text
stringlengths 49
12.1k
| label
int64 0
1
| label_text
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|
Mario Van Peebles tries to go the Jean-Claude Van Damme route and play a renegade robotic soldier who goes AWOL to preserve himself, however the government isn't going to take this lying down, so among the simplistic plot Van Peebles protects villagers from the rebel forces and defeats a improved version of himself in this disappointing film. This blatant rip off of Universal Soldier (Which is far more fun then this) simply goes nowhere. The main problem is that the movie is so unbelievably inert. Van Peebles just waits around and there just isn't enough ass-kicking to justify a viewing. On the other hand the movie does sort of resemble a competent version of R.O.T.O.R although where as that abysmal bad movie was hilarious, this one only yields occasional laughter in its laughably unconvincing action sequences. Also like R.O.T.O.R it makes no sense in its narrative and basically the movie is awesomely boring. Plus the villains are disappointingly weak and basically the movie needs an actual action scenario to work, because the material is too dull. In all regards Solo is a very weak film.<br /><br />*1/2 out of 4-(Poor)
| 0 |
negative
|
As stated by others, this is a ludicrously horrible movie (NOT A FILM!). It is not bad in a funny way, just painful to try to endure. Don't waste your time.<br /><br />Erika Eleniak is pretty hot, but there is one scene where she is in a bathtub, and you can see the wrap covering her breasts under the bubbles. Also, she's getting fat.<br /><br />The fight scenes are so bad as to be unwatchable, if you know or care anything about martial arts, or even decent choreography, and the editing/effects are abysmal.<br /><br />There is no payoff, it goes nowhere, and sucks getting there.
| 0 |
negative
|
This movie features a pretty decent FX sequence of an earthquake for 1936. The reason you haven't seen it, is because audiences in the 30s were enamored of the "Jeanette MacDonald picture;" in which the eponymous star warbled her way through countless songs, while plots came to a complete standstill. The FX cross time very well. MacDonald's songs do not, and the awkward insertion of said songs to show off her only typical talent is not good. <br /><br />The hoary device of two friends growing up to become a priest and a hoodlum is given another run through the machinery (Manhattan Melodrama, The Departed). At the 30 minute mark, you've already heard the song 'San Francisco' three times. Entertainment in the thirties is generally an accumulation of irritation. Only Grand Hotel from the decade foregoes annoyance to the degree shown in San Francisco, Dinner at 8, Little Caesar, Stagecoach, All Quiet on the Western Front, Les Miserables etc..
| 0 |
negative
|
A plane carrying employees of a large biotech firm--including the CEO's daughter--goes down in thick forest in the Pacific Northwest. When the search and rescue mission is called off, the CEO, Harlan Knowles (Lance Henriksen), puts together a small ragtag group to execute their own search and rescue mission. But just what is Knowles searching for and trying to rescue, and just what is following and watching them in the woods? <br /><br />Oy, what a mess this film was! It was a shame, because for one, it stars Lance Henriksen, who is one of my favorite modern genre actors, and two, it could have easily been a decent film. It suffers from two major flaws, and they're probably both writer/director Jonas Quastel's fault--this film (which I'll be calling by its aka of Sasquatch) has just about the worst editing I've ever seen next to Alone in the Dark (2005), and Quastel's constant advice for the cast appears to have been, "Okay, let's try that again, but this time I want everyone to talk on top of each other, improvise non-sequiturs and generally try to be as annoying as possible".<br /><br />The potential was there. Despite the rip-off aspects (any material related to the plane crash was obviously trying to crib The Blair Witch Project (1999) and any material related to the titular monster was cribbing Predator (1987)), Ed Wood-like exposition and ridiculous dialogue, the plot had promise and potential for subtler and far less saccharine subtexts. The monster costume, once we actually get to see it, was more than sufficient for my tastes. The mixture of character types trudging through the woods could have been great if Quastel and fellow writer Chris Lanning would have turned down the stereotype notch from 11 to at least 5 and spent more time exploring their relationships. The monster's "lair" had some nice production design, specifically the corpse decorations ala a more primitive Jeepers Creepers (2001). If it had been edited well, there were some scenes with decent dialogue that could have easily been effective.<br /><br />But the most frightening thing about Sasquatch is the number of missteps made: For some reason, Quastel thinks it's a good idea to chop up dialogue scenes that occur within minutes of each other in real time so that instead we see a few lines of scene A, then a few lines of scene B, then back to A, back to B, and so on.<br /><br />For some reason, he thinks it's a good idea to use frequently use black screens in between snippets of dialogue, whether we need the idea of an unspecified amount of time passing between irrelevant comments or whether the irrelevant comments seem to be occurring one after the other in time anyway.<br /><br />For some reason, he doesn't care whether scenes were shot during the morning, afternoon, middle of the night, etc. He just cuts to them at random. For that matter, the scenes we're shown appear to be selected at random. Important events either never or barely appear, and we're stuck with far too many pointless scenes.<br /><br />For some reason, he left a scene about cave art in the film when it either needs more exposition to justify getting there, or it needs to just be cut out, because it's not that important (the monster's intelligence and "humanity" could have easily been shown in another way).<br /><br />For some reason, there is a whole character--Mary Mancini--left in the script even though she's superfluous.<br /><br />For some reason we suddenly go to a extremely soft-core porno scene, even though the motif is never repeated again.<br /><br />For some reason, characters keep calling Harlan Knowles "Mr. H", like they're stereotypes of Asian domestics.<br /><br />For some reason, Quastel insists on using the "Blurry Cam" and "Distorto-Cam" for the monster attack scenes, even though the costume doesn't look that bad, and it would have been much more effective to put in some fog, a subtle filter, or anything else other than bad cinematography.<br /><br />I could go on, but you get the idea.<br /><br />I really wanted to like this film better than I didI'm a Henriksen fan, I'm intrigued by the subject, I loved the setting, I love hiking and this is basically a hiking film on one level--but I just couldn't. Every time I thought it was "going to be better from this point until the end", Quastel made some other awful move. In the end, my score was a 3 out of 10.
| 0 |
negative
|
Despite the solid performance of Penelope Ann Miller, this movie was an awkward mess. The lead character's American accent was ridiculous and he never seemed comfortable as a result. There was no chemistry between the two actors and I'm still not sure what Ann-Margaret was doing there.
| 0 |
negative
|
Don't you ever miss the good old days when Disney actually made great movies that really moved you? Growing up with Disney I always found myself being captivated by the characters. Every single one seemed truly talented and knew how to act their way through a movie. I remember Friday nights and running to turn on the TV just to watch their newest movies. Susie Q was one of my all time favorites. I never forgot this movie. Even till this day when one mentions the song "Susie Q" I always remember the movie. If anyone is thinking of watching this movie I promise you, you will fall in love with it. I don't think I will ever be able to forget it. You will not regret watching it. <br /><br />Unfortunately it's sad to see Disney movies such as "The Hannah Montana Movie" come out. What ever happened to Disney?
| 1 |
positive
|
If you just watched All Dogs Go To Heaven, and learn that there's a sequel, don't watch it. It's horrible. It's absolutely awful. They rush the characters to develop. Sasha, for example, begins singing about how you can count her out for love. And at the end, this seems more like a dramatic romance flick than a comedy-adventure film. They rip Charlie out of his character and replace him with a gushy, soft, but still rebellious version of himself.<br /><br />The humor behind Carface's character is just completely lost. He's a totally different dog. He doesn't have a cool voice anymore, he isn't that villain you love to hate anymore, he's just a wimp voiced by none other than Mermaid Man from Spongebob. Speaking of voice actors..<br /><br />Charlie has a completely different voice. And while it isn't horrible, I don't like it. It's terrible in comparison to the excellent job that Burt Reynolds did for the character in the first film. Dom DeLuise is wonderful as always, as Itchy. That character stays true, and that's why this film gets a 3/10. Purely because Dom DeLuise was still voicing Itchy.<br /><br />Oh, and my last complaint. I know Ann-Marie's movie was done and gone, she has parents now, etc, but did Charlie completely forget about her, or what? No mention at ALL of her in the second film. I mean, even a small mention from Itchy would have been acceptable. (ex. "Charlie, we have to get back. You can't take care of every kid that needs rescuing.) Or something of the sort. I mean, he died living with her, she deserves some kind of mention.<br /><br />Don't watch this if you're looking for a wonderful sequel.
| 0 |
negative
|
Nurse Betty is really an interesting movie. I guess we all know someone who is so convinced that the characters in a soap opera are real, that you can't explain them with any means that these are just actors and not real persons.<br /><br />'Nurse Betty' isn't a nurse at all. In real life she is an ordinary housewife who works at a diner. To escape from her awful husband and the problems in her miserable life, she has become a very dedicated fan of a soap opera. After she witnessed her husband being murdered, she goes into some kind of a shock and she loses all grip on reality. She thinks she's in love with one of the characters from the soap opera, a doctor, and decides that she'll visit him and start a family with him. The hit men however think that she knows too much and go after her to kill her.<br /><br />As I already said, the subject is quite recognizable (if you leave the professional hit men and the murder out of it) and the movie was funny. The story was well directed and the actors did a fine job. It had everything I always want to see when watching a comedy. I give it a 7.5/10.
| 1 |
positive
|
This straight to video cheap flick is based on a true story. I don't doubt it. Doesn't mean it's particularly interesting (unless you are one of the main characters who actually lived though this experience). A young woman named Angela buys a great, big old country home really really cheap. Well, as we all know from watching Horror movies, when you buy a big house cheap it usually means it's haunted in some way, shape or form. In fact, the second the house is being handed over to Angela the wise guy kid who lived in the house up to now takes a moment to "introduce" Angela to one of the ghosts! Nice guy, huh? Angela gets in touch with a psychic and a paranormal expert and tells them that her house is haunted and invites them to come over and see the ghosts for themselves. They come to a party and sure enough there are ghosts walking around, sitting on the couch, hanging in the garage and trying to seduce people in the bathroom. A few friends sleep over the night of the party, see the ghosts and vow never to come back in the house again. (Check out the girl who deadpans "I'm so scared. I'm so scared." totally emotionless. If she was so scared why didn't she get up, turn the knob and leave?!) The ghosts don't really do anything menacing aside from show up (And there is no blurriness or aura about them. They look just like regular people). They steal celery from the kitchen, move chairs around a la POLTERGEIST and one bisexual female ghost seduces Angela, who, get this, doesn't seem to mind! This scene plays like the kind of soft-core porn you see on the SPICE channel. (Ummm...not that I'd KNOW! Hahaha). The actresses aren't your typical porn stars though. They should hit the beach and the gym more. When Angela'ss NOT making love to the dead she gets mad at them and stands alone in a room screaming "Why won't you leave?! This is MY house! Get out!" They don't leave. I couldn't help but think of all the times I've heard psychic Sylvia Brown on TV saying that if you have a ghost in your house you should calmly rationalize with the ghost and say "Look, you're dead. It's time to cross over to the other side. In other words, get out!" According to Sylvia Brown, as long as your not hostile and nasty about it, they'll leave! This movie looks like it cost about $50 to make. It has a really cheap feel, and bad acting. I could have made this movie with 5 friends and a camcorder.
| 0 |
negative
|
If you have seen this movie, then you will know that it is one of the worst Bollywood movies ever made. Bollywood is known to copy Hollywood movies. Who would of known that they will copy Terminator 2. The difference between both Film industries are Hollywood spends millions and Bollywood spends 100 thousands (Average). Thats the problem with this film, if you want to make a T2 style movie, then do it properly. The director added a bogus fantasy storyline about a reincarnated snake who finds his long lost girl (in the previous birth) dead by 2 guys, but the blame goes to 10 people. She suddenly reincarnates into a ghost and together they want to kill the 10 people they blame for her death. Not to mention, the Reincarnated snake guy or villain has some kind of super powers. He can transform into anything, he can fly, disappear, fire power, wind power, you name it, he has it. He even gets bazookered and survives the T1000 style. You are probably wondering how he survives. its best not to ask, and its best not to waste time and money on this movie. Its Best just to forget this film even came out. I think its a shame to use a big starcast for this outrageous movie with a nonsense storyline.
| 0 |
negative
|
Although I brought this film by accident (I thought it was the original Halloween(stupid eh!)) I was surprised by how good it was, many sequels just continue the events of the previous films, this however tried and succeeded in explaining the events of the prequels, why does Michael Myers kill people and how come he seems to have supernatural abilities. I thought this was a top horror film full of action, suspense and surprises, I'm very glad I brought it. I've given it 9 out of 10.
| 1 |
positive
|
As a Canadian History major, my first thing to say : HISTORICAL FACTS ARE NOT ACCURATE! How can a producer do that? The deportation of the Acadian wasn't in 1759 when we see Franklin in London, but in 1755! How can he pass that in the movie? The scenes in Londo were useless too. Then for the story for anyone that read "Les Anciens Canadians", you have the story line right there. It's the story of La Coriveau, that "witch". Add a love story too and a tragic relationship between mother and daughter ending. Sure, it brought tears to my eyes. But that's it. Then there's the fact it's apparently set up in Québec City, but it's mostly shot at the Forteresse de Louisbourg. Sure it's a historical site and it's accurate to the time, but it was obvious that the scenes were not all set in Québec City. Overall, if you're looking for a documentary of New France, go get Candad : A People's History, a real documentary on the history of Canda and NEw France. If you want a love story that will bring you tears, a story set up in a wonderful forest, watch New France.
| 0 |
negative
|
The historical inaccuracies of this film have been well documented. It was never intended to be serious history but an entertaining saga and there it succeeds. Errol Flynn was never better as this role was tailored for him. Olivia DeHavilland was never more beautiful. Arthur Kennedy never more villainous. Anthony Quinn never more noble than as Crazy Horse. It had much humor and pathos and held your interest throughout. The one historical aspect I found most glaringly inaccurate was the final "Last Stand" which occurred on the banks of the Little Big Horn. The film version was filmed in a desert with no river in sight. However, I still consider it marvelous entertainment typical of Hollywood's golden age.
| 1 |
positive
|
I would just like to point out (in addition to pleading for the series to be released on DVD) that a show does not have to be realistic to be entertaining. These days, with all the blood and gore in the news and in crime dramas, reality shows, etc. it's nice to get lost in a good, cheesy show with entertaining characters. PWOG fits the bill. Was it Emmy material? No, but it was awesome just the same.<br /><br />I also have to put a vote in for the second cast - they were more charismatic than the cast of season one. I would definitely agree that the first season had a more serious vibe than the second two, but I was definitely more sucked in by the latter cast. Even though the series has been off the air for years, I'll never stop hoping that it be released for purchase.
| 1 |
positive
|
This film is outstanding! On this date of APR, 8 2007 it was on On demand from show time. It had been a while since i seen it, but it does feature Thomas Jane in the first role i seen him in. At first you see a normal guy that seems kind of henpecked, with a wife that seems close to going her own way. The directors cut which i just watched has a opening scene that is cool. Paulina Porizkova is dressed as a cheerleader type, looking very fresh and hot. Trying to buy a coffee late at night with no small bills turns violent in a hurry, Paulina shows that her name on her letter jacket is the real deal. Meeting up with his old road pal Nick played by Aaron Eckhart was cool at first, and he even loans him his wife's car to take care of some business. Then he spots nicks silver briefcase, and the day changes for the weird and violent. There is a cast of real characters that parade through the next series of scenes. But, Paulina's Dallas steals the show i think. Her telling of a Casey story to the doctor that is there to get a personal interview in a adoption application, is outrageous. As a rule i have never thought tall women were that sexy,but as with any rule there are exceptions. Paulina is as one has never seen her before in films. Sexy and lethal, like in the one movie with Tom Selleck, but with a never seen before malevolence. If your looking for film to add to your collection, this one is worth the price. Paulina in the nude is worth the price alone, but this story has everything one might hope one has. Love,friendship,sex and violence in a terrific mix. When i first seen it years ago it blew my mind, and i know you will feel the same way.
| 1 |
positive
|
Barney and Friends is probably the worst kids show that I have ever seen. It teaches kids nothing, the songs are corny, it is not educational and the characters are just plain agitating. I am not one to disagree with those who hate the show. Honestly, I have seen more negative than positive reviews for this show. 75% of the reviews are negative and there are some really mature people. This show contains no educational value or age-appropriate educational material whatsoever. More reasons why I dislike this show is because of the crappy plots, cheesy dialogue, horrid special effects and the abysmal story lines. Besides, it says that you should eat junk food if you are sad and that strangers are your friends. Saying that is a "model of what preschool television should be",as expressed by Yale researchers Dorothy and Jerome Singer, is a load of crap. They don't know what they're talking about. I would never recommend Barney to anyone. Te reason why some kids keep crying for or get addicted to junk is because of this show poisoning the minds of children everywhere. For people(parents/children) who seek real preschool mater, switch over to Nick Jr. and watch "Super Why!" instead. It's far more better than this turd and Five TV once had the nerve to put it on "milkshake" but thankfully took it off. I highly advise everyone to keep far away from this show as possible. Parents, I highly advise you to keep your kids as far away from this show as possible. They'll thank you later.<br /><br />BOTTOM LINE: Don't Bother Wasting Your Valuable Time With This Stupid Show. It's Utter Garbage. -10000000000000/10. Grade: Z. Avoid Like The Plague!<br /><br />Thanks for reading.
| 0 |
negative
|
I guess I should now comment upon a 4th flick in the MAGNIFICENT SEVEN franchise; the sequels still surprise or amaze meby their sleaze and deliberate _absurdism. They constitute or forge a 4th waynot classic, not revisionist, not Europeanbut a sleaze Americana, kindred to the violent vigilante '70s movies, absurd trash. This installment too is bombastic sleazeinexplicably awkward and even somewhat strange.<br /><br />Now what I find disturbing that these sequels not only have their opportunist fans; but that the fans simply do not sense any difference between the original's style and the sequels'.<br /><br />These sequels are not boring or insipidbut bizarre. They are of course very badly writtenmessy scripts, rubbish lines. It's straight crazy; in this installment each gunman gets several women Van Cleef's young wife begs him to release a young prisoner; he finally does. The young man resumes his life, shoots Van Cleef, kidnaps the wife, rapes and kills herthen joins a wrongdoer. Van Cleef, who has previously refused to help defending a village, now assembles a small bunch and charges the wrongdoer's hacienda; then the wrongdoers charge the village where Van Cleef has set.<br /><br />I liked the cast.<br /><br />Van Cleef is Chris; Stefanie Powers, pretty active in the '70s screwy westerns, is Van Cleef's darling. Callan, very antipathetic, is Noah, a writer and Chris' sidekick. The rest of the aggressive bunch are Askew (one of the only three survivors), Armendariz, Lucking, Lauter; Rita Rogers is truly hot, fleshy beauty.
| 0 |
negative
|
Dan Dailey gives a sincere and colorful performance as the great Dizzy Dean. His handling of the character is very true to life and captures the flavor of Dean's background and limited education. The film of course centers around Dizzy Deans rise to fame and his sudden trip to the sidelines with an injury he chose to ignore, much to his regret. His wife is splendidly portrayed by Joanna Dru who gives a very down to earth quality to the woman who loved and supported the ballplayer who rose to a "dizzying height" so quickly. The portrayal of Dizzy's later career as a sportscaster is honest and unflinching, reflecting his troubles which stemmed from his poor education and his colorful language both on and off the air. Dizzy was quite a character and Daily has breathed life into his story with admirable skill. If you enjoyed this film, I recommend the comedy "Kid from Left Field" (1953) wherein Daily plays a down and out has-been ballplayer idolized by his young son (Billy Chapin). Daily again fleshes out a ballplayer in a completely satisfying manner. I heartily recommend Pride of St. Louis to baseball fans everywhere.
| 1 |
positive
|
This movie came out about the same time as Pretty Woman. While the general theme is the same: wealthy man meets and learns to love a poor working class woman, the characters of Romuald and Juliette are much more lovable and worthy of our time with them. I have never forgotten them and consider the movie superior to Pretty woman in so many ways. Juliette is a remarkable woman and the clever ways she helps her boss overcome his problems will make you cheer. The final scenes contain some of the most memorable lines in romantic comedy. The efforts Romuald makes to win the love of Juliette surpass the puny climbing scene of Pretty Woman a hundred times over. See this movie, it will warm your heart.
| 1 |
positive
|
Seems Sensei Seagal is getting more and more moralising and less "action packed". To date this has to be his worse movie... no action, a poor story line, an impossible plot and to make things worse, one of the CHEEZIEST endings I have ever seen.<br /><br />Seagal films are like seeing a Dirty-Harry, you do not go see it for the great social causes or impeccable acting... you want a good action flick.<br /><br />On a scale of 1 to 10, this one gets a 1...
| 0 |
negative
|
French Cinema sucks! Down with all these psychiotric visions with their my-God-am-I-cultivated distinguished attitudes! Pestilence to conceited symbolic film-language and impervious chiffres! I'll no longer have a mind for that! Léos Carax, did you ever think about, that a dialogue in a film could be natural and vivid??? Maybe I'm too common to understand you? Or had it been your task to confirm all the clichés of a Frenchman the world can have? Guillaume the to-be-guilliotined comes to his home-palace, Mme. Deneuve, not in the picture, plays the flute: "Here am I, darling!" In this moment, I knew, that she's in the bathtub, and we`ll see her lying in there soon. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not prudish, and the incestous sex scene was the climax of the film. But this is, in Berlin, we say "etepetete", what means something like "être-peut-être", a snobistic, self-satisfied, and, the worst, seen that often in French movies I can tell! Other example: She, beautiful and willing, is looking at herself in a mirror, combing her hair, and her wild-bearded, dirty young guru rushs into the room, breathless shouting: "There's no escape, there's no escape!" Forty years after existencialistic Sartres and consorts- what's new, what's exciting about? My God, there's that woman and she loves and admires you, what would be more natural to be happy with your life? And when you're not, please explain much better, why!! Born French means you have to live a life in extravaganza, no escape, is that the point?
| 0 |
negative
|
Just reading why this show got canceled makes me rather steamed. This was a favorite of mine as a kid and I always watched it when it came on no matter how many times I saw the episode. Sure the effects were not great, but they were also not horrible either. They did a fairly good job with the costume and it had the nice 70's vibe to it that is always enjoyable to see and hear as the music was also very 70's. It did not really have any villains from the comics, but then most comic book live show adaptations had none to very few actual super villains from the comics. Spidey's powers were a bit different here too, he had his Spidey sense and he could climb walls, but he was not nearly as strong as the Spider-man of the comics. He was super strong though as I do remember an episode where he broke into a room by breaking the door knob off, he just was not the car hurler that the one from the comic book can be. The show was set in Los Angelos so there were not as man buildings to swing from, but they did okay with the web. It is nice that this show actually has the web shooters and not organic shooters of the movie. I love the movies, but part of me wishes they would start over and do the more smarty pants Spidey that has the mechanical web shooters. This show had a good star as Peter Parker and he was okay as Spider-man, it is nice to see a Spidey who does not basically live in the slums like he does in the movies. Neither this show nor the movie though has a Spider-man that is quick with the insult like the one in the comic. Still, this show was fun without being as corny as the Batman show.
| 1 |
positive
|
...instead, watch it as a great coming of age tale about African American males in the mid 1960's in the ghettos of Chicago. For all of you out there under the age of 50, "What's Happening" was a light-hearted rather quirky sitcom with very few serious moments that lasted four years (1975-1979) concerning a group of young African American high school kids living in a working class neighborhood. I liked it a great deal - it just has no real connection to this film. "Cooley High" started out as being the basis for "What's Happening", but its serious nature did not register well with test audiences, so it was redone as a comedy, even though the credits on "What's Happening" still read that it was based on this movie.<br /><br />This film starts out light, but touches many aspects of life unique to the turbulent 1960's and also some other aspects of growing up that are timeless. The guys deal with sex, betrayal, joblessness, hopelessness, and even early death. The ending is quite powerful and serious, and the film has a great Motown soundtrack. Highly recommended. Unfortunately, this film is not new enough to be played on premium cable channels and not considered old enough to be considered a classic movie and played in the few venues for those films either.
| 1 |
positive
|
The success of the original French "Emmanuelle" series (I've only watched the first, which wasn't too bad considering) led to a spate of imitations; the Italian counterpart, which even changed the race of its heroine, was clearly less polished and more exploitative - descending more and more into vulgarity as the series went along. Incredibly, there were 16 "Black Emanuelle" films in total, with the heroine even having the spelling of her name changed to avoid copyright issues!! Still, Laura Gemser - the titular object of desire - became almost as much of an icon as the original Emmanuelle, Sylvia Kristel (although, personally, she's too skinny for my tastes)! Here she's even billed as "Emanuelle" rather than with her real name - with the director, likewise, becoming "Albert Thomas"! <br /><br />In itself, the film offers little of interest: as a matter of fact, one would do best to approach it as a travelogue with some decent footage of the African wildlife. With respect to the sex scenes, I don't know how complete the version I watched was but, while there was a lot of nudity, none of it was very explicit - or even titillating (the scene that came closest, perhaps, was when Gemser - who works as a photographer - and her companion Karin Schubert turn the camera on each other, naturally sans clothes, in the middle of the jungle)! The film also features an artist made up to look like Salvador Dali but, mercifully perhaps, his scenes do not take much of the running time. The score by Nico Fidenco is typically bland 70s pop and, really, nothing to write home about.
| 0 |
negative
|
I was delighted when I saw that my husband rented "Labyrinth of Passion". I love Almodovar's films. We both loved the movie. We both couldn't stop laughing. We especially enjoyed the scene in which the transvestite is shooting a photo novel, and while supposedly being menaced by a killer with an electric drill, is told to answer the phone and say, "I can't talk to you right now, I'm being attacked by a sadistic serial killer. If I survive I will call you back". (That would make a great answering machine message come to think of it). We also loved the lady telling her new found beloved, "I went to an orgy after the concert but I couldn't stop thinking of you." (I'm waiting to use that line on Twitter). "Labyrinth of Passion" is a rollicking farce with plenty of high jinks, hilarious dialog and eye candy for everyone. The film has aged well: the 1980s costumes and hairdos add to the wackiness. I would give it a 10 out of 10 rating but I am giving it a 8 for two reasons. The first is the scene which involves laxatives which includes a shot of a lady soiling herself: totally unnecessary, and it brings down the tone of the film to Hollywood gross-out comedy for a moment. The second is the suggestion that Queti is sleeping with her father: shocking, yes, but again, it ruins the tone of the film. Still, I would recommend the film to anyone who wants a sophisticated, spicy, and fun time.
| 1 |
positive
|
I recently viewed a copy of this (under the title 'Eaten Alive') Talk about dreadful! Any movie Ed Wood ever put out looks like Oscar material compared to this laughable tosh. To be fair a couple of lines from the script will live long in the memory such as "These people (Cannibals) don't buy frozen meat from a supermarket like us, they get it fresh everyday from folk like you or me" Classic! The mad 'Jonesville' type leader out in the jungle was the best character in the film, he really did look like a nutter. I think he was the only actor not to be dubbed in (badly), if these Italians must have American characters in their films why dont they get Americans to dub in the dialogue instead of English people trying their best to sound like Annie Oakley. I'll give this 3 out of 10, I'll give it three because it really is funnier than most comedies out these days.
| 0 |
negative
|
This French film is supposedly about a creepy, dim-witted cop who investigates the rape and murder of a young girl in a small town. However, the film is really about nothing and it takes forever to say nothing. If it takes a character ten minutes to walk from Point A to Point B, the film spends ten minutes showing this walk, and these are the "action" scenes. There are also static shots that last for minutes, making the viewer wonder if he accidentally hit the pause button on the remote. The script has enough material for a 20-minute movie. The movie lasts seven hours or so. You do the math. The actors were apparently amateurs and it shows. Note to self: never see a Dumont movie again.
| 0 |
negative
|
I'm a big fan of surrealist art, but this film by Bunuel (with some ideas from Dali) left me cold. Bunuel had a life-long grudge against the Catholic church and delighted in trying to offend Catholics in fairly silly ways. This is one of the silliest; almost like what you'd expect from a smart-aleck 18-year-old in film class. The last few minutes of the movie, which have nothing to do with anything else, are a final nose-thumbing at religion.<br /><br />If you read the "scholars" regarding this slow-paced, occasionally amusing film, it's all about how the church and society are guilty of sexual repression. If that is indeed the point, then Bunuel expresses it in the most roundabout fashion possible. The central male character is a nasty brute who loves kicking dogs and knocking blind men down in the street, and who mentally turns billboard ads into strange sexual fantasies. Is this behavior the church's fault (for interrupting his lovemaking), or is he just a jerk? I vote for the latter. I think Bunuel must have had a lot of personal hangups and chose the Catholics as the ones to blame.<br /><br />There are a few moments where you might cry, "Aha! surrealism!": a cow in a bed, a giraffe falling out a window (a poor model), a man shredding a feather pillow, a woman flushing a toilet while we watch pictures of seething lava (or a mud pit...hard to tell in B/W). The rest is forgettable self-indulgence. Unfortunately, Bunuel was still chasing the same bogey-men through the rest of his career (Viridiana, Discreet Charm...). If you're interested in seeing surrealism on the screen, check out Jean Cocteau's early work.
| 0 |
negative
|
I've always loved "Gone With The Wind" and have seen it numerous times. However, its ending left me not only "hanging," but depressed, with a hopeless feeling. Finally, in "Scarlett," Ripley took us to a very plausible and satisfying end ("beginning") of the original story.<br /><br />It follows that someone of Scarlett's obvious intelligence (as originally written) would eventually grow up. Although, like most people, I fell in love with Scarlett in GWTW, I tired of her constant insipid infantiilism to the point of exasperation, and I was disappointed that Mitchell did not show Scarlett using that obvious intelligence to even make an attempt to grow emotionally. Thankfully, someone finally did. (After all, isn't that nagging immaturity that conflicted with her beauty and intelligence the very reason Rhett finally gave up on her in the first place?) I think Ripley did an excellent job of describing that long-overdue process, and Whalley-Kilmer did a superb job of portraying it. Joanne W-K has all the fire, exuberance and intelligent sparkle as did Vivian Leigh, and she is certainly at least as, if not more, beautiful.<br /><br />There was, is, and always will be only one Clark Gable. However, if I had to pick an actor out of the thousands to which I've been exposed to portray him in his biography, it would definitely be Timothy Dalton. Dalton possesses the same elegant charm that Gable did, which is essential for Rhett's character. I can't imagine anyone else who could come close.<br /><br />In my opinion, both Joanne Whalley-Kilmer and Timothy Dalton were superbly cast and the only actors who could have possibly played Scarlett and Rhett. I think both their performances did justice to not only the late actors but also the spirit of their characters.<br /><br />I enjoyed the whole cast. Julie Harris was her usual delightful presence, and Jean Smart was an adorable kick! Even Ashley's character was nicely played by Stephen Collins, and the progression of his relationship with Scarlett was totally believable.<br /><br />The story became a little convoluted in Ireland, but so is life, after all, and I still found it entertaining.<br /><br />All in all, I thoroughly enjoyed the fruits of Ripley's imagination. I wish I'd written it!<br /><br />
| 1 |
positive
|
This film is completely underrated.<br /><br />It's a film similar to Will Keenan and Patrick Hasson's Waiting, as well as Adrien Brody's Restaurant and the classic film Breaking Away, which are all about young adults who are stuck and know they're stuck, with little or no chance of breaking free.<br /><br />Death By Pizza (Delivered) is about an intelligent, free-thinking, artistic young adult (Will, played by David Strictland) who is stuck and waiting, bitter at the world's hypocrisy and bitter at his own lack of direction and desire. Will meets his nemesis, Reed (Ron Eldard), another intelligent young adult who's so bitter, he's chosen the path of crime. Both end up helping each other to free themselves of their bitterness, which enables them to get unstuck.<br /><br />For these young adults, getting unstuck, or, breaking free, can mean both forging ahead into life, and plunging downward into death.<br /><br />Will's life is filled with the trademarks of a young "stuck" adult: a soul-sucking, sweaty, under-paying job, crude customers, an ex-girlfriend who left him because he was unmotivated, a partial college education with no degree, a house filled with self-made art, and of course the new friend whose ungodly choices help him to save himself.
| 1 |
positive
|
This is a totally awesome movie! If you haven't seen it yet, you damn well should. Sure, the plot is slow to develop, the special effects are laughable, the acting is ridiculous and the action is badly choreographed, but as wrestler DDP would say; That's not a bad thing....that's a good thing! Everything about this movie is hilarious, especially if you get the dubbed version, which has even worse actors. It's countless laughs until you get to the end, yearning for the sequel, where the mummy fights wrestling women. Thus, I give it ten stars. Unless you're one of those 'discriminating' and 'intelligent' people with good taste, who likes only 'high quality' films of the highest calibre, I recommend this utterly monkeydellic movie!
| 1 |
positive
|
Tweety is sent in his cage on a train by his old-lady owner. In the same baggage car, also in a cage, is Sylvester. <br /><br />In no time, Sylvester has grabbed Tweety but a trainman comes back and slaps the "sneakin' feline," as he calls him, back in his cage. He puts Tweety "in a safer place," up high and tells the cat, "Now, remember: no tricks!" Sylvester puts his halo on and looks innocent. Yeah, right.<br /><br />I found the funniest stuff, however, didn't involve Sylvester versus Tweety but the "viscious dog" that is in another cage next to Sylvester. The cat gets mouthy with him, and pays a big price in an extremely funny manner. Sylvester just doesn't learn, but that's one reason we love him! (I know a number of IMDb reviewers don't like Tweety but I like both main characters - they both crack me up!)<br /><br />Also, the train, and the passing scenery, is beautifully illustrated in here - really nice visuals.
| 1 |
positive
|
I recently started to watch this show in syndication and find it a bit hit and miss. Some episodes are silly -- Doug is upset about some trivial/juvenile thing and acts stupid etc.<br /><br />Still, others are quite amusing, and sometimes touching. These include those episodes that face up to the complexities of the characters. For instance, the "juvenile overweight amiable guy marries sexy wife" theme is found in several sitcoms. (Carrie also has something about her, looks-wise. Not just a run of the mill sexy girl.) But, Carrie has an edge -- she might be nice on the eyes, but has a few too many personality traits not too far different than her father.<br /><br />And, she readily admits to it -- for instance, one episode revolves at her lack of desire to be nice to co-workers. I personally find her b*ness sexy, but you have to be the right sort of person to be able to live with that. Amiable Doug is a good match. And, deep down, see likes the simple things too. Maybe, not as much as Doug whose nirvana is watching TV and eating a big snack next to his big screen t.v., but no culture gal she. This lack of an overally sensitive side is one reason the two don't have children. <br /><br />Of course, the simple pleasures of a guy is nothing to sneer at either, and adds to the charm of the show. They live an ordinary working class sort of life in Queens -- it is realistic in that sense. And, overall, amusing and pleasant sitcom fare, esp. if you just want to relax. It gets a little tired at the end, so it's probably good it is ending. It had a good run. See also, Becker.
| 1 |
positive
|
Even those of us who like cute animal pictures --- and I abhor them ---would be hard pressed to find any merit in this abysmally bad travesty of a film. Perhaps inspired by "101 Dalmatians" with its smart and loyal dogs, its dumb and devious humans and its absurdly "happy" and predictable ending, the alternate title "101 Turkeys" springs to mind. That would just about cover everyone involved in its unfortunate production. I dismissed it as some inane Hollywood perversion of British customs before learning, to my horror, that it actually is a Canadian film, done in Victoria BC, that phony British theme park of a town, while sucking tax dollars out of Ottawa ON, that equally phony pit of Canadian mediocrity. Let me count the ways it is bad. The dizzy plot? The asinine script? The dismal performances and sophomoric direction? The cloyingly clever animals? The endless clichés and predictable slapstick? On second thought, neither I nor those browsing the IMDb have time for a complete catalogue of its failings. Yet were I to detail its merits, this space would remain blank. Trust me, it is bad; a signal monument in the vast pantheon of truly terrible (Canadian) cinema. If you have seen it already, my condolences. If you have not, stay away from it as you would SARS or bubonic plague. Or other movies with cute animals. Don't even let your children see it lest their tiny minds be warped by the even tinier minds of those who financed, fabricated and filmed this frightful folly. Perhaps tonight, when I retire, I will have a nightmare with ghastly fanged beasts springing from the bed table as I flee in frantic flight. I hope so. It will be a far far better thing I do than watch this beastly banal boondoggle. But then, I might dream that I had to watch it a second time and the sheer terror and cold sweat of that makes me want to stay up all night, trembling at the very possibility of seeing it again even as a bad dream. I might even find something worthwhile to watch in its stead. Maybe "Godzilla" or "Attack Of The Killer Tomatoes" Perhaps the instruction video for my built in vacuum cleaner.
| 0 |
negative
|
I felt last night's episode was slow and kinda of boring at times. I honestly don't think it has to do anything with the writing. Because I know the story was well staged and tried to keep things in place. I thought it wasn't that bad but overall, I didn't enjoy it. The most blame has to do with the director of that episode- Stephen Williams. I always hated Stephen Williams's directing. If Jack Bender continues with this episode from the season premiere, he would have kept it in a good pace and keep things float to keep things interesting. I'm glad Jack Bender is directing next week's episode and it'll be much better and I'm glad he got first Syaid episode to direct and I'm curious what he will pull off this time since Stephen Williams had directed too many Syaid episodes before.<br /><br />I always keep thinking that Stephen Williams needs to be thrown off from the show. He doesn't even do anything interesting with the show.<br /><br />Why does the opening have to be done with a target thing while being in the helicopter? IT was so BORING! Bad perspective of camera work too!
| 0 |
negative
|
Not sure if this is just a lousy movie or if it was intended to be a mockery of a "B" Western. Story line was so-so but the filming, editing and acting were just plain bad. Plus the music in the background was irritating to no end, too loud and just non-stop. Many times you could not make out the dialog over the background music. I'm in SASS (Single Action Shooting Society) and do some Old West shooting with them, and a lot of the actors are members of this group, so that's why I bought it. If you have no interest in this group of people, or that sport, you certainly most likely wouldn't even have this little bit of interest to help out with the film. The acting of even the veteran actors (particularly Stella Stevens) left a lot to be desired also.
| 0 |
negative
|
I am a regular reader of Kathy Reichs' Temperance Brennan novels. As such I am extremely surprised she even consulted on this show.<br /><br />It is HORRIBLE by comparison to the books. The Temperance Brennan character is, in the books, a down to earth recovering alcoholic and divorced mom of a college aged daughter. In 'Bones', she is an arrogant (rhymes with rich), who, in typical P C fashion, is not a mother. The emphasis on her assisting staff, complete with lurid details of who has had how many sexual exploits, is totally in contrast with the books.<br /><br />In total deference to the P C movement, she portrays the enemies of the U S as peace lovers (!). Some of the information isn't even correct, for example, having a character from Afghanistan as an active member of an Arab-American friendship group. Since when is an Afghan an Arab?! I'm sure if negative references were made to 'disadvantaged minorities', or women, or GLBT's, the show's producers/writers/directors would have to issue an apology. However, in typical far left fashion, all of the racial slurs go to the highest achieving minority group--Asians, as David Boreanaz' Agent Booth continually refers to Angela Montenegro as a 'squint'.<br /><br />Forget that stuff, and forget this show. After 'The Man in the SUV' episode, I thought I'd try a second episode to see if it got any better. It only got worse! I don't even care if the teenager in question was murdered or committed suicide, and I won't be watching the show ever again.
| 0 |
negative
|
I was extremely amused to read some of the bad reviews on this movie. First, many have said that they have taken their 4 year old daughters and granddaughters to see this and they did not enjoy it. First, I don't believe that this is a kid's movie, at least not a movie for very very young children, not 4 at least. It has very subtle humor, but it is not meant to offer quick amusement as seen in Tom and Jerry or something like this. Many people have also complained that it goes very very slowly....I guess those people are all used to "quantity" over "quality". While I have a small quality problem myself with this movie and that is that the movie was not as detail oriented as the short movies, I still believe that it managed quite well for a full feature film. And how can people complain about the jokes?? The jokes were sensible, timely and well thought out, never rude insulting or "in your face". Wallace is extremely smart, yet cautious and Grommit is the most adorable, smart and cute character that could be. This was a beautiful movie and the theme was very appropriate...for adults that is....especially with the increase of obesity and metabolic disease in the world, there's nothing wrong with promoting vegetables and fruits for once...and this was accomplished in a very tasteful manner in that ...while people are concerned with the aspect of vegetables that doesn't necessarily mean that the are healthier or that they eat more of them...but just that they temper with nature, which is in fact what caused the legend of the were rabbit to come true. And for those out there that complained about the religious jokes, I say...came on! are you for real? Many villages revolve around the local church, and legends/premonitions etc. are normal themes, no harm done. This movie was absolutely amazing, yet some people had negative comments on it and I find this absolutely absurd!!!
| 1 |
positive
|
Good grief.. to think I've seen it all.. Danny Thomas looks SO out of place in this mishmash. He seems really uncomfortable. He can't sing worth a lick, and when he's paired up with Peggy Lee (PEGGY LEE???) she easily.. EASILY outsings him! Maybe the director saw this and made him do the reall really bad comedy routines that he sometimes does in the film. Peggy Lee is okay, but the whole thing is a shambles. Good for a laugh, maybe.
| 0 |
negative
|
This is the best television series for children (and adults) ever. John Hurt is a great actor, with many excellent performances over many years, but he was born to play the storyteller. The scripts for almost every episode are superb pieces of craftsmanship, and the productions run the gamut of the emotions, being alternately funny, sad, happy, exciting, and always hauntingly beautiful. It is hard to pick a best episode from so many excellent contenders, but "The Soldier and Death", with its timeless pathos, is unbeatable. It is a series to watch with your children, over and over again.
| 1 |
positive
|
I think the consensus is pretty unanimous about this recent TV miniseries: it's okay but it's a far cry from "Lonesome Dove." It gets compared to the latter simply because this a prequel to that famous story. <br /><br />"Commanche Moon" is definitely worth a watch for any fan of westerns. Just don't expect it to be as intense as "Lonesome Dove." Steve Zahn and Karl Urban are not Robert Duvall and Tommy Lee Jones, and the characters they play aren't as strong as how Duvall and Jones portrayed the same two guys. Some say it's unfair to criticize this movie because of the comparison but you have to compare it - it's the story of the same two leading Texas Ranger characters: "Woodrow Call" and "Gus McCrae."<br /><br />The main difference, I found, was that this prequel is a lot of slower and more relational (the two Rangers and their women) at times. Yet, I didn't mind that because the two main women were pretty ladies and generally likable and agreeable people. They were played nicely by Linda Cardelini ("Clara Forsythe") and Elizabeth Banks ("Maggie.").. They helped make this long movie palatable. If you've seen pictures of women in the Old West, none of them looked half as pretty as Cardelini and Banks, though. They were a joy for these male eyes to ogle. Maggie's son "Newt" was a wonderful kid, too - the kind of boy every parent would want..<br /><br />The most interesting character, I thought, turned out to be "Inish Scull," played by Val Kilmer. As in the western film, "Tombstone," Kilmer almost steals the show from the leads. "Scull" is really an original, if I ever saw one: a strange dude, indeed. <br /><br />Actually, all of the supporting actors in here did a fine job, from Keith Robinson's "Deets" to Wes Studi as "Buffalo Hump." I always find Studi to be fascinating, no matter what role he plays. I wish he had had a bigger role in this miniseries.<br /><br />One thing this film has in common with "Lonesome Dove" and other good westerns: the scenery and photography. It's just beautiful at times and is a joy to watch. We also have an excellent director of this film: Simon Wincer, who directed "Lonesome Dove" and an another outstanding TV western, "Crossfire Trail." He also did two of my other favorite feature films, both based in his home country of Australia: "Phar Lap" and "Quigley Down Under."<br /><br />Unfortunately, although I enjoyed this, "Commanche Moon" is nothing as good as the above-mentioned films.Yet, I still watched all of it and was sorry it ended, if that makes any sense. It made me want to watch Woodrow and Gus again, this time with Tommy Lee and Robert.<br /><br />Note: The title page says this is 360 minutes. That must have included the TV commercials. The two-disc DVD version I saw was about 4 hours and 40 minutes.
| 1 |
positive
|
This movie changed my life! Hogan's performance was nothing short of incredible, and I still haven't recovered from his exclusion from the 1990 Oscar nominations. And as brightly as the Hulkster shines in this movie, you can't discount the brilliant writing and direction that vaults this masterpiece in to the highest strata of achievement in film. If you haven't seen this movie, drop what your doing right now and get yourself a copy. I guarantee it will blow your mind. And if you don't like it, then I just have one question for you.... Watcha gonna do when the 24 inch pythons and Hulkamania runs wild on you!!!!
| 0 |
negative
|
I first watched this in black and white, circa Christmas in the early Sixties, when it was shown on British television. I was absolutely hooked, and watched it over again whenever it was repeated on TV (possibly two or three times only, as it happens - if only we'd had video recorders then!).<br /><br />As outlined by other contributors, the plot describes the return of Hoppity the Grasshopper, after a period spent away, to a Forties American city. He finds that all is not as he left it, and his good insect friends (who live in the 'lowlands' just outside the garden which belongs to a songwriter and his wife) are now under threat from the 'human ones', who are trampling through the broken down fence which prefaces the property, using it as a shortcut.<br /><br />Insect houses are being flattened by their feet, and are also often burned by cast away cigar butts and matches. Old Mr Bumble and his beautiful daughter Honey (Hoppity's childhood sweetheart) are in grave danger of losing their Honey Shop to this threat.<br /><br />To compound their problems, devious insect 'property magnate' C. Bagley Beetle has romantic designs on Honey Bee himself, and hopes, with the help of his henchmen Swat the Fly and Smack the Mosquito, to force Bumble to give him her hand in marriage.<br /><br />Will the heroic and fearless Hoppity win the day, and manage to save the community of bugs from their dastardly fate, and especially his precious Honey from hers? Enjoy the classic songs ("Katy Did, Katy Didn't" is a superb, swinging, upbeat example), and the colourful visuals, as the tale unfolds.<br /><br />Time has not blunted my fascination for this masterpiece of animation and story-telling, and I was much pleased to find that it had been released to video, although I later found out that it was in NTSC PAL format. Never mind, I sent off for the video immediately, and only then bought a portable TV/video combination (complete with NTSC playback).<br /><br />I have enjoyed many nostalgic viewings since then, and have even discovered that the TV rights have switched from BBC (who informed me they were unlikely to ever show the film on any of their stations) to FilmFour, who have (at last!) been showing it on their digital stations in early 2007.<br /><br />My granddaughter (aged three) was absolutely entranced while we watched it together - and this is a child who has been influenced by the digital age and the resulting computer-generated productions!<br /><br />I would thoroughly recommend this film for any age, and especially the youngest of viewers.<br /><br />Give Max Fleischer a posthumous Oscar!
| 1 |
positive
|
I remember all the hype around this movie when Aaliyah was killed. Being a fan of Ms. Rice's novels, my first thought was "how can they do Queen Of The Damned without doing Vampire Lestat first?"<br /><br />Having finally seen the movie, now I can see how they did it. If you have read these books, imagine taking out the gory parts from Vampire Lestat, cramming Marcus and Marius into one character, and removing everything to do with Lestat's beginning (the wolf hunt, his violin playing, the Theatre Of The Vampires, and also Louis, Claudia, and Gabrielle), then in the last 15 minutes cramming in Queen Of The Damned.<br /><br />What we loose is a very important piece of Lestat's character. His inner agony of having to kill to live, the fact that he carefully tries to select killers as his victims, and his love-hate relationship with Louis, Armand, Gabrielle, and all the other vampires.<br /><br />Also important to the story is that we loose the "Story Of The Twins", which is the Genesis of Ms. Rice's vampires. And while I am sure the cannibalism was to intense for showing on the screen, they could have done something closer, and showed us more of ancient Egypt.<br /><br />Even worse, we have this love interest thrown in between Jessie and Lestat. The Vampire Chronicles is basically an American Yoni story. For those that do not know, Yoni is another form of Hentai (Japanese Porn Comics). But in Yoni, it is about gay male relationships, told by a female. While I am sure many men object to the "gayness" of the characters, in this movie they went to the far extreme the opposite way. For instead of Lestat persueing killers, he goes after young female groupies.<br /><br />And the other flaws in logic and storyline are vast. At the beginning Lestat emerges from a century long sleep, then later on asks Marius how he made it through the 1950's in red velvet. Marius has no idea who Elvis is, and says he slept through that period. Makes you wonder how Lestat knows about 50's fashion and music, since he slept through the same time period himself. And nothing is ever even mentioned about Louis, Claudia, or Gabrielle. I think that is a huge shame. Is like seeing "Snow White and the 3 Dwarfs".<br /><br />Overall, the movie I thought was really bad. About the only good thing about it was the soundtrack. Most of the acting was poor, the accents drove me up the wall, and all of the really in-depth parts of the book were removed, leaving us only with a hollow shell, kind of like Enkil after he was sucked dry.<br /><br />If you want to see a good modern vampire movie, get Lost Boys, the original Interview With A Vampire, or even some old episodes of Dark Shadows. Let this one Rest In Piece, with a stake through the heart, cloves of garlic around the neck, and a vial of Holy Water in the mouth.<br /><br />In ending, remember that before Aaliyah was killed, this was intended to go straight to video, no theatrical release was planned. It is obvious now why this was. It is only sad that somebody as talented as she will be remembered for this dog of a movie, instead of something where she really might have shined.<br /><br />I rate this a 2 on a scale of 1-10.
| 0 |
negative
|
This movie turned out to be better than I had expected it to be. Some parts were pretty funny. It was nice to have a movie with a new plot.
| 1 |
positive
|
A teen-aged girl gets the horse of her dreams and is trained by an ex-Jockey to participate in London's Grand National Steeplechase. A fine adaptation of the classic children's book, with an excellent, start-making performance by Taylor as the energetic but polite youngster. Rooney is OK as her trainer, although he has some overly melodramatic moments. Crisp and Revere are quite good as Taylor's loving parents. Filmed in Technicolor, it looks beautiful. The problems are that there are corny elements, nothing very interesting happens, and it drags on a bit too long. The race is exciting but could have been much more so.
| 1 |
positive
|
Years ago, I didn't love and respect the films of Jimmy Cagney nearly as much as I do now. I noticed that many of Cagney's films done with Warner Brothers in the 1930s lacked realism and his acting style was far from subtle. However, the more I watched these films, the more I found I was hooked despite these aspects. In fact, I now kind of like and expect them! Fans of old time Hollywood films probably understand what I am saying--teens and other young whippersnappers don't! Well, when it comes to entertainment, THE MAYOR OF HELL never lets up from start to finish. While the idea of a shady character like Cagney played taking over running a reform school is ridiculous, and while all the changes he made also seemed far-fetched, it all somehow worked out and delivered solid entertainment.<br /><br />The gang of tough thugs were pre-Dead End Kids and instead of the likes of Leo Gorcey, Huntz Hall and Billy Hallop, similar roles are played here by Frankie Darrow and Farina. Yes, I did say "Farina". This Black actor was already famous for his roles in the Our Gang comedies and was, believe it or not, one of the highest paid child actors in Hollywood. All he needed to give up in return was be named an insipid name and act like a nice stereotypical "Negro". Here, he actually was pretty good and the usual Black stereotypes are a bit more subdued than usual. However, some will cringe at the very funny but horribly offensive court scene involving Farina and his dad, Fred 'Snowflake' Toones. With awful names like "Farina" and "Snowflake", don't say I didn't warn you.<br /><br />Apart from this small complaint and a plot that is tough to believe, the film is exceptional and fun. The kids do a great job, as does Cagney and Dudley Digges in a truly despicable but exciting role as the evil warden. Also, as an added plus, you get to see perennial Warner stock actor Allen Jenkins in his first role for the studio.
| 1 |
positive
|
Wow, another Kevin Costner hero movie. Postman, Tin Cup, Waterworld, Bodyguard, Wyatt Earp, Robin Hood, even that baseball movie. Seems like he makes movies specifically to be the center of attention. The characters are almost always the same ... the heroics, the flaws, the greatness, the fall, the redemption. Yup, within the 1st 5 minutes of the movie, we're all supposed to be in awe of his character, and it builds up more and more from there.<br /><br />And this time the story ... story? ... is just a collage of different movies. You don't need a spoiler; you've seen this movie several times, though it had different titles. You'll know what will happen way before it happens. This is like mixing An Officer and a Gentleman with Backdraft, but both are easily better movies. Watch Backdraft to see how this kind of movie should be made ... and also to see how an good but slightly underrated actor, Russell, plays the hero.
| 0 |
negative
|
This must rank as one of Cinema's greatest debacles. I was wandering Europe at the time and had the misfortune to stumble upon the crew making this movie in what was, even then, one of the world's idyllic, unspoiled settings. I was enlisted as an extra, and what followed was an exhibition of modern day debauchery. Forget all the accusations you've ever heard of Peter Mayall's intrusions on this rare piece of French life- Geoff Reeve and his cohorts embarked on a level of revelry at the restaurant at Les Beaux that left the Maitre'd slack-jawed in disbelief. They were, quite simply, awful, uncultured and undeserving of French hospitality.
| 0 |
negative
|
I saw 2:37 at the Toronto International Film Festival in September and was blown away by it! A scene of panic opens this film, at 2:37 pm set in an Adelaide high school. This scene is left unresolved as we revert to the beginning of the day, and are introduced to the teenagers getting ready to go to school. The audience becomes intimate with each of the main characters, and explores the day-to-day issues facing teenagers - including drugs, promiscuity, being gay, bullying and violence. Each scene is played again and again from different teens' perspectives, and is reminiscent of Gus Van Sant's Elephant. This is a remarkable film by first-time director Murali K. Thalluri. It was made with non-professional student actors, and work-shopped through an unprecedented 76 drafts of a script. It features stunning performances by a number of the student actors, particularly Teresa Palmer in the role of Melody. This coming-of-age film is both intimate and thought-provoking with a surprising and disturbing ending.
| 1 |
positive
|
I'm accustomed to being patient with films because I've generally found it usually pays off. But a few works take tedium to new levels and enter the realm of provocation...."Last Year at Marienbad" comes to mind. Well, "Pola X" ain't no "Last Year at Marienbad". I can count on one hand the number of films I've walked out on over the years. "Pola X" achieved membership in that august group. In my defense, I believe I made a valiant effort to stand my ground - hoping things would turn around. However, I finally threw in the towel just shy of the 90 minute mark - quite respectable under the circumstances. "Pola X" does not come anywhere near living up to the promise of Carax's earlier work. After a 10 year hiatus, that must have been bitter for him indeed. Melville is still spinning in his grave!
| 0 |
negative
|
That's about the only redeeming quality in a movie that otherwise insults the viewer's intelligence by losing track of time, plot, and reason for being produced.<br /><br />Plus, how that guy with the glasses ever got a gig in Hollywood is beyond me.
| 0 |
negative
|
<br /><br />Horror movie time, Japanese style. Uzumaki/Spiral was a total freakfest from start to finish. A fun freakfest at that, but at times it was a tad too reliant on kitsch rather than the horror. The story is difficult to summarize succinctly: a carefree, normal teenage girl starts coming face to face w/ extremely disturbing events as the small town she lives in seems to come under the control of spirals. The spirals are everywhere, in the air, clouds, dirt and everyday objects. The spirals take control of people and bad things will happen to them. Oh, another thing, people are randomly turning into snails. Why? Who knows or cares, people are turning into snails, that's enough for me. This wasn't as much scary as just creepy as it doesn't have a lot of suspense or jarring attacks as horror films often do. Uzumaki prefers to creep and crawl (like a snail might!) rather than to jolt. A favorite scene: a woman lies sleeping in a hospital room when this long, thousand legged centipede creature makes its way into the room and slowly up the bed post, across the sheets, over the pillow and into her sleeping ear. I cringed and curled my toes. Uzumaki has a handful of scenes really violent but that are sort of humorous as well. For example, a man is obsessed w/ spirals, he gets into his washer because he sees a spiral in it when it spins, he commits spiral suicide inside the washer. The last shot we see of him is w/ his body all coiled & rubber like, a human flesh spiral w/ a engorged single eye blinking in the middle of the washer. A bizarre image. Uzumaki has a blatant psychodelic slant to it which adds to its charm and fun. I love horror movies like this. It's not about killing, a la slasher films, it's about a force of evil (the spirals!) taking over you and trying to kill you, force you to kill others. Films like Uzumaki prove that there are many ways to make a horror film and thank goodness for that
| 1 |
positive
|
William Haines sparks this tale of a brash cadet who thinks West Point will really be something now that he has arrived. Terrific goony comic performance by Haines was his trademark--one that made him a top box office star from 1928-1932 and one of MGM's biggest stars. Joan Crawford and William Bakewell are fine too. And although this storyline may seem trite now, this was a huge hit, putting Haines and Crawford in a college football (a national craze during the 20s) story. After Haines blows off his big mouth one time too often and nearly gets shunned by fellow cadets, he turns in a wonderful performance as he swallows his pride and gets into the big game against Navy. Even with a broken arm, he wins the game for Army and regains his place at West Point. It's easy to see from this film and Show People (with the always underrated Marion Davies) why Billy Haines was a huge star of the time. He needs and deserves to be remembered!
| 1 |
positive
|
If you enjoyed the TV Series, Diagnosis Murder, you'll love Murder 101. It's great to see Dick Van Dyke in a murder mystery again. If we're lucky, this one will be a start of a TV series or at least series of movies.<br /><br />This movie definitely had some great and notable actors filling the roles. But, it didn't feel like a "face" movie. It was really a story that drew you in making you forget about the fame of those on the screen.<br /><br />I made a guess as to the ending and was so pleasantly surprised at the end that I had to watch it again! This is a must see for any mystery buff or Dick Van Dyke lover!
| 1 |
positive
|
This film tries very hard to be an "action" film, but it fails miserably.<br /><br />Steve Guttenberg plays the head of an elite counter-terrorist team that fails (?) in attempt to keep a mysterious group from stealing a deadly nerve agent.<br /><br />The story...the acting...the special effects...ALL FALL FLAT!!!<br /><br />Definitely A MUST AVOID!!!!
| 0 |
negative
|
Although it's definitely an enjoyable way to spend a couple of hours and it's always worth a watch, this film never quite meets the targets that it should for two reasons. Firstly, after the first forty-five minutes or so it focuses heavily on Helen and Johnny, who are far less interesting characters than most of the others - Janet, Jennifer, George and Miss Scattergoods are all much more enticing. Although at first this works, since in life we don't always know everything about everyone else, and because the point is being made that perhaps Helen is slightly self-involved, it quickly wears thin and we want to see more of the other characters.<br /><br />Secondly, the film seems to lose its way in terms of plot in the second half. The letter itself holds far less significance than it does in the first half and, again, although this works well in some ways, it seems odd to leave so much of the potential displayed in the first half behind.<br /><br />Overall, this film is sweet and good-natured, with some genuinely hilarious moments - for example, Janet explaining condiments to an avid audience. The lazy but quietly desperate atmosphere that Helen feels is heavy and the sense of living in a small seaside town is accurately portrayed, but the film isn't quite as intelligent as it's trying to be. It just misses being both a light romantic comedy and being a clever portrait of life. However, it's still good and if you get the chance, it's definitely worth seeing.
| 1 |
positive
|
Robin Williams is excellent in this movie and it is a pity the material is not enough of a match for him. This may work if you buy into the "U-S-A! Number One!" mentality but story wise nothing much happens. Quite a shame really since the movie is really trying to say something, and says it sincerely. It just doesn't pack enough emotional punch.
| 0 |
negative
|
This is a film that has to be taken in context. It shouldn't be seen unless you've seen the first two films, but the sort of people seeing this film will probably own the box set, or at least know someone who does. And you shouldn't go in expecting Blade Runner; the films budget doesn't stretch quite that far, and it's a far more zany ride.<br /><br />Essentially the film is a science fiction set in future Yokohama (shot in Hong Kong as is obvious) about a society where it's illegal to procreate. Sho Aikawa reprises a similar role from Dead or Alive 2 and Riki Takeuchi is a detective for the birth control cops. Takashi Miike isn't one to give all of his reasons to you on a platter, but one can assume that the law on procreation (enforced by giving people the pill) is there because of over population, increased life spans and so forth. Interestingly the dialogue in the film is mainly Cantonese, whilst Sho and Riki (who play their parts, as always, brilliantly) speak Japanese, and a few speak English. People have criticised the English as being wooden, but I found no problems with it. Also, another person found the homosexuality themes throughout the film to be offensive; said that Takashi Miike was anti-homosexual. He may very well be (and not all artists have to be left-wing), but I can't see this film as an insult to homosexuals. He merely calls back philosophies of ancient Greece when homo or bisexuality was more common. The film contains similar proportions of action-packed and poignant moments to DoA 2, although in this film the action is more martial-arts based, and are done in a very good Hong Kong style. The cinematography in the film is very nice on the eyes, with symmetrical shots, a good control on colours to give the air a polluted look, and it's nice to see uncut, lengthy shots that are so rare in Hollywood these days. Basically, there's a lot to like in this film: a good sense of humour, exciting action and some very beautiful moments. It's a great finish to the series. You could criticise it for being a bit cheesy, but isn't that part of the charm?
| 1 |
positive
|
I found the movie very real just as much as Saving Private Ryan and gave an upfront account from the German perspective. The graphic action and individual characters gave this movie much to keep me interested through the whole movie. Stalingrad was very brutal battle and the scenes gave this movie that stark reality of this battle. I recommend this for anyone who is interested in military history. This was my second viewing of this movie in a few years and was captivated by it's realism again. The weapons, uniforms, and hearing it German while reading the subtitles gave it much credit for a good military movie. In fact, this being a German perspective of the battle, I was rooting for the Germans, even though they were the agressor and ultimate loser of the war.
| 1 |
positive
|
How often do we live our romantic life as on the big screen, with torrid affairs and passionate encounters? Almost never, if what I see as normal life around me is anything to judge by. Romances, as previously stated, are hardly ever earthshaking affairs that leave you at the top of the world or batter and bruised.<br /><br />Romance, in its every day form, as lived out millions of times over around the world, is a slow, subtle, and quiet affair. Something that grows in you, ever so slowly, probably without you even noticing it slowly taking over your being. No one can tell me when I am in love. For if someone did, I would not believe him anyway, for no one but me would know. And even then, it is just a feeling, a certain knowledge that you are feeling this exalting emotion. That you want nothing but the best for someone, that you would never want to see them suffer a moment of sadness. That you are willing to take a great degree of pain for them. I would not go so far as to say be willing to die for your loved one, for we are all human, and we do not know what we are capable of in the face of death until that moment is upon us.<br /><br />Is the love between the main characters of the film, ever so subtle and understated, no less noble than that between Romeo and Juliet? The unstated emotions, the unsaid feelings, convey far more than any repeated shouts of "I love you". The restraint shown by the lead actor, displayed ever so poignantly in the scene where he watches his love interest through the cafe window, yet never did he move to make himself known to her, was simply heart-wrenching to watch. Would most of us be selfless enough to remain hidden, knowing that her emotions and feelings could not possibly be reciprocated?<br /><br />On another note, how will I deal with my own certain death? While I can claim I have been seriously ill, I can not in all honesty say that I have ever come close to death. Will I be so calm, putting all my affairs in order, and leaving instructions for others to take up what I leave behind? I suspect I will be calm, for I will have little choice in the matter. Can I be so selfless? Again, the answer will have to be in the negative. I can empathize with the anguish, knowing that your life is forfeit, that fate has dealt you a fatal blow, and that future events, however little there are of them left, are no longer under your control.<br /><br />Life is nothing more than a series of small events, the culmination of which may seem great for some in retrospect. But only very rarely.
| 1 |
positive
|
I was watching TV one day with a friend and we caught the last twenty minutes of "Going Bananas." Believe me when I say it was enough to get a good judgment of the film. The first scene that I saw was the monkey, the kid, the fat guy, and the black guy who looked like Dave Chappelle, flying around in a crop duster thousands of feet in the air. While everyone else was solemn about the journey, the monkey seemed to be on some kind of drug binge where he kept shouting something that resembled the English word faster. They then landed on a twenty yard long dock in Africa. After a heart felt goodbye where the monkey cried (Hahahaha), the "villains" of the film appeared. They were tearing complete ass in their vintage Cadillac when the evil monkey took an Air Jordan leap form the dock onto the boat that was sailing away a clean 40 yards away and made them sink their beautiful car into the Pacific Ocean. After seeing this film, I have a new purpose in life; to find the midget who played the monkey and stab him in the eye with a fountain pen.
| 0 |
negative
|
This is the slowest "film noir" film I've ever seen. Very weak script only provides opportunity for Jack Palance and Rod Steiger to deliver exceptionally well, lines that were made for an acting audition. Palance and Steiger both affirm they are indeed serious actors who can portray their respective roles with power, emotion and drama. The story itself moves at an incredibly slow pace, mostly taking place in a living room. The director obviously moved the actors around in a rythmatic circles as they delivered exhaustingly long lines, to keep the slow pace from becoming noticeable to the audience. The action doesn't pick up until the last ten minutes of the film. If you're one who's looking for more depth in a crime drama, this one's not for you!
| 0 |
negative
|
You can see that if the flick ain't directed by his brother, this is the best he can do. And sad to say, his best just doesn't cut it. "Ice Cream Man" is a very bizarre horror film, that's a real blast to watch if you're in the right mood. In the wrong mood, it has been known to cause people to lash out violently at loved ones, so please, watch with caution.<br /><br />Clint Howard stars (Does anything really star Clint Howard though?) as the "evil" "psychotic" "bizarre" (Yes all in quotes, he's not quite any of these, but he's getting close) ice cream man, who tortures the local children with bomb pops that are really melty and ice cream that has chopped up humans and dogs in them. Ick.<br /><br />Anyway, the plot's really just an excuse to show of the...well, the...um, well it's a plot. Oh wait, I know! It's an excuse to show off all the loser actor cameos! There's Jan Michael Vincent and Lee Majors II (The sequel?) as cops tracking the elusive man o' ice cream. And even Doug Lleyweln appears as a supermarket clerk.<br /><br />Even better than that, are some of the bizarre goofs in the film. I really like the fact that for some reason, instead of hiring a fat actor to play the unhappy "fat" kid of the group, they just make this one kid wearing padding under his clothes. And the entire premise that anyone would by scoops of ice cream from a ice cream man. Who buys ice cream scoops from the ice cream man? Then there's the entire psychiatric ward scene, in which Jan Michael Vincent's acting ranges from mildly interested, to bored beyond the state of consciousness. These are the cops who also scour the Ice Cream Man's place for clues but manage to complete gloss over the ice cream truck (where, of course, the various bodies and such are kept). Oh well, better luck next time troops.<br /><br />Howard himself overacts like he's making sure people two towns over can see and hear him. It's all just plain dumb. And fairly fun to laugh at in the fine tradition of The Pumaman or Gymkata. You'll have a GOOD laugh with the right sense of HUMOR. I love that one.<br /><br />
| 0 |
negative
|
I absolutely fell in love with this girls. let me tell you something: I am from Romania and here is only the sixth series running bunt every other day that is on USA TV I check the internet and download it from there, so i am in line with the rest of the world. I can not believe how deep I am in this show. I become to know absolutely everything about them I looked on the internet what's Rory's car what are their middle names and stuff like that: Rory is also Leigh and Lorelay is Victoria. I can not understand why but my boyfriend does not like them and I try and try to make him see how wonderful they are but without success, but he does understand me and lets me be with my "obsesion" with the Gilmore Girls. I adore them. I really hope that if someone see's this will give them a try : You won't regret it
| 1 |
positive
|
Margaret Mitchell spins in her grave every time somebody watches this mess! Fine costuming and sets can't even begin to overwhelm lackluster performances by Joanne Whalley (as the title character) and the ever-bland Timothy Dalton (as Rhett). Even worse than the acting--and perhaps partially explaining it--is the script, which is astoundingly cliched and predictable. Add to that hellishly bad script a score that'll have you cringing, and you've got a disaster I wouldn't wish on any viewer. SCARLETT is just amazingly lousy, and I can't imagine how it ever got made, much less made it to video.
| 0 |
negative
|
Nothing like this was seen on TV at that time and probably never will again. From the first image of that police light blinding you and from there you heard the words: "Police Squad - in color", you were schocked to see that this in no way was an ordinary sitcom.<br /><br />Also to kill off a "Guest Star" and then never refer to him again, where had you ever seen that before. Then the actual show started and if you did not pay attention, you would miss several jokes in the background. Don't pay too much attention to one thing or you would be sorry. This was the show that video recorders were made for, way before Married with Children or The Simpsons.<br /><br />The stories did in no way make sense and the dialog was sometimes so weird that you had to think about it for 5 minutes before realising that it was a joke.<br /><br />The characters Frank Drebin and Ed Hocken came right out of Dragnet and they were absolutely straight (no funny accents or expressions) but instead there were puns and twisted sentences played absolutely deadpan. Only once as I can remember, were there a segment played for silly laughs - a scene involving a trip to a dentist, suction and a whole lot of saliva.<br /><br />There were some tedious moments - like the informer Johnny and an appearance by some celebrity. That was strictly a one-joke moment but they had to use it in all six episodes. Oh, well. Everything can't be perfect. The important thing is that the rest of the time you were knee deep in tears of laughter.<br /><br />Leslie Nielsen was fortunate that this revived his career when they put the Frank Drebin character in 3 features but it must have been an Achilles heel as well. Can you remember seeing him in anything except Naked Gun type work since? And don't count the awful Mr. Magoo reworked for live action. He probably made a lot of money, though.
| 1 |
positive
|
There are times when, less than halfway through a movie, I start to wonder what the creators were thinking that made them decide not to burn every reel of footage and instead release a movie that has no real merit of any kind. And I mean any kind. This movie doesn't even hold up as made-for-cable porn. In fact, Heaven's Tears is completely and utterly boring, and at times a bit disturbing in its naivete. The girl, who is, as I recall, eighteen, masturbates while thinking of an older Nazi who hit her with a car--the "bumping into her in the hall as a way of introducing ourselves" syndrome from sitcoms and Robert Zemekis films. Then, on their second or third meeting--get this--he is the shy one, the one who is resistant to the girl's sexual advances, and yet, all she has to say is, "I'm old enough. I'm want to," and he takes her to bed. Then, after sleeping with this girl he hardly knows, he feels completed, as if he could die right there in the bed with her and he'd have lived a full life. It's like "Lolita" without a shred of social and personal commentary.<br /><br />The cinematography is the most boring part of the movie. No interesting angles or originality at all, not even for the sex scenes, which are supposed to be the main draw for these kinds of movies. The masturbation scene is just a camera circling the girl's bed (very fake looking, as if it's on a stage), and it's interspliced with her fantasy of the man taking a shower in a waterfall. The "I am completed" scene is just a close-up of the girl's right side (head down to her breasts) with the guy on top of her, and it's the same shot for the whole time, even though there are repetitious cuts to a fairly unrelated scene of the Nazi's older sister, who has some kind of incestuous crush on him (she's ridiculous and silly, so it doesn't matter). I think the whole thing lasts five to ten minutes, and it's neither enlightening nor arousing.
| 0 |
negative
|
This is a beautiful, funny, vivid film. It's even better than "Nuovo Cinema Paradiso" -- which it parallels but doesn't replicate. The story completes a full circle and had the theater beaming as the credits rolled. A hundred years after this story takes place, we're just as intrigued by flickering images in a dark theater.
| 1 |
positive
|
I watched this movie for the hot guy--and even he sucked! He was the worst one--well, okay, I have to give props to that freaky police officer rapist guy too, he was even worse. The guy wasn't that cute in the end, he had the most terrible accent, and he was the most definite definition of hicksville idiot that can't stand up to his mom for the one he "loves" there's ever been. Overall, and if this makes any sense to you, when I go to pick up movies at the video store, I think to myself as I read the back of a movie that looks so/so, "Well, at least it can't be worse than Carolina Moon." The most terrible movie, and the most terrible writing, acting, plot--everything in it made my gag reflexes want to do back flips. It was THE most horrid movie I will ever see, with Gabriela way up there too. I hated it, and trust me, if there was any number under 1 IMDb had for rating, I'd choose that in a heartbeat.
| 0 |
negative
|
Fun story of a regular guy with big dreams, this low budget film really hits home showing what it is like trying to become an acting success. Great performances by Lou Myers and Brian's neighbor, Alex. I giggled alot and even cried a little.<br /><br />
| 1 |
positive
|
I bought this film from my local blockbuster for 99p an it's been sitting in my video bookcase for at least a year now. Then tonight I decided to see it, the film was quite different to what I had expected and I didn't find any humour in it all I saw was that it was a bleak look at people dealing with love relationships and sexual orientation and I didn't really see the psycho killer plot really having a point except to add tension to the end of the film. I felt that the person playing the lesbian woman did a great job. I was following her emotions and what happened around her. Some people would probably have seen some of the stuff that she does as funny but I could really put myself in her place, loving someone but them rejecting you at every turn no matter how hard you try. I thought it was a very moving film and dealt with all the different sexualities well. I was expecting something like Bound & Gagged : A love story, but this is a very different film. Not for bigots.
| 1 |
positive
|
I remember really liking BATMAN RETURNS when it came out in 1992, but now I think that this is the best of all the Batman movies (even over Christopher Nolan's terrific 2005 BATMAN BEGINS and definitely over the seriously over-hyped overrated 2008 THE DARK KNIGHT!). I originally remember thinking that the 1st BATMAN w/ Jack Nicholson was the best (and I still love it). But I think that this movie really hits the nail on the head. The 4 main characters (Batman, Penguin, Catwoman, and Max Shreck) are all vivid and memorable. You really get to see what Batman/Bruce Wayne is all about in Keaton's terrific characterization. Keaton is the best Batman, not Kilmer, Clooney, or even the up-and-coming Bale, who was exceptional in BB and could have stolen top honors from Keaton had his character not been destroyed by Nolan's hack film-making in TDK !. <br /><br />Danny DeVito as The Penguin is disturbing, scary, hilarious, and lethal. DeVito is great and doesn't need scenery-chewing to give great performance like Nicholson's Joker. The viewer can actually sympathize with this disfigured outcast and his plight to fit into normal society. I had never really been big fan of Michelle Pfeiffer until this film, but this is definitely my favorite performance of hers. Pfeiffer's Selina Kyle is goofy and odd at first, then when she is transformed into Catwoman, she is simultaneously sexy and scary, a total deadly sexpot! Also, I feel that Keaton and Pfeiffer have more chemistry than Keaton and Basinger from BATMAN; they form a tragic love story. And Christopher Walken as Shreck is, well, as always, Christopher Walken!<br /><br />BATMAN RETURNS, more so than BATMAN, is more confident and focused. It is assured film-making from beginning to end. The way Burton introduces the Penguin's heartbreaking backstory grabs you from the very beginning. The first 5 minutes are among my favorite beginnings to any film: Danny Elfman's music sets an ominous foreboding tone that defines the rest of the film. It is a modification from the original BATMAN and a great one!<br /><br />Then flash forward 33 years to the present day Gotham and we are introduced to powerful businessman Shreck who wants to build new power plant in Gotham. During same scene we meet Shreck's meek, bullied, under-confident secretary Selina Kyle. And not long after all this is the film's exciting opening action sequence as Batman must battle The Penguin's Red Triangle Gang, a fun yet lethal group of outcasts and circus performers. Penguin sets plan in motion to attack the Gotham Christmas celebration, kidnap Shreck in the chaos, and force him to help re-introduce him to society. Meanwhile, Selina discovers Shreck's criminal plans and so he "kills" her by shoving her out his high-rise office, then she is revived by cats. <br /><br />Sound convoluted? Yes, but Burton never claimed to be posing a realistic story. He has created a world where the viewer can accept that things like this can happen, a dark, noirish world comprised of mistreated, deformed outcasts who deep down only want acceptance and to fit in. Confident storytelling if you ask me!<br /><br />The action scenes are few and far in between, but they are all exciting, entertaining, and nail-biting. They aren't there just for show, the way some in BATMAN are. And they all make sense. The climactic scene with Penguin's "army" marching into the center of Gotham with Batman zoning in on Penguin's hideout and sidekick butler Alfred (Michael Gough in a welcome return from the original!) assisting Batman is succinct, solid, heart-pounding fun!<br /><br />I also love the Christmastime, wintry setting, which adds to the super-dark, cold feel of Burton's Batman world. I also love the way Burton slowly introduces to us the Batman "toys" without shoving them down our throats. Each "toy" is appropriate for that moment in the film and we are compelled to accept them for their purpose. And although dark, RETURNS is still a funny film. DeVito's Penguin has many funny lines. So does Walken's Shreck. The Batman-Catwoman exchanges are extremely stimulating and humor-filled as well! A great ensemble! All in all, BATMAN RETURNS is a tightly woven tale of the dark forces at play in Tim Burton's fun, comic book world.
| 1 |
positive
|
This is a movie with an excellent concept for a story but that got sidetracked but a large number of clichéd sub-plots, hackneyed and unrealistic portrayed characterizations and performances, and some frankly implausible (and highly coincidental and, not to mention, convenient as plot points to move the story to its inexorable finish).<br /><br />The lack of anything that marked the lead as actually gay, other than some coincidental references to Crow Bar or that he's gay, was troubling. It wouldn't have hurt to actually show him do something, even if it was just meet a friend for drinks.<br /><br />It's worth checking out and has it's merits. There isn't much, even now a few years after the movie was released, in the way of movies that feature both a lead that is gay, or a significant gay plot line, and that is also about African-Americans. For that, it's worth checking out. I wouldn't look too hard for it and I wouldn't waste my time looking for it to own. This is a rental, and not a premium rental at that.
| 0 |
negative
|
The Internet is a wondrous thing is it not? I am watching a taped episode of one of my all time favorite documentaries, "Vietnam:The Ten Thousand Day War", from my DVR in Florida USA to my laptop in Kuwait; I'm writing a review about this series and have just read another review from someone who actually lives in Vietnam! Amazing. I would like to just say that for Minh Nguyen to make the statement that America brought the war to Vietnam is one sided. I know America was the main player in the west but it takes two sides to wage war. The Soviets and the Chinese were major arms providers to the North so why Mr Nguyen doesn't mention them as partially to blame is showing an ignorance (well, I think we all know why he doesn't mention them, either ignorance from being raised in a communist system and its political dogma, or because he to scared to say the truth for fear of being arrested.). Also, Mr Nguyen, I guess the parts about the North being the main aggressor it whole war were not shown in your country so to blame America again shows ignorance. Regardless, its interesting to read a review from Vietnam (of course that could be made up as well but I'll take that as real), at least the communist east is somewhat open. As far as the mini series; why do I love it? It doesn't focus on the American involvement solely. This was a war that started 15 years before America got involved and the series covers every facet of the history so thats a real plus. The footage used is first rate, all the Vietnam War programs you see made now will use the same footage so you are not missing anything by watching this older series. The date this series was made is another plus. It has all the major players being interviewed which you can't do now because they are dead from old age, it's a major historical reference. Third, Richard Basehart adds a very distinctive narrative voice, his voice sounds as distinguished as James Earl Jones voice would and I think thats very steep praise. I don't think you could find a better war documentary ever made, it's like taking the relatively modern technology of 1980 and transplanting it to the year 1950 and interviewing all the generals and politicians on both sides of world war two, it does that for the Vietnam War.<br /><br />OK, I do see some bias, its subtle, a 1970's-80's style subtle bias kind of like NPR "All Things Considered" bias where it all seems so straight forward but when you blink you end up shaking your head. In this shows case the later episodes don't throw a whole lot of light on the role of the media and propaganda in general, all useful tools to influence the outcome of a war, DON'T YOU THINK????? <br /><br />From an OIF War Veteran going through the same thing 30 years later.
| 1 |
positive
|
I can't really criticize this film. It is literally the first film I ever remember seeing and lead to a lifelong love of science fiction and horror films and prehistoric animals. Fortunately, seeing it again years later, it held up fairly well. Rod Cameron plays a big game hunter whose last safari was wiped out by mammoths. No one believes him, including his best friend, played by Cesar Romero, whose brother was among those killed. And Rod Cameron was the only survivor. The film was shot in India and has some good scenery. The acting is on a high level. I don't believe Rod Cameron, Cesar Romero and Marie Winsor ever turned in a bad performance. The mammoths, when they finally arrive are fairly effective. The ending also has an unusual twist, particularly for a 1950's science fiction film. Definitely worth seeing.
| 1 |
positive
|
Here in Australia Nights in Rodanthe is being promoted in the same class as the Notebook. Quite frankly what a lot of rot.<br /><br />This film is a like a recipe. On paper we have all the right ingredients... Richard Gere normally perfect in this genre, Diane Lane an old favourite from "Under Tuscan Sun" and "Unfaithful", ocean side location, solitude and yet the movie sucks. At the session we went to yesterday afternoon a women next to my wife fell asleep and half way through the movie got up and left! The main problem is there is no build up or credibility to the relationship in the first place. And perhaps there are too many long faces and downbeat if you like histories that Gere and Lane's characters bring to the movie. There's hours of those balanced out with perhaps 5 minutes of what we can to see... romance! There's no warmth from Gere's character, Lane looks dreadful at the start of the movie and all washed out. So as the viewer we cannot really connect to the characters.<br /><br />Others here say the book is great. Well be it the screenplay, direction or production someone here has made a real mess of this movie. It's like the scenes and the buildup are a deck of cards except instead of being in the correct order they've just been thrown together all over the place.<br /><br />Very disappointing... save your money for when it hits the video shops and even then wait for a good deal when it goes to the weekly rate.
| 0 |
negative
|
It's astonishing that some people saw this as art. We saw it as a poorly filmed (shaky hand-held camera and all), (generally) badly acted, unscripted mess that seemed more like a high school film project with the kids experimenting in black & white film making. Injecting mounds of poetry in place of a story does not an art film make. When we watched this in the theatre, people were starting to have fits of the giggles (us included) at the endless stupidity of this self-indulgent, meandering mess. And believe me, it does seem endless. Had we finished our candy and popcorn, we too would have walked out of the theatre with the other two dozen people who packed up and left looking for something more interesting to do!
| 0 |
negative
|
Lucille Ball's version of "Mame" in my opinion is one of the worst performances ever saved to film. After seeing Lucy in her various sitcoms more than an astronomical number of times, I can tell you that I really love Lucy, however, this movie is a fiasco of unbelievably bad casting, music and dancing. Robert Preston is the only saving grace with a part tiny enough to miss if you blink. I don't know what she was thinking, and I can't imagine how she was advised by the studio or director, but I actually cringed watching this embarrassing performance. I could be really cruel and suggest watching it for a laugh, but it's too pitiful even to qualify for that. Don't waste your money or your time.
| 0 |
negative
|
This small John Ford western with no 'stars' but a cast of character actors is one of his masterpieces. It has a documentary-like feel to it as it traces the journey West of a party of Mormons and it may be the most authentic looking of all Ford's films, (it's on par with "The Sun Shines Bright" which he made a couple of years later).<br /><br />There is a plot of sorts, (a group of bank robbers join the wagon train at one point), but the film's dramatic highlights are almost incidental. The splendid performances of Ford's stock company, (Ben Johnson, Harry Carey Jr, Ward Bond, Jane Darwell etc), adds considerably to the film's authenticity while the nearest the film gets to a full-bodied star performance is Joanne Dru's Denver. Dru was a much finer actress than she was ever given credit for as were Bond and Johnson, who at least was finally awarded with the recognition of an Oscar for his work in "The Last Picture Show". As he said himself, 'It couldn't have happened to a nicer fella'. Add Bert Glennon's superb location photography and you have a genuine piece of Americana that couldn't have some from anyone other than Ford. This is a film that truly honors America's pioneers and is full of sentiment and feeling.
| 1 |
positive
|
I remember when this show came out. It was originally advertised as a mini-series. At the end of the last episode it said "To Be Continued" to the dismay of all the people who had watched the whole boring beyond words thing. It ended as it was supposed to, so yes, you can blame the series for having no ending. The plan was for there to be another obviously if ratings had been higher, but it was a boring show that way too long, and annoyed people by not ending when it said it would, so they never made any more. Quite a few of the comments blame its cancellation and lack of ending on the viewing public, when the truth is that for this show that is not the case, it ended the way it was actually planned to end, it is just a lousy ending.
| 0 |
negative
|
How is bear´s paw, elephant´s trunk or monkey´s brain for dinner? Let Tsui Hark tell you in this wonderful and lighthearted comedy about the art of cooking the traditional(?) Chinese way.<br /><br />This movie shares the common structure of an American sports movie, but instead of focusing on baseball it centers around cooking which makes it all the more interesting. I even think Leslie Cheung´s character look a lot like Charlie Sheen in Major League...<br /><br />This movie also contains a bit of Zhao Wen Zhao vs Xiong Xin Xin fighting (love seeing more of that after The Blade) and a quite funny in-joke concerning a Leon Lai pop song...<br /><br />Perhaps not the ideal movie for the strict vegetarian though.
| 1 |
positive
|
I saw this movie today on the big screen and i can honestly not believe some of the comments made by people on here. I was really hoping to be touched by this film, but wasn't.<br /><br />I'm ex Australian Army and very patriotic towards this great country, but I feel this movie no way does justice for us and those soldier who fought at this battle.<br /><br />The movie is poorly filmed. I thought the acting was terrible, they were not believable and they didn't give me any reason for me to care about them. People are saying this movie was graphic, there were a couple of graphic scenes but I found most part very weak. The war scenes were very short and only last a couple of minutes.<br /><br />Overall a weak film that doesn't do these soldiers any justice.
| 0 |
negative
|
The Residents are a band known for their strange appearances and odd musical stylings, so obviously, their music videos aren't going to be exactly normal. In fact, these little videos are abnormal, and bizarre, but have a huge artistic value to them. The atmosphere is built with lighting, and thoughtful visuals. It's a great watching experience.<br /><br />Basically, Icky Flix just consists of many Residents music videos made for their songs. The music itself ranges from rock to synthesized music that sounds like it's straight out of an 80s horror film. What doesn't change is the quality of these videos. They're great!<br /><br />Any fan of art films will love these. They're so original with their visuals, and the angles they are filmed at, and the lighting especially make these so interesting. The music is creepy and catchy and highly original and these short films are mini-classics that deserve multiple watchings. This is a near-perfect collection of short videos.<br /><br />My rating: **** out of ****. 56 mins.
| 1 |
positive
|
Bubbling just beneath the surface of Showtime is a good idea. Actually, it's more like two or three ideas that constantly fight for screentime. This film doesn't just have its cake and eat it too; it has the whole bakery.<br /><br />Detective Mitch Preston (Robert De Niro) has a drug bust interrupted by the media and a brash, cop-slash-actor named Trey Sellars (Eddie Murphy). When Preston's partner is shot, he angrily shoots the camera out of the hands of a pestering newsman, and the tiff lands him in a new reality cop show produced by Chase Renzi (Rene Russo). In the first of many errors and oddities in the movie, that injured partner is never heard from again or alluded to for the remainder of the film.<br /><br />De Niro's best gag is his speech to a classroom of small children to open the picture about how TV cops don't act like real cops. Funny thing is, as the movie progresses, his character and Murphy's begin to act more and more like the clichés they supposedly clash so strongly with. In a smarter movie, De Niro's diatribe could have played as ironic comment; here, it only shows to point out how truly lame the movie is. While a spoof of a reality based cop show could be funny, the team of writers and director Tom Dey (Who made the far superior Shanghai Noon a few years ago; see that movie instead) seem to be on unsure footing, and instead of slamming the TV industry, they really let them off light (The harshest thing they seem to be able to say about network execs is they like to play ping pong at work). Russo's character has a glint of fiendish delight in her eye, but her dialogue and actions rarely match the actress' enthusiasm. <br /><br />With little on screen to keep my attention, my mind began to wander, and that's dangerous in a movie with this many plot holes. For instance; if Showtime (the name given to the cop show) is such a popular smash, why doesn't anyone seem to recognize De Niro and Murphy when they are on the job? For that matter, if their investigation of smuggler and all around mean guy Vargas is being televised, why the heck hasn't someone mentioned to him that they are on his trail? Then again, given this villain's actions maybe I shouldn't be surprised; this is the same joker who is very angry at an associate for using his new supergun without approval, jeopardizing a deal, and then dispatches him how? By using about ten of the superguns to level his entire house, of course! That's like putting out a fire with a bigger fire. <br /><br />Occasionally, Showtime gets laughs, but there simply aren't enough for the film's nearly two hour running time. Even worse, the really smart gags suggest that this movie really could have been on to something, if only they had put in a few more drafts of the script. Murphy mugs and talks as fast as he can with minimal results, and De Niro looks flat out bored through most of this. After a completely unnecessary fistfight between cops and gangsters (That remarkably results in no injuries and no arrests) Russo's character shouts `That's great television!' Perhaps it's great television, but it's far from a great movie.
| 0 |
negative
|
I am a big Gone With The Wind nut but I was disappointed that both Gone With The Wind the movie and Scarlett the mini series are so different from the books. Gone With The Wind left so many things out in the movie that were in the book and they did the same with Scarlett. Both were good movies, but I really liked both books better. There were so many characters left out of Scarlett, and the ages of some characters didn't seem to match up with the book. The time lines don't match up either. Scarlett realizes she is pregnant on the ship to Ireland in the book, but she realizes it when she is throwing up while in Savahanna. Also Sally is made out to be an ugly monkey like woman in the book and the movie casted Jean Smart to play her, who is obviously not an ugly woman. Over all, Scarlett is a good movie, and it helps anyone who was disappointed in the way Gone With The Wind ended, to see what might have happened if Margaret Mitchell had lived to write a sequel herself.
| 1 |
positive
|
One of the best TV shows out there, if not the best one. Why? Simple: it has guts to show us real life in prison, without any clichés and predictable twists. This is not Prison Break or any other show, actually comparing to Oz the show Sopranos look like story for children's. Profanity, cursing, shots of explicit violence and using drugs, disgusting scenes of male sexual organs and rapes... all this and more in Oz. But this is not the best part of Oz; the characters are the strongest point of this show; they're all excellent and not annoying, despite the fact we are looking at brutal criminals. The actors are excellent, my favorite are the actors who are playing Ryan O'Reilly and Tobias Beecher, because they're so unique and changing their behavior completely. And most of all... the don't have no remorse for their actions. Overall... Oz is amazing show, the best one out there. Forget about CSI and shows about stupid doctors... this is the deal... OZ!
| 1 |
positive
|
First of all let us discuss about the story. It is a copy of the movie "Hitch" with an added Indian Flavor to it. One guy, who is a Love guru, and another man who is seemingly a sucker when it comes to ladies, and how this seemingly sucker becomes a charmer with the help of the love guru forms the story. Salman Khan is the love guru, and Govinda is the lame guy.<br /><br />Now coming to artists' performance, Salman Khan overacts throughout the movie, he tries to be funny, but fails big time. You can see Salman shouting throughout the movie, no real acting is seen in his performance. Govinda pairs opposite Katrina Kaif(Oh, my god, she is one heck of a girl. A real Beauty)is in real life a 50 year old dude, and Katrina is a girl in her early twenties. In the movie Govinda looks like Grandpa of Katrina Kaif. What a pity! Coming to Execution of the movie. This movie feels like a B-Movie, and a poor imitation of the movie Hitch. Where Hitch looks like a movie with a purpose and depth, this movie is shallow and purposeless, nowhere there is justification or clarity.<br /><br />Just forget this movie, for it is nothing but boring, typical Bollywood fare. Actually I give 3/10 because this is the lowest I go.
| 0 |
negative
|
So many great talents were utilized in "The Best Years of Out Lives", the result has to be somewhat miraculous. Think of what its director, William Wyler, faced; in the aftermath of a military victory over statist powers who had committed abominable crimes and engulfed the world if battles, he was making a film that argued that the US's leaders were themselves profoundly anti-individual--that they had "wasted the best years of the lives of those drafted or misled into fighting the war--which since it ignored the rights of individuals had been for nothing except argument over the degree of slavery men were to exist under." There are beautiful sets by Julia Heron, Gregg Toland's cinematography and a script by Robert E. Sherwood, author of "The Road to Rome" and other defenses of individuals against tyrannical ideas. The ironic title was used to draw the talents of actors such as Frederic March, Myrna Loy, Teresa Wright, Dana Andrews, Virginia Mayo, Cathy O'Donnell and Hoagy Carmichael into a large-scale but thematic drama. The clever plot line was the experiences of thee "couples" after the soldiers (three being spotlighted) tried to return home to a 'victory culture". Their bitter experiences and their realization of their own need to fight again against what was happening on the homefront poses a strong and sobering counterpoint to the conventional notion being sold that "all was well with "America"". March and his wife have a terrible time adjusting, and he is drinking; O'Donnell's young man, Harold Russell,, has hooks instead of hands and wonders if life can even be worth living; and worst of all Andrews' wife throws him over for a guy with dough and he has lost years, causing employers to ignore or deny his rights to a job, to consideration on his individual merits, to have even what he had before he had been ripped from his life and thrust into the arena of risk--for nothing, and loss of everything he had ever had. The shattering climax of the film comes when each of the three has to confront the need to do battle again,each for his own happiness; and all three succeed in finding the courage to go on fighting--each for his own happiness, which is now being threatened by a curiously anti-self, anti-reality indifferent an un-American United States. Wyler's direction, especially of the scene where Andrews sits in the cockpit of a mothballed B-17, alone and the scene of Russell's wedding is wonderful indeed. This is a most powerful film and a great one on its own terms, one women and men can agree on for once. Music by Hugo Friedhofer and costumes by Irene Sharaff add to its luster. One of the best and most unexpected films of all time, in stunning B/W.
| 1 |
positive
|
Wow, what an overrated movie this turned out to be! It was supposed to be "an extremely suspenseful tale of a crazed killer holding a woman hostage and in terror in her home." Well, I doubt it terrorized audiences in the early '50s and I know it would put today's audiences asleep.<br /><br />"Sends shivers down the spine," proclaims the New York Times. No, the only shivers I get is that anyone is left on the planet who believes anything the N.Y. Times prints about anything.<br /><br />Well, it was about a deranged man who held a woman hostage for a short time in her house but the man. "Howard Wilton" (Robert Ryan) was actually harmless and friendly. In fact, this was one of the nicest roles Ryan ever played! Yes, "Wilton" was nuts but he never harmed the woman and only wanted a friend to trust.<br /><br />The film even turned boring after awhile with very little going on except a lot of yakking. <br /><br />Beware, my reader.....this sucks.
| 0 |
negative
|
While my kids enjoyed the movie (and announced afterward that they want to buy it later) I think I got more out of it that they did. The scene in the airport shop at the beginning is real life (I did not use the cutting comment aloud, but I thought it). It is a feel good mid-life movie, a bit sappy and some scenes work less well than others (why does the kid stay with Bruce Willis after he knows his Mom is dying?), but all in all and good time. It also gave our family something to talk about - did my kids think my life was boring? What do they expect at 40? How can you not like a movie that gets a good conversation going with your kids?
| 1 |
positive
|
Mud and Sand is one of Stan Laurel's spoofs of the popular movies at the time, this one being of Rudolph Valentino's Blood and Sand (hence Stan being Rhubarb Vaselino). While partly inconsistent on characterization (how did he defeat those bulls in the beginning is not explained), this was mostly funny from beginning to end with one of the best sequences being a dance he does with his then common-law wife, Mae Laurel. Another funny sequence concerns his reluctance with romancing a femme fatale, Filet de Sole, while his wife, Caramel, is waiting for him that shows some glimpses of his later innocent character with Oliver Hardy. Well worth seeing for anyone interested in seeing Mr. Laurel's early work before his fateful teaming that made him popular around the world.
| 1 |
positive
|
The first two hours of the televised version are full of character and plot exposition -- after an early brief sequence of Las Vegas being hit by tornadoes, the action doesn't really start until the second two hours. Still, some character relationships don't become clear until the second part. The actors turn in competent performances, but nothing special (however, better than those in "Aftershock: Earthquake in New York"). An exception is Randy Quaid, whose character is superfluous and incredibly annoying. The plot is a pretty standard mix of parts of "Independence Day", "Speed", "The Day After Tomorrow", "Earthquake", "The Towering Inferno" and several other films. You can predict what will happen next, and come close to predicting the dialog, word for word. The special effects are unbelievably bad. Despite the effects in "Twister", the tornadoes in this film seem less realistic than the one in "The Wizard of Oz" and other effects were obviously done for less money than such series as "CSI" and "Cold Case" spend on the totality of a single episode. If you have to see a made-for-TV disaster film, see "The Day After", "Asteroid", or "Special Bulletin" instead -- you'll get better plots, acting, and effects.
| 0 |
negative
|
I believe it has been over 40 years since I saw this series, yet memory of it hasn't faded a bit. This would be a natural for DVD re-issue, it seems to me. Many of the performers have gone on to greater fame (Robert Hardy, Sean Connery, to name a couple); though it was a smallish role, I still remember Judy Dench, then in her 20's, as Katherine of France (Henry V). She was very lovely then as now.<br /><br />There is a hint on this site that the series was filmed in color - is this so? Who of us would know - virtually no color TV in those days. Mores the pity, no VCR's; if so, some might have recorded it. As a way of teaching English history, this series made it come alive in ways few class room teachers can manage.<br /><br />What a fine re-issue this would be!
| 1 |
positive
|
And I do. Peter Falk has created a role that will live on forever in TV land! And I'm grateful for that. This isn't one of his finest hours, though. Columbo goes to college and basically teaches how he solves a crime, and yet there are bad guys who go ahead and think they're smarter than he is. What all us fans know is that Columbo needs a worthy opponent. Without a great enemy, how can he be the hero in the wrinkled coat? Still, it's better than NO Columbo, and I'll wait and watch the next one as well.
| 1 |
positive
|
After watching Oldboy I was a little disappointed by the rest of Park's work, some of it is good but it never approaches the level of humour and originality that Oldboy had. This one does, it is nothing like Oldboy in plot or style but the same level of quality is there.<br /><br />The acting is good with Kang-ho Song, OK-bin Kim and Ha-kyun Shin delivering excellent performances. Kim in particular manages to swap from the creepy horror scenes to the surreal comedy without the slightest misstep.<br /><br />The plot is strange with lots of twists and turns and takes a big swipe at the vampire clichés.<br /><br />The directing is spot on with tons of pace and humour throughout and some of the most memorable scenes I have ever seen. It does boast what is probably the weirdest love scene you will ever see.<br /><br />This is just a great film.
| 1 |
positive
|
hair, the movie based on the broadway hit,fails to achieve any redeemable cinematic qualities. you cant really take the play and make it a movie. whether one is so tempted by the rock music to see this movie, it really detracts from the quality of a broadway show. worse than seeing sitcom reruns. musical fiasco, and cant believe others rated it so high.
| 0 |
negative
|
Sorry Randy. I love your comedy but in this case you really laid a 'Golden Turkey' egg.<br /><br />The plot was thinner than a single layer of my skin, the acting more wooden than a Giant Redwood and I think the direction was non existent.<br /><br />There certainly appeared to be pathetic attempts at take-offs of other films, Jaws and European Vacation to name but two.<br /><br />If memory serves me right Eric Idle played the same type of character in Nat Lamp European Vacation, but much better.<br /><br />I am wondering if Chevy Chase and Beverley D'Angelo were approached to make this sequel. If so, they certainly knew what they were doing when they turned their parts down.<br /><br />In my opinion no one can better Chevy and Beverley in their roles as the Griswolds and Randy Quaid complemented them admirably in the earlier movies.<br /><br />Randy Quaid should have quit National Lampoon whilst he was ahead.
| 0 |
negative
|
Oh My Gosh!!!! This was the first movie Broken Lizard made as a group (although it just recently came to video), and I have never been more disappointed in my entire life!!! I tell you what, if I had seen this movie before I saw Super Troopers (which by the way, is a kick A$$ movie!!!), I never ever would have watched it!! I had read several reviews online, as well as on the cover of the DVD, that raved it as being,"Broken Lizard's funniest movie ever!" Now if they were referring to Super Troopers as being their funniest movie ever, I would agree nonstop, but not this one. Talk about dry. It took the movie a good 45 minutes to even get going, and by then, I was so out of the mood to watch it, that it wasn't even worth it. Maybe you gotta be high for it to really be funny? I dunno. I love these guys, I really do, but that movie is by far the worst one they've made. Club Dread was a pretty good movie, but this one, just wow. I'd highly recommend Super Troopers if you want a good laugh, but if you want more of a romance, drama, with a few funny spots, I'd say go with Puddle Cruiser. Just my opinion though, everyone is entitled to their own! :)
| 0 |
negative
|
This surrealistic, absurdist movie is the first film I have seen of cult Swedish Director Roy Andersson. He is a veteran filmmaker who has made his living filming commercials, directing only four feature films in the last forty years. This background shows: the film seems like a collection of fifty 2 minute arty commercials. There is no story interconnecting these vignettes, though some characters appear in more than one vignette (there is a theme throughout underneath them, though: the absurdity of modern life). Some of the film's mannerisms (having the actors appear in light white makeup) are more irritating than illuminating. Some of the skits amount to very little (a man unsure in which queue to stand?). Other skits are better, though. The best is the one about the rock chick dreaming that she goes on honeymoon with her rock guitarist bride on a house that turns on something akin to a train (you have to watch it to get it). A film worth seeing, even if comparisons made by some film critics with such great filmmakers as Keaton, Tati and Kaurismaki seems overwrought: Andersson lacks the vision of them and the lack of a story interconnecting the vignettes is fatal to this film's pretension of being a masterpiece.
| 1 |
positive
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.