text
stringlengths 49
12.1k
| label
int64 0
1
| label_text
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|
After the lead actress of the opera is killed in a car accident, her young understudy, Betty, is brought to the forefront. That's very lucky for her, with one problem: she has an admirer that has decided he will kill all her friends and make her watch. What is his connection to the opera, and what is his fascination with Betty? <br /><br />I love Dario Argento with every part of my body. And I'm not an orthodox fan, I think. Many people, particularly critics, praise his earlier work ("Suspiria" and "Deep Red") but really frown on later films, such as "Sleepless", which I liked. My favorite, "Phenomena", is usually vastly underrated. "Opera" tends to fall somewhere in between. Some consider it one of his last great films, others see it as part of his so-called decline. I loved it.<br /><br />The picture is crisp, the music is great (unlike other critics, I love the metal soundtrack), the female lead is someone I can feel for (not unlike Jennifer Connelly from "Phenomena"). And the imagery... wonderful. Great cinematography, and some amazing kill scenes. The concept of taping needles to a person's eyes so they cannot blink... brilliant. My assistant Tina thinks this looked fake, but even if it does, the idea is more than enough to pay off. And some great effects, like a knife blade coming up inside a man's mouth? Awesome.<br /><br />Jim Harper calls the film "stunning" and calls attention to the "innovative cinematography, well-constructed shots and exceptionally violent murders." I agree with this completely -- one shot follows the camera through winding tunnels, and there is a very interesting visual use of crows throughout the story. Mike Mayo likewise calls it "visually fascinating eye-candy" and lauds the "crisp editing and flowing camera-work". It's really a wonder that this is not one of Argento's more highly-praised works.<br /><br />Argento returned to the opera with "Phantom of the Opera", which was a bit of a failure despite the casting of his daughter Asia and Julian Sands. Even more interesting, this same year offered the release of Michele Soavi's "Stagefright", which (like "Opera") has a killer loose inside a theater killing off the people involved with the presentation. Both are great films, with Soavi's more on the slasher side. (Soavi actually served as second unit director on "Opera"... you can make your own conclusions.) <br /><br />My only complaint with this film is the length and pacing. While it is very beautifully shot and the kill scenes are glorious, they are not as frequent as they should be. The first one takes over a half hour, and then we get down times between them. The lead actress should be in constant terror, but she is given time between kills to calm down as if everything is normal again. Not cool, Dario. We need to keep the suspense low and the intensity high.
| 1 |
positive
|
Jennifer Grey seems the unlikeliest of romantic leads and that's probably the reason why this beloved film is such a sure-fire hit. It's all very well doing a version of Montagus and Capulets with sweeteners like dancing and schadenfreude-baiting Jewish society family tropes thrown in but there usually has to be an X Factor.<br /><br />Swayze probably makes this film safe with his rugged, post-Travolta moves and temperament but its being won over by this curly-mopped Penelope Pitstop teen that brings the dream in reach of the impressionable market. The super (dated? perhaps 'immortalised') soundtrack helps and of course the cunning conceit of setting the film in a resort away from day to day life altogether finesses the fantasy. 7/10
| 1 |
positive
|
In my opinion, Flatley ruined the first show with his ridiculous ego. He was disrespectful to his dancing partner, tried to upstage everyone and had no awareness of the spirit of Riverdance. It's well he left the show. Colin Dunne, the new male lead, is superb, and when he and Jean Butler dance together, magic happens! Eileen Ivers' fiddling is astonishing (as is Noel Eccles' percussion,) and Maria Pages' "Fire Dance" is worth the price of admission! When Pages and Ivers get together, near the end of the show for a musical duet, well, it's a genuine treasure. I agree, the editing isn't complimentary, but no technical shortcoming can quell this extraordinary tour de force. This is the one to get. There's never been anything like Riverdance! This is the real one!
| 1 |
positive
|
Uzumaki has a formidable reputation within Lovecraftian circles and now I know why.<br /><br />Uzumaki is based on a Manga title (which, unbelievably, is allegedly better than the film) and follows the bizarre events preceeding a typhoon in an isolated Japanese town. I'm not about to tell you anything that happens in this film because it is an absolute must-see movie. I watched it for the first time last night and I was blown away. It shot into the my top movies of all time and leap-frogged Pans Labyrinth as the best fantastic movie (literally and photographically) that has been released in the last decade.<br /><br />This movie is very Lovecraftian in nature without formally having any direct connection to the Cthulhu Mythos. It has been made in the same way that Lovecraft composed his stories; it exudes power as an aura of 'something's not quite right here' intensifies through a brooding phase to dread and, ultimately, horror through subtle progressive changes in the soundtrack and the cinematography. This is, indeed, a "Weird Tale" par excellence.<br /><br />Simply stunning.
| 1 |
positive
|
This movie was made on a relatively small budget (10-20 million dollars?) with almost no promotion at all from its distributors. I only knew about it because I am a long time Jean-Claude Van Damme fan and I always check out his latest films in hope that they will be at least watchable and aside from some real turkeys (Derailed, Second In Command), they are. This movie has an easy enough plot to follow and Van Damme gives a good, humorous performance through out but the movie owes all of its credit to the fight scenes involving Van Damme, Scott Adkins and the final one of them together. The editing and camera work for most of the film is pretty terrible but Isaac Florentine can definitely film a good fight scene. I too am happy that Van Damme has been acting better lately (In Hell, Wake of Death, Until Death) but with the good acting came less martial arts. In The Shepherd, Van Damme proves that he still has it.
| 1 |
positive
|
First off just let me say that I live in South Africa where rugby is our biggest sport by far, and our national side, the Springboks, have won the Rugby World Cup twice, so it's quite a big deal over here. I've played all my life and I'm shocked at the poor attention to detail in this movie! At first I thought it had the potential to be a great movie considering the cast of Neal McDonough, Nick Ferris, Gary Cole and Sean Astin for goodness sake, but it turned out to be a mockery of the sport. They basically mashed it together with your normal everyday American Football movie.<br /><br />My first problem is that this movie supposedly captures the values of rugby, but the discipline or should I say the total lack thereof during the games are contradictory to this. In the final it looks more like an NFL game with Penning being tackled of the ball numerous times, in front of the referee...that would've immediately led to a couple of red cards, because foul play like that would never go unpunished in by a referee, of that I can assure you! You'd also not be able to find a coach in world rugby who would have so little control over his team. Any coach would take a dump on a players head if he intentionally stiff arms an opposing player or double teams him like they did in the final...red card and certain suspension, full stop.<br /><br />Secondly, it's absurd that a coach would take a brand new player, who has played wing all of his life I gather, move him to hooker which is a highly specialized position and say that it's for the good of the TEAM?! What?! Hooker is a highly specialized position in the front row where you have to be able to scrum extremely well and preferably be able to throw the ball in at line-out time, which Penning NEVER does for some or other reason. By moving a wing to hooker without any extensive long term training it would firstly lead to your team's demise at scrum time & secondly the poor kid would probably break his neck! How is that good for the team I ask you? Finally, the overall high emotional pitch of the movie is way too much, because even though rugby is a great sport, and it builds great friendships & team spirit, it rarely gets that out of hand & corny. I've seen true-life football drama's with less emotion than this movie & it turned out great, but in this one Sean's (Penning) acting skills is dragged way too far and the movie attempts too force an emotional response out of the audience, which ends up being boring and hard to watch at times.<br /><br />Hollywood have made some great sports movies over the years, but next time they venture into a sport which has just recently picked up in the states, they should try and do their homework & maybe get some experts into the fray.<br /><br />DO IT RIGHT OR DON'T DO IT AT ALL!
| 0 |
negative
|
L'Auberge Espagnole is full of energy, and it's honest, realistic, and refreshing. Not a comedy or drama but more a slice of life movie about this particular group of very interesting but still normal young people who share an apartment in Barcelona for one year. Beautifully photographed with a nice soundtrack. If you're older, this movie should bring back a flood of good memories. If you're young, learn by this example.
| 1 |
positive
|
This film was made right in the area where I grew up and now live. I know personally most of the property owners of the various locations used in the film. As a teenager, I worked in the fields surrounding the isolated road shown late in the film with Ron Perlman, Jonathon Furr, and the car. I am told that Jonathon Furr and Ben Allison are are natives of NC. I was fortunate to see it at a local showing. At that showing was one of the people who helped select locations and secure props, such as the bus (1938 Greyhound) used in the movie. The bus had no reverse gear and during filming, the driver missed his stopping point a few times and had to drive several miles to return to the proper point. Those details of the technical issues added to the enjoyment for me. The film accurately depicts life in this area during WWII. A well done film and I anxiously await the DVD availability.
| 1 |
positive
|
Since growing up in Czechoslovakia I was following history of RAF pilots and crews in WWII Great Britain, their stories and tragic ending either in the combat or in communist prisons and camps. This is without any doubt more than dark chapter in our history, although the fact that those brave men we're able to go through all this and recover afterward is amazing. To all people who want to see great movie...this is the one! During recent visit of Czech Republic I saw this movie three times in three days (they we're just playing it for three days...otherwise I will go to see it even few more times!!! It's worth of it!) I hope you will enjoy it, although it requires a little more thinking and knowledge of background information behind the story, pretty much same way that the movie "Kolya" was. It's not a simple movie because of it's deep story, and the way its told will most likely make you crying...it did to me three times in row... Zdenek Sverak did as always a great script, his son Jan made a great movie and the cast? Without doubt all of them did great job, I was amazed by Ondrej Vetchy, by great role played by Oldrich Kaiser and all other actors which made this movie simply GREAT!!! If this is not an Oscar nomination I think that I will be on strike in Holywood.
| 1 |
positive
|
I wrote this as a two part review. Part two has spoilers.<br /><br />Part 1: <br /><br />No, this isn't that one about the sex with car accidents. This is the one about racism in L.A. You know, the one where everybody is a racist, and race is the topic on everybody's mind at all times. Race.<br /><br />Its like the movie has a form of turrets syndrome where race is the constant theme. Race. Racist. Racism. Race Relations. Relay race.<br /><br />Paul Haggis made a movie which took the structure of Magnolia, which was used to show the disconnect of people who are tangentially connected, and then screwed it into a 1'53" mental vomit about racism in America. RACE. In the 24 hour period we have 7 stories running parallel all connected and about race. The first hour, people say ridiculous stuff and do absurd things in an effort to be real about racism in America.<br /><br />For example, the story with Ludicrous and Larenz Tate provides the comic relief. Too bad, the first half of their story is lifted straight from The Bonnie Situation in Pulp Fiction. RACISM. Their section is the Quentin Tarantino section where, instead of being cool and talking about foot massages and religion, the characters talk about race and racism. CONSTANTLY. <br /><br />The other good thing about it is the Mexican story when the Mexican guy is talking to his daughter. He gives her his invisible impenetrable cloak to protect her from bullets. Decent writing, but that's only because the writers have had daughters and know what they would say in his place.<br /><br />The rest of the stories are extremely ludicrous. The Hindi does not act in any semblance of realism. The scene where he's trying to get the lock fixed and the Mexican tells him he needs a new door is abbreviated and stupid. Why would anybody act like that? Is it realistic? NOOO. It reminds me more of the convenience store clerk from The Doom Generation. "Six Dollar Sixty Six Cents girly." If i ever watch the second half of the movie, I hope his head is shot off and his bodiless head starts coughing up relish.<br /><br />I haven't mentioned race in over a paragraph. RACE. RACISM. RACE FOR THE SUN. Better. Then, there is the black guy who wants to be white, Matt Dillon who has a chip on his shoulder against blacks, Ryan Phillippe who looks beautiful and does nothing, and various other bad actors acting badly with bad dialog. When Matt Dillon molests the black producers wife, could I help it if I was cracking up? When Philippe is second guessing his writing up of his partner for racism, can I help but crack up? The movie is so funny when it is being racist. Racist. RACIST I tell you.<br /><br />Now, mind you, this movie was nominated for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Screenplay, and Best Editing, besides a nod to Matt Dillon who actually did attempt to do a decent job. Who was paid off for that one, I have no clue.<br /><br />Don't see it unless you feel like being preached at about the racism in society through a bad and unrealistic script from 2 white men over fifty who have no semblance of reality or interaction with real society in any way shape or form.<br /><br />D- <br /><br />Part 2:<br /><br />The second half of Crash takes any and all story lines in the first half...and spews them back out in a sort of redemptive, conclusionary, the world is a big coincidence kind of way. And it is in fact one of the worst ways to do it.<br /><br />Take 1999's Magnolia. People weren't conveniently tied together over and over again. They were just connected in a strange way that happens more often than you think. You know somebody who knows somebody who did something that you knew somebody else was also involved in. Crash takes this wrapping into a serious extreme.<br /><br />The stories are lined up so everybody meets again. Are there only 5 on the LAPD force? Aren't these people working weird shifts? Dillon and Philippe were a late shift then an early one the next day? And, why did Tate have to be the murdered hitchhiker? Wouldn't it have had more emotional tension, as well as realism, if it had been somebody we had not been following all day long? Like Phillippe just picks up a random hitchhiker and then freaks out. Everybody'd be freaking out.<br /><br />Eventually, in the second half, the touching invisible cloak scene is used to get the Hindi to shoot the daughter. It ticked me off and made me feel dirty. Not that the Hindi shot the daughter, but that they created a beautiful touching scene and then had it be the direct cause of people tearing up. It really ticked me off. At the writers, not the scene.<br /><br />The whole movie is fake and totally uncalled for. The coincidences are far too many and they require an extreme suspension of disbelief. Unlike Magnolia which was connected mildly, this had connections upon connections upon connections which were just so over-the-top. The only good part in the second half was when Sandra Bullock falls down the stairs. She doesn't die though. She should have. I cheered when she fell.<br /><br />The worst part about the movie is it pulls a Magnolia. Not just in structure, but it has a montage over the song In the Deep where you see everybody being depressed. Magnolia took this and had post-modern commentary on it by having all of the characters singing along to Aimee Mann's Wise Up. Unfortunately, Magnolia came out in 1999, while Crash came out in 2005. Its hard to make commentary on a movie which won't be made for another 6 years, but it happened. Somehow.<br /><br />Utter waste of my time.<br /><br />First half: D-; Second half: lowest grade ever; Overall: F---
| 0 |
negative
|
I don't understand this movies distinctly average rating!?<br /><br />I really really enjoyed it, i even stayed up till early morning to finish watching it on late night t.v<br /><br />There are three excellent characters here, excellent characters. Danny DeVito played a gem, quite a feat considering he was directing as well. His down trodden laughable at times character was brilliantly written and was surreal in a absolutely believable way. There ARE people like that, Owen was just on the line without crossing it.<br /><br />Billy Crystal's comic syle and sense of timing was PERFECT for his role. His frustration/comedy was interesting and captivating and what's more... you could understand his feelings. To really feel like you know a character is hard to achieve from the writers point of view, to find the right actor to pull it off is an art in itself and both were achieved here thrice over.<br /><br />Thirdly, who else could have played Momma? There is no one that can play this part so well. There is a style there unlike any other, something you love to watch, i found myself waiting for her to appear on screen... and not because the rest was bad, oh no, but because Momma's character was, again, so on the line without crossing it that it was excellent to watch.<br /><br />And what's more? A happy ending with new found friendships, no one getting hurt and everyone getting what they wanted in life... WITHOUT a big hunk of cheese tied on the end.<br /><br />Brilliant script, brilliant idea, perfect cast, great film.
| 1 |
positive
|
A group of teens that have broken into a huge department store, are attacked by a crazed police man. Exciting and suspenseful throughout and refreshingly devoid of extreme violence and gore, but those Aussie hairstyles and accents are a bit much to take. And they can induce headaches. But this is still a good thriller. 7 out of 10.
| 1 |
positive
|
This movie was a waste of 3 hours of my precious time..in the first 10 minutes i was already annoyed as i am familiar with the real version on the story according to the torah (5 books of moses)...but i decided to watch it to get my moneys worth and too see how bad it sucked. Well it sucked..way more then i thought it would. First and for most lets start with the script and characters the skeleton that makes up the body of a movie. If you study torah at all you'll see that the story is all wrong here are some of the distasful mistakes: moses doesn't do slave work because he was in the tribe of levi, moses doesn't kill anybody at mount sinai.. but yet the movie depicts moses being whipped and aaron and himself killing people...reeeealllly not!. When moses speaks to the burning bush he knows who hes speaking too but the movie makes moses look like an idiot, he states that he doesn't know who the g-d in the bush is... whatever|Aaron knews his brother well regardless of their distance growing up, aaron was known for his calm, composed peaceful nature but yet he is depicted as angry and arrogant in this movie. Moses looks like Jesus in this movie.. how ridiculous....pharoah the real one was actually and ugly dwarf who sat upon a pyramid of stairs so he could appear bigger then he was and moses was more then 10 feet and in the movie pharoah is taller then him and hes hot with light eyes! The woman of Am Israel (nation of Israel) covered themselves meaning their hair and bodies and they didn't dance or sing in front of men, they did not participate in the golden calf so they would definitely not dance with a man in public as the movie depicts. Moses's wife Tzipora was married to moses and she therefore covered herself and being as humble as they were did not cuddle or hold hands in public. Batia Pharoahs daughter ( the one who adopts him and saves him from the water) actual converted to Judaism and therefore would have been proud of Moses when he said he was going to go free his people.fast fwd to mount sinai moses comes down the 2nd time with two sets of tablets...with gibberish writing on it..at least put the writing in the holy tongue, hebrew or English and put it on one tablet not two sets.. Bottom line is the movie is horribly written, directed and the characters are all wrong..basically EVERYTHING is wrong about the movie... The old one is inaccurate as well but its more realistic, and they actors are believable. Am Israel Chai!
| 0 |
negative
|
The fact that this film was distributed free with a certain national newspaper which I do not care for did, to a degree, put me off of watching it, but as I had come across a copy that a local charity shop was giving away for nothing I felt I could watch it with a clear conscience.<br /><br />The film does have its moments, the evocation of the Thameside location is nicely done, but it does suffer, I feel, from a few too many faults. Firstly, Vinnie Jones is simply not convincing as the journalist. Whilst Vinnie himself is an interesting character, the truth is that he simply does not have the range of acting ability to pull off a role like this.<br /><br />Secondly, who would carry around with them a lost manuscript that they have been informed is "priceless"? It seemed that everywhere Mr Jones went this manuscript went with him! Thirdly, the whole Dickens aspect of the story, whilst appearing to be important, gets in the way of what could have been an interesting film of corruption in high places. Maybe I'm just a bit thick, but I really could not see the point of the story-within-a-story Dickens style. This added nothing to the film, and only served to confuse matters when things started to become interesting within the modern day story line.<br /><br />The one bit of praise I will give the film makers is that at least they did attempt something a little different. I am all for British Independent films that try to be 'out of left field', but this is not a 'Red Road' or 'This is England'. What it is is a bit of a mess, and an over-long one at that. Yes, it entertains in part, but in the end it felt like two films merged together to make a whole, and failing both by doing so. (Also, I can not help think that I have seen something similar done recently on TV by Ian Banks, set in Edinburgh with a story concerning Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, the creator of Sherlock Holmes).
| 0 |
negative
|
Although my exposure to world cultures is limited, I do try. This was a film that I tried and hated. Worst of all, after hearing so many people decry the shallowness of typical Hollywood fare and its stereotypical caricatures, I saw characters too outrageous for "Eastenders" being paraded as realistic.<br /><br />Clint wants out of the drug life and to do this he aspires to be a waiter. Aim high, I always say. Brad Dorif, or a faxed photo of him, or quite possibly a curly wig on a stick, it was hard to tell, offers to hire Clint if he gets a pair of shoes.<br /><br />Clint, and a huge entourage, apparently wander the whole of England trying to get him some shoes. Eventually, they end up at a suburban home. Whose isn't clear. Mum helps a girl shoot up. Oh, now THERE'S some realism for you! Mrs. Brady may have been a ridiculous stereotype of American housewives, but she never helped Marsha tie off and find a vein. Good God! Dad comes home and sings some Elvis tunes and then chases the kids away.<br /><br />Why didn't Clint borrow some money and buy shoes at a second hand store? Why didn't he go to a church and ask a kindly nun for some help? Why didn't he hang out in front of a shoe store and panhandle? I just don't know! None of these things seemed to be beneath him. Benevolent groups, like Goodwill and the Salvation Army have stores to help people. I know people who work there! If someone with no money showed up and needed shoes, the staff would give the person some shoes. Maybe not Prada or Gucci, but some form of foot covering. Not many of these groups hand out cell phones to the underprivileged, but shoes are usually no problem. What a dumb concept. The world, or at least the western part of it, simply isn't that cruel. In England, maybe it's from "The Queen's Royal Charity" rather than Goodwill, but people who need shoes do get them.<br /><br />Aside from the quest for shoes, there was no discernable plot to get in the way of the action. Not that it made the movie any quicker or more bearable, mind you. Despite checking the tape jacket several times, I was not watching the 20-hour extended version, it only seemed that way.<br /><br />Did Clint get his shoes? Did the cardboard cutout of Brad Dourif hire him at the restaurant? Did I ever watch anything else foreign ever again?<br /><br />[spoiler] Yes, yes, and yes.<br /><br />As for the fate of this particular film, I decided to end it all. I took out my S&W .45 and shot a half-inch hole through the cassette. Blammo! (I made sure to rewind it first.) I put it back in the tape sleeve, returned it to the rental store, and amazingly NO ONE EVER CALLED TO ASK ABOUT IT!!! Meaning, of course, that no one else rented it for at least the remaining three years I lived in that city. Others knew something that I didn't. Live and learn.<br /><br />BTW, if you rent something you've never seen before and someone has actually put a bullet through it, take it as a sign. And if you work at the Kroger video department, I'm just kidding.<br /><br />Footnote: this classic has yet to see the light of day on DVD, for which we should be eternally thankful to the digital gods.
| 0 |
negative
|
- The Best Bit : When the dull mobster (Nicholas Turturro) calls out to the runaway (Matthew Modine) "Shane !.. Come Back Shane !" and when the older wise guy asks him "What Are You Doing ?!" he replays simply "Enjoying My Time !" Actually like me at the moment ! <br /><br />- The Most Creepy Part : I've been wondering all the time of watching : where did I see that girl before ? where ? where ? Till I found out while the closing credits.. OHH MY GOD ! She's (Elizabeth Berkley) .. From the showgirls' fiasco ! But I just couldn't recognize her with her clothes on ! To tell you the truth I felt a brief tremor. She's really cute and nice but maybe Hollywood had no mercy at all ! <br /><br />- The Most Sexy Bit : When (Berkley) says "Do You Mean The Stuff Which Gives You A Boner ?!". <br /><br />- The Most Dull Thing : The retarded assistant after a day and a night in the back of the car is still alive and healthy at the end !!??, moreover the Mexican smuggler took 3 bullets (at the same car !) and he's not dead either !!?? <br /><br />- The Most Ugly Thing : All of those murdered people, as well as the numerous (F) ward to a boring extent ! <br /><br />- The Most Beautiful Thing : The crazy clever script with all the funny characters and the tumultuous situations, the acting looked sweet also especially from (Paul Rodriguez) who stole the show for (as he had the best dialogue Also !). <br /><br />- The Most Disappointing Thing : Although the direction didn't mess about the story's wittiness at all but in the same time it didn't give it a unique touch, a matchless signature, some kind of insane hilarity like the one in the story itself. However maybe the low production wronged it well ! And of course the easy tasteless music which could be like that because of cheap production too ! <br /><br />- The Most Confusing Part : (Matthew Modine) is a talented guy but what did he do exactly to be out of Hollywood's "A" list of stars ?! What could possibly be the thing he made (or didn't make !) to end up in light independent jest like (The Shipment) ?!! <br /><br />- The Most Absent Scene : Where did (Jose) the Mexican smuggler go at last ?! I thought that we'll see him again at the end, smuggling once more as the surviving little criminal who, in a brief gimmick like this, could materialize the continuous disorder of such a world. <br /><br />- The Most Question I had After The End : When we'll see (The Shipment - 2) ? As I'm so eager to see that fine small comic hurly-burly atmosphere again ! <br /><br />These were my own answers. If you interested in giving answers of your own for this questionnaire, please E-Mail me.
| 1 |
positive
|
It was Libby talking to Desmond in the flashback, and if anyone is confused about her past (like how did she end up in the same hospital Hurley was in) then you should know that despited Libby dying in season 2, the character will be explored more in season 3 and we will get answers to questions surrounding her.<br /><br />BTW, great episode. It had a really great cliffhanger and some interesting questions...like what happened to Eko and Lock and what about the four toe statue?<br /><br />I cannot wait till season 3, Lost just rules!!! I hope all the unanswered questions will be answered. I loved how they explained why the plane actually crashed. Desmond did it when he did not manage to type in the numbers in time. 4 8 15 16 23 42
| 1 |
positive
|
Sergei Eisenstein's most famous movie has truly withstood the test of time. The story of a mutiny aboard a warship in 1905 does have the feeling of Soviet propaganda, but does a good job showing the conditions that led to the revolt. The scene on the Odessa steps should remain seared into anyone's mind.<br /><br />Okay, so "The Battleship Potemkin" wasn't actually the first movie to use montage, but they did a great job with it here. Certainly any film history class should show this movie. It's a great historical drama (although I will admit that I don't know how accurate it is). A 10/10.<br /><br />Oh, and we should have learned by now that "Potemkin" should be transliterated as "Potyomkin".
| 1 |
positive
|
So I turned on HBO which I just got thinking that it would have some quality movies and I saw this. Carrot Top is so unfunny it's nauseating to watch. I've seen unfunny movies before but I think I find this one so impossible to watch because Carrot Top seems to think he's hilarious. Watching this movie is really like watching a movie designed for 5 year olds with crazy, over the top overreactions replete with ultra stupid jokes that only a 4 year old would appreciate.<br /><br />What is amazing is how some other talented actors actually signed on for this project, such as Larry Miller and M Emmet Walsh. If you've ever seen Carrot Top's absolutely horrible MCI commercials (or whatever they were) then this is more of the same, just worse. It's a slapstick fest that is a waste of a high budget that could have done something, saved homeless people... anything but this. I'm not sure it's in the bottom 50 of all time but for the $10 million spent it's a disgrace.
| 0 |
negative
|
The subject matter was good, direction was OK. Mohanlal was efficient in his role as a Major. The acting of the supporting actors was amateurish at best. The casting director and director should be held responsible for this debacle. Hawaldar Jai was terrible, he stood out like a sore thumb with his poor histrionics. He did not look the part nor did he move like a soldier. There was a scene where a satellite feed was required of the skirmish with the militants and they were showing it from a camera angle. Satellite is located hundred of miles in the sky so the only angle is from above.It was quite an embarrassing moment. Audience these days are matured and they recognize when one is trying to pull wool over their eyes. The Director is a Major so the story could be out of his personal experiences. No problem there, but the movie is only as good as its actors and Director. So if Major Ravi is going for any other projects he should pay more attention to the casting.
| 0 |
negative
|
SPOILERS AHEAD <br /><br />15 PARK AVENUE: My Humble take on this film <br /><br />Now, for a viewer of cinema having tastes as severely limited as mine, niche films like 15 Park Avenue ought to be palatable to my sensibilities. With this thought, and a mild sense of embarrassment that I hadn't watched the complete film earlier, I watched this film last Saturday. There are some starting similarities with other works like the legendary Mulholland Drive (David Lynch) from which, this film borrows at least 3 concepts:- <br /><br />a) That (at least some) truths are relative b) The first scene of Shabana and Konkonam going around in a car as the opening credits roll, is uncannily similar to the car ride that Betty and Rita undertook in Mulholland Drive. In both cases, the object of inquiry happens to be a place which is probably mythical in both cases and perhaps more openly symbolic in Aparna's film c) The incident revolving around the mad beggar woman is again extremely reminiscent of the whole 'occurence behind Winkies' involving a bum but while that scary creature is an embodiment of something and that that 'something' as well as the character per Se is seamlessly linked to other works of Lynch (notice carefully the disheveled long hair), the effect of the beggar woman in 15 PA appears to be a tribute and therefore insignificant in the context of the film and its message <br /><br />The other films from which 15 PA also borrows is Blow Up (especially the last scene is a throw back to the truth Vs. perceived truth poser presented towards the end of Antonioni's masterpiece). Of course, the professor and schizophrenia angle also bring to the mind, "A Beautiful mind". Although, admittedly the subject here is high brow physics and Shabana, who professes it, inadvertently ends up being the brilliant antithesis to the delusional hallucinations of Konkona's character through those very prophecies. In an outstanding scene in the movie, some of these elements are juxtaposed with each other and that scene cuts back and forth from the 'real' world of Shabana, where Quantum Physics and the Theory of Relativity justify the finiteness and composition of the universe, to the artificial edifice of the 'make believe' world of Mithi But for all their differences, the sisters are alike too. Both are incapable of forming long lasting relationships- one out of choice and the other out of nature. So, Mithi's pain at being rejected in love by Joydeep is in harmony with the inability of Shaban to form a special bond with either Kunal(Dhritiman) or Sanjeev (Kanwaljeet). But I'm getting ahead of myself. Viewers generally tend to view this film in one of the following two ways:- <br /><br />Hypothesis 1: "It was Shabana all along" There is a certain section of the audience who think so. But that explanation is not only too far fetched but also contrived as that would mean she was dreaming up so many other characters too (i.e. all those characters whom she visualized as visualizing Mithi along with her) <br /><br />Hypothesis 2: "There WAS a REAL Mithi and the ending is a metaphor" This POV says that the film's essence is summarized in one dialog in the film, when in response to a statement by Joy (Rahul Bose), that Mithi is looking for something that she will never find, his wife Laxmi (Shefali Shah) philosophizes that we all are looking indeed for that illusive utopia, the end of the rainbow wherein appears to lie the mirage of happiness and contentment <br /><br />There are other more minor possibilities which have not been embraced that much by our knowledgeable audience like:- <br /><br />Hypothesis 3:" Shabana and Konkona are alter egos of the same person" Hypothesis 4: "Shabana too is a figment of Mithi's imagination" Hypothesis 5: "The old, haggard, perhaps mad, beggar woman is the real protagonist of the story" <br /><br />Are these hypotheses worthy of even being tested? Well, your guess is as good as mine <br /><br />"Why 15 Park Avenue?" Contrary to the popular perception that she was thinking of the Park Avenue in NY, I believe that she got the name from the brand name of a semi popular bathing soap. Remember, her stating Jo Jo's profession as "Prime minister of Shikakai", which as you may be knowing is a popular ingredient used in manufacturing Shampoos. The prefix '15' is used as it was on 15th December that Mithi got engaged to Joydeep and after his walkout, she remains forever in a time warp. The film has its fair share of flaws- lack of use of a strong background score, which in films like these can really augment the narrative, some sloppy dialogs unabated by some forced dialog delivery. Inconsistent performances (Shabana and Dhritimaan are excellent though IMO) by a few of the cast members albeit many members of this ensemble cast have been wasted. Shefali Chaya's sudden insecurity about her husband seems to be an unimaginatively introduced dimension in the plot. I give it 7/10 as it made me think but not any higher than that because I can easily fathom its sources of inspiration and having experienced (and for the most part, thoroughly enjoyed) those previously, I have already thought on similar lines earlier. So, the experience post 15 PA is bound to be sans a certain degree of novelty. Where am I coming from? I gave 9.5/10 to '36 Chowringhee Lane' (though rumors still persist that one Satyajit Ray ghost directed it), 7.5 to 'Paromiter Ek Din', 7 to 'Mr and Mrs Iyer' and 5 to 'Paroma'. On an existential level, it failed to invoke my interest, not even as much as say a 'Truman Show'
| 1 |
positive
|
Wow, where to begin with this one. Well, if you enjoy laughing at the utter failures of filmmakers, then this one is for you. I bought this movie for 5 bucks because I never pass up an opportunity to laugh at B-movie God Casper Van Dien's blunders, and boy was this one of them. It may have been enough that this movie contains the single most lame movie monster ever. This thing, which is supposed to be an Indian ghost, looks more like a plastic candy bowl skeleton that you put on your front porch on Halloween. He dons a cape that is clearly a garbage bag, complete with what appears to be a bucket-shaped bonnet over his head. At some points this is a man in costume, at others it is clearly a plastic prop placed on top of a horse. This monster has the uncanny ability to see with "predator" vision, a clear rip-off, and can miraculously appear after throwing his spear. Sometimes the spear cuts people, sometimes it doesn't. This thing also manages to down a helicopter with a single arrow. Wow, this makes a much sense as when the kid blows up a spaceship with a firecracker at the end of "Critters." This creature is impervious to bullets, but somehow dies at the end of the movie. At the end of his killing spree, which we never really find out why he is on, he gets blown up. This is an incredible feat, for we had already seen this thing blow up 3 times in the film. But, I guess this last time was the charm. <br /><br />And don't even get me started on the lameness of the other characters. First of all, what Delta Force unit employs women? Last I checked the military still disallows women into combat situations. Also, this unit is "undercover." Why? What possible reason would they have to be undercover? And they're not even good at it, I guess no one would realize that they were military if they didn't have on uniforms, BUT THEY WERE ALL CARRYING MACHINE GUNS (which incidentally change sound effects throughout the film, at some points sounding like air rifle BB guns, and at others, canons). There is one part when the Skeleton Man throws some construction workers from a catwalk, and you can clearly see the pad that they fall onto. At another point. Michael Rooker falls down a hill that is clearly flat ground. They tilted the camera slightly to give the appearance of an incline, but he is clearly pushing himself along in this looooooonnnnnggggggg fall scene. Then when he is helped back up the hill, the rope is flat, and when it shows the woman at the "top" of the "hill" the rope goes upward from her grip, not the way it would look if she was pulling someone up a hill. Rooker actually has a line that says, "I'm not going after him, I going after it." What? That is quite possibly the dumbest thing I have ever heard, and I watch these bad movies as a hobby. The saddest part about this quote is that you can tell that everyone involved in the writing/production of this film thought that it was so bad-ass. Believe it or not, compared to the rest of the dialog, this is good. <br /><br />The acting, bad. The makeup, really bad. These characters either had scars or wounds that liked to change sides of their face. Maybe these are alien scars that like to run around on your face. Yeah, I think I'll make a movie about that, "Attack of the Alien Scars that Move Around on Your Face." That villain would be more intimidating than the Skeleton Man, and the film would probably be scarier.
| 0 |
negative
|
A young man, named Danny, has run away from home and meets a drifter, named Bix, who agrees to tag along with Danny and watch out for him... and his money. They end up in a small town where they meet Carrie - a shy, naive girl working in her father's diner. Bix starts seeing Carrie but he plans on leaving soon (because he's a drifter, see? He's no good! Understand?). Meanwhile, the town creep, Jesse (played by a perfectly casted Jack Elam), keeps showing up at the diner and bothering Carrie. Danny keeps inadvertently picking up whores left and right (because he's loaded with money he has almost a hundred dollars!) whom Bix has to constantly chase away (there are a lot of ambiguously gay overtones between Danny and Bix in this flick). Eventually, Bix and Danny decide to leave town but trouble is a-brewing, due to Jesse the creep.<br /><br />My review of the movie itself: a terrible, dated "Troubled Youth" flick from the '50s.<br /><br />My review of the MST3K version of the movie: I've got to say that this is one of the best episodes of MST3K ever. The riffing is dead-on, all the time. Except for the somewhat downbeat ending, this movie is easy material for Joel and the Bots, especially Danny's constant screw-ups that Bix has to rescue him from. The host segments are pretty good too, especially the segment with the `Train Song.' Hopefully, Rhino releases this episode to home video one day.
| 0 |
negative
|
I rented "The China Syndrome" recently mainly because I read that it was this film that inspired ABC to make "The Day After". "Syndrome", however, is more of a thriller than a drama. The film is quite political, but I agree strongly with its message - nuclear power, though extremely efficient, is far too dangerous for common use. The risks are simply too high. Hopefully, the persons in charge of real nuclear plants are far more responsible and ethical than those depicted in the film. However, given that the real-life near-disaster at Three Mile Island happened mere months after this film was released puts that in question. (In fairness, that case was probably more one of incompetence than of corruption.)<br /><br />"Syndrome" is not just critical of nuclear power, but also of modern news media, similar in vein to "Network", only much more serious. Being a print journalist myself, I am quite familiar with how people perceive the media; but it was a little frightening to see that even in the '70's TV news was already selling out. When Jane Fonda's character tries to convince her boss to let her do real news instead of fluff, she is advised not to try the change, as "research" finds that people prefer a pretty girl to do fluff, not hard news.<br /><br />What truly makes the film memorable, however, is the incredible suspense generated in its final third. During this period, the viewer is constantly fearing for the lives of the protagonists, whether the danger is coming from hired thugs or the potential meltdown of the nuclear plant. And that very last scene - I won't give it away, of course - but it will keep you guessing.<br /><br />On a final note, I did get a distinct feel watching the film that it seemed at times more like a TV movie than a true theatrical film. This could be, however, due more to the fact that the rental tape I was watching was quite old, and not formatted to fit TV screens the way videos and DVDs are today.
| 1 |
positive
|
On the face of it, any teen comedy runs the risk of being sophomoric and obvious, and fair enough, most of them are. There are a few that have risen above the usual banality of the source material (Bring It On, Eurotrip), and they give me hope that others can join that depressingly rare crowd of teen comedies that are actually funny and not just an excuse to flash some starlet's boobs or be a vehicle for some never-was like Tom Green.<br /><br />Enter Accepted, directed by John Cusack pal Steve Pink and led by the likable Justin Long (the smart nerdy kid in Galaxy Quest and more recently featured in Apple computer ads), about a bunch of kids who don't get accepted to college and decide, as disclosed in the trailer, to fake a bogus one to get their parents off their backs. When they go a little too far with the website and other kids end up enrolling, the kids have a few problems to solve.<br /><br />Okay, the set-up is obviously preposterous, but most comedy lives or dies in the execution, and here, Accepted does pretty well. Long's Bartleby Gaines (mostly shortened to 'B') is accompanied by enough well-meaning comically acceptable friends to help him share the load, but probably the best supporting character is 'Dean' Lewis (no doubt named as an homage to Rodney Dangerfield's Dean Martin), aka Uncle Ben, Lewis Black, who is wisely restricted to short spurts where he can rapid fire his unique brand of cranky observational humor. Black is terrific here, frankly telling the kids what life is really like (his expletive-laden final line is hysterical) and providing the adult face to the bogus university for the parents.<br /><br />But Long has to carry most of the film, and he does so, in spades; Bartleby is easily identified with and we take to him almost immediately. A nice twist was provided by Columbus Short's character Hands, an athlete who loses his scholarship due to an injury and ends up becoming the de facto art faculty at the fake college. Also noteworthy as Bartleby's hyper-intelligent and sarcastic little sister is Hannah Marks.<br /><br />Yes, the film does feel familiar in some spots; there's a debt here owed, of all places, to Revenge of the Nerds. Those who are rejected by everyone else find a home with Bartleby and his cohorts, and of course the villains are steroid-enhanced conformist Master Race types who run a fraternity (well, okay, frats are evil) and seek to humiliate and bury the oddballs for the gasp crime of being different. But that aside, Accepted has fun with the material, and even asks a few decent questions about the expectations on college kids and the course of higher education. Not that it's a brain teaser by any means, but Accepted isn't just another mindless teen comedy (or Owen Wilson vehicle). It's a funny, clever 90 minutes that, while not a great departure from its genre, is intelligent and creative enough to be very enjoyable.<br /><br />There is at least one moment of unadulterated brilliance in the film, when Bartleby checks out a nearby college in an attempt to harvest ideas for his own school's curriculum. When he sees that the kids are all stressed out at the other school (several refuse to even talk to him during class for fear of missing something), he shakes his head, thinking that there must be a better way. As he moves to leave he is met by a stream of kids going the other way, one person moving against a human tide, while in the background, the opening lines of Eleanor Rigby play. Perhaps an unplanned moment of brilliance, but brilliance none the less.
| 1 |
positive
|
I totally agree. This is "Pitch Black underground" and a well worn plot. The best scenes I thought were the divers exploring the caves, going through impossible subterranean passageways, some of them were heart pounding. The scenery was great. Had they dispensed with the staple "alien" toothy CGI badboys entirely the movie would have been much better. All they would have had to do is never show any monsters at all but have everyone wondering, and follow Jack's descent into madness, and this might have been a top rate hitchcock-style thriller, maybe award material. The acting isn't bad. But those rubber bats just reduce it to standard fare.
| 0 |
negative
|
I have to say that I had low expectations for the movie before viewing it. All the people around said it was great, but I perfectly knew what they like. They like Aerosmith's song which is indeed great, they like the amazing special effects which had coasted a lot, they like the comedy side of the movie and of course many girls who love Affleck who according to my opinion is a really bad actor who tried not to be one, failed and now he is nothing. And all these things plus the reviews and the ratings I read in internet, gave me a clue the movie would be a huge disappointment since I am a big disaster kind of movies fan. Well, I've been right, but at least I was prepared.<br /><br />The movie is really commercial. It's been said, but I will say it as again. We have over #100 million budget, we have a romance between Hollywood stars Ben Affleck and Liv Tyler and many other famous actors, who are popular with the fact that they rarely agree on becoming a part of the cast of a commercial movie if their names aren't written with big letters on the screen. Such as Billy Bob Thornton and Steve Buscemi which are highly respected actors that I also like a lot. They could play many characters in many different kind of movies. They could improvise, they could turn tasteless lines into hilarious jokes. On the whole, they could turn small movies into really interesting, funny or dramatic motion pictures, people love and will always love. Such as Fargo in Buscemi's case or A Simple Plan - Thornton. And to be honest, I am really disappointed they took part of Armageddon. Thornton plays a smart and refined man involved in politics if I remember correctly. Buscemi is one of the members of the deep core drilling team which is sent to save the world by destroying the asteroid which is about to vanish the world.<br /><br />What I didn't like - well, I guess I've been already understood. I pointed out bad factors. The story is dull, artless and silly. It is so obvious that the movie depends on the effects and the dramatic ending that it's ridiculous. At least movies like Deep Impact and Godzilla have something special that might be considered as art. At least it ain't that obvious that the movie is made of financial purposes. Other than that, bad performances from all the huge stars. The jokes ain't funny, the lines are absurd and sometimes, they doesn't make sense at all. In fact, I recently read that on the stage, Ben Affleck has asked Bay whether it would be easier if they teach astronauts to drill, than drillers to becomes astronauts and Bay's reply has been simply "Shut up!" which is a really funny story which perfectly shows the creators's desperation.<br /><br />And enclosing, I'll give an explanation why I give 4 to the movie. Well, I like "Don't Want to Miss a thing" and I was impressed by the special effects which are obviously the only good thing in the movie. The first scene is memorable. These are the the only 2 good things I liked about the movie. Michael Bay is an average director, but The Rock and both Bad Boys were hundreds of times better than Armageddon which was, is and will always be one big bad movie.
| 0 |
negative
|
City Streets is amazingly modern technically speaking for a movie made in 1931. Also who could not be mesmerized, enthralled by Gary Cooper's powerful magnetism, galvanizing the audience attention. The plot is quite elaborate and clear. The scenarios, decor, are exceptional in every detail. All the actors are above average. I keep guessing how the director and his staff, including editing, sound, lighting, photography, could have been so brilliant. I couldn't find a flaw, understanding that the scenes in the road(bumpy ride) with the large motion pictures screen on the background was the best they could get in 1931. All in all I found this movie superb and so much alive thanks to Gary Cooper charisma.
| 1 |
positive
|
this is one of the more poorly made movies I've ever seen. One has to take anything by Truffaut seriously; it's not just some B-movie cranked out by hacks.<br /><br />evidently Truffaut couldn't decide whether he was making a noir or a sentimental chick flick. and neither could Deneuve, whose dozen (?) character flip-flops are simply unbelievable -- not even badly acted; just not acted at all. Among other things, how a woman as beautiful as Deneuve could be a person such as Julie/Marion is simply beyond anyone's ability to suspend disbelief; the role absolutely demands someone not so beautiful. Belmondo's acting also suffers although imho his character is not quite as unbelievable as Deneuve's. The cliché ending (which I won't describe) is unfortunately all too appropriate for this complete mistake.
| 0 |
negative
|
There's something frustrating about watching a movie like 'Murder By Numers' because somewhere inside that Hollywood formula is a good movie trying to pop out. However, by the time the credits roll, there's no saving it. The whole thing is pretty much blown by the "cop side" of the story, where Sandra Bullock and Ben Chaplin's homicide detective characters muddle through an awkward sexual affair that becomes more and more trivialized the longer the movie goes on. Although Bullock is strong in her role, it's not enough to save the lackluster script and lazy pacing. Ben Chaplin's talents are wasted in a forgettable role (he did much better earlier in the year in the underrated 'Birthday Girl') as well as Chris Penn, who has a role so thanklessly small you feel sorry for a talent like him. Anyway, the plot really isn't even a factor in this movie at all. The two teen killers played by Ryan Gosling and Michael Pitt are the only real reasons to see this movie. Their talent and chemistry work pretty good and they play off of each other quite well. It's too bad they weren't in a much better all-around film. Barbet Schroeder is treading way too safe ground here for such a seasoned filmmaker. Bottom Line: it's worth a rent if you're a genre fan, but everyone else will live a fulfilled life without ever seeing it, except maybe on network TV with convenient commercial breaks.
| 0 |
negative
|
This movie was crap. The script is so full of holes; I can't see how the producers agreed to finance it.<br /><br />We are never given an explanation of ANYTHING. The acting is horrible. The plot sucks. This movie was obviously written for those 8 and under.<br /><br />I have to say this: why are the high school classes only 2 minutes long? Teacher walks in, finds a frog in the desk, or drawing on the chalkboard, and 30 seconds later, the bell rings, class is over. The kids haven't even opened their books. Can we have at least a little continuity?<br /><br />Oh, the dialogue. Milo Jeter is the re-incarnated, aborted fetus, zombie thing. Do we really need the line, "This is Dr. Jeter's office. Dr. Jeter, Milo's father." Thanks for the tip; I could never put that together myself. It never gets any better.<br /><br />Why does Milo talk the way he does, even in the beginning? Was Milo ever `real'. Or was he never real, just always what he currently is? And if it was always that way, why the unexplained `accident' Milo had?<br /><br />Besides "What is Milo?", what are all the unresolved items for? We see all these contraptions in his father's medical office, and are never given an explanation of what they are for, or what they have to do with the story. What are the injections for? What about the aquarium contraption? They obviously aren't needed. (See the movie, it'll make sense). And what does this medication do to anyone? Apparently nothing, since it has no effect on the lead actress.<br /><br />This movie is a very, very bad rip off of all the other slasher movies. It's a really awful Friday the 13th/Halloween slopped together by a 10-year old writer. It's not cheesy enough to laugh at, it's just an incredibly frustrating bore.
| 0 |
negative
|
This movie should go down as one of the funniest movies in history. Its cousins A mighty wind, Spinal Tap and Waiting for Guffman are terrific in their own right but Best in Show takes the cake. <br /><br />A movie about the idiosyncrasies of dog owners that show their dogs competitively, it's the intricacies of the characters that make it so good. After watching the movie about 75 times I have come to the conclusion that there is no weak character or actor in this film. There is very little interaction between any of the "groups" of characters but that only seems to add to the beauty of the film. <br /><br />If you watch this movie and don't find it as funny as I am billing it as, watch it again. The first time I saw it I thought it was serviceable but not overly hilarious. It is a film that grows on you. Defininatly a movie that you will find yourself quoting frequently. <br /><br />Characters: Hamilton and Meg Swan: A+ if you get the DVD check out how these characters were "born" amazing that these two could hit it so on the head. And to find out that they really didn't go by a script and sort of made it up as they went. <br /><br />Gerry and Cookie Guggleman: A Cookie is especially funny and she does a fantastic job of selling the Cookie character. Gerry (Eugene Levy) delivers his standard stellar performance of the hilarious discombobulated type weaker half. <br /><br />Stefan Vanderhoof and Scott Donalan- A+ Find me a funnier character than Scott Donalan, I DARE YOU! He will forever be typecast as this character to me as he was so natural and didn't seem forced at any point. Stefan (Micheal McKean) was very good as well and they interplay here (and a brief appearance with the Gugglemans) goes to show why he is always in these films. A great actor with razor like wit. <br /><br />Harlan Pepper- B+, I don't want it to seem like he isn't funny, he sure is but being the only "Solo" act he can't be quite as funny as the others above. He does use the dog more than others and has some other idiosyncrasies going for him.<br /><br />The rest are all great as well, there is no weak character. See this film at least twice. Buy it, you will not regret it.
| 1 |
positive
|
The second in director Cohen's trilogy of Second World War comedies (the others being Till Death Do Us Part' and `Adolf Hitler - My Part In His Downfall') is a film version of the BBC's long running (and much loved) situation comedy. Like most transfers of television shows, this movie suffers from an absence of plot and is more a collection of sketches. Some of which work better than others for example the scene where a high ranking army officer floats down a river is a memorable, surreal moment.<br /><br />The joy of this movie is it's representation of a past that probably never existed and an England which is defined by picturesque countryside and the chance it offers to see veteran scene-stealers such as John Le Mesurier given their biggest film roles. Arthur Lowe is superb as Captain Mainwaring, a bungler, who, when the chips are down, displays great courage and saves the day (the climax is probably the character's greatest moment).<br /><br />Episodes of the television series are of course funnier but as an introduction to a British legend, you cannot find anything better.
| 1 |
positive
|
What a surprise. A basic copycat of the comedy classic 'The Nutty Professor' only naughtier. Funny guy Tim Thomerson (who steals the show as Blinkin in Robin Hood-Men In Tights) is downright hilarious as the anal retentive Dr. Jekyll and the sex crazed Hyde. <br /><br />The one scene that is really funny is when Dr. Lanyon (Mark Blankfield) catches Jekyll in bed with his daughter and says: <br /><br />"how dare you take advantage of my innocent daughter."<br /><br /> Jekyll replies, "but sir, I'm going ahead with the operation."<br /><br />Lanyon replies back, "oh. Well in that case fu** your brains out!!!"
| 1 |
positive
|
One of my favorite "bum" actors, C. Tom Howell, stars in this tepid remake of WOTW. He runs around a lot, while a CGI-generated spider-like machine goes around killing everyone. The budget for this one obviously was pretty low. It also was one of The Asylum productions. Have you seen any of those? Yikes! I am not sure why anyone would have made this while the big-budget Spielberg version was slaying them at the box office. And if truth be told, neither version is all that hot. The George Pal version from the 1950s remains the best representation of the H.G. Wells novel, primitive special effects and all. Perhaps because Gene Barry was much more convincing in the lead than Howell or Tom Cruise.
| 0 |
negative
|
Enchanting. The best time to see this movie is sometime when unhappy or sad. It's all just so cute, all, even the way that white bear loves the Queen in secret and gets Her in the end, also the achievement the two young actors of Gerda and Kai gave. It's music is also very nice. The two of us will always be one combined with sad piano tones in some places gives a very touching result and if one watches both parts at once, he'll see the Snow Queen is not so bad. She only tries to surround Herself with love in the wrong way. The evening this movie was on here (first part) I only watched it, because I was bored, but I loved it a lot more after and was very angry, when they didn't show the next part because of the Pope's funeral... Yeah, that was terribly sad for me. But when they said it will be on next week, I was so happy, that I recorded it and now I'm glad to have done so.
| 1 |
positive
|
This movie was so horrible...I want to beat the hell out of who ever made this movie...I was a original fan of all the ghoulies movies...but when i seen this i just began to cry I could not handle it..There are not even ne ghoulies in it...like the original creative monsters...this is so friggen cheap...I meen come on a witch...thats bull crap no one wants to see the witch...they wanted to see what the movie is about..."GHOULIES" i meen jeesh am i right or what? Thats y we watched the other ones..now we have to actually put up with this horrible storyline...This makes me want to eat my own poop after Spaghetti Monday!!!
| 0 |
negative
|
I really loved this movie and have spent several years trying to get it. It is just not available and it has not been on TV for many many years. I enjoyed it and the songs because it had something different to say and made you think how every person looks at something from different prespectives. Also we often don't appreciate something we have till it is no longer there.<br /><br />My 12 year old daughter just discoverd the music and is entranced with some of the songs. Someday I hope to get a copy of the film so she can have an opportunity to view it. (Oh would I love to see it again too!)<br /><br />
| 1 |
positive
|
This low-budget film about a writer who goes to work in a London casino has an awful script, wooden performances, and not much to recommend it. Of course it will appeal to highbrows for whom "mainstream" is a curse word, and who automatically add 20 IQ points when they hear a British accent (apologies to Jeff Foxworthy).<br /><br />The script is full of holes (has he written a book yet, or not?), cliches (relationship trouble: she works days, he works nights), and provides so little insight into such basics as character motivation that it requires a voice-over narration just to move the story along.<br /><br />In an attempt to keep the audience from dozing off, it includes a street fight scene that is about as realistic as a high school production of Julius Caesar.<br /><br />If your idea of scintillating dialogue is "I'll see your ten, and raise you twenty", then RUN to see this movie. Otherwise, save your money.<br /><br />
| 0 |
negative
|
CAUTION: SPOILERS<br /><br />Although this film moved a bit slow at times, the brilliant scenery, richness of the characters and powerful themes make `Morte a Venezia' a rewarding experience. I have not read Thomas Mann's book, but I am certain that Visconti's visual splendour, musical score, and powerful evocation of conflict and desire must do it justice. <br /><br />The study of Gustav von Aschenbach alludes to the human tendency to rationalize and quantify our emotions, behaviour and passion. This tendency is demonstrated in the scene in Germany between Alfred and Gustav when Alfred describes Music as being both mathematical--i.e. quantifiable--and emotional. This conflict arises again in the scene where young Tadzio is alone playing `Fuer Elise' in lobby of the Hotel and Gustav recalls his visit to a bordello where he is drawn to a prostitute who plays the same song. In his flashback, after paying the prostitute, Gustav is clearly physically seized by the consequences of his actions. This reaction acts as a reminder of the moral reaction to the temptations that Tadzio represents.<br /><br />Ultimately, Gustav is forced to make his biggest decision: stay in Venice and resign himself to his lust and temptations? Or flee Venice to save his own life? His early attempt to flee Venice at the train station resulted in a futility and foreshadows the outcome of prolonging his stay.<br /><br />Complimenting the captivating character interaction, Visconti's powerful scenery (especially of Venice at Dawn and the final scene of Tadzio walking into the water and pointing to the horizon) renders this film a true masterpiece.
| 1 |
positive
|
Centres on Czech WW2 pilots the older Frantisek, the boyish impulsive Karel and in the background the quiet piano-playing Honza. As the film opens, it is 1950, the war is over and Frantisek and Honza are imprisoned in a former monastery. In their now Soviet-controlled native country they are 'enemy of the people'. Honza is severely maltreated by his Communist countrymen and dies.<br /><br />In 1939 many pilots manage to escape German-occupied Europe and make their way to England where they join the RAF. Notwithstanding their high motivation and experience they face RAF reluctance and British stiff upper lip. Finally they fight gallantly in the Battle of Britain. However, Frantisek and Karel find their friendship severely tested when they both fall for the same woman.<br /><br />In terms of romantic sub-plot, this is very similar to the Hollywood production Pearl Harbour. However, given the context of the film and Frantisek's eventual fate, it is also possible to read the English woman's treatment of the two men as symbolic of British treatment of the Czech and Polish RAF pilots: conveniently forgetting them once the war is over.<br /><br />In addition, the film is a lot less cliché than Pearl Harbour and the characters are more fully realised. Dark Blue World also scores in terms of its stunning aerial dogfights, which were seamlessly created using a mixture of models, actual live-action aerial filming and out-takes from the 1969 epic The Battle of Britain.<br /><br />In short, Dark Blue World is a well-made, moving, thought-provoking and exciting drama that puts the likes of Pearl Harbour to shame. Highly recommended.
| 1 |
positive
|
Oh dear! Oh dear! Oh dear!<br /><br />To think that films such as this were made, and probably enjoyed by thousands at drive-ins really boggles the mind. How innocent we were in those days.<br /><br />To put it bluntly, this film is crap. The hero is so wet you can hear his squishy damp footsteps in every scene. My Lord, but he's just one of a whole slew of awful, awful actors that appear in this turkey. No wonder MST3K picked it. The story, such as it is, centres around a stock car driver (who is so incompetent, you really believe it is the actor driving the car) that he gives up and "gets in with the wrong crowd" Oooooh! Scary stuff. However, the wrong crowd turn out to be the biker equivalent of The Three Stooges and their "hand-me round" slut of a biker chick. As an example of how lame this whole thing is, the writers obviously wracked their brains to come up with a frightening name for the biker gang - if four people can be called a gang, that is. The result? The gang is called Satan's Angels! I kid you not.<br /><br />Such dire acting and dialogue, along with ridiculous scenes, make for a wonderful beer and chips movie. But otherwise its just the worst kind of rubbish.<br /><br />As I said. Once, this may have been considered good. But today it just makes you laugh (and cringe) with every minute that goes by. Avoid it except for a good laugh. And make sure you're more than half-drunk too!
| 0 |
negative
|
This is one of the oddest movies I have watched in a long while. Usually if they are this strange I bail out early and rarely regret it. Luckily, I held on for this one. While I can't say that this is a great movie (it isn't), I can say that watching it is rather like a good acid trip - only a few really awful moments and the rest filled with "did I really just see that?" wonderment. Lots of laugh out loud moments. A great cast of characters with Meredith Eaton outstanding as the dwarf daughter-in-law with an attitude. Keep an open mind.
| 1 |
positive
|
<br /><br />This film has some really impressive action scenes. The humor and action are blended well, though the intensity of the film does not sustain itself till the end. The last scene is a slight anti-climax in terms of action quality and astonishing explosiveness of the scenes preceding it. The humor doesn't seem to be so ridiculously clumsy as in many other Hongkong movies, and this film is of totally other class than most American action-comedies of recent years. Lau Ching-Wan acts as a typical, intuitive police-hero who scoffs at invalid orders from incompetent police superiors. The dialectic of the film is built on the superhuman coolness and ruthlessness of the drug gang, humiliating the police force while providing a serious dose of lead poisoning with a variety of machine guns. Leaving plenty of corpses in it's wake. Yu Rong-Guang is especially impressive as an ultra cool, merciless gangster in this Woo-like piece of action where tough guys are truly die-hard.
| 1 |
positive
|
This movie had a very unique effect on me: it stalled my realization that this movie REALLY sucks! It is disguised as a "thinker's film" in the likes of Memento and other jewels like that, but at the end, and even after a few minutes, you come to realize that this is nothing but utter pretentious cr4p. Probably written by some collage student with friends to compassionate to tell him that his writing sucks. The whole idea is
I don't even know if it tried to scratch on the supernatural, or they want us to believe that because someone fills your mind (a very weak one, btw) with stupid "riddles", the kind you learn on elementary school recess, you suddenly come to the "one truth" about everything, then you have to kill someone and confess
. !!! What? How, what, why, WHY? Is just like saying that to make a cake, just throw a bunch of ingredients, and add water
forgot about cooking it? I guess these guys forgot to, not explain, but present the mechanism of WHY was this happening? You have to do that when you present a story which normal, everyday acts (lie solving riddle rhymes) start to have an abnormal effect on people. Acting was horrible, with that girl always trying to look cute at the camera, and the guy from Highlanders, the series, acting up like the though heavy metal record store (yeah, they're all real though s-o-b's). The "menacing" atmosphere, with the "oh-so-clever" riddles (enter the 60's series of Batman and Robin, with guest appearance of The Riddle) and the crazies who claim to have "the knowledge" behind that smirk on their faces
just horrible, HORRIBLE.<br /><br />I'm usually very partial about low budget movies, and tend to root for the underdog by giving them more praise than they may deserve, in lieu of their constrictions, you know, but this is just an ugly excuse for a movie that will keep you wanting to be good for an hour and a half, and at the end you will just lament that you fell for it.
| 0 |
negative
|
Sure, this film was retarded. But you expected that the moment you looked at the cover-box. It's a B movie, and on the T&A factor this movie delivered. Truthfully, it was funnier than expected. While it was by no means a work of comedic genius, like "The Party Animal" or "Orgazmo", as far as B movies go it was worth the watch, if you're into that sort of thing anyway.<br /><br />Christians and morally-oriented parental groups, this is soft-core adult entertainment. If you don't want your children watching sexual content and nudity, then you should keep your children away from this film.
| 0 |
negative
|
I'm a Christian, and I have watched pretty of Christian movies, but this one is too bad. They try to make this good, but it's too hard for them I think.<br /><br />- You can see the film is badly dubbed in many places. - You can almost think that the mainpersons in this film was the only ones left behind. I think there will be a lot more of them.<br /><br />- The quality is poor, and the acting could have been better too. The story is not so very bad, but could've been better. The only plus I give, is to the story in this film, but totally I can't rate it more than 3/10. Watch "Left Behind" instead!
| 0 |
negative
|
Documentary content: Amazing man, amazing movement he started, amazing stories- most of them yet to be really told.<br /><br />Celluloid treatment: Nike Ad. Sorry, ain't got nothing else to say about this but that you can say all you want about the dire circumstances in the favelas, but... if you attempt to support that claim with flashy and romanticized images and camera-work of that life, the humbleness necessary to show this life as an outsider filmmaker goes out the window. And with that goes the legitimacy of the narrative. Besides that, the time-space continuum in the film is all off, and I'm not necessarily against that in films as a tool, but here it serves only to confuse the viewer into wondering what was said when; thus leading me to the question: is this a documentary or a docudrama?<br /><br />cococravescinema.blogspot.com
| 0 |
negative
|
Why do people make bad movies? Didn't anyone working on the picture know that what they were making had no point? There is something about this picture that threw me off, besides the fact that I found this "movie" to be unrealistic, pathetic, and POORLY ACTED. I admire them for the try, but the "actors" in the movie at times seem to be trying to hard and no single character has substance or says anything mildly intelligent. This movie deserves zero stars. But I did not have that option, so it gets a 1.
| 0 |
negative
|
I loved all the other Don Knotts movies, but I never heard much about "How To Frame A Fig" and now I know why: I can't think of anyone who would find it enjoyable. This movie seems to appeal to 9 or 10 year olds, but even most of them would give this a thumbs down. At best there are brief moments of mild amusement, mostly from Don Knotts playing the same nervous, underdog persona that made him famous.<br /><br />After the movie finally finished I was curious if my teenager could pick up on this movie's fatal flaw. We were in complete agreement: the Prentiss Gates sidekick character was even dumber than the Don Knotts character.<br /><br />Be happy that Mr. Limpet, Reluctant Astronaut, Shakiest Gun and Mr. Chicken movies are around to enjoy.
| 0 |
negative
|
Viva La Bam was one of those shows that I didn't have high if any expectations for, before seeing it, and I never even knew about it until I saw my friend watching it. I had thought Jackass was pretty funny but the stunts were just that, funny and I never really got into the show. When I watched Viva La Bam for the first time it was the complete opposite effect, I loved it. It had more of a TV Show feel to it, which a lot of the "Reality Shows" have today. I was hooked and I wanted to see what new scheme they were going to cook up for each episode. All the way to the last episode it held my interest and even though some of the ideas seemed rehashed at times, it always had a newer and funnier twist to it. Viva La Bam is one of those shows that get you hooked and I have yet to see another show that is quite like it.
| 1 |
positive
|
I went to the cinema slightly apprehensive, I came out seething with anger at the garbage (passing for a film)I had witnessed. The actors, particularly Travolta, should be ashamed of themselves for their participation in this. Clearly the only thing in their minds was the pay cheque, never mind the debasement of their talents and us . Travolta needs to go back to doing some more "Look who's Talking" movies as he has sunk back to the level of his pre-Tarantino work. It comes to something when the L W Talking sequels are better than this one. Travolta is no longer the King of Cool but the King of Corn. Michael Caine himself admitted to doing bad movies for the pay cheque, Trvolta should follow suit if he has any self respect !
| 0 |
negative
|
If you tried to make a bad film, you could not make one worst that this one. I can't imagine anyone paying good money to see trash like this in a theater. The thing that really gets you is being mesmerized in looking at the entire thing just for the amazement of seeing how lousy it could get. The redeeming facet of this film was seeing the words "The End"
| 0 |
negative
|
During the 13 years of schooling I had from Kindergarten through high school, there was only one day that my class took a field trip. When I went to school, you went to school, from 8:30 until 3:30 and filed trips were not taken. But, for some reason I could not recall at this advanced age, we went to see a movie - National Velvet. I do not recall the movie, so, on the eve of my 57th year, I decided to revisit it.<br /><br />It is a movie about a time that no longer exists. A time when people trusted others and didn't lock their houses. A time when people were given the benefit of the doubt. It was a time when family was the most important thing. This film shows all of that and more. It shows love and trust and caring and the goodness of people.<br /><br />It would not be a bad thing for every family to view this film once in a while and discuss its message.<br /><br />It was a treat to see the young Elizabeth Taylor, Mickey Rooney at his best, the Academy Award-winning performance of Anne Revere, Angela Lansbury before Murder, She Wrote, and Donald Crisp, who performed for almost sixty years.<br /><br />What a movie!
| 1 |
positive
|
Because Disney more often than not, ignores the animation quality and a need for a good plot in their sequels, this was actually a nice surprise. I don't know why Disney does not pay more attention to their sequels. The graphics quality is always inferior; no backgrounds worthy of the name Disney, inane plots, and worse dialog, with little or no attention given to the actual story, and the caricature drawings are almost always worse than Saturday morning cartoons in detail and quality.<br /><br />The animation quality is still poor when compared to Disney originals, and the dialog is quite trite, the story line and overall execution was really quite enjoyable. <br /><br />While it is not as captivating, it does not completely fail to capture the charm and/or mystery from the first. There is some hint of it, tucked away here and there.<br /><br />The children will like it, at any rate.<br /><br />It rates a 4.5/10 from...<br /><br />the Fiend :.
| 0 |
negative
|
"L'Auberge Espagnole" collected the audience wherever it was shown. It gathered audience awards on many film festivals all over the world. And it is not strange. We have the ability to watch a cheerful and an astonishing piece of art. And it is wise by the way. "L'Auberge Espagnole" is a very funny comedy about youth and growing up. But most of all it is about the lights and shadows of living in the European Union.<br /><br />The main character of the film is a French student of economy Xavier. For his future carrier his is sent for one year of studying to Barcelona. In Spain it turns out that the lectures are being given in Catalonian language. That probably doesn't help the increasement of knowledge. But it helps in tightening the relationships inside the group of foreign exchange students. Especially if they rent a big flat together. There are 3 girls: English, Belgian and Spanish, as well as three boys: German, Danish and Italian. Our French guy will also get there. A year is a very long time. Long enough to get close and make friends. And get to know some European stereotypes while trying to break them apart.<br /><br />Klapisch treats this special case of a process of uniting Europe with humor and without pecky didactism. He comes out of the idea that young people are everywhere just the same. They like jokes. They like to make irresponsible relationships. But they don't neglect their aspirations. The most interesting is the sum of experience of this little community. They live together in the fire of everyday tasks fighting with the surrounding reality. They are full of unusual ideas for life. Young Europeans come back to their countries to take up a life of an adult on their own. They are Europe's hope to fight the many problems of the Union. For example, the terrifying administration system. In the end they proof that not only can they communicate and make friends despite the many differences. But they also now how to live the full of life. And they won't allow taking that full of life away from them.
| 1 |
positive
|
You, the Living (2007)<br /><br />Mordant. I've never written that word before but it comes to mind here. Let me look it up. Well, it's part of it--corrosive, but also funny as heck. So corrosively funny. This is a dour film, for sure, with so much dry dry dry wit and quirky humor it's impossible not to like it on some level. Filmed in a very spare style, often with a static camera and really balanced, stable compositions, like theater stages, we see a short enactment occur.<br /><br />But that makes it seem ordinary--which it is not. Ordinary life is shown to be frumpy, ironic, delightful, coy, and depressing. And impossible. We, the living, must live, and since we're alive, we may as well take note. Something like that. I think it was Ebert who said you find yourself laughing and don't know why. Exactly. And the promo material somewhere said it was a cross between Bergman and Monty Python, and what they mean is it has the dry, silent, probing look of Ingmar Berman's famous Swedish films, but it has the zany, somehow touching elements of the British comedians. <br /><br />I'd say, definitely, definitely watch at least half an hour of this. There is part of me that thought I was through by then--the rest continues in a similar assemblage of little skits and moments, and they do gradually evolve, but there is no great plot to follow or climax of the usual kind. There are some great moments later, even just the attention to the thunderstorm, which takes us out of the mundane human events nicely. <br /><br />The filming is gorgeous in its classical control, almost like a series of Gregory Crewdson scenes (and outdoing the photographer, actually). And the acting, with all its very ordinary, non-glam folksiness, is right on. A startling, beautiful, odd experience.
| 1 |
positive
|
Perfect double bill for the horribly corny "Beverly Hillbillies" is this equally atrocious, lame brained 'comedy', "Son in Law". Country girl Rebecca goes to wild California to attend college, only to be assaulted by the lifestyle. 'Resident Adviser' "Crawl" helps her settle in, and soon the two are good friends. Bec decides to bring the wacky "Crawl" home for Thanksgiving, with obvious "fish out of water" results.<br /><br />The only other comic angle Steve Rash (aptly named ) achieves here is a sexual one. This he bludgeons us with, but to no avail. Both comic aspects fail dismally, and you know the film is groping when "Crawl" hijacks the combine harvester and writes his name in the corn field.<br /><br />Dramatically the movie falls short too, with several attempts at family and personal counselling from "Crawl" misfiring. Between them Pauly Shore and Carla Gugino manage to raise a couple of smiles, but little else, while the rest of the cast are mere fodder. The problem is it's nearly impossible to actually like "Crawl", and you'll find yourself spending the whole flick wondering why Rebecca would want to spend a moment with him. However, if you're a fan of unintelligent comedy, "Son in Law" is right on the mark.<br /><br />Sunday, November 10, 1996 - T.V.
| 0 |
negative
|
This movie starts with interesting set design and a promising premise, but fails to provide the cult-movie goods. Set in a gritty parallel universe where everything is owned by the "Blump" Corporation, it concerns a horrible stand-up comic who finds success when he grows a third arm out of his back.<br /><br />All the potential for great cheese is here -- washed-up 80's star Judd Nelson, Wayne Newton, offbeat visuals and strange plot digressions, obese women in skimpy lingerie, necrophilia -- but it never pays off.<br /><br />The pacing is the main problem. Each scene is excrutiatingly slow. Nelson's stand-up routines are supposed to be funny because they're pathetically not funny. But each performance drags on until it's not even tangentially funny, just boring.<br /><br />Imagine someone telling you the longest, weirdest joke imaginable, full of smirky self-congratulation for how funny and weird he thinks it is. Imagine after a stultifying two hours of this, you never got a punch line. You've just saved yourself the trouble of watching The Dark Backward.
| 0 |
negative
|
It is truly saddening to see a once-great director such as Deodato delivering such a second-rate giallo such as this. This movie was so terrible it effectively put an end to his movie career. The box lies, this is no "erotic thriller", hell during the film's 97 minute running time, Charlotte Lewis barely shows us one nipple! I thought it would pick up once William Burger showed up (in one of his last roles), but his character is killed off rather abruptly and lamely. This movie fails in pretty much every way. Claudio Simonetti's music is little more than noise, and the plot made very little sense at all. For some reason, Lewis is terrorized by ghosts which attack using phones. (?) By the end, the characters all seem to have forgotten the previous 90 minutes of hell they went through, and casually laugh as they sick the evil spirits on someone else, Lewis's ex-boyfriend. What?!? This movie did little for me besides anger me.... and bore me half to death. For genuine 80's Deodato fun, watch THE BARBARIANS or THE ATLANTIS INTERCEPTORS, let this one rot on the video store shelf. Argento could make a better giallo than this!
| 0 |
negative
|
Ever since 1981, Nintendo has been making great video games such as Super Mario and Zelda. Most ideas would get a bit boring after 20 years. Games made by Nintendo never seem to get boring because they're always adding something new. It went from arcade games to the Wii and I hear that there's a new version of the Wii scheduled for release in 2011. The thing that makes Wii games so different is the fact that your actually doing something instead of just sitting on the couch pushing buttons. <br /><br />And I have more good news. Super Mario Galaxy 2 is to be released in 2010.
| 1 |
positive
|
This is the greatest example I can think of to prove the theory that when Hollywood runs out of good ideas, they make an awful sequel and ruin the first one. Now don't get me wrong, I absolutely love the first Beastmaster; I even liked the third one pretty good, but this movie is atrocious. I am a huge fantasy/sword & sorcery movie fan and I hated to see such a terrible sequel made to such a classic as the first Beastmaster. So why do I hate this movie so much? Well, where do I begin? First of all, the whole idea of the movie is ridiculous. Dar and his evil older brother Arklon(who was nowhere mentioned in the first movie..Huh?) cross over into our world via a handy dimensional time-portal gate. Ya see, Earth just happens to be on the same parallel interdimentional plane as Dar's world. Whereas with the first movie, you're led to think the movie just takes place in the past, but with this one you're shown it's a completely whole other world altogether...that's just one of the many things I hated about this sequel. It didn't work with "Masters of the Universe", and it sure doesn't work here either! Movies like this should take place and stay in their own time-line and their usual surroundings. For Christ's sake, what's next? Hercules in New York...er, uh..bad example! Moving on...<br /><br />Arklon's after a device called a neutron detonator to use as a threat against his enemies to rule his own kingdom. So, it's up to Dar, his ferrets,his eagle,and his tiger(not a spray-painted one this time) to go off and save the world...but along the way they have the help of a young, cool, and hip Senator's daughter who gets caught up in this whole mess and she show's Dar around L.A., takes him for a joyride in her BMW, and helps get him out of tight situations here and there. How convenient right? And speaking of convenient, I found it awfully convenient and easy for Arklon to sneak into a highly guarded military base and get away with a stolen, highly destructive nuclear weapon...even with half the U.S. Army and L.A.P.D. after him....waaaaay to easy, even for an evil barbarian sorcerer from another world. There are sooo many plot holes in this I don't know where to begin; like why did Arklon go to the L.A. zoo for at the end of the movie?!? He absolutely has no reason whatsoever to go there; and wouldn't that be like the last place you'd lure your greatest enemy who just so happens to have the handy ability TO CONTROL ANIMALS?<br /><br />And don't you just love these kinds of movies where the police are portrayed as total idiots and even with half a dozen cops firing at one guy, they still don't manage to hit him? The police in this movie belong in the "Police Academy" series! They are about as useful in this movie as reading glasses are for the blind! Even the title of the movie makes no sense: "Beastmaster 2 : Through the Portal of Time"...they never actually went through a "time" portal because the movie isn't set in the future of Dar's world, it's set in a parallel world along ours in the astral plane, so they NEVER actually go through time, only a dimensional world along theirs; so NO actual time-travel is involved at all! This movie tries to come off as funny and it does...not because of the humor, but because it's just so bad...and that's putting it mildly. The acting, dialogue, plot, characters, and ending are all so cheesy it's hilarious. What more can I expect from the guy that brought us "Return of the Swampthing"(another bad sequel)? Sorely missed here is Don Coscarelli's wonderful directing and serious feel of the first one!! Avoid this stinking piece of garbage like the bubonic plague and stick which the first one and maybe the third one if there's nothing better on T.V.
| 0 |
negative
|
Superb silent version of the story of Francois Villon. Although remade in the thirties as IF I WERE KING, with Frank Lloyd directing, Preston Sturges scripting and Ronald Colman starring, this version is even better. Barrymore, with a cohort of comedians, plays the comic fool and the wine-depressed Villon with a verve that Colman could not match. The photography is startling in its beauty and innovation and the supporting cast, particularly Conrad Veidt in his American premiere, the incredibly beautiful Marceline Day, and the supporting comics, Slim Summerville and Hank Mann, steal every scene they are in.<br /><br />It is a shame that Barrymore did so few first-rate comedies. Among his sound films, only his lead in TWENTIETH CENTURY and his supporting role in MIDNIGHT can compare to this, and those stand up only because of his superb voice. In this silent movie, Barrymore must tell his tale without benefit of words, and he does so, alternately hilariously unrecognizable as the King of the Fools and tenderly as Villon in love. He even gets to leap around in the swashbuckling style of Fairbanks, most convincingly. He also lets his supporting cast have their share of glory, capering in this ensemble work like any talented comic of the era.<br /><br />Finally, a brief word about Alan Crosland, a director known today only for directing the first talking feature, THE JAZZ SINGER in the same year this was released. Crosland was a careful, innovative, delightfully original director, and it is a shame that more of his works are not known. Perhaps this movie, far more interesting as a movie than his best-known work, will be your introduction to his other talents. If so, you could do far worse.
| 1 |
positive
|
A bumbling error at the Ministry Of Education results in Nutbourne Boys School having to share with St Swithin's School For Girls. This bemuses the respective head teachers of each school and leads to all manner of chaotic goings on, however the two are forced to come to an uneasy alliance in the hope of averting major trouble.<br /><br />The Happiest Days Of Your Life is based on the John Dighton play from 1948, with Dighton writing the part of Headmistress Whitchurch specifically for Margaret Rutherford. Replacing George Howe from the play in the role of Headmaster Pond, is Alastair Sim, and here in lies the crowning glory of this filmic adaptation, Sim & Rutherford are perfectly wonderful, bouncing off each other to keep what is basically a one joke movie, highly entertaining. Directed by the gifted Frank Launder, and produced by the equally adroit Sidney Gilliat, The Happiest Days Of Your Life is a quintessentially British movie, obviously a precursor to the St Trinians franchise, the film entertains the children with it's high jinks clash of the sexes heart, whilst tickling the watching adults with its very saucy undercurrent. Thankfully the chaotic ending cements all that has gone before it to leave this particular viewer with a grin as wide as Nutbourne Rail Station, great fun 8/10.
| 1 |
positive
|
What a bad movie, the premise was all there, the actors were all there. And yet a believable plot, good dialogue, characters to relate to were somewhat missing.<br /><br />Typical heist gone wrong premise set against a backdrop of everyman being shafted by the system. The lead character Tye and his little brother have been having no luck and their house is going to be repossessed, along comes godfather Matt Dillon (Who does not look much older than Tye so not exactly sure how that happened)to the rescue with a plan to steal money from an armoured van which they work on as security guards. Tye has a brief flirtation with a conscience but decides to go along with it. And thus begins a truly awful hole ridden 30 minutes of unbelievable trash. I will not list all the ways in which this movie was unrealistic but let me point out the major ones:<br /><br />Because of Tye deciding to be a good guy because a homeless guy became collateral damage, all of his close friends including his godfather die. His godfather who is supposedly family and the man who brought him into the caper at the last minute to help him out dies because of Tye. Tye in the process of thwarting his friends and godfather destroys all the money. The money came from the same bank that was repossessing his house. And yet he chose it over the supposed family of Matt Dillon.<br /><br />There are many more, needless to say that this film was tripe and I earnestly hope nobody else goes to see it.
| 0 |
negative
|
....so why on Earth would I see 'Sex Lives of the Potato Men'? Answer: Johnny vegas and Mackenzie Crook. Vegas I have seen live and thoroughly enjoyed. I think he is an intelligent and unique intellectual comic who manages to retain extreme oafishness. Crook I know only from probably the greatest comedy of the last 10 years along with 'Alan Partridge', 'The Office'. As Gareth he was simply hilarious, and I was interested in how he would convert to another character on the big screen.<br /><br />OK. So me and the boyfriend went down to the multiplex last night and the film was very funny, only because the mediocre nonsense dialogue and banter Ferris and Dave had was delivered with aplomb and enthusiasm by the talent of Vegas and Crook. They are destined for better things (have done better already infact) and I even believe Vegas would make a decent straight actor. The trite scenes where he says he misses his wife came almost close to touching, although the **SPOILER** tacked on scene at the end where he is taken back by his wife needed to be lengthened, it just wasnt believable. And throughout the film Vegas only appears to miss his wife 2 or 3 times.<br /><br />The film became grotesquely unfunny and plain old, well, grotesque, when sex was mentioned. Not, I add, when it was shown on screen. Tolly's gratuitous explanation of what was in his sandwiches and why was not even slightly funny, and just made me feel a little bit ill. Also totally unneccisary was the inclusion of the character of Jeremy picking his nose, before showing a close up of the bogey on his finger. Just him picking his nose would have raised a smile, he was a pathetic character and it would have just made him look as low as possible, but showing the snot close up was just not needed and was rank.<br /><br />One scene I did think was hilarious involving sex was Vegas in the threesome. His blokish conversation with the second bloke just highlighted the fact that threesomes arent always endless ecstasy. Not that I'd know.....<br /><br />That's about all I can say really. I will end with this, and this is actually my main critique of the film. This is supposed to revive the British film industry. It is no 'Trainspotting' that is for sure....it isn't even a 'Love Actually' (you'd have to have a heart of stone not to throw up at that one), and 3 million pounds really could have been put into a better project. 'Mike Basset England Manager' was a wonderful little known British comedy and was made for far less than 3 million. I only hope that the BFC will learn from 'Sex Lives of the Potato Men' and not get so gratuitous in future. Although the terrible reviews this film is getting are only enhancing the box office takings. :-)
| 0 |
negative
|
Rowan Atkinson's Mr. Bean ranks right up there with Laurel & Hardy, Buster Keaton, the Marx Brothers and other comedy greats. I have never seen people laugh out loud so heartily and literally fall out of their chairs as when I introduced them to Mr. Bean via my videos and now DVDs. I'll never forget the first time my brother saw him. He was over for a visit and I asked him if he'd ever seen Mr. Bean? "Who?" he said. So I got out my video and showed him the one where Mr. Bean is in church and starts to nod off. My brother laughed so hard he fell out of the chair and was holding his stomach from laughing so hard. He became an instant fan of Mr. Bean. We all know how hilarious these episodes are, but the fun is in sharing them with others. I have seen so many people laugh 'til it hurts! Favorite episodes are: the visit of the Queen, the Hotel room stay, late for the Dentist appointment, the Christmas episode (a classic...plus kids love it!) and the New Year Party. Rowan Atkinson is a comic genius!
| 1 |
positive
|
This is truly a re-make that should never have gotten out of the stable. It has two casts that are acting in entirely different strata. At the top of their game are Joan Plowright and Maximillian Schell. Every nuance of the Franks is in plain sight. at the rock bottom are Melissa Gilbert and Doris Roberts. I cannot imagine how Schell and Plowright manage to play so well when Gilbert and Roberts are working their anti-magic. Gilbert ruins every scene she's in. It's like Father Knows Best in the Ghetto. She's Ann Frank light. Her run at Helen Keller was thin but not awful. This is sacrilege. Doris Roberts makes Mrs. Van Damm merely annoying. She is a completely inappropriate choice to play the sexually hungry woman whose flirtatious, dissatisfied presence caused so much trouble in het Acherhuis. This needed to be played by a woman who could convince us that she at least remembered what it was like to voluptuous. Her weight is not the problem. Joan Plowright could have played this part beautifully. Roberts was on a career high when this was made, getting lots of press and many opportunities. Her performance here displays her weaknesses as an actress shamefully.<br /><br />James Coco and Clive Reville, have most of their scenes with Gilbert and Roberts , and , strong though they are, they are completely incapable of undoing the damage done by their partners. Reville is a wily actor capable of the kind of iconic performance given by Ed Wynne in the original film. He gets no support from Gilbert . She drain the color out of every scene. <br /><br />I've read with dismay the comments by those of you who grew up watching this version, filled with attachment to these performances. It's a lesson in how the version you see first attachs to you. It makes me reconsider my attachment to some inferior products I loved in my childhood. I encourage you to watch the original. It has very few weak spots and it's head and shoulders above this mess.
| 0 |
negative
|
Henry (Don Ameche) turns up at the entrance to Hell and recounts his life story to His Excellency (Laird Cregar). The story focuses on his relationships with females throughout his life, and in particular, his relationship with Martha (Gene Tierney). At the end of the film, we cut back to Henry and His Excellency for a very predictable ending.<br /><br />Unfortunately, there is nothing more to say about the film because nothing happens. Its a sentimental story of one man's life and its very boring. I watched it with my girlfriend and my dad and we all thought it was rubbish, despite the Lubitsch touch. I yawned more than 15 times. Hugo (Charles Coburn) is good whenever he is on screen as the grandfather and there were a few funny moments of dialogue. The colour made it a good spectacle but it wasn't enough to save this plodder from going into the reject pile. In the same mould as "Its A Wonderful World" and "You Can't Take It With You", and so, not surprisingly, it was nominated for an Oscar. A story about ordinary people, none of whom are interesting and with no storyline of any interest. Boring, sentimental and the biggest damp squib of an ending that I can remember...
| 0 |
negative
|
Hercules wound up falling into the same category as many promising television productions that could have been a really great classic, only to become a sad joke.<br /><br />I really like Kevin Sorbo and his supporting cast, but I didn't care for the direction the show took since their movie equivalents either. I believe the show would have had a much more successful run if they had kept the same format they did for the movies.<br /><br />I watched in the beginning and lost interest along the way. I did encounter the odd episode afterwards, but my attention span towards it was lucky to make it to commercial break.
| 0 |
negative
|
This movie would receive a much higher vote from me in general and I will talk about why, but first and foremost it receives four stars and should stay at four stars because of the directors ridiculously tasteless portrayal of rape and sexual assault. Not far into the movie Oyama sexually assaults a woman he rescued earlier, and while she briefly becomes somewhat miffed by his actions this attitude only lasts about five minutes before loving adoration sets in and carries her character through the rest of the film. I know many will argue that it's not that important in a kung fu beat-em-up, and as a fan of the genera I can't say that it's all that unusual, but that doesn't stop it from being completely tasteless every time I see it.<br /><br />What I will say in this movie's defence however is that it's somewhat refreshing to see a martial arts, or even action movie of any sort, that offers no actual hero for the viewer to get behind. Oyama is portrayed as a rapist and murderer; a societal outcast whose only student becomes completely mentally unbalanced before being gunned down by the police. The final shots of the movie leave one with the feeling that Oyama himself is poised for a major breakdown and no longer seems to care for the woman he earlier assaulted into loving him and has since followed him with puppy-dog like devotion.<br /><br />Whether this was truly the intended message of the movie or not, one can't help but feel a little hopeful that Oyama might be on the brink of suicide by the time the movie is over. This is a rare emotional treatment from the martial arts genre and its interesting to see a film that leaves you with a sense that its violence is not to be celebrated. If only Karate Bullfighter had treated the subject of sexual violence better, either by creating more emotional depth and recognition between the two characters involved, or by leaving it out all together, this would have been a much more interesting film.
| 0 |
negative
|
There have been approximately 60 different films & Television plays,besides the classic Opera of this tale of a sex mad girl and her hapless soldier lover. This story has been done so many times, in various ways.<br /><br />Vicente Aranda directs Joaquin Jorda's screenplay adaptation of Prosper Merimee's classic novel & play.<br /><br />This is the story ONLY of Bizet's opera Carmen<br /><br />Pas Vega is an exciting Carmen,full of passion & the ability to drive simple men to do terrible tragic things. Leonardo Sbaraglio is the hapless soldier who is ensnared into Carmen's poisonous web & led to doing bad things.<br /><br />Jay Benedict is the author Prosper who tells this tale.<br /><br />There is not much action, BUT there are some very hot sex scenes.<br /><br />In fact this is almost an NC-17 film.<br /><br />since I have seen this tale so often in so many guises I was not overly impressed.<br /><br />It is a very well made film & will be of interest to those that may not know of it,<br /><br />My not overly enthusiastic review also could be that I miss the fantastic Opera score by Bizet.<br /><br />See this as you may like it more than I did.<br /><br />Ratings *** (out of 4) 82 points (out of 100) IMDb 7 (out of 10)
| 1 |
positive
|
François Truffaut, Young Jerk of the "Cahiers du cinema", main bastion of the coming so-called New Wave, made a big show of hating this film and even accused it of dragging French cinema into mediocrity. Translation: Truffaut, who was terminally repressed sexually, was already jealous of the way Carné could make a huge success of a story that pushed all the right buttons of its audience and actually involved it into something important with all the trappings and seduction of sensuality. In other words, where the general public and many critics saw a perceptive sociological analysis wrapped in a beautiful film, Truffaut saw "Girls on the Loose". <br /><br />Carné, after all, had everything that would be severely lacking from the New Wave: intelligence, refinement, humour, a great talent as a storyteller, a great ear for dialogue, dazzling technical brilliance, the capacity to make his actors do what he wanted them to do, and a good dose of good taste. By comparison, Truffaut is a provincial bore with nothing to say.<br /><br />A 50's tragic remake of "Pride and Prejudice", the French answer to "Rebel Without A Cause", an updated version of "Children of Paradise", "Les Tricheurs" tells a story of disaffected Parisian youth who have lost their way in an atmosphere of existentialism, sexual liberation and disrespect for traditional and religious values. Some (young) critics perceived Carné's take on the subject as the moralizing slant of an "older person", whereas I think what happened, quite to the contrary, is that Carné being gay and knowing a thing or two about repression, felt an untold sympathy for the young iconoclasts in his story. Furthermore, this being a French film, there is no mistaking that the rebellion in question is essentially sexual, something that still had to be decoded in American films like "Rebel Without a Cause" and "The Wild One".<br /><br />Carné's young people are all supremely beautiful, graceful, elegant, spontaneous and intelligent. They are Gods and Goddesses. They drive the latest Vespas and the right cars. The cut of their suits, dresses and duffle-coats was a high point of the fashions of the last century. Their haircuts are still plastered on the wall of your local hairdresser. Their body shape, which they attained and maintained without effort, is still the modern Western ideal. They listen to the best jazz musicians. They know how to move, how to be sexy and how to make love even though the pill hasn't yet been invented. They know how to negotiate different social classes and cultures. Unfortunately, they are defined by and live by the code of the gang and their own heartless rituals that exclude sentimentality and make a sin of romantic love. The only thing wrong with them is that their elders don't talk to them and vice-versa. The incidents depicted in this film got a lot of tongues wagging for a long time in France about the amorality and nihilism of youth while still making it a huge public and critical success.<br /><br />This film is so stylish and gorgeous, I suspect the older viewers who watched it wished they could be like the people depicted in the film and quite a few young filmmakers or aspiring filmmakers like Truffaut developed a bad case of jaundice reflecting how they could never conceivably make a film as sexy or popular as this one, although they would be very good at eventually aiming for the nihilistic bits. On the other hand, given a certain clichéd aspect of the script (amorous misunderstanding leading to a medical emergency), one can only wonder at the horribly pious and puritanical mishmash Americans would have extracted from the same basic script if they had dared to tackle the subject.<br /><br />Interestingly, the movie was filmed in the same basic locations as the American musical "Funny Face" a year earlier. Where Hollywood saw the picturesque aspects of the Rive Gauche and existentialism, Carné restituted its tragic and ironic dimension. Watch this trailer on YouTube: 19ZkKeoNjPo
| 1 |
positive
|
what a great little film, lots of good roles from some random stars. Basically there are these pot growers that get caught up in a comical adventure. At points the film makes you believe everyone is going to end up dead! Which adds to the comedy. When the character of John Lithgow (3rd Rock) re-appears - its impossible not to imagine the trip, this may have caused, like a total paradox. The film is full of twists and turns that keep you guessing all the way to the end. Billy Bob Thornton Astronaut Farmer) is brilliant, in fact looking back, the character is fairly similar in the fact he holds the family of pot growers together. Everyone involved in this film should get a big thumbs up.<br /><br />As i say' the final scene is a dream; however a nightmare at the same time. I love it when Hank Azaria (carter) says at the end do you think we should do this every year? I felt my self wishing they would. <br /><br />I'm not going to say this film is good for everyone, but as a lover of stoner movies i give it 10/10. - My advice have a joint ready; kick back and enjoy!
| 1 |
positive
|
I remember watching this movie many years ago on VHS at a friends place. At first I thought it would be a boring car movie. But much to my surprise it ended up being one of the best movies I can remember watching for its time.<br /><br />It has a good story line and best of all it has some awesome Aussie cars and street racing. I really loved Fox's car the most which was a worked Dodge Charger. The paint work which was done on this car was truly outstanding in my opinion :)!<br /><br />There's also a black two door blown 57 Chev which comes into the movie later on. <br /><br />I actually managed to get a copy of this movie on VHS last year at K-Mart over here in Australia. I did have plans of converting this movie to DVD myself as I believe it is a movie worth the conversion. But much to my surprise this weekend while I was browsing the DVD movie bin I came across it on DVD. So of course I grabbed it while I could as it was the only copy there.<br /><br />Anyway if you really want to see some classic street racing with real muscle cars, including a great story line without a rice burner in sight. Then this movie is for you!!!!<br /><br />Here is some additional info taken from the back of the DVD.<br /><br />He'll Win At Any Cost Fox is a young man that lives in the fast lane. He believes he is the fastest man on the road - but street racing is illegal. If he doesn't accept his latest challenge he could loose his girl... if he does accept, he could lose his life. Living dangerously, living fast and winning at any cost is their obsession. They don't turn back, the don't give in.. and the don't ask for help.
| 1 |
positive
|
Why is Guy working for Buddy? Probably because Ari was not around in 1995. Why does Dawn want to be with Guy? For access to Buddy. Why does she stay with Guy? I am not sure.<br /><br />There are bunch of things about this movie that I am not sure about. But, Kevin Spacey is an excellent, verbal tsunami as Buddy Ackerman and totally believable because he is a great actor.<br /><br />Frank Whaley's Guy is certainly out of his element working for Buddy he wants to write and make meaningful movies, not be a gofer that is verbally abused for getting Equal instead of Sweet & Low. <br /><br />Michelle Forbes' Dawn, who also wants to make meaningful movies, seems way out of Guy's league.<br /><br />The ending leaves a lot to be desired.
| 0 |
negative
|
It has started quietly. If your are looking for an action-packed movie this is absolutely not the right choice. All characters are slowly depicted on the scene. Stroke after stroke on the scene canvas. None can take away his hands to the priest and so the sisters lifespan devotion can only remain into the village. Philippa and Martina know their destiny, belong only to the village. So when you understand that, you are on the movie scene, in the village that becomes the whole known world in that time. When, no technology can let you imagine anything else than the campaign, the village, the sea. You feel the rhythm of that ancient village's life. Watching the movie in a cold snowy late afternoon can cause you to approach this evening dinner with some sumptuous expectations ...<br /><br />The final sentence that give a title to Babette's sacrifice far from Paris: An artist is never poor.<br /><br />Superb photography. Many situations depict portraits and landscapes as they were styled on canvas there, in Jutland, in 18th century.
| 1 |
positive
|
This is a great off-the-wall romantic comedy about love, work, pandering to the public taste, and midlife crises. The main character is a talented movie director who decides to make a silly PG-13 movie to get himself out of hock with the IRS. It has an excellent cast, a wide range of humor (from deadpan to slapstick), and fine writing. It's also a wry send-up of the movie industry. The metacommentary includes several excellent cuts between reality and the movie that's being made, and in some places the film departs from strict realism. The result is a multi-dimensional masterpiece of wry midlife humor.
| 1 |
positive
|
When I read the reviews of Kahin Pyaar Na Ho Jaaye, I thought, "Huh?". It was THAT confusing. To be sure, I went to watch the film and what do you know? It's a remake of "The Wedding Singer". Several scenes have been changed to suit the whole essence of Indianness, but the rest of it is a direct lift from the 1998 Hollywood hit. Bollywood is no stranger to remakes, but this is one so poor that it pains me just to watch it. I groaned so much watching this and I realized I wasn't the only one doing so! One guy actually walked out of the theater and never came back! Salman Khan should seriously stop doing comedy roles. He shrieks and whines too much. Why can't he just take it easy? He doesn't do justice to the role originally acted out by Adam Sandler. He doesn't have Sandler's sense of comic timing. Rani is a wonderful actress and one of my favorites, but she's no Drew Barrymore either. The scene where she stands in front of a mirror practicing to say her new surname ("Hi, I'm Mrs Pugalia") doesn't match up to Barrymore's version ("Hi, I'm Mrs Julia Gulia"). I felt embarrassed watching that scene, even though I had loved the original. The music is not too bad. It's probably the only saving grace of this otherwise horrible film! Avoid this at all cost!
| 0 |
negative
|
Lifeforce is certainly one of Tobe Hooper's best films. It has some great special effects and a lot of nudity, so it seems like a typical horror fan's dream. The film is quit creative though and I think that's because of the script from Dan O'Bannon and Don Jakoby. Nice cinematography and a good creepy atmosphere make it a solid film.
| 1 |
positive
|
I give this piece of Hollywood trash 1 out 10! Seriously! I mean, I like comedy as much as the next guy. I also can take just plain stupid comedy and actually sit back and laugh with it. But this film had nothing to laugh at OR with.<br /><br />I like nearly all of the actors in this film. So I thought I'd overlook what many people told me about it (my fault for not listening). I was just mortified at how stupid this script was! Just ridiculous and not even in a funny way. The only funny scenes were in the previews that everyone saw in the theater when seeing other movies or on TV. I was very disappointed and I really would like to know why these otherwise relatively good actors would read this script and then still sign up to be in it! Bad decision on their parts...<br /><br />*********************MAJOR SPOILER************************<br /><br />Okay - here's my biggest question on this film.......If the characters are looking back on this story of Jewel (Liv Tyler) after the fact....then how can Paul Reiser have gone to a therapist remembering the past!?!?!?!? He dies in the last scene by being crushed by the dumpster!!!! Can anyone answer me that?!?!?!?!? Major goof on the part of the film makers.....Nobody noticed this?!?!?!?!?!?!
| 0 |
negative
|
Yes, the movie was that boring and insipid. after a certain point, I was wanting the croc to eat these people just so we could get the movie over with.<br /><br />The plot is that three Aussies take a fishing tour up a river in a little boat, where the fishing guide straps on a gun. He says he just does it for insurance purposes, all the crocs have been hunted out of this river. He is immediately eaten by a Croc. The trio then get chased up a tree, getting picked off by the reptile in their attempts to escape. They spend most of the movie arguing over the best way to escape.<br /><br />Predictably, the one survivor finds the tour guide's gun and shoots the crocodile. Aww, they killed the movie's only likable character! <br /><br />Where's Paul Hogan or Steve Irwin when you really need them?
| 0 |
negative
|
Sometimes there's a film so bad that you just keep watching in awe. This is one of those films. Of course I can't help that I'm biased. I'm from Chicago so I watched the scenes closely for accuracy and I don't find Billy Crystal funny at all. And I can't stand all that English style photography(Tony Scott etc) with the smoke machine working overtime and all the flourecent, soft lighting. I suppose we're supposed to believe that Billy Crystal is really from Chicago because he wears a Cubs jersey. Oh and the plot. If you really think about it, these guys should be locked up, not the bad guys, since they're more dangerous. And of course there's the cliché of the cops on the verge of retiring. But the funniest scene is the climax where the good and bad guys machine gun other to death in The Thompson Center(A state building!) Of course it's a cool building, but it's the equivalent of making a huge drug deal at the White house.
| 0 |
negative
|
If you had asked me how the movie was throughout the film, I would have told you it was great! However, I left the theatre feeling unsatisfied. After thinking a little about it, I believe the problem was the pace of the ending. I feel that the majority of the movie moved kind of slow, and then the ending developed very fast. So, I would say the ending left me disappointed.<br /><br />I thought that the characters were well developed. Costner and Kutcher both portrayed their roles very well. Yes! Ashton Kutcher can act! Also, the different relationships between the characters seemed very real. Furthermore,I thought that the different plot lines were well developed. Overall, it was a good movie and I would recommend seeing it.<br /><br />In conclusion: Good Characters, Great Plot, Poorly Written/Edited Ending. Still, Go See It!!!
| 1 |
positive
|
Wow, I just LOVED watching all these hot babes! The scenery around Malibu and California was off the fizzy. I could watch it again just to see all that flesh crammed into those tiny, teeny bikinis! I recently saw Pilar Lastra, the steaming hot housekeeper in Malibu Spring Break, as a center fold in my favorite mag, PLAYBOY. She is hot, hot HOT! The opening seen was bitchin. When the two main girls run out of gas and stop at this desert gas station, they drive the gas-guy nuts with their bodies and skimpy outfits! The slow-mo lets me enjoy every inch of them! My girlfriend liked looking at this shredded hot dude too (now I'd like a bod like that) and at all the other hot dudes....and some of the girls too! Any movie that can bring that out in my girlfriend is a 10 + for me!
| 1 |
positive
|
To identify this movie as a vampire movie would be technically correct. Simply because it will suck the life right out of you.<br /><br />Vampire Effect is an insult to movie-buffs everywhere. The plot is almost non-existent. The make-up is just plain awful. And the acting is just not there.<br /><br />I have to wonder if Jackie Chan owed someone a huge favor to be convinced to appear in this film.<br /><br />My wife picked up the movie at the rental store because it had a picture of Jackie Chan on the front (as though he was playing the lead) and thought that a good JC flick would be fun to watch. This movie was interesting to watch in the same way that you can't help staring at the car wreck when you drive by. You realize very quickly the movie isn't going to get any better but, you keep watching wonder just how bad it will get.
| 0 |
negative
|
This is the worst film I have ever seen, bar none. From the flimsy-looking, poorly lit sets, to the laughable acting, to the infantile plot and shoddy, drawn-out action sequences, this film is so bad, its hilarious. For about ten minutes. After which you will be reaching for the remote or the power socket to end this film non-experience. Although it was obviously made with the entire production and acting staff's collective tongue rammed in cheek (please God), I found Jack Frost 2 so dreadful as to be unwatchable for more than a quarter of an hour. If you have not had enough of it after this time, you must be indulging in drug abuse.
| 0 |
negative
|
Erika Kohut is a woman with deep sexual problems. At the start of the film, we see her arriving home late. When her older mother protests, Erika goes into a frenzy, attacking the older woman without pity. Erika, as it turns out, is a musical teacher of a certain renown in the conservatory where she teaches. When we next see her, she is the model of composure, but she shows a cruel side in the way she attacks a young male student because she feels he is wasting his time, and hers. The same goes for the insecure Anna, a talented girl who Erika hates, maybe because she sees in the young woman a promise that she is not willing to promote.<br /><br />At the end of the day, we watch Erika as she goes into an amusement area and proceeds to one of the cabins where pornographic material is shown. Erika is transfixed as she watches the things that are being performed on the screen. On another occasion, Erika comes to a drive-in where a movie is in progress. Her attention goes toward a parked car in which, two lovers are performing a sex act. The camera lingers on Erika as she is lost in reverie watching what the two lovers are doing, until she is surprised by the young man inside the car. Erika flees horrified she's been discovered.<br /><br />When a wealthy couple invites Erika to perform in a recital in their opulent home, she meets an eager young man, Walter, who is related to the hosts. Walter is immediately taken with Erika's playing; the young man is a talented pianist himself. His eagerness to compliment Erika is met with skepticism on her part. Walter decides to audition for Erika's master class, and is accepted.<br /><br />Thus begins Walter pursuit of Erika, who is taken aback when she realizes what the young man's motives really are. In turn, Erika, begins to fantasize about Walter in ways that only her mind could, imagining what she would like him do when, and if, they get together. Walter gets turned off by the letter Erika has written to him, detailing sexual acts that are repugnant to the young man.<br /><br />The film's ending, reminded us of the last sequence of Mr. Haneke's current "Cache". We are taken to a concert hall where Erika is going to perform. She is seen stalking the lobby looking for the arrival of Walter, who goes on into the hall without noticing her. Erika's expression to the camera reveals a lot more of her state of mind in that last minutes of the film. As she flees the lobby area after inflicting a wound on herself, the camera abandons her and concentrates on the building's facade that seems to stay on the screen for a long time.<br /><br />"La Pianiste" is a personal triumph for Isabelle Huppert. This magnificent actress does one of her best appearances on the screen, guided by the sure hand of Michael Haneke, one of the most interesting directors working today. Ms. Huppert's works with economic gestures, yet, she projects so much of her soul as she burns the screen with her Erika.<br /><br />The supporting cast does wonders under the director's guidance. Annie Girardot, always excellent, is perfect as Erika's mother. She seems to be the key of whatever went wrong with her daughter. There is a hint of incest that is played with subtleness in the context of the film. Benoit Magimel is perfectly cast as Walter. This young actor does a wonderful job in the film as the young man, so in love with a woman that is possessed by demons, that he'll never be able to chase away or get her to love him in a normal manner.<br /><br />Michael Haneke films are always disturbing to watch, yet they offer so many rewards because he dares to go where other men don't. The magnificent music heard in the film are mainly by Schubert and Schumann, two composers that are Erika's own favorites. The movie is helped tremendously by Christian Berger's cinematography.
| 1 |
positive
|
When I was engaged, my fiance and I would frequent the adult bookstores. He would look for his favorite mags, and on occasion a video that caught the eye. As much as I enjoyed the one-on-one with him that the media caused, there was never a video that I really enjoyed. I had seen only one other movie way back when there was a satellite channel called XXX (it dealt with a private eye unraveling a case) that actually had a proper plot and was enjoyable. All the others were grunting and puffing and blowing and whatnot. There's only so many times you can watch a blonde bimbo faking 'it'.<br /><br />This movie caught my eye, and I migrated to it, allowing him to wander the shop. He noticed (how hard was it not too? grins. I was actually interested in something, lol(!) in the video section!) and came over, buying the slightly used copy for me. We took it home and I loved it. Here was a "Porno" with a plot. I wasn't sure it even classified as porno, but I use the word loosely.<br /><br />The librarian was a character I could identify with. Alice rejected her boyfriend's advances. She was not comfortable with her own sexuality and prudish in her comments. Bill went away, and she continued to check in books. The White Rabbit ran through the library (one book, if you notice closely, I believe (it's been ten years since I saw the movie) was by Lewis C.) and Alice, for that same reason that propels teenagers to run into the woods when a chainsaw wielding maniac is behind them rather than towards populated areas, follows. It's the best way to get the plot forward. Alice finds herself in Wonderland.<br /><br />I barely recall all the details, but I do remember clearly the swim in the lake, and how she was "dried" off. I liked how they got Humpty Dumpty Up again, the Mad Hatter's size of member being on his hat to wear it proudly, and the brother sister team of Dum and Dee (which did disturb me slightly--then again, they could have been husband wife, but I never could tell no matter how many times I watched it). The woman on the knight who told Alice go away and find your own Knight (What's a A Nice Girl Like You Doing on a Knight Like This?).<br /><br />The part that really caught my attention when I watched it about a year or so later was one of the cards (3 of hearts, I think) who resembled my ex's current wife exactly! We couldn't help but tease her about being in the movie! The King of Hearts was interesting, and the Queen was even more so. Due to the openness of the forum, I can't go into details, just say it was "orgy" based and we'll leave it at that!<br /><br />When we split up, I was allowed to take the video--he knew I liked it--but in the time since it's been lost in borrowing. Someday I'll find another copy.<br /><br />Btw, if anyone could tell me offlist what scene was cut from the Amazon version, I'd really appreciate it.<br /><br />I heartily recommend this movie for the over 18 crowd. It was soft, sweet, and really 70's, but I liked it immensely.<br /><br />***** out of 5. D.
| 1 |
positive
|
I watched this movie when it was released and being really young and not too much into cinema it was one of the most fascinating cinematic experiences I ever had and it really left a mark inside me.At first I didn't quite understand the story and probably failed to make the necessary correlations between past and present as the movie presents them to the viewer.<br /><br />Years after I first watched I managed to watch it again and this was the time that I fell in love with 'The English Patient', it touched me so deeply and for me it became the best film ever made.<br /><br />Anthony Minghella made an absolutely stunning film, all the locations are amazing and through his camera he manages to create unbelievable emotions inside you.<br /><br />Of course, the music of the film is such a big part of the whole emotional journey of the characters and the film would not be the same without it.<br /><br />But personally the best thing was the fragile performance that Ralph Fiennes gave in this masterpiece. He plays so well the man that falls in love slowly but so deeply with Katherine Clifton,opens up his heart and dives into this prohibited affair.<br /><br />The most heart-breaking scene for me will always be the one where hurt Katherine is carried by Almasy towards the Cave of Swimmers and she wears the thimble that he bought her.She says 'I always wore it.I always loved you' and at that moment he starts crying with such pain flowing from inside him.<br /><br />Juliette Binoche is also amazing in her performance and really deserved the Oscar she won.<br /><br />Overall, this is a film that anybody who proclaims himself a cinema lover should watch in their lives.
| 1 |
positive
|
It' s easier to watch this film if one views it as a scenario created by Star Fleet Lieutenant Reginald Barclay during his holodeck addiction. (Barclay is a recurring Star Trek character played by Dwight Schultz.)<br /><br />Dwight Schultz is miscast as Oppenheimer. Oppenheimer's character is poorly written, so we never see the depth and breadth of his knowledge. Instead, we see a shallow, two dimensional figure from a soap opera. Paul Newman is also miscast as General Leslie Groves, but this movie's problems go beyond having the wrong actors in the wrong roles.<br /><br />The factual errors and great liberties taken (with the chronology of events) in order to advance screenwriter Bruce Robinson's political agenda make this movie embarrassing to watch. That's probably why this movie has found a home on the so-called History Channel. <br /><br />"Fat Man and Little Boy" combine bad science, bad history, bad screenwriting and mediocre acting to produce a movie that should not be viewed by impressionable high school or college students who know nothing about the Manhattan Project.
| 0 |
negative
|
It pays to watch Reader's Digest. Or Time, if it was the original source of the article that served as a supposed inspiration to Mani Ratnam to make this masterpiece. Based on a true story of an adopted girl who goes in search of her biological parents, Mr. Ratnam paints a classic that rivets as much as it rebukes, cherishes as much as it chastens and preaches as much as it practises.<br /><br />Where does one start? The foreboding gloom that precedes fresh strife in northern Sri Lanka? The chaotic household of a family headed by a firebrand engineer-author and 3 adorably naughty children? Or that murky region where reality crosses the point of providing a comfortable existence and becomes a monster of incredulous and sinister events and ideologies? Whichever way one looks at it, this film is worth being in your collection, if you happen to like Mani Ratnam's compelling dramas.<br /><br />Mr. Ratnam is a past master in blending fictional tales within real life incidents and in this film, he oozes class in adapting two real-life stories into one. I will not go into the story as it is better seen than read. But, what I will dwell upon is the impact it had upon me and why, for all the war-mongering that happens in this world, it cannot destroy that simple yet inexhaustible force called hope.<br /><br />Innocence, in its purity, cannot fathom the complex desires of adult decadence and greed. Nor does it recognize perils when it is accompanied by the fierce determination to seek what it wants. It is an innocence of such nature that drives Amudha to seek her biological parents, despite warnings that they could be lost in the cauldron of civil war. Having survived a terrorizing experience of conversing with a physically challenged man only to realize that he is a more lethal entity in disguise, Amudha sticks to her cause in a manner that tears down her well-wishers' resistance. And finally, when the twain do meet, mother and daughter, the reunion is so taut with emotion that even the temperamental adoptive father is reduced to tears. Aided by a coruscating background score from A R Rahman, the scene that follows is poignant to melt even the stoniest of hearts: a list of questions that Amudha has to ask her biological mother. In a culmination as dramatic as the sequence of incidents leading to it, a child discovers its mother, alive in body but lost in spirit. With the crushing realization that she has no hope of staying with the one who bore her, Amudha does to her adoptive mother what this film's title means: a peck on the cheek.<br /><br />As for the cast, the trail is clearly blazed by the brilliant PS Keerthana. Mr. Ratnam has a gift of extracting spectacular performances from little-known child artistes, but this should take nothing away from Keerthana for an award-winning performance. With an able supporting cast of Madhavan (Thiru), Simran (Indira) and the stupendous Nandita Das (Shyama), she embellishes the scenes in almost every frame she is in. The music may be not as memorable as other Rahman offerings but that still didn't stop him from garnering another National Award for the best music direction. "Vellai Pookal" is as much an ode for the need to cherish human life as it is for nature. The dialogues are top-class (sample the touching exchange Amudha and Indira have on the swing, shortly after the revelation that she is not Indira's biological daughter) and the cinematography, superb.<br /><br />This film is a clear statement to drop arms as much as it is to respect human life and expressions. Do not judge it as a lesson in film-making; you will only lose out on experiencing one of the very best from the Mani Ratnam-A R Rahman stable.
| 1 |
positive
|
It was a movie that made ya think a little. Some parts a little cheesy, some parts pretty good. Plot did thicken at times and just when you thought Angella (Sandra) found a friend the friend was fraud or dead. All I got to say is that DENNIS MILLER should have been in the whole movie. His character was the best, very refreshing after all the crap Angella went through. He would have lifted me and Angella through the dumps.
| 1 |
positive
|
I hadn't heard of Soap Girl but I saw a poster with a five star review from Film Threat outside the theater so I figured, how bad could it be? Well, I soon found out. My god this film was awful. The most wooden acting I have ever seen outside of a porn flick. Absolutely agonizing dialogue. I just can't understand how this was made and why anyone agreed to be a part of it. And I find it completely unfathomable that this was actually being shown in a theater and money was being charged to see it. How did this happen????? And most importantly WHAT THE WAS THE GUY FROM FILM THREAT THINKING?!?!?!?!
| 0 |
negative
|
I haven't been a fan of Madonna for quite sometime now, however, I thought I would comment on this film.<br /><br />This film mistaken. One of them, as well as Madonna, was panned by the critics. They were highly mistaken and many potential viewers were turned off by the bad reviews.<br /><br />First, Madonna does an excellent job in this movie which was one of her first. She plays a ditsy blonde in the film, she is far from a ditsy blonde in real life. Most critics were somewhat prejudiced by her singing fame and didn't give her a fair shake. When you view this film I hope that you understand that the accent and the goofiness is just acting. She was absolutely hysterical as was the film.<br /><br />Griffen Dunne is another person who was not given a fair review in the film. If you take a look at his filmography, you will see he is quite an accomplished actor.<br /><br />As far as the movie itself, this is something similar to pretty woman, but came 3 years before the Roberts, Gere success. It's a goof-ball comedy with lots of site gags, slapstick and one liners. Some of the comedy is deadpan and takes a comedy aficionado to really appreciate the more subtle humor.<br /><br />I know this doesn't tell you much about the movie, however, I hope this helps dispel any belief that this is a poor movie. It is absolutely worth renting for an enjoyable night of great fun.<br /><br />Peace.<br /><br />Gary
| 1 |
positive
|
1st watched 7/29/2001 - 4 out of 10 (Dir-Mark Dindal): Fast-paced, frantic animation effort by Ted Turner's feature animation group plays a lot like tv cartoons and leaves a lot to be desired in the area of likeable characters, but definetly has extremely unlikeable villains. I'm not even sure why the kids would like this movie because there are so many references to old movie stars that kids know very little or nothing about. Mediocre effort at best despite raves on the box comparing it to Disney efforts like Aladdin and Lion King. Don't let this fool you -- there is no comparison in story or quality.
| 0 |
negative
|
I have really nothing to add to all the other comments, save this: To me the film looked like a silent film slowly being adapted to sound. The text boards bringing the story along reinforced that impression I suppose. Along the way the actors were allowed to leave the stilted, theatre-like acting; Marguerite Churchill very much looks like a typical early silent movie heroine at the beginning of the film, but at the end is allowed finer expressions. Gus, the Swede?, reminded me of the comic characters of Shakespeare plays, and Windy sounded to me like an early Donald Duck.<br /><br />It truly amazed me that it was all filmed outdoors, on location, and even though the dust of all the wagons, horses and cattle obscured the view it must actually have been like that for the real settlers! It also was clear to me that many of those Indians must have been real, and I didn't detect any overt racism towards them. And John Wayne looks so incredibly young! As someone who became a real Wayne fan through the cavalry trilogy by John Ford, and thought that Stage Coach was Wayne's first as a leading star, this film was a revelation. The plot is very simple, again reminding me of a silent film, but the grit is very real indeed! An amazing film to have been made with that technique and under those conditions in 1930.
| 1 |
positive
|
I may be a good old boy from Virginia in the Confederate States of America, but this man does it for me. That mustache gets me riled up. I remember when I first saw a video of his. That girl he beat was amazing. The depth of his acting when they cut to his weathered facade was a new level of masculinity. It reminds me of the granite sculptures of our Mt. Rushmore. If I could ask him one question, it would be,"If you were a hot-dog, would you eat yourself?" Will Orhan be doing a reunion tour? Take note from the greats like Gordon Lightfoot, true music from the heart never fades away. Vive La John Denver. Gracias my friend, O.F.F.L. (Orhan Fan For Life)
| 1 |
positive
|
I was looking forward to this flick. Being an old Robert E Howard fan, mainly from a Conan stand-point. <br /><br />I was not expecting a great deal and thought they could not mess it up too much.... Oh dear - how wrong was I....<br /><br />The main flaw was it was fairly dull. It needed to zip along with a nice helping of supernatural goings-on, sword-fights and the like.<br /><br />You got some gore, but everything else was just pretty life-less. The middle section just seemed to involve 40 minutes in a muddy forest with slow plodding horse-drawn carts and even slower dialogue and character development!<br /><br />On the plus side = Costumes and effects were fine, but not enough to keep your interest.<br /><br />I think it would have been better to tone down the gore, up the tempo, and go for a 12A rating. As a Ten Year old boy, I may have liked this movie. Probably about the age I was first reading the Conan stories funny enough. Perhaps that says a lot about my anticipation of the film?<br /><br />Or....... Go really "Art-House" with tone, direction, etc. But that's fairly high-risk as far as Box Office is concerned.<br /><br />Oh well.... Perhaps the next Conan movie will make up for it?
| 0 |
negative
|
I rented this obscure aussie relic a few years ago to show at a friend`s place and it was an instant success.The classic tale of the wizard of oz with a decidedly cornball 70`s australian twist.The acting isn`t exactly shakespeare society stuff here,but later ,"Mad max"star Bruce Spence is a beautifully understated surfie/scarecrow and there are some wonderfull comic turns by Gary Wadell and Robin Ramsay as a deliciously 70`s camp fairy godmother/father character.Also note the musical contribution from ex-Daddy Cool frontman Ross Wilson on the title song.In a similar vein to later-day aussie comedies such as "Priscilla queen of the desert".Good fun.
| 1 |
positive
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.