text
stringlengths 49
12.1k
| label
int64 0
1
| label_text
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|
A sweeping and deeply moving love story featuring powerful performances from Ralph Fiennes,Willem Defoe and Juliette Binoche.<br /><br />It tells the story of a badly burned man(Ralph Fiennes) who gets pulled out of a plane wreak during World War Two and tells his nurse(Juliette Binoche)his story.<br /><br />Just before the war he fell in love with the beautiful Katherine Clifton(Kristen Scott Thomas)however she is married to Jeffery Clifton(Colin Firth)and the two begin a passionate and forbidden affair.<br /><br />A very haunting and tragic story of love and desire set against some absolutely gorgeous locations in the desert.A must see especially if your a fan of Anthony Minghellas work but be prepared to shed a lot of tears its very moving especially at the end.
| 1 |
positive
|
Cage plays a drunk and gets high critically praise. Elizabeth Shue Actually has to do a love seen with the most unattractive and overrated piece of dung flesh in Hollywood. I literally vomited while watching this film. Of course I had the flu, but that does not mean this film did not contribute to the vomit in the kamode. <br /><br />Why can't Nick Cage play something he can really pull off like a bad actor. Nick Cage who be brilliant in a role as a bad actor. Heck nobody could do it better.<br /><br />The search begins for Nick's contract with Lucifer or was it Lou Cipher from "Night Train To Terror".
| 0 |
negative
|
The best British Comedy Film ever! For years English comedy television programs have turned into films and have flopped, 'Are You Being Served?' 'Dads Army', the list goes on. However the popular dark humoured BBC television show; 'The League of Gentlemen' has managed to not only create a film which has managed to not be a flop but has also managed to be the best British Comedy Film ever! With its dark and horrific twists and turns The League of Gentlemen's Apocalypse is British Talent at its best! Its intriguing demonic storyline written by the League of Gentlemen (Mark Gatiss, Steve Pemberton, Reece Shearsmith and Jeremy Dyson) matches with the Gents (and guest cameos) superb acting! This I hope is not the end of Royston Vasey, not after this great success anyway! Don't think that if you have not seen The League of Gentlemen on the telly that you will not understand whats going on. Its all well explained and by the end of the film you will be happy with the result but you are still left hungry for more... Mmmm, Special Stuff.
| 1 |
positive
|
Staten Island filmmaker Andy Milligan is well known in the horror community for being an even worse director than Ed Wood. And with this as a dim example of his output I'm apt to agree with them. In "The Ghastly Ones" we basically have three bickering couples traveling to their childhood home (located on a conveniently secluded island) to collect an inheritance. There they are killed off one by one and the events unfold in murder/mystery fashion with a scarred retard hunchback butler added to throw you for a loop. The film is in such bad shape that it looks like someone just ran it through a dishwasher, the sound is terrible, the dialog is otherworldly bad, there's some primitive mannequin gore (plus some dismemberments and guts) and it's technically inept in every possible way it can be inept. But is it enjoyable in a bad movie kind of way? Sort of. It's excruciating to watch but oddly entertaining in a train wreck fashion. Approach with caution. If you're not a fan of horrible movies better deep six this one.
| 0 |
negative
|
The film is a pathetic attempt to remake Ingmar Bergman's "Autumn Sonata"(1978) starring Ingrid Bergman,Liv Ullman and Erland Josephson.It did not take me more than 5 minutes to figure that out.<br /><br />It is time Film journalists like Khalid Mohammad took out time to do some creative thinking. It makes me sad when potentially good film-makers waste their talents by making substandard remakes of Hollywood and European films.<br /><br />You've got to give the film-maker something though. The film he picked for copying is one of Bergman's classics, and easily one of the finest instances of the portrayal of a strained human relationship in European cinema.
| 0 |
negative
|
Wrestlemania 6, is an entertaining Wrestlemania, if not an entirely successful one. The Ultimate Challenge, is of course worth the price of admission alone, but once again as with a lot of the early Mania's, there's too much filler in between. The crowd pops for almost everything, and as always, giving us the reliable announcing team of Gorilla&The Body. Having a Face vs Face match as the main event for a Wrestlemania, was absolutely unheard of at this time, it only made things that much more tense. <br /><br />Matches. <br /><br />Koko B. Ware/W Frankie Vs "The Model" Rick Martel. For a 3 or so minute match, this is as good as it gets. I wish it was a tad longer, but what I got, was pretty damn good. Martel wins, with the Boston Crab.<br /><br />2 1/2 /5<br /><br />WWF Tag Team Championship. Demolition Vs Colossal Connection|C|/W Bobby Heean. HUGE Pop for Demolition. Match itself is pretty dull, I often had trouble paying attention. Andre really didn't do much, so in a way it was more like a 2 on 1. There is solid talent involved here, and it's a shame they couldn't produce better. Demolition wins that titles, with there Pattened maneuver off the top. Crowd blows the roof of for the finish.<br /><br />1 1/2 /5<br /><br />Earthquake/W Jimmy Hart. Vs Hercules I got what I expected here, a standard boring filler match, with Earthquake doing his thing. I'm not really a fan of either, so It didn't perk my interest much. Quake wins with his sit down splash.<br /><br />1/5<br /><br />Brutus Beefcake Vs Mr.Pefect/W The Genius. Deafening pop for Bruti. Really good match up, with sadly not enough time given to develop even further. It really kept my interest, and remains one of my favorites on the card. Beefcake wins with a slingshot to the post, much to the crowd's approval.<br /><br />3/5<br /><br />Roddy Piper Vs Bad News Brown. HUGE pop for Piper. Nothing more than a boring brawl, that does not know what it wants to be. Some entertaining antics from The Hot Rod, but nothing else. Noteworthy for Roddy painting himself half black, and calling himself "Hot Scott"<br /><br />1/5<br /><br />The Hart Foundation Vs The Bolsheviks. Record breaking, but other than that, nothing to see here. Harts win with, The Hart Attack.<br /><br />0/5<br /><br />The Barbarian/W Bobby Heenan. Vs Tito Santana. Average for the time it got, but watchable nonetheless. Crowd was rather dead for it, except for Heenan's interference. Jessie's hilarious cracks, about Tito's food is more entertaining, then the match itself. Barbarian wins with a nasty looking, flying clothesline off the top.<br /><br />2/5<br /><br />Mixed Tag Match. Dusty&Sapphire/W Elizabeth. Vs Macho King&Sherri. Big pop for Dusty, and an even bigger one for Elizabeth, who looks absolutely stunning, might I add. I thought it was OK. It was lively at least, if nothing that great. I'm not a fan of Dusty' so. Dusty and Sapphire win, when She rolls up Sherri.<br /><br />2/5<br /><br />The Orient Express/W Fuji. Vs The Rockers. Crowd is rather anemic for this, surprisingly. Decent no doubt, but with these guys involved, it should have been better. The constant focus with Fuji, kinda detracts from the match. Express wins by count out, when Janetty gets nailed with salt.<br /><br />2 1/2 /5<br /><br />Jim Duggan Vs Dino Bravo/W Earthquake&Jimmy Hart. Duggan like an idiot, brings out The American flag in Canada. Duggan gets some solid boo's for it too, but that also may be due to Bravo's Canadian heritage. Crappy match all around, I don't care for Duggan, but that's not why it sucked. Too short in the end, to really matter. Duggan wins when he whacks Bravo in the back, with the two by four. Duggan gets splashed for his troubles.<br /><br />0/5<br /><br />Million Dollar Championship. Ted Dibiase|C|/W Virgil. Vs Jake Robers/W Damien. Some slow spots, but when all was said and done, I had a good time. Two solid wrestlers giving it there all, resulted in an entertaining match up. Crowd noticeably gets Ancy during parts of it though, by doing the wave. Dibiase wins by count out. Jake has the last laugh, by giving away some of his money, much to the crowd's delight.<br /><br />3/5<br /><br />Big Bossman Vs Akeem/W Slick. Nice pop for The Bossman. Too routine, and too short to really mean anything, in the end. Akeem was a gimmick, I was never too fond of. Bossman wins with his slam.<br /><br />0/5<br /><br />The Rhythm&Blues segment was pretty much a failure. Crowd wasn't into it<br /><br />Rick Rude/W Bobby Heenan. Vs Jimmy Snuka. For a filler match, before the main event, this wasn't too bad. If it had time to get going more, it would have been excellent, for sure. Rude wins, with the Rude Awakening.<br /><br />2/5<br /><br />Title For Title. Ultimate Warrior|IC Champ| Vs Hulk Hogan|WWF Champ| This one is all about the atmosphere from the crowd, and the split crowd reaction, for the most part. Warrior got a pretty decent pop, but in my opinion it was a little underwhelming. Hogan dwarfs it completely,with his. It's one of Wrestlemania's best matches in history. With two people, who aren't really known for there wrestling, they managed to create an amazing match up that was talked about for ages. I have seen this many times, and my respect level grows higher for each one, for their effort, considering i'm not a fan of either. Even die-hard fanatics who crave pure wrestling, can't bitch about this one!. Warrior wins with his splash. <br /><br />5/5<br /><br />Bottom line. Wrestlemania 6 is an entertaining entry, if nothing overly special. It's memorable for the main event, the location, and the crowd, but it's not one of the best if you ask me. That being said I do enjoy it, and I give it my recommendation to fellow wrestling fans.<br /><br />7/10
| 1 |
positive
|
The film is a joy to watch, not just for the plot, which is gripping, but also for the superb performances of the actors, Deneuve and Belmondo. Though considered a 'flop' on its first release it has become a critical success, and it is clear to see why. Deneuve's acting style suited the film brilliantly. she constantly gives the impression that she is holding back or hiding something, and her character in this film is. I will not spoil it with saying what, though it is divulged fairly early on. Belmondo is lovable as the fairly naiive but in love tobacconist. I would recommend this film to all Truffaut or Deneuve fans. It is a brilliant Hitchcockian style thriller with exciting twists and interesting relationships and characters that develop as the film does. The film is approx 2 hrs, so you feel that you have not been sold short. Deneuve steals the show in this film, and it is clear that at the time of making the film Truffaut was very much smitten with her. A definite must see for any cineaste or moviefan. 10/10
| 1 |
positive
|
I'm gettin' sick of movies that sound entertaining in a one-line synopsis then end up being equal to what you'd find in the bottom center of a compost heap.<br /><br />Who knows: "Witchery" may have sounded interesting in a pitch to the studios, even with a "big name cast" (like Blair and Hasselhoff - wink-wink, nudge-nudge) and the effervescent likes of Hildegard Knef (I dunno, some woman...).<br /><br />But on film, it just falls apart faster than a papier-mache sculpture in a rainstorm. Seems these unfortunate folks are trapped in an island mansion off the Eastern seaboard, and one of them (a woman, I'd guess) is being targeted by a satanic cult to bear the child of hell while the others are offed in grotesque, tortuous ways. <br /><br />Okay, right there you have a cross-section of plots from "The Exorcist", "The Omen", "Ten Little Indians" and a few other lesser movies in the satanic-worshippers-run-amok line. None of it is very entertaining and for the most part, you'll cringe your way from scene to scene until it's over.<br /><br />No, not even Linda Blair and David Hasselhoff help matters much. They're just in it to pick up a paycheck and don't seem very intent on giving it their "all". <br /><br />From the looks of it, Hasselhoff probably wishes he were back on the beack with Pam Anderson (and who can blame him?) and Linda... well, who knows; a celebrity PETA benefit or pro-am golf tour or whatever it is she's in to nowadays.<br /><br />And the torture scenes! Ecchhhh. You'll see people get their mouths sewn shut, dangled up inside roaring fireplaces, strung up in trees during a violent storm, vessels bursting out of their necks, etc, etc. Sheesh, and I thought "Mark of the Devil" was the most sadistic movie I'd seen....<br /><br />Don't bother. It's not worth your time. I can't believe I told you as much as I did. If you do watch it, just see if you can count the cliches. And yes, Blair gets possessed, as if you didn't see THAT coming down Main Street followed by a marching band.<br /><br />No stars. "Witchery" - these witches will give you itches.
| 0 |
negative
|
This was a pretty good movie. I love fighter jet movies, and this was the best one I've seen lately. It was made using real planes, so that made it an even better movie. If you like watching U.S. F-16s blow the living daylights out of their enemies, this is a great movie for you.
| 1 |
positive
|
After reading previews for this movie I thought it would be a let down, however after I got my region 1 dvd ( the dvd was available before the film hit the uk cinemas) I was pleasantly surprised, strong performances from all cast members make this a very enjoyable movie. The fact that the script is quite weak means that you dont get bogged down in story and therefore the repeat viewing factor is greater. I recommend this movie to one and all<br /><br />
| 1 |
positive
|
Kasparov vs. Deep Blue is no doubt a fascinating story, but I don't think you'd know it by watching this movie. I think it focuses too much on the conspiracy theory that IBM cheated...and what does this theory hinge upon? The idea that at one point the computer made a move that "looked human". I am not a chess grandmaster or a computer scientist. And while I don't doubt that the move looked human, to me it doesn't seem beyond the realm of possibility that the most powerful chess-playing computer ever created could make a surprising move...or that such a machine could beat even a genius like Kasparov. The movie gets way too much mileage out of this theory, and not enough out of the personalities of the people involved...that could have made it a much more interesting story. The direction also relies way too much on the conceits of a pointlessly whispered narration, and the imagery of an 18th century chess-playing machine that looks like one of those animatronic gypsy fortunetellers you see at the carnival. Also the story was slowed down by many empty shots of Kasparov revisiting "the scene of the crime". I don't doubt that Kasparov and the chess community found IBM's behavior vexing, but I don't think it's any different than you would find from any other big corporation. At the end of the movie, you are left with the feeling that Kasparov is a huge crybaby and the Deep Blue programmers are either victims or cheats. I think if the filmmaker wanted the viewer to believe the conspiracy theory (which he almost certainly did), he should have presented a lot more evidence. In fact, more evidence would have been a good idea in the first place. The whole thing left me with a sour taste in my mouth.
| 0 |
negative
|
A masterful performance by Jamie Foxx is just one of the highlights of "Ray," a 2004 film also starring Kerry Washington, Regina King, Curtis Armstrong, Richard Schiff, Sharon Warren, Patrick Bachau, and many others, all giving excellent support to the film.<br /><br />The film has several main focuses: the first is Charles' childhood - the drowning of his brother George which haunted him for years, the glaucoma that blinded him, and the strength taught him by his mother - don't bend, don't break, don't ever be a cripple. She eventually sends him to a special school where Charles' gift of music is discovered. The next focus is Charles' artistic evolution as a Nat King Cole-like singer, to his arrangements of gospel music, his foray into country music, and the unique sound that became Ray Charles. The third focus is Charles' personal life - his marriage to Bea, his many affairs, his heroin addiction and eventual rehabilitation.<br /><br />Because Charles lived a packed 74 years, there's a lot skipped. Though Charles was orphaned while in his teens, the death of his beloved mother, his rock, isn't in the film. While he is shown on the chitlin circuit and refusing to play in segregated clubs, his near-starvation as a musician isn't covered. At one point, he found a jar of jelly and attempted to eat it, but the jar broke. He was that down and out. Bea is shown with him when the State of Georgia, which banned him, adopts "Georgia on My Mind" as their theme song in 1979 and welcomes Charles back to his native state, yet he and Bea were divorced in 1977 which isn't mentioned. She probably was there, however. Also, she wasn't his only wife - he was married once before he met her; that marriage isn't covered. In the movie, we're told of one illegitimate child - there were 12. It would have been impossible to get all of that and more into a film.<br /><br />What isn't skipped is his glorious music, which seems to go on constantly throughout the film, continually reinforcing his genius and artistry.<br /><br />Charles' story is compelling and holds the audience's interest throughout. Those who scoff at it as a made-for-TV movie don't give it the credit it deserves. Taylor Hackford's direction gives "Ray" a good pace, and the movie has a lot of atmosphere and evokes the various decades beautifully.<br /><br />As Ray, Jamie Foxx inhabits the character and makes one forget he's a comedian playing a part. Foxx wore prosthetics, did his own piano playing, and spent a great deal of time with Charles preparing for the role. He nails him, but it's not an impersonation - he's a flesh and blood man with hallucinations of standing in water and finding his brother's body; a man full of denial about his addiction, hating the word junkie and believing he's not hooked; and he's in denial about his home life, thinking that his wife doesn't know about his various affairs and illegitimate children (in the movie, child); and a man taken terrible advantage of early in his career because of his blindness who refuses to be walked on later on. He demands to be paid in $1 bills so they can be counted; when he discovers he's a gravy train for a club owner and her partner and was nearly cheated out of a record deal, he makes his own deal and leaves his job.<br /><br />One doesn't so much marvel at Foxx's performance as accept him as Ray from the first time he appears on camera.<br /><br />This is an excellent biography, which, like "Walk the Line" is punctuated with the fantastic music of the artist. Whether or not you're a Ray Charles fan, "Ray" is something to experience.
| 1 |
positive
|
I was expecting to this to be hilarious and it was mediocre at best, the only funny character is, believe it or not Andy Dick. The timing was just horrible on most of the jokes & gags and the writing was bad, I mean I know its supposed to be like blaxploitation but it just did work. besides this whole genre has been beaten to death already, with all the austin powers movies & undercover brother, it just seems old, it also just feels like a rip off from undercover brother (which also wasn't hysterical, but a lot funnier than this). Also, for an comedy/action movie the direction was kind of bland. I don't know if this is going to be released in theaters, but it definatley is made for TV.
| 0 |
negative
|
I cannot believe how this atrocity managed to capture the hearts and minds of a cross-section of the 'bright young things' of its era, but I'm certain I wish it hadn't. In my opinion it is an inaccurate, poorly acted, weakly scripted, pretentiously directed piece of gumpf. The brief outings to an imagined reality bludgeon any humour to death. The situations are unsubtle exaggerations which make the the already flimsy characters even more unbelievable and detestable. The romance is dull, the end is unsatisfying and ruins the only sensible drugs message in the film and the simple plot ('Withnail and I,' 'Fear and Loathing') is tested to extremes with the uninteresting motion of the film. In short this film as a blatant visual assault with no hint of skill or initiative. I condemn it to the ash heap of history and pray it stays there.
| 0 |
negative
|
Here's another entertaining Clint Eastwood action-suspense film. I am not a particularly fan of his but I have to hand to him: he knows how to make entertaining movies. This is one more example. It didn't hurt, either, to have John Malkovich as his co-star. Now there is an intense actor! In this story, Malkovich plays an assassin, and he is fascinating to watch, thanks to his different disguises and the terrific dialog he was given. He also has a interesting voice.<br /><br />Rene Russo is fairly low-key (for her), but that's fine and Eastwood plays the usual loner-cop role, not appreciated by his superiors but showing them all up in the end. I guess he couldn't stop playing the "Dirty Harry"-type figures, but he played them well.<br /><br />There were some negatives this film, however, namely: credibility in parts as there were a couple of times, had this been real-life, the killer would have done away with Eastwood. The climatic scene, in particularly, had too many holes in it. There also were too many abuses of Lord's name in vain in here.<br /><br />Overall, however, this is good, escapist fare.
| 1 |
positive
|
Lost has been one of the most mesmerizing and thrilling experience I've ever seen. Not only it's the mother of coincidence, but also every time that you think you can set up the whole puzzle in your head, the story takes a completely new direction.<br /><br />Take this casualty for example, The US marine, whom gives Sayid the way to become a Torturer, Is Clancy Brown, playing a character named Joe Inman. In the last episode, he is playing Kelvin Inman, the Desmond partner in the Hatch. Destiny, uh? Yeah Right!<br /><br />I guess that all of us will have to wait, to see what's next in the life of the wonder people in that strange island, in the middle of nowhere. Knowing that several of my favorites characters, Desmond, Sayid and Mr. Eko, have an unclear destiny<br /><br />I believe that along with 24 and The Shield, this is one of the best TV shows ever, of course, keeping Twin Peaks at a special place.
| 1 |
positive
|
I watched this movie at a party, we were very puzzled by the ending, it ended rather poor. even though the entire movie isn't too amazing, i was expecting something slightly better. This movie is pure trash, but i suggest you watch it if you find cheap horror films with a weak script quite funny. Personally I loved the advert, it was my overall highlight, the fighting scenes were basic, a shot of a knife, some shadows in a window, fake blood. I must say the Granny costume was quite scary, This film is a mixture of kill joy, camp blood and boggy creek 2,except this film has slightly better camera wok and colour treatment compared with camp blood.
| 0 |
negative
|
A film that tends to get buried under prejudice and preconception - It's a remake! Doris Day is in it! She sings! - Hitchcock's second crack at 'The Man Who Knew Too Much' is his most under-rated film, and arguably a fully fledged masterpiece in its own right.<br /><br />This is, in more ways than one, Doris Day's film. Not only does she give the finest performance of her career, more than holding her own against James Stewart, but the whole film is subtly structured around her character rather than his. This is, after all, a film in which music is both motif and plot device. What better casting than the most popular singer of her generation? Consider: Day's Jo McKenna has given up her career on the stage in order to settle down with her husband and raise their son. This seems to be a mutual decision, and she doesn't appear to be unhappy. But look at the way Stewart teases her in the horse-drawn carriage over her concerns about Louis Bernard, implying that she is jealous that Bernard wasn't asking her any questions about her career. This is clearly a recurrent joke between them - she responds with a 'har-de-har-har' that denotes the familiarity of this gag, suggesting that she has a certain latent resentment about her confinement, and that they both realise it.<br /><br />After their son has been kidnapped, Stewart insists on doping her before giving her the news. This is a cruel scene, brilliantly played by both actors, which illustrates the power imbalance in their marriage - he is seeking to control and subdue her reactions, in essence using his professional knowledge to suppress her voice in the marriage just as his medical career has suppressed her singing career.<br /><br />The potency of that voice is demonstrated in the Ambrose Chapel sequence, when she has to reign in its highly trained clarity and volume to blend in with the congregation of female drudges - they almost act as a warning of what will become of her if she continues to suppress her talent. At the Albert Hall, it is her need to cry out, to exercise those impressive lungs, that saves a man's life, and in the Embassy finale, it is her talent and reputation that allows them to locate their son. By contrast, all of Stewart's masculine activity is counterproductive - his visit to the taxidermist is a dead end, he gets left behind at the church whilst everyone else moves on to the Albert Hall, and his efforts there only succeed in getting the assassin killed, thus depriving the Police of potentially useful information. It is only when his action is joined to his wife's voice, in the rescue of Hank from the embassy, that he actually succeeds in doing something useful.<br /><br />Far from being forced into the film to give Day an opportunity to sing, 'Que Sera Sera' acts as the first musical device in the film, foreshadowing the nightmare that is about to engulf the McKennas; 'the future's not ours to see' indeed. It also neatly prepares the way for the finale, in which the close bond mother and son share through music will allow Doris to save the day.<br /><br />The most famous sequence in the film makes music the central feature - the build up to the assassination attempt in the Albert Hall. This lengthy wordless sequence may be the single most extraordinary thing Hitchcock committed to film, the ultimate expression of his belief that films should be stories told visually. We see people conduct conversations in this sequence, but we never hear a word they say. We don't need to - the images say everything. It is also his most exquisite suspense sequence, with the pieces moving slowly into place as the music builds. The editing is incredibly tight, matched to the music perfectly. There isn't a frame out of place - anything that doesn't relate directly to the assassination is giving the viewer a sense of the environment, the geography in which all this is playing out. It builds slowly, but by the end the suspense is nearly unbearable. When Jo screams, it isn't just a relief for her, but for the audience.<br /><br />The Ambrose Chapel sequence is witty, and particularly effective for anyone who has had to sit through a service at a particularly stick-in-the-mud Nonconformist church. The Embassy sequence seems a little flat after the Albert Hall one that preceded it on first viewing, but second time around actually seems more effective, with the final walk at gunpoint really benefiting from the gorgeous use of Day singing in the background, reminiscent of the music-as-ambient-noise in 'Rear Window'. The score as a whole is subtle, allowing the music from on-screen sources to be foregrounded effectively.<br /><br />Bernard Miles is a low-key villain, a little banal, but with a dry wit. He's outshone by Brenda de Banzie as his wife, who walks a fine line between sinister and sympathetic. Just look at the way she smokes a cigarette whilst her husband preps the assassin - her stance is pure gangster's moll, belying the Middle-England exterior, but she clearly has a soft side, and possibly maternal feelings towards Hank.<br /><br />Stewart is excellent, although if Hitchcock really did always cast him as 'Everyman', as the Director's daughter seems to think, then it confirms that Hitchcock had a cynical view of his audience. Stewart played a hypocritical intellectual who espoused fascist ideology in Rope, a voyeur who mistreated his girlfriend in Rear Window and an obsessive necrophiliac in Vertigo. Day is nothing short of phenomenal. Just look at her reaction to the news that her son has been kidnapped - she never overdoes anything, but neither does she sell it short. This is one of Hitchcock's most emotionally effective films. He never lets us forget what the stakes are for the McKennas; they feel the most fully human of all his central characters.
| 1 |
positive
|
Anyone who will pay to see Troma movies knows, and appreciates, what they are going to get. Having said that, I didn't think it was possible to make a movie this bad, and still be compelling. I found myself watching just to see how much worse it could get before the end. First off, it's an Indonesian action movie with an American main character who looks and acts like the bastard son of "Taxi"'s Christopher Lloyd and Rambo. He puts posters of himself dressed up like Sly's "Cobra" all over the place and even has a custom built firing range (with action-posed cutouts of his greatest enemies)in Jakarta although he's in the CIA and has just arrived days earlier. There is a lot of action involving gun-play(no muzzle-flashes on those M-16s, only sound effects), motorcycles(that bust through walls), karate(where no one makes physical contact) and even some sex(where all the actors are ugly). The main plot of an epic like this should at least be reasonably plausible, but not here. It involves the world's most dangerous drug cartel going all out to find a "drug detector device". Why would they need it? That is never revealed, why not kill drug-sniffing dogs? Makes no sense, but, it is taken seriously. The actors are to be commended because they really seemed to think this movie would make them all famous and tried hard to "act". Best line? "Now dance to your grave you dirty whore!" Best scene? Rambo jumps onto flying helicopter, pulls machine gun out of baddie's hand, let's go, falls, shoots helicopter as he's falling, helicopter blows up, cut to mannequin thrown in water. F**king genius! If you can't appreciate trash, don't watch it. If you can, it's awesome. One last thing, did I mention it was directed by the three Punjabi brothers?
| 0 |
negative
|
Eh. This is a popcorn movie, nothing more. I watched this with a bunch of friends (and though that might NOT be the best way to view a horror movie...) and most of the dialogue and action was laughable.<br /><br />It left me yearning for a real film. :)<br /><br />The main problem is the lack of tension in the film. It keeps flashing back to 'explanation' scenes, which dissipates any discernible tension.<br /><br />And the character relationship 'twists'? Yeah, they suck. I won't say what they are, but they just don't add anything to the film/storyline.<br /><br />(By relationship, I mean the two main characters.)<br /><br />Eek. My recommendation is this: watch this movie if you can't think of anything better. Mediocre at best...Maybe not even that.
| 0 |
negative
|
I'm a big fan of the demonic puppets. Looking at the surface of this one, it looks pretty good! You've got Decapitron, the puppets, and a new villain in THE TOTEM! Unfortunately, the little punk that's doing this project to animate, inanimate objects, can't act. He stinks! His girlfriend is worse. If they were left out, it would probably be cool, BLADE VS. THE TOTEM. I'd watch that for 2 hours. But instead, the puppets role is down played, and the whole movie suffered because of it. The mystical Skull guy who created the totem is corny at best, and Decapitrons appearance is long awaited, short, and really quite disappointing. You'd be better off watching the first one again.
| 0 |
negative
|
Oh what a disappointment this movie is. I can't believe it was directed by Wajda. There's practically no plot and 90% of the movie consists of various people walking in and out of the screen, weakly trying to interact with each other while talking about the Katyn massacre. The most interesting part comes right at the end, but by that time I simply stopped caring while trying to suppress my yawns.<br /><br />Almost the entire movie is filmed with a hand-held camera, which is supposed to convey the feeling of "personal immediacy" but there's nothing personal or immediate about most of the movie. Instead, the constant jerking of the camera made me seasick. To be fair, there are some great shots too (no pun intended), but nothing that makes you go "Wow!".<br /><br />If you're not familiar with the Katyn massacre, the movie will leave you scratching your head. If you are familiar, you'll be scratching your head too, although maybe for different reasons. Basically, the movie states and restates over and over again that it was the Soviets who murdered thousands of Polish soldiers in 1940. This point is hammered repeatedly as though someone in the audience needed to be convinced of this basic historical fact. However, the movie never tries to explain as to WHY they were killed. After all, tens of thousands of Polish soldiers in the other Soviet POW camps were not harmed and were released in 1941. It is also never explained adequately HOW MANY people perished, although the figure 20,000 is thrown in a couple of times.<br /><br />The acting is adequate with only Komorowska (old woman) and Chyra (Lt. Jerzy) giving noticeable performances, but they get to act for maybe 10-15 minutes in total. Certainly not enough to carry the whole movie. Many other actors seem to have been chosen more for their matinée looks rather than their acting abilities, but I won't mention their names. Suffice to say that they are definitely NOT the Oscar material, so any claims that this movie was "robbed" of the Academy Award are simply laughable.<br /><br />The tone of movie is wrong as well. On one hand it tries to be an accurate historical drama, on the other it resorts to cheap anti-Soviet propaganda such as showing a Russian soldier tear up the Polish flag and using it to clean his boots. Then there are some puzzling scenes which have absolutely no bearing on the plot, such as a couple climbing on a roof or the liquidation of the Krakow University.<br /><br />There are many missed opportunities to make this movie more interesting, such as adding a political angle to the story, or showing the German discovery of the graves, or even portraying Anna's trip from the Soviet occupied part to the German occupied Krakow. All of these aspects could have been the major part of the movie, but instead they're reduced to a couple of minutes. In the end, we get a collection of loosely fitting, confusing, boring scenes about the reaction of Poles to one of their greatest tragedies of WWII. Not very compelling and not worthy of Wajda at all.
| 0 |
negative
|
The first movie at the Fangoria Festival in Vegas and the most challenging. It's not a movie for everyone. A number of the films that followed used predictable classic horror formulas to tell predictable stories. This picture seemed determined to do its own thing.<br /><br />Tom Savini showed some comic chops as the over the top villain. He dominated every scene he was in, flipping his cape about like Leslie Neilson playing Dracula. It was great to hear his explanation after the film. He had such a good sense of humor about the role.<br /><br />I was glad I didn't have too many preconceptions going in, because the movie offered a lot of surprises. The story was funny and profane and unusual. There was a lot of love lavished on the look. Most important, it had a weird edge to it. Unlike many of the movies that followed and tried to use a similar classic horror style, this was a movie that used its look for a purpose.<br /><br />There were a lot of movies at the Fangoria Festival with bigger budgets, but none that dared to be this different.
| 1 |
positive
|
Each show is excellent. Finally, a show about something other than why it sucks to be married or good looking people talking about why they are like normal people. Shame it got canceled.<br /><br />Mike Scully and Julie Thacker, formerly of the Simpsons, wrote or executive produced some of the funniest episodes of that series and a lot of the similar style humour seeps in here. Take Officer Steve Cox and think Troy McClure. However, it does come with its own unique brand of humour and let's face it, a teenage girl will love it just by on the faces alone.<br /><br />What is it with television that cancel most good shows and we are spoon-fed with such abominations as Who My Mother Almost Slept With or whatever that show is called? Please learn a lesson. Not everything has to be about cuteness or romantic travails or especially reality shows on how to demystify every aspect of life. Some people actually like to laugh and not have to think afterward. Well, my griping is done for the day. Now back to the Simpsons. When is it on? Oh, yes! All the time.
| 1 |
positive
|
Proof, if ever proof were needed, that Hammer should have left their vampires firmly in the Victorian age. After all, vampirism is all about repressed sexuality, so the concept is irrelevant in 1972's London, with its thirty-something thesps pretending to be randy teenagers.<br /><br />Remember, by this time, Hammer was floundering badly. The public had tired of the drawing room horror of the 1950s and 60s, so the studio was trying everything to bring them back, including ample nudity (LUST FOR A VAMPIRE, et al) and updating their characters - neither of which apparently worked as Hammer was pretty much resting in it grave just two years later. Shame ...<br /><br />But I still have a great fondness for the classic Hammer period from 1957-1965.
| 0 |
negative
|
The first few minutes of this movie don't do it justice!For me, its not funny until they board the sub and those hilarious characters begin to gel. I was born and raised in Norfolk Virginia and met my share of "different" sailors- I even married one! Most of my favorite movies are just funny, not topical, not dependent on sex or violence and funny every time I see them. Groundhog Day, Bruce Almighty and Down Periscope are still funny even after I know the dialog by heart. Kelsey Grammar with his "God I LOVE this job!"was sincere, genuine and lovable. Rob Schneider is hysterical as the crew gets back at him for being annoying. I am still amazed at the size of that fishing boat next to a sub! I can see why folks who live this life would notice the uh-oh's but its not a documentary after all its a comedy and I just love it!
| 1 |
positive
|
This movie blew me away - I have only seen two episodes of the show, never saw the first movie, but went to a pre-screening where Johnny Knoxville himself introduced the movie, telling us to 'turn off our sense of moral judgment for an hour and a half.' He was right. As a movie, this would probably rate a 2, given it has zero plot, no structure besides randomness, and very little production value. However, that isn't the point. Everyone in our theatre was laughing and gasping the whole way through - not only were some of the stunts creative (see trailer if you need to know but they hid some of the best (or worst depending on how you want to look at it)), but some of the stuff they did took us completely by surprise. These guys do some stuff that won't make it into your newspaper reviews (and probably can't even be published here), involving lots of things below the belt. However, almost 3/4 of the stunts are fantastically hysterical (even if morally condemnable, but remember Knoxville's statement), and if you are in the right mindset this movie is hysterical to watch. Only about 20 minutes of this movie could have actually been shown on TV, so consider yourself warned of what you're getting into - some stuff is disgusting, but instead of being repulsed by it you end up laughing at the sheer stupidity of it all. As a person who thought Jackass the TV show was an over-hyped fad with only a few funny sketches and lots of unnecessary pain, the amount of fun I had at this movie has made me realize that having no boundaries is the best environment for these guys to work in. It's a lot of fun and should be a great comedic fix until the Borat movie comes out. With this movie, you may think you know what you're getting, but these guys are a few steps ahead of you - I guarantee you'll be surprised by the 3rd sketch. So enjoy, and don't worry: you won't want to perform almost any of their stuff at home.
| 1 |
positive
|
I finally saw this on video, after years of hearing about it. It is by no means a perfect movie, but it is oddly hypnotic - one of those rare, special films that creates its own world. <br /><br />***SPOILERS*** First, the bad stuff. The scenes in Burkewaite's class are excruciating. Even if the subject is Social Studies, this guy is WAY over the top. His speeches are so overwrought they are laughable. And no teachers I ever had would grill their students like that, and tell the ones who protest to "Shut up!". These scenes are brief, but they break the mood and pull the viewer out of the story. Next, how the heck does Layne just walk out of the police station near the end? Also, what happened to Samson's car after the first scene of him riding into town? He spends the rest of the film being chaffeured around by Layne or Feck. ***END SPOILERS***<br /><br /> Ahhh, Feck...this guy is great. Dennis Hopper effortlessly steals the movie. "Check's in the mail", "I love company", "you're my friend" - every line is a classic. He gives Feck an internal logic that makes the story work. Incredibly, he actually makes the audience feel empathy for this guy, especially when Samson talks about his (Samson's) future. <br /><br /> By contrast, Crispin Glover is hard to take sometimes. Yet the scenes of him driving around in the Beetle are perfect - kids with cars in high school always have something to do, and buds to do it with. Matt's low-key attitude makes a good foil for Layne - their friendship is believable. Glover's mannerisms are a little much, but he is consistent throughout. He drives the plot and exudes a sense of urgency that no one else does - just try to imagine this flick if Layne were as much of a zombie as Matt or Samson - snoozefest! <br /><br />***SPOILERS*** What makes "River's Edge" unsettling is the fact that Samson is not really evil, in the usual sense. He is kind of a boring guy who got sick of being taken for granted - in other words, he is like thousands of other boring guys. After he kills Jamie, he starts to unravel, which creates some suspense as we wait to see when he will snap again. ***END SPOILERS***<br /><br />Part of this movie's appeal is the way the action stays centered around the teens and their point of view. The parents are comic relief - Clarissa's mom, Tony's dad - or overwhelmed - Matt's mom. This underlines how the kids hang together for the attention no one else gives them. It keeps the story focused on the relationships within the clique, and emphasizes that the only adult they can relate to is Feck. "River's Edge" is a textbook on alienation. It conveys how awkward, mysterious, and disconcerting adolescence is like no other film.
| 1 |
positive
|
I love this film. Shehzad Khan's portrayal as Bhalla a.k.a. "Shut up, Robert!" was so hilarious. Whenever he got hit during a fight scene, you could hear him squeal. Viju Khote is the dumbfounded Robert a.k.a. "Rabbit". I love that Shakti Kapoor a.k.a. "Crime Master Gogo". Paresh Rawal's double role is so awesomely hilarious for his portrayal as Ramgopal Bajaj & Shyamgopal Bajaj. Raveena Tandon and Karishma Kapoor are out of this world. My brother does a really good mimicry of Bhalla saying. "Relax. PLEASE relax." I love the scene in which Aamir Khan puts a laxative in Salman "Muscles" Khan's food which caused the irregular bowel movements forcing him to use the toilet umpteen number of times.
| 1 |
positive
|
The box to this movie totally misrepresents itself. The cover shows a view of legs & panties in a short skirt. The title is `Tart.' The synopsis on the back of the box made it seem as though Cat, the main character, was an outcast who became one of the popular students, but that popularity lead to a bizarre lifestyle that she could not escape from. Everything that the box built this movie up to was a horrible lie. I expected a sort of crappy, direct-to-video version of `Heathers' targeted at the teenagers of today.<br /><br />Let me tell you what `Tart' was really about. Yes, this really is the plot; so if you don't want to know what happens, stop reading. We have one unlikable, boring rich girl. This unlikable girl's best friend is a skank. The skank gets expelled from school, so the unlikable girl befriends some British girl. This leads to the unlikable girl dating this boring guy, who the box refers to as the `most popular boy in school.' If that guy was the most popular guy in their school, I wish I would have gone to that high school, because I could have kicked the crap out of him. Anyway, as any movie will tell you, the most popular guy in school is invariably a murderer or drug addict or thief, or in this case, all of the above. Anyway, everyone ends up disliking the unlikable main character because she is Jewish. Then the most popular guy in school beats her best friend, the skank, to death with a rock because the skank caught the most popular boy in a homosexual act. The unlikable girl's stoic mother and hypochondriac younger brother are there for her at the end. Oh, and the entire movie is about snotty rich kids and their horrible parents too. Gee, what is wrong with that? That sounds like a fantastic movie! Well, that's what I thought. But you see, there are NO likeable characters in this movie. The main character is boring. The filmmakers made her average, while during the film she keeps spouting off about what a freak she is. The skank is not skanky enough, and has little screen time. The popular guy is nothing to write home about. The popular girls are just your run-of-the-mill rich girls. There are no moral lessons. Cat, the boring main character, is not a freak, does not ever become one of the truly popular girls, and (worst of all) after all the crap she goes through, she thinks she is still too good to befriend the only nice girl, the dorky girl. To be honest, I have no idea why the movie is called Tart. I kept asking, who's the tart? Is she the tart? Are they all tarts? At 94 minutes, theoretically this is not a long movie. But after actually watching this awful waste of a VHS tape, and not knowing who the tart was, I was surprised that the movie was only an hour and a half. The movie felt like it was two hours and some change. After a while, I was hoping the movie would be about pop tarts. At least when you look at a box of pop tarts, you know what to expect.
| 0 |
negative
|
And what is its genre? The backstage expose story; what theatrical life is really like behind those Broadway (and other) curtains. It certainly has a lot of competition: Singin' in the Rain both I and II (1929 and 1952), 42nd Street, Golddiggers of (You name the year.); Dames of 1934; Noises Off (1992) from the farcical side and A Star is Born I and II from the 1930s and the 1950s from the tragical side: not to mention Summer Stock of 1950: the list keeps rollin' along. So what makes this movie so special? And why are there so few comments about this stunningly great movie? Have so few people actually seen it? How amazing to see a younger Frank Langella pre-Dracula and pre-Frost-Nixon by 30 years! How amazing to see the fresh and talented Tom Hulce so pre-Amadeus! And yet another superb Stiller! What a wonderful line-up of talented people at their very best from so long ago! And such a script! Who was this David Shaber? So full of realistic disillusion and pathos compared to the usual sentimentality and feel-good comedy! As especially exemplified by the Star-Is-Born-like episode where the heroine achieves Broadway while the Langella character has to content himself with still another provincial tour.<br /><br />Langella's subsequent hysterical and sadistic blowup against the star-struck Latin teacher and his granddaughter in which he vents his fury and frustration is just one of many fantastic and psychologically real moments in the film. (The Latin teacher and his love affair with backstage life certainly echo Marlene Dietrich and her seduced professor in The Blue Angel of 1929.) Another in the series of mercenary and cold-hearted agents like Kevin McCarthy who was preceded by Burt Lancaster in The Sweet Smell of Success (1957) and succeeded by Alan Alda in Clubland (2001) in movie history. The sexual liberation of the Hulce character recalls similar incidents in O'Neill's great comedy Ah, Wilderness.<br /><br />And what a tribute to the vanished operettas of long ago: The Red Mill of Victor Herbert; Rose Marie and The Vagabond King of Rudolf Friml; The Desert Song of Sigmund Romberg etc. What satirical insertions of bits from the great plays like Romeo and Juliet. Tributes to the theater itself as expostulated by the star Langella. The richness and depth of this movie are simply endless. And to be saddled by such a title! Who could have an inkling of what this great movie is about from such a ridiculous and unsuggestive title? But on the other hand, what title could one have applied to such a magnificent drama which might have lived up to its stirring, emotional content?<br /><br />PS: I just saw (2009) Frank Langella in his latest acting spectacular: as Richard Nixon in Frost-Nixon. How this great actor after 30 years simply goes from triumph to triumph!
| 1 |
positive
|
Hi! I'm Sheena, an African (yet white!) jungle tribal princess who possesses the incredible ability to transform into the cheapest, unscariest monster in the world (think 60s Star Trek aliens) by rolling seductively in mud! When I first found myself in this horrible position, I took the only logical action: I made myself a torn-apart jungle bikini in which to perform my badly-acted antics. I enjoy romance novels and tearing apart the occasional unimpressive African warlord. And I would be remiss if I did not mention my (white, of course) sidekick Mr. Cutter, an American ex-military man who seems to have fled the U.S. after his divorce. Can you say "ducking alimony"? Anyway, he provides the occasional distraction from my difficult life. I mean, how many idiot blonds do you know who are also an endangered species of flesh-rending monster? Despite my many hardships (acting is so hard! *whine*), I haven't given up, and after much soul-searching, I have finally discovered my role in life: to terrorize insomniatic late-night television viewers who are so unfortunate as to not have cable or satellite.
| 0 |
negative
|
This film has some nice special effects, tearing apart the Japanese archipelago to a degree that would humble Godzilla. The two leads also put in above-par performances. Apart from that, it is all a bit ropey in this understated disaster flick. The incongruities in the pacing are bizarre. At one point we have Hokkaido sinking into the sea and pyroclastic snow falling on the rest of Japan, while Osaka is buried under an immense tsunami. Yet elsewhere in the country, people are still strolling around sightseeing and licking ice-cream when another tsunami rolls in... Kusanagi also manages to travel great distances without any hindrance, or even a crease in his cream shirt. Other people turn up with burns, ripped clothes and mud-streaks on their faces. <br /><br />The Japaneseness of the film is both touching and repugnant. Kusanagi's sacrifice in his final evening with Shibasaki is a touch of chivalry seldom seen in this genre these days. However, the ill-fated PMs musings on the Japanese psyche and the seduction of death, and the fact that Japan is abandoned by everyone and has no friends in the last instance, hint at a darker paranoia that infects Japanese concerns regarding their status in the world.<br /><br />Sadly, the final sequence is a rip-off of Armaggedon, edited with a cookie-cutter.<br /><br />Finally, my own particular bug-bear - the heavy handed product placement for cigarettes. This time around, it is mad(-or-is-he?) scientist Toyokawa who gets to be the poster boy for Japan Tobacco. At one point, he manages to light up 5000 meters below the ocean surface, in a miniature sub the size of a phone box. Gimme a break.
| 0 |
negative
|
To even say that this film is Sebastien's work at his best just tell you everything you have to know on the man. Sebastien is a pathetic, foolish, not amusing at best, yet highly popular host on french television. If watching any of his shows is just plain torture for any normally constituted human being, his first (ans lets hope only) film proved to be even worst. Sebastien's apology of rape (the victim fall in love with her aggressor) is not only misplaced but plainly unacceptable. I highly suggest you not to bother taking a look at this picture (or any of Sebastien's future features), you would just loose your time...There is something about french television that don't smell right...and this is Patrick Sebastien!!!
| 0 |
negative
|
I saw it on video. Predictable, horrid acting, film flubs. What more can be said, this movie sucks. The actors are annoying to say the least. This was suppose to be a comedy, but there was only one funny moment, other than that is was painful to watch for me.<br /><br />1 out of 10. PASS!
| 0 |
negative
|
Monster of Mexico I do agree is the weakest of the modern Scooby Doo movies, mainly because of the weak plot and how predictable it all was. Loch Ness Monster however, is a considerable improvement, with gorgeous animation, honestly Scotland looked beautiful. The music is good, and the plot is well thought out. Plus, there is some great dialogue, and the voice acting was fabulous, with Casey Kasem a consistent delight as Shaggy, and the beautiful Scottish singer Sheena Easten a pleasant surprise in a guest starring role. In fact, my only complaints were some strange accents in one or two members of the voice cast, with the exception of Easten whose accent did sound genuine, and somehow the Loch Ness Monster wasn't as well designed as it had potential to be. Overall, a solid and enjoyable Scooby Doo film. 8/10 Bethany Cox
| 1 |
positive
|
I recently saw Blind Spot in Coyoacan, where it drew a huge crowd and some pretty intense discussion. I really admired the story and visual approach. The action is frightening and the mood of loneliness that the film projects is amazing. There is much beauty in the melancholy that surrounds these three misfit heroes. Not just in the desert but in the city too. My best scene was after the boy discovers his friends in the apartment and then rides his skateboard through all the remarkable lights of the city. You really feel for this guy. I never heard of the actors before but I liked all three very much. I think they did a terrific job on their journey to self-discovery. All in all, this is an amazingly cool and suspenseful suspenseful film. I still carry many of the images in my mind.
| 1 |
positive
|
4 out of 10.<br /><br />This film was neither funny as a whole nor was it even worthing investing any kind of emotion into the characters. Eugene Levy is probably the most funny.... The rest of the cast do their jobs, but the story never really gets very deep and there are a lot of holes in the plot that never get filled. This just wasn't very much fun, despite being funny at times.<br /><br />
| 0 |
negative
|
Surface was one of the few truly unique shows on TV last season. I can honestly say I modified my schedule so I could be home to watch every episode. Tons of action, suspense, science fiction, etc.<br /><br />Story was of a boy who found an egg that hatched into a sea creature. The same sea creature that had killed the main character's brother and the woman character (oceanographer) had seen. Most people think it is a deadly killing machine but the one raised from the egg was very friendly.<br /><br />Only problem is NBC canceled it so now we'll never know what happens... Hopefully Sci-Fi or some other channel will pick it up.
| 1 |
positive
|
Dexter (Kurt Russell) returns from The Computer Wore Tennis Shoes for a new adventure that can stand alone. Dexter, ever the college student prone to misadventure, has an idea for a formula to render things invisible. Dean Higgins (Joe Flynn) is less than impressed and sets his hopes for winning a lucrative science prize with the pupil studying bees. However, the bees sting the student and he turns out to be allergic. There goes THAT chance for a prize. But, wait, Dexter does it! He actually concocts a liquid that makes him invisible. Trouble is, a unscrupulous businessman (Cesar Romero) learns about it and decides he can use that formula, thank you, for something illegal. Can he manage to steal the bottle out from under Dexter's nose? This is a companion movie to the TCWT but one need not have seen the first film to enjoy this one. Russell is a genial leading screw-up who comes through when it really counts. The rest of the cast is also a dream, with Flynn, Romero, Jim Bacchus and others showing why their comic abilities are still held in high regard today. The script is just innocent fun that is charming, with the special effects somewhat simple, by today's standards, but effective nonetheless. If you want to sit down and relive a bygone era or just want to share a quality, G-rated film with your family, this is a great choice. Although it is over 30 years old, there is a great possibility that even now you will see your loved ones giggle away the blues with a showing of this fine flick.
| 1 |
positive
|
This is a children's TV series about a Mary-Sue who is at the same time, mean and bitchy. I couldn't bring my self to sit through 3 episodes of Zoey101. Not to mention that Jamie Lynn Spears can't act to save her life! What message does this show bring to kids? If you're not perfect like Zoey, you're unworthy *rollseyes*.<br /><br />It's absurd how Zoey's character is exactly the type of person who would be despised in real life yet she manages to become so popular. Then there is Chase who is basically a lovesick puppy who worships the ground Zoey walks on. Then there is the fact that all the other characters seem to have been dumbed down in order to stop them from outshining Zoey. I'm sorry but the characterization in this show = extremely unrealistic.
| 0 |
negative
|
This was the most thought-provoking capital-punishment movie ever! It refused to seem one-sided and the emotions felt throughout the story are as real as it can get. This movie had one of the most 'human' (And I use this term in a good way) compassionate religious character ever! This movie actually caused me to go out to find and read the book (Which is rare for me). Sister Helen exerted more of a spiritual tone than a religious(Which is also rare). And it presented both sides to the issue so that people on both sides who watched the movie wouldn't feel that a point was left out. And we have the director to thank for that. This is not a film for entertainment. But it is film that delivers a message that can reach to the core of your heart. I can't think of another film like it.
| 1 |
positive
|
SO good, the acting, cutting, directing in there may not be the best ever, but the dancing, the moves, the heat and the passion in this movie is definitely the best (well...atleast for me ^^) it really touched me, inspired me to learn dancing. i even especially registered to this site just so i could vote on it and contribute my support for this movie. for this movie, it literally gave me goosebumps when i watched it. i love it. Jennifer Grey is SO pretty! Patrick is so sexy in there!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! the first thing i'll do tomorrow, on my way to university will be to drop by the video store n buy a copy of it, n watch it again n again till i am old n wrinkly n cant dance with the movie any longer. before than I NEED TO LEARN ALL THE DANCE MOVES THERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
| 1 |
positive
|
If I had never seen the first Road House, then I guess this movie might get one more star, but even then that makes it a 3 star movie. For that matter I was really surprised as to the relatively high rating it currently has.<br /><br />In reality, I was not able to finish this movie, as it was painful. Where it went wrong (at least the most obvious way) is that it pretty much parallels the original exactly even though the original plot is still referenced. This doesn't really make sense and doesn't work. Also, the acting is weak...I never felt like I was into the movie yet I felt like I was watching people act. Even good actors like Busey don't work out, probably due to the screenplay or maybe the awkward editing. The strangest thing is that the movie feels like a mid 90's B movie, yet is made in 06. I am not sure as to why, but then again, this often seems to happen with sequels for some reason. The music, the look, and the whole overall feel reminds me of movies you saw 10 years ago on Cinemax late at night. The strangest thing of all is that I am also expecting Ja Rule to come in at some point...often it reminds me of more current movies with rappers as actors.<br /><br />The most irritating thing is love interest girl who's character seems like a total rip off of the Lois Lane character on Smallville which is also quite annoying. And lets not forget the fakest sounding "southern accents" I have heard since Walk the Line. I realize this is common place in movies, but no accent at all would work better than attempting to sound like you are from that universal hick place on TV where anyone from any southern state (or KY and WV) sound exactly the same. Sure, people in desert towns in AZ sound just like people in Southeastern states 2000+ miles away. That was wearing thin 10 years ago in the B movies where technique came from. Why do writers / directors make such decisions? <br /><br />Bottom line: I would truly not recommend this if you are a fan of Road House or if you like good movies. Also, if you have not seen it yet, don't spoil it by seeing this version first. The original Road House was one of those accidental classics that people love and watch over and over. It was an unexpected success like American Graffiti, Dazed and Confused, and more recently Office Space, Fast and Furious (only the first one!), and Napolean Dynamite. Why did they spoil it!!!???<br /><br />They should have never made a sequel to Road House other than a high budget version with the right actors / director. Sure, you can never top the original (ex: Bad News Bears, The Longest Yard, etc.), but at least if you can do it right it will be presentable as is the case with the examples I mentioned. But to make a low budget, off-network, self production of Road House is criminal.
| 0 |
negative
|
Working girl Kitty (Sothern) is engaged to Bill (Kelly), who neglects her by working long hours at his garage in order to save money for their marriage. After being stood up on her birthday, Kitty goes on a double-date/blind date, where she meets department store heir Bob Hartwell (Hamilton). She falls in love, but leaves him when his protestations of love appear to cover a desire for her to be his mistress, rather than his wife. Faithful Bill rallies 'round to comfort her, and at last she gives in to his repeated requests to reinstate their engagement, pressured in part by Bill's support of her family after she loses her job. When Bob returns, however, convinced that he wants marriage after all, will Kitty follow her heart or her conscience? <br /><br />This film was a lot better than I'd expected it to be. The character of Bill at first comes off as the sort of loud comic Irishman type that Jack Carson played so often. But Kelly (and the script) infuse the character with real compassion and love, and Bill turns out to be the best person in the entire group. Viewers may find themselves rooting for him against the feckless Hartwell! The tone of the film wavers, however, between light-hearted romance and a much darker side, especially in the depiction of a dance marathon and a rather horrific accident at Bill's garage.<br /><br />The cast is rounded out by the dependable Jane Darwell as Kitty's mother, an impish but not yet thoroughly obnoxious Mickey Rooney as Kitty's younger brother, and Spencer Charters as Kitty's ne'er-do-well father.
| 1 |
positive
|
20 years ago Dr Chopper(yes, he is driving a chopper as well as chopping people up) disappeared when the police found dead bodies at his clinic. Since then people have been disappearing around Lake Tanoka(or something) and dead bodies/parts of bodies has been found all over the place. Turns out Dr Chopper needs body parts to stay alive and has been taking them from strangers, like pair of lesbians and 5 sorority girls on their initiation(you get the picture) traveling through Lake Tanoka. When a bunch of teenagers decide to go camping they are bound to clash with the doctor.....<br /><br />Well, if you wanna waste some time this is the right choice. Acting varies from really bad to mediocre with the girls tripping and falling all the time for no apparent reason. Every chance of showing skin is taken but without actually showing anything at all. The same goes for the special effects who are pretty pathetic with every slash filmed in an angle so you cant see it but there are a lot of body parts in the movie all drenched in blood(probably to cover up how sad they really look ). The plot is pretty faulty and dialog rather sad. Only time I laughed was when Dr Chopper said: "Howdy!" when trying to be scary. Don't watch this one if your not a hack'n'slash freak. Even then I would recommend you to watch something better.
| 0 |
negative
|
The problem with so many people watching this movie is the mindset they watch it in. People come looking for a B-Grade horror film, or a "So Bad It's Good" movie. Jack Frost 2 is neither of these.<br /><br />It is, to put it simply, a very good movie cleverly hidden inside a very bad one. To view it as anything other than a screwball comedy (easily funnier than all three absolutely meritless "Scary Movies" combined) is to misinterpret the movie on a basic level. It would be like watching Shawshank Redemption and then complaining that there were no explosions.<br /><br />The premise is simple; the characters from the first movie, haunted by memories of Jack Frost, take a vacation to a tropical island. A new, improved Jack comes after them, now with essentially the powers of Hydro-Man from Spider-Man; essentially, he can turn from water to snow easily and quickly, divide himself, multiply himself, and, worst of all, he's managed to grow an immunity to his only former weakness...AntiFreeze.<br /><br />What's sad about this movie is that the brain dead fans of the first Jack Frost (a simply HORRIBLE movie) can't appreciate the change of tone for the sequel. Just as Alien was a horror film and Aliens was all about action, Jack Frost was a weak attempt at gimmick horror and Jack Frost 2 is a cleverly written parody of the gimmick horror genre.<br /><br />Most of the entertainment comes the live action actors, who serve admirably. Particularly funny among them are Ray Tooney (playing a caricature of a retired British Colonel from the early 1900s), Christopher Allport (offering an insane, hilarious spin on his wooden performance from the first film), and David Allen Brooks (taking the once serious role of manners to new, totally bizarre heights).<br /><br />The lack of "memorable quotes" disturbs me.<br /><br />As a horror movie, Jack Frost 2: Revenge of The Mutant Killer Snowman, rates a zero. But you have to understand, IT'S NOT A HORROR MOVIE.
| 1 |
positive
|
I watched this film during a special advanced preview in Reading, Berkshire.<br /><br />The two main characters, Michael and Rory strike up a friendship, when Rory is introduced to the care home that Michael already resides. Michael is amazed to find someone who can finally understand him, as until now his cerebal palsey made people think that he couldn't communicate. <br /><br />Rory introduces Michael to the life that he's missing. Rory is a feisty character, who doesn't let his condition (Muscular Dystrophy) get to him.<br /><br />They bond and apply for Independent living, and find a lovely flat and assistant and have all the fun that they could ever dream of.<br /><br />Don't go to see this film if you are after some "Entertainment". Do go see this film if you're willing to see something a little different.<br /><br />The storyline is strong, the actors are fantastic and despite the sadness that comes with the film the mood is uplifting.<br /><br />I thoroughly recommend it. Though if you are anything like me and prone to crying - take tissues, as you'll need them!
| 1 |
positive
|
As we are well aware, movies are not set out to be a direct incorporation of history, but it is a disgrace when a movie is made which has absolutely little to no correlation. I wish the director and/or the screen writer had done his/her research in this topic. All this movie does is create a forum for hate between people, while causing a rift that should not be there. This movie portrayed the Sikhs and Muslims in a very negative manor, while making the third group (Hindus) look as if they were non existent in the brutal killings of the people of both nations. The inaccuracies, coupled with the sear disregard for one's faith as portrayed by 'Gian Singh' was a disgrace to the highest format. Though on a more positive note, the actors did a great job in acting in their roles. Both Kristen K and Neve C played their rolls exceptionally. I hope those that watch this movie do not see or use it as a template for the actual historical event.
| 0 |
negative
|
Movie based on Jacqueline Susann's best-selling novel. It's about Robin Stone (John Phillip Law) a ruthless TV anchorman who claws his way to the top. It details his love life concentrating on Amanda (Jodi Wexler) and Judith (Dyan Cannon). It also shows his total inability to commit to anyone and instead sleeps with any woman he can get.<br /><br />The novel is no work of art (it's not even good literature) but it's a quick, silly, trashy read. But this movie makes it seem like "Gone With the Wind"! This is a textbook example of how NOT to do a movie adaptation. First they condense the novel terribly. In the book Stone's inability to commit is dealt with and it's revealed why. Here it's brought up...and ignored. Also there's a truly revolting scene in which a woman is brutally beaten. It's in the book--but there IS a reason totally left out of the movie. And the book dealt with three women--not two. Don't even get me started on the homophobia.<br /><br />Adaptation aside the acting is pretty terrible. Law is just horrendous as Stone--VERY wooden and boring--you seriously wonder why all these women are after him. To be fair to Law--another actor was cast but had a very bad accident before shooting began and Law stepped in at the last minute. Wexler is terrible as Amanda; Maureen Arthur is truly astoundingly bad as Ethel Evans; Shecky Greene is unbearable as Christie Lane. Only three performances stand out: David Hemmings (having a GREAT time) camps it up as a gay photographer; Cannon is actually very good and Robert Ryan is just great. Also Dionne Warwick sings the catchy opening song ("He's Moving On").<br /><br />It IS bad but I watched the whole thing and it is (in a silly sort of way) a lot of fun. I'm giving it a 3.<br /><br />Also Jacqueline Susann has a cameo as a newscaster.
| 0 |
negative
|
This movie was childish in its writing and laughable in its visual effects. Scenes where Father Merrin is tossing in his bed and his glimpses of a gimpy native are signs of bad acting and poor imagination. Nothing seems to fit. The story jumps from scene to scene. The elementary writing leaves no fact to the imagination and leaves no room for suspense. The lady doctor at one point states that she thinks the town is going to "explode soon" from all the crazy happenings. There was, in fact, nothing in the movie to make that line relevant. From the terrible job the movie had done, I would have never known that there were any tensions in the village. If you are into cheesy movies go ahead and rent this, but if you want to see this done right check out Exorcist:The Beginning
| 0 |
negative
|
I don't know why IMDb lists all the Ghoulies films as theatrical releases.. They were all straight to video films. Same with the Puppet Master series. Why hasn't anyone noticed this yet? Right, somehow you've stumbled across Ghoulies IV, probably raiding through an old abandoned video rental store from 1993. You looked in the discount section and found this...Look at the back and front covers. What do you expect, The Shawshank Redemption? There is no need to review this film so critically. It is the fourth GHOULIES film! I bought it on DVD for 6.50 because... it was 6.50.. I knew it wasn't Kubrick material. And I was right. An unremastered DVD with no extras, not even a trailer, boasts an uncared-for film.<br /><br />It actually contains the star of the first Ghoulies film, Peter Liapis... who really didn't get many 'big' roles apart from those two films. And I don't see why... He's not too bad an actor and is pretty fun. But I guess if you're gonna take a lead role in the Ghoulies films, Scorsese and Tarantino will lose interest. Also present is his idiot sidekick Bobby Di Cocco, who despite having a very small resemblance to Al Pacino (very small), retains none of his acting ability... A complete idiot who's just awkward to watch. Then there's Stacie Randall - obviously a porn star, I don't need to look that up. She does look quite sexy, though her costume, her character and everything she does drags down the films credibility, which is no easy task for such a film.<br /><br />Then there is the Ghoulies themselves! Who also manage to let us down. Ghoulies III made them start talking, mistake no. 1, but Ghoulies IV takes it a step further. Instead of being puppets, this time the Ghoulies are in fact KIDS in COSTUMES!!!! The filmmakers decided to run that extra mile to insult the films viewers. Also, there's only TWO of them, and they're not the main highlight of the film, as they don't appear in a lot of it. However, at times they are MILDLY amusing... And they're not evil this time either.<br /><br />This really is hilariously bad stuff, it's amazing that I was actually able to enjoy it. I dunno why... Some of the black humour is actually funny, though the script is mostly effortless. Imagine Satan's only threat to you being that he will "kill you, slowly...painfully...".<br /><br />But at least Full Moon had no involvement this time. Did they? Yeah, a very bad and cheaply made film with 0 production value, but not so bad as to be in the ranks of Puppet Master 1/2, Lawnmower Man 2, Surviving Christmas or even Ghoulies III.
| 0 |
negative
|
As noted in other comments here, the camera-work is laughably bad. I am tempted to say that the director of photography is a 7-year-old, but that would be mean -- to 7-year-olds.<br /><br />Okay, but what about the subject? I was looking for some insight into the state of the wine industry worldwide, you know, Mondovino. What the film is about is a very narrow view of one intrigue in that world: the struggle between Mondavi and the French and Italian wineries that they would like to buy. There is no enlightening narration that would put the whole deal into context, so we are left with the selective process of the director and the interviews with the various characters in this little psychodrama. There's no shortage of despicable characters, or even despicable dogs, in sight. There is a shortage of evenhandedness, however. <br /><br />Is the director a Marxist? I wondered as I tried to maintain some semblance of focus as the camera dipped, swerved, zoomed in a chaotic flourish. Small grower in France: good. Huge grower in USA: very, very bad. Forget about the hundreds of small wineries throughout North America, Australia, and South America. There is a dead horse to beat here for over two hours.<br /><br />To learn about the intrigue more, you are better off reading about it elsewhere. And you will be able to sample your favorite wine without feeling sick while doing so.<br /><br />I suggest a new award at Cannes for Best America-bashing Diatribe.
| 0 |
negative
|
This is the only movie that I can think of where after it ended, I was seething with anger at the waste of money and time on the part of myself and everyone involved in making it. No wonder Alan Moore refused to have anything to do with V for Vendetta (a phenomenal film) after this debacle.<br /><br />It's not bad in an entertaining way, like Showgirls. It's bad in a way that makes you want to claw your eyes out. Plot holes the size of planets. The worst script in memory. Horrible acting by decent actors. Visuals that should be great, but somehow flop. <br /><br />It could have been so good...
| 0 |
negative
|
This movie is a disaster within a disaster film. It is full of great action scenes, which are only meaningful if you throw away all sense of reality. Let's see, word to the wise, lava burns you; steam burns you. You can't stand next to lava. Diverting a minor lava flow is difficult, let alone a significant one. Scares me to think that some might actually believe what they saw in this movie.<br /><br />Even worse is the significant amount of talent that went into making this film. I mean the acting is actually very good. The effects are above average. Hard to believe somebody read the scripts for this and allowed all this talent to be wasted. I guess my suggestion would be that if this movie is about to start on TV ... look away! It is like a train wreck: it is so awful that once you know what is coming, you just have to watch. Look away and spend your time on more meaningful content.
| 0 |
negative
|
I finally got hold of a DVD copy of this production and was agog with curiosity, since I had read so many people praising it to the skies, particularly Angela Lansbury's portrayal of Mrs. Lovett. I saw the Tim Burton movie a few months ago and thought it over the top and overly bloody; thankfully this version is not so horrifying gory but it suffers dramatically in too many other ways for it to be in the least satisfying to me.<br /><br />To begin with, the casting. George Hearn is adequate and at least shows some expression (as opposed to Johnny Depp's unending wooden face in the movie). Angela Lansbury is, quite simply, annoying. At least she has enough power in her voice to get the point across as opposed to Helena Bonham Carter's piping and expressionless little girl's voice, but subtlety seems to be only a word in the dictionary to Ms. Lansbury. One cannot be drawn into the story when one of the main characters spends her entire time mugging and winking in a "look, Ma, I'm acting!" fashion and being far too aware of the audience. This is not something that is typical of stage productions, heaven knows--I have been a regular attendee of many productions at the Stratford Festial for many years and stage actors do NOT behave in that fashion as a rule (at least those who want to continue to find regular employment do not!)...<br /><br />Betsy Joslyn. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Did anybody besides me notice that she can't sing this role even vaguely appropriately? And her playing George Hearn's daughter is just creepy, considering that she was married to him at the time. Isn't she supposed to be a sweet little sixteen-year-old? Yes, I realize that this is what acting is all about, but not once did she convince me that she was any younger than about thirty-five, and the phrase "mutton dressed as lamb" seems to have been coined just for her. Her butchering of "Green Finch And Linnet Bird" had me gnashing my teeth and ready to turn off the DVD player at once. That song was done so well in Tim Burton's movie, and this was a sad shock. The song requires the vocal range of Julie Andrews in the 1960's and a purity of voice that is only comparable to that of a boy soprano. Any vibrato at all kills it dead, and Ms. Joslyn spent the entire time warbling so hard that I thought she was about to fall off of her ladder because she was trembling so much from the effort at sustaining coloratura notes with a voice that is a mezzo at best. Let us pass over the spectacle of her vibrating at least a quarter tone flat on at least three of the higher notes... This is quite simply not a coloratura role and perhaps a discerning director should have told her that--but the fact that she was married to the star might possibly have tied the director's hands.<br /><br />Cris Groenendaal was adequate, but again obviously far too old for the role and there is zero chemistry between him and Ms. Joslyn, which makes the whole subplot fall completely flat. I am reminded a little of past stage productions of Wagner's Ring cycle where, due to the vocal power required for the singers to bellow over the sound of a full Wagnerian orchestra they would have to cast based upon ability to penetrate vocally as opposed to any appearance or acting ability or even a good voice, which is why you have the caricature of the massive mountainous Viking-horned Brunehilde with a triple chin and a beard, when the libretto calls for an ethereal beauty who is eternally young and bewitching. The casting of the "juvenile" leads is exactly like that--if you close your eyes you can almost believe in Mr. Groenendaal's Anthony, but as soon as you look at the screen the illusion is shattered. (And at NO time can you ever believe in Ms. Joslyn's Johanna...) For me, the rest of the production was completely lost because of three out of the four major characters were so obviously miscast. I cannot give a proper review of anything else because they were so distracting that they spoiled the rest of the production. I really can't understand why people rave about this badly-shot and self-conscious filming of a stage play. Surely there's more to camera work in the theatre than just plunking a camera down in the front row? If I want that, I'll go to a decent play, preferably at the Stratford Festival, where at least they work together for the production and aren't constantly mugging for the camera. I give it three stars only because the quality of the production apart from the antics of Lansbury and Joslyn seems adequate if not spectacular.<br /><br />Probably the best thing one can do is buy the soundtrack of the film and a cast recording of this play, and then combine the two to make a bearable whole. That's what I'm going to do, and try to forget that I ever bothered to rent this wholly unremarkable production.
| 0 |
negative
|
I suppose I should be fair and point out that I don't believe in ghosts. That said, I'm very interested in the subject and I enjoy a scary story as much as the next guy. I am a fan of Ghost Hunters because they at least try to give their investigations a scientific angle. Even early episodes of Most Haunted had a camp entertainment factor to them. Paranormal State has neither of these qualities. The cases themselves have the potential to be interesting, but as with so much "reality TV" these days, it suffers from overproduction, poor acting and silly scripts. The makers of the show freely admit that writers "guide" the stories. I hear they are even going to shoehorn in a romance subplot to appeal to the young female demographic. The show has many other flaws too. As others have stated, the narration quickly becomes like nails down a chalkboard. Over the top visual and audio effects quickly become just as irritating. I'm willing to suspend some disbelief for the sake of entertainment, but this whole "demon with a vendetta" story arc is just ridiculous. Given that the producers of this show are also responsible for brain dead fodder like MTV's Laguna Beach and Newport Harbor I suppose this is really no surprise. If you are a die hard fan of Ed & Lorraine Warren or a big "reality" show junkie I guess you'll find much to like in Paranormal State. For the rest of us....I recommend you avoid.
| 0 |
negative
|
The Man Who Knew Too Much{1956}is a remake of a film that Alfred Hitchcock made in England in 1934 with the same name. In my opinion, his later effort is far superior. Many critics and fans of Alfred Hitchcock will argue that the remake is mediocre and doesn't have the spine tingling suspense of the original with Peter Lorre. In both films the plot is essentially the same, except the original is set in Switzerland and the remake in Marrakech . It tells the story of a married couple {James Stewart and Doris Day}vacationing with their young son and meeting a suspicious man, that is very curious about their past. It just so happens, he's an agent that's looking for a couple involved in a plot to assassinate a world leader.Then he gets stabbed in a Marrakeck market because of it being found out that he's a spy,and proceeds to fall into Stewart's arms.Dying,he tells him the whole story of the assassination plot.Stewart and Day then find out that another couple they met were the couple the agent was looking for and have kidnapped their son.The film contains excellent performances by Stewart and Day,in a straight dramatic role,as worried and frightened parents.This film proved that Doris Day could act in suspenseful dramas as well as carefree musicals.The direction by Alfred Hitchcock is top-notch.The film keeps you on the edge of your seat every minute.The scene in Albert Hall is a classic.The original is so slow-paced and drab.I don't know how people can compare the two.Just watch the remake and you'll enjoy it.I give the movie a 9 out of 10.
| 1 |
positive
|
The perfect 6 step recipe for a boring middle of the road movie:<br /><br />1. Take one burnt-out, rogue ex-cop with a bad attitude, yet a sensitive touch as well (closet concert pianist with a pet cat);<br /><br />2. Add some "cool" retro gadgets like a beat-up Porsche 356, a roaring bike, a heavily patched leather jacket and a pair of cowboy boots with holes in the soles;<br /><br />3. Mix in a couple of "free-spirit" locations e.g. a trendy sea-side apartment and a dedicated diner booth for an office;<br /><br />4. Spice it up with "deep" socio-romantic themes such as a post-divorce-traumatized-but-finally-remarrying-ex-wife, a secretly-admiring-and-therefore-forgiving-waitress, a pair-of-former-colleague-cops-only-one-of-whom-is-really-a-complete-jerk and a best-buddy-getting-iced-over-a-suitcase-full-of-illegal-$$$;<br /><br />5. Let it simmer for about 90 minutes in a "fast-paced" though not necessarily logical or internally consistent sequence of mediocre action scenes, cheap tender moments and sluggish wise-cracks;<br /><br />6. Serve with either a comfortable pillow to sleep straight through it all or something a bit more interesting (don't worry: even the yellow pages will do!).
| 0 |
negative
|
On the heels of the well received and beloved coming of age film classic ,concerning the lives of teenagers as they headed into adulthood, George Lucas' American Graffiti, we have Cooley High. An adaptation of sorts by one Eric Monte, co creator of the popular 1970's CBS sitcom Good Times.<br /><br />Cooley High was, and is, viewed as a black version of American Graffiti.Instead of central California ,as in American Graffiti, we have the black slum of Chicago's Cabrini Green as the backdrop for the story here. Instead of America in 1962 Cooley High is situated in 1964.The movie stars Welcome Back Kotter's ,Lawrence Hilton Jacobs and Glynn Turman as the movie main protagonists and its' main characters. It has Garrett Morris playing the principal who tries to keep Jacobs' and Turman's characters,named Coceise and Preach, out of trouble a great deal of the time.<br /><br />You know, I would like to say that Cooley High is a worthy comparison piece to American Graffiti or that it is a great film on its' own but I can't. The problem lies with the fact that the producers of the film couldn't or wouldn't hide the sad underside of black life in America.Having the film in the Cabrini Green part of Chicago doesn't help things.<br /><br />Neither does the crass gross attempts at humor here. When Coceise is looking for a letter of intent from a college he finds his little brother has thrown down a toilet. When the gang visits the Chicago Zoo, one of the gang named Pooter, has manure thrown on him by an ape. When the Turman's character,Preach, is being chased by two hoodlums in the school hangout(A dirty and depressing place to eat food in much less meet people at), he opens the door of the girls' bathroom while a girl is relieving herself as he escapes through the window of the same bathroom! The high school, the homes of the characters, the bathrooms, just about everywhere in the film displays the unfortunate look of urban decay and poverty.<br /><br />If that wasn't enough there was the rough display of humor in the film. The use of violence and profanity in the film. Cooley High may be an coming of age film ,but it is a hard and rough coming of age film with little or none of the wit and liking of the use of nostalgia that made people like and appreciate American Graffiti so much.<br /><br />Motown Records had a hand in making the film. The company's music was part of the film's soundtrack. But even here you get a sense of same old same old as one has heard these songs before a million times over. Not that they weren't great songs within themselves but black music,of that time period was more than just Motown.Especially in Chicago. The song nearing the end of the movie, by the Spinners' G.C. Cameron, was not all that impressive. There have been better Motown ballads that have been done, by better Motown artists than Cameron without question.<br /><br />The last part of the film showing where the characters went to pay homage to the film Cooley High aimed to be ,American Graffiti. It shows that Preach,an intelligent but underachieving student went to Hollywood and became a successful television writer. Eric Monte may have patterned himself as Turman's character. The last shot of film show's Preach running away from Coceise's funeral ,held on a dark rainy afternoon, and all the bleakness that Cooley High came to represent. Eric Monte ,through Preach and that final scene, had one little lesson for all of us when watching Cooley High and for the love of the past. Don't look back.
| 0 |
negative
|
I think this is a great, classic monster film for the family. The mole, what a machine! The tall creature with the beak, the flying green lizards, Ranthorincus/mayas or whatever they are and the ape men things the speak telepathically with them. The battle of the men in rubber suits fighting for a doll for breakfast umm! yummy! Class, what else can I say? How would they make a 2002 remake of this one?
| 1 |
positive
|
I usually enjoy watching Laurel and Hardy, but this is obviously one of the films they made while they were on their way to becoming a successful comedy team.<br /><br />The plot is all too simple, and is mainly based on one joke; how strange kilts and Scotsmen are. And that's all. Okay, there are some other jokes, but I didn't find them very funny at all; they are outdated and (I guess) were not very entertaining when the movie was first released.<br /><br />Still, the movie has got two of the most charming faces in history, and they make the best out of the awkward story (which I expect was filmed without a proper script) and the scenery is nice to look at. <br /><br />In my opinion, watching this is only worthwhile for Laurel and Hardy fans, other people should stay away from it.
| 0 |
negative
|
Fantastic Russian WWII movie. Like most Russian WWII movies, The Ascent is incredibly harrowing. It's also dense in its symbolism. The story follows two partisans, Sotnikov and Rybak (Boris Plotnikov and Vladimir Gostyukhin), who go on a mission to search for food. On their trip, they are spotted by German soldiers, who wound Sotnikov. Sotnikov, in turn, kills one of the Germans, which leads to trouble for the two partisans and everyone else they later run into. The greatest success of the film is its vivid sense of place. Russia is frozen and snowy, and it's hard not to feel that cold go straight to your own bones. Shepitko keeps her shot close to the characters, examining every crag of their faces. It was probably not the choice, but the film is framed 1.33:1, which gives the film a sense of claustrophobia. While the entire film is quite an achievement, I did feel that the first half was stronger than the second. My main complaint about the movie is that it develops into a very unsubtle Christian allegory by its climax. I just don't think the symbolism adds much to the proceedings, especially when I was already intrigued by the debate between the two partisans. It's not quite fair. I was weighing the pros and cons of their argument. I began to lean toward the point of view of a certain character, and then the director pops up and tells me that he's Judas! Despite some heavy-handedness, this is still a must-see.
| 1 |
positive
|
I keep waiting for Peter Fonda to start acting. For someone who comes from such a talented family, it's a mystery to me why Peter Fonda can only play Peter Fonda trying to play someone else. And, that's the good news in this disappointing dog of an adaptation of The Tempest. A string of loosely connected ideas that only suggest a relationship with the Bard's great play is what we're served. The setting is the Civil War and Prospero's (here Guideon's) evil brother looks like an 1890's melodrama villain, complete with Snidely Whiplash moustache. I kept waiting for him to go "Uh ha hah!" which would have been a high point in this dreary presentation. None of the supporting cast was memoriable and Peter Fonda's lack of expression and wooden body movements made the lackadaisical story drag on and on. <br /><br />The Tempest is the Bard's statement about the rage of man's unjust treatment of man. The only believable character was the Gator man, the Caliban counterpart. The transferrence to the swamp had possibilities but the Civil War setting just didn't make it. All in all, a very disappointing production. I saw it on video and would advise, if you want a Willy Shakespeare fix, save your money on this one. Rent something else, like Branagh's Much Ado about Nothing, or Kevin Kline in Midsummer's Night Dream.
| 0 |
negative
|
Personally, I didn't really gain a whole lot from THE ACT OF SEEING WITH ONE'S OWN EYES. I've noticed a lot of really highly rated reviews on here for the film, and I'm kinda surprised. Maybe I missed something that other reviewers felt "moved" by but I found the film pretty tedious and basically pointless.<br /><br />The "action" of the film is a bunch of autopsy footage that is filmed in an "art-house" style - lots of extreme close-ups, weird editing, etc...and with no sound or dialogue.<br /><br />I guess THE ACT OF SEEING WITH ONE'S OWN EYES could be considered a study of human anatomy, or maybe (if you really wanna dig a little) some sort of comment on the fragility of humanity or whatever - but I personally found it to be a bunch of semi-interesting but ultimately dull autopsy footage. If that's your thing, then this will be a winner for you. As for me - I've seen more interesting ER footage. Not a "bad" film, as it isn't really a "film" in any traditional sense - I just found nothing really notable about it - 4/10.
| 0 |
negative
|
Despite its many faults, Hallmark's 1995 version of Gulliver's Travels is still the finest adaptation of Jonathan Swift's satirical classic - largely because it not only includes ALL of Gulliver's many travels but also includes the satire that's often overlooked. Unfortunately the twin problems of the book's highly episodic structure and a television budget (even a fairly lavish one) remain. The book is a somewhat rambling collection of traveller's tales moving simply from one surreal landscape to another, but Simon Moore's adaptation tries to impose some order on the chaos by providing a parallel plot that sees Gulliver returned to England clearly deeply traumatised and trying to prove his way out of the insane asylum where the rival for his wife's affections has had him committed. The England scenes at once mirror and comment on the travels, elements of which occasionally spill over into the real world. The trouble is that for the first hour or so it acts more as a distraction, constantly pulling you away from the story just as it starts to get interesting. The Lilliput scenes suffer worse here, with the feeling that the home scenes are too often designed to save them from filming the more expensive setpieces - this has to be the only version where we don't see Gulliver pulling the Blefescu fleet behind him.<br /><br />Yet once Gulliver makes his escape, the tone becomes more consistent as he finds his situation reversed and himself the pet of the giants of the Utopians of Brobdingnag, a guest of the wise men of the floating island of Laputa who are so engrossed in science that they have no common sense left, the guest/prisoner of a historian who leans history directly from the source, offered immortality with all it's terrible consequences before finally finding a world he wants to belong if only he can convince the sublime talking horses the Houynhnhms that he's not an uncivilized Yahoo, each new destination convincing him of what an absurd and petty species humanity is. For the most part it's a darker set of Travels than expected, with only Gulliver's curiosity and commonsense and disappointment keeping it from plunging into irretrievable bleakness - and even this is offset by the scenes in the asylum where it becomes more obvious that even if he is telling the truth it may well have driven him genuinely insane. It's in these latter scenes that Ted Danson's Gulliver really shines, never more so than in an extraordinary speech where he turns his trial into a disappointed judgment on the whole human race.<br /><br />Being made for television, the Yahoos are rather less literally scatological here than on the page, but for the most part this is a more adult treatment than you might expect with no real dumbing down. The star cast is certainly impressive, and for the most part well-used (if somewhat briefly in a few cases) - Mary Steenburgen, James Fox, Peter O'Toole, Edward Woodward, Omar Sharif, Shashi Kapoor, Edward Fox, Ned Beatty, Alfre Woodard, Kristin Scott Thomas and Isabelle Huppert among them. It's hard to imagine the upcoming Jack Black version even coming close to being a fraction as impressive as this.
| 1 |
positive
|
1) Bad acting.<br /><br />2) For a bunch of castaways on an alien planet, it sure looked like home, especially with the houses and roads you can glimpse in the background.<br /><br />3) Terrible plot with stupid caracters making idiotic decisions and blithely losing precious survival equipment and clothing left, right and center.<br /><br />4) Cool 70's scifi jumpsuits (possibly the only good thing about this movie)<br /><br />5) Interesting ship at the beginning (this crew must have been watching Space 1999 a lot). Too bad it blows up so early. The escape ship also got sunk too fast. *sigh*<br /><br />6) Anthropologists might find some aspects of the movie interesting in terms of primate group behavior.
| 0 |
negative
|
This 1-hour 30-minute inside joke is best understood by Catholics, the number one religion of self-medicating comedians the world over. That isn't to say it can't stand on its own which it does, that the film isn't without its flaws, which its got. Technical issues, mostly: Belief that in 1998 digital was the answer when in fact it was in its infancy - a Beta of a Beta if you will, and re-mastering will never improve it. For the love of God, Hal...please get yourself a Red One. Or three.<br /><br />If you like Hartley films of course, you'll like it. I liked it, because I liked Grim/Fool, and there were added benefits of retrospect: I couldn't help noticing a disturbing self-prophecy, an airliner soaring overhead, used as a harbinger of Armageddon in this 1998 movie. It was as if Cheney had gotten the whole idea from Hal. It's true - Hartley moves his players round into the camera like it's the House of Commons, just one piece of the gimmickry that needs a rest. After all, we're already paying attention to the actors, and the writing is alive. Not great writing, but...fervent. Can I use the word fervent? Purposeful, intelligent, not condescending.<br /><br />Absolutely love PJ Harvey in this, course I'd love her anywhere. Oddly, if Helen Mirren needs a younger self, she should look Harvey up and bring a bottle of blond.
| 1 |
positive
|
Lt. Claude (Claudio Cassinelli) and several prisoners from his sunken ship wash ashore on an island owned by Edmond Rackham (Richard Johnson). Following a few random prisoner deaths, Rackham takes in Claude and his two remaining prisoners. Luckily for everyone, Barbara Bach just happens to be on the island too! Unluckily, there are some crazy fishmen who like to kill people.<br /><br />This Italian produced exploiter seems to have it all - a touch of CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON mixed with DR. MOREAU with a dash of WHITE ZOMBIE voodoo and Atlantis stuff. Despite some wonky looking fishmen costumes, the film does benefit from some beautiful location photography and a nice twist about halfway through. All of the actors are good and Joseph Cotton even pops up as a old biologist. Director Sergio Martino handles himself well enough as there is action ever 10 minutes or so. That can't be said for his belated follow-up THE FISHMEN AND THEIR QUEEN (1995), easily one of the wackiest and most off-base sequels since HIGHLANDER II.
| 1 |
positive
|
In 1895, in a small village in Japan, the wife of the litter carrier Gisaburo (Takahiro Tamura), Seki (Kazuko Yoshiyuki), has an affair with a man twenty-six years younger, Toyiji (Tatsuya Fuji). Toyiji becomes jealous of Gisaburo and plots with Seki to kill him. They strangle Gisaburo and dump his body inside a well in the woods, and Seki tells the locals that Gisaburo moved to Tokyo to work. Three years later, the locals gossip about the fate of Gisaburo, and Seki is haunted by his ghost. The situation becomes unbearable to Seki and Toyiji when a police authority comes to the village to investigate the disappearance of Gisaburo.<br /><br />"Ai no Borei" is a surreal and supernatural love story. The remorse and the guilty complex of Seki make her see the ghost of her murdered husband, spoiling the perfect plot of her lover. The cinematography is jeopardized by the quality of the VHS released in Brazil, but there are very beautiful scenes, inclusive "Ringu" and the American remake "The Ring" use the view of the well from inside in the same angle. The performances and direction are excellent making "Ai no Borei" a great movie. My vote is eight.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "O Império da Paixão" ("The Empire of Passion")
| 1 |
positive
|
First off, I refuse to even consider this piece of work a Music video... I consider it a short film that uses excerpts of the song "Thriller" in its soundtrack. To me a music video must be no longer than the song itself, and the song must play the entire length of the video. Calling this a music video is like calling The Great Gatsby a poem. On top of this... let's face it... "thriller" is a boring 14 minutes, including the extremely dated werewolf transformation, the mindless Vincent Price poem (just because VP recites it doesn't mean it's not lame), and the least threatening zombies I have ever seen. Sure, this was certainly a cultural phenomenon, but don't forget, this also happened at the same time the A-Team was the #1 show on TV, so lets not give the culture too much credit on that one... One last point on this film's impact on the media on music videos... what exactly did this add to the equation that "Billie Jean" and "Beat It" didn't already add? From what I can tell, it only added the practice of stopping the song for some dialog, or a superfluous dance scene... so you could say that all this video really did was give Puffy the inspiration to make more annoying music videos... Not quite my definition of great
| 0 |
negative
|
The ending made my heart jump up into my throat. I proceeded to leave the movie theater a little jittery. After all, it was nearly midnight. The movie was better than I expected. I don't know why it didn't last very long in the theaters or make as much money as anticipated. Definitely would recommend <br /><br />
| 0 |
negative
|
This is a low budget, well acted little gem. Alice, a small town Massachusetts teenager, fed up with her existence, takes to the road to escape her mother who flips burgers and her own job as a check out in a super market. She sets out for Florida and to stay with her wealthier high school friend who is a freshman at Miami. After her car suspiciously breaks down on the thruway and she loses all her money, she ends up with a retired couple in an RV who also happen to be traveling to Florida.. The couple, brilliantly played by Judith Ivy and Bill Raymond are overly hospitable and, it turns out, a prostitute and and her pimp. Slowly, Alice is lured into truck stop prostitution as the RV meanders down the thruway in the general direction of Florida. Through intermittent flashbacks, we learn a little more about Alice and her desire to leave tiny Milford. We also see the couple in a new light and their life and the choices made by the couple and Alice all seem quite credible. An excellent, well made film that you will think about when it is over.
| 1 |
positive
|
An interesting concept turned into carnage...<br /><br />My first seeing feature from Geoffrey Wright (Romper Stomper), When i first took interest in it, it seemed at the time an interesting concept...<br /><br />Shakespere + Aussie Film + Gothic setting + Melbourne Gangland<br /><br />A very odd mixed that turned into a disastrous piece of Aussie cinema that gives my country a bad name...<br /><br />Pros: -Interesting concept<br /><br />Cons: -Waste of a good cast -Stuffed and stupid plot -Crooked camera angles -Not much variety of locations -Crap use of Shakespearian diologue<br /><br />Overall: Australia's worst attempt of a Shakespere film, Stick to Baz Lurhman...or Romper Stomper (WARNING: That film is dangerous)
| 0 |
negative
|
This movie is absolutely terrible... Definately a bull***t story and even worse acting. Too bad Charlie Sheen is involved in something like this since he is a decent actor and has done a couple of really good movies.<br /><br />The special effects are 'A-team'-standard with the classical car gets shot and then flips over with a little fireball under the hood.<br /><br />Of course the enemy are portrayed as total idiots and die as fast as they can say '-Die evil Americans'.<br /><br />Unless braindead movies are you game, don't spend 113minutes of your life on this rubbish. Pick up 'the Platoon' or 'Apocalypse Now' instead.
| 0 |
negative
|
The trouble with this sort of lyrical film-making is that you either make a masterpiece, or a lemon: there's little middle ground. Putting it gently, this is not "Berlin - symphony of a city" or "Man with a Movie Camera". Unfortunately, it's not much to look at, either.<br /><br />The problem with this one is that it's glib and half-baked, as if Michael Moore had come on board. It doesn't really have anything to say, or rather, to show us with pictures and sounds. Koyanisqatsi uses images cumulatively to propound a thesis. This is just a patchwork in search of a point. (Though, quite inadvertently, the movie tells us more about the mind of Uncle Sam than it intends. There is something profoundly paradoxical about an anti-technology, anti-civilisation, anti-media movie that is so profoundly souped up with technology. 'Do as I say, and not as I do'. You just gotta love the Yanks, eh.) Tonally, there's something sour and misanthropic about this episode. Both the prior episodes had moments of lyricism and exhilaration; this time the tone is consistently glum. It simply doesn't work over this duration, as Gustav Mahler will tell you.<br /><br />Stylistically, Naqoyqatsi is a mess. The whizzy digital stuff is particularly misguided. It gives the whole thing a totally fussy, overprocessed look, and it also undermines the 'realist' nature of the analogue 'found footage'. (I mean, I pity the guys. Part of the joy of Koyanisqaatsi was that it was a homage to the use of optical film. But now optical film's an historical artifact, they have to 'take on board' the digital domain; but I don't think they bring it off. The digital stuff often looks like video links from CNN or BBC World.) And with the "found footage", well, the digital manipulation is often ugly, and usually just silly, and the false colour and solarisation kept me thinking of...<br /><br />...ahem...<br /><br />James Bond title sequences.<br /><br />Ahem. Odd as it may seem, there is also the possibility that the movie has been simply stolen by Yo Yo Ma's performance; it's about as unobtrusive as a Lawrence Olivier voice-over. The images would have to be jolly compelling to stack up against all that charisma.<br /><br />Philip Glass himself is on odd form; never expected him to knock off the Verdi requiem! (Made me laugh, which, of course, is not the desired response to any part of this movie). There's even one piece of music that sounds like Brahms. (?) Perhaps they've changed his pills.<br /><br />From our 'idle questions' department: is Geoffrey Reggio actually a Hopi Indian at all? Or did he just do a sweatlodge in Hollywood Hills? Oh, and are the various snippets bits of footage from earlier 'episodes' in the trilogy a commentary on the way these movies, too, are part of the global media slushy?
| 0 |
negative
|
The efforts of a new group of young talent bolstered by Alan Rickman and Emma Thompson, 2 extremely gifted actors, makes for a thrilling and engrossing evening of entertainment. And I might add that Hal Holbrook shines as the Senator. This movie deserves five stars. I give it a ten on your scale. And the ending is PERFECT. I am constantly amazed at the ability of British actors to master our American accents. I was convinced that all the actors were born in Louisiana. And what finer locale for a mystery than New Orleans! The Big Easy, also known as the Crescent City, permeates every scene. As writer and director, Sebastian Gutierrez deserves high praise.
| 1 |
positive
|
I can't believe they do this kind of filth out of a serious theme. Totally unrealistic (they seemed to want it to be HIGHLY realistic but all the elements are based on clichés), real propaganda stuff. After seeing this, an addict probably just want to continue his/her career :-) I gave it 2.
| 0 |
negative
|
I am very disappointed because I expected a real ride as promised in the many reviews. The script is very bad with lot of holes and the direction too. The director failed completely to develop each violent scene with thrills and suspense. It tries very hard to follow a wannabe thriller. Therefore I had to watch how every bullet was spent without giving any sense to me. I was always asking what kind of movie I am watching. Then I didn't like that she smoked aggressively one cigarette after the other but perhaps the film was supported partly by the tobacco industry. The end is also very disappointing. I cannot understand how Jodie Foster could have been nominated for the Golden Globe in this worst role of her life. Jodie, therefore I liked very much PANIC ROOM or FLIGHT PLAN. This is definitely one of the worst I have ever seen. 4/10.
| 0 |
negative
|
How could they take such a beautifully animated gem like Don Bluth's All Dogs go to Heaven and bastardize it with a charmless, cheesy, uninspired sequel. The haunting music and delightful characters are gone, now replaced with tacky animation and an unimaginative plot.<br /><br />The Pros: Charlie Sheen is sometimes fun as Charlie, but he lacks the charming tough guy attitude that brought him to life by Burt Reynolds. I did particularly enjoy the songs "I will always be with you" and "It's too Heavenly here".<br /><br />The Cons: There seems to be no connection between this and the original. In the beginning Charlie is chums with Carface, but wait a minute. Isn't this the same character who was responsible for Charlie's murder and kidnapped the sweet little orphan he loved? I guess that all changes in Heaven but why isn't Anne-Marie even mentioned? If Itchy makes it to Heaven, wouldn't Flo and Killer make it too? What is with Annabelle the whippet's voice? In the original it sounded feminine and charming and in the sequel it sounds like a whiny, bitchy, parrot. The new characters aren't all that great (except Sasha). And the animation is better compared to a generic Saturday morning cartoon. The constant cartoony "humor" is flat and unfunny and the "heart" just doesn't work when compare to the original, which had such a moving unsubtle touch that makes me cry every time.<br /><br />All Dogs go to Heaven is one of my all-time favorite films. How Don Bluth allowed this sequel to be made is beyond me.<br /><br />BOTTOM LINE: Not all sequels go to Heaven.
| 0 |
negative
|
Kaige succeeds in this beautifully done film. The pace matches the story, the direction is superb, and the casting/acting is perfect. The only draw back are one or two slight editing errors. I love film and I am a confessed stickler.
| 1 |
positive
|
ABC's version of the life of the late Pope: They put it just slightly ahead of CBS's version and it may have suffered from that but the program itself was excellent. It moved fast since it only had two hours (with commercials also taking up time) to cover this great man's long life, but Thomas Kretschmann admirably was up to the challenge.He did a remarkable job in conveying the emotions and strife that John-Paul endured.He-unlike the CBS biopic- played the role from youth to old age and managed to seem "realistic" at both ends of the scale.His credibility never wavered.He has an amazing range and depth. It is a shame that the program could not have been longer and more detailed but working within the time frame they did have,I think they did an excellent job bringing it to the small screen.
| 1 |
positive
|
I must confess, I was surprised at how good this movie was when I first watched it. I had planned to see it in theaters during the summer but found out unpleasantly that it had already been and gone. Therefore, I expected it to have been removed from theaters because it was bad. Then, today, I rented it and watched it and really enjoyed it. The speed that events were occurring was questionable, it could have been a little longer. I found it was very true to the book, however it left out some crucial parts: Mullet Finger's real name, etc. I felt as if I hadn't read the book I wouldn't have really understand what was going on. The acting was quite good, another thing I had expected to be poor, however the cop, sorry I can't remember the actor's name, could have done a little better. All in all, I found this to be a very entertaining movie and would recommend it to all audiences!
| 1 |
positive
|
Holy cow, what a piece of sh*t this movie is. I didn't how these filmmakers could take a 250 word book and turn it into a movie. I guess they didn't know either! I don't remember any farting or belching in the book, do you?<br /><br />They took this all times childrens classic, added some farting, belching and sexual inuindo, and prostituted it into a KAKA joke. This should give you a good idea of what these hollywood producers think like. I have to say, visually it was interesting, but the brilliant visual story is ruined by toilet humor (if you even think that kind of thing is funny) I DON'T want the kids that I know to think it is.<br /><br />Don't take your kids to see, don't rent the DVD. I hope the ghost of Doctor Suess ghost comes and haunts the people that made this movie.
| 0 |
negative
|
I want to say I liked this film, I really do, but when it boils down to it it was just far too boring. It starts off looking promising, and even once they get inside the mines the creepy atmosphere and mood is great. The problem is the monster, or lack of it. As people have said it's a stop-motion monster, but that's not the problem (stop-motion can look great if done properly). The problem is that we don't see enough of it and we don't get to see any deaths. This is meant to be a horror film so a lack of monster and a lack of deaths equals boredom. There were some scenes I liked, such as when one girl is using her camera in the dark and the monster is coming towards her. There are also a few other creepy scenes but they are far too few to hold your interest and definitely not worth watching the film for. It's a shame, because I can see that had it been handled correctly it would've been an effectively creepy horror flick. The saddest thing is that films like this will never be made again, because film makers over-polish their films these days and rely on crappy CGI effects.
| 0 |
negative
|
This is one of the most underrated movies of the 1990s. If you allow yourself to identify with the Patricia Arquette character, you will find it to be a very moving story of a woman regaining a sense of purpose to her life, and finding a new will to live.<br /><br />Arquette's performance is brave because it is purposefully "wooden" -- it's a way of defining her character's spiritual death, her complete lack of a desire to be alive. She moves through life like a zombie because her family has been murdered and she can't see the point of living. What is moving is how in the course of the story, she is reawakened -- by the Burmese landscape, by the beautiful quality of its people and landscapes, and by the primal choices she is forced to confront.<br /><br />Boorman supports this visually (and Hans Zimmer supports it with one of his most gorgeous, haunting scores) with an often static camera and with a propensity to shoot through glass, windows, windshields, etc. We are on the outside looking in, just like Arquette.... until she finds herself deep in the jungle and is forced to choose whether or not to fight for her life.<br /><br />I recommend the 1954 movie THE PURPLE PLAIN as well. It's a similar story in a similar setting, and makes for a fascinating comparison.
| 1 |
positive
|
The '7' rating is not necessarily a smear-- this movie was done on a low budget-- but done well within its limits.<br /><br />A usual pot-boiler plot-- Ship carrying a prisoner is destroyed in space, people and prisoner escape in pods, land on unknown planet where their presence wakes something up. Mayhem ensues, a lot of ammo is expended.<br /><br />The special effects were spare and properly done, emphasizing future technology with holographic displays and controls instead of relying on bulky, cheap looking plastic props. Plus the pacing of the story moved without allowing the viewer to lapse into boredom where they start picking things apart.<br /><br />I peg this one as a lite Saturday afternoon flick. You can get up and hit the fridge without pausing it and it'll still be enjoyable. Even better, your girlfriend can talk all the way through it without damaging your enjoyment-- and she'll be happy: after all, she got to TALK to you! It's THAT type of movie.<br /><br />Anyways, the actual story line has s few holes in after they hit the planet, but hey, this is a Guns 'n' Ammo action movie. Cohesive story lines are not necessarily required so long as you have Beer and chips at hand. So don't get get yourself into a brain-cramp over the ending.
| 1 |
positive
|
One of Alfred Hitchcock's three greatest films, along with "Psycho" and "The 39 Steps", "Strangers On A Train" is as brilliantly out-of-control as a merry-go-round in Metcalf, and almost as deadly. It's the kind of film you have so much fun watching, you can't even feel properly guilty about it until you have time to catch your breath.<br /><br />Top amateur tennis contender Guy Haines (Farley Granger) meets a singularly weird, louche stranger named Bruno Anthony (Robert Walker) on a train. Thanks to the gossip pages, Bruno knows all about Guy's problems with his no-good wife Miriam, and rather gaily suggests they do each other a favor: Bruno will kill Miriam and Guy will kill Bruno's father, who wants to put Bruno in an institution. Guy laughs it off, but Bruno ain't kidding, as Guy finds out to his peril.<br /><br />It's a great premise for a murder story, and Hitchcock gives "Strangers On A Train" a run for all its worth, with the help of Walker in perhaps the greatest performance in any Hitchcock film, including Anthony Perkins in "Psycho". While Perkins makes his mark playing tetchily against the grain, Walker as Anthony is one perfectly at home either buttering up old ladies at a swank dinner party or strangling a young woman at an amusement park.<br /><br />What drives Bruno? Many commentators suggest his apparent homosexuality finds a match in pretty Guy. Yes, Bruno lights up the old gay-dar, but Guy seems happy enough on love's rebound with socialite Anne Morton (Ruth Roman). Bruno's interest for Guy could just as easily be envy, for someone making a mark in the world while he lives at home, letting Mommy file his nails.<br /><br />"Oh, I certainly admire people who do things," Bruno purrs, looking like a cat eyeing a mouse. "You know, it must be pretty exciting to be so important."<br /><br />Later on, Bruno calls himself a "bum", accurate enough except for our rooting interest in him, even as he wrecks Guy's life with his homicidal meddling. It's the ultimate perverse underdog's tale. There's a sense of integrity about Bruno, in his dogged dedication, which commands our respect and which Hitchcock plays to so brilliantly. When Bruno floats away from the scene of his big crime, am I the only sick person in this world who's actually happy for him? I think not, yet Hitchcock keeps the story on a right-enough path for us to realize how low we have fallen. We don't want Bruno to win, exactly, but we enjoy his élan as he tries.<br /><br />Everything else is so perfect, or at least close enough, to make every shot memorable. Hitchcock always managed at least 2-3 good setpiece sequences per movie; here you get a score of them at the amusement park alone. ("20 Big Shows" the neon side at the entrance says, and they aren't kidding.) Script, camera-work, a gripping tennis match, Ruth Roman's jaw-dropping figure, it's all too much greatness for one film to contain. Even Granger does his callow-youth thing here with more risible plausibility than Gregory Peck ever managed.<br /><br />You can call this a clinic in movie-making, but "clinic" sounds too dull. "Strangers On A Train" is good nasty fun, all the way through, leaving you with a nifty stinger at the tail as you realize you were rooting for the wrong stranger all along. Heck, I'll take that ride over again in a second!
| 1 |
positive
|
I attended a screening of this film. Travolta came to do a Q & A after the film ended. It was a small screening room in Tribeca. Out of courtesy to him I did not walk out which I wanted to do. This is film-making at its worst. To start the script was poorly written. The writer writes in one voice. The dialogue was stilted and clichéd. How this writer/director got Scarlet Johansen, John Travolta and Lions Gate Entertainment to back her on this is the only brilliant thing she accomplished in this fiasco.<br /><br />I do in fact recommend this film to all aspiring screenwriters, directors and filmmakers. Because when you are told that you are wasting your time and it will be impossible for you to reach your goals. Hey...just look at this crap and say to yourself...if they can make this then anythings poosible.<br /><br />PS- Travolta did a great Q&A though...he was at ease, spoke freely and was a down to earth nice guy. The director/writer stood on the sidelines. When John tried to engage her in the conversation she stood back like a piece of wood and never joined in. I looked at her and I thought...how was this person able to successfully "pitch" to agents, studio execs, top talent ...when she can't open her mouth at a screening of her own film. The conclusion from a few of us in attendance was that she must have strong family connections in the business.<br /><br />After you watch this you should follow it with Guy Ritchie's zero star masterpiece "Swept Away" with the most unintentionally funny and worst performance by wife Madonna. She's so bad and looks so bad in this film I figure this was her his way of getting back at her for all the abuse he takes from her at home.
| 0 |
negative
|
It's important to keep in mind the real meaning of the phrase "Inspired by a true story" when watching Pride. It's sort of like "You could save up to 50%," which can quite literally be translated to "You can't save more than 50%." It all sounds great until you realize that the lower part of "up to" is "zero." Similarly, "inspired by a true story" means that someone heard a story and it made them think of this one. The only certainty is that the real story and the one you're about to see are not the same thing.<br /><br />There is a real Jim Ellis that began coaching the swim team at the Philadelphia Department of Recreation in the early 1970s, but I have a feeling that the real Jim Ellis must not have been able to conceal some feelings of disappointment at the way the movie turned out. Clearly, it takes wild liberties with the story of his life, and I just picture him responding to the strange looks of his friends who wonder why the movie is so much different than the man they know.<br /><br />At any rate, one thing that he will surely be proud of is that he is portrayed by Terrence Howard, one of our finest actors, who starred alongside Bernie Mac who, despite the lack of an original and powerful story, still gives a heartfelt and moving performance. <br /><br />The movie takes place in 1970s Philadelphia, a time and place where racism was the norm, not the exception, and the educated and professional Jim Ellis, who is also an accomplished swimmer, is having trouble finding a worthwhile teaching position, until finally relegated to a falling apart recreation center, which he is assigned the task of cleaning up before its demolition. We can certainly understand his feeling of belittlement. <br /><br />When we first meet Elston, the maintenance man (Bernie Mac), he is a disillusioned grump who sits in his office surrounded by piles of junk that touch the ceiling and watching daytime TV on an old, dusty television set. Needless to say, when Jim shows up to start cleaning the place up and clearing it out, Elston is not exactly friendly with him. He knew his rec center was being closed, and all his anger about that transferred quite smoothly onto Jim. <br /><br />Given his past as a college swimmer, Jim takes a special interest in the pool, which he cleans and fills and brings to top shape. A group of black teenagers who play basketball just outside the rec center take interest in the pool when their basketball rim is taken away and the heat remains stifling, and soon the group have a developing swim team on their hands, which they enter into a citywide swim meet. To call them underdogs, of course, would be something of an understatement. They're unorganized, unprofessional, insufficiently trained, and have no idea how to behave at a swim meet. <br /><br />That doesn't matter, of course. The movie is your standard underdog sports story, so the first athletic outing is totally unimportant as anything other than a learning experience, a catalyst to drive their much harder and much more focused training that will lead up to the final athletic outing, the one that matters. By now, the only thing a sports movie has going for it is that the protagonist(s) do not have to win at the film's climax, we only have to understand the meaning and significance of their effort. <br /><br />Sadly, the movie has all of the character development of an old Seagal movie. The good guys are the good guys because they're just supposed to be, and the bad guys are the nasty white swimmers who laugh and jeer and make racist jokes at our team. Oh, and there's one scene where one of the white guys kicks one of the black guys underwater while in the middle of a race. I didn't know it was really possible to kick someone underwater like that, but you get the idea of how deep the character development is.<br /><br />We understand that this is the group of kids that Jim Ellis turned from kids hanging out on the streets doing nothing with their lives and into an organized and competitive team of swimmers, but other than that we don't really get to know anything about who they are.<br /><br />But the biggest problem is that the only real statements that the movie makes are that effort and organization lead to success and racism is bad. Both of these are so obvious that when a movie is made with them alone it ends up feeling empty and unnecessary. Racism was so much more powerful in America in the 1970s that it feels like an enormous loss that the movie dealt directly with that issue but didn't really say anything about it. It's sort of a feel- good movie, but when it's over and you realize how much it should have said is much bigger than what it said, the feel-good sensation turns into a sad disappointment.
| 0 |
negative
|
'The Cell' is a journey into the mind of a serial killer and I mean this literally. The film is about the journey, about the world it shows during this journey, the destination does not really matter. In my opinion this journey through the mind gives such beautiful images other things do not really matter as long as they are not distracting. In fact, the story is pretty good.<br /><br />We start with Catherine Deane (Jennifer Lopez) in the mind of a catatonic boy. How this works exactly does not really matter, but it looks a lot like virtual reality. She and other scientist including Henry West (Dylan Baker) and Miriam Kent (Marianne Jean-Baptiste) believe that this method might work. Catherine enters the mind of the boy and speaks with him there, in a world that is completely created by the boy. She hopes she can let him do things that in the end will give results.<br /><br />The real story then. A serial killer named Carl (Vincent D'Onofrio) just dumped the body of one of his victims. FBI Agents Ramsey (Jake Weber) and Novak (Vince Vaughn) are on this case. Another girl (Tara Subkoff) disappears and at that time, after forensic research on the dumped body, Carl can be traced and captured. Two problems occur. 1. Carl just went into a coma; he has been sick for a long time. 2. His house and the house with his last kidnapped victim are not at the same place. In a way this part of the story is pretty standard.<br /><br />Things are about to get interesting again. To find out where the girl is, Catherine has to go into Carl's mind. This is dangerous for a lot of reasons. In short: Carl is unknown territory, schizophrenic and a serial killer. If Catherine starts believing Carl's mind is the real world then her mind can convince her body; she could die in the mind of Carl. A tape of how the last victim was killed, a fate this girl will have in about twenty hours, makes sure Catherine will try to get the location out of Carl's mind.<br /><br />It is the journey through this sick mind that makes this film more than worth watching. Director Tarsem Singh, who did music videos before this, in a way goes back to these music videos. Every room in the imaginative world is another short clip that exists out of beautiful and sometimes haunting images. For me the visual style felt completely new, the way 'Three Kings' had a new visual style one year earlier. If something like that can make you like a film, 'The Cell' will not disappoint. But fans of the thriller and horror genre can like this film anyway. The story itself, without the great fantasy world, is good enough for that. I think you have to be a little open minded, of course events are not (yet) possible in our real world. Still, a very entertaining film with nice ideas that looks terrific.
| 1 |
positive
|
If this film had been made in the 50's or 60's, critics and fans alike would have praised it. I myself, enjoyed the film from beginning to end. It's not a timeless piece, and has not aged well over the years, but it is enjoyable to watch, nonetheless. As for Mrs. Ritchie's acting in the film? Not the best on the planet -- but it adds to the film's unique slapstick comedy-aspirations, and showcases Madonna's (often underrated) sense of comedic timing. Madonna plays Nikki Finn, an ex-convict who was framed for a crime she didn't commit. Griffin Dunne plays the hapless future groom/puppet who is sent to escort her from prison to the bus station, where a series of unfortunate events occurs, thus creating the plot. (And there *is* one, folks!) Give the film a shot. You might be pleasantly surprised at how funny it really is.
| 1 |
positive
|
When the episode was made and aired Eisenhower was President. Kennedy was President-Elect.<br /><br />As for the episode, it was a passable episode, if not a bit earnest. "The Professor" shows not much range here, and the whole thing seems a little rushed (a lot of episodes of the TZ seem to not fit the time slot, some seeming like they're crammed in and rushed, some with little or nothing to it spread out over the half hour, and some, of course fit). I guess you just expect a little more tension than to be taken back to some rooms and drugged. But overall a decent episode. Indeed the "what if" motif of time travel is a nugget in itself and sets the table of with basic interest.<br /><br />7 out of 10, considering there were a lot of TZ episodes not quite as good, and some a great deal better.
| 1 |
positive
|
In this tense and character-driven romantic tragi-comedy, we are given an insight into the intertwining lives of four thirtysomething Parisians. At the centre is Vinz Cassell's portrayal of Max. A starry-eyed Romeo, he falls head over heels for beautiful stranger Lisa (Bellucci). Encouraged by his put-upon best friend Lucien (Écoffey, in an understated but effective performance), he wins her heart and they live happily ever after... that is, until the scheming, neurotic and obsessive Alice (the versatile Romane Bohringer) becomes very involved in the lives and loves of the other three.<br /><br />The rich plot is thickened by a curious chronological jumble, and the movie emerges as an intricate jigsaw, the eye-candy of picture-postcard Paris at the heart of it all. The use of colour does not go unnoticed, particularly in Lisa's spectacular apartment (presumably accounting for the film's title), where the reds and yellows provoke the fires of passion and lust.<br /><br />The audience can relate to Max: he truly wears his heart on his sleeve and is constantly punished by irony and circumstance for it. In one memorable scene, our fated lovers (agonisingly separated by a 'choreographed' misunderstanding) narrowly miss out on the chance meeting that would surely reunite them. Independent of one another, they travel to the same destination: her on the Metro, him in a taxi, practically tête-à-tête. Yet fate seems to have it in for them, and the audience is captivatingly teased.<br /><br />The performances in this film are really what make L'Appartement stand out. I still cannot understand why Vincent Cassell is not a big star outside France. He has presence and diversity in abundance. Monica Bellucci (Cassell's real-life spouse at the time of writing) has recently found fame in the Anglophone film industry, but perhaps for the wrong reasons - true, she is divinely beautiful, but behind that is a talented actress who can dominate a scene in classic 'leading-lady' style, which many British and American actresses dismiss in favour of the all-too-easy 'subtle' approach.<br /><br />All in all, watch this film! I doubt you'll be disappointed. It is gripping, satisfying, amusing, sad, lavish, and a lesson in artistic film-making.
| 1 |
positive
|
I'll say it again... one of the worst films ever made and it was made by the director that made one of my most, favorite films - "Excalibur". I was floored to see it got a grade of over six. This movie sucks. It looked terrible. It looked like it was shot in 18 days and Boorman must've been sleeping when he directed this. Arquette didn't do anything. Just plain terrible, rotten, unbearable and probably the only blemish in Boorman's celebrated career.<br /><br />1/10!!!!!
| 0 |
negative
|
A complete and utter waster of my precious two hours. The entire movie could have been made in less than 60 seconds by simply showing people getting coked up, a car crashing, people getting more coked up, people having sex, people crying, and people getting more coked up. The tagline for this movie should have read "Come see how f*cked up our characters are! They're stoned! They're coke addicts! They're a mess! Who are these people? Do you really care? Does it matter? Just give us your money please, because we sure don't care about anything else!" An absolutely terrible movie. It never went anywhere, you never got to know the characters (they never even said what these people did to earn such a big house and so much money and cars and coke), and it was just downright boring. You might like the movie a little more if you're a stoner yourself, but for the vast majority of us that aren't, this movie is a waste of film and of time.
| 0 |
negative
|
At my local video rental store, they have a special place for Two Girls and a Guy. It's a long running joke really. The clerk lets people rent it for free. They value their customers too much to let them waste their hard earned money on it.<br /><br />I was extremely surprised to see that people gave this movie a good review. Maybe someone can explain it to me. (or maybe the positive comments were jokes? Did people involved with the movie write them? Perhaps the mother of the director/writer?)<br /><br />Maybe I've just seen so many good movies that this one fails in comparison.
| 0 |
negative
|
This is an incredible piece of drama and powerful which hits you. I found the film was great and getting to grips with the two main characters disability, this was represented in a great performance by both two Michael and Rory. Whether the story is based around a true story I feel the story was trying to giving the audience a message that as a whole the general public should respect and feel for the needs of disabled people and that they should be given the same chance as any other human. On the whole this film reach into my soul and I too felt touched by the actors and the director sending out there creativity. The whole picture is that some actors take it beyond their character the play and only show part of the character that is believable to the audience, but I feel that theses two certainly made great use as their gifted talent to portray a masterpiece piece of drama. Certainly one not to be missed!
| 1 |
positive
|
Once a month, I invite a few friends over for a "Retarded Movie Night". We look forward to movies that are either so bad they're funny or movies that know they don't have a plot and just show a lot of chests. Last night, we were unfortunate enough to have Zombie Planet as one of our movies. The cinematography is on par with what we're used to, but the acting was a different story. The lead role is played by a Johnny Depp/Rob Zombie wanna-be who couldn't get a role in a high school play, let alone a LOW-BUDGET horror film. Our indecisive hero, who couldn't tell whether or not he wanted to be a bad-ass this scene or a whimpering coward was one of the reasons why this was the first movie of 30 that I have ever had to stop early during a Retarded Movie Night. It had the possibility for greatness with a GREAT twist on the standard zombie infection, but they took it an entirely different direction based on Johnny Zombie. I personally would not recommend this to any of my friends. However, it's unfortunate that I already invited a few over last night to suffer through 80% of this movie with me.
| 0 |
negative
|
Beware, My Lovely (1952) Dir: Harry Horner <br /><br />Production: The Filmmakers/RKO Radio Pictures<br /><br />Credulity-straining thriller from the pioneering producer team of Collier Young and Ida Lupino, aka The Filmmakers (with Lupino pitching in with some uncredited direction). <br /><br />Robert Ryan is the 'peril' and Ida Lupino is the 'woman' in this entry in the 'woman in peril' style film. Ryan plays Howard Wilton, a tightly-wound psychotic handyman drifter (noooo, Ryan? I know, hard to believe). Lupino is the lonely war widow, Helen Gordon, who hires Howard to do some work around her house. Things go downhill from there as Howard makes Helen a prisoner in her own home. <br /><br />Howard has a nasty secret, not that he could reveal it. You see, consciousness is a real challenge for him. Maintaining it, that is. He has an unfortunate habit of coming to and finding his employers dead. This is part of the film's problem. The nature of Howard's psychosis is so extreme that it is nearly impossible to believe that he's been free to roam from town to town unobstructed, even in the year 1918 (when the film is set). He can't remember anything that happened ten minutes ago. His violent, threatening, anti-social tendencies are set off by the smallest and most common of things (a young girl flirting, inadequacies involving the war, due to his being rejected for service). I don't know how he even made it past the interview with Helen. There are other implausibilities. If you were locked in your house with a madman, but nonetheless left on your own for periods of time, couldn't you figure out a way to escape? <br /><br />Ryan, I think, is defeated by the material. It feels like he's overplaying his hand. His series of tics and spasms and the tightly coiled bursts of dementia all have a been-there, done-that robotic feel to them. At this point in his career he'd probably played this character, to some degree, ten times and it shows. We are encouraged to empathize with Howard (I didn't) through shown bits of humanity, like him being stopped in his tracks by a music box and his relating to a group of children who won't judge him. Lupino just has to act frazzled and in distress, which she is more than capable of and does. <br /><br />The picture had one thing going for it; what would be the eventual resolution of the conflict? So naturally there was a disappointing ending that was abrupt and ineffective. <br /><br />Of slight interest was a recurring motif where the camera would catch Howard's reflection (in mirrors, water, Christmas tree decorations). This indicated something going on, or about to go on, in his head. Horner (1953's Vicki), who made his reputation in production design, does a fine job of making the house feel like a prison. Credit too, the always reliable RKO art department for the work on the house. In the end, sub-standard work from the principals, who all have much better films to their credit. <br /><br />*½ out of 4
| 0 |
negative
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.