scott Thomas and Harrison Ford. The cool, refined English beauty and the warm-blooded American male -- what could possibly be more lovely? Well, this is not that movie. Right away they ruin it by casting Kristin Scott Thomas as an American Congresswoman. That's like casting Hugh Grant as Babe Ruth. Or Colin Firth as Al Capone. Kristin Scott Thomas is exactly the sort of woman you don't picture shaking hands with greasy ex-junkies in filthy slums, or squeezing into smelly crowds and kissing babies. She would have been far better cast as the English born widow of an aristocratic Senator, the kind who belongs to the hunt club and goes to flower shows but has no idea how the other half lives.<br /><br />Then there's Harrison Ford as a regular guy cop. Certainly he's tough enough for the role. But the idea that he's going to romance this stunning high society beauty is a bit hard to swallow. Why couldn't he have been, say, a tough but wealthy reform politician with blue-collar roots who inherits Kristin's late husband's Senate seat? The two of them are initially quite cool to each other, but for duty's sake Kristin is cordial to him, and he in return starts showing her some of the rawer side of life -- things her husband sheltered her from. Her political awakening coincides with the jolting passion of a newer, more blue collar, lover -- one who appreciates her polish and refinement far more than her aristocratic husband. Now that's a love story! Instead of that, though, you get a blank, meaningless "thriller" where the action drags and nothing happens. Well, there is one ghetto style "drive by" scene where Harrison almost gets killed, but it's so abrupt and unexplained it's really more like welcome comic relief.<br /><br />The sky is always gray in this movie, and our refined, lovely Kristin always looks a little chilled. When she's supposed to be dreaming of passion, she looks more like she's dreaming of a wool blanket and a cup of tea! She also looks a bit sleepy most of the time, like she'd really rather be napping in the bed than screwing Harrison Ford.<br /><br />All things considered, I'd say you can't blame her.
| 0 |
negative
|
I absolutely loved every minute of this film. Jack Black and Kyle Gass most definitely brought the thunder in this epic tale of friendship, hard rocking and destiny.<br /><br />Filled to the brim with unnecessary swearing in every sentence, toilet humour and the general rule breaking attitude, this movie is a must see for the hard core tenacious D fans of the world.<br /><br />We follow the journey of young Jables (Jack black) and Kage (Kyle Gass) as they try and recover the pick of destiny, to win the open-Mic night, and to become the greatest band on the planet. The duo have to overcome obstacles such as a room full of lasers, a man with one leg and the devil to accomplish their task. I'll let you see whether they make it or not.<br /><br />The soundtrack itself is awesome enough, and now we see the D in person, making the experience even more magical. A must see for anyone who calls themselves a tenacious D fan. Watch out for the inside jokes from the first album!
| 1 |
positive
|
Enjoyed this film which deals entirely about an average family, so it appears. Ben Travis, (Jeff Daniels) plays the role as a father who is only interested in one son who is excellent at swimming and wins many trophy's, however, he hates it very much and even his father. Ben has very little to say to his other son, Tim, (Emile Hirsh) and even his daughter, Penny, (Michelle Williams) who is fortunate to be away in college. The mother, Sandy, (Sigourney Weaver) tries to hold the family together and even she is completely ignored by her husband also. A very tragic event happens in the family which changes everyone's personality, young and old start using drugs, smoking pot and drinking all the time at parties. There is even a homosexual scene and at the same time there is even room for comedy and of course there is a very dark secret that Sandy Travis finally tells her son Tim.
| 1 |
positive
|
I obtained this little piece of scuzz on the VideoAsia "Tales of Voodoo" DVD label. Quite where the voodoo is supposed to fit in, I have no idea. Indeed I would not usually connect voodoo with Indonesia anyway (let alone with WIPs).<br /><br />I know and love WIP movies. I have seen most of them. I could not therefore resist this little known gem from the description given to it on the cover.<br /><br />It is APPALLING. You cannot have a WIP movie if the women keep their clothes on (even in the shower!). Although it gives a nod to the exploitation genre, WIP without nudity is like a Big Mac without the beef.<br /><br />As my gym teacher used to say, on the whole, I'd rather be at the disco....
| 0 |
negative
|
It's strange how the least known movies sometimes end up amongst the best you've seen. This movie has all the elements of a standard modern day thriller, guns, techno, baddies, cash, etc, and yet it stands out from your average Hollywood also-ran. I would credit this to two very charismatic people. Christopher Walken has a cool confidence and Lorraine Bracco is one of the warmest and sexiest women I've ever seen on screen. Another major reason why this film stands out is coz the setting shifts to Jamaica after the beginning. The Jamaican resort is so beautiful you'll wish you were there sitting by the pool at night, with a Run'n'Coke. . . .I know I did. I'm very glad I saw this movie - it was just too nice to miss!
| 1 |
positive
|
This movie looked fun on the cover and I honestly thought 'how bad can this be?' Little did I know. Out of the gate the dialogue was UNBEARABLE. It was contrived, unrealistic and not even interesting. Dialogue on UPN syndicated television shows is more natural sounding. The story was implausible and had nearly zero play-off at the end. The end with the snake is almost confusing and seemed staged. The only remotely interesting character is Rose McGowen's, who is mute which prevents her from being ruined with cliche ridden garbage dialogue (well, at least until the end when even she has to speak). The only thing that even gives this a 3 over a 1 or 2 is Rose McGowen's nude scene. Truly awful. Save yourself the trouble and rent something more interesting like a Barney Video.
| 0 |
negative
|
Very odd, this seems like a very average movie to me, if not slightly less. It is brilliantly shot but, together with the performance of R. Lee Ermey, that's about the only redeeming aspect I found in the movie which consists of two separate parts. <br /><br />The first part covers the basic marine-training which, watching it in 2007, comes off like something I've see a zillion times before in dozens of other movies and series and it's not particularly gripping. After 30 minutes I got the idea and wished they could just get on with it. The drill sergeant is about the only believable character while everyone else seem to be just cardboard cut-outs. The general acting is staggeringly haggard and the screenplay is devoid of anything interesting and consists of little more than the Sergeant shouting. The boys make it through their training and end up in Vietnam. Oh, and the fat weirdo shoots the sergeant (what a surprise..), probably in the mistaken belief that it was actually the scriptwriter. <br /><br />So, one hour passed and nothing worthy of note happened. Nothing...<br /><br />Then we have the Vietnam-part.<br /><br />It opens with a bunk-scene where reporters of Stars and Stripes are bored and are making small talk to pass the time. At first I thought they were re-enacting some movie scenes from old films, it sounded pretty bad. But no, they were actually muttering their script lines. Then the camp is besieged. Some 20 Vietcong enter the camp through the main gate. Too bad for them they are being dropped like flies because they simply walk into several manned gun posts with no means of cover. Is that normal behaviour? Were the Vietnamese all suicidal? If so, how come the US didn't win this war during the first two months of engagement? The rest of the movie continues with even more completely illogical war scenes. <br /><br />Furthermore, the whole plot is altogether pointless. None of the characters inspire much sympathy and the story is frankly rather uneventful. It shows little more other than some war-reporters hooking up with a platoon with some guys getting shot because they are disobedient morons and who also seem to think that somehow a gaping hole in a wall will protect you from bullets.<br /><br />What was the message of this movie..that people died in Vietnam? That people are animals in war situations? That if you want to dispose of really dumb people, you send them to a war zone? Or that somehow in Vietnam concrete can actually burn? <br /><br />I'm sorry, but if this movie deserves an 8.3, then Apocalypse Now deserves a 38.3<br /><br />5/10
| 0 |
negative
|
A Cryptozoologist captures a mythical chupacabra on a Caribbean island.To get it back to civilization he bribes his way onto the cargo bay of a large luxury cruise ship with funny and I think the script intended disastrous results.<br /><br />Lets start with the one thing I really did not like about this movie.... The monster really just looked like a guy in a rubber suit.The CGI scenes looked like a different movie. OK thats off my chest now onto all the enjoyable bits about this B movie.<br /><br />The best thing was John Rhys-Davies(his daughter the eye candy a close second.)John was intermittently funny and suave and no matter what the writers made him say, he said it well.Good job given what he had to work with.The Cyptozoologist was over the top and fun to watch too,he had some funny bits.The marines all were OK and make good cannon fodder for the monster as did some of the crew and guests.There are a few pretty funny lines in this movie,and a pretty amusing sub plot involving a thief.<br /><br />The special effects are generally med to low and I swear they reused the same blood spray on the wall scene in about four different parts of the movie. I did like the gore of the legless man.Really since this movie was not scary at all I feel a bit more gore would have gone along way in improving the watch ability of this movie.<br /><br />All in all if you like B monsters this one is worth a visit.
| 0 |
negative
|
Featuring some amazing and wonderful characters, a new mythology, superbly designed and executed sets, Nightbreed is a great film.<br /><br />Sadly the lack of a well known lead actor lead to the film finding obscurity.<br /><br />Perhaps also the homosexuality of the director lead to the film being unwittingly censored by the white audience the film decries.<br /><br />None the less the film is a treasure of the monster movie/superhero genre.<br /><br />A sequel featuring Highlander style flashbacks to different epochs in history would be interesting. <br /><br />Another idea would be the foundation of the new Midian. Perhaps in Texas somewhere or the swamps of Lousiana with crocodile men and a traveling freak circus.
| 1 |
positive
|
Once again Almenábar has provided us with a top quality film. This director is amazing, and he's proven that he's equally talented and effective when crossing genres. <br /><br />The excellent character development of the movie, through dialogue and personality quirks, but with more subtle details as well (Ramon's father's gaze), allows the audience to identify with the protagonists very closely, making the importance and emotional impact of the events which take place all the more profound. The visuals are at times, simple, at times stunning (the dream to the beach), and I think Almenábar's films really benefit from the fact that he also composes the music - it matched the film's varying moods flawlessly.<br /><br />More than just a film about euthanasia, which in itself is an important issue, this film tackles the duality of a man who at times genuinely seems to enjoy life (albeit in a quite limited way), and yet one who is unswerving in his desire to die. The overwhelming sadness of the film is punctuated by well-timed quips of humor, which seem all the funnier because they provide a welcome respite from the melancholy you will certainly feel.<br /><br />Although clearly in favor of euthanasia, this film does an excellent job representing the myriad points of view of Ramon's friends and family. Most poignant was Ramon's father, when he said, despondent, "There's only one thing worse than losing a child. That the child wants to die."<br /><br />Excellent writing, acting, directing, cinematography, music - 10/10.
| 1 |
positive
|
I enjoyed this movie extremely. It was the last great Mario Van Peebles movie I know of. It had a hip-hop old west flavor to it. Big Daddy Kane and Tone Loc had major parts. It shouldn't have won any Oscars, but it was enjoyable all the same.
| 1 |
positive
|
I already gave my comment on this movie under the name BruceV3. Now under BruceV13 I want to add something! Now after a long time I have seen a lot of so called heroic bloodshed titles! But not many come close to the action shown in John Woo movies! That's why after all these years I think it is strange that "China White" doesn't get the credit it deserves! No matter what version you have seen! The action is top notch! The scenery,China Town in Amsterdam is very unique. You get the impression it is a large district. But having lived in Amsterdam myself I know it is only a small area part of the red light district which happen to have a lot of Chinese stores and restaurants! But because of the way they shot the movie it actually looks like a big and important territory where people know not to mess with the triads (chinese mafia)! Besides the action "China White" is a compelling gangster drama with some good acting! For this i have to give credit to Russel Wong! Too bad we don't see much of him lately,since he has a lot of potential! Must see movie!
| 1 |
positive
|
This is surely British humour at its best. It tends to grow on you. The first time I watched it I couldn't quite figure out what it was all about but now I can watch the episodes over and over again and enjoy them every time.
| 1 |
positive
|
I am sitting here writing this review and the movie's not even over yet. In fact, I just checked, and there are 45 more minutes to go. But no matter, there's no need to see it through to the end. I'll just write this review and laugh as the film plays in the background and stumbles onward to some kind of presumably horrible conclusion which I don't care to ever see or know.<br /><br />What accounts for my hostility to this movie? The characters are not believable. The plot is not believable. The pretentiousness of the movie is sickening. Basically, every element of the movie rings false. Buscemi obviously thought he had something to add to the dozens of movies which have already explored the well-worn themes of dysfunctional families and the apparent meaninglessness of life. However, Buscemi was badly mistaken, because this movie contains nothing new. It tries very hard to be depressing, but fortunately no one can really be depressed by it, because it's obvious that no people like this exist in the entire world.<br /><br />What IS depressing however is the knowledge that somehow this film was voted several undeserved awards. Disgusting!!!! Bottom line: stay away from this worthless film at all costs.
| 0 |
negative
|
Take the secret agent / James Bond craze of the sixties, mix in some concepts from Sax Rohmer's female Fu Manchu femme fatale and stir in some absurdest twisted revisionism by director Franco - you have the man-hating lesbian Sumuru, or "The 7 Secrets of..." - better known as "The Girl From Rio" in the USA, recalling "That Man From Rio," which has nothing to do with this. Yes, this does take place in Brazil, we must give it that. Sumuru, or Sumitra as she's also referred to, is like an evil version of "Modesty Blaise," played here by actress Eaton with that familiar coy smile which most of us first became acquainted with in "Goldfinger." There are numerous close-up shots of her staring off camera, slowly opening her mouth, probably while watching something unpleasant (however, she is doubled in her key lesbian scene). She controls an entire army of female warriors, colorfully costumed, and rules a city called Femina or something (just outside Rio de Janeiro?). These concepts, which previously appeared in "The Million Eyes of Sumuru," sound terrific, but, despite some intriguing set design & visuals, it follows the same campy atmosphere of, for example, the very dated "Some Girls Do," which came out around the same time and which also featured a female army. At first glance, the sight of all these armed females, usually lined up in a row, catches one's interest, but, after 15 minutes or so, you realize there's nothing else there beyond just setting up the visual.<br /><br />The plot follows what seems like a secret agent, a male, arriving in Brazil with 10 million dollars. He catches the attention of the local crime lord (Sanders, hamming it up as an elderly Bond-type villain), who sends dark-suited thugs in bowler hats to accost him. This sets everything up for a 3-way conflict between the agent, the crime lord and the mysterious Sumuru (the crime lord wants Sumuru's secrets). Sumuru also keeps various prisoners in glass cages - maybe that's one of the secrets. This sounds exciting but there are problems which go beyond just a slow pace; there are many shots which could have used a lot of tightening: one shot of an arriving airplane, for example, stays on the craft as it settles to a near stop, as if this had never been captured on film before. There's a similar approach to a typical sunset, as if there's something unusual about it. The fight scenes are very substandard, as if the filmmakers had to use the first takes. To add some production value, there's a scene of the real Rio carnival about midway through. I'm guessing there were various budget problems, especially evident in the climactic battle, where fake sound effects and smoke cover up a lot of bogus action, such as the lack of even real-looking guns - it calls to mind those times when kids use plastic guns and pretend bullets are being fired, falling over unconvincingly. There are touches of sadism, such as torturing a character to get answers, and female nudity, an early depiction of such after some restrictions were lifted. But, mostly, you'll be rolling your eyes. Hero:3 Villains:5 Femme Fatales:5 Henchmen:4 Fights:3 Stunts/Chases:3 Gadgets:4 Auto:4 Locations:6 Pace:3 overall:4
| 0 |
negative
|
Let Freedom Ring was probably made with the best of intentions, but it sends out a curious mixed message in the final product.<br /><br />The folks at a western town where the railroad is coming through are overwhelmed by the arrival of immigrant railroad workers, working on the railroad being financed by robber baron Edward Arnold. There are a few ranchers and farmers whose land stands in the railroad's path and these folks are dealt with summarily by Arnold's hired men. One man who won't give in is Lionel Barrymore whose son is coming home from Harvard a lawyer and ready to take up the rancher's cause.<br /><br />Only Nelson Eddy decides the best way to fight is to go Zorro on the bad guys. But other than Charles Butterworth no one knows he's the Wasp (a very interesting choice of names by the way). <br /><br />What Arnold's done is used the tried and true methods of the political bosses of the east, getting the immigrants to vote. Nelson's idea is simple, if the immigrants only knew the truth about what a bad guy Arnold is, they'll vote with the original settlers and knock out the alien urban political machine in their midst. He kidnaps newspaper editor Raymond Walburn and takes him and the press to a mountain cave where some subversive newspapers are printed and distributed.<br /><br />The railroad workers are a real mixed bunch of immigrants, not the Irish working west or the Chinese working east as history has it. It's a real United Nations working on Arnold's railroad. The workers are kept in line by foreman Victor McLaglen and Nelson has the unenviable task of beating some sense into him like John Wayne did in The Quiet Man.<br /><br />Of all the films that starred Jeanette and Nelson and they certainly have come down in history as a duo, this was the worst of what they did at MGM. Nelson is about to be hanged along with Barrymore for crimes that are undefined at best, but certainly nothing worth being hung for. And Virginia Bruce who plays the Nelson's girlfriend saves the day with a rendition of My Country Tis of Thee that the immigrants join in with. In the face of a revolt by his paid for immigrant voters, Arnold quite rationally packs up and leaves town to build his railroad somewhere else.<br /><br />I kid you not, that's the ending here. Just what is the message, vote with the settlers and lose your jobs with Arnold? But somehow you'll get by here? <br /><br />I do wonder some times if 20 years from after the incidents of this film take place and the town as settled into a sleepy backwater of the west while some towns where the railroad has come through that are now cities, that the good citizens of that town haven't rethought about what Nelson Eddy did. If they did they're probably running him out on a rail.<br /><br />Nelson is of course in good voice and has a variety of concert and popular pieces to sing including a ballad to the immigrants written by Sigmund Romberg, Where Else But Here. The song is a heartfelt tribute from an immigrant who did make good in his adopted country. Too bad it didn't have a better venue.<br /><br />The almost platinum blonde Virginia Bruce I'm sure is dubbed here. And I'm sure Jeanette MacDonald was just as happy she wasn't accompanying Nelson on this trip west.
| 0 |
negative
|
Deepa has again tried to bravely bring out a subject that no one wants to talk about. The story line is OK, cinematography is outstanding, screenplay and acting are way below average. I guess the blame is to the citizens of Uttar Pradesh in India from where her original set was destroyed in 2000. This resulted in a totally different cast, I just wonder what a spectacular movie it would have been if it had the original Shabana Azmi, Nandita Das and Aamir Khan. The current actors Lisa Ray (who's just good for squirming in Bombay Dyeing bedsheets) and John Abraham are pathetic, need basic lessons in acting. Seema Biswas, Raghubir Yadav and Kulbushan Kharbabda have saved the movie as much as they can. The kid had done an outstanding job. The editing and the flow of the movie is also not something you would have expected from Deepa. Great subject, sends out a strong message about a practice which is still pretty rampant in rural India but falls short of the standards Deepa set for herself in Fire and Earth. Watch it once...when its on DVD, don't bother paying $10 to see it....well its out beats the average Hindi movie any day
| 0 |
negative
|
What can I say about Ocean's Twelve? Who thought that it would ever come to this? A gigantic mess that loses itself halfway and can't retrace. I found myself amazed at how bad this really was. Really! I have never seen the ending properly because this film is just insufferable. I'm a huge fan of the first but this is a lame excuse for a sequel. <br /><br />What was the point of the heist if they were going to give the money back? The movie is just boring and so drag along that I can't ever sit through this. It really is bad. Just stay as far, repeat, far away as possible from this movie. It's worthless.
| 0 |
negative
|
one of the worst excuses for an irish accents i've heard. from a truly great actor too. its a bad irish accent not to mention a dublin accent (which is completely different) anyway the film is loosely based around the story of ganglord martin cahill and its done much much much better with brendan gleeson in the title role in THE GENERAL
| 0 |
negative
|
This was without a doubt the WORST movie I have ever see, yet once I started, it was just like the really bad car wreck on the side of the road - you can't help yourself, you just have to look. My EYES !!! The acting was awful, the production was awful, the filming was awful, awful, awful, awful. I was glad the priest got chopped, would have loved to have done it myself because of his POOR acting. I mean suck-ful acting to the tenth power. I would have cheered if Chris had just axed the lot of them before turning it on himself. And what was WITH that freaking wig from hell on his head?! I sincerely hope no one got paid, I mean if getting paid were to be considered here, they should be paid to never attempt another film project again, everyone that was involved, never, never again. That was just a huge piece of garbage that I am embarrassed to say I just had to keep watching until the very end. Don't watch it, it's about an hour and a half of your life you will never get back, and then you'll have to spend time registering on this website so you can write a comment like I am doing now, which you must do as a catharsis in order to survive the aftershocks of having viewed this film (and I use the term "film" loosely here).
| 0 |
negative
|
Except for the appearance of talented Austin Powers impersonator Richard Halpern, this pic was your run of the mill movie spoof. Dated movie references will not help audiences that may come across this endeavor in future. Watch for "Groovy" Austin Powers in the hot tub. It's a hoot and a half.<br /><br />Poor special effects are overcome by the appearance of numerous starlets in skimpy outfits, so at least that should keep one entertained (if that's what thrills you).<br /><br />For my money, I would rent the DVD of classic spoofs such as "Airplane" or "Lobster Man from Mars".
| 0 |
negative
|
Watching this movie really surprised me. I have never found myself to stop watching a movie in its entirety because 3 dollars to rent a movie is a good amount of money and darn it, I should at least watch the whole thing and get my moneys worth. I made it through about 30 minutes of this absolutely crappy movie when I thought to myself, I am now a little more dumber after watching this movie. I can't believe that the director and actors in this movie actually had that low of respect for themselves to allow this to be released! <br /><br />There's nothing I can say that hasn't been said by the other reviewers, but even in the worst of films there are usually one or two decent performances...not in this piece of pathetic garbage. I've seen better acting in high school plays. Every, and I mean every 'actor' is bad beyond belief, and what's truly amazing is the uniformity of the badness...gosh, it must have been the director. Where did they get these people?<br /><br />This is possibly one of the worst horror movies I have ever seen. Although entertaining in places due to its laughable script and even weaker acting, and I use that term very loosely, it is unfortunate that this film was not consigned to B movie hell for all eternity. What could have been a good idea has been ruined by an ultra low budget, poor sound and effects and actors who probably earned their wings in children's television, and poor children's television at that. <br /><br />Please, STAY AWAY from this movie. Not even worth a minute of your time.
| 0 |
negative
|
Let me first off say that I am a believer of ghosts, and I do indeed know they exist. I have had enough experiences with them to know they are there.<br /><br />What I hate is the people who bring the Bible and Religion into all of this. People forget there is more than one "Bible", thousands of religions and beliefs, and different ways to interpret what is said in the Bible. Not everyone believes in God, and not everyone believes in stereo-typical religion. <br /><br />Religion does not make everything fact, one of the things I should mention in the Bible that many do not know is that even the most rampant Bible thumper is breaking the very rules written within....you are supposed to never wear more than one fabric at one time, slavery is OK, and you may murder your neighbor under certain circumstances. None of this, "Oh that was the Old testament, and now we have the New Testament." If the Bible is the word of God, and cannot be changed..there should be no changes, or versions. Religion is full of misinterpretations, mixed facts, and people who so blindly follow it that there, "Is no other way." The excuses these said blind followers use are either pathetic, or they themselves cannot explain the discrepancies properly, and instead use excuses handed down to them from either their Pastor or teacher. <br /><br />But anyhow, onto the review. I am a decent fan of "Ghost Hunters" and when I heard this show was coming soon, I was pretty excited and thought it had some potential. As much as I like watching "Ghost Hunters", I do not like some of their members, and I do not like the way they can dismiss a place as being haunted, yet cannot explain anything that is going on. Just because your investigation equipment does not pick it up, does not mean the camera filming the show did not. I am glad they are skeptical, but it's like they do not understand that just because you did not get anything on your recorder and film does not make the place haunted or not. If Ghosts were that easy to capture, it would be known as a fact, not a belief. It's more of a "right place at the right time" kind of thing, as well as if there is something there, what makes you think it's going to "perform" for you? This show is kind of silly. It's usually boring, and there is lots of talk, lots of psychics, yet hardly anything happens. The main guy's filtered narration is usually either boring to listen to, or is basically not needed.<br /><br />Also, the reliance on psychics is too abundant, as I believe VERY few of them are actually gifted. Silvia Brown is one I definitely believe in, but most are sometimes hard to believe.<br /><br />I really wanted to like this show, but of the few I have seen I have yet to be terribly impressed.
| 0 |
negative
|
To be entirely frank, the popularity of this show saddens me. Inuyasha is certainly not terrible - it has a few good moments, the occasional flash of clever humour, and, unlike so many animes, dignity. However, it is utterly lacking in the essential elements of a worthwhile story. From the start, its premise dooms it to be stereotypical. The main plot centers around collecting the pieces of a shattered jewel before they can be possessed by evil, and is, as one would suspect, a totally generic epic fantasy affair. The story follows a familiar pattern of fighting off various enemies for pieces of the jewel, and is thus quite predictable, lacking in complexity, and easy to lose interest in. But as so many animes have shown, a poor premise can be rescued by deep, realistic characters. Sadly, no one rescues the story of Inuyasha. Kagome, the main character, is the stereotypical anime heroine (and far too reminiscent of Akane, the main character of the original comic author's previous work Ranma 1/2); she is kind to other females, but treats many males, especially her love interest, with unfair, unabashed, unjustifiable brutality. Inuyasha is a tough-on-the-outside-but-sweet-on-the-inside type, and Miroku is the lamentable stock character of "the pervert".<br /><br />The flaws continue with what happens to this plot and these characters - namely, nothing. Despite constant action, the story does not progress. Despite regular romantic moments, neither does the main relationship. Despite ample time, the characters never really change. And to add a cherry to the sundae of mediocrity, all this stagnation is stretched into approximately 150 episodes.<br /><br />My final criticism of this anime is the animation. While certainly not ugly, it displays almost disrespectful laziness on the part of the creators. The animators seem to take joy in long scenes of Inuyasha jumping through the air with wind whistling in which they have little to do but move a background.<br /><br />In short, with all the beautiful animations of the world at one's keyboard-perched fingertips, there is absolutely no reason to watch Inuyasha.
| 0 |
negative
|
So we saw this on DVD at our apartment here in Paris. We're all here on an exchange program. We all laughed so hard cuz so much of what was going on in the movie happened to us! I mean yeah sure some of it was pretty clichéd but still true, know what I'm saying.<br /><br />I think I related more to the quiet guy (the Italian) than Xavier because I'm more of the observer in our group. Anyway, I wish I had a hot roommate like Cecile de France. She seems like a cool chick in the movie and for real, after I saw her hosting the Cannes Festival last month.<br /><br />Now I'm thinking I wanna go to Barcelona next summer after seeing this movie. I gotta check out the sequel too which just came out here in France.
| 1 |
positive
|
It is often hard to decide what the best film is that you've ever seen, since this may vary by genre, preferences for actors/actresses, or even the mood you're in on a particular day! Having said that, this movie is by far, in my opinion, the WORST movie I've ever seen!! I thought the acting was terrible (was there any?), the plot was just idiotic, and the props were totally fakey. Could a lower budget production be created without being an amateur production? I don't think so. Even the friends I watched the movie with agreed that it was the worst video we ever rented, and to this day we still joke about the night we saw this movie.
| 0 |
negative
|
This movie is extremely funny - the character of momma keeps me returning to the movie time and time again! I can't get enough of her dry lines ... like when she tells her son Owen to bury his friend in the back yard before he smells up the place ... and her suspicion that Owen is trying to kill her by giving her unsalted nuts! It's hilarious!<br /><br />If you like movies such as National Lampoon's Vacation, Uncle Buck, or Planes, Trains & Automobiles, this has similar humor. It's a great, wholesome laugh ... a must see!
| 1 |
positive
|
"Dungeon of Harrow" had a lot of things that could've made this quite a good horror film. Creepy mansion, a torture chamber, a paranoid host, a henchman, a ghoul in the dungeon, etc. But sadly to say this wasn't made very well.<br /><br />A writer and a skipper get shipwrecked on an island owned by a count in a castle, his slave, and a mute maid. The count becomes more and more suspicious that the two shipwrecked men are pirates (of all things) and gets more inclined to turn on them and subject them, and the mute maid who befriends them, to torture and imprisonment. Sound not-bad right? <br /><br />Well, not quite. I used to call this one of the worst movies I have ever seen, but now I hesitate. Because it had so much potential it can't really be called "one of the worst." However, seeing all this potential go to waste is a really big hit against this film. All in all, it's not a very good movie.<br /><br />There is a very Gothic-suspense scene when our hero is chained in the dungeon and is confronted by the insane and leprous rotting bride, adorned in a tattered wedding dress. This was both creepy and disturbing the first time I saw the horror unfold in this scene. Man I wish this was a better movie! <br /><br />This movie had all the right stuff to make this a moody late-night chiller, but ultimately took all the wrong turns. I suggest someone remake this one.
| 0 |
negative
|
I just watched this film this morning and I found it to be a great showing of the richness of faith. Babette gave them another way to look at life; not a replacement, but an enhancement. She shared all that she had with those who gave what little they had to her. I see the story of God in here. He sent his only son to man. Man could not possibly give anything that would equal that. So, for our small sacrifice, we are given an ultimate treasure and are transformed because of it. In this film the bickering townspeople have so consumed themselves with a small interpretation of God. Babette showed them that life and God can indeed be beautiful in it's fullest sense. The love that God's son showed to man is the love we should show to one another and our lives will be the richer for it. Even the film is a metaphor. It seems slow in the beginning, but the investment of time and attention to detail is rewarded in the end. It was truly a feast.
| 1 |
positive
|
Apparently, in the eyes of some - there aren't enough horror films these days involving young people being chased across a desert by a mysterious, bloodthirsty madman in a truck. I mean, all we have so far is Joy Ride, Wolf Creek, Jeepers Creepers, Monster Man - among others. REST STOP may very well be the worst out of those. It is about a girl and her boyfriend who leave their lives behind to start over together in California. Along the way, they stop at a grimy lavatory so the young lady can relieve herself, but when she returns - she finds that her boyfriend and his car are gone. From there, she learns that the culprit is a guy driving a yellow pickup who proceeds to stalk and terrorize her as she hides in the restrooms. This movie is so unoriginal that it is flat out boring. The acting is annoying, the gore is mild, and the killer, whose identity is not revealed throughout the entire movie, is anything but memorable. Terrible - terrible film...
| 0 |
negative
|
Let's get this out of the way, so the ones checking out this page looking for info on anything related to the word "Breasts" (and you know who you are, googlers) can move along: this is not in any way pornographic. On the contrary, if this has any value as masturbation material then, frankly, the filmmaker didn't do a good job since the aim is to keep it on subject and on the experiences of women and their bodies and images of themselves and society and health and so on. Indeed, I would be a little circumspect of one who came across this on DVD or, if it ever plays again, late night on HBO or Cinemax and used it as a means for pleasure. You might as well go to the supermarket and pick up a pair of ripe melons and take them home and squeeze them and uh, well, you get the idea.<br /><br />No, this is semi-serious film-making meant for premium late-night viewing, but it shouldn't have to be just for the late-night types. This is intimate in setting but not in tone. All of the women, in all their variety of shapes and sizes, and races, and even with one man thrown in with fake breasts, have something of value to say, from life experience in the most straightforward way. If I say semi-serious it's due to the several little segments that the director feels she needs to throw in, with the archival footage of old "how-to" videos about puberty and sex and breasts and super-rare cartoons with the knockers flying about. This isn't a problem but an asset: we need a few little visual seg-ways to go between these interviews.<br /><br />Nothing is held back, and we see it as feminism in a liberating form: they don't need to cover up, and even if they choose not to take their tops and shirts and bras off they're still open as can be about a natural part of their body that is an object of sex, surprise, comfort, discomfort, curiosity, motherhood, and, sadly, cancer. In that last part, there's another brave step taken as we see a woman who survived her cancer with only one breast. You know you've become mature and an adult when you can see this woman who has somehow gone on to live a semi-normal life with one breast (the most bittersweet moment is when she says if a fairy godmother said she could have one wish to have two full breasts she would have to think about it), and you don't snicker or go "eww, gross." That's the test, folks.<br /><br />It's not shot under the best of circumstances, but then again for TV it's edited with a tight pace. It's never dull for a moment, and we never feel like anyone is holding back, especially when a man might hear the hard truth like that breasts may not really be erogenous, or that a flat chest is very attractive to some men. Breasts: A Documentary is about deconstructing myths with real faces and breasts and minds and hearts laid bare. If that's worthy of a "I was alone" session, then, well, more power to you, I guess, though it's not the intention.
| 1 |
positive
|
I went to see this film over Matchstick Men, in fact buying the tickets to Matchstick Men and going to the other, because it looked like a fun movie with action, romance, thrills, jungles, and exotic locations. They had all that but so do a lot of movies with a conception of story.<br /><br />All I can say is WHY WHY WHY WHY did they not just make it a straight narrative instead of some sappy flashback story.<br /><br />Here is all the movies from what I've seen the film was derived from: Of course, Indiana Jones and Romancing the Stone, but also True Lies, Proof of Life, that old 80s Tom Selleck movie, Bananas (Woody Allen), and Hero (from the use of digital extras).<br /><br />PS the only scene in the movie that was cool is when the central character finds her room blown up.
| 0 |
negative
|
what a refreshing change from the PG movies that have teen girls jumping in and out of bed, young high school boys counting how many girls they can "hook up" with, kids drinking, doing drugs, etc., etc., etc. Carl Hiaasen has written so many books that are enjoyable but hardly classic literature. but he has finally written something that Middle School kids WANT to read. And this movie sends a message to kids that maybe they can make a difference, that maybe their voices can be heard. Filmed in South Florida, the scenery is beautiful and natural and REAL. Who cares if its predictable, and a little corny. So was FREE WILLY and look how well that did. This is a good family movie..........a rare breed.
| 1 |
positive
|
The dog can act...unfortunately nobody else in the cast of this sordid faux children's film can. A stray yet very clever dog insinuates himself into the lives of two motherless children, much to the chagrin of their bitter and cold-hearted father. In what can only be described as Dickensian, the evil widower forbids his children --- who may or may not be mentally challenged --- from playing with Benji. Neither the children nor Benji obeys. Soon the children are kidnapped and Benji has to help the police find them. It's only then that the old man realizes that Benji is good, not bad.<br /><br />Tom Lester, whose only previous acting experience appears to have been playing the dim-witted Eb on GREEN ACRES plays one of the kidnappers. So does the regrettably over-utilized Deborah Walley. Walley's previous screen triumphs include BEACH BLANKET BINGO and the woeful IT'S A BIKINI WORLD. She also played both Gidget and Tammy in the past and here attempts to obliterate her good-girl reputation by playing it bad! <br /><br />STAY away from BENJI...he's a dog and this movie is a dog!
| 0 |
negative
|
This is a wonderful film as a film - it gets an 8 out of 10. As a filmed piece of accurate history...one wishes to be more loving, but it is a 5 out of 10. And I think I am actually being very charitable.<br /><br />What was he like - that man of horse and saber who was the youngest "boy" general in the Union Army of the American Civil War, and ended dying with all his command in the greatest military victory of the North American Indian tribes? Opinionated, militant, bumptious, bloody-handed, ambitious, clever, too-clever, Indian-foe, Indian-friend(?), and national hero. His death in 1876 was treated as a national tragedy and pushed him into a position of fame equal to Washington, Lincoln, Jackson, and Grant/Lee, and Sherman/Jackson. It is only with a growing awareness of the mistakes made in his career - the overly ambitious hot-spur, that his reputation declined. Yet to this day, George Armstrong Custer remains the best recalled figure in our history's military annals to lose his last battle (I can't really think of a similar one - maybe General Jonathan Mayhew Wainwright, forced to stay with his men on the Bataan Death March - but Wainwright survived the March and the Second World War). <br /><br />Custer has appeared in more films than far better generals, due to the Western adventures and Little Big Horn. Pity that the details of the real career were never handled so lovingly as Raoul Walsh and Errol Flynn handled them in this film. But even in 1941 the legend was still potent. Olivia De Haviland portrayed Libby Custer, who was recently pointed out in another film review on this thread survived George until 1933, so her effective handling of the story was still in place eight years later. Custer was seen as our wayward but brave knight errant, and with the shadow of World War II looming closer we had to keep the myth and bury the truth. John Ford would have fully understood this and approved it.<br /><br />So we get the view that he was a hot-spur, but he was patriotic. Although almost pushed out of West Point by demerits (which was true), Custer was in the class of 1861, and it would have been really stupid to be picky about such a fighter that year. You see, most of the so-called military talent from West Point (from Robert E. Lee down) was southern, and joined the Confederacy. The Union needed every northern "Point" man they could find.<br /><br />Custer's Civil War career should be given closer study - he was attached to the staff of General - In - Chief George B. McClellan, and distinguished himself in the Peninsula Campaign and other eastern front warfare. But he was a cavalryman - and he would rise under the watchful eyes of Grant and Sherman's buddy Phil Sheridan in the latter parts of the war. In particular he served with dash and distinction at the battle of Cedar Creek, which ended the threat of the Confederacy in the Shenandoah Valley. It also hit Custer hard on a personal level (his close West Point friend, Stephen Ramseur, joined the Confederacy and rose to a position like Custer - mortally wounded, Custer sat with Ramseur all through the latter's last night alive).<br /><br />Following the war things fell apart. He wanted to make his brevet - Major Generalship permanent (it wasn't, as it was a battlefield promotion). They only had a Lt. Colonelship to give him in the shrunken army along the frontier. He tried to play politics, making the error of supporting President Andrew Johnson on a political trip in 1866, and finding most Northerners hated Johnson as an inept idiot. He supposedly admired the Indians (he certainly was eloquent in writing of them and the West), but he caused a genuine military massacre in 1868 of Indian women and children that ended with a court martial. Later, during the 1870s he would support Indian claims against a ring of politicians (that went up to the Secretary of War, William Belknap) who bought and sold Indian trading posts for profit. It ruined Belknap, and left a black eye on the Grant Administration. It put him into the doghouse with Grant and Sherman (who was Belknap's former commander), and Sheridan barely saved his career. Then he was sent on the final Big Horn Campaign. And immortality arrived.<br /><br />That career is worth a real film, but would it be too critical? Should we hold a man of the 1850s - 1876 to the standards of 2007? Would we like that done to us in a hundred years? Certainly it could happen, but I'm not sure we'd like it.<br /><br />Custer (1941 style) fit Flynn like a glove, with his giving the closest to a "dance" performance in any of his major films. His final movie with Olivia De Haviland is underlined with a melancholy due to the fate of the hero's character. In support actors like Sidney Greenstreet, Stanley Ridges, Arthur Kennedy and Anthony Quinn did very nicely as friends, foes, or even treacherous sneaks (Kennedy). As an entertaining piece of myth making it remains high - but as a study of a complex military hero it is not what it should be.
| 1 |
positive
|
Excellent performance by Mary KAy Place, Steve Sandvoss, Jacqueline Bissett and Rebekah Johnson. Superb story that reels you into the movie, emotional, yet light-hearted. I own this movie, and everyone that I've shared it with, loves it. Great for mixed company, 18+ crowd.<br /><br />Nice production, not a cheap budget, well organized, and keeps your interest. Uses dome newer ideas, for flashbacks, and at one point keeps the viewer at the edge of their seat.<br /><br />No matter what walk of life a viewer is from, they will buy-in to one or more viewpoints in this film.<br /><br />Would love to see a sequel!
| 1 |
positive
|
TROMEO & JULIET - 10TH ANNIVERSARY EDITION<br /><br />William Shakespeare's play Romeo & Juliet has been interpreted hundreds of times on stage and in films. Sometimes literally following the original text (which is, at times, vague in stage directions), sometimes in new interpretations where directors chose to show their own view on the piece. Some are good, many are mediocre. Lloyd Kaufman's film certainly stands out as one of the most original, modern versions of the bard's creation, It may be placed in a modern-day decaying New York and full of the modern-day anti-social behavior, body piercing, dismemberment and kinky sex (which, for the more than casual reader, Shakespeare himself wasn't shying away from), but at the same time it stays incredibly close to the overall feel and point of what the play is all about, which is quite an effort. Kaufman wrote the script with his co-director on the film James Gunn, who is now famous for writing two successful Scooby Doo movies, doing the impossible by making a perfect remake of an already perfect film with his script for Dawn of the Dead and directing one of the best horror-films of the year: Slither. Lloyd Kaufmans innovative directorial view alongside with James Gunns original and unrestricted writing make for an interpretation of Shakespeare's play that maybe not everyone will "get" immediately, but will certainly be recognized by a truly unique and highly important view on a classic play. With a script that is written entirely in iambic meter, appearances of Motorhead's Lemmy and an outrageous forceful soundtrack watching Tromeo & Juliet is something no one will ever forget. Apart from it's historical significance, Tromeo & Juliet is a treasure for film-lovers of all kind. Not only for the script by James Gunn, now a good influence on Hollywood while working from the inside, but also because it features an early part of legendary actress Debbie Rochon. Well known by everyone familiar with films that are made on lower budgets. The 10th anniversary edition on DVD adds to all that by including so many as-yet undiscovered gems that not only all the information one could wish for about the film itself and the experience of making it is presented in ways that make it impossible to turn off the DVD, but also a very honest (and disturbing) look is given into the ways independent cinema has to surviver these days. In many ways the extra's on the disc are an invaluable addition to the already impressive amount given on Kaufman's film-school "Make Your Own Damn Movie". Furtermore historical items from the Troma vaults which include James Gunn, Debbie Rochon and all other contributors to this masterpiece are included, and the film itself is, apart from looking better then ever, accompanied by no less than four audio-commentaries, each and everyone informative, excruciatingly funny and all done for serious addition to the film instead of the boring and nonsensical commentaries that are so common these days. There are new commentaries (one with Kaufman and Gunn together), but also the one James Gunn did for the original release of the DVD but couldn't be included there for some of honesty he displays about some other people is present on this disc. With fan-recreations of a few of the scenes from the film, a video diary of Lloyd Kaufman's visit to the set of James Gunn's Slither and a visit the two brought together to Eli Roth's Hostel Birthday party and much more, this is the ultimate set everyone must own. Weather you are a film historian, someone interested in interpretations of the great Bard's work, a fan of great cinema, a fighter for independent cinema, a fan of James Gunn, interested in learning more on making films on a low budget, a fan of Lloyd Kaufman or whatever: this is the most important DVD-release of this millennium!
| 1 |
positive
|
Ignore everyone else's comments for this movie and watch it on pay cable (like I did) or rent it. You owe it to yourself. This film is what movies are (supposed to be) all about. Hard to categorize (and God knows how this was pitched as a "high concept"!), but this is one for the angels. Check it out. What have you got to lose?
| 1 |
positive
|
I have only seen this movie once, when I was about 14 years old, but I was thrilled that they made a movie about the 45th Division. Being from Oklahoma and especially now that both of my sons are members of the 45th, I would like to see it released on a DVD. I may sound a little bias but the 45th Division sometimes does not get the recognition it deserves today. The History channel always talks about the other infantry divisions when it talks about WW2 and Korea but you rarely hear it mention the 45th. One of the scene that really stood out for me was when the had the Indian Code Talkers at work and the puzzled look on the German soldiers faces when they could not understand this language. I am glad that all of the Native American Code Talkers are getting the recognition they deserve.
| 0 |
negative
|
I thoroughly enjoyed this film, which in many ways, as Hitchcock did on several occasions, was a first attempt at a plot which he re-shot later in his career. Possibly the most amazing thing about it, however, is how faceless the lead characters are. After watching, one remembers Murray Alper as the jovial truck driver, Vaughan Glaser's touching turn as a blind "patriot", the unforgettable traveling Freak Show and of course Otto Kruger as the suave and sophisticated villain, all of whom completely overshadow Bob Cummings as the rather wooden fugitive (compare that bridge jump to Harrison Ford's similar stunt in Andrew Davis' "The Fugitive") and Priscilla Lane whose change of heart and subsequent love towards Cummings is never quite believable.<br /><br />The other major support player is, of course, Hitchcock himself who bookends the film with 2 extraordinary stunts. Many people criticise the older films for their lack of realistic special effects. My feelings are that with lack of technology, to even attempt and convey what the director wants to show is an amazing achievement.<br /><br />Obviously this film carries an anti-fascist message, made at the time of the Second World War, but being a Hitchcock it is never the most important thing and the emphasis is always on the action. Well worth checking out, especially for the support roles.
| 1 |
positive
|
I figure this to be an "alternate reality" teen flick...More precisely a Ferris Bueller type character as the leader of a cheat ring . Yeah, I know it's not meant to compared to Ferris Bueller, at least not in a "oranges-to-oranges" way, but it will none-the-less.<br /><br />Bottom-line: It's galaxies away from even being even a minor classic. It is watchable, though only if you're not expecting very much. That said, the main character has some charm, but the premise wears thin because the writing just isn't clever. The movie just did not deliver enough laughs, twists, or tension to keep my interest. <br /><br />To be honest I did continue watching...Watching with hopes to see if anything suddenly clicked. It didn't. So, stylish as it is, I wouldn't recommend this movie. BTW, it seems odd to see Mary Tyler Moore as the principal. She's truly miscast, I hope the paycheck was inordinately big.
| 0 |
negative
|
This production is an insult to the Stooges, especially Moe. It is inaccurate and poorly acted. Many of the events depicted just didn't happen that way and too much was left out or skipped over. Read the books written by Moe and his daughter Joan instead. This was a waste of time.
| 0 |
negative
|
If this is not my favorite movie of all time, it definitely is in the top five. I love this. Everything about this is perfect--the clothes, the set, the lines--yes, they're not how normal people talk, but... Right down to the small scenes, especially at the beginning of the office girls changing their shoes, picking a wedgie, watering the office ivy plant, putting lunch in the fridge... Identical to what us office girls do today in the year 2005. I think all the minor characters are wonderful. If someone like Joan Crawford is over the top, it's all part of the package. If you pick out many things in the movie, it is very evident that this was the beginning of the sixties as women were starting to not "take it lying down," at least not if they didn't want to. As far as characters being contradictory, for instance, Suzy Parker's character acting like she's all for flings, but then getting too attached to Louis Jourdan's character, isn't that what many people are like--contradictory? They mix in real stuff with scenes like Diane Baker's character finding the love of her life after miscarrying her illegitimate baby in an accident--lying in the hospital with a big old bandage around her head. This is part of the package too, it's charm--glossy escapism. I like the mix of real stories pertinent today (the stereotypical career woman who only has affairs with married men, therefore doesn't have a family when she is older) with ones that make you wish, "ah, if only I could fall in love with a doctor and he'll love me even though he knows my sordid past, and saw me all messed up after the scandalous accident!!" Also, I just got the DVD, widescreen, it's yet even more beautiful than full screen... Yay!
| 1 |
positive
|
think of the most un-film-worthy subject you can and this is 10 times worse. A woman needs to complete as many crosswords as she can in a day. We don't even get to see the questions and think of the words on our own, we just watch her struggle. The woman seems so anxious and in a hurry to do the crosswords, but for some reason she spends the time distractedly walking all around the city when she could be focused at home. The acting is horrible, the actress huffs and puffs as she tried to think of the words, and we are left completely in the dark. The New York scenery is nice but the movie relies on it too much and it gets old fast. The movie plays like a rejected NYU student film. This film has no redeeming qualities and I do not recommend it to anyone, ever.
| 0 |
negative
|
Found this film in a DVD discount rack for $10. It wasn't worth it. Some of the camera work and dialog look and sound as if it were done by a film student. Sandra's performance was somewhat credible, but the film was predictable and the action was spotty and dragged.<br /><br />One thing that I will give them, however. Unlike most action films, people in this film actually ran out of ammo and scavanged dead bodies for new weapons and ammunition.
| 0 |
negative
|
***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** THE CELL / (2000) **** (out of four)<br /><br />"Do you believe there is a part of yourself, deep inside in your mind, with things you don't want other people to see? During a session when I'm inside, I get to see those things."<br /><br />--Catherine Deane<br /><br />And so do we. One of the most visually stimulating films of the year, "The Cell" is a love/hate movie-either you love it or you hate it. I can understand the reasons some people dislike this production. With a story that combines disturbing serial killers with mind-probing, "The Cell" is too much for some viewers; others will not understand the complex actions and emotions of the film. I think it's one of the year's most engrossing films.<br /><br />Making his feature film screenwriting debut, Mark Protosevich creates an imaginative world of rich, colorful images and provocative characters. The filmmakers take advantage of every shot. Protosevich conceived ideas for "The Cell" in 1993 when he decided to combine two of his major interests, mind-probing and serial killers. He was reportedly influenced by such directors as Wes Craven, George Romero and David Cronenberg. They would probably be proud of such an imagination.<br /><br />The film combines two major narratives, one about scientific exploration of the human mind, and the other about a psychopath who murders young women for his own sexual pleasure. Catherine Deane (Jennifer Lopez), a child therapist, is part of a neurological study at the Campbell Center, a research clinic. Because of her empathetic personality, scientists chose Deane to enter the mind of a catatonic preteen in hopes to revive his brain into waking.<br /><br />A sick, demented serial killer roams the streets. Within an abandoned rural farmhouse, Stargher (Vincent D'Onofrio) locks innocent female victims in a large glass cell where he then drowns them and performs sadistic sexual rituals with their bodies. The killer escapes from the FBI every time they draw near, until now. A violent seizure renders him comatose. The FBI captures his forever unconscious body. Unfortunately, he already prepared the cell with his latest victim. In forty hours, the cell will fill with water, and Stargher is the only man who knows the location of his victim.<br /><br />The FBI takes this situation to Campbell Center, where Catherine enters the mind of Stargher, hoping to discover the location of his latest victim before the cell fills with water, sending the woman to a watery grave.<br /><br />The science fiction portions of the story relied on both real science and theoretical fiction in the creation of the Neurological Cartography and Synaptic Transfer System. The premise takes a long time to develop, but it is worth the wait. It is far fetched, but that doesn't matter. The film makes us believe. Even if you don't suspend disbelief, however, the visual enticement provides an engaging setting to enjoy.<br /><br />According to the film's production notes, Mark Protosevich was thrilled to work with the director, named Tarsem, because they both think visually. Tarsem Singh is known for his attention to detail, stunning art direction, and highly developed abilities to tell a story. "When I wrote 'The Cell'," explains Protosevich, "I surrounded myself with postcards or color copies of painter's paintings or photographs while I was working. So I'm thinking visually, and Tarsem is a highly visual director. Tarsem has a similar frame of visual references which made for a very smooth collaboration."<br /><br />Vincent D'Onofrio provides the film with a backbone, and no actor could have accomplished his character any better. He delivers a mysterious, disturbing, and engaging performance. "I think that my character is, in a way, trapped in himself," D'Onofrio ponders. He also researched the psychology of serial killers to help get him beneath the surface of the character. His in-depth performance preparation pays off beautifully.<br /><br />While the actors, writer, and director do wonders with their material, the real honor goes to the film's behind-the-scenes talent. The director of photography Paul Laufer, production designer Tom Foden, costume designer April Napier, special effects coordinator Clay Pinney, and visual effects supervisor Kevin Tod Haug. They bring the world of "The Cell" to life. It's is an extraordinary world worthy of several viewings. Some movies you watch, others you experience. "The Cell" falls into the later category.<br /><br />
| 1 |
positive
|
I've never expected too much from a film by trashy B-movie director Jim Wynorski: a silly premise, some cheapo effects and a bit of nudity from some busty babes, and I'm usually fairly happy.<br /><br />Well, Cheerleader Massacre delivers on the former and definitely the latter, but unfortunately is a tad light when it comes to the splatter. And when a film has the word 'massacre' in the title, and scrimps on the gore, then Houston, we have a problem.<br /><br />Wynorski's movie centres on a group of cheerleaders who, along with their teacher, mini-bus driver and a couple of guys, become stranded in the mountains during a snowstorm. They make their way on foot to a deserted mountain retreat, where they find food and shelter. And a crazy killer who wants them all dead! From the outset, good old Jim ensures that his film features plenty of scenes loaded with T&A, and includes the obligatory shower scene, along with numerous other moments in which tasty women get nekkid (including a spot of raunchy softcore sex and a very gratuitous three-babes-in-a-hot-tub scene). None of the women look young enough to be cheerleaders (and are never even seen in their outfits), but who cares about such details when they're all too willing to strip off in the name of art?<br /><br />I do care, however, about the movie's numerous lacklustre deaths. With such an extremely lurid title, I had been hoping for some inventive bloodletting to go with all of the bums, bush, and boobs; instead, practically all of the killings occur off-screen or feature next to no gore. Only a silly post-decapitation scene (achieved with cheap-as-chips CGI) comes anywhere near to delivering the goods.<br /><br />Still, if you're feeling in the mood for some titillation, or a bit of slasher silliness minus the grue, then, at 82 minutes, at least Cheerleader Massacre won't be too much of a waste of your time.
| 0 |
negative
|
This is a fantastic film. The acting is some of the best I've seen. Tatyana Samojlova is obviously very beautiful, and she automatically draws you into the film with her believable acting. The The cinematography was extremely ahead of its time. Watching it, I could see parallels of cinematography used today. This is truly a groundbreaking film. Because of the cinematography and acting, the audience can feel the change in tone from beginning to end as the tone in the environment in the movie changes. It's a very touching and powerful piece. My friend told me it was must see, and I definitely agree with her. This is one of those films that you watch and never forget. Everyone should see this intensely moving film. This should be put on everyone's "Movies to See Before ________ (whatever)" list.
| 1 |
positive
|
Pretty, stereotyped, good looking cast, the story loops in a wide and confusing arc, leading you down a number of garden paths (without attendant fairies) before plummeting to an end that feels you leaving - hollow.<br /><br />If you are after a film that has climax or ends with a satisfying thump, this is going to be a disappointment. Inspite of the main character's notionally overt sexuality I felt that he was androgynous, lacking a clear male persona, rather like his lacking of a clear French persona. Even though he is notionally laid naked (or rather sat naked) at the end of the film, the viewer is as unaware as the character as to motivations - that little thing called plot. Probably a stereotypically English speaking point of view, at least if you take the side of the film.
| 0 |
negative
|
To say I wasn't expecting much sitting down to watch "The Couch Trip" is an understatement. I had no idea what it was about - I thought it was going to be a journey into the realm of sexuality when I heard Chevy Chase played a condom man and the movie's title involves the word "couch trip," *wink, wink.* Then I figured out that it had something to do with a mental institute and a patient escaping. My expectations dropped even lower.<br /><br />I was literally expecting a grin movie - the type where you grin once and walk out feeling a bit cheated. And in a way, this is cheap comedy - it doesn't have the greatest gags, the plot is ludicrous, but you know what? I had a big dumb smile on my face the entire time I was watching it.<br /><br />Dan Aykroyd plays John Burns, a patient at a mental hospital who may or may not actually be mental. He gives the psychiatrist, Lawrence Baird (David Clennon), plenty of grief and misery, which leads us to believe he is a sane person after all.<br /><br />Following a little bit of a riot in the mental institute's cafeteria, Burns is awaiting a tongue-lashing from Baird in his office when the phone rings. Burns picks it up, pretends to be Baird, and finds out the caller on the other line, Harvey Michaels (Richard Romanus), wants the real Dr. Baird to come fill in for a radio shrink named George Maitlin (Charles Grodin), who is taking a vacation with his wife, Vera (Mary Gross). Michaels wants Baird so bad he has even booked him a ticket on an airplane.<br /><br />Burns escapes the institute with the help of a receptionist, and drives to O'Hare. He gets Dr. Baird's ticket, gets on the plane, and eventually poses on the air as Dr. Baird. His show is a phenomenal success. "People love him!" one man says, and the other man replies, "It's because he actually cares about them."<br /><br />Donald Becker (the late, great Walter Matthau) is an ex-mental patient who recognizes Burns' clothes to be confinement-issued pants and shirts. To keep him quiet, Burns promises Becker a percentage of his income. The secret is kept closed.<br /><br />Meanwhile, Maitlin and his wife get in an argument. He flies home to end his vacation short and realizes that the man on his talk show is not, in fact, Dr. Baird after all, but no one believes him. He gets the real Dr. Baird, but unfortunately he has lost his ID so the police take them as nutcases and don't listen to their story.<br /><br />Let me name just a few of the plot holes I noticed while watching this film: Burns poses as Dr. Baird, but is never asked for his ID, even when claiming his plane ticket (he was robbed, he says, but they would still make sure he is Baird). If Burns becomes so very famous, how come the real Dr. Baird in Chicago never heard people talking about him? Word travels. And finally, why would the police ever arrest Maitlin and Baird (the real Baird, that is) without following up on their stories?<br /><br />To be frankly honest, I couldn't care less. I went into this movie with a closed mind and it surprised me - I really liked it. It entertained me. Its ideas are essentially ludicrous and not at all realistic, but Dan Aykroyd gives a truly spirited performance as a half-a-loon that makes "The Couch Trip" a trip worth taking. <br /><br />3.5/5 stars -<br /><br />John Ulmer
| 1 |
positive
|
Saw this at the video store and thought I'd give it a try. Sounded like a good story and the cover looked good. That was it. The characters looked good, and the actor who played "Noel", was the most convincing, though he didn't have any heavy time in the movie. I find it really hard to give a movie a bad rating, but this is one, in a minute number, that gets it my book. As the movie went along I kept wanting it to get better but to no avail. Asthetically, it was good. The sound and lighting was good, but the acting in this film killed it for me. It was like watching a low grade soap opera. I just kept saying, "I can't believe they released this move like this". I paused several times out of sheer unbelief that the acting was that bad. There's so much I want to say but I'll just say this, everything else, for the most part, was good, it was the acting, as a final cut, that really did this film in.
| 0 |
negative
|
Me being one was probably having a brain fart at the time for renting it. Anyone who actually buys it, will enjoy using this as a coaster. Perhaps a frisbee? This is a dvd I actually found up front where the kids could get to it. Since dvd's don't seem to be in the position to be put in that tell tale back room with all the big box vhs tapes are, I find it rather annoying they stuck this up next to a disney film. Yep, going from Dinosaur to Erotic Ghost has shown what we all think of Disney right? I havent' stooped that low just yet. There's no acting in here. The only thing interesting is the old 1973 movie trailers for ollllld ancient erotic films that I'm amazed have escape from being burned to hell.<br /><br />1/10 (if imdb allowed zero's it'd be 0/10)
| 0 |
negative
|
Here is a rundown of a typical Rachael Ray Show:<br /><br />1. The awful theme song begins to play, and Rachael descends wearing her Snapcrotch outfit in this bizarre cargo elevator. 2. She begins running around screaming and/or insulting the audience, then yells at them sit down. 3. An awkward monologue.<br /><br />(The next are in any order) 4. A segment tooting Rachael's own horn (i.e. "I Lost 500 Pounds with Rach's Recipes, "Rachael Ray Saved my Life," "Rachael's Fashion Tips.") 5. A totally useless D.I.Y. tip (i.e. how to engrave words into casserole dishes, how to use your washing machine as a salad spinner, how to build a tube of lipstick with a light on it.) 6. The unleashing of horrible recipe on the unsuspecting audience (reaction shots of first bites are never shown). 7. A celebrity guest with an awkward interview, followed by some obviously scripted questions from the audience. 8. A person who gets help from one of Rachael's cronies (i.e. the I say yes to everything woman, the I own nothing but overalls lady, and the I can't find time to put on makeup housewife). What would they do without you Rachael. *gasp*<br /><br />Reasons that this show should be avoided like the plague: 1. Fakeness: Rachael Ray claims that entire show is unscripted. Many people who have attended tapings of the show have claimed that the entire show is scripted. Many of these same people have also mentioned that there is even a very strict dress code for the show. <br /><br />2. Her show jumps around too much: Where as Oprah, who is the highest rated talk show host of all time has a definite theme for her show, Rachael's jumps around like an ADHD soda child on crack. Her show averages perhaps 10, short, worthless segments a show. On second you will be getting fashion tips from Kojo, and the next Rachael will be making gross stuffed "Spanish" peppers with manchego cheese, and the next their will be a giant anaconda up on stage, and the next, well you get the picture.<br /><br />3. Rachael is a poor host with bad ideas: Aside from her grating personality, Rachael's hosting ability is terrible, at best. Her questions for her celebrity guests are poor, and often times not even relevant to the interview, and her segments are unappealing and offer little educational, or humorous value.<br /><br />In conclusion, you need not waste your time with this schlock. It will be canceled soon anyways.
| 0 |
negative
|
/*may contain SPOILERS, but of course it does not matter :) */<br /><br />Battleship Potemkin is one stunning spectacle of haunting images. The visual direction is (well, and has been) inspiring, the sheer scale of the film is impressive, and the technique is certainly pioneering. What is really amazing is, to my mind, the depth and effectiveness of a film, devoid of proper literary script, sound (save the soundtrack), decent image quality, the faux-profound (self-)referentialism of today, exceptional acting, pretense, etc. What you get is a purely visual experience to be remembered.<br /><br />BTW, the previous poster noted: "Eisenstien felt after a lot of suffering to give the heroes what they wanted. The problem is that you think Eisenstein is building up to a big final fight and then he tricks you. It's a little cheap. I would've rather seen a huge final action scene."<br /><br />I must warn you, that the end is not cheap, and Eisenstein wasn't being generous to the heroes. History, however, was. Potemkin really did go through the squadron as it was shown in the film.<br /><br />Finally, I'd strongly recommend seeing Battleship Potemkin to anyone more or less seriously interested in cinema. See it with a fellow movie buff, it kept me talking for hours. However, if you tend to consider films, generally accepted as "great" or "classic", to be "slow" or "boring", this film might not be for you yet. Not much cheap entertainment here.<br /><br />For me though, it is a full 10/10.
| 1 |
positive
|
Firstly let me get this of my chest I hate Octopussy with an absolute passion. What is so frustrating is that it had so much potential and had a very good opening sequence, unfortunately post the opening sequence it all goes downhill. Firstly there was absolutely no plot to begin with, just an excuse for Moore to tell his corny jokes. Next there are several sequences that would make a Bond fan cringe,for instance the sequence in which Bond turns up to diffuse a bomb dressed as a clown. The villains are pretty poor, Louis Jordon fails to make an impact as Kamal Khan and Bollywood veteran Kabir Bedi is equally poor as his henchman. It's funny that when people debate over what the worst Bond movie is and Octopussy gets overlooked when it can easily give them a run for their money.
| 0 |
negative
|
Although I am a fan of Heather Thomas and I have a few of her old bikini posters around here somewhere, I can honestly say that if the only movie I had ever seen her in was "Cyclone", I would never be able to guess why she had made it as far as she had in show business.<br /><br />Directed by Fred Olen Ray (about as good an omen as seeing buzzards circle over head in the desert), this tale of a woman (Thomas) who must protect a high-tech motorcycle from unscrupulous types is about as "B" movie as it gets (or in Fred Olen's case, "B minus").<br /><br />The cast itself should tell you something. It's not every movie that combines Thomas with actors the calibre of Beswick, Hall, Combs, Donahue, Tamblyn and Landau (!!). If you're lucky, very few movies do. And even though they seem to be having fun, shouldn't some of that fun be passed on to the audience? I vote yes, seems they voted no.<br /><br />Of course, if you ever wanted to see Heather deliver an uppercut to another woman, use the "F" word and get hooked up to battery cables, you've probably been looking for this one. Myself, I'll be content with old "Fall Guy" reruns.<br /><br />One star, given in hopes that when another "Cyclone" hits town, Heather runs for shelter. I know I will.
| 0 |
negative
|
I would rate this film high on my list of Ingrid Bergman films. Ingrid's beauty aside, her talent is evident in scene after scene. She was sad, mean, witty,<br /><br />snobbish, flirtatious, delightfully funny, loving, tender, sorrowful, distressed, happy, etc. You name it, she was all those things and more. -And so<br /><br />convincing. Ingrid plays a notorious woman (Clio) who comes back to New<br /><br />Orleans and falls for a Texas gambler, Gary Cooper (Clint). I especially loved the scene where they are sitting at the dining table saying nothing, just staring at each other. She, in an elegant white gown and he in a handsome white cowboy<br /><br />outfit, sitting there looking at her adoringly. What chemistry! What love!
| 1 |
positive
|
First of all - I'm not one to go all sappy over movies. I saw Friends in the 70's when it was first released. I was about 17 years old at the time. Even now, at age 50, I still can remember some of the scenes. The movie is sweet and sad and may actually be too tame for teenagers today but I loved it. The story is about innocence, the purity of young love and the determination of 2 young people to make a better life for themselves then they had at home. At the time it was pretty risky to have a movie about a couple of young runaways who successfully setup house and have a baby on their own. I'm not surprised the movie and Elton John's soundtrack are almost unknown today. The music is beautiful. It was unforgettable.
| 1 |
positive
|
This movie sets out to do something very particular, it also sets out not to do certain things. In short it has a definite premeditated trajectory - to deal with the idea of facing death (with very few choices and all of them bad) as grave and real rather than something casual or amusing. In search of that realism it has eschewed certain conventions such as obvious character arcs and hooks. It not about the characters so much as about the human condition. Never mind what the actors would do... what would YOU do in their situation? <br /><br />Open Water may have been a starting notion for this movie but it goes a lot further. Unlike that film it doesn't cheat the audience in the end when you find out there aren't really any sharks to speak of at all. This has a real monster, not just the idea of a monster and not just an animated stand in. It also has fine production values given what these very resourceful filmmakers had to work with. And again in contrast to that other film it has some exhilarating and brilliantly rendered action at it's climax. And let's not forget the, shall we say 'dazzling', screen presence of its youngest star. She may prove to be quite a discovery.
| 1 |
positive
|
This begins a series (which I'll hopefully keep up every week-end) of films that came out during my childhood in this case, it's one I've only managed to catch now. It was clearly intended as the last word on the subject, which basically had been debased to the level of hokum over the years; however, in its uncompromising striving for a serious-minded approach (a sure measure of which is that the protagonist is never once referred to by the name he's been known all this time the world over!), the film-makers rather lost track of the fact that the thing was intended primarily as entertainment! Consequently, we get a decidedly staid representation of events with more care given to meticulous period reconstruction than in providing a functional thematic environment for its mythic jungle hero! Even so, Christopher Lambert rose to stardom as did another debutante, Andie McDowell, playing his love interest (named Jane, of course) with the title role, which he handles creditably enough under the circumstances. However, Ralph Richardson (to whom the film is dedicated, this being his swan-song) steals every scene he's in as Tarzan's natural grandfather who, in spite of showing obvious affection for his long-lost kin, can't bring himself to forget tradition in an effort to understand his predicament; the hero, in fact, is much more comfortable interacting with primates (even contriving, after having gone back home, to save his adoptive 'dad' from captivity). The film is otherwise very good to look at (with cinematography by Stanley Kubrick regular John Alcott, no less), features an appropriately grandiose score as well as remarkable make-up effects (by Rick Baker) and, while essentially disappointing as a Tarzan outing, retains considerable value nonetheless as a prestige picture of its day.
| 1 |
positive
|
This is one of those rare comedies where try as you might, you can't help but giggle, chortle, guffaw and yes, even laugh out loud. The lead actor's performance as Hyde is pure manic genius. See if you can keep a straight face when he does his transformation. Good luck. :) On the downside there are times when the movie does bog down. It seemed longer than its 90 minutes.
| 1 |
positive
|
This show uses a rather tired sitcom formula of the fat idiot blue collar slob with the pretty (and sometimes shrewish-seeming) wife and crazy in-law(s). With this show, it's fat unfunny comedian Kevin James as Doug Hefferman who works as a delivery driver for a parcel service. He has a pretty wife, Carrie (Leah Remini), who works as legal assistant, and senile father-in-law, Arthur Spooner (Jerry Stiller), who lives in his daughter and son-in-law's basement. Kevin James' Doug is your typical beer drinking, sports loving, TV watching slob of a sitcom husband who would rather watch the tube than deal with his marital issues. He also has a couple of idiot friends who lend extra stupidity to the problems encountered by this show's couple. Beyond the few laughs supplied by Jerry Stiller's crazy old man character this show was generally unfunny. Kevin James' imbecilic behavior usually caused the show's problems that usually resolved by his wife. This show continued a run of sitcoms with the fat stupid father/husband and their pretty wives that all seemed to run on ABC for some reason.
| 0 |
negative
|
Okay, the only reason I watched this movie is because Krista Allen is in it. Since I admit to watching Days of our lives... I know her as Billie. Oh sure, perhaps there will be a reason to watch this movie.. that would be the soft porn area. They seem to exel at that. And little else. I would hope anyone renting/buying this movie rented it only for the sex scene's. Because if they bought/rented it for anything else, say quality tv, they may die of a heart attack. This movie involves little imagination whatsoever. While I do have a good laugh at it's stupidity, and perhaps I'll buy it myself, I am but a fool. Rent before you buy on this one. 2 out of 10. (note I have yet to give a movie a 1 star. the sensual scene's alone gave itself and up from a 1. if they hadn't a straight 1 in the pot and I want a refund if it hadn't.)
| 0 |
negative
|
I first saw "Signs of Life" on PBS as an American Playhouse presentation. It's a wonderfully written, ensemble production with terrific performances by Michael Lewis as Joey and Vincent D'Onofrio as his brother, Daryl. Arthur Kennedy, in one of his last roles, is also excellent as an aging shipbuilder whose family business is about to close. The rest of the cast which includes Beau Bridges, Kathy Bates and Mary-Louise Parker give remarkable clarity and substance to their characters.<br /><br />The direction is subtle and effective. I've watched this movie several times over the years and would very much recommend it. A beautiful piece of filmmaking.
| 1 |
positive
|
When I first looked at the back of the cover of this film, it seemed like me and my friends could be looking forward to 82 memorable minutes. And it certainly was memorable. Puckoon was the kind of movie where you keep asking yourself how this was possible. How it was possible that it was released on DVD at all. Out of all of the movies available at the video rental store that night...we might just have picked the worst. And yes, they had Tomb Raider. Absolutely nothing in this movie amused me even slightly. Who came up with the idea that it would be funny if the narrator could change the story by suggestions from the main character? Out of all the stupid things you can totally ruin a movie with, this is now my favourite. The character Foggerty, the village idiot, played by Nickolas Grace is the most annoying character since they started making movies in color. If there is one single movie that you definately not should see this year, please let it be Puckoon, cause I don't think it can be any worse. I still wonder if this just might have been the worst way I have spent my money, and take my word for that I have made many lousy purchases over the years.
| 0 |
negative
|
Please let me know of any versions of Precious Bane or Gone to Earth on video that people may be aware of. I love the books of Mary Webb wholeheartedly and would be very grateful to have any information on either VHS or DVD.<br /><br />I've read Precious Bane and Gone to Earth, which are my favorites by Mary Webb, many times, and have collected other novels by her also. I was lucky to have found her "Springs of Joy" poetry and essays, but I've never been able to see the Precious Bane version that was on Masterpiece Theatre, or the full version of Gone to Earth, although there was an American Movie Classic airing of The Wild Heart which was a chopped-up version of Gone to Earth's original film. <br /><br />If anyone can assist me in obtaining copies of either or both of these films (full versions), I would be so thankful!
| 1 |
positive
|
like i'm sure other people have said this guy isn't a very worthwhile subject. sure, our society has a morbid fascination with death, and it's funny hearing him talk about how much he smokes and how much coffee he drinks, but he's into giving himself an unworthy mystique. anyway, the bottom line is that he's a moron racist using feeble methods to try to disprove the mountain of evidence of the holocaust, and as such he should be forgotten by time. but Morris is in love with any kind of curiosities, which normally i wouldn't fault him for.
| 0 |
negative
|
This film reeks of production line planning. It appears like the filmmakers looked at recent hit movies, and threw spaghetti on the screen - Jimmy Stewart! June Allyson! Anthony Mann! Baseball! War! Baby! Airplane! - ROLL 'EM! - The film does address the age of the Stewart/Allyson performers; though, I'm certain we are still supposed to think they are much younger.<br /><br />There are messages in "Strategic Air Command" I found curiously shocking and offensive, but I'll stick with one truly wretched element: The happily married couple is challenged when Mr. Stewart's character makes an important decision without consulting his wife. In the film's most dramatic scene, she calls him on it. It ends completely unresolved - Allyson is crying her heart out on their bed, and Stewart walks out on her. NO discussion; he simply says he is correct, and walks out on his devastated wife. For all he knows, she could slit her wrists.<br /><br />Later, Allyson apologizes for questioning her husband's decision.<br /><br />Unbelievable! <br /><br />Stick with Stewart-Allyson in "The Stratton Story" (1949). <br /><br />** Strategic Air Command (3/25/55) Anthony Mann ~ James Stewart, June Allyson, Frank Lovejoy
| 0 |
negative
|
Indeed, Cynthia Watros is in this movie as Elizabeth talking to Desmond. Though I'm just wondering how she ended up as a 'rehab patient'(?) where Hurley is also in there trying to reduce his weight (as seen from the previous episodes).<br /><br />Anyway, this last episode is really suspended. The ending is not so understandable. I think the writer did expect the audience that there is a season 3 coming.<br /><br />I just hope the next season will give light to more unclear/hanging events that were happened.<br /><br />Just can't wait further for season 3.
| 1 |
positive
|
This was a wonderful little film that truly was creative and fun--something you see all too seldom in movies. The film begins in Russia just after the fall of the Communist government. As a result, society seems to be in chaos and life has yet to improve now that the old regime is gone. Dirty cities, crime and lack of housing still plague the poor residents of St. Petersburg.<br /><br />Into this scene of bleakness and uncertainty comes an idealistic music teacher. He is among those without a home and he FINALLY gets a letter from the government that tells him he has a tiny room in a nearby flat. When he arrives, the place is a mess but the people seem friendly enough so they all have a lovely party. In the middle of the night, they are awakened by an old lady walking out of the giant wardrobe in the room (I was half expecting Lucy and the other kids from THE LION, THE WITCH AND THE WARDROBE to come out, but they didn't). They are too shocked to do anything at first but decide soon to investigate. Instead of just being a clothes closet, the wardrobe opens into Paris! How the residents of the flat respond to this magical gateway is really intriguing. Some, like the music teacher, are thrilled and in awe. Most of the others are more pragmatic and are mostly concerned with looting everything from Paris before the gateway closes once and for all! These Russian thieves are awful people--greedy, coarse and crude but down deep---VERY DEEP--are hearts of gold. I like how this is a metaphor for the nation now on the brink of Capitalism. At first, they run amok grabbing everything they can and only later do they reveal some depth--but mostly they act much like guests on THE JERRY SPRINGER SHOW! The film has many twists and turns and is both funny and mesmerizing. About the only negative is that due to some harsh language and a nude scene (albeit, a very funny one), this is not a film for kids. This is a real shame, as with some very minor editing, this could have been a great family film.
| 1 |
positive
|
( HR is what Himesh is called in the movie, I think he likes it too. ) It's amazing how intelligent people, talented even fall in to the same trap.<br /><br />I really like Reshamiya. It's amazing what he has done. No one in recent years has come back from the wilderness and made a mark for himself.<br /><br />And I truly expected a great film ( What with the budget of 50 Cr and the cute actress ). As intense as Reshamiya is I thought, he would excel at a sentimental and an emotional role. Ironically he is depicted the same but for what care? Sheer incompetence, carelessness, awful acting, banal background music, insensitive direction make it a real pain.<br /><br />Blunders rule. ( Ex. How can German Police issue public instructions on a loud speaker in English? They communicate among themselves in English!) Unfortunately this incompetence has become the standard in main line Bollywood. There are some excellent directors but many a bad ones too. The worse thing is that the majority just doesn't care.<br /><br />Songs are the only saving grace...<br /><br />Please don't repeat this HR and find yourself a good director ( low budget.. No problem).<br /><br />The villain should really have shaved his head instead of the wig you know... after all it's a 50Cr movie.
| 0 |
negative
|
<br /><br />**********SPOILER ALERT***************<br /><br />If you happen to like JURASSIC PARK 1, 2, or 3:<br /><br />If you happen to appreciate really bad movies for their sheer entertainment value if not for their quality (case in point-John Carpenter's DARK STAR-highly recommended)<br /><br />If you happen to like movies about dinosaurs in general-<br /><br />THEN STAY AWAY FROM THIS CINEMATIC CRAPSTERPIECE!<br /><br />The shameless use of stock footage from CARNOSAUR 1 & 2 make up most of this miserable attempt at a dino/slasher flick- Take the scene, for instance, where the security guard meets his doom at the jaws of the Alpha T-Rex. For some reason, he drops about 50 pounds and appears 10 years younger. Why is that? Simply because this scene was lifted directly from CARNOSAUR, which was a crummy flick to begin with.<br /><br />The ending was a carbon copy of CARNOSAUR 2, for those unfortunate enough to have sat through that straight-to-video loser. Again, we see Mr. Rex do battle against a bulldozer-which alternates as a forklift truck-through the miracle of -ta-daa!- stock footage from the aforementioned CARNOSAUR 1 & 2. Of course, the ending is exactly the same-the beast falls to his death just as the complex goes up in flames.<br /><br />A real insult to anyone's intelligence.<br /><br />But it's still better than watching the ROSIE O' DONNEL SHOW.<br /><br />Rating: 1/2* out of *****<br /><br />
| 0 |
negative
|
iCarly is about a teenage girl named Carly Shay (Miranda Cosgrove) who lives with her artist brother, Spencer in a loft in Seattle. Carly has a web show that gets millions of views and makes tons of money a year, so much money she "doesn't even know its a real number". Her best friend is Sam (Janette McCrudy) who's as predictable as they come! She says "normal" things and beats up Carly's neighbor, Freddie who is in charge of all the technical things for their web show. Carly shouts every word and looks like she doesn't have emotion. Sam chases Freddie around and Freddie screams. In one episode Carly and her friends shoot Lewbert (the doorman) down in elevator and he survives.<br /><br />I would not recommend this at all, unless you like teenagers shouting, hurting people and making fun of stuff.
| 0 |
negative
|
i have had this movie, in the back of my head sense i saw it. i have wanted to tell people about it time and again, but never remembered. now i found it. now finally, i can tell people precisely what the absolute worst, most crappy movie i have ever seen in my entire life, bar none is.<br /><br />this movie is complete trash, and is unfit for a garbage dump. all prints and other copy's of this movie should be rounded up loaded into a large rocket, and launched into the sun. only the purifying heat and pressure of the sun might be able to purify the materials this movie is stored on, so that they can be useful to the universe again.<br /><br />i like movies. i like bad movies. and yes this is an opinion. but this movie was pure trash, filth, and excrement of some beast that should never be seen let alone named by man.<br /><br />i would rather watch a Uwe Boll Movie marathon than watch this movie. and i hate Uwe Boll's films.
| 0 |
negative
|
Since this cartoon was made in the old days, Felix talks using cartoon bubbles and the animation style is very crude when compared to today. However, compared to its contemporaries, it's a pretty good cartoon and still holds up well. That's because despite its age, the cartoon is very creative and funny.<br /><br />Felix meets a guy whose shoe business is folding because he can't sell any shoes. Well, Felix needs money so he can go to Hollywood, so he tells the guy at the shop he'll get every shoe sold. Felix spreads chewing gum all over town and soon people are stuck and leave their shoes--rushing to buy new ones from the shoe store. In gratitude, the guy gives Felix $500! However, Felix's owner wants to take the money and go alone, so Felix figures out a way to sneak along.<br /><br />Once there, Felix barges into a studio and makes a bit of a nuisance of himself. Along the way, he meets cartoon versions of comics Ben Turpin and Charlie Chaplin. In the end, though, through luck, Felix is discovered and offered a movie contract. Hurray!
| 1 |
positive
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.