text
stringlengths 49
12.1k
| label
int64 0
1
| label_text
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|
A charming movie enhanced by the musical and vocal background, especially during the competition. My understanding is that there was never a soundtrack but could you, through your sources, advise me where I might get information on the singer and the likelihood of getting a copy of the song he sang. Your help would be appreciated. The song really touched me and my wife and we would like to secure a copy wherever possible so that we might play it as background music when we have our family and friends over for our "Italian Nights". If you are able to get this information to us we would be eternally grateful. Even if you can advise of the studio contact so that we might go direct.<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />John Payling
| 1 |
positive
|
With an interesting premise (in the conflicts between Europeans and indigenous peoples sometimes the battle lines were not so clear), this should have been a good film. But the story is sabotaged by the director's overriding infatuation with his own cleverness twinned with a very poor script.<br /><br />Yes, the natural setting is beautiful and, yes, the movie is authentic to its 19th century historical setting. But the filmmaker keeps gilding the lily over and over again, adding layer upon layer of over-the-top musical accompaniment, not to mention a completely unnecessary voice-over, to the soundtrack, that ultimately overwhelm the viewer and, by calling attention to themselves, take away from the story.<br /><br />To me, it was clear the director, with his microscopic closeups and the endless recurrence of the musical motif of "Danny Boy" (of all things!) was trying to make a New Zealand version of an epic Sergio Leone film, something on the order of Once Upon A Time In The West. But given the earnestness of the story (most of Leone's westerns were tongue-in-cheek), not to mention that it's no longer 1968, he succeeds in making a parody of one.<br /><br />Too bad.
| 0 |
negative
|
Does anyone remember BRAVEHEART ? It starred Mel Gibson who also directed and was scripted by Randall Wallace . The film contains over 200 errors . Does anyone remember THE GREEN BERETS ? That`s the John Wayne western where the Duke saves a homestead called Vietnam from a bunch of injuns from the commie tribe . If you watch WE WERE SOLDIERS you can`t help but be reminded of these two films .<br /><br />First of all what`s with that Scottish lament that`s played three times in the movie , four if you count the end credits ? I mean what`s the connection between Scotland and `Nam ? Maybe Wallace is using it in the vain hope that because BRAVEHEART was bombarded - Undeservedly I might add - with several Oscars then so might this film ? Whatever reason it`s included it really jars . Gibson plays Hal Moore as a cross between William Wallace and John Wayne and I was expecting him to say something like " They`ll never take our freedom - The hell they will " and it`s impossible not to notice other similarities with THE GREEN BERETS like the subplot of a journalist picking up a gun and turning into a warrior and Moore telling the journalist about guilt in a scene almost identical to the one seen in the Wayne movie<br /><br />When not reminding the audience of other movies WWS also fails to stand on its own legs , it`s based on real events in 1965 but seems to lack an integrity needed to do the story justice , it never feels like 1965 and lacks a sense of time and place probably because it was filmed in America not Asia . Hal Moore might have brushed up on the French experience in Indo-China but if that`s the case then he was unique because the American military went out of their way not to read up on the French Indo-China war , indeed when asked about the previous conflict Westmoreland replied he had nothing to learn from the French " Who haven`t won a war since the days of Napoleon " so I was confused as to the portrayal of the NVA in this movie , when in 1965 the American high command , brimming with hubris held the North Vietnamese and VC in contempt . It`s like history has been rewritten in order to show the rice farmers of Vietnam are superlative warriors . They are , but very few Americans believed this in the mid 1960s<br /><br />There`s a couple of other things that confused me like how the wives back home get telegrams telling them their husbands are dead ? No bodies are shown being flown back to base and no one on screen is seen referring to who`s been killed in the La Drang valley . Likewise we`re not seen reinforcements arrive on screen so how do we suddenly see the Americans out number the NVA ? I put these down as directorial/ editing blunders on the part of Wallace who doesn`t strike me as much of a director , and his biggest problem seems to be communicating the horror of the battle . Take the scene where the American burned to a crisp is flown away screaming " Tell my wife I love her " . This should have an emotional impact similar to THAT death scene in PLATOON but here there`s no impact . In fact I found the scene cliched and patronising , and he`s not the only character to mouth the words " Tell my wife ... " while mutilated or dying , I counted at least two other characters use the phrase . Did characters actually say this at the battle ? I`ve no idea but since Randall Wallace wrote the script I do have reservations<br /><br />I sat in shocked awe watching APOCALYPSE NOW , PLATOON and THE KILLING FIELDS made my eyes water , I laughed at FULL METAL JACKET , I kept looking at my watch with THE DEER HUNTER , and after seeing WE WERE SOLDIERS I felt totally patronised
| 0 |
negative
|
All the pro comments about this movie claim that the movie is balanced. That is their main justification to give a high rate to the movie. But a movie is not balanced when the main perpetrator analyzed is given the last world in every single subject. The director herself admitted to this at the first San Francisco film festival showing. She justified it by saying that she couldn't waste the chance of having access to Fujimori. That might be true but by showing so much of Fujimori's take on the issues makes the movie clearly pro-Fujimori and unbalanced. I dare any of the other commentators to prove this wrong Tips 1: claiming Harvard professors, intellectuals, and Latin American Diplomats agree with you does not help your argument (use logic). Tip 2: disagreeing with the director doesn't help your argument either (The director says she thinks Fujimori is charismatic and patriotic and therefore she portrayed him that way)
| 0 |
negative
|
The plot for a movie such of this is a giveaway. How can you go wrong with a gay plot line and all the colors and music of India - a story like this writes itself. I'll watch most anything, but this was unwatchable. The sad thing is, the white folks are the most colorful in the film. Vanessa was a riot with a mouth like a sailor, and Jack was great eye candy, but everyone else was so boring. Saeed Jeffrey, who was exceptional in My Beautiful Landrette, did what he could but the story was so boring. The saving grace was really the background music, which made it OK to laugh at the film, instead of with the film, or not at all. There are many other better gay movies, ethnic movies, just plain movies. I give a lot of low budget movies a pass, but this shouldn't have been made, or should have been made by someone else.
| 0 |
negative
|
Fuckland is an interesting film. I personally love the Dogma movement. I wish it had lasted longer. It seems to have already died. Many critics tried their damndest to shut it down. I don't know why. It's the most interesting movement to happen in the cinematic world since the French New Wave. Besides Fuckland, I've seen the first three in the series, Festen, Idioterne, and Mifune. They were all great, Festen being a masterpiece, in my opinion. Fuckland isn't up to those others. I was just fascinated with the filmmaking. It's played as if it were a real documentary, with a real person who was so obsessed with his camera that he refused to put it down. At a few points in the film, it becomes clear that it is a work of complete fiction, but that illusion was protracted for an amazing amount of time. I wish that the filmmakers would have come up with something a bit more interesting to put onscreen. It is basically about this guy, Fabian, who is an Argentinian visiting the Faulkland Islands. Argentinians were only in the last couple of months allowed onto the islands, and Fabian plans to impregnate the women with Argentinian children. He sets his eyes on one, and most of the movie is spent on her seduction. The two actors are very natural. Camilla Heany only kind of hints that she is an actress. Fabian Stratas seems completely real. The politics of the film are somewhat confusing to me, since I have only an inkling of the situation surrounding the island and its recent history. I was 3, I think, when the Faulklands were invaded. The final bit of the film doesn't work at all. I don't get what the filmmakers were going for there. Still, Fuckland is an interesting Dogma experiment. It does break some Dogma rules, though, notably the no extra-diagetic music rule. There is a lot of that. 7/10.
| 1 |
positive
|
This British film version of the stage play I AM A CAMERA is based on Christopher Isherwood's "Berlin Stories." This is the source material for the famous musical CABARET.<br /><br />Julie Harris, a major stage actress of her day, reprises her 1951 Tony Award winning role as Sally Bowles. She's a far cry from the Liza Minnelli character but the basic "Sally" is all here despite the various film codes that would have blocked this story from being filmed in Hollywood. Harris is perhaps stagy but she's also quite good as the madcap and maddening Sally. Her singing number is obviously dubbed (by Marlene Dietrich no less) although Harris apparently sings for herself in other moments.<br /><br />Laurence Harvey (with the very ugly hair) plays Isherwood with zero charm and can't even make the character interesting. Shelley Winters does little with the role of Natalia (Marian Winters won a supporting Tony for the play), and Anton Diffring is OK as Fritz. Ron Randell plays the caddish Clive but seems a tad loud. Lee Seidl is funny as the landlady.<br /><br />Yet despite the overall staginess and cheap look, Harris takes center stage and she is amazing. This film was released the same year as EAST OF EDEN in which Harris gives a glowing performance as Abra. Comparing the two performances gives a good look at the talent Miss Harris possesses. These two characters couldn't be more unalike. Harris' Sally preens and prances about and growls out a very lascivious laugh. She also acts circles around the boring Harvey.<br /><br />Without the music and with a familiar storyline, many viewers may find little here to recommend this film, but it's a great chance to see the great Julie Harris repeating what was probably a very shocking role in 1951.
| 1 |
positive
|
I know that this show gave a lot of liberation to women in the late '90s and early 2000s, but come on! You have a whiner, a buzz kill, and an over-analyzer. This show really made women look bad. I cannot STAND Carrie's analyzing every little thing on this show and that's what really killed it for me. Also, Charlotte's whining about her nonexistent predicaments made my ears hurt and Miranda's cynicism was a complete buzz kill. I mean, can't she just be happy? Samantha was the only cool one on the show and the only one worth watching. There was also a good episode when Nathan Lane was on the show, but that was the only one worth watching--the rest of them were pretty much the same. The humor was drier than a bucket of sand, and not very interesting plot line. All in all, not a very good show and I'm glad it's over.
| 0 |
negative
|
This movie literally had me rolling on the floor (well at least on the couch) laughing. I didn't think I would like it, but it came on cable TV one afternoon, and I watched the whole thing and thoroughly enjoyed myself. Since then, I've also seen Black Sheep, which was pretty good, but not as non-stop-funny as Tommy Boy.
| 1 |
positive
|
I loved the first 15 minutes, and I loved some of the dialogue in the tribunal--which proved to be the best showcase for the director's ahead-of-its-time method acting technique--but this movie ultimately disappoints. Even when viewed purely as a metaphor of the oppressor/oppressed dynamics that were and are prevalent in the relationship between the US government and its more "disobedient" citizens, it still lacks punch and believability, and ultimately left me looking at my watch hoping the obvious ending would happen already.<br /><br />And for the record: despite rampant rumors to the contrary, this movie has never been banned in the US (I can't comment on the rumors of UK censorship, but I'm suspicious). Hollywood refused to distribute it after its initial film festival showing, and I am more than willing to believe the Nixon government had some influence on this decision; however, the fact that it never appeared on American television is merely a reflection of this medium's rather careful and advertising-driven fashion of doing business. As for the present, you can have your very own copy of the DVD delivered to your door via Amazon in a few days.
| 0 |
negative
|
With all of its technical flash, the 1993 "Stalingrad" movie is very disappointing. Before watching it I had read non-fiction accounts of the Stalingrad campaign and had seen a lot of documentary footage and photographs of the actual battle and its participants. I don't think that any movie can really succeed in depicting the titanic struggle and suffering that actually occurred, but I still wanted to see what a relatively recent German movie production would be like. While there are a few good elements of this movie, overall it is a failure. To me the worst aspect is that it includes substantial anachronisms, and also some very contrived and clichéd elements, most glaringly in some encounters between a German officer and a Soviet woman.<br /><br />Also there are some ideological elements in the movie which result in very distorted perceptions, including what amounts to a caricature of a German chaplain, some overblown class-warfare messages, and problematic depictions of "good" vs. "bad" Germans. Certainly the German Armed Forces of World War II included men who were able to maintain some decency throughout the war, and others who did very bad things, but the attempts in the movie to show this contrast are very simplistic and childish. I give "Stalingrad" credit in the sense that it doesn't completely portray German troops in the simple demonic quality which is the stereotype that many people now have, yet the movie includes stereotypes of its own, such as an almost too-good-to-be-true infantryman who has attitudes more akin to the 1990's than the 1940's, and two completely evil infantrymen and a rear-echelon officer.<br /><br />Some recent movies such as "Stalingrad" and "Saving Private Ryan" are frequently praised for their "authenticity" in depicting graphic scenes of combat, yet these same movies are deeply flawed and distorted in their depictions of the attitudes, values and behaviors of 1940's soldiers and civilians. "Stalingrad" and "S.P.R" have major and minor characters who lack the unselfconscious stoicism that was common among regular people during the World War II period. Certainly soldiers throughout history have been notorious for their frequent grumbling and occasional cynicism, yet the self-absorbed, talky and touchy-feely characters in both of these movies are something else, and are much more prevalent in our world of today than they were in the 1940's. While many people these days like to denigrate war movies from the 40's and 50's which present more patriotic messages and aren't as graphic about combat, many of those earlier movies such as "Battleground" are much more accurate in their depictions of typical soldiers' attitudes, and they are often successful in showing the horrible effects of war in more indirect ways.<br /><br />One well-done part of "Stalingrad" is a battle between German infantry and Soviet tanks, which does a reasonable job of capturing some of the horror and confusion in such combat.<br /><br />"Stalingrad" does a poor job though of showing the common look of the frontline soldier. Part of this might be due to the difficulty in finding thin, haggard-looking extras in our pampered and well-fed America and western Europe of today. Also, too many of the German troops in the movie don't wear their uniforms and equipment properly, and don't display the professional bearing that was common in the German Wehrmacht even during the years of German defeat. If you want to get a good idea of how the actual German troops looked, I recommend the following documentaries which contain footage of the Stalingrad campaign: "The World at War," "War of the Century" and "Russia's War." Also the books "Operation Barbarossa in Photographs" by Paul Carell, "Stalingrad" by Geoffrey Jukes and "Stalingrad" by Paul Carell contain a great many helpful photos. Books written about the battle by Antony Beevor and William Craig are recommended also, and the latter one is especially good about the common soldiers and civilians on both sides.<br /><br />Relatively recent movies which, in my opinion, are much better than "Stalingrad" and "Saving Private Ryan" in depicting attitudes and characters of persons during World War II, and the general feel, look, horror and grittiness of that war, are "Der Untergang" ("The Downfall") and "Talvisota" ("The Winter War"). While "A Bridge Too Far" and "The Longest Day" cover events on the Western Front rather than in the East, they are also excellent war movies, and stick very close to factual accounts. The latter two movies lack some of the grit that is more prevalent in more recent films, but they compensate for that lack with their other strengths, including truthfulness.
| 0 |
negative
|
L'OSSESSA, also known as THE TORMENTED or THE SEXORCIST, or the ridiculously titled THE EERIE MIDNIGHT HORROR SHOW, is a forgotten EXORCIST rip-off which contains one of the best horror moments I've ever seen. The scene is when the crucifix comes alive. This great spooky scene is unforgettable and totally effective (great FXs). It's a shame the rest of the movie doesn't maintain the level of creepiness exemplified during that scene.<br /><br />This is one of the most frustrating movies ever. Imagine the producers deciding to to make an EXORCIST copy but while making it, they actually succeed in creating something truly original (a possessed sculpture of crucified man, which is shocking when you think about it) but then completely forgets their original idea in order to make a boring and uninspired EXORCIST rip-off. Had the film continued with the possessed sculpture concept (with the characters trying to destroy it, etc), this film would have rocked. But once the girl becomes possessed by the spirit of the sculpture, she never tells anyone from where the demon came from. She, and the script, completely forgets the haunted crucifix, which is STUPID!!!<br /><br />If you like so-called "Euro-cult" movies, the first 45 minutes deliver unlike any other Euro-cult movies. But after the scene when the girl has a vision of being crucified and she gets stigmatas, the remaining 45 minutes SUCK. Boring. It goes nowhere fast as it tries to emulate (badly) THE EXORCIST. So, watch the first 45 minutes of L'OSSESSA and enjoy the 1970s fashions, the sleaze and the amazing statue-comes-alive-to-ravish-the-girl scene but after the first 45 minutes, press stop and eject, and might as well go clip your toenails.
| 1 |
positive
|
That this movie has been stapled to the wall of a chapel as proof that God is truly dead. Am I the only one that really saw (rather sleptwalked) through this "film"? This is the only movie I've ever seen in the theater that I regret not walking out on and demanding my money back -- it was just that dull. And I even saw "Highlander 2: The Quickening" at the local cinema. From beginning to end, Gibson and Downey have absolutely no chemistry as two unlikelies, cast together by circumstance, who eventually work together as best buddies. The action (what little there is) is goofy and as dull as the skullbone of the writer. Thank whatever deity is chortling down at us as it observes our "cinema" that there's no chance for an "Air America 2."
| 0 |
negative
|
The Aristorcats is a hilarious film that not many people have seen. Clearly not that many because it only got a 6.8. There is nothing wrong with it at all. It's my favorite of the Disney classics, which have tons of fantastic films already made. Like Beauty and the Beast, Snow White, and Peter Pan. The reason why The Aristorcats is so high on my list is because of how funny the film is. I hate to say this, but I don't blame Edgar for what he does. I probably would've had them taken care of too. I'd be devastated of some old bag who I'd been working with for so many years just decides to give her will to the cats. I'd of killed them also. I don't even like cats, so I wouldn't give a damn. I think that The Aristorcats is so funny and cute. There are many characters that are hilarious, like Edgar. The Aristorcats is my favorite of the Disney classics, and that's final. The Cat's out of the bag.<br /><br />The Aristorcats: ****/****
| 1 |
positive
|
Just watched this today on TCM, where the other reviewers here saw it.<br /><br />Sorry that I was the only one to find Davies a weak actress, with a truly awful attempt at an Irish (Irish-American or otherwise) accent. As she's the star, it was sort of hard for me to get past that -- especially as the other reviewers have said that this was her finest performance.<br /><br />Another particularly terrible Davies performance was in "Marianne" (1929), which I also watched today. In this film, given a 9 of 10 rating here, her accent switches from that of a (correct) French woman to an odd combination of Italian and Swiss.<br /><br />Interestingly, in TCM's one-hour bio of Davies -- "Captured on Film: The True Story of Marion Davies" (2001) -- film historian Jeanine Basinger claims that "one of the things that you note about Marion Davies in her sound work is how good she is at doing accents." Of course this bio also includes commentary by fans (make of that what you will).<br /><br />Davies was a very attractive young woman, and by all accounts a terrific comedienne in real life.<br /><br />And because a part of her anatomy added immeasurably to the real-life answer to Joseph Cotten's character's search for the meaning behind Kane's final word in the opening scene of the great "Citizen Kane," she's earned her spot among the great stories if Hollywood's history.<br /><br />But I think Welles & Mankiewicz got it right for the most part with the "Susan Alexander" facsimile of the real article.<br /><br />Don't bother voting as to whether you agree or disagree with this post as I really couldn't care less.
| 0 |
negative
|
I wrote spoiler alert, but there's not really much that can be spoiled. It's like spoiling rotten meat. This movie is probably the worst I've ever seen. Not because of the actors or the special effects, but because of the sheer number of mistakes, both factual and physical. First of all, the MIGs aren't actually MIGs at all. They're Mirages, and they're French. And how the heck can Doug's dad withstand the maneuvers his son makes to fight off the "MIGs" without a g-suit? And why would Chappy try to board his plane without a g-suit? And how could Doug defeat the enemy pilot ace with such ease? Anyway, I did not like this movie. And the worst part is that it has 3 sequels, the latest one from as late as 1995. Now that's scary.
| 0 |
negative
|
When I saw this in the cinema, I remember wincing at the bad acting about a minute or two into the first scene, then immediately telling myself "no, this has to get better". It didn't. The performances are pretty uniformly teak 'n pine and no, there is NO sexual chemistry in this film whatsoever, just the awkward posturings of a reasonably comely, discreetly talentless actress who seems born to grace the cover of "Interviú" and not much else besides. If the scriptwriter thought that making Mérimée a character was a stunningly original creative ploy he perhaps ought to get out more. And Aranda, if he'd given the matter a bit more thought, would have realised that the story of Carmen is just CRYING OUT for a thoughtful, iconoclastic, parodic deconstruction, not this leave-your-brains-at-the-turnstile affair of ersatz passion and comic-book dialogue. This is contemporary Spanish cinema at its worst.<br /><br />
| 0 |
negative
|
What makes watching and reviewing films a pleasure is when every once in a while when you least expect it a film like The Cell comes along and knocks your socks off!. This movie is a superb horror that has everything a you could want when you want to be scared out of your witts. Without going into the story all i will say is that it has a great beginning ,middle and end that keeps you on the edge of your seat while being transfixed with the amazing special affects. The acting is good without being outstanding but that does not matter because the subject matter and the way it is put on the big screen makes this one of the best horror movies i have seen for a long while. It is one of those films that you imagine started as a novel but saying the credits it does not look like an adaptation , so a lot of credit must go to Mark Protosovich the writer. 9 out of 10.
| 1 |
positive
|
If you are looking for a modern film version of Buster Crabbe or Johnny Weismuller's overcoming the machinations of unscrupulous, white safari guides or cunning, black tribesmen, while saving the animal kingdom, this is NOT the movie for you. This is a recounting of the Tarzan "legend" from its beginning in intelligent, adult terms. It is beautifully filmed and faithful to the Edgar Rice Burroughs stories.<br /><br />Tarzan is no action hero, but a man torn between two worlds - the natural and the civilized. In a stunning performance, Christopher Lambert portrays this angst with absolute realism. If he slips up just once the cat will be out of the bag: the audience (especially the adult audience targeted by the film) will laugh, and the film will completely lose its grip. It will plummet into the cheesy depths. But Lambert never lets that happen. (Forget what you may think of him in other movies; when I saw this film at the theater on its original release, I thought he deserved an academy award.)<br /><br />The supporting cast is uniformly excellent, as other commentators have noted. I disagree with most of them in that I didn't find anything wrong with Andie McDowell's performance. I wouldn't have nominated her for an academy award - the role is undemanding - but she is completely up to it, such as it is. I don't know why her voice was overdubbed, either.<br /><br />The cinematography of the African segment of the tale is absolutely beautiful. It captures both the beauty of the African wilderness and the exotic expectation it holds in the collective imagination of those who have never been there. The scenery is lush and exotic, and the colors are vivid.<br /><br />But this is also a "period" film, and the cinematography also magnificently depicts Victorian England - the countryside, the city and the interiors. The costumes are outstanding. The soundtrack is beautiful without being overwhelming or obtrusive.<br /><br />There are some disturbing scenes - especially for animal lovers - but no more disturbing than a few scenes in Dances with Wolves. This is an excellent film about the conflict between civilization and nature, personified in the young Lord Greystoke, convincingly portrayed by Christopher Lambert.
| 1 |
positive
|
First off, I'm not a firefighter, but I'm in some kind of para-firefighting unit (the guys who get called if an earthquake hits and the real firefighters need more people for SAR), so I had some training and simulation but I have no real-life experience.<br /><br />But still, there are some points one notices as totally unbelievable. I can understand that they removed the mouth/nose-pieces of the masks and that there is not enough smoke, because the public would otherwise see nothing. But some things defy logic: <br /><br />- No second mask attached to the oxygen. How the hell do you want to rescue people trough the smoke without one? <br /><br />- Rappelling people. No, it's not done like that. I'd be screaming too if somebody hitched a rope around me in that fashion and hung me from a building. If I could scream, that is, and not pass out from want of air because the rope squeezes my lungs. The second time when they're abseiling Jack it's better but still weird.<br /><br />- "Aim high". No, you bloody don't. You always fight fire from as low as possible. You don't fight want to sprinkle flames, you'll want to extinguish the fire, and that's below the flames.<br /><br />- No discipline. They're running around like chicken. And they shout all the time, instead of using radio, and keeping discipline.<br /><br />- No tactics. Why don't they work in teams of at least two? You still can get separated, but it takes much more than if everyone just scurries around alone in search for victims.<br /><br />- Do they really enter buildings without bringing water? I Europe, firefighters would never enter a burning building without.<br /><br />- Firefighters on the roof. WTF do they think they're doing there without security lines or water? - Exploding rooms. Wood and brick does not "explode suddenly".<br /><br />The better points are actually camaraderie and the other non-firefighting parts of the movie. It's a lot of kitsch, but that's alright. I'll give it a point for this.
| 0 |
negative
|
I watched Six of a Kind for W.C. Fields - he's only in it for around 10 minutes and has one long scene, the infamous pool sequence he made famous in vaudeville, and several other great moments. The reamaining 55 minutes are also delightful, thankfully, mostly due to the hilarious Charlie Ruggles as the bumbling banker J. Pinkham Whinney. He is everyone's foil. He stutters and stumbles about to our pleasure. Also, his comedy partner, Mary Boland plays his wife, Flora. Joining in the proceedings are George Burns and Gracie Allen. Boland is particularly funny near the beginning and near the end, but Gracie and Ruggles use up most of the picture. Gracie's funny, quite, but she can also get tiring. And poor George Burns has absolutely nothing to do except repeat Gracie all the time. I don't remember laughing at him once (although he has one great scene with Ruggles, where Ruggles tries desperately to get George to take Gracie and leave him and his wife alone for a while, and one with Fields, where he asks Fields to sell him a sweater; that bit is exclusively Fields', though). The situation is constantly funny: the Whinneys are going to drive to California, but to help them with expenses, George and Gracie are recruited. 8/10.
| 1 |
positive
|
"For a Squadron Leader - normally the only guy trained and equipped for navigation in a squadron and very hard to replace - to risk an expensive plane and himself to pick up a crashed fellow pilot, no matter how close a friend he is, in the face of oncoming enemy troops, is hard to believe, especially when they both have to share a cramped Spitfire cockpit - two into a Skyraider, OK, but a Spit?! Come on, this part of the film is a Biggles adventure, not fitting a film that one is supposed to take seriously!" as said by Tord S Eriksson (Gothenburg, Sweden) is rubbish. Not at all Biggles. One true story of the war comes to mind of two grounded spit pilots, who planned and flew (illegally) a strafing mission over France. One had to crash land and his friend landed his spit under fire, while German infantry was moving in on them, and flew them both out of there. In a spit. They were BOTH severely injured in former fights, one had an artificial leg from the knee down. Now that may sound like something out of Bigles, but it happened. Ill get sources if needed
| 1 |
positive
|
This movie narrate the story of John Belushi,based of his biography `Wired' , wrote by Bob Woodward.All of movie is narrate on flashback without a chronological order , where after the death of John Belushi we see one angel accompany Belushi during few points of his life.Michael Chicklis in the character of John Belushi is enough credible , but entirely devoid of the devastate force of Belushi ,and his play stay only a pale animation.The director,on more,not succeed to give continuate on the story , that for who not knows the book is very confused. But the worse is that they have featured Bob Woodward that spoke with Belushi before he died. For this negative points the movie is only a would-be attempt to narrate the controversial story of John Belushi. My rate is 4.
| 0 |
negative
|
I love this movie. <br /><br />Yes, the main character lies, but that's why it's called "big fat liar". Even though this kid runs away to Hollywood, it doesn't give kids the idea that they can. Besides, he doesn't just do it for fun or to get away from anything, he does it to regain trust. <br /><br />I don't think it was just one big ad for Universal Studios, because I liked how it gave an inside view of what it's like for kids who don't know how cool movie-making is. <br /><br />It has good music and fun characters. This family/comedy is totally fun for kids and parents alike. It has humour, excitement, and real life difficulties like lying.<br /><br />In the end, "Big Fat Liar" sends out a moral: don't expect lying to be easy.
| 1 |
positive
|
Let me preface this by going on record, I am a huge George Clooney fan, and I love John Krasinski in 'The Office'. Well, I was and I did.<br /><br />This was the world's worst hang nail and it took 113 minutes to rip it off. The stupefying boredom was interrupted only by my frequent efforts to read my watch and estimate when it would be over.<br /><br />Every funny scene was in the previews. All three of them. There was no real story, no character development, and the script was just plain bad. I've had a colonoscopy that was more enjoyable.<br /><br />The title should have been SuperDuper Bad. This movie is a lock for a Razzie. It should get a whole slough of Razzies. I want my money back.
| 0 |
negative
|
This film is a perfect example of how to take a fascinating subject, come up with 25 minutes of substantive material and stretch it into a six hour borefest resembling the shape a documentary might take if Fox news decided to make one. Even the participants in this obnoxiously obstreperous film can't conceal their laughter at the stupidity of their attempt to show one of the few great times in world history where people take a stand and work to make a better world. If only the creators had spoken with Ken Burns for 5 minutes, they might have come out with something mildly intelligent instead of this cure for insomnia.
| 0 |
negative
|
Even though I saw this film when I was very young, I already knew the story of Wild the Thief-Taker and Shepherd who famously escaped from Newgate prison.<br /><br />Apart from the liberty taken right at the end, the film more or less faithfully follows the true story. The temptation to bend the facts which is the hallmark of so many so-called historical films is resisted in this film and the film makers must be praised for that.<br /><br />Of the performances, There is scarcely a poor performance, and Tommy Steele is ideally cast. Also good is Stanley Baker as the Thief-Taker and Alan Badel is good as always.<br /><br />Because the film sticks to the facts, it makes it suitable to be watched by all the family.
| 1 |
positive
|
One of the greatest lessons I ever had in how to watch a movie happened this way: <br /><br />I was working in Roger Corman's offices, like so many other wanabees before and since, I was interning and trying to figure out how it all worked and how to make myself indispensable (hah!). One afternoon Julie Corman, Roger Corman's wife and a producer in her own right, asked me to load up a tape. I'm not sure why she wanted to watch it. I got the impression it was a student film or a show reel, something like that, some sort of calling card. Whatever the reasons she had to see it, the only free video machine in the offices at the time happened to be in the room I was working in, and I was the nearest person to the machine. I started the tape.<br /><br />Fade in: On screen a figure sat at a desk facing the camera. Behind him, screen left, was a door that opened into the room. Against the far wall was a coat rack. A second character entered through the door and started talking. The first character, the guy at the desk, turned round to reply, (this is all one take, static camera, there are no cuts pans or dolly shots. Just one locked off camera). The second character turned to hang his coat on the coat rack and delivered his next line. Julie Corman said "I've seen enough." and left the room.<br /><br />What she had seen in the ten seconds of footage she had watched was that the director was an idiot. Opening with two characters who immediately turned their backs to the camera delivering lines? Nope, sorry. Next! That's how long you've got. Ten seconds. Cock it up in the opening shot and you are dead.<br /><br />I was reminded of that moment while I watched the opening of this piece of crap. After an interminably long travelogue of jungle we see several monkeys apparently throwing themselves into cages. A man carrying a gun laughs. A jet liner lands and we see it taxi the whole way to the terminal. God this is boring! Cut to the interior of the Airport. Two men meet. Aha! Something is happening! They shake hands. Cut to a different angle of the two men -<br /><br />- and the director crosses the line.<br /><br />The first two shots of the movie that have any kind of spatial relationship with each other and the guy has cocked up. 'Not Crossing The line' is one of those basic rules of movie grammar that keeps the characters from jumping about from side to side on the screen and confusing the audience. Audiences don't like to be confused. Mystified? Baffled? Puzzled and intrigued? Yes. Audiences love all of those. Confused? No. You loose them. They walk out. 'Not Crossing The line' is one of those things they pound into you at film school, or should. It's basic stuff. It's not an inviolable rule (there are no inviolable rules) directors break it all the time - but not on the first real cut of the movie.<br /><br />I thought, "I've seen enough". And switched off.
| 0 |
negative
|
A long time ago, way back in the early '80s, a late-night TV show "Fridays" came to ABC, trying to steal the limelight away from NBC's badly-listing "Saturday Night Live". It didn't but it did introduce some repugnant sketches and semi-talented "comedians" to the world. Like Mark Blankenfield, for example.<br /><br />Which, in a roundabout way, brings us to "Jekyll and Hyde... Together Again". Which is repugnant in ways all its own.<br /><br />Blankenfield is about as subtle as a pew full of whoopee cushions going off after Communion. And about as tasteful, too. This is just his drugged-out druggist character he played on the ill-fated "Fridays" show stretched out to feature length. And if you didn't like him there, why are you reading this review?<br /><br />Any time it takes more than one or two writers to write a movie, that's a bad sign. Then when it goes for dunder-headed jokes that would get you thrown off every improv stage in the Western hemisphere and replaces gags with gross-out, things can only get worse.<br /><br />A comic take on a Robert Louis Stevenson story? About as good an idea as making a sitcom out of Poe's "Fall of the House of Usher".<br /><br />Aside from a few (VERY few) gags that give a slight grin, this whole film is an exercise in waste - wasted actors, wasted film, wasted opportunities.<br /><br />No wonder they showed original author Stevenson turning in his grave. What more observant a review could they give themselves?<br /><br />No stars. No, not even for Armstrong, who should have known better. <br /><br />"Hyde" from this one.
| 0 |
negative
|
First of all, I know almost nothing about rugby, so although I found the rugby-aspect of this movie to be interesting it could have been any sport and I think I would have enjoyed it just as much. The fact that it as about rugby didn't make it any better or worse for me.<br /><br />What made this movie great is the story itself, based on actual events that have occurred over the last 30 years with the Highland Rugby club. Coach Gelwix is the kind of coach that most every parent would like their children to have, someone who cares more about the person than the sport (even though they have won 17 national championships and have only lost 9 games in over 30 years!). The more I have learned about the coach and team the more I like this movie and its message.<br /><br />I have seen other sports movies that seemed great at first, but then I researched the details only to find that most of those movies were 10% fact and 90% fiction, with the 10% of facts being greatly exaggerated. Not so with Forever Strong. It may seem too good to be true, but that's what's so amazing about it. If it were fiction it would just be an enjoyable story and nothing more. Instead, the movie is inspirational and makes you want to be a better person.<br /><br />Don't miss this movie because of a few negative reviews by professional critics. I have been reading some of their reviews and most of them have given the movie horrible reviews. These are generally the same critics who rave about movies that most people hate. In fact, I would be worried if some of these critics had given the movie good reviews because I almost always disagree with their opinions.<br /><br />Go see this movie and post your review (positive or negative)! Currently most of the audience reviews are enthusiastically positive (here and on Rotten Tomatoes and similar sites), and I am interested to see if this trend continues. Thanks!
| 1 |
positive
|
Synopsis: the sequel to the acclaimed Silence Of The Lambs, Hannibal is a big budget production that totally fails to deliver; not only is it not as clever as its predecessor, it is not even a splatter or suspense or horror movie, just a totally boring time waster. Do not be fooled by the media hype, and particularly the stories about people throwing up in cinema and being mentally scarred for the rest of their lifes because of the brain - eating scene: in the movie it just comes across as laughably bad SFX. Why so many people in this forum are claiming that H is "not all bad" and "worth watching on the big screen", etc., is beyond me; and it is not "so bad it's good" either, it is just plain boring. I normally respect other people's opinion, but in this case I have to say that they clearly can not tell **** from Shine - Ola. Maybe they have fallen prey to the media hype, maybe they have never seen a Ridley Scott movie before and were impressed by his excessive use of back lighting, smoke and the ubiquitous AC fans. H is totally devoid of suspense; instead we get endless scenes of Lecter swanning through an English - speaking Firenze, a totally unconvincing and uninvolving plot with more holes than a fishing net (after seeing H, I actually lay awake half of the night trying to find all the holes in the plot, and when I wrote them down I quickly filled 6 pages in small type before forcing myself to stop). Rather than wasting your time and money on seeing it on the big screen, I would advise you to wait until it comes on TV in a couple of years; and then to go to bed early.<br /><br />1 / 10.<br /><br />Below are a couple of extra bones I have to pick with Hannibal:<br /><br />- H _is_ the sequel to SOTL, despite what some people in this forum are claiming. And even though SOTL was a very tough act to follow, there are sequels which _are_ en par with their predecessors (SOTL itself was the sequel to Michael Mann's "Manhunter", based on Thomas Harris' "Red Dragon", and even though the first episode was a very enjoyable film, SOTL was even better; another example would be the Alien series initiated by H's director Ridley Scott -- so much for the theory of diminishing sequels). In any case, being a sequel is no excuse for a film being utter crap.<br /><br />- This movie has a renowned director, it is based on a novel by the same author as SOTL, the cast is strictly A - list, great cinematography, big budget, first - rate script writers, yadda, yadda, yadda, and the end result is simply a fart in the church. So what went wrong? I think a lot of the blame has to go to the film's producer, Dino DeLaurentiis. Here is my interpretation: DDL produced "Manhunter", which, despite of all its qualities, was a commercial flop. Disappointed, he gave the rights for the Hannibal Lecter character to Orion -- for free, allowing Jonathan Demme to make SOTL, and the rest is cinema history. DDL then had to wait for ten more years (he is now 81) until Thomas Harris finally came up with the sequel novel. I think at this point DDL had lost all interest in making a good movie and was desperate to finally get his slice of the the cake before he pops his cork.<br /><br />- Another aspect that I find thoroughly annoying about this flick is that it is being given so much undeserved hype in the media; I mean, it is boring, yet one of the highest - grossing productions ever, so there is no need to give it free publicity. And while most reviewers harp on about how Dantesque the scenes in Firenze are and why Jodie Foster did not participate, the simple fact that this movie is an utter, utter, UTTER flop goes unmentioned. But there is more: not only is Hannibal being hyped through the roof, it is also being used as a media agenda setter for a plethora of "documentaries" (usually the left - overs from similar productions in the wake of SOTL) about serial killers, cannibalism and profiling. However, not only does H not even pretend to be realistic; Lecter has also ceased to be a serial killer (he now only kills out of necessity, or to help Clarice Starling), profiling is not even mentioned (because we already know HL, so there is no need to create a profile) and there is also no cannibalism: Lecter feeds the drugged - up Paul Krendler his own brain, so that makes it (erm) unaware vivo - auto - cannibalism. Try making a documentary out of that.<br /><br />- Much has been said about the acting: mainly whether Julianne Moore can replace Jodie Foster, and Anthony Hopkins (who plays the lead Hannibal Lecter) is usually given a lot of praise. I think all of these discussions are moot. There are several of my favourite actors in this movie (namely Liotta, Oldman and Moore) but the script simply does not give them anything to work with. Same for Hopkins: there is no development in his character, and he is not being challenged in any way. And by the way, he plays nearly identical characters in all of his movies, only that in H he has to do the odd bit of murder and is getting paid the tidy sum of $ 11 Million to do it.
| 0 |
negative
|
While many pass this off as a B movie it is, indeed, a first class comedy that is well-written and acted. Red Skelton is great as Wally Benton better known to radio fans as The Fox. Ann Rutherford is perfect as Wally's fiance Carol Lambert. Conrad Veidt leads a very well cast gang of criminals. I read one account of this movie which states that Vincente Minelli directed this film, not unless he changed his name to S. Sylvan Simon, who directed all three of the Fox movies. This is a very entertaining film made when imagination was encouraged. So get over your black and white prejudice if you have one, sit back and enjoy a truly great comedy. This was also Red's first starring role. Take note during the climax of the reference to Orson Welles' War Of the Worlds broadcast.
| 1 |
positive
|
An awful film; badly written, badly acted, cliched, hackneyed, dross. The premise is such a good one and a chance to educate about black cowboys but the film is truly dire. It is a curious mix of a bad 1950's Randolph Scott B movie and a bad 1970's spaghetti western. The villains are cardboard, the flashbacks laughable, the dialogue excruciating.<br /><br />The deliberate anachronisms (such as 'Victorian' rap singers and modern swear words like "motherf****er"), are irritating to the extreme.<br /><br />A Frankenstein monster that died on the lab table.
| 0 |
negative
|
Hair is one of my favorite movies of all times. Even not being part of my generation, I already watched this movie 9 times and I can't get enough with the beautiful message of understanding,passion,beauty and love. This movie is against the Vietnam war and shows how people should be united independent of the color,origins, religions and classes. I love the characters Berger and Woof and I think Central Park of the 70's one of the most beautiful places I already saw in my life.<br /><br />By the way,I still have this music in my mind:<br /><br />When the moon is in the Seventh House And Jupiter aligns with Mars Then peace will guide the planets And love will steer the stars<br /><br />This is the dawning of the age of Aquarius The age of Aquarius Aquarius! Aquarius!<br /><br />Harmony and understanding Sympathy and trust abounding No more falsehoods or decisions Golden living dreams of visions Mystic crystal revelation And the mind's true liberation Aquarius! Aquarius!<br /><br />ps: I am surprised to see that the director of this movie is the same director of AMADEUS. I just love both movies!
| 1 |
positive
|
My Santa Lucia Choir was chosen to be in this movie. All 100 plus. When it came time to film the movie I was asked to chose just 10. Oh my goodness. We had a little gal who went early to have her tonsils out because she wanted to be in the movie. The choices were hard to make. The people of Georgetown are just a lovely as the people that they show in the movie. Gracious, kind, believers. The town sponsors an annual Christmas Market the first two weekend in December every year. I was there this year and it was wonderful. The town is lovely and the people work hard to make it magical. The town appears today as it did when the movie was made. Much credit goes to the Historical Society there that work hard to maintain the historical value. The principal of the school that has been turned into a Charter School was given an award by the Governor of Colorado for Volunteers.
| 1 |
positive
|
I've seen many Dustin Hoffman's movies like Straw Dogs or Rain Man and I liked them, but his characters are much to often calm or even shy persons. I expected him to be in this movie the same as he was in Straw Dogs, but I saw a totally different person. He was much more energetic in this film and kinda reminded me of Al Pacino in Serpico. The movie was very interesting from beginning to the end. I liked the way Dustin Hoffman's character was ready to do just about everything to stay with his son. This movie is also revealing. Personally, I think it shows that people should learn to find a compromise them self without involving other people into issue.
| 1 |
positive
|
This movie is about six men who are assigned to transport money from bank to businesses. Ty Hackett (Columbus Short) was in Iraq for the war serving his country and now just is being helped out making a living by his friend Mike Cochrone (Matt Dillon) making sure he does not loose his house. Mike tells him that this wasn't the life his parents were expecting for him and he should be living a better life than he is now with his brother Jimmy Hackett (Andre Kinney). Telling Ty that him and Jimmy have always been family to him and would do anything to help them out, Mike tells Ty about a plan to make a heist. The money would be around 43 million split six ways among the other transport men too, although Ty does not like the idea he tells his friend Mike as long as no one gets hurt he would be in. The last night Ty was forced to talk to a welfare lady about putting up his brother in foster care giving him a dilemma to lose what matters most in his life. Although the plan sounds safe at first, greed isn't everything when it comes to taking lives.<br /><br />When it comes to heists, your either in or your out, so when you don't go with a plan its hard to play the hero and stop greed driven people when it comes to having large sums of money. This movie comes with a star studded cast to keep you interested starring Jean Reno, Laurence Fishburne, Amaury Nolasco, Fred Ward, Skeet Ulrich, and Milo Ventimiglia. Short I have recently only remembered him in "Stomp the Yard" which was about a kid who lost his brother and lives his dream to go to college. This was probably one of his best movies I have seen him in and this one he fits the character so well it's great to see him on the big screen again in action.
| 1 |
positive
|
I have watched two episodes so far, I really like it. Even though I am no longer in college, it makes me miss the wonderful college life. I wish that I spent a little more time socializing. I kind of identify myself with rusty. When I was rushing a fraternity, my big brother was not like Cappie at all, I wish that I had a big brother like him. So if a show like this can actually make people to identify themselves with the characters, then it is a pretty good show.<br /><br />It is more realistic than American pie with less explicit sex jokes. Can we also call this a younger version of "desperate wives?" some of the writers must be Greeks themselves, the story seems to reflect somewhat of the real fraternity and sorority life. It was shot in high definition. And they actually filmed outside instead of inside of studios. so the picture quality is very good. They could easily make this a good film. Unlike a movie which can only last a few hours, I can have about 45 minutes of fun watching it free on TV weekly.<br /><br />The casting is excellent, the actors are about the right age, and they are new and fresh, so that makes them more real. This show practically is about everyone. There are Asian and black frat boys and sorority girls in the show as well. It is almost a little shocking that they had a little story about two guys in the fraternity had sex in first episode, then tried to hook up again in the second episode. I don't think that I have seen anything like this on TV before. This show somehow reminded me about a Warner bro's TV show of teenagers called "Young Americans" which got canceled in early 2001. In that show, a girl who dressed like a man kissed a guy, and that guy thought that she was a male homosexual.<br /><br />Greek life can be fun, but on the same time, students have to study for exams, etc; by the time when people actually have some free time in their lives, There is no fraternity of sorority for them to join any more. I don't know how long this show will last, sooner or later, those people will have to "graduate" college, too. Maybe they will find some new actors for another 4 years of fun college life!
| 1 |
positive
|
I caught this movie on TV yesterday. I had a certain curiosity about it, being that it was directed by Emilio Estevez and starring him and his real-life Dad, Martin Sheen. I love to see a movie about a father-son relationship that involves a real-life father and son. Naturally, there's an instant chemistry between Sheen and Estevez, and their scenes of conflict are even more intense, knowing that they're actually related. Of course, it helps that the two of them are both terrific actors. I've seen Martin Sheen in intense roles before, but I think this is Emilio's most intense role--being that I mostly recall him from the "Mighty Ducks" series--and I was very impressed. Talent REALLY does run in that family. And Kathy Bates steals the movie in an Oscar-worthy performance. She tugged at my heartstrings with every word of dialogue. Kimberly Williams--the beautiful actress from the "Father of the Bride" movies--is also very good, holding her own among a group of talented veteran actors. <br /><br />The movie is a bit stagey, with dialogue that's obviously geared for the stage, but that didn't bother me. This is not meant to be an action movie; this is a character study. And for a film that's based on a play, it never gets too claustrophobic. When Emilio's character, Jeremy, reminisces to his days in Vietnam, we actually see his harrowing memories brought to life. <br /><br />The film is extremely powerful and realistic, without being sentimental. At the end, I expected all the conflicts to be resolved and the family would become hunky-dory, but that's not how it turned out. The ending made me cry, without resorting to standard Hollywood melodrama. That proves reality is much more gripping than anything Hollywood can conjure up. <br /><br />If you're in the mood for a beautiful, powerful drama with extremely wonderful performances that will knock your socks off...please check out this underrated gem. Hopefully, one day Martin and Emilio will unite with Charlie, and they will all make a great film together. <br /><br />My score: 9 (out of 10)
| 1 |
positive
|
I am a Christian, and thought this movie was pretty good! :) While the acting wasn't Academy Award caliber, I thought it was good, considering the cast has had limited acting experience at the time this movie was made.<br /><br />The Gospel message and the transforming power of Jesus Christ was explained wonderfully. The message that the director was trying to get across (which is THE important thing, not how the characters dressed!) definitely got through. The theme of having the main characters involved in illegal drag racing was a good idea, too (cool muscle cars, btw). I think this movie will definitely reach out to a lot of young people.<br /><br />I would definitely recommend this movie, it is a great witnessing tool! :)
| 1 |
positive
|
OK, I don't kid myself that this is the typical gay love life but since when are straight romances in real life as they are on the screen? This movie is well-balanced with comedy and drama and I thoroughly enjoyed myself. It was a riot to see Hugo Weaving play a sex-obsessed gay real estate salesman who uses his clients' houses for his trysts with the flaming Darren (Tom Hollander). And having seen him in Priscilla, Queen of the Desert only the day before, he is probably one of the most secure-in-their-masculinity actors around. :) Anyway, the plot flowed smoothly and the male-bonding scenes were a hoot. Thumbs up! 8/10
| 1 |
positive
|
You would probably get something like this. I'm translating movies for a living and this is the first movie in my 5-year working experience that I found offensive to my intelligence. Of course, there are stupid Hollywood movies about drunken teenagers on a spring break, but those movies don't even claim to be serious works of art. But when someone strives for greatness and poetry, but delivers a muddled (and often ridiculous) story, a bunch of disparate scenes, pretentious dialogue... Then you get the worst kind of a movie that some other reviewer very accurately defined as "pretentious crap". To those who find this movie intelligent or even masterful, I can only say - it's your intelligence and your imagination you obviously used to try and make some sense of this pitiful attempt (it's in our human nature to try and make sense of things) .<br /><br />One more thing: I can tolerate political incorrectness very well, I'm all for artistic freedom and suspension of disbelief, but the Slavic female character was just too much. I wish someone told the director that it's kind of ridiculous (even in an unrealistic art movie) to portray a Slavic woman as a half-articulate dishevelled creature connected to the forces of nature, probably due to the fact that she had spent her entire childhood looking at the stars and milking cows on a three-legged stool.
| 0 |
negative
|
"Best In Show" tracks the stories of a handful of human contestants as they prepare for one of the biggest dog shows in the calendar. Any amateur psychologist would say that an unconditional love and obsession with a pet is a sign of something missing in someone's life, and each of the characters in some way fills this cliche. There's the former High School Hottie who's now married to a geeky man, the childless, label-obsessed yuppie couple, the solitary outdoorsman, the young wife of a wealthy old codger (along with her short-haired dog trainer), and the gay couple.<br /><br />What makes this film so funny though is the way it portray's these stereotypes in a completely believable way - almost affectionate, in many cases. Every ridiculous thing one of the characters does or says - with their dog as an innocent onlooker - seems like the kind of behaviour you'd totally expect to see at a dog show.<br /><br />The biggest laughs come from the commentary team of an all-american style sports announcer, comparing moments in a dog show to parts of a baseball game, and his English, canine academic, foil.<br /><br />The trials of the geeky husband as his blonde wife meets an astonishing number of men from her past is also always good for a chuckle, as is the demented behaviour of the yuppie couple as the pressure builds, while their hound stays completely unflustered.<br /><br />Well worth watching - even if cats are more your bag.
| 1 |
positive
|
The only reason there is a question mark in parenthesis is NOT because I haven't seen every film released in 2001 thus far. It's because this film was only made PARTLY in 2001. The rest of it was stolen from Roger Corman's OTHER dinosaur films, Carnosaur 1-3.<br /><br />I have a confession to make. "Carnosaur 2" is perhaps one of my favorite B-movies. It borrows so much from James Cameron's "Aliens" it's not even funny. But I love it. I can't explain exactly why. It just WORKS for me. I liked the sets, I liked the cinematography, I liked how they borrowed from "Aliens". It's all a bit ironic that Cameron at one point was an understudy of Corman's, with films like "Battle Beyond the Stars" (1980).<br /><br />I own the Carnosaur trilogy on DVD, and the most I can say for part one is that it has moments. The most I can say for the third is that it took me five years to find it watchable.<br /><br />Now we have "Raptor," which does NOT continue that series. Instead, it borrows ENTIRE scenes from the Carnosaur Trilogy and BUILDS a movie around it. And somehow Roger Corman was able to get Eric Roberts and Corbin Bernsen to do it. Now, I'm not saying either Roberts or Bernsen are at any kind of career high. But they were both at one point what could be called RESPECTABLE actors. Not here. Sure, actors react to effects they won't even see while filming all the time. Here, however, they are reacting to mismatched footage from films that are between five and eight years old. There's even a sherrif whose costume was modeled directly after a character in "Carnosaur 1." Apparently it made too much sense to get the original guy back.<br /><br />When "Raptor" was announced I was a wee bit excited. I was however disappointed when Corman said that they'd be using the old dinosaur models from "Carnosaur." Apparently Corman decided after this interview was conducted that he wouldn't even do that. And its not that he couldn't find an FX crew to do it. The script for this was clearly written keeping in mind that the story had to be built around pre-existing stock footage.<br /><br />Don't compare this to Ed Wood. Ed did better than this. At least he only used the stock footage of Bela once, in one film. There are ways of incorporating stock footage into a movie, and "Raptor" takes this frowned-upon technique to a new low. Even if you liked "Carnosaur 3: Primal Species," stay away from "Raptor."
| 0 |
negative
|
This is a story of a long and awkward love. The daily life of a woman of 50 years old and some people around her is depicted. Her daily life is so ordinary and routine that I doubted who was the real lead character in the beginning. Then the audiences know that the woman and a man who was her high-school class mate had very tiny connection. The woman has been doing the same job - a milk-woman and a supermarket casher - so long. There are so many slopes that delivering milk bottles is a very hard job. The man had married another woman, who is now dying of cancer. He works at the City Hall and devotedly cares her at home. They never look straight nor talk each other, but they never forget each other. <br /><br />The original Japanese title means "At some time the days you read books". But of course when the man said "Now I want to do what I've always wanted to do", it was to hug her and make love with her. She writes to a radio disk jockey that "If God gives us time to talk, we need at least a whole day". Dreaming of that day, she has been sublimating the desire in hard work and book reading. I personally know a woman who has loved a man for long years, even after he married another woman and died for an accident. Therefore the story setting is not that special. Rather, this movie well portrays unspoken romances in many ordinary men and women. Through this movie, you will recall your romance that is lost long ago. This is a movie with lasting effect.
| 1 |
positive
|
Honestly, the only reason I picked up this movie from Blockbuster was because Aaron Carter was in it. Okay first thing's first. Do you notice how ugly Aaron Carter has become?? I mean, he used to be so cute but now..with that lanky body and blotchy skin - EW. I think he should stick with singing and the directors of the movie could've found a much better-looking guy who could lip-sync. No offense though. I thought this teen movie was majorly lame - and this is coming from me, being a teen myself. The 'mean girls' in there are oh-so predictable, the acting is so amateurish it makes you cringe at times (especially from Aaron) and overall I just didn't enjoy it. Although, I give out points for the storyline - that was alright, but not at all realistic. Anyway, stay away from this movie by all means you can unless you happen to have wads of cash on hand and have absolutely nothing better to do with 94 minutes of your time. It's not worth the $6.50!!<br /><br />(P.S; this review of mine may not be applicable to younger kids under the age of 13!)
| 0 |
negative
|
It's a puzzle to me how this turd of a film ever got distribution.<br /><br />Sure, it's horror and there's a fair share of nudity, but by god, the production value is the lowest I've ever seen, the equipment used is worse than standard home equipment, everything is overlit, giving everything an amateurish look, bringing your thought to America's worst home video's or whatever that show was called..<br /><br />Please people, is it too much to ask that you actually do an effort when you expect to waste 90 minutes of peoples lives watching this? You really should have done some short projects first cause it's obvious you're a bunch of amateurs! 1/10
| 0 |
negative
|
What I got was something better.<br /><br />Just like many movies I've commented on as of recently, I'd been looking forward to this one for a while. Especially after I saw one of Toshiaki Toyoda's other films, "Blue Spring" which is easily in my top 20 favorite films. I loved the trailer for "9 Souls", and I thought it sounded very good. I didn't hear anything bad about it. Now I know why.<br /><br />This movie starts up as sort of a comedy, then during the last half of the film, it quickly becomes something else. It becomes more dramatic as each of the characters face their own tragedies. Each character gets just enough screen time, and you care about what happens to each of them. Even though there are 9 characters we have to learn, and care about, within just two hours, Toshiaki Toyoda pulls it off brilliantly.<br /><br />After I saw "Blue Spring" I was hoping the soundtrack would be at least a little bit as good, as it was in that film. I got my wish, because the soundtrack to "9 Souls" was also incredible. The music used in each scene, more specifically the more dramatic ones, is just simply wonderful. I loved every second of it.<br /><br />I wasn't sure whether or not I wanted to see another Toshiaki Toyoda film, "Pornostar", but after I saw this, I'm going to. Definitely. Also, because I read the plot for it, and I think it sounds really good. I'm looking forward to it. On the R1 DVD of "9 Souls", there are two interviews with Toyoda. He says he's completed another film, and he wants to start writing the screenplay for his next. I can't wait for both.<br /><br />I highly recommend this film. You must see it. Now.
| 1 |
positive
|
There is only one racist joke in this Daffy Duck short, which is basically, when Daffy rides Black Beauty, it is a black woman. I can understand partly why this joke was included, as at the time few people did not know how rude it was to be racist and it wasn't even illegal to discriminate black people yet.<br /><br />Aside from this point, "A Coy Decoy" is basically a fun, interesting short where Daffy meets characters in books and does things in books. I liked this short quite a lot (despite the other reviewers on here). The way Daffy is so in love with the clockwork duck is vaguely disturbing, yet highly amusing at the same time. Porky is a nice edition to the episode, though it was not vital for him to be there. The wolf is an example of how people thought of wolves in those days as well, blood-thirsty, terrible animals, which of course they never really have been (unless they are very hungry). I also liked the style of animation used - and the theme of the episode.<br /><br />For people who are totally into Daffy Duck and for people who do not mind the occasional racist joke in cartoons, enjoy "A Coy Decoy"!<br /><br />Available on YouTube.
| 1 |
positive
|
What gives Anthony Minghella the right to ruin two extraordinary works of fiction?? First, he destroyed The English Patient, which was bad enough, but now I discover he's butchered Cold Mountain - butchered!!!<br /><br />I had such a strange reaction to The English Patient. My son and I went to see it the first weekend it was released, and I was so disappointed, but told my son I felt like I needed to read the book. I drove straight to Barnes and Noble, bought it, read it, and tried to figure out what in the world the critics were talking about when they said Minghella had trusted enough in the intelligence of the movie-going public to give them a great film. That is what he most surely did not do. <br /><br />I do not ordinarily read a great deal of fiction, but Cold Mountain was so highly recommended by friends that I felt compelled to read it. I did not see Cold Mountain, the movie, when it played in theaters, and it was because of what Minghella had done to The English Patient. But like a fool, I rented it today, and I'm so upset, I had to vent my frustration and, most of all, my sadness, that someone could have taken this beautiful story and crafted it into something almost as beautiful on the screen, and now they never will. <br /><br />READ THE BOOK AND LET THE MOVIE ROT ON THE SHELF. I will never be taken in by a Minghella project again. I think he may be one of the worst directors working today, and I'm tired of the praise Hollywood heaps upon his head. It must be that no one in Hollywood reads anymore. This movie bears no resemblance to the book, except for the names of the characters. Minghella's ego must know no bounds, and if he didn't like the book, then why didn't he write an original screenplay and leave the book alone. Even if I hadn't read the book, I would still consider this movie one of the worst I've seen from 2003; and I've seen almost everything that's been released for viewing in the USA.<br /><br />Elaine, you aren't going to like this one either.
| 0 |
negative
|
[WARNING: Some spoilers included, though it is a documentary.]<br /><br />I bought this documentary because I like the work of the directors D.A. Pennebaker and Chris Hegedus, which includes MOON OVER Broadway, STARTUP.COM and THE WAR ROOM., all terrific documentaries I would highly recommend. Watching this ultimately boring and uninsightful account from Depeche Mode's 1988 tour, I realized they had nothing to work with when they went to edit this film together. The band members were certainly less than forthcoming on-camera; hence, undoubtedly, the contest to add fans on a one-week bus trip was added to liven things up a bit. Really, now, I mean, c'mon. Who thought a concert film of a synth-pop band with three keyboardists and a singer would be a good idea? Granted, I like Depeche Mode's music, and Martin Gore writes good melodies, but seeing them in concert never seemed like it would be interesting, and this movie is proof positive. Unless you are a HUGE fan of Depeche Mode, stay away from this documentary....it's a complete waste of time.
| 0 |
negative
|
If you are thinking of going to see this film then my advice is - dont.<br /><br />For me the film failed to make the grade at every level and was a reminder of how dire most British (& Irish)films are. Forgettable tripe is the best i can say. If it had been on telly l would have wandered off to do something more interesting five minutes after the start. I saw this film with a group of friends and having read the press previews went along prepared to not be critical and hopefully pass an amusing 90 minutes. But, oh dear.....<br /><br />As a comedy it wasn't funny, as a thriller the stupid story was sloppy and lazy. As a love story totally unbelievable. Most of all as a piece of 'gloriously over the top whimsy' it lacked both style and charm. Gambon and Caine did what they needed to do to earn their money playing er..... Gambon and Caine. Is it just me, but other than playing east end gangsters and jack the lads, does Michael Caine leave you cold?<br /><br />In fairness, some of my friends thought it was 'ok' but if you do go, my advice is have a few drinks (or puffs) beforehand and leave your critical faculties safely locked up at home.<br /><br />
| 0 |
negative
|
Eros and Thanatos, Love and Death command the dialectics of Life. By the end of 19th century in a remote Japanese village a young man and a married woman, older than he, fall in love with each other and decide to kill her husband to be free to enjoy their love. But they never enjoy that freedom since Remorse begins to haunt them beginning as usual at the time by the weakest member of the couple, the woman of course. Henceforth in an atmosphere where dream (nightmare) mixes up with reality the ghost of the murdered husband appears first to the woman but then also to the man. It also haunts the dreams of the other villagers creating a climate of suspicion and gossip around the couple which is aggravated by the arrival of a police officer that comes to investigate the disappearance of the murdered husband. But which makes this movie more interesting besides this almost common story of adultery is the evolution of the couple's feelings in a Shakespearean deep psychological and dramatic development of remorse, anguish and fear which turns their love relationship into a nightmare until their final doom. The expressionism so dear to Japanese theatre or movie acting is also present in the players' performances but not in an exaggerated form. Just only in the necessary measure to show more effectively the most deep feelings of the depicted characters. This is indeed a solid good movie.
| 1 |
positive
|
Wow, this movie is bad. Think "Flashdance" with ninjas. The worst part is when a sword is supposed to be floating in midair, but you can see the strings. Or maybe the worst part is the gigantic eye patch (that looks like a coaster) that the good ninja wears. Actually, there are so many bad parts, I can't make up my mind which is the worst. I can't believe anyone actually put up the money to have this thing made. The only redeeming value is that it is good to laugh at.
| 0 |
negative
|
More and more french cinema demonstrates that's the only one able to confront Hollywood's, and to spend high amounts on money in their movies. If Bon Voyage had been made in the USA no one would be surprised. Perfectly set in France, in the 40's, when the Nazi invasion, technically irreproachable, and with some of the most international french actors (Depardieu, Adjani, Ledoyen...). Bon Voyage centerers on two parallel stories: an scientific and his disciple (Ledoyen) who tries to hide one of his discoveries (a kind of water that may work as an atomic bomb) from the Nazis; and a poor guy in love with a well known actress (Adjani), which ends up in prison accused of a crime he's not committed in order to protect her. <br /><br />Bon Voyage seems to have been made in the old style, without unnecessary camera movements and effects. Without big turns in the plot. As I said before, regarding to the production itself they've made a great job. But the main problem with this movie is about the script. Is it a spy-movie? A romantic comedy? A spy comedy? A comedy of intrigue? It's not clear. That makes Bon Voyage a little unbalanced. When you think you're watching a comedy, suddenly changes to another story-line, a more dramatic one, more slow... I think they should've focused in one of the lines of argument (the one about the spy plot) and left the romantic parts in the background.<br /><br />My rate: 6.5/10
| 1 |
positive
|
Following up the 1970s classic horror film Carrie with this offering, is like Ford following the Mustang with the Edsel. This film was horrendous in every detail. It would have been titled Beverly Hill 90210 meets Mystery Science Theater 3000, but both of those shows far exceed this tripe. This film was scarcely a horror film. I timed about 3 minutes of gore and 90 minutes of lame high school hazing and ritual. Wow, what a surprise, Carrie's weird friend commits suicide! Wow, Carrie misconstrues her love interests affections! Wow, the in-crowd sets up Carrie! Wow, the jocks have a sexual scoring contest! What this film needed was way more action and far less tired teen cliches. This film is totally unviewable.
| 0 |
negative
|
I saw Ray when it first came out. Why? Partly, because of the advertising hype, secondly because I just loved the heck outa Ray Charles's music. But not being around when his biggest things in music and his life happened, I wanted to learn more about the man's life. And in this film, I did. His addiction to drugs was something I didn't know, and the film let us know.<br /><br />But here's the thing, while this was a decent autobiographical film...I cannot say it was a "great" film. I've seen "Malcolm X" and was blown away. Same with "What's Love Got To Do With It" and "Bird". The performances of each of those films was outstanding. I wasn't just drawn into the main characters in those films - who did incredible jobs - but to those around them as well. That helps make a picture to me.<br /><br />I felt that at some parts of this film was shallow and heavy handed for emotional appeal. And yes, I'll admit at certain parts of the film I almost fell asleep. And the film was too long. And the film left out several "other" important details of Ray Charles life that would have made the film flow better. The film got "choppy" to me in certain parts. And the film seemed to end with a whimper, not a bang - certain parts, including the ending played like a tacked on "Lifetime" cable network movie to me. I expect more outa cinema.<br /><br />So -- where does my ambivalence come in? With Jamie Foxx's performance. Overall, he did -- okay. Not Denzel Washington's Malcolm X or Angela Bassett's Tina Turner's spectacular, but...okay.<br /><br />Sorry folks, but to me, there were several points in the film where I saw Jamie Foxx's interpretation of Ray Charles, and in others - thanks to the wonderful camera angles and lighting - he "looked" like Ray Charles. But I paid attention to the ... acting. An actor has to make you believe he IS the character he is playing. Not make a caricature of the character. Did I believe Jamie Foxx was Ray on the screen? Sometimes yes -- sometimes no.<br /><br />Did Jamie Foxx deserve a Golden Globe? You betcha. Does he deserve an Oscar...? Depends on who's he's up against. He's got a few major competitors there, and he might just edge them out. But then again...maybe not. If Jamie Foxx doesn't win, I will not stand up and say "he was robbed". I wont particularly feel that he had been.<br /><br />This was a decent film with decent performances and a decent story. A "great" autobiographical film of the late Ray Charles? No. Somewhere out there, I feel there IS a great film about Ray Charles just waiting to be made, and an actor that will blow you completely away in doing so.
| 1 |
positive
|
This movie is without a doubt the best I have seen in my entire life. The stellar star cast is only an added bonus over the amazing special effects, and profound story and sublime choreography. The movie is about an ancient love affair that folds down into the modern world. Two lovers in heaven incur the wrath of a great sage and are cursed. Subsequently the woman is born again on earth. While she is in college, she is raped and commits suicide. The rest of the movie basically focuses on the hunting down of the people who were associated with the rape, by her lover who possesses superhuman strength and the mastery of several languages. Sonu Nigam delivers a very mature and deep performance in this film, and all the other actors do almost as well. Te action scenes with Akshay Kumar are mind-blowing, and must not be missed. You simply HAVE to watch this movie!!!
| 1 |
positive
|
I'm not surprised that so many people fell for this one. When I was watching this movie, a couple viewers next to me sobbed whenever you're "supposed" to sob -- or at least feel "touched". Like when Hunting said he didn't love the girl. Like when Robin Williams' character (sorry I forgot his role's name) was telling Hunting repeatedly "It's not your fault" (oh Lord, just thinking of that scene gives me the goosebumps). I couldn't have cared less for what would happen to the characters. Many people sob for Hollywood manufactured characters they can't even relate to (think Titanic; Yuck!)... but it really only made me cringe and want to get out of the theatre. I guess I simply refuse to be psychically and emotionally manipulated by all this.<br /><br />Folks it's not me who's being condescending ... those characters are, and for no good reason because they're unreal. Worse yet, nothing is new or surprising. Even Robin Williams' character is all cliched.<br /><br />I gave it 1 out of 10. It's probably not that bad; it's just quite mediocre... but so many people went to the other extreme and gave it a 10 so I figured a single balancing vote won't hurt.
| 0 |
negative
|
This film, based on the book by Pascal Laime' -La Dentelliere- is an acclaimed film of excellent cinematography and costly Italian language. Set in a "scholastic" 19th Century, Balzac-style set, it portraits the story of a mad love story: a man and a woman. There is an infamous line at this shadowy-Mussolinni strike which reads: "She does not smell like tomatoes." Sage perfumery of this Italian masterpiece, Scola is a director of the stature of Mussolinni: his cake will jump in your strawberries and if you let this director he will cream your olives as a Superman. Remember Nietzsche? This one will scare the HELL out of YOU: don't forget to visit Mussolinni's cake next to the Colisseum in Rome, across the Via Appia. This movie will wipe your Pampers inside-out and outside-in, it will make you cry out of Romantic joy! If you liked Ulysses, you will wipe it good with these strawberries until the end of the roll. Enjoy!
| 1 |
positive
|
If you've ever been to Ukraine, this movie is absolutely hilarious. From teenagers wearing gold chains, listening to hip hop and break dancing on the side to jokes about air bags in cars and waitresses in total shock over meeting a vegetarian, this movie really captures bits and pieces of Ukraine that you would never know unless you went there. I spent most of the movie nodding my head and thinking, "Yep. That's exactly right." It's a lot of fun if you understand Russian too because the subtitles just don't always do it justice. The actors are so believable and Elijah Wood does a great job playing a socially inept Jewish kid. My favorite character is definitely Sammy Davis Jr. Jr., the grandfather's "seeing eye dog" who is really a psychopathic border collie. The characters are so eclectic and likable that you believe that they are real people.
| 1 |
positive
|
First off - this film will not be for everybody. There are scenes of extreme graphic violence and "disturbing" images that by their nature alone will turn off many possible potential viewers. Obviously from the reviews on this board - SUBCONSCIOUS CRUELTY has divided those that have seen it. I'm among the ones who liked it very much for several different reasons. I feel this was a very ambitious (and quite competently pulled off...) undertaking for a bunch of 18/19 year olds with no budget and little experience. I think that each aspect of the film - the direction, the acting (though the character's performances are more likened to stage or free-form performance because of the nature of the film...) the production, the FX, the score/sound design - all are far superior to many films I've seen that exceed these kids budget and experience ten-fold. I honestly haven't been this impressed with an "art-house" style horror film since Nacho Cerda's GENESIS...<br /><br />First off - I'm not going to pretend to understand and/or grasp all of the graphical content in this film - but knowing that this wasn't a straight-narrative type of film when I went into it, I wasn't disappointed with how it played out. SUBCONSCIOUS CRUELTY is 4 relatively short vignettes that all sort of revolve around the theory of right brain/left brain lust/anger/psychosis vs. restraint/compassion/"normalcy". To very briefly give a synopsis of each "chapter":<br /><br />OVARIAN EYEBALL basically just has a naked girl who has an eyeball cut out of her abdomen. I'm sure it's symbolic of something - I don't think I was paying that much attention at that point and this one blows by pretty quick. <br /><br />The next "episode" - HUMAN LARVAE - is a nihilistic, horrific, genuinely creepy story of a guy who's both in love with and repulsed by his pregnant sister, who gives into his growing psychosis which leads up to the shocking conclusion of that particular chapter. HUMAN LARVAE is the best of the bunch in my book, and will probably get under your skin. The dead-pan narrative dialog accentuates the growing tension as you know something horrible is going to happen - but you're not quite sure what it is. Do yourself a favor and if you are interested in seeing this film - don't do too much research on it. Come into it with an open mind and an iron stomach and I think you be pleasantly surprised, especially with this particular episode.<br /><br />REBIRTH has a bunch of people in a field screwing the ground and blowing trees and stuff. Apparently an "arty" interpretation of the rape of the earth or something to that effect. Not bad, but this one is pretty short too and I sorta missed the point on it...<br /><br />And RIGHT BRAIN/MARTYRDOM seems to be about religion and religious hypocrisy and also along with HUMAN LARVAE, has some of the "hardest" images/messages of the whole feature...<br /><br />OVARIAN EYEBALL isn't anything to write home about, mainly because of it's very short running time but does make a decent segue into the insanity to come...and REBIRTH is also kind of short and not quite as thought provoking, but HUMAN LARVAE (especially) and RIGHT BRAIN/MARTYRDOM are so off-the-wall and well done that they more than make up for the other parts. I think the main reason that I liked this one so much is that as "shocking", "repulsive", "violent" and "excessive" as it is, it is also done very beautifully and you can tell this was a real labor-of-love from those involved. Nothing about the film feels cheap or rushed, and even if the content isn't completely decipherable, it's undeniably original - and that alone up's the points some in my book. Not that every "weird art-house" film that has an unintelligible plot should be praised for it's "originality", but SUBCONSCIOUS CRUELTY is the type of film that I do think I'll watch a few more times in the near future to see what other interpretations I may gain from it. Again, this film is ABSOLUTELY not for everyone - with some VERY extreme scenes of gore, murder, rape, incest, sacrilegious imagery, etc...that is definitely there to shock the viewer into taking a harder look at this film. I have to say it worked for me, and I'm anxiously awaiting the Hussain/Cerda collaboration that is rumored to come next. Check this one out if you have the stomach for it - 9.5/10
| 1 |
positive
|
The fact that this cruddy series could elicit dozens of comments (much less hundreds of 'votes') speaks volumes as to the decline of Western (or at least American) civilization.<br /><br />Read Proust, you morons!! Or at least Dave Barry or Calvin and Hobbes anthologies.<br /><br />Chuck Norris. Wrap your brains around the fact that in order to rate or write about this series you'd have to have spent minutes..nay, HOURS...viewing this poor sod treading the boards and spewing lines with less emotional impact than the gal who used to call off the correct time on your local service.<br /><br />PLEASE DON'T WATCH THIS SHOW!! SPARE YOUR FEW REMAINING BRAIN CELLS!
| 0 |
negative
|
Ex-reporter Jacob Asch (Eric Roberts) is hired by an acquaintance (Raymond J. Barry) to find his ex-wife and son. Asch heads to Palm Springs and quickly locates the ex Laine (Beverly D'Angelo) with someone he believes to be the son (a young Johnny Depp). But things turn out to be a bit more complicated as Asch discovers former white trash Laine has definitely married up in the form of millionaire Simon Fleischer (Dan Hedaya) and her first son is nowhere to be seen.<br /><br />Director/writer Matthew Chapman is channeling BODY HEAT here and this mid-80s neo-noir is watchable enough thanks to an all-star cast and nice locations. D'Angelo was still looking good around this time, so she makes for a good femme fatale and isn't afraid to show some skin. However, the mystery isn't very compelling in the end. Co-starring Dennis Lipscomb, Emily Longstreth and Henry Gibson. Chapman made several thrillers in the 80s, but his "biggest" career achievement was co-authoring the screenplay for the infamous COLOR OF NIGHT.
| 1 |
positive
|
If I wouldn't have had any expectations of this film, it might have received a 5 or 6. As it stands, I give it a 3. The acting is poor, the factual accuracy of the drugs it discusses is lacking, and I feel no empathy whatsoever for the characters.<br /><br />I watched 'Adam & Paul' immediately before watching this film, and I both laughed and cried on several occasions. This film did not strike even a similar chord. The directors of 'Human Traffic' may have some off-hand experience of ecstasy, but there is no demonstration of actual drug-related semantic knowledge here. In fact, I find it rather offensive and contraproductive to the strife of making current drug laws less politically oriented.<br /><br />Watch 'Requiem for a Dream' if what you're looking for is an amazing, touching film about drugs.
| 0 |
negative
|
This is the second adaptation of Charlotte Armstrong by Claude Chabrol for the screen:the first was " la rupture" (1970)(from novel "the balloon man" )and it's really a pity no one cares about it.It's Chabrol's sleeper,and I urge any of his fans to see it.<br /><br />"The chocolate" cobweb was not that strong a detective story to begin with.I read it 20 years ago and forgot all about it.The movie promises some good things at first,though,then finally disappoints to a fault.This is a confusing Chabrol movie,mixing elements of the heyday (circa 1969),and a lotta tongue-in-chick stuff coming from the eighties ,the likes of 'poulet au vinaigre",not one particularly memorable work.<br /><br />Part of the disappointment comes from the cast:this is a distressingly poor gathering:Jacques Dutronc plays like a zombie,Isabelle Huppert reveals herself a somewhat limited actress,finally rather vulgar .It worked in "une affaire de femme",it does not here.They are not supported by the young couple :both are bland and unremarkable.Actors from the past,say,Stephane Audran or Michel Bouquet(both in "la rupture") were brilliant and contributed to Chabrol's then unique atmosphere.<br /><br />The story itself is undistinguished:beginning as some kind of "serious" "la vie est un long fleuve tranquille " (besides,a character hints at Etienne Chatilliez's very funny movie),the movie drags on and on as a laughable psychological drama afterwards.We will not congratulate the young female pianist ,who,after all she learned about her wicked hostess,agrees to drive a car along a dangerous road.<br /><br />Because he makes too many movies,Chabrol frequently releases turkeys.One wonder why people who wants to watch one of his movies should choose this one among all his stuff up for grabs.<br /><br />It seems that Chabrol's bourgeoise satire has finally given way to leniency.In "la rupture" the first Armstrong adaptation-an average detective story which Chabrol completely transcended-,you should hear Audran say "they have so much money!".Here ,Chabrol has lost his bite,his strength.
| 0 |
negative
|
This film is a great comedy drama. Christopher Walken is tremendous in his supporting role as manager, and his commentary will keep you laughing. Robin Williams plays a great role as a quick wit "Jon Stewart" and will amuse you if you are fans of Comedy Central. The show is good, because if the viewer has half-a-brain, they will see it as a very needed sub-cultural attack on the policies of the current Republican Government and a criticism on the American Democratic Process..., not to mention the means by which most politicians get elected.<br /><br />I was amused at the sub-plots and found the film to be very fast paced and entertaining, without any of the usual "oh-brother's" I would agree the film is less comedy than marketed, however, without question better than 90% of the garbage in theatres at present. Just my thoughts...Don
| 1 |
positive
|
I first watched this show hoping for a few laughs, good acting, and good plot. Sadly, I got none of those things.<br /><br />First off, this show is completely unrealistic. How can someone go to a boarding school that's super hip, awesome location, and barely any rules? Plus a sushi bar. A SUSHI BAR. No school has a sushi bar. And what's up with the huge, ultra cool, ultra hip dorm rooms? This doesn't happen in boarding schools! Everyone in this show seems to be perfect. Zoey, looks perfect, has the perfect friends, never has to do homework, and is super popular. Sounds more like a villain to me! I hate how they use so many cliques in this show, Example: Dana the skater chick. She is completely ignorant and wears "edgy" clothes. The jokes are old sooooo old too! I wouldn't watch this show if I were you, it's one of the most horrible shows I have ever watched and I hope it gets canceled soon! Rating: 1/10
| 0 |
negative
|
In watching this off and on for a few seasons, two things come to mind: One - wondering what kind of girl wants to be a "model" and two - run to the nearest ice cream store and have a low fat sundae.<br /><br />I tried to be a fan because I liked the idea of this reality show competition. No other "famous" model thought of this, and it is very admirable for Tyra Banks to do so. But as the series goes on and on I've come to the conclusion that this is a sorry lot of folks trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. Women shouldn't watch this, teens should stay clear of it unless they're doing book reports on the subject.<br /><br />Many women try out for slots to compete for "Americas Next Top Model". They live together, cat fight together, cry together, get put through pointless modeling shoots with pointless modeling people and fashionatas and get eliminated and almost all of them claim, "You will see me again". Heck, I'm trying to see what happened to the ones that DID win, actually.<br /><br />This is the dream of some girls, and good for them. In watching this I hope the other girls that see this and run like Hades the other way - like to college.<br /><br />I just happened to watch more of this recent season because of the "ploy" of full figured models joining the group. That even made me think more of this as a sorry lot of folks. The "full figured models" were no more than average sized ladies competing with what I think is the thinnest group of models they ever chose - so of course that would make them look even fatter - a "ploy" fashionatas use all the time. Bad, bad, Tyra and crew.<br /><br />But to be fair, "Americas Next Top Model" is not about "full figured" models, it's about projecting an imagined image a beauty that can be mass marketed and sold as the ultimate in beauty - and this show is just looking for the next fresh piece of meat to add to the mix. Hence the name of the show. Hence the sorry lot of judges, photographers, associations. Hence Tyra and her consistent "this was me" plugs every camera angle you can get. But then again, that IS the one thing I like about this show - the ex-model giving others who wouldn't have the chance -- a chance to enter the doors. But after that...everything else is status quo for that industry which is why there are no surprises or week to week interest in the program.
| 0 |
negative
|
Everyone who has ever wondered how to make a film on no budget should see this documentary. The determination of everybody portrayed in this project was very moving to me, and should connect to those of us who have ever ventured into any part of show business, be it film, music, or writing. I think the film makers could have done a better job with foreshadowing the events that led up to this film becoming a documentary, perhaps by use of a narrator; other than that, the film comes off as a real example of how show business isn't about "the show", but rather "the business".<br /><br />I hope that the actual intended project, "Repo Man II", gets to see the light of day. I think the film makers did a fine job on it with what little they had to work with, and all that they had to overcome to complete it.
| 1 |
positive
|
"Dead Man Walking" is a film not about the death penalty, but about the people involved in a death penalty case -- the killer, the families whose kids were killed, the nun who becomes his spiritual advisor, and what happens. It tells the story with little fanfare but a lot of compassion and sensitivity. I have it on DVD, and every time I watch it (not often, it's never an easy film to watch) I'm more impressed by what Tim Robbins and the entire cast did here. So revealing that it could be a documentary, so compelling you can't take your eyes away, so subtle and yet so powerful... "Dead Man Walking" is nothing short of a masterpiece. It doesn't matter whether you're for or against the death penalty (or even have no opinion), this movie will have you thinking about the issues for sure. It takes a courageous screenwriter and director to look this material in the face without flinching even once, and everyone involved in the film pulls it off -- there isn't a single scene that rings false. A masterful film, but don't expect light viewing... to some, the final scenes could be more graphic than anything imaginable, even though no blood or violence is shown. You get drawn into this film and become a participant, and there's a character for just about everyone to identify with. 10/10.
| 1 |
positive
|
The movie had no excitement and does not have anything to hold your interest. The movie had nothing exiting,funny,dramatic or romantic about it!!! How can a movie be romantic if the girl never gets a the right guy until the last seen in the movie, than the movie ends??? Maybe part II will be romantic, but somebody else will have to risk wasting their money! I have nothing else to say other than do not waste your time!!! The movie had nothing exiting,funny,dramatic or romantic about it!!! The movie had nothing exiting,funny,dramatic or romantic about it!!! The movie had nothing exiting,funny,dramatic or romantic about it!!! The movie had nothing exiting,funny,dramatic or romantic about it!!!
| 0 |
negative
|
This small, quiet, harmonious movie grows into a masterpiece on human dignity. It is intelligently structured, filled with meaningful little details and important side-plots. It tells a story of one man with great humanity without positioning itself politically, but fostering life as a precious right (not an obligation) and underlining individual's right to choose. It enjoys the richness of different landscapes (mental and physical) and languages (important detail). Outstanding acting by each of the actors, especially unbelievable Javier Bardem. His screen-presence has such a force that you forget that this is fiction. The movie has a wonderful rhythm, it is beautifully shot and outstandingly directed. It takes real talent to make a movie on such a difficult theme with understanding, humour and heart. Six stars out of five.
| 1 |
positive
|
I've been a fan of Jim Henson and his characters since the very beginning. The most beguiling thing about them was the love and innocence and camaraderie shown. Kermit was a role model of deep thinking and problem solving. A spiritual character, yet sweetly and believably so. All the other characters were slightly eccentric but it demonstrated how different kinds of beings can co-exist in a caring manner together, respecting each other's difference.<br /><br />Following movies have somewhat kept the same vibe. Yet this "It's a Very Merry Muppet Christmas Movie" would have Jim Henson spinning in his grave. These characters have been completely re-written to be horny, nasty, selfish, and cheesy.<br /><br />The cast goes on to portray God as an uncaring corporate head, with a mean streak. Angels as spineless, non-spiritual corporate staff, and the movie was so bad I had to stop watching. I had bought it for my great-nephew but fortunately I preview anything I give a child.<br /><br />This movie deserved the trash bin instead and has no socially redeeming content or charm.<br /><br />Shame, shame on the people who re-wrote the characters and departed from Jim Henson's original heart-centered, socially conscious version. It does a terrible disservice to a great hearted man who is no longer around to defend his creations.
| 0 |
negative
|
Duchess is a pretty white cat who lives with her three kittens in her wealthy owner's mansion in Paris. When the evil butler hears that the rich old lady is leaving everything in her will to the cats first, the butler is angered, because he wants to get everything first. So he puts them to sleep and abandons them off the side of the road. When the cats wake up, they start on a long trek home. A street wise cat named Thomas O'Malley meets up with them and offers to help them. When Edgar sees them arriving home, he is furious, and starts to mail them to Timbucktu. But Thomas' friends arrive to help save the day. The wealthy lady decides to leave her home for every alley cat in Paris.<br /><br />This is a charming film. The songs, including "Everybody Wants to be a Cat", are lively and upbeat. The voice cast is excellent, with Eva Gabor(who would later play Miss Bianca in Disney's THE RESCUERS films) as Duchess, Phil Harris(Baloo in THE JUNGLE BOOK, Little John in ROBIN HOOD) as Thomas, giving interesting personalities to their characters. Supposedly Walt Disney, before he died in 1966, gave the go-ahead to this film. Recommended for Disney fans or cat lovers everywhere! 10/10.
| 1 |
positive
|
It's amazing that such a cliche-ridden yuppie angst film actually got made in the first place. The characters are so weak, and the acting so uninspired, that it's impossible to care about any of them-- especially Brooke Shields. The temptation to fast forward through the slow parts is almost irresistible. If you like this genre, you'd be better off renting "Singles," or "Bodies, Rest & Motion."
| 0 |
negative
|
Not only that the VHS and DVD cover(at least in Europe)show a scene that has nothing to do with the actual plot of the movie, the acting is so bad, that the movie is crying out for being made fun of. If you have nothing to do, you are with some good friends and you want to have some laughs about a movie, that is supposed to be serious, watch Tycus and Peter Onorati, a man who will teach you how to knock over bad guys with empty carton boxes! Shame on Dennis Hopper, following Travoltas example by starring in his very own "battlefield earth". For those who want to watch a good movie about the earth being destroyed by a terrible force, please do not choose Tycus, but do yourselves a favor and watch "Armageddon" for he 20th time!
| 0 |
negative
|
This is a good plot concept, so why-o-why is it such a poor film. The acting is terrible and every shock is signposted so far in advance that it is almost laughable by the time it reaches you. Spend your time and money elsewhere, this is not worth watching.
| 0 |
negative
|
The only complaint I heard about this film was that it was slow. Though, perhaps this is the point. The two characters clash unforgivingly and the slow build-up of tension between them is anxiety-producing. The intricate and subtle gestures and minimal dialog take the tension to a point where an otherwise normal argument shocks the audience. Istanbul and the outskirts are dreamy, scenery captivating, and the plot is thrilling - not in that "look, the hero blew up yet another car and he's now flying with his motorcycle" kind of way, though. I had chills down my spine as the characters moved in and out of each other's spheres and watched the fog engulf Istanbul.
| 1 |
positive
|
I actually caught an ad for JAPAN SINKS in a Japanese magazine last year, and wondered what the heck it was until I saw the trailer for the film. It was then I remembered that I had seen the English translation of Sakyo Komatsu's novel some years back. I got it, and it was quite good, as well as chillingly realistic. It's enough to make the reader dread hearing any news about earthquakes in Japan.<br /><br />Now, I've read the book, and seen this 2006 movie version (the first movie came out in 1973). And you know what? I thought the movie was quite good, even if there are major changes from novel to film (but that's understandable). The story is simple--a major tectonic shift will cause Japan to sink within a year. Massive earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and tsunamis rock the country as frantic efforts are made to evacuate as many people as possible. One scientist has a plan that could stop the sinking of the country and save what's left of the landmass, but can it be implemented in time? I saw JAPAN SINKS at Otakon 2007, and while there were a couple of problems I had with it--it does run a bit too long, and a couple of the character moments were a little too sappy--I was nonetheless blown away. The sheer concept of an entire nation sinking into the sea was made terrifyingly real, and the effects were some of the best I've ever seen, rivaling anything that Hollywood has done. The film also plays no favorites with the main characters, with some not making it to the closing credits.<br /><br />Frankly, I've been surprised by some of the negative comments made about this film. Difference of opinions, I guess. Personally, I enjoyed it. And I've read the original book.
| 1 |
positive
|
I don't understand why some of you (or many) have given this film upward of 8 stars out of 10. Do you understand that there are lower ratings for a reason? Sure, this may be a zombie flick with some splatter, but thats it. I'm not a hater on zombie films, but this was awful. Really, actually, I should call it more like a zombie-soap, because thats how the acting is. Production is... well, okay. Barely an attempt at plot development, awful acting, silly effects, clichés, and an abrupt ending. Go ahead and like zombie movies, but don't ever give this above a 5.0. Honestly though, the only reason you should want to watch this movie is to laugh. Seriously.
| 0 |
negative
|
So, you've seen the Romero movies, yes? And you've seen Jacob's Ladder, right? And the later Hellraiser movies? Okay, now let's make a movie out of all three, only let's just jam everything together and make a whole big mess of it, sounds like a good idea?<br /><br />This movie is terrible. Absolutely god-awful. Yeah, it's an indie flick, who gives a crap? Is that a pass to make filmic excrement? The film attempts to establish credibility by focusing on character interaction, that much is evident. Unfortunately for the writers, they're not good at character interaction. This isn't Night of the Living Dead; the characters are nonentities shouting their inane lines at each other in a vain attempt to be caught by the microphones on set. The dialogue is never interesting. For a movie that focuses so much on character interaction, you'd think the characters would have something more to say than "WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO" "I don't know" "WELL WE'VE GOT TO DO SOMETHING" "Well what are we going to do?" "I DON'T KNOW." "We should leave." "LET'S JUST ACCEPT OUR FATE." "No, we've got to leave." "WELL LET'S LEAVE THEN." "No, maybe we should stay."<br /><br />This isn't exaggeration, there are exchanges in this film that reach that level of redundancy and inanity.<br /><br />The worst thing about this movie? Half of it is a dream, and it really has zero purpose. Nothing in the dream has any relevance to anything in the rest of the movie. The writers couldn't decide whether to make a zombie movie or a monster movie and so they just made both. It's patently ridiculous, the cheapest trick in the book, and it's maddeningly insulting, especially since I'm pretty sure they ripped off the idea from Jacob's ladder, which handled the concept a hell of a lot more competently than these jokers could ever hope to do.<br /><br />And then there's the editing. Years of watching MTV and playing horror-themed video games must have inspired the filmmakers, but it's surely a sad thing they didn't realize what made the choppy editing and obfuscation in those pieces of media effective in the first place. In this film, you will be confused often, and not in the good, David Lynch way, but in the bad "Wait I thought she just got killed, no? Then who the hell was that? Wait, who is that guy? Where did he come from? How did they get here?" kind of way. It's constant and consistently bad.<br /><br />This movie is a laughable piece of trash and should only be sought out if you want to get trashed with a few friends and laugh at it.<br /><br />And as a final note: as for the "comedy" people in other reviews are talking about, it's all unintentional. There isn't a single intentional piece of comedy in this film. It's all supposed to be a big serious character study, because the filmmakers want to have credibility in their horror-concept. Sadly, their pretensions don't match up to their ability.
| 0 |
negative
|
This movie is not what it appears to be. Clint Eastwood is not Dirty Harry or a "cowboy" here. The movie's appeal comes from its careful manipulation of atmosphere and theme. It's a Gothic tale set in the Civil War and as such all the film's "action", or lack thereof, takes place inside a house populated by Southern Belles of all ages and shapes.<br /><br />The horror comes from viewing the whole story through the eyes of the Clint Eastwood character. Seeing him stranded in the house and held captive by the women is a very "beguiling" experience indeed. And who is "beguiled" here exactly? Are the women beguiled by Eastwood's incredible looks? Are we, the viewers, beguiled by both his sexual allure and the potential deviant sexualities it unleashes? Or does "beguiled" refer to what the director does here-- holds us enthralled for a short space only to (maybe)let us go? Don Siegel does all of the above in one of the most memorable and disturbing films I had the pleasure of watching.
| 1 |
positive
|
During production, this LWT series was titled 'Rocket To The Moon', a title that everyone on set at the time thought was cheesy enough. Then word came through that it had been retitled 'Reach for the Moon', as if this the addition of this new word would evoke heavy metaphorical meanings involving the relationships and aspirations of the characters. This same heavy handed lack of subtlety and understanding is clear throughout the very fabric of the entire series, and the same tired and boring love-triangle storyline is actually stretched out over 7 episodes! Any television program that decides to use the 'love-triangle' storyline for even a single episode is pushing it, but to smear it over seven episodes is unforgivable. There are reasons to watch however, with the scenery of the Isle of Wight certainly providing a beautiful setting, and the seemingly effortless performance of Lynda Bellingham hitting all the right comedy marks. This, however is not enough. A number of performances are noticeable , especially when placed against the static and emotionless wasteland which Jonathan Kerrigan refers to as his face. I have already mentioned Lynda Bellingham in the role of 'fussy mother' (yes, thats as far as character development and back-story goes), but I was impressed by the actor Maurice Roeves (who is by far the most experienced actor in the cast, having appeared in everything from classic movies such as Richard Attenborough's 'Oh What a Lovely War', and 'The Eagle Has Landed', and TV including Baywatch, Holby City, The Bill, Eastenders, Cheers, Doctor Who in the 80s, Star Trek, and even going to Hollywood with Sylvestor Stallone in 1995s Judge Dredd) whose performance reminded me very much of actual teachers I have met - often incapable men, whose lives are tinged with a very sad streak. It is refreshing to see that Roeves is still getting work, having also appeared in the 1998 British film 'The Acid House' and even more recently alongside the wonderful Maria Bello and Sean Bean in 'The Dark'. The standout reason to watch this series, even though his appearances are very few. Another actor who tries his hardest to elevate the program, is Ben Miles, in the role of the sex-mad 'typical man' brother (once again, what an original character!). As with Roeves, the CV says it all. After elevating this, Miles has since appeared in the Hollywood movie 'V for Vendetta', and the 2001 star studded film 'The Affair of the Necklace', alongside Brian Cox, Adrien Brody, Christopher Walken and Jonathan Pryce. Unfortunately the fairly capable actors I have mentioned are resigned to relatively small roles in comparison to the dramatic driftwood that is Kerrigan and Saira Todd, both of whom seem to have been in Casualty for too long, and haven't yet learned to act. Even the tolerable Frances Grey is made to suffer in the presence of such theatrically fetal mannequins, and unfortunately for her, the lasting memory I have of her from the set, is of the AD asking for another take of a relatively complex shot because during the take, she subconsciously 'pulled her knickers out of her crack!'. Familiar faces appear in each episode - child actors from CBBC programs, and dramas such as '2 Point 4 Children', and other regulars from commercials such as Mr Ben's ("they'll remember me for this"), Lynda 'the Oxo lady' Bellingham, and others that I don't even want to remember. Each episode halfheartedly tries to 'deal with issues' such as teenage pregnancy, disruptive pupils, and rocket building(!)... things that Grange Hill was doing better when my parents were young! Overall, this series was a disappointment, and a wasted opportunity to craft a genuinely interesting and well developed drama series. Unfortunately, for them they took the easy route, both in the writing and (for the most part) in the casting. I would recommend both 'Waterloo Road' and 'The Street',to fans of good drama - the latter in particular which managed to achieve this. If you like the Isle of Wight, don't 'reach for the moon', reach for the holiday brochure instead - it probably contains more character development!
| 0 |
negative
|
Back when in the States, I was like about 7 or 8, I always woke early, just to watch this, together with a whole bunch of other cartoons like HootKloot, The Road Runner Show, The Pink Panther. But this was perhaps one of the most memorable and funny animated works out there, and I still find it very funny today, I'll never forget the episodes, like the one where two aardvarks were fighting over the can of chocolate ant pudding? or the one where the aardvark is trying to reach the island where all the ants are at, and my personal favorite, the one where the ant, the aardvark and a dog end up in an animal hospital, which would later be the basis of a similar Looney Toon cartoon with Sylvester, Tweety and the bulldog. This is one of the most unforgettable cartoons out there in which anyone would love to revisit, I would. An excellent series.
| 1 |
positive
|
This movie is awful, just awful. Someone bought it for me as a Christmas present because they knew I liked a good horror flick. I don't think they understood the "Good" part. All I can say is next year this person is getting slipper socks from me. Avoid this movie-- it makes you bitter. Peace.<br /><br />
| 0 |
negative
|
There are many familiar Hitchcock elements (of previous and later films) and this time they mix to a jolly, but hardly suspenseful piece of entertainment. You can tell that Dorothy Parker had a hand in the script, the most memorable scenes are the dialogues of hero Cummings with the blind man and his encounter with a rather bizarre group of circus people. The famous climax on the Statue of Liberty seems a bit heavy-handed - judged by today´s standards, but also compared to other Hitch monument finals (e.g. Blackmail, North by Northwest).
| 1 |
positive
|
I am a fan of the paranormal and I love Ghost Hunters so when this show first came out I decided to give it a try. I could barely sit through one episode. The show is so obviously staged. I mean come on, every single episode involves someone being possessed or involves a demonic force trying to kill the family. Another huge flaw is that these guys never debunk anything. When I watch Ghost Hunters they find evidence and try to disprove it and if they can't then it is evidence. On this show they find a voice or a piece of video evidence and they are very quick to call it a ghost. This completely ruins their credibility unlike TAPS and Ghost Hunters who actually know what they're doing. Honestly if you're interested in the paranormal and want to watch a show about it watch Ghost Hunters.
| 0 |
negative
|
A criminally short lived show that went on to spawn three movie spin-offs (Naked Gun 1, 2 & 3), this is fast-paced, in your face, rapid fire comedy that has more hits than misses. <br /><br />Leslie Nielsen plays Detective Lieutenant Sergeant Frank Drebin, an incompetent Detective who bumbles and fumbles his way through cases, with the capable assistant of his boss, Capt. Ed Hocken.<br /><br />The story lines are spurious, at best, but it's deliberate, as the goodness here lies not in the storytelling, but in the weaving of a constant flurry of jokes along with some genuinely weird and wonderful characters. <br /><br />The jokes themselves come in many forms, be it wordplay, slapstick, puns or background gags, most of them hitting the spot, though some fall a little flat. It's inevitable with this 'gag every few seconds' approach that some will fail, but the ratio is good. <br /><br />The characters are a delight. From the guest star of the week dying in the opening seconds of every episode, the laboratory scientist who appears to be conducting cruel and unusual experiments on children to the shoe-shine who is some form of oracle, the writing is witty and sharp as a cutlass. <br /><br />Though not especially successful at the time, it rapidly developed a cult following, many blaming the shows' relative lack of success on being way ahead of its time and too sophisticated for the target audience, chief amongst them none other than Matt 'The Simpsons' Groening: and he should know. <br /><br />Dated by todays standards, if you can see through that aspect, you're in for a treat.
| 1 |
positive
|
This horrible action sci-fi movie is a crap. I have just spent 90 minutes of my life watching one of the worst movies I have ever seen. The story does not make any sense, there are lots of flaws in the screenplay, the characters are badly developed, the unknown cast is horrible, the lead ham actor seems to be too old for his role. I was induced to buy this VHS, which has a magnificent cover, and see this crap due to the illogical IMDb User Rating and some "ten stars" reviews. I have just checked the authors, and each one of them has just one short review (of "L.I.N.X.") issued in IMDb, and nothing else. Why are they promoting such a garbage? My vote is one.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "L.I.N.X. Conexão Letal" ("L.I.N.X. Lethal Connection")
| 0 |
negative
|
I think this is a pretty good movie, but one thing makes it VERY interesting to me. It is blatantly obvious once you look out for it: the main characters in this movie are the inspiration for the bullies on The Simpsons. Layne is Jimbo, John is Kearney, and Tony is Dolph. There is even an episode of The Simpsons where Jimbo uses the line "I poked her with a stick."<br /><br />The Jimbo-Layne connection is the most obvious with the knit hat and long hair and the voice. Kearney has the shaved head, unlike John, but is the big, dumb one. The Tony-Dolph connection is pretty obvious with the long, parted haircut and even the second-tier status.
| 1 |
positive
|
I was a junior in high school when "Flesh" hit the big screens, but had the good fortune to see it at midnight movie houses in NYC just two years later.<br /><br />Flesh is the first part of a so-called "trilogy" of films, featuring Joe Dallesandro, as an object of desire. It bears the "Warhol" name, but is more the work of Paul Morissey. Essentially the story concerns itself with the exploits surrounding one day in the life of a street-wise male hustler (played by Joe Dallesandro). Joe is young, beautiful, and a bit naive... but he manages to bring home the bacon to his wife, for reasons which should not be explained to appreciate the film fully.<br /><br />Of special note to film buffs is that this film (along with the remaining two of the trilogy), had no script, per se. Warhol's superstars were given simply a premise... and the words and actions which the viewer sees are quite natural (even at times ridiculous or non-sensical). But all in all it works... "Rolling Stone" noted in its review that the film was better than "Midnight Cowboy", a film of the same year, more polished by Hollywood (An Academy Award winner for Best Film) , with big name talent (I equally admire the film)... but FLESH, being improvised, was somehow more gut wrenching and realistic, without the need for complex sub-plots and any "cause de celebre" .. or for that matter any cause at all!<br /><br />The film grossed more than $3 million dollars and was an absolute sensation, particularly in the German market (which, ironically, thought they were given a "censored version" of the film because of the post-editing....see note below).<br /><br />Curiously, the film is very much "cut and paste" with "pops". "clicks", "flashes", and dialogue literally cut off mid-sentence. It is almost as if Warhol/Morissey are stating a simple truth that it is a "day in the life" of a superstar, snippets for your voyeuristic tendencies. Far better than earlier Warhol works of 8 hours of sleeping, and the statue of liberty as a 20+ hour movie.<br /><br />FLESH, in my opinion, is the first of the Warhol films that actually is digestible (given a wide pallette) and Warhol's/the Factory's first legitimate response to the Hollywood phenomenon of "stardom".<br /><br />As the first of a "trilogy", it portrays a young, desirable male icon, naive, sought after, responding to invitations to please his family. Subsequent films would show the "same character" with a differing set of values. (See "Trash" and "Heat")
| 1 |
positive
|
Pat O'Brien portrays Knute Rockne, the All-American Notre Dame football coach. No doubt, this film will be considerably more appealing to those interested in some aspect of "Knute Rockne All-American Notre Dame Football" - probably, it's most interesting to serious followers of football and/or Notre Dame football. You will see some good documentary-style film footage.<br /><br />Otherwise, it's difficult to recommend this as a FILM. It's not much more than an historical document. You'll "know" the end is near when Gale Page gets a chill - and, don't blink or you'll miss Ronald Reagan doing, of all things, "Camille"! <br /><br />*** Knute Rockne - All-American (1940) Lloyd Bacon ~ Pat O'Brien, Gale Page, Ronald Reagan
| 0 |
negative
|
This film was reeeeeeallyyyy bad! Was it meant to be a comedy as I couldn't help laughing the whole way through it? what a waste of two hours! Donald Sutherland was wooden not that he was alone, everyone else was just as bad...and how miscast was linda hamilton???
| 0 |
negative
|
One of two movies I have actually thought about asking for money to stay until the end. Most movies have at least one thing that is worth staying for, even if it just to laugh at how bad it is. I never found it for this movie. Nothing was good, from the script, to the very bad effects. The worst movie I have ever seen.
| 0 |
negative
|
I liked this movie for the most part, but have to say had there been anyone else besides Bill Murray in the lead role it would not have been as good. He brings an energy to the role that steps this film up a notch than it would have been otherwise. I mainly enjoyed the pranks pulled on the one counselor and there are other humorous things in this movie too such as the hot dog eating contest. This movie would also set the stage for summer camp movies with the competition at the end. Nearly every camp movie has either this or the unruly or troubled kids plot, or a combination of both. This series also would take a rather strange shift in tone as this one and two are both family friendly movies while part three and four are more adult oriented, more like the old teen sex comedies of the time. It kind of did the opposite of the Police Academy movies that went from R to PG-13 to PG movies. This series goes from the opposite to R. Still this first one and only good one is worth some chuckles largely due to Bill Murray.
| 1 |
positive
|
Golden Boy is ecchi humor (bordering on hentai) in the guise of "educational moments." The main character, Kintaro, wanders around getting himself into the silliest situations involving women... It's just that he's shy on the surface but analyses everything until he can learn something from it. The most striking feature of the series are the circumstances surrounding his "education", which are outright embarrassing, yet funny at the same time.
| 1 |
positive
|
That distinction has to go to THE DUNGEON OF HARROW. At least Ed Wood's misguided attempt at making a quality science fiction film had the dubious "star" power of Bela Lugusi, Vampira, Tor Johnson, Criswell and Lyle Talbot. THE DUNGEON OF HARROW has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. What could have been an interesting and suspenseful plot about a marooned aristocrat on a leper colony, perhaps in the style of THE ISLAND OF DR. MOREAU or MYSTERIOUS ISLAND, is trashed by the heavy dialog and mono tonal acting of amateurs whose lines sink like lead weights into a sea of stupidity. The "special effects", which took place in someone's bathtub, further doom this film to the dung heap. Even the treatment of leprosy is something out of a Victorian interpretation of the Bible. The fact that leprosy can not be contracted from an individual in its last stages belies the plot line that the aristocrat Fallon and his lady, Cassandra contract the disease and end up as the original occupants of the Castle De Sade, doomed to insanity and inhuman cruelty. It is interesting to note that not one member of the cast made another film. No wonder, talent begets talent; lack of talent begets oblivion, which is where this film should find its deplorable end.
| 0 |
negative
|
<br /><br />I've seen this movie during a festival here in munich with a huge crowd of real fantasy fans. At about the middle of the movie one part of the audience was sleeping and the other part was booeing. Boring dialogues, badly choreographed fighting sequences, a terribly dumb story and even worse special effects. Well, at least the actors hadn't much to do, except for looking concerned or (in case they were female) showing their breasts in the right light. Even Götz Otto, who was among the audience admitted afterwards that ge could understand the disappointment of the viewers. Be warned, folks, of the cheapest fantasy movie ever........
| 0 |
negative
|
The movie was supposed to release in 2002 and was much awaited due to the promos but it finally released in 2003 after the producer died<br /><br />The movie is good in parts but overall isn't great<br /><br />The scenes between Rani and Ajay are okay but the other scenes are not well handled<br /><br />The film is too similar to BOLLYWOOD Hollywood and though this was planned before that got released first so originality is lost<br /><br />Milan Luthria disappoints overall after KACHCHE DAAGE<br /><br />Music is good but too many songs<br /><br />Ajay Devgan looks jaded and his appearance gives away that the film was delayed and his acting looks boring too Rani is good Sonali is good too rest are okay
| 0 |
negative
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.