text
stringlengths 49
12.1k
| label
int64 0
1
| label_text
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|
To quote one critic's review of the movie, "it started off slow and stopped." The plot was believeable enough (although some of the characters' actions seemed very, very RANDOM), the script was fairly well written (in that the dialogue did not seem forced), but everything went way too slowly. There were too many pauses between lines, and the way the lines were delivered was not all that great. This movie had potential, but blew it like a teenager turning to drugs. My advice? Wait for it to come on TV before you see it.
| 0 |
negative
|
i did not read the book. nor do i care to. the movie was a beautiful romance, and i think women will enjoy it. no, it was not a "10" film, but it was enjoyable. women, if your man is bored as mine was, then watch it yourself. hurt is wonderful as the philosophic doctor who delivers a thoughtful monologue on "in love" and "loving."<br /><br />also, if you like nick cage, he was terrific and funny. i enjoyed watching the developing romance. <br /><br />also, if you like Christian bale -- do see him in equilibrium. this is a "10" sci fi movie.<br /><br />do see this film. ignore the previous user's comments. <br /><br />one -- especially the ladies!! also do visit my website at my name as one word and a "dot" com.
| 1 |
positive
|
I love Ustinov's distinctive, literate narration. And the photography is quiet nice. We put the film on for our 3.5 year old who sort of wandered in and out of the room. So for our first viewing, we only saw about 1/3 of the movie and were quite charmed. When we re-watched, sitting down for family time,we were all mortified at the violence and life-threatening situations the poor otter got into. About halfway through the movie, there's a rack of dead, bloody furry animals. Lots of blood, not just a little. Then at the end, there's a wild struggle with a dog, then blood clouds the water. You'd think, given the G rating, that's all you'll see...that they will IMPLY one of the animals died. Nope. They drag the carcass out of the water and show it plainly for several traumatizing seconds. Personally, as an adult I love horror movies and am fine with violent movies ala Scorsese, Cronenberg, Tarantino. Heck, I love the ultra violent Battle Royale. But those aren't kid movies and don't advertise themselves as such. If you are deliberately raising your young ones to see the harsh realities of life for cute animals, then this is the movie for you. If you are like me and my wife though, you might want to spare your child nightmares and avoid this one.
| 0 |
negative
|
I just saw "Checking Out" at the Philadelphia Film Festival. What a terrific combination of a heartwarming storyline and a great cast. Director Jeff Hare has done an outstanding job of inviting the audience into the disjointed, yet hilarious world of Morris Applebaum and family. The family life is presented in such a way that we enjoy the crazy antics yet feel the real pain and concern they have for one another.<br /><br />Typically I am not a Peter Falk fan, but he IS Morris Applebaum and plays the role with great humor and humanity.<br /><br />I hope that everyone gets to see this wonderful movie and enjoy it as I did.<br /><br />Hats off to the Director, Cast, and Crew for a job well done!
| 1 |
positive
|
After seeing Shootfighter 1, and the buckets of blood they shed, I was ready for another rousing jaunt of open handed heart massage, and chiropractics in a cage. But nooooooo, this was like the Barney version of the first movie, with that lamer from the Karate kid. At least Bolo Yeung still kicks booty, although he needs to do more movies like Bloodsport and Caddyshack.
| 0 |
negative
|
I very well remember the bad press this film got because of the producers' court order against Clayton Moore using the name "Lone Ranger" or donning his black mask at personal appearances. Quite apart from any consideration of the film's quality, this was the absolute height of nearsighted arrogance and stupidity on the part of the producers and their attorneys. And I suspect that the lesson was well-learned after this film tanked, which was widely perceived as some sort of karma for the jerks responsible for the court order against Moore.<br /><br />In more recent times it has become the custom, when reviving a legendary film or TV project, to invite the original star or stars for cameo appearances, and rightly so. Show some respect, you idiots! And even if they turn up their noses at the prospect, which has happened, at least the offer was made. This is proof positive that film producers, studio executives, and entertainment attorneys are not quite too stupid and arrogant to be taught by example.
| 0 |
negative
|
Low-budget but memorable would-be shocker that instead emerges as theater of the bizarre. Vulnerable, naive nurse Charlotte Beale comes to a secluded mental hospital and is completely unaware that the only sane people have been murdered, despite the red flags that are constantly being raised all around her. <br /><br />The lack of a decent budget really gives the filmmakers little more to go on than a sense of style, as well as a cast of wacky characters. The pleasures of this film don't come from the film's shocks, which are fairly tame, but from the weird atmosphere. First we have the delusional woman who thinks her baby doll is real. There's also an axe-murdering judge, a shell-shocked war veteran, and old Mrs. Callahan is like everybody's daffy elderly grandmother gone amok. A young patient named Allyson gives the term "nymphomaniac" new meaning. A big guy named Sam is just a little slow after a botched lobotomy, and Jennifer vaults suddenly between catatonia and violent outbursts. The only other sentient person in the place seems to be Dr. Masters, but does she have a secret?<br /><br />"Don't Look in the Basement" is a great example of low-budget exploitation films. There isn't much plot going on, but the cheapness works for the movie. Several cast members turn in memorable performances, particularly Betty Chandler and Annabelle Weenick, and the way the director adds little weird details to the movie can really stick with you.<br /><br />The scene between Allyson and "the telephone man" is a classic for all time, and especially delicious are the facial expressions of Dr. Masters when she begins to go over the edge near the finale of the movie. Brownrigg also makes great use of the cheap soundtrack, with several musical cues really evoking the characters that they accompany. My favorite cue is the "crazy" cue, a sitar that twangs whenever one of the patients does something pathological.<br /><br />Also wonderful is the way that Charlotte herself plunges into hysteria at the climax, with the patients revealing that Dr. Masters is simply another inmate, and then suggesting that CHARLOTTE is also a patient who is being allowed to act out her delusions (she certainly has a tenuous grip on reality, why else would she not question the ominous lack of phone service or outside contact?). The scene where Charlotte manages to finish off the barely-alive Dr. Stephens with a toy boat has to be one of the greatest moments in low-budget horror. Yes, "Don't Look in the Basement" could very well be the "American Beauty" of Grade Z trash.
| 1 |
positive
|
Making a film for under 1 Million might be a triumph for a line producer or an accountant but doesn't do anything for the audience. The balance sheet might have been pretty but the viewing experience was poor.<br /><br />What will be a triumph for Irish Cinema is when people realise that production values and the script can't be sacrificed.<br /><br />I don't understand why people expend the energy it takes to put a film together when the production quality is worse than a low grade TV show.<br /><br />The deficiencies of the plot have been mentioned in another review on this site and I totally agree with what was written. What I would add is that the film skimmed the surface of several genres without ever settling in one of them. The film would have benefited from either going the direction of a straight out comedy or social/political commentary.<br /><br />My overall impression was that the film was rushed, thematically under developed and visually not up to standard. On a positive note the performances and music were very good.
| 0 |
negative
|
When it was released this film caused a sensation. I watched it and was thrilled. Beautiful, usually young, naked women filmed in the classy style we knew so well from director Hamiltons photography. His photographs never become porn and the same is true for this movie. Today I saw it again and was bitterly disappointed. The soft core in extremely slow paced scenes, all filmed with some Vaseline on the lenses, actually is all there is. There is no real story, the characters remain beautiful and beautifully filmed bodies, but they are not real creatures with a soul. Actually nothing happens. It is like Hamilton is photographing using moving pictures rather than stills. And this gets so boring after a while. I even didn't watch the whole thing the second time, for I fell vast asleep. That is all that remains of this masterpiece: it is a very good sleeping pill. And you will never become addicted to it!<br /><br />Back then 7 out of 10, now 3 out of 10
| 0 |
negative
|
"Disappointing" is the best word I could think for this film, especially considering the glowing reviews it receives from some other users.<br /><br />One thing that really spoils the film is that it is unabashedly partial(in both senses of the word). Not only does it present a very selective description of the games (focussing as it does on the US athletics team) but it also contains several inaccuracies, most of which serve to exaggerate the difficulties the US team faced.<br /><br />What is even more disturbing is that all the omissions and mistakes (?), appear to glorify US sportsmanship to the exclusion of other athletes (with a few celebrated exceptions). For example, the viewer is led to believe that the US won the majority of medals in the Games, when in fact they won only one out of four gold medals and one out of 6 total. Similarly, many athletes are portrayed as caricatures of their respective countrymen (thus we have an arrogant Brit, and a wine-swilling French). This attitude does very little service to the Olympic ideals that the film is supposed to celebrate.<br /><br />In conclusion, I believe that this film would appeal to that part of the US audience that is looking for a quick boost of national self-esteem. Those looking for a detailed and historically correct description of the games are advised to look elsewhere.
| 0 |
negative
|
This show is non Stop hilarity. the first joke will make u wet your pants. And thats probably the weakest joke of them all. I started watching it when the second half of season 2 started airing. and straight away. I'm hooked. only 2 weeks after I started watching. I've downloaded episodes and bought the DVD's. Reoccurring Clips Such as "the Ad Road Test" and "current affairs" Are quiet hilarious. Then There's the ad's they take off "Use Emo. Use your Own Tears For More Effective Use" Also Funny in the politics Side of things. Nothing is wrong with them doing this. it's funny. Any Australians Who Don't Find This Funny. Don't Complain And don't Watch it. ALL Australian TUNE IN Wednesday AT 9 ON ABC
| 1 |
positive
|
GOOD: Technomusic accompanying medieval swordplay. Also, the movie looks sleeker than most b-movies, but let's face it: Quake or Doom has more atmosphere.<br /><br />BAD: Unintelligent plot, no acting and totally unbelievable universe. I am usually able to see the potential of even very bad movies; heck, I love a good B-movie like "Split Second" and the likes. But this one has has nothing but boredom and cliché to offer... Totally predictable from start to end. Oh, and I forgot the lousy special effects, they look more like an old Playstation game than anything out of myth! The use of a classic poem to sell this sucker offends me!<br /><br />CONCLUSION: Quite simply boring. If you want to see Lara Croft, buy the game, it's way sexier!
| 0 |
negative
|
This is a failure so complete as to make me angry.<br /><br />All of the subtlety and structure of Reggio's early films is gone, leaving nothing but a hash of digitally smeared images whose sole purpose seems to be Whining About Bad Things Humans Do. Just how do Star Trek-like wormhole graphics, slo-mo colorized seascapes, mutiplicities of obviously fake computer icons, and shots of athletic competition that, incidentally, show that no one has ever been able to top (or even match) Leni Riefenstahl for filming bodies in motion, edited together with an overlay of video colorization that a 1980s "Dr. Who" producer would have rejected as "too cheesy," add up to a polemic against "civilized violence"? There is no intellectual, emotional, or visceral connection between these images as assembled and mutated by Reggio and way too many digital effects artistes, and the cautionary tale I assume he wanted to produce. With all of the "dramaturgical consultants" involved, no one seems to have pulled his head out the his own feeling of Saying Something Important and considered that they might all be failing to say something new.<br /><br />Only people who watch too much television could make such a film and believe that it's meaningful; this is kindergarten Stan Brakhage, and ultimately gutless in its relentless obviousness. The only irony and tension evident here (unlike in "Koyaanisqatsi" where the relentless beauty and strangeness of time-altered ordinary images forced you to consider their meaning) was when the DVD I was watching jammed and skipped. This is MTV for the Noam Chomsky crowd, based on reflex rather than reflection and signifying nothing. Two stars for the music, which is in Glass's best pomo-Cesar Franck style and features some passionate cello from Yo-Yo Ma. (I hope for his sake that he didn't have to record his parts to a playback of the film; there are some things you shouldn't have to do even for a paycheck.)
| 0 |
negative
|
The ABC gears up it's repertory company for another unrealistic representation of rural Australia. Yes folks, it's all there Baca Bourke (Jeremy Sims,an actor of little talent) Fire hero , Lill (Libby Tanner plays Bronwyn Craig in the bush), Fifi (Nadia Townsend) town slut, preggers by Baca's brother Joe (I think). Then there's Uncle Geoff the, Big Daddy of Lost Springs. Uncle Geoff's scenes are like Tennessee Williams on speed. Only saving grace is Russian actress Natalia Novikova as Baca's loony missus. She is great. I can't understand why John Waters took the gig as Lilly's psychologist husband. Must have needed the money I expect! Still, he won't last long as Lill and Baca will be having it off toute suit. Just watch this lemon to see how bad an Aussie show can be. Frankly, I'm ashamed.
| 0 |
negative
|
now we know radu munteans movies, the excellent PAPER WILL BE BLUE and BOOGIE, but its worth to see again (or at last) this first FURIA, which shows perfectly clear his initial qualities. <br /><br />its very interesting to see how his beginners talent developed into confirming him as one of the best romanian contemporary directors.<br /><br />of course, the movie itself is excellent - intelligent and professional script, sure-handed direction, stylish photography. definitely, one of the best - in the most serious and competent sense! also, munteans storytelling sense is compelling and gripping - and he actors... well, they simply rock!
| 1 |
positive
|
This movie was Hilarious! It occasionally went too far, but isn't that what we expect from them? The theater roared with laughter and ooooooed at all the incredibly crazy stunts. It's rude, crude, and occasionally frighteningly intense. The whole gang is back and even more out of their minds, which in turn provides for some great entertainment. I don't want to give anything away, but the little snippets of clips going around the net are nothing compared to what comes after. <br /><br />This is a great movie to go see with friends. Try to see it with a big crowd. You will not be disappointed. Just don't go with anyone who can't take it (see above). It will not go over well, you can be sure of that. But that's pretty obvious in the first place. If you enjoyed the first one, you will loooooove this one.
| 1 |
positive
|
Once upon a time, way back in the 1940's, there lived an actress named Veronica Lake. A beautiful, talented young woman who was once in high demand for many big-budget, Hollywood pictures. Fast Forward to the late 1960's, age, alcoholism, and all-around bad luck has tarnished everyones favorite actress. Now a hasbeen, Miss Lake decides the time has come to follow in the foot steps of her peers(?), Joan Crawford, and Bette Davis, and fall back on good ol' reliable Horror. But Flesh Feast? Really? She couldn't have possibly been that washed up. To put it delicately, Flesh Feast is a lifeless pile garbage, possibly one of the top 5 worst films I've ever seen, and I've seen them all. Lake plays a scientist, who is plotting, with Nazi's, to bring Hitler back to life, with youth restoration experiments involving maggots, that's right, maggots. Unless you're a huge fan of Heather Hughes, run away and never look back!! <br /><br />I know very little about this Veronica Lake person, as well as 40's flicks, but to think that such a successful career actually became that dismal, is actually pretty sad. Flesh Feast is almost impossible to get through, and by almost, I mean absolutely. Directed by Brad Grinter, director of Nudist Camp pictures, and the man who, coincidentally brought us the greatest B-movie ever made, Blood Freak, just a couple years later. One has to wonder, is this what Blood Freak would have been like if Grinter hadn't co-directed with Steve Hawkes? If so, then God bless Steve Hawkes. You wouldn't think that a Religious, dope-blood craving, Turkey Monster could be THAT much better than experiments involving Maggots and Hitler, but it really, really is. So forget you ever heard of this one and go find Blood Freak, it's just waiting to entertain you. Fast Forward a couple years later, Veronica Lake dies of Hepititas, broke, and forgotten. The End. I hate you, Flesh Feast. 1/10
| 0 |
negative
|
Snakes on a Train (2006, Dir. The Mallachi Brothers) A Zombie curse is placed upon a woman, which causes her to have living snakes inside her. Brujo, who is looking after her, attempts to take her to Los Angeles on the train. After several confrontations on the train, Brujo's collection of snakes manage to separate themselves from their owner and go on the hunt. Whilst all this is happening, normal, everyday passengers are relaxing, what is unknown to them is that something deadly is heading their way, and that their is no were out.<br /><br />After watching the wonderfully fun 'Snakes on a Plane', i had to check this out. I knew it was going to be a rip-off and that the film will look cheap, but what i found was worst to watch. The whole curse plot was silly and should never have been included. The special effects aren't terrible but are not the best looking. I did not have a clue about the ending. It was silly to watch and pathetic. The acting was absolutely terrible, and looked bad. They just could not act to save their lives. If you want a great laugh, watch this, otherwise you should really avoid this.<br /><br />"We have a runaway train. I repeat. We have a runaway train." - Conductor (Stephen A.F. Day)
| 0 |
negative
|
How bad can you make a film. A good question which House of the Dead 2 succeeds in answering. I could not believe it was possible to get something worse than the first House of the Dead but amazingly the director has succeeded. The only feeling you get from the film is that its bad, just bad. What with overacting, bad FX and a stupid story. Its this kind of movie which gives a bad name to Z-Movies in general. Why could they not learn the lesson from the first House of the Dead movie? Anyway I guess you will have understood by now that you should not see this film. It is but a waste of time. Watch "Bad Taste" or "Dawn of the Dead" if you want to see some good zombies.
| 0 |
negative
|
This film has a really weird mixture of genres - toilet humour and action in one. It doesn't really pull it off - it should have stuck to one genre. The best thing I can say about the movie is that the dog in it is cute.<br /><br />The most disturbing sequence is in the middle of the film when Moses (Sandler) and Carter (Wayans) decide to stop off at a hunting lodge/motel. I'm not quite sure what the point of this sequence is - it just seems gratuitous in the extreme. The proprietor of the hunting lodge ("Charlie") is a very nerdy looking guy. For some reason, Moses starts a conversation with Charlie about porno, jacking off, homosexual sex, sex in a threesome... Charlie's photo of his "wife" appears to be Charlie dressed in drag. There is no reason for this really juvenile dialogue and scene. Anyway, the whole scene seems to be directed to the moment when a naked Moses ends up with Carter's gun up his butt and Charlie sees them through the window. It all reeks of school boy humour about homosexuality - horrified and titillated all at the same time - which I don't find funny at all.<br /><br />I have a friend who is always raving about Adam Sandler movies. This is the first one I've seen - after this, I'm not sure I want to see any more.<br /><br />BTW, this is my husband's account - he's seen Happy Gilmore, and he tells me it's quite good - maybe I should give Sandler just one more chance.<br /><br />Countess Skogg
| 0 |
negative
|
It ends with the declaration that "the film you have just seen was an improvisation"-at once making you feel like an idiot for thinking an improvisation was an good movie, and astounded at Cassavetes' genius...once again. Of course, Cassavetes told some guy it wasn't really an improvisation per se, on his deathbed, so...it's the story about a light-skinned black woman, Lelia, who passes for white, and her family: another passing-for-white brother named Ben, and a black-black brother named Hughie. When she falls in love with a white jerk named Tony, he is unpleasantly surprised when he finds out she's black, and from there it goes on about the three main characters' individual aspirations and shortcomings. Hughie is a jazz singer in the process of becoming a failure, Lelia's still hopelessly depressed over Tony, and Ben is angsty and violent in general, in desperate need of something to shock him out of his stale patterns of existence. Overall, I suppose it's really about stasis vs. change in human life. I suspect that Cassavetes had the plot organized enough, and it was just the dialogue that was improvised. The dialogue itself is very uneven - sometimes somebody will say something very memorable, other times it's memorably awkward. What's amazing is the extent of the amateur actors' embodiment of their characters. Cassavetes went through the acting class he was teaching at the time he decided to do Shadows, whispered in the ears of the ten best students, and this was the result...the guys playing Ben and Hughie are very good. At first I didn't like Lelia, but as the film progressed you see more and more she's one of those actors who gets better as the tension and drama builds - not necessarily the best with small talk. Shadows is hailed by many as the forerunner of the indie film movement (made in 1959) and it's definitely recommended.
| 1 |
positive
|
Yet another TV show becomes a movie. Steve {The Office} Carell plays dimwitted agent Maxwell Smart in a movie that's so bad, it makes the worst movie you ever saw become the second worst movie you ever saw. The seventh rate story- if you can call it that has a megalomaniac trying to take over the world. It is so unfunny, it is absolutely pathetic. About the only thing Anne Hathaway does as agent 99 is look good-she seems incapable of doing anything else. Bill Murray has the fine sense to limit his screen time to about 90 seconds, and a few faces from the TV series turn up in very small roles. Movie is supposed to be part thriller and part action film. It is neither. Even though I really was not a fan of the TV series, at least it was light years ahead of this piece of -hit. All this does is drag it through the dirt and cheapen whatever good memories we had of it. Thank God Don Adams is not here to see it. Keep it up Hollywood! Keep making crappy movies like this and keep sendin 'em to the multiplexes on a weekly basis. No wonder the film industry is going down the tubes. This movie is so rotten, it's NOT even good for laughs. If this movie were a newspaper, it could be used to line the bottom of a bird cage. There is absolutely no reason to see this movie. A root canal is more enjoyable than this.! Rating- zero minus five stars. Unless you are a Masochist, STAY AWAY. Better still, do what the title says- Get Smart and save your nine bucks. You will be able to buy about 2 gallons of gas with it. Put it in your car and be thankful you did not waste it going to a multiplex to see this bomb!
| 0 |
negative
|
Apparently SHRUNKEN HEADS was the last movie that Julius Harris had a role in. I have not seen all of his movies, but Julius Harris was in many good movies, and I remember him best from "Live and Let Die" where he played Tee-Hee and which was full of Voodoo references, something that is common here in South Florida! I always thought LIVE AND LET DIE was a great movie because it had some atmosphere and mystique, unlike most of the 007 movies. In SHRUNKEN HEADS, Julius Harris is back in his Voodoo persona! He has a great style for mystery and the occult, and his part in this movie is excellent. Sadly, the rest of the movie is something of a comedy. SPOILERS: Three kids who look like they were fired from the cast of THE LITTLE RASCALS get killed by a neighborhood hoodlum who looks like he got fired from the cast of FAME! or as a dancer on DICK CLARK'S AMERICAN BANDSTAND. In other words, these kids give LOW BUDGET another dimension. Julius Harris goes to the mortuary-Funeral Home, cuts off the three kids' heads (and nobody notices) and then takes them to his Condominium Unit where he has a giant cauldron of boiling liquids. The three heads get tossed in, along with some herbs, spices, and Voodoo items. At some point Mr. Harris has the ugly little heads on a table and he spills his blood on them, and they come to life as talking heads! They can fly, make jokes, roll their eyes, and exact vengeance from the Evil-Doers. They usually look pretty funny flying around, but the effects are not bad. For some reason, one of the kids always has a switch-blade in his mouth, and he uses it to slice people's necks and to cut holes into tires. This movie is weird and funny, but only the first time you see it. Meg Foster is in this movie and she looks fatter than Rosie O'Donnell and Meg plays a masculine leader of the local gangsters. Strange movie.
| 0 |
negative
|
There are two things that I noticed in this film. (This is not a spoiler, just a mistake in storytelling.) When Cole takes Bill to his first B&E, he finds the "box". As soon as Cole finds it he says, "The box. Everyone's got a box". A minute later, just before he dumps the contents on the floor he says, "We're actually very fortunate. You don't see these often".<br /><br />Observation #2 (Spoiler Alert!)<br /><br />I had to watch the thing three times, I couldn't figure a couple of things out. Then I watched the Chronological version and saw that they were having flash backs from the latter to the previous during the time changes. So at some points we were actually watching three different times in about 1 min of wall time.<br /><br />That was a good thing because I don't know how many more times I could watch it before returning it to Netflix.<br /><br />Color me obsessive.
| 1 |
positive
|
One minute into THE UNTOLD and it`s already ripped off techniques from THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT and PREDATOR . Does this mean we`ll be seeing lots of trees ? We sure will . Will we be seeing an Austrian bodybuilder blowing things up ? Well this film has the budget of a TVM so the answer is a resounding no . Does anyone like these soft porn shows like BEDTIME STORIES ? Good because there`s a scene in this that resembles these type of shows . Unfortunately the only thing you see is cellulite . Do you like it when the screen fades to black during a TVM ? Great because this happens between every scene in THE UNTOLD . In fact it happens during every scene too . Did you enjoy MILLIONAIRE - A MAJOR FRAUD ? Fantastic because one of the characters looks like a bearded Major Charles Ingram the contestant who tried to swindle the show out of one million pounds . Seriously one of the characters looks like Major Ingram . I kept expecting him to say " It`s bear. It could be a bear . But it might be a bigfoot < Cough , cough > , yes it`s a bigfoot < Cough > , it`s definately a bigfoot < Cough > Yes I`m going to shoot it . Final answer Chris " <br /><br />Oh and have I mentioned that all the above are the good bits ?<br /><br />THE UNTOLD isn`t the worst bigfoot movie I`ve ever seen , that accolade firmly goes to NIGHT OF THE DEMON which I saw over twenty years ago and I think I`ve only seen less than a dozen films that are worse in all of that time . But that said THE UNTOLD is still a very poor film in just about every aspect , especially editing . As some other reviewers have pointed out it feels like whole chunks of the film are missing while there`s other bits where scenes are spliced together in the wrong order . This is a really bad film that deserves far less than its rating of 5.1. I give it 3 out of ten and I`m being very kind
| 0 |
negative
|
With a name like "10 Commandments" you would expect a film to be representative of the account in the Bible, specifically Exodus. Not so here. This is standard procedure with any Biblical Hallmark-made film. Remember "Noah"?? That was utter fiction and one of the worst films ever made. At least this film had "some" truth to the original story. However, Menerith, who was a major character in this movie - half-brother of Moses, is not in the original story. Other characters were absent, not to mention important events were completely eliminated. So what, you may ask? Because this should be representative of the actual story; otherwise, some might and do believe that is the way it actually happened. In today's age, people get their religion from movies instead of Church and reading the Bible. Also, it is a great error. See Revelation 22:18-19. The script is already written. Why change it? Other than the account in Exodus itself (which should be the main focus), you have the Cecil B. DeMille film to compare it to, which is clearly a far better presentation.<br /><br />The night it first aired, my wife was anxious to see it. I told her not to get her hopes up because it was a Hallmark-film. She looked puzzled and said, "Why? Hallmark makes good movies". That might be so, but they butcher the Bible. I'm sorry to say that I was correct. Not just the story, but the acting as well. With today's technology, you should be able to make a wonderful Biblical movie. I'm still waiting...
| 0 |
negative
|
First and foremost I'd like to state - for the record - that it's incredibly dumb to call your movie "Embryo" when the subject matter exclusively revolves on scientific research performed on fetuses (animal as well as human) aged 12-16 weeks. The embryonic stage is over at the end of the eighth pregnancy week and from that moment on the unborn critter enters the fetal phase. Okay, in all honestly, I didn't know all this, but I took the effort of looking it up and that's the also the least thing the creators of "Embryo" could have done. Don't worry; I'm not just stumbling over details or being exaggeratedly bitter, as there are several more reasons to state why "Embryo" is a huge failure. Actual science can be considered as boring and inaccessible, and thus Science Fiction is a cinematic genre created especially to make the otherwise tedious, yet educational science topics more interesting and comprehensible to larger audiences. By depicting ambitious scientific experiments that go horribly wrong, or space missions that encounter evil aliens instead of light-years of void, filmmakers usually manage to entertain people with spectacular special effects and, at the same time, teach them useful little trivia about science. In order to make a good or at least halfway-decent Science Fiction movie, writers and directors only have to comply with one basic rule: DON'T be boring! If they can't fulfill this one condition, the viewer might as well read a theoretically accurate book. Something must have gone wrong during the production of Ralph Nelson's "Embryo". The basic premise is potentially fascinating and even involving, as we're all sensitive about saving the lives of unborn babies. There also were some very prominent names involved in the production, like main stars Rock Hudson ("Giant", "Seconds"), Diane Ladd ("Chinatown", "Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore") and director Nelson himself was responsible for the acclaimed classics "Soldier Blue" and "Charly". Then what went wrong? Simple. The script is irredeemably boring, clichéd and the whole thing looks incredibly foolish because the lab scenery & scientific equipment is clearly too primitive to achieve any medical breakthroughs with. <br /><br />Rock Hudson, in a very poor performance, plays a doctor who hasn't put any passion in his research work ever since his wife passed away. When his car hits a pregnant dog on a rainy night, his passion returns and he does everything possible to save the dying animals' fetuses. He manages to keep one fetus alive, impressively accelerates its growth process and trains it to become an extremely intelligent dog. Because his procedure is so successful, Dr. Paul Holliston convinces his friend at the hospital to repeat his tests with the human fetus taken from the womb of a pregnant teenager who committed suicide. The female subject unexpectedly keeps growing at a fast rate, however, and after only a couple of weeks she's a full-grown, ravishing and super-intelligent woman. The good doctor naturally falls in love with her, but the groundbreaking new growth treatment also begins to show horrible side effects... Absolute nothing happens during the first 45 minutes of the film, apart from a lot of implausible and overly melodramatic mumbo-jumbo and one or two deeply impressive tricks performed by the dog. That second half of the film does contain a little bit of (grotesque) action and suspense, but by then the stupidity of the dialogs and the implausible plot-twists already ruined the potentially fabulous Sci-Fi idea. There are some really cool scenes, most notably the chess-showdown between Victoria and Roddy McDowall (in a highly memorable and ultra-obnoxious supportive role). The grand finale is absurdly grotesque and literally on the verge of ridiculous, and it almost feels like Ralph Nelson put in that final disastrous shot because it was the general rule in contemporary thriller & Sci-Fi cinema. The last sequence, including the horrible freeze-frame shot at the end, certainly doesn't fit the tone of the previous 100 minutes of the film. But anyway, my sincere admiration and respect to the dog and his trainers. An animal with such intellect and talent surely deserved to demonstrate its tricks in a much better film.
| 0 |
negative
|
this could have been better,but it was alright...it helped me get away from my boredom.I didnt even wanna see it,the only reason i wanted to rent it is because Jamie Martz is in it..he is a unknown actor but he is shining and is the highlight of the movie...the ending was so horrible and the acting was good for a b movie...i give it a 4 out of 10
| 0 |
negative
|
I chose this movie really for my husband-who works in radio broadcasting. I thought that it would be more of a movie that he would enjoy and relate too, though it was from the eighties-so it was a little dated. This movie really draws you in. At times you just want to strangle the host, Barry. At times you just want to send some of the bigots who call in to a true concentration camp. At times you really feel sorry for Barry, because he has truly gotten too big for his jeans if you know what I mean. It was on the Drama channel on Encore-so I am thinking this is a true story. If you truly love dramas you will love this, even if you don't know all the ins and outs of the broadcasting business. If you are an Alec Baldwin fan and are watching it to see him, you shouldn't. His part is really a bit part in this movie.
| 1 |
positive
|
This is the last film of Krzysztof Kieslowski - one of the greatest directors in the history of cinema. He intended to retire after this film, so in a way it is his artistic testament. He died a couple of years after making the film, and though it is said that he intended to return to directing, Destiny decided that this was indeed his last. And what a film!<br /><br />'Rouge' the last film in the three colors French trilogy is actually a very Swiss film. Set in Geneva, one of the two main characters is a Swiss retired judge, and Durenmatt immediately comes to mind. But there is more Switzerland in the cool atmosphere, in the lack of communication of the characters, in the politeness that envelops cruelty of life. Several characters who start with little relationship will come together at the end in a moving and human final, which only a great artist could have staged.<br /><br />Little else can be said that was not said and written hundred of times. Yes, the film starts slowly, and the fans of the American style of action movies or melodramas will get discouraged first and will get lost as viewers. They deserve it. The film gets quality as it advances, and one of the not so hidden messages is that real life and real humans are more interesting than the Hollywood cartoon and plastic action and characters. Cinema quality is very original, the image being a 'Study in Red', as the title shows. Acting is fabulous, with Irene Jacob and Jean-Louis Trintignant - the later in what will remain probable the best role of his old age. <br /><br />A great film. Seeing it again probably adds, and I am happy to have it recorded on tape. 9/10 on my personal scale.
| 1 |
positive
|
Before watching this film (at a screening attended by the director herself) we were informed this had won the short film prize at the Galway Film Fleadh. Surely this result will give filmmakers hope, anyone can do better than this!<br /><br />How anyone cannot notice the flagrant rip-off of Donnie Darko in this I'll never know. The film is pure drivel, the acting cardboard, the dialogue ridiculous & the ending just flat! The only crumb of comfort we enjoyed after seeing this rubbish was to loudly comment on how dreadful it was, in front of the director! Yes that was mean, but liberating!<br /><br />At least Irish film-making can't sink any lower!
| 0 |
negative
|
The Story: Alain, a French policeman, is shocked to discover that he had a twin brother when his body is found in Nice. Investigating the murder, he finds out that he was in possession of a list that details the deeds of the Russian Mafia. Helped by his brother's girlfriend, Alain dodges Russian gangsters & corrupt FBI agents while trying to find the list.<br /><br />"Maximum Risk" is another one of the long list of action films that feature Jean-Claude Van Damme. As far as things go, it is strictly formulaic. The script sticks to the clichés & the acting is mediocre. There are some nicely done action sequences, with an inventive car chase, a fight in a burning building, an escape through rooftops, a brutal fight in an elevator & JCVD fleeing his enemies over an elevated train line. Director Ringo Lam keeps everything going at a reasonable pace.
| 0 |
negative
|
This is a funny movie, there's not a lot of those. OK, the plot is a bit disturbing, but very original. A teen trying to get even with dad, because he hasn't been around and almost sending him to jail because she lie to impress an older boy, how could that not be funny? Plus it not the typical movie featuring teens. First remake i've seen, that is better than the original, the only problem with both: Gerard Depardieu. With another actor this would be a perfect 10, because he plays all rolls the same way, sucks. Another problem it's all the women melting over him, that's not remotely believable, he is not attractive!, y had a rubber troll that was better looking than him, come on!
| 1 |
positive
|
A lot of people in the cinema enjoyed this film, but it only made me feel misanthropic. If smug "intellectuals" bantering about their irritating sex lives, sounds ok to you, watch it. I felt bored, but glad I did know people like that. The premise of the film was that, as with all societies or great civilizations, they are eventually doomed to fail. According to the female historian character, who bores us with this fact, America is showing signs of it's decline (Admittedly she goes into greater detail than me). The next part of the film is concerned with the vacuous, fatuous and asinine behaviour of her friends and colleagues, and the various miseries caused by their libidinous behaviour, with a vague attempt at humor. A lot of people liked this movie where I watched it. I could not relate to it.
| 0 |
negative
|
Sorry about that. But if you have seen this "epic", you will obviously know of the utter disregard for the actual text of the Bible. Now, I'm not exactly the next in line for sainthood, but I do know the basics. And the basics were this. God wanted to wipe everyone of the face of the Earth because he believed they have been corrupted to the point of no return. He chose Noah, the diamond in the rough, and his family to be spared due to their uncorrupted ways. Noah builds an ark as instructed by God to house he, his family, and two of every creature while he floods the rest of the planet. Those are the basics. In this movie, you have other people roaming around the seas such as peddlers and pirates. But I thought that EVERYONE was wiped out. I guess the executives at NBC have never been to church. There are other inaccuracies, I'm told, but being the average Joe, I have no idea what they are. Sorry. Back to the movie, it was inaccurate, as stated before, the acting stunk, but some of the effects were good, I'll give it that. But as a whole, I've seen a better and more tasteful rendition of the story done as a little scene on The Simpsons. God help the NBC executives come judgement day. 3/10
| 0 |
negative
|
Carla Gugino literally melts the screen in this crime caper. Her sex appeal, ample assets and sexy southern accent more than make this film rewatchable. But the film has so many "other" things to make it almost a modern classic. Simon Baker's performance for one thing. Truly that of a great actor. Til Schweiger is so perfectly cast it makes me wonder why he's not a huge "crossover" star. Gil Bellows rounds out this motely crew and literally steals this show. Other Gugino's cleavage easily the best performance in the movie. Emma Thompson and Alan Rickman are so utterly brilliant...I cannot even describe it. Great chemistry.<br /><br />The music is so powerfully eclectic that it was a character in and of itself. Wonderous to behold.<br /><br />People may say it's Tarantino influenced...I disagree. It's clearly unique and clever in it's own right. Sebastian Gutierrez does a wonderful job at directing this tightly woven film and underplaying a lot of scenes that left me reeling. The ending is perfectly sinister and you never see it coming. All in all a lovely film that, to me, is the very definition of what a good movie should be.
| 1 |
positive
|
This is a great movie for first time ninjas who are dating. If you're trying to impress some cute little ninjette I would highly recommend playing this masterpiece. Its one of those special movies that allows you to miss large sections of it without interfering with the plot.<br /><br />Also I was wondering, where does a Teal ninja hide? Are ninjas color coded like this? Is this normal? If I were attacked by one of these yellow or orange ninjas I would die of laughter before succumbing to his sword.<br /><br />And I finished my black star ninja test the other day, it was multiple choice, It went pretty good. I found there were a lot of questions on how to "sneak" around and look evil. Its all about the eyebrows and the attitude. <br /><br />Basically, the movie could have been better if: 1. There was no color coded ninjas (or the color coded ninjas could combine into a super ninja). 2. Joe died in the first two minutes and Patricia had to avenge him 3. Miscellaneous monkeys were scattered throughout the file 4. Patricia didn't talk and Patricia was replaced with another character 6. The French guy was also a black star ninja 7. Chris Tucker, Whoopi Golderg, and Chris Rock were added as "comic" relief 8. Ninja strengths came from miticlorians.
| 0 |
negative
|
I went to the pre-screening of "Rory O'Shea Was Here." I like this movie better than I expected, because the excellent casts and the powerful performance. It's a film about the friendship of two handicapped young man. Rory is free spirit young man who wants to be independent regardless his Duchenne muscular dystrophy. He can only move his two fingers but he can talk eloquently and help his new pal, Michael, who has cerebral palsy and is significantly speech impaired. I guess that's enough to start with a weeping drama. Well, it is. But with inspiring messages and deeply moving performances. It made me looking at my life for things I take for granted. What would I do if all I can do is to move my two fingers? I should feel grateful for what I have and what I am capable of doing. This is a good flick, although it could have been better.
| 1 |
positive
|
Anastasia: The Mystery of Anna was a two-part star studded historical T.V. movie based on the Peter Kurth book, Anastasia: The Riddle of Anna Anderson. It keeps up historically pretty much, names are changed etc. But sticks to the real story quite well. Omar Sharif and Claire Bloom do quite well as the Russian royals, Czar Nicholas and Czarina Alexandra. What stuck out in my mind was the all too short portrayals by Rex Harrison and Olivia De Havilland. All in all it was a pretty classy production with some fine acting. I was quite awestruck by the production values when it first aired on NBC in late 1986. Also starring was the fine German actor Jan Niklas who had previously starred in NBC's other Russian epic "Peter the Great". <br /><br />I felt that Part 2 skipped over some important details of Anna Anderson's trip to America. It's important to know too, that in 1986 less was known about the Anna Anderson story. Back then it was still not known whether her claim to be the Grand Duchess Anastasia was genuine. By the late 1990's more was known and Anna Anderson is now reputed to have been a fraud. <br /><br />Too bad the networks aren't making fine made-for-television movies like this anymore.
| 1 |
positive
|
I got this movie from the library, and saw it had a lot of actors I like in it(John Cleese, Ian Holm, Ralph Richardson, etc), so I got it and watched it. I expected Cleese to have a large role since he had first billing, I was surprised to find out that he had about five minutes of screen time, along with everyone else I liked. This movie is amazingly pointless, the characters are nobodies, the plot is non-existent, and the ending is one of the worst endings I have ever seen. There were a few funny parts, but that's about it. Stay away from this movie if you want to prevent going "What?" and "Huh?", a lot. And if you don't want to waste your time. Ignore the people who say this is a very funny movie...it isn't. Just stay away from it at all costs...please.
| 0 |
negative
|
This is easily the worst adaptation of Greek mythology I've ever seen. It utterly fails as an adaptation of the original myth, inventing silly plot twists and reducing the 12 labours to... 3 or 4, I think. It makes up utterly needless things to try to integrate other myths in clumsy ways which bring into question the writers' having ever read the myths, like changing birds to harpies, lions to sphinxes, the Oracle of Delphi to Tiresias, and bulls to a pedantic version of Proteus, even integrating aspects, never seen outside of Sam Raimi's entertaining series, concerning his first marriage, to a woman with the co-opted name of one of the Furies so it sounds appropriate to the period.<br /><br />I could accept much of that, but it also fails completely in pure film standards; most painful is the dialogue, leaden, portentous pseudo-Shakespearean tripe. It is a poor re-interpretation of the myths, making a sad attempt at the kind of post-modern revisionism that Crichton's "The 13th Warrior" attempted in regards to the Beowulf legend, while still including the strictly mythological elements such as clear interference from the gods and magical super-strength. A sad, sad failure of an entertainment experience, who I'm sure many of the quality actors involved regret deeply.
| 0 |
negative
|
This movie was so awful i don't even know where to begin...The only positive thing i can say about it is that Luke Perry gave a good performance. The entire movie was all over the place, there was no explanation as to the cause(only theories)of the eruptions, or rationals for their solutions or why it would work. It was ridiculous! All the characters and relationship between them was so cheesy, you just wanna laugh!! There was just no background to any of them. The "love" relationship seemed to have been added on to the script, it was so awkward. There's an army man; big black general with a permanent cigar in his mouth, with the "AaarrrGH!i'm the Man!" attitude, such a pathetic bad guy. The two sidekicks, who are supposed to be geniuses are acting like two 16 year old frat boys. And then to create some action they decide to drop a rock on somebody's shoulder and for the rest of the movie he's coughing as if he was dying of a pneumonia or something...and then plays hero (cheesiest scene of all!!) to help the plan which is to do who knows what... its never a good sign when you find yourself laughing out loud in the middle of THE dramatic scene...in a nutshell; don't waste your time!
| 0 |
negative
|
If only he hadn't bowed to cliché, Mr Shiban could have actually made a good film from this story. It was just different enough to keep you interested, so for the same amount of time, energy and money as was spent on this stinker, we might have had something good instead of eye-rolling.<br /><br />Production-wise, it is as good as one could really expect from a hand-held camcorder, so he gets good marks there. It's really the script that's at fault, as the acting wasn't all that bad, either, considering what the actors had to work with.<br /><br />I thought the days were long gone when we would see someone, finding a radio transceiver they desperately wish to operate, first turn every knob on the thing from end to end, bash it on top 6 or 7 times, and then expect it to work. This story is ruined by a continuous string of stupid moves by all the characters except the bad guy. It's as though we are thought to be too shallow to grasp all the plot devices, so they are all spoon-fed to us to make sure we get them.<br /><br />I don't know about you, but that doesn't work on me. My attention ends up being occupied by the plot holes and over-dramatizations, not the story.<br /><br />So, since I found this to be not so bad in the technical sense, I think Mr. Shiban should try again, only with a proper script next time; then he might give us something worth watching.
| 0 |
negative
|
I feel very generous giving this movie a 2 out of 10. Okay, noted that the special effects are, 'okay' and Renny Harlin did make one my favorite genetically-altered-sharks-attack-a-research-station movie, that of which you may know as Deep Blue Sea. Also, the opening credits are done fairly well with a remix of WhiteZombie's "more human then human' and it does go fairly well with what is in the context of this 'movie'. But enough praise, lets get to the reason why this movie sucks so much.<br /><br />Not since Uwe Boll's Alone in the Dark did i ever feel that the special effects in a movie were totally wasted. Okay, our story starts with four guys who are descendants of four different families, each of which possess a never fully explained power from a never fully explained family background that did a never fully explained art of witch craft. Oh and for some reason, these descendants are all 17, all go to the same school, are all on the swim team and all, for some reason or another, sit in bed with their shirts off, sweating and talking to each other on the phone. I have nothing against gays, Gothic or thirteen year old's, but that is what this movie is aimed at...13 year old goth who question their sexuality. Yeah there's girls in it who sit on their beds in their panties or whatever, but how come they don't take their shirts off? hey its only fair.<br /><br />Anyways, the characters in this movie are told that when they turn 18, they will ascend and be granted new profound, almost god-like powers. But before i go any further, i forgot to mention that when they use their powers, they age slowly and they grow more addicted to it. That explains why they got people in their late 20's to play 17 year old's. Oh and if something needs explaining, don't worry, someone will explain it all in one large piece of dialog. God this movie sucks...where was I? oh yeah, the ascension part.<br /><br />Okay, apparently there was a super-secret-alpha-one family that the others forgot about or some s#*t like that, i don't know, i was dozing off at this point. But they were written out some how and the new kid at school who is befriending the group is 'secretly' one of these descendants from the fifth family. And I say 'secretly' because anyone who has seen any of the previews of this movie knows that this new guy is the bad guy. He has greater power then the others because he's older i think. Anyways, Bob Loblaw (say it out loud) things happen and we get to the final fight in the movie.<br /><br />To be honest, I was all game for a witch battle. You know like Saurmon vs. Gandalf or anything along the lines with magic battle, because you know, this is about witches and stuff. Now, when these two witches throw down, its more of like...how can i put it...a very, very crappy version of a Dragonball Z type battle. They throw stuff at each other, talk, throw stuff, talk, throw stuff, talk etc. When i say 'throw stuff' i only say that because i have no clue what the F#%k their throwing at each other. It looks like big gobs of slimy water. God this movie sucks, anyways, when our main witch 'ascends' he doesn't get very powerful at all. He just throws bigger gobs of slimy water. Things happen and it ends in a way that you as the viewer know its gonna end. The good witch wins bad witch loses.<br /><br />You know how shitty a movie is when the bad guy says something so incredibly stupid as, 'I'm gonna make you my Wiotch' Thats where i wanted to punch myself in the face for sitting through this whole...thing.<br /><br />Yes, i admit, the thought of witches doing battle, using powers in the modern day does sound kinda cool, but when the execution is this bad, i really wished they didn't make THIS movie. Maybe if it was R-rated, had tit's and threw in more deaths with a dash of gore, it might have worked...might have worked.<br /><br />If your interested in watching this, don't buy it or even rent it. Wait for it to come on TV or borrow it from your sucker of a friend who bought it. Just don't waste your time with this hack of a movie. If you spend any money on it, there's a good chance your putting an effort towards a sequel to be made by Uwe Boll called, The Covenant 2: Alone in the dark with the house of the dead.
| 0 |
negative
|
When a group of businessmen start dying in the presence of the mysterious Mr. Coulomb, FBI agent Dick Martin is assigned to the case. As the deaths continue to mount, Mr. Martin obviously isn't having much success. By the end of the movie, the strange truth is revealed, which I won't reveal here.<br /><br />One of the other users commenting on this states "This is a Classic film and should be ENJOYED and not picked apart". I'm sorry but I have to respectfully disagree with this opinion. It is "classic" only in that it is old, not in any sense pertaining to its quality. I've enjoyed a lot of low budget "B" movies from around this time period, but this isn't one of them.<br /><br />The pacing is unbearably slow, the camera work is pretty bland, most of the acting is fairly wooden (even Lugosi isn't great in this one in my opinion) and the plot, while it has an interesting premise, seems to be thrown together in a very difficult to follow manner.
| 0 |
negative
|
What is the story what is it on the screen. At first I must say, do not touch this movie, it is for your own best (it sucks). And really what is the story, in the beginning it seems okay but after ten minutes it all gets worse. And that is not all, you can hardly see what it is on the screen it is too dark all the time.<br /><br />Do not touch.
| 0 |
negative
|
I really love action/adventure films and this is one of the best. Of course, we love the stars of this genre, Bruce Willis, Sly Stallone, Clint Eastwood, Kurt Russell, Arnold Schwarzenegger and the rest, but its the story that really counts. The best are somewhat feasible but we can tolerate those that are a little "over the top" as in the comic book style of action. The more twists and turns, the more dire situations the heroes are involved in and the more shocking moments in the film; the more we action/adventure fans enjoy them. "In the Line of Fire" has ALL the elements required for a rip-roaring action thriller. It has Clint Eastwood as a near-retirement Secret Service Agent whose one bad moment of failure haunts him. It has one of the most evil, despicable, maniacal villains in John Malkovich, the type in which you can't wait to see him, "get his due". It has Rene Russo as the 'love interest.' It has twists and turns, an occasional shock and even a touch of warmth and humor. It is extremely well paced by director Wolfgang Petersen and even has a score by the great Ennio Morricone. This one is a real roller coaster ride of a thriller! Don't miss it!
| 1 |
positive
|
I'm a fan of Judy Garland, Vincente Minnelli, and Gene Kelly, but this movie just left me cold. I was expecting another American In Paris from Minnelli, so perhaps I was expecting too much.<br /><br />The movie was short on songs and short of impressive dance numbers. I was impressed by the very expressionistic Kelly dance as Mococo on the ship. I was also impressed by the Nicholas Brothers in Be a Clown, too bad the song was so annoying. I also enjoyed Judy attacking Kelly with bric-a-brac. Check Lorna Luft's autobiography for some interesting information on that scene.<br /><br />Actually, the movie has what must be some of Cole Porter's most annoying songs, especially "Nina". Also, Judy and Gene yell constantly like screechy children.<br /><br />The plot is thin--which is par for the course for musicals--but it is not saved by impressive dance numbers or by memorable songs. I suspect the best parts of this movie were left on the cutting room floor. Please, some movie restorer, find those bits of film and show us what the movie could have been!
| 0 |
negative
|
While the writing was terrible, the acting was atrocious, the only thing that saved this "turd" was the breast count, but that wasn't enough to make me watch this again. All said and done I'm actually dumber from watching this movie. This was a new low for Troma. Lloyd Kaufman starting the movie wearing a garbage bag and making fart noises should have made me realize what I was getting into. This was by far one of the worst ever put out by the Troma team. The best place to show this movie would be to invalids, sense they can't get up to change the channel. To conclude this is not a swift recommendation to watch this movie just for the breasts.
| 0 |
negative
|
You'd think a movie about incestuous sisters who eventually murder their employer couldn't help but be gripping, but then you'd be wrong.<br /><br />There is no plot. There is no character development. There is no redeeming visual beauty.<br /><br />This movie is a waste of time. The exploration of how the relationship between the sisters develops is nil, their sexuality is never anything but a grotesque, the class relationships are glossed over, and employer is a silly caricature.<br /><br />Ponderous silences and period clothing do not equal depth of meaning.
| 0 |
negative
|
It's unlikely that anyone except those who adore silent films will appreciate any of the lyrical camera-work and busy (but scratchy) background score that accompanies this 1933 release. Although sound came into general use in 1928, there are no more than fifty words spoken to tell the story of a woman, unhappily married, who deserts her husband for a younger man after a romantic interlude in the woods.<br /><br />The most vividly photographed scene has the jealous husband giving a lift to the young man for a ride into town, proceeding to drive normally until he realizes the man is his wife's lover. In a frenzy of jealousy, he drives at top speed toward a railroad crossing but changes his mind at the last moment, losing his nerve. It's probably the most tension-filled scene in the otherwise decidedly slow-moving and obviously contrived story.<br /><br />HEDY LAMARR is given the sort of close-up treatment lavished on Marlene Dietrich by her discoverer, but her beauty had not yet been refined by the cosmeticians as they were when she was transported to Hollywood. Her performance consists mostly of looking sad and morose while mourning the loss of her marriage with only brief glimpses of a smile when she finds her true love (ARIBERT MOG), the handsome young stud who retrieves her clothes after a nude swim.<br /><br />The swimming scene is very brief, discreetly photographed, and not worth all the heat it apparently generated. The love-making scene, later on, is also artfully photographed with the sort of lyrical photography evident throughout most of the film--artfully so. More is left to the imagination with the use of symbolism--and this is the sort of thing that has others proclaiming the film is some kind of lyrical masterpiece.<br /><br />Not so. It's disappointing, primitively crude in its sound portions (including the laborious symphonic music in the background) and certainly Miss Lamarr is fortunate that Louis B. Mayer saw the film and on the basis of it, gave her a career in Hollywood. He must have seen something in her work that I didn't.<br /><br />It's apparent that this was conceived as a silent film with the camera doing all the work. The jarring "workers" scene at the conclusion goes on for too long and is a jarring intrusion where none is needed. It fails to end the film on the proper note.
| 0 |
negative
|
A truly excellent look at the world and the realities of being a heroin addict. The movie is one that will hit much too close to home to those who were involved in the drug culture and have knowledge of what being(or being around) a heroin addict really is. Good movie, which will never truly be outdated. Excellent performances by all involved and the minimalist set is Preminger's way of showing how bleak a JUNKIE'S world can become. Worth a look--an education of sorts. The golden arm is a worried look at the truth of the underground life of pain a junkie lives in.
| 1 |
positive
|
Others' main criticism of this film--namely that Macy suddenly looks Jewish upon donning his glasses--is misplaced. The glasses are just the little bit of change needed to CONVINCE others he's a Jew. The scene in which he says to his boss, (paraphrasing) "but you KNOW what my background is," along with another discussion with his mother, suggests that he's had to fight this same assumption in the past. The glasses now make him look just Jewish enough to "confirm" his neighbors' and co-workers' existing suspicions. Then there is his new wife's large nose and taste for loud clothes, which OF COURSE means she's Jewish. The whole point of the film is how those little stereotypical nothings become the entire basis for judging others. <br /><br />If he has a lisp, he must be gay. If he has long hair, he smokes dope. If he's Hispanic, he's got a knife...and if he has round black glasses and he's slight of build, he must be Jewish. Those statements all sound equally (im)plausible to me. If the conclusion people were jumping to in Focus was reasonable, the whole point of the story would be lost.
| 1 |
positive
|
-Facts (I): "Mar Adentro" relates the well-known (at least in Spain) story of Ramón Sampedro, a Galician quadriplegic who killed himself (helped by some friends) after 28 years prostrated by his condition. Judges had denied several times his petitions of active euthanasia.<br /><br />-Facts (II): "Mar adentro" becomes THE MOVIE OF THE YEAR in Spain. Everyone talks about it: politicians, singers, ordinary people... Everyone likes it, even the critics' opinions are unanimous. The film wins a lot of prizes (Golden Globe, Oscar, Goya...) and annoys catholic community and life-lovers quadriplegics. A star is born.<br /><br />-Facts (III): The intensity and the quality of the actors in "Mar Adentro" are just amazing, and this makes mi wonder how come we have to watch the same bad young actors in the most of Spanish latest movies. I don't know if Javier Bardem is a great actor or a great imitator (there's quite a difference between one thing or the other); anyway, his job is just impressive, as well as Lola Dueñas', Belén Rueda's, or the job of all the guest starrings. This is (the actors selection) the strong point in Amenábar's movie.<br /><br />-Facts (IV): Alejandro Amenábar learned his lesson there at the Cinema School, there's no doubt about it: he's got a privileged brain. He takes good control of each and every one of the technical aspects, he knows what the audiences want, he knows how to touch the right chord, even if that turns him into such a demagogue (just like Spielberg is -one of Amenábar's idols-).<br /><br />-Facts (and V): If you criticize a movie such as "Mar Adentro" it will seem like you have any kind of trouble with the moral issue the story tells about. There's a trap in this kind of pictures: you have to differentiate between the movie itself and the moral concepts. If you don't like "Schindler's List" that does not mean that you agree with Hitler's philosophy (or do you?). So, for me, it is a good film and an extraordinary story (since it is a real story that makes it much more extraordinary). Grandiloquent, self-kind, and everything but neutral (no matter what Amenábar or Bardem have said about it: those characters that are not in favor of euthanasia come to no good at all!!). 50 % Hard / 50% way too sentimental.<br /><br />-Epilogue: "Mar Adentro" wouldn't be by no mean in my ranking of the best 50's Spanish movies of all time. Nobody has special merits in the story but Ramon Sampedro himself. He IS the movie. Now, Alejandro Amenábar is gonna become the more international Spanish director ever, maybe he'll go to live to Hollywood; but some of us would like to watch him filming a simple story, without bit final twists, without living dead nor dying alive... "The Others" is still his best movie.<br /><br />*My rate: 7/10
| 1 |
positive
|
I really enjoyed this movie and I usually don't like animated pictures. But I thought the cats were appealing and the story line was charming. There is a good song called "Everybody wants to be a cat," that is a lot of fun. It has some comic moments and is an interesting adventure. I think it helps to be an avid cat lover to enjoy this film.
| 1 |
positive
|
I just saw this at the Philadelphia Film Festival. It was the most wonderful movie - the best I've seen in quite a while. The enticing character of Isa is an open, exploring and (as remarked in the film) love-filled person - guilelessly portrayed by the beautiful Camille Natta. The accompanying music is soothing and transporting, a balm to the soul.<br /><br />Each character seems to be conflicted in some way - and their interactions (w/ conflicts) make for a great story. The tale told by A.K. Hangal as the Old Man was most magically done - I wanted it to go on and on.<br /><br />That Hari seemed to remember his "place" throughout added get power to the story - a refreshing change to the bubble-headed plots of many modern writers.<br /><br />All and all, an excellent film. Go see.
| 1 |
positive
|
By Randolph Scott standards of the 1950s, this is a disappointing and heavy-handed star western. Two or three of the characters could be dispensed with, while two or three other characters could be given more prominence. (The humour needs to be completely rewritten.) De Toth handles the action well - as always - but his grasp of the overall narrative is weak.
| 0 |
negative
|
Giorgino is a long, excruciating journey from bad to worse in the life of protagonist after whom the movie is named. Young demobilized, gas-poisoned First World War lieutenant of very delicate health, who previously was a doctor in an orphanage for children with some mental deprivations, goes in a search of their new location and finds much more than he ever intended to and quite of a different nature. Depressive atmosphere of ultimate despair, where the insane ones are much less horrible than the sane, where the madness is a kind of poetry, will hold you hypnotized from the very first frames of this film to the last. And all the beauty: beauty of the winter and mountains, beauty of snowy landscapes and wild woods, I don't even know how all the sorrow and sadness of last days of war could be made so beautiful.
| 1 |
positive
|
This should not have been made into a movie. Everything about it was idiotic and I don't think I laughed even once. There were bits and pieces that were okay I guess but that's about it. A lot of parts were strikingly similar to a lot of other movies which did them a hell of a lot better. There were some famous actors/actresses in this but no one did a good job, they must've just not cared. This is one of those movies that tries to have a "cute" ending but it was so idiotic that it literally had no redeeming values. Carrot Top is probably the worst comedian out there right now. Do yourself a favor and steer clear of this one!<br /><br />Final Decisions:<br /><br />Movies : NOOOOO!<br /><br />Purchase DVD : Absolutely not!<br /><br />Rental : Only if you've seen EVERYTHING else and have a free coupon but even then it's still not worth your while.
| 0 |
negative
|
This ranks up there as the worst movies of all time. No research or thought at all went into this movie. Action scenes were thrown in at random intervals which made no sense in the context of the movie. Items appeared and disappeared at random, etc. It's obvious that this was directed by a "stunt coordinator", who should go back to his old job. The Skeleton Man rode a horse throughout the movie, which amazingly, could change color at will. Either that, or someone thought the audience would all be colorblind and not notice. Blood would be on the actors in 1 scene and the very next, miraculously disappear and then reappear. Seems that everyone connected with this movie forgot to check for inconsistencies.
| 0 |
negative
|
It looks like people involved with this movie are stuffing the ballot box to boost its ratings. The good news that apparently only 18 people have seen it. I suppose that makes me the 19th. I have no involvement with the flick and don't know anyone who did and I'm a long-time IMDb user (check my vote record and reviews over the past seven years), so I promise I'm giving an honest and unbiased opinion. It's coming to you from a 30-year horror fan who has also appeared in a couple of low-budget flicks himself.<br /><br />Aside from a couple of interesting video effects, "Frankensteins Bloody Nightmare" is incoherent, boring, and technically flawed beyond all reason. It was apparently shot on silent stock and the audio then dubbed in; most of it sounds like it was recorded with a tin can and a piece of string, anyhow. More than three quarters of the dialog is inaudible.<br /><br />I watched this from beginning to end and have no idea of what the story was, or even if there was one. It seems like the director is mostly impressing himself with long, panning shots of the corners of table and dead black spaces that do nothing but pad the film out. That would be a problem if one were actually developing a plot and making a film that had some sense of pacing. In this case, though, the rule doesn't apply. It doesn't matter how scenes are shot because they don't add up to a story.<br /><br />Watching this video is an exercise in futility at every level. Whatever people who worked on it are writing and however they're trying to influence the ratings here on IMDb, this is just bad, tedious stuff.<br /><br />That's the honest truth. If you're thinking of spending your money or time on this one, think again. It's easy to find something better because you won't find much worse.<br /><br />And that's the unbiased, unvarnished truth.
| 0 |
negative
|
It is such a shame when actors and actresses of high quality get involved with pure crap, probably because they were offered a great deal of money. Not one of Helen Mirren's better career moves. The acting of the "teens" is simply appalling, not helped by a script that is in parts simply inept.<br /><br />Most of Kevin Williamson's work is above average box office dross, but this is really below par. <br /><br />This is the sort of movie that you watch on TV when there is nothing better on and you have had half a bottle of wine to drink and are waiting for the Pizza to be delivered so you can drink the other half.
| 0 |
negative
|
Here's a couple of paragraphs out of an essay I wrote for university about TBOR.<br /><br />"The Book of Revelation is an erotic thriller about sex, power and a talented dancer's struggle to regain his sense of self after being unfortunately raped by three cloaked women. The three women that violate him all have distinctive marks on the bodies; one has a giant birth mark on her buttocks, another has a butterfly tattoo on her lower stomach and the ring leader has a small circle on her breast. So he lives his new life in search of these markings, and to find them on these intimate places he does what any sane man does when he needs to see as many naked women as possible to solve a mystery, he has sex with them. An hour and ten minutes into the film and you feel like he has almost had a piece of every woman in Melbourne.<br /><br />The film is a giant chunk of pretentious celluloid; it is like grandiloquence drips from every frame. At only one point towards the films final climax does Kokkinos give a scene the same energy and strength as her debut feature Head On had in droves. As like many films funded by the government bodies the film takes it self way to seriously, the script and its execution appear to be chores rather then gifts and unfortunately for the talented thespians, their brilliant performances (particularly Tom Long as the fractured protagonist) are stuck within the confines of a pompous wan k fest."
| 0 |
negative
|
An American family moves to the countryside of Spain to live in an isolated house. Regina (Anna Paquin), the teenager daughter of Mark (Iain Glen), who is sick and has some mental problems, and the nurse Maria (Lena Olin), notes that weird things is happening in the house and with her young brother Paul (Stephan Enquist), but her mother does not believe on her. Reggie decides to investigate with her boyfriend Carlos (Fele Martínez) the origins of the house, and they find that forty years ago, the place was the stage of the death of six children. Reggie decides to ask for support to her grandfather Albert (Giancarlo Giannini) to protect her brother against the house and her father.<br /><br />I bought this DVD expecting to see a good horror movie of haunted house mainly because of the names of Anna Paquin, Lena Olin, Fele Martínez (from "Thesis" and "Abre los Ojos") and Giancarlo Giannini. Further, I like very much Spanish cinema. In spite of, I found a terrible screenplay, an awful direction and a deplorable acting of excellent actors and actresses. The intention of the story is good, slightly recalling "The Shinning" in some moments, but unfortunately it is badly developed, never being clear, for example, the reasons and motives why the American family moved to Spain or the horrible relationship between the members of the family, mainly the situation between Maria and Reggie. The direction is confused, poorly trying to use dark and shadows to give scary effects to the story. I love Anna Paquin, but her expressionless face never works in this flick. Lena Olin is a caricature of the great actress she is; and Stephan Enquist is too much weak for such important role. Only Fele Martínez has a good performance in his support character. I liked the open end of the story. My vote is four.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "A Sétima Vítima" ("The Seventh Victim")
| 0 |
negative
|
Eric Bogosian's ability to roll from character to character in this 'one man show' exhibits his true range as a character actor. Each persona has their own message to convey about truth, society, class, drugs, etc. This is an absolute Must Have for anyone who is a serious fan of acting! His performance contains some of the most Hilarious and Real moments I have ever experienced as a viewing audience.
| 1 |
positive
|
I'm so glad he wasn't alive to see this. This movie is a debauchery of his work. I agree with the other commenter-- this movie was a terrible disappointment. I'd give it a zero, but am forced to give it a 1.<br /><br />The story was weak, and it reminded me of the days when I was a young teenager trying to write a movie, then looking back on it and realizing how horrible it was. Bad actors, family and friends, and someone stupid enough to fund it was how it was made. It's really amazing how strings can be pulled to get anything done. If this movie was able to make it out to the general public it puts high hopes on other indie film makers who have talent worth a damn who're struggling! This movie made me laugh, but for all the wrong reasons. By all accounts this was seriously not meant to be a comedy. Scary movie is a better play on a horror genre-- this movie just sucks.
| 0 |
negative
|
This is the kind of movie that could have ruined several careers, if garbage could ruin motion picture careers these days.<br /><br />Melanie Griffith took off her shirt, and in her pre-enhancement surgery days, she really should have stayed dressed.<br /><br />Jeff Daniels was completely wasted, but fortunately for him and for us, he has gone on to much better things since this ... this ... this ... well, heck, piece of garbage.<br /><br />Strangely, all of its major players have gone on to bigger and better things, including director Jonathan Demme. His work here was also wasted but deserving of a grudging admiration. I mean, anything not worth doing is not worth doing well. But he did it well, anyway.<br /><br />Still, there was one bright, shining aspect: Ray Liotta, who is named way down the credit list, just absolutely stole everything. Liotta was magnificently mesmerizing! Hypnotic! Enthralling.<br /><br />I saw this piece of garbage while it was still relatively new, in a friend's private theater. For some strange reason, my friend LOVED it. I sort of think it's because Melanie Griffith took off her shirt (and, really, honest, she shouldn't have), though he tried to claim it was other, more artistic, reasons.<br /><br />Anyway, I thought even then, after his first scene, that Ray Liotta would become a major star, or at least a major, highly-respected actor.<br /><br />Despite the garbagey aspects of the garbagey script, the sheer ugliness of the whole story, Liotta made it almost worth watching. In fact, it is worth seeing, once, just to see how far Ray Liotta has come. I mean, for one thing, his name is now usually listed at or near the top.<br /><br />Even then, even in a pile of garbage, Ray Liotta shone like a diamond.<br /><br />Just, if you do see this trash, be prepared to hold your nose. Every major character is either amoral or immoral. Terrible movie. Terrible movie idea.<br /><br />Added comment: Too many people answer "Was this comment helpful?" with a "no" because they disagree with the expressed opinion. Maybe IMDb should ask that question instead: "Do you agree with these opinions?"
| 0 |
negative
|
At first the movie seemed to be doing great, they had the characters profiles set...the plot seemed to be going in the right direction... however, as the movie progressed it seemed the director focused on the wrong kind of things...or just a lot was edited from the movie. The characters' identities changed for the worse within the movie. Also, there seemed to be a lot of implicit meaning -- in other words -- they had things within the movie that didn't seem to fit the movie itself. AND the title... no where in the movie does the title fit the movie...I suppose the title works for the previews.... Actors did well with what they had.....if they had a better director and writer, maybe this would have worked out better. But it didn't. So now there's a new terrible movie coming out this Friday.... My opinion!....don't waste your time or money.
| 0 |
negative
|
A review I have put off for far too long....<br /><br />Bluntly, 2001 is one of the best science-fiction films made to date, if not the very best. Stanley Kubrick was a genius of a film maker and this is one of his very best works. And although it is misunderstood by many, and respectively underrated, it is considered one of the best films of all time and I'll have to agree. Back in 1968, no one had done anything like this before, and no one has since. It was a marvel of a special effects breakthrough back then, and seeing how the effects hold up today, it is no wonder as to why. The film still looks marvelous after almost forty years! Take note CGI people. Through the use of large miniatures and realistic lighting, Kubrick created some of the best special effects ever put on celluloid. This aspect alone almost single-handedly created the chilling void of the space atmosphere which is also attributed to the music and realistic sound effects. I can't think of another film where you can't here anything in space, like it is in reality. Not only is the absence of sound effects in space realistic, it is used cleverly as a tool to establish mood, and it works flawlessly.<br /><br />Aside from the magnificent display of ingenious special effects, there are other factors that play a part in establishing the feel of the film. The music played, all classical, compliment what the eyes are seeing and make you feel the significance of man's journey through his evolution from ape to space traveler.<br /><br />The story, while seemingly simple, is profound. Sequentially, several mysterious black monoliths are discovered and basically trigger certain events integral to the film. What are they? Where did they come from? What do they do? These are all questions one asks oneself while watching the story develop and is asked to find his own way. While most come away with a general idea of what took place in the story, each individual will have to decide what it means to them. Any way one decides to answer these question results in profound solutions. It's not left entirely up to interpretation, but in some aspects it is. Experience it for more clarification. The end result is quite chilling, no matter your personal solution.<br /><br />While it is a long film, and sometimes slows down, it has to be in order to accurately portray the journey of man. It's not a subject that would have faired well in a shorter film, faster paced feature. Those with short attention spans need not apply.<br /><br />Last but not least, is the epitome of a remorseless antagonist, HAL 9000, the computer. Never has a machine held such a chilling screen presence. Which reminds me, for a film with such profound ambition and execution, there is surprisingly little dialogue. Another sign of Kubrick's genius.<br /><br />All in all, one of the best films made to date and one of the very best science fiction films made. A personal favorite. Everyone must see this film at least once.<br /><br />Very highly recommended.
| 1 |
positive
|
Cronica de un desayuno combines the worst defects of mexican cinema, a rare feat nowadays.<br /><br />It's pretentious: it wants us to believe that it is deep, only because some scene is out-of-focus, another is pseudo-surreal, yet another plays with the Eisenstein-Infante-Caifanes tradition of laughing-crying faces, the edition is fragmented, and it is all so solemn.<br /><br />It has a weak script: the main story hardly develops, so it has other three smaller, needless stories, stuck into it. They are only good to make the film last longer.<br /><br />Most of the acting is bad. A true feat, baring in mind that many of the best known mexican actors were cast.<br /><br />There is an abuse of unnecesary foul language. To the point that the character of Paloma, who symbolizes the dreams of freedom of a child, uses it throughly.<br /><br />It is homophobic. The character played by Eduardo Palomo is the sorriest, and most punished, representation of a transexual I have ever seen.<br /><br />It is very boring. I ended up envying the people that left the theater before the end of the film.<br /><br />Whatever it tries, it has been done better, in Mexico and elsewhere.<br /><br />In other words: "Para partirte la madre, nada como una mala película"
| 0 |
negative
|
What looks like a ho-hum Porky's rip-off turns out to be quite a touching film about being young and in love.<br /><br />The story concerns three friends, Gary, Ricky and David, who spend their after school hours looking for sex. When a new girl arrives in town Gary falls head over heels in love with her.<br /><br />The film goes from being a sleazy sex film to an examination of teenage insecurities. It is funny and sad at the same time. It never completely gives into that love story formula that seems prominent in every movie made. You know the guy meets girl, guy loses girl, guy gets girl back in the final frame formula. That formula is tossed aside after guy meets girl. Maybe that is why I liked the film so much.<br /><br />The soundtrack is especially good and the ending is a definite tear jerker. It also might be one of the most realistic endings I've ever seen in a love story.<br /><br />
| 1 |
positive
|
I love these awful 80's summer camp movies. The best part about "Party Camp" is the fact that it literally has no plot. It simply drops a weak batch of "characters" into a location and then things occasionally happen. The cliches here are limitless (SPOILERS): the nerds vs. the jocks, the secret camera in the girls locker room, the hikers happening upon a nudist colony, the contest at the conclusion, the secretly horny camp administrators, and the embarrassingly foolish sexual innuendo littered throughout. The only cliche missing is the presence of Corey Feldman. This movie will make you laugh, but never intentionally. I repeat, NEVER. A final note, be prepared to bust a gut watching the nonsense that is the "dramatic" scene where Jerry Riviera and D.A. share a beer late at night, spilling their guts to each other. The dialogue literally makes no sense, and the acting belongs on a high-school stage. It's a classic.
| 0 |
negative
|
OK....so, by minute 15 in the film, there's still no dialogue.<br /><br />This film arrived to me in a padded sack from Down Under, with Sharpie encrypted info on the front. I am a programmer from a North American fest, and MOD LOVE was sent thru to me by our chief as a potential starter having preem'd at the far-away Moscow/Karlovy Vary interface.<br /><br />Straight away I thought "this film is not for us" (no dialogue by minute 15??) but kept watching anyway. Well, well, well. It built and built and built, and half way in I was involved in this film, because, like when you go to the zoo, at first you're reticent, but by the time you get to the dangerous snakes bit, you're totally 'there'.<br /><br />This film has a dangerousness, not at all like the much hyped WolF Creek, but because it is so totally 'other' in every way shape and form, and seems to weave a web made up of all the fantasies of most independent first-time helmers ie. - gloomy weather, red-neck intrigue, odd splicing, eerie music, and a plot which, though imperfect and basic, has a bit in common with one of the 'great Aussie Movies' ie The Cars That Ate Paris, by Wier. But MODERN LOVE is actually not really a very Aussie movie in the sense of Ocker-ishness and playful self-deprecation that pervades many of that country's films. It works on a more nightmarish realm from the start. No cell-phones, no brand names, no i-pods, no gritty urban middle/class angst - just a dude married to a good-looker, an old Volvo, and a little boy (son) who has weird teeth and chucks stuff around. Oh and it's set in weird sea-side village where people all look slightly 'wrong.' Photographed by Nick Matthews (2:37) and music by Tom Huzenroeder (Ten Canoes) MOD LUV succeeds where many Aust. movies fail - ie it stands up without regard to the "god-forsaken" country that it comes out of. Instead, it revels in a warped but entertaining riddle which the film itself cannot solve - and herein lies the weak link...what on earth does this film have to do with "Modern Love"???? The final minutes of the film seem to give an answer, or at least hints at one....and as I sat and drank a coffee and ate my Hershey's afterwards, all that I could surmise was that this film's helmer, Alex Frayne, will prob have a lot of fun with this one./
| 1 |
positive
|
When I saw that this film was being aired on late night TV I initially decided to give it a miss. I am glad that I then started watching. Yes the special effects are the same as Gerry Andersen's puppet shows. Some of the actors/actresses are from his other productions, he obviously used the same composer later on, as the cheesy soundtrack could only have come from one of his productions, and the plot is as slow as a wet weekend. Get by all that and you have a film that shows up intriguing possibilities. Is there a planet on the far side of the sun? Is it a duplicate earth? Is everything about it reversed and if so do they speak English in reverse? I love this dated SF if only for Gerry's wonderful model cars, planes, buildings and spaceships. Some of them are not so far fetched as they seemed back then. And did you see the European Space Centre logo? Very reminiscent of the Euro logo of today. Suspend belief and spend a couple of hours watching this, you will be glad you did.
| 1 |
positive
|
This is an exceptional picture with so much to recommend it. The acting and writing are terrific and there are lots of great twists and turns in the plot. As a French "Noir" film, its language is certainly a lot earthier than its American counterparts, but to me this just added to the realism. Additionally, I liked how non-glamorous everyone was--particularly the husband and the lieutenant. About the only negative, and the reason the film gets a 9 and not a 10, is because there was a glaring plot hole. Like another famous French film, Drôle de Drame, the confusion between the cops and the accused could easily have been settled in the beginning, but the characters made rather stupid decisions. For this, you just need to suspend disbelief and keep watching--the payoff is well worth the wait.<br /><br />This is simply one of the finest French films I have seen. Period.
| 1 |
positive
|
"Revenge of the Zombies" is a pretty weak and barely passable zombie effort.<br /><br />**SPOILERS**<br /><br />Traveling in the Bayou, Larry Adams, (Robert Lowery) and Scott Warrington, (Mauritz Hugo) are informed that a friend has deceased. Meeting with local Dr. Von Altermann, (John Carradine) he repeats the notion that they mysteriously died. While they are staying there, they realize that the help consists of zombies, reanimated dead people who are doing the bidding of their master. As the bodies pile up, he reveals that he has been making the creatures for use in various experiments and all try to stop him before it's too late.<br /><br />The Good News: This here gets very little right. The opening is easily it's best, as it's got several great marks for it. From where it starts, with the creepy silhouettes walking in the dark all the way through to the revelations, this one works wonders for both it's mystery and great imagery. The big one is a really scene where the creature emerges from a coffin in a long, slow and creepy shot. These here are all done before the opening credits and is a fun sight. The scenes in the middle where the creature reawakens inside the coffin is pretty chilling and looks really great. The last big positive is the really fun ending. With the sort of ending that feels reminiscent of so many Universal attempts, this one fits in with that style. From the creepy reanimation to the real action involved near the swamp, this one is fun and really works with the others to give it's only real positives.<br /><br />The Bad News: This one here only has a couple flaws, but they are major ones. The first one is the film's major boredom from inactivity. Almost nothing happens in here, mainly due to the tendency to do everything with talking rather than anything else. There's only intermittent scenes relegated to the zombies, yet there's nothing here that devotes any action to the film. This one simply doesn't have any action, and that's what hurts the film. It rarely generates a scenes that keeps the interest going, and at times this makes it feel a lot longer than it really is. The last flaw in the film are it's pathetic excuses for zombies. Those used to more modern fare will have a hard time getting any fear out of these creatures, and they really only serve several scenes. This here doesn't treat the zombies as threats, making them even less frightening. Little screen-time, nonthreatening nature and un-modern behavior from these zombies really destroys this one. These here are what really hurt the film.<br /><br />The Final Verdict: With bad zombies and hardly anything worth watching, this one here is a curious effort. Those used to modern zombies will find little of interest in this one and come out the same as this one is, while only classic horror fans are advised to give it a shot.<br /><br />Today's Rating-PG: Mild Violence
| 0 |
negative
|
Many people remember the Waco standoff that occurred a long time ago. What most people probably have ingrained in their minds is the "cult leader" David Koresh and the images of the compound burning to the ground after a long standoff. A lot of people have the belief that Koresh was some kind of madman who thought he was God. He was accused of being a child molester and was credited for the breakdown and deaths of his followers. Furthermore, many people feel the cult committed mass suicide when the FBI stormed Mount Carmel Center and when the building was burning. Most people feel the cult was at fault for not agreeing with the FBI on reasonable terms. Most people feel the cult was brainwashed by Koresh and followed along with everything that he said. Nothing could be farther from the truth, because of strong evidence after the nightmare was over, and this one-of -a- kind documentary pretty much proves it!! <br /><br />This documentary is one of the most balanced examinations at the situation that occurred. It is much more thorough and highly detailed than anything most people have received in the mainstream media. To the shock of many people, this documentary will reveal that is was the ATF, the FBI, and the higher levels of the United States government who were the ones who were unjust, cruel, and deceptive, and not David Koresh and his followers. What Korseh and Davidians were doing was just protecting their constitutional rights, and the higher powers completely violated and raped those rights. The AFT had no grounds to storm the compound; it was the AFT that shot first and they shot from the helicopters from above at unarmed men, women, and children!! What is even more shocking is the actions of the FBI when they entered the Mount Carmel. Watch it for yourselves and you will develop and new perspective on the U.S. government. There is infrared footage that clearly shows the FBI was shooting with machine guns at the men, women, and children in the burning compound. It will make your blood boil. It will make you really angry. It will make you wonder as to what kind of people run this country. Finally, it will make you wonder as to what you are being told on the news every night is the whole truth and nothing but the truth. This video is frightening and I highly recommend it if one can find it. This documentary does not need to be purchased; it can be watched for free on google video!
| 1 |
positive
|
Seeing that this movie was on the IMDB Bottom 20, I simply had to rent it.<br /><br />SUPRISE! SUPRISE! I have no regret of seeing this movie at all. In fact, I really enjoyed it. There's a level of camp in this movie that puts cult classics of the 80's to shame. Is it stupid? yes, but Jim Wynorski proves that stupid is not necessarily bad after all.<br /><br />Rent it for a laugh that seems unintended but is actually meant to be funny. Wynorski is a genius. Hope he directs the next ninja turtles movie
| 1 |
positive
|
If you've ever had a mad week-end out with your mates then you'll appreciate this film. Excellent fun and a laugh a minute.
| 1 |
positive
|
One of the most successful shows in television history is back. Now I admit I never got into the original show.... Okay, so I never watched it at all. But the new show is impressive.<br /><br />Sci-Fi has premiered the first two episodes, "Rose" and "The End of the World," this weekend. We meet Rose, a twenty-something clerk who is chased by remote controlled mannequins. She is rescued by a mysterious stranger who calls himself the Doctor. Using the Internet, she finds a conspiracy buff who warns her that wherever the Doctor goes, death follows. When her geeky boyfriend Mickey is replaced by an impostor, the Doctor informs her of a plot to use Earth as a breeding ground for more of these plastic monsters, whom the Doctor has been fighting across space and time, traveling in a Tardis disguised a 50s-style police call box.<br /><br />She helps him save the world--there wouldn't be a show otherwise--and decides to join him. But when he puts her life in danger, he is distraught, and questions whether her company was worth the risk.<br /><br />Although the special effects are kinda lame, and the some of the scenes are a bit choppy, "Doctor Who" is (after two episodes aired in the US) a smart, well-written work. Apparently, the second season has already aired in the UK, so I predict the same success here.
| 1 |
positive
|
If this is not heavily featured on every list of "what not to watch", it should only be because those keeping that particular list are not aware of its existence, which, as long as that remains so, is the acceptable alternative. I'm not kidding you, this is a *bad* "movie". Joseph Meeker returns from the dead, with various vague, undefined supernatural powers, the most employed of which would seem to be appearing in new, increasingly comical-looking and ridiculous(and never scary or creepy... in general, when this goes for the latter of those, it winds up just being bizarre, and attempts at the former just don't work, period) outfits and stereotypes/archetypes, and he is portrayed by David Keith(whom I respect in... well, at least Daredevil), doing a more often than not terribly inconsistent(which could also have to do with script) and often over the top performance. A character or two have personalities so unbelievably irritating that they're painful to watch. The editing thinks it's considerably more clever than it really is(and what on Earth was with the red tint for the flashbacks?). Cinematography... oh, dear. Framing, coverage, effective use of angle(that one could be attributed some to editing, too, perhaps), please, guys, stop me when I say something you've ever heard about the existence of. As far as the technical side goes, this is a pretty lousy excuse for something more worthwhile to put in the projector than unexposed film. But why stop there? The plot is just poor. The basic idea's been done, and it's been done so much better than this(The Crow would be one). The way it's told is gimmicky, and while there is some explanation behind the flashbacks, it still doesn't satisfy. Pacing is about non-existent. The lead is distinctly unlikeable, and there's more personality in a barn door, not to mention that those are also considerably less wooden. Kelly Perine and Thomas Ian Nicholas? What in the name of all that is good and just(pun intended) are you doing in this? Perine, you were already funny before this, on The Drew Carey Show, Nicholas, well, I haven't seen you in anything preceding American Pie, but if nothing else, you *were* funny later on, and in those productions, the amusement was intentional. Dialog is... the less said, the better. Language is unrestrained, and tends to be stupid. The violence is shoddily done, and they don't even seem to care to try to hide it(hinting at it might have been the smarter strategy). Characters, don't get me started. Why spend so much energy on portraying unexciting, at times utterly illogical, events? The more you think about this, the worse it gets. It's not even passable as a "bad horror flick", or a B movie(it may very well pass through the rest of the alphabet, and go further still), it couldn't scare you on the scariest day of your life if it had an electrified scaring machine. I recommend this only to people who want to disprove how bad this is, and don't say I didn't warn ya. 1/10
| 0 |
negative
|
Space is a vacuum, right? Therefore, space sucks. Vampires also suck. A really bad vampire movie set in space would have twice the sucking power, right?<br /><br />It started with what could have been a fun premise. Retelling Bram Stoker's Dracula story in the future. There's a salvage crew that's sent out to investigate a cargo ship that's lost in space called the Demeter. Fans of the original novel will unwittingly assume that this is to be a straightforward retelling of Dracula set in the future... unfortunately, short of sharing character names, this one takes the lowbrow route and goes into the B-movie galaxy twenty minutes later when Coolio becomes a vampire. Trust me when I tell you he's the best actor in the movie, and that's not saying much.<br /><br />Casper Van Dien should be peddling his wares on daytime television. Erika Eleniak should have quit after she left Baywatch and poor Udo Kier is having trouble reading from the cue cards. The guy who plays Dracula in this one is more ridiculous than Frank Langella was in the 1970's version. If you can manage to sit through the whole movie, you will be rewarded with the worst ending imaginable. The ending makes one wonder if the actors and the crew realized what a piece of garbage they were making and walked off the set.<br /><br />Take heed, vampire fans. This one sucks twice as hard.
| 0 |
negative
|
I stumbled on to this site while looking for a video or DVD of the 1959 version Porgy and Bess with Sammy Davis as Sportin' Life. If anyone finds this on a home movie format please let me know. I talk to my daughters all the time about things that they think are new which, actually have already been done. We went to see a live theater of version a couple of years ago and all I could talk about was this film. Sadly my daughters cannot remember seeing Sammy Davis Jr. in any production, although they have heard of him. Needless to say, they're not familiar with the other great actors in the film. It is a major oversight not to have this classic film (because of the cast) on a home movie format for collectors and for future generations. Anyway, in my opinion this version was the best!
| 1 |
positive
|
How much do I love this film?! Now I'm not a fan of bad films, but I do love a film that is so bad it's good. This is one of those. Juan Pablo Di Pace has a great butt, looks fab on screen, and definitely doesn't make a bad turn at his acting debut (I believe). Billy Zane is suitably mean and moody, though I still constantly feel that there is something more in him. I felt it in Titanic, the look on his face when La Winslet spat on him for example, totally broken, shocked, and put-down ... fierce! Kelly Brook is a pretty face ... no seriously, I think that's it! It's worth catching this to see one really hot guy, some big bra fillers from Brook, nasty growling from Billy, laugh at the dialogue, revel in the scenery and madness of the whole affair ... I'm gona go watch it again now - yes, I bought it!!!
| 0 |
negative
|
Robert Lansing plays a scientist experimenting with passing objects through solid matter, but he goes too far one night and unintentionally makes himself four-dimensional! Atomic-age fantasy is rather charming in a very cheesy way. Perhaps it was considered a thoughtful sci-fi in its time (with psychological overtones), yet seen today the film is mildly overbaked and naive; it's a camp-fest tailor-made for TV's late-late show. Wooden performances by Lansing and Lee Meriwether barely rate as one-dimensional, though Patty Duke (playing a cute brat pre-"Miracle Worker") gets a colorful, memorable exit. <br /><br />** from ****
| 0 |
negative
|
This is one of the best films I have ever seen! How anyone can knock this movie just befuddles my imagination! First of all, Gooding's and Harris's performances were simply spectacular, especially Gooding. That is the only way I can describe the acting: spectacular! You have to imagine how difficult it would be to play a character like that and pull it off; then you see Gooding, and his performance was magical. As for the plot, since it was based on a true person, it goes where the lives of the characters go. For all the action buffs, it might be a little slow, but then it's not an action film. I definitely give this movie a 10. It deserves nothing less!
| 1 |
positive
|
I appeared as an extra and was on location as a journalist covering "The Dain Curse". My involvement was during the segments of this film shot in Jim Thorpe, Pa. (Jim Thorpe was also one of the locations of the 1969 film "The Molly Maguires"). I reported the 'action' in the Emmaus Free Press newspaper where I was editor 1978-80 (the paper ceased publication int he 1990s). I recall the excellent attention to detail of the period costumes, automobiles, etc. The modern asphalted streets of Jim Thorpe were covered with gravel to mimic a 1920s rural town of the south. At the time, I interviewed the producer and spoke briefly with the director during a set change break; I did not get to interview James Coburn which was always a great disappointment to me. As an aside, I appear briefly in one of the street scenes wearing a snap- brim hat and a tweed jacket. The producer asked me to "jump in" and it was a real thrill. I still have a collection of black and white stills I took of the production work for the newspaper. Someday, they may be of interest to film/television historians.--Lou Varricchio
| 0 |
negative
|
As a Czech I am very pleased when I read these comments here. I am absolutely sure that this film is great. And what you maybe don't know is that story was specially written for Mr. Brodský. The man you can see is him and his typical attitude - to live and to resist death. He was one of great actors and we are very lucky that we he has made so many beautiful films during his life. You are lucky you could see at least one of them. Enjoy.
| 1 |
positive
|
I enjoyed this film immensely. I'm really into films where females kick lots of butt, so this film already had my hopes up for some decent entertainment. My hopes were met and exceeded less than 20 minutes into the film. The action, humor and wit this film contained easily made it one of my favorite films of all time. It had Sam Jackson and his undeniable screen presence, Geena Davis as I've never seen her before, demanding your respect and flat out taking it even if you don't want to give it.<br /><br />Geena plays Samantha Caine, an amnesiac desperate to remember something about her past, but quickly realizing, the more she finds out the more she wants to forget and eventually becomes consumed until finally Samantha is so more and Charly is all that's left. But now, can Charly and Sam, two completely different women, possibly exist in the same body? We have characters that pop in and out of the film that nurture each side of Sam/Charly, like Sam Jackson, and Craig Bierko. Craig is also irresistible as Timothy, the sexy bad guy with no conscience.<br /><br />This film was perfectly casted, and perfectly acted, over the top and wonderfully entertaining. You watch the impossible happen and applaud when it does. SO worth your time. Watch it, you won't be sorry.
| 1 |
positive
|
I'm not going to say the story of the movie as some people do. I'm pretty sure people who read this will know what the storyline is. I'm also not going to go on and on about everything thats wrong with this movie, because I'll be here for ages if I do. The storyline is typical, and the special effects are below today's standards. This is not a movie you should watch if you are a serious movie buff (as most of us here are) little things will annoy you the whole movie and ruin the experience. If your a casual movie watcher, who likes to have a good time when they are watching a flick, then this movie is perfect for you, lots of fun. It would also be a good movie to take a partner to. Just not for us movie buff's.<br /><br /> 5 out of 10
| 0 |
negative
|
Pat Conroy's autobiographical book "The Water Is Wide" proves to be something of a Southern "Up The Down Staircase", yet despite the teacher-going-against-the-odds formula, "Conrack" really does move the audience with each little breakthrough and creative flash. These students (uneducated black kids on an island off South Carolina) are actually shown learning, and their collective wide-eyed innocence is remarkably sweet. The one actual actress in the bunch (Tina Andrews, an amazing performer) plays the "tough nut" Conrack has to crack, and once she falls under his charms, it all seems a breeze. But the story is not ready-made for a happy ending, and I wasn't prepared for the quiet simplicity of the finale. It's beautifully done. The script veers off course every now and then, but director Martin Ritt is very smart to always fall back on Jon Voight's solid presence. Scenes such as the one where he drives around in his van venting his frustrations over a loudspeaker don't add up to much, but the whole film is filled with episodes which spark emotion, and the actual ending is their payoff. **1/2 out of ****
| 1 |
positive
|
L'Appartement is, I think, a very purposeful Hitchcockian film. The plot was rife with symbolism (ie the white and red roses) and plot twists which wrapped themselves up neatly. The look was very Parisian and pulled you closer to the story. I saw it in London and very much regret that it is not out on video in the states
| 1 |
positive
|
Spoilers: This movie has it's problems, but in the end it gets the message across. I liked it because it ends the way things really do. The nice guy tries and tries, gets his heart broken several times, but in the end there is no typical hollywood ending. It ends the way such things always end, or at least always have in my own and friends' experiences. Anyone who thinks that the ending to this isn't how it really happens, as the first comment seemed to, believing that the girl would come around, realize she's dating an asshole who treats her bad because he doesn't care about her at all is either naive or lives in a more perfect world than I. I give it 7/10, extra points simply because it wasn't afraid to end on a down note, give no real resolution, just the main character left heartbroken, confused and alone as so many men of countless generations have been before.
| 1 |
positive
|
This film was sheer boredom from beginning to end. Ok, so i salute Boorman for raising the worldwide recognition of events in Burma, but that is all he achieves. About 10 minutes into the film i thought "oh no, here we go again", and i could have told you exactly what was going to occur in the next 80 minutes or so. Patricia Arquette was out of her depth in such a role, and her acting was wooden and unconvincing. Mind you, being saddled with such an awfully conventional script, maybe boredom set in, and was such reflected on the screen. A lot of the film was just plain laughable. At one stage, Arquette's elderly companion is shot, and he is prostrate on the ground. In the next scene, he is sprinting through the forest, obviously attempting to break the world 100 meters record! - or maybe he's just trying to run away from Boorman!!. If you find it hard to sleep one night then play Beyond Rangoon on your VCR and you'll be snoring in no time. I very rarely critisize a film as heavily as this, but in this case it is completely justified.
| 0 |
negative
|
No. I'm not kidding with this one. He was a guest reviewer for Entertainment Weekly and gave this movie positive marks. And who can blame him? This is a charming, upbeat, and rather funny Disney movie. Who doesn't love kittens? The music in Ev'rybody Wants To Be A Cat is jamming. It makes me want to snap my fingers or something. Only years later when Cats Don't Dance came out have I seen a movie that was that musically fun. What Aristocats lacks in animation and story, it makes up for in charm. Plus, everything moves at a relaxed pace, and even the villain isn't all that scary. It's perfect for the younger set while not being so sappy that adults can't like it. If Snoop was here, I'm sure he would say the same thing. Yeah. Dig those CRAZY cats, man.
| 1 |
positive
|
David Bryce's comments nearby are exceptionally well written and informative as almost say everything I feel about DARLING LILI. This massive musical is so peculiar and over blown, over produced and must have caused ruptures at Paramount in 1970. It cost 22 million dollars! That is simply irresponsible. DARLING LILI must have been greenlit from a board meeting that said "hey we got that Pink Panther guy and that Sound Of Music gal... lets get this too" and handed over a blank cheque. The result is a hybrid of GIGI, ZEPPELIN, HALF A SIXPENCE, some MGM 40s song and dance numbers of a style (daisies and boaters!) so hopelessly old fashioned as to be like musical porridge, and MATA HARI dramatics. The production is colossal, lush, breathtaking to view, but the rest: the ridiculous romance, Julie looking befuddled, Hudson already dead, the mistimed comedy, and the astoundingly boring songs deaden this spectacular film into being irritating. LILI is like a twee 1940s mega musical with some vulgar bits to spice it up. STAR! released the year before sadly crashed and now is being finally appreciated for the excellent film is genuinely is... and Andrews looks sublime, mature, especially in the last half hour......but LILI is POPPINS and DOLLY frilly and I believe really killed off the mega musical binge of the 60s..... and made Andrews look like Poppins again... which I believe was not Edwards intention. Paramount must have collectively fainted when they saw this: and with another $20 million festering in CATCH 22, and $12 million in ON A CLEAR DAY and $25 million in PAINT YOUR WAGON....they had a financial abyss of CLEOPATRA proportions with $77 million tied into 4 films with very uncertain futures. Maybe they should have asked seer Daisy Gamble from ON A CLEAR DAY ......LILI was very popular on immediate first release in Australia and ran in 70mm cinemas for months but it failed once out in the subs and the sticks and only ever surfaced after that on one night stands with ON A CLEAR DAY as a Sunday night double. Thank god Paramount had their simple $1million (yes, ONE MILLION DOLLAR) film LOVE STORY and that $4 million dollar gangster pic THE GODFATHER also ready to recover all the $77 million in just the next two years....for just $5m.... incredible!
| 0 |
negative
|
To be honest fellow IMDb reviewers, I enjoyed this show a lot. The reason? Well, it didn't try to be more than it is; I mean, a sitcom with regular expectations, with a well known and repeated plot, funny and talented actors, and clever jokes oriented for a post college audience.<br /><br />This is what Grown Ups is all about: trying to be mature but in a funny way.<br /><br />Jaleel White is funny as always and delivers some witty, and hilarious sex oriented jokes. The humor is very 90's without taking in account the tendencies of the new millennium and that's the main reason in my opinion why the show didn't have success. It got stuck in the 90's.<br /><br />Oh and Mrs. Ribisi was really funny and perky.<br /><br />My favorite show has to be the one that deals with Karma biting the ass! Not a cult classic but I'm sure it's part of regular early 2000's nostalgia.
| 1 |
positive
|
Set in 1976 for no apparent reason other than to keep the set dressers busy, 'The Box' was directed by Richard Kelly ('Donnie Darko'), and stars Cameron Diaz and James Marsden as Norma and Arthur Lewis, a young couple who are supposedly struggling financially even though they both have successful careers--she as a high school teacher, he as an optical specialist at NASA's Langley, Virginia, Research Center. They have one child, Walter (Sam Oz Stone).<br /><br />One day the Lewises find a parcel on their doorstep, containing a black box with a big red button. There is a note from a 'Mr. Steward' indicating that he will return at 5:00 PM to explain about the box.<br /><br />The mysterious Arlington Steward, played by Frank Langella, shows up at the appointed time, nattily attired in an elegant Savile Row suit. He is polite but businesslike, however his most noticeable feature is his face, half of which appears to have been blown off and improperly attended to. Langella is the only thing worth watching in the movie, however he is unfortunately upstaged by his own makeup, which resembles that of Harvey 'Two Face' Dent (Aaron Eckhart) from Christopher Nolan's 'The Dark Knight.' It's like the elephant in the room: one can try to ignore it, but it's more than a little distracting.<br /><br />Steward explains that he will return in 24 hours to collect the button. If, during that time, they decide to unlock and push the button, he will give them $1 million cash. The only catch--and it's a big one--is that somewhere a stranger will die. It might be across town, it might be on another continent, however Steward assures them the victim will be someone unknown to them. As a show of good faith, he leaves them with a crisp $100 bill, theirs to keep whether they push the button or not.<br /><br />Arthur and Norma are skeptical, believing the whole thing to be a scam or an elaborate hoax, however it isn't long before they begin to wonder what would happen if they did push the button? Would they really get a million dollars? Would somebody really die? Weary of the speculation, Norma slaps the button. Nothing happens. However, their initial relief gives way to alarm when Steward shows up the next day with a briefcase full of cash. They decide to call the whole thing off, however Steward tells them it's too late. "You've already pushed the button," he explains. As Steward's limo pulls away, Arthur notes the license number, which he later discovers is registered to the NSA (National Security Agency).<br /><br />At this point the film begins to veer deeply into unfollowable territory as the secondary characters start springing nosebleeds and flashing peace signs. Meanwhile, the town becomes invaded by pudgy, slack-jawed geeks in bad shirts who start following Arthur around like an advance scouting party for a race of zombie alien nerds. Arthur eventually becomes trapped by the menacing bookworms in the library (?), where Steward's spinsterish wife shows up--whom we haven't seen till now--and informs Arthur that in order to get out of the library he must step into one of three vertical columns of cheesy-looking digital water effects. 'What happens if I choose the wrong one?', Arthur asks, seeming far less baffled than he ought to be under the circumstances, and certainly far less baffled than the audience is by this time. 'Eternal damnation,' the spinster says ominously.<br /><br />Arthur steps into the middle column of digital liquid effects, and after a brief absence suddenly appears, still in his water cocoon, hovering over Norma's bed. When she wakes up and sees him, the water bubble bursts and Arthur tumbles onto the bed in a shower of water which, oddly enough, continues to drip from the overhead water pipes just out of camera range while a sodden Marsden and Diaz flop around on the bed.<br /><br />It's confusing, I know.<br /><br />We eventually learn that Steward was once the public relations officer for the NSA, until he was struck by a lightning bolt that destroyed part of his face. He was pronounced dead, but later came back to life, having been transformed into a sort of superman who now serves 'the ones who make the lightning,' and whose powers have enabled him to take over the CIA, the NSA, and NASA all by himself.<br /><br />And what is the point of all this nattering rubbish? Apparently, Steward's mission is to subject humans to a kind of biblical character test (e.g., the 'Binding of Isaac'), to determine whether humanity is worth saving. If enough people pass the button test by refusing to push it, Steward's god-like overlords will spare the race. Unfortunately, those people who do push the button, such as Norma and Arthur, must be punished for their moral spinelessness, to which end they are subjected to a series of dreary 'Lady or the Tiger' ordeals that play out like one of those 'Saw movies,' except without the entertaining gore or the benefit of a coherent plot.<br /><br />'The Box' represents the sort of pointless mental masturbation that freshman philosophy students like to blather on about after a few beers. Richard Kelly's tedious exercise in existentialist pettifoggery eventually collapses under the weight of its own incomprehensibility; the tortured melange of insupportable ideas eventually congeals, as with the mixing together of too many colors, into a meandering gray goo of a film as insipid as one of those narcotizing in-flight movies the plot of which suffers no more or less from having been interrupted by a leisurely nap.<br /><br />There is a point in 'The Box' where Arthur, who is a technically-minded guy, becomes curious about how the button works. Opening up the unit, he is disappointed to find nothing inside.<br /><br />Having seen The Box, I know exactly how he feels.
| 0 |
negative
|
I'm not gonna lie. To say that this movie is confusing is like saying the sun is hot but not really. And if you've seen cult director Richard Kelly's previous films, "Donnie Darko" and "Southland Tales," you know that's gotta mean something. When I went to see this movie, there were about 50 people in the theater. Before an hour into the film, about half of the audience had already walked out. By the end, there were only 15 people left wondering what in the hell did they just see. I for one could only comprehend roughly 40% of what I saw on- screen, and even then it can only be called interpretation. So why did I give this movie a generous seven stars? Because for one, we get some spectacular performances (Marsden's great and Langella returns as a familiar creepy character), and most importantly two, because it's entirely original and Richard Kelly, undoubtedly one of the bravest directors alive, uses his creative vision to tell a story that dares to be different. Quite frankly, it's the ONLY way - only through Kelly's unique style could this story be told the way it's intended.<br /><br />In the end, if you're not willing to spend some serious thought into an intelligent movie (and even then it may all amount to nothing), stay FAR away from this one. But if you want to watch a deep, rich, complex and thought-provoking piece on spirituality, existentialism, and the predictability of human nature, go see this. Be prepared for lengthy discussions with your partner however.<br /><br />*Note: If by chance you've read this review, taken my recommendation, have actually seen the movie and STILL believe you've wasted 2 hours of your life, I'd be happy to share my views on the whole meaning and plot of the film. See, that's why I liked it so much - it promotes discussion! As hard as it is though, I'll try summing it up by paraphrasing a rather depressing quote by Langella's character, who explains the significance of the simple box to an employee: "Your house is a box which you live in. The car that you drove to work is a box, on wheels. When you return home from work you sit in front of a box with moving images. You watch until the mind and soul rots and the box that is your body deteriorates, when finally you are placed into the ultimate box... to rest under the soil and earth."
| 1 |
positive
|
Wow. I felt like I needed to shower off after watching this one, but maybe there were other reasons that I will leave to your imagination. I felt used and abused after wacking, I mean watching this film. Hairy chests, thick mustaches, and well, hairy everything describes this porn/horror movie, but hey, it was 1981, you can't call it "porn" in the 70s and 80s without the hair.<br /><br />As a horror flick, this bites. But as a piece of exploitation/porn from Italy's rich cinematic history- it definitely has a place in my library. The copy I have is in Italian with English subtitles. I wish it had the really poorly dubbed English, I think it would have added to the sleaziness factor that already existed. The only white guy who gets laid in the movie is "Mark Shannon"- he is the moustache wearing, hairy chested piece of machismo who really does try and give a performance every time he "steps up to bat". This was at the end of an era where porn producers were actually trying to make something artistic. Nothing like panning the camera from a tropical backdrop to a hairy man having "doggie-style" sex with a woman. I can't help but laugh.<br /><br />This is one of those movies that I pray my future wife and kids never find.
| 0 |
negative
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.