text
stringlengths 49
12.1k
| label
int64 0
1
| label_text
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|
In all, it took me three attempts to get through this movie. Although not total trash, I've found a number of things to be more useful to dedicate my time to, such as taking off my fingernails with sandpaper.<br /><br />The actors involved have to feel about the same as people who star in herpes medication commercials do; people won't really pay to see either, the notoriety you earn won't be the best for you personally, but at least the commercials get air time.<br /><br />The first one was bad, but this gave the word bad a whole new definition, but it does have one good feature: if your kids bug you about letting them watch R-rated movies before you want them to, tie them down and pop this little gem in. Watch the whining stop and the tears begin. ;)
| 0 |
negative
|
Feeling Minnesota, directed by Steven Baigelmann, and starring Keanu Reeves, Cameron Diaz and Vincent D'Onofrio: The strained relationship between two brothers, Sam (D'Onofrio) and Jjaks (Reeves), is pushed to breaking point when Jjaks arrives at Sam's wedding and makes off with the bride, Freddie (Diaz), a former stripper, marrying Sam to repay a gambling debt owed to night-club owner Red (Lindo). Baigelman's writing and directing debut is a frustrating mess, full of hateful characters and lacking coherence. Putting Keanu and Diaz in the same movie should at least provide some eye candy, but Baigelman even cops out on that score, grudging his actors up with little positive effect. Very poor.
| 0 |
negative
|
This movie starts off as a college T'n'A flick, but turns pretty ugly after the main character's sister is gang raped by a biker gang driving a van. It has a pretty good pace, and James Van Patten does a pretty good job in this Cannon tax write-off movie. This was the first movie I ever saw at the Parkway Drive-in, here in Toronto. The main feature was "Alphabet City", and "Young Warriors was the added feature. Out of the 2 movies, "Young Warriors" was by far more entertaining and memorable. If you are a fan of blow 'em up, excessively violent movies, this one would make a great addition to any collection.
| 1 |
positive
|
I knew five minutes after the monster made his appearance where his was going. But when I saw the beginning credits, I said "oh my god, Bruce Boxlightner, Walter Koenig (from Star Trek). Gil Gerard (from Buck Rogers, and he's almost unrecognizable), then I saw John Callahan who used to star on my favorite Soap, All My Childen. Put on a few pounds but he can still act. Then there was Veronica Hamill. too bad I didn't sick around to see her in the film. I bailed out 20 minutes into he film. It was THAT bad. Never did see William Katt (from Perry Mason, and The Greates American Hero).<br /><br />All these stars and one lousy film. I hope hey got their paycheck.<br /><br />Bad Bad Bad
| 0 |
negative
|
Not the best plot in the world, but the comedy in this movie rules. Kelsey Grammar is wonderful in this movie. Another funny guy is Rob Schneider who will make you crack up with his segments with Ken Hudson Campbell who plays Buckman. Lauren Holly plays probably the more serious character in the cast as Lt. Lake. Bruce Dern is a great actor in this movie, playing probably the most serious character in the movie. The actor i liked the most was Toby Huss as Nitro, all the electric shots his character takes in the movie is hilarious.<br /><br />Plot is a little uneven, about Lt. Commander Tom Dodge, who for years has wanted to Command his own sub. When he finally gets the chance, instead of a brand new sub, he gets a rusty WWII Diesel Sub, the Stingray. His crew isn't any better, misfits of the U.S. Navy. He is then put in a series of War Games, that shows how an old Diesel Engine can handle itself against the current Nuclear Navy. Things still don't get any better when he finds out his dive officer is actually a female officer, to see how Women do on actual Subs. To get the commander position he wants, he has to win the War Games, and blow up a Dummy Ship.<br /><br />The movie fairs quite well, in fact i laughed non-stop when i saw this movie in theaters. I loved when they were in silence and Buckman farts, and everyones reaction to the smell is hilarious.<br /><br />Overall, 9 out of 10, this movie is just plain fun to watch, it nice to have a movie like this, i hate movies that try to be 100% serious.
| 1 |
positive
|
The Merchant of Venice 8/10<br /><br />(This review assumes a basic knowledge of the story and so may be thought of as containing spoilers to anyone unfamiliar with the plot.)<br /><br />As a film version of the famous Shakespeare play, Merchant of Venice does what few adaptations have done since Polanski's rather gritty Macbeth: it takes the spirit of the play and brings it out not just as well as, but better than the play alone could readily achieve. <br /><br />Lord of the Rings Director, Peter Jackson, has argued that in adapting a book or play there are three options: attempt to replicate the original as perfectly as possible, use the original idea as an inspiration but take full license for cinematic change, or (the one he avowedly preferred) stick to the original as much as is cinematic ally viable but make such changes as are necessary for the film and while remaining faithful to the intention or spirit of the original.<br /><br />In Macbeth, Polanski used the rain-sodden beaches and realistic rapes and murder to convey what a bloody and horrific period the play was set in, thus bringing to mind the horrific context in which the characters make such ill-advised decisions. It differs from (say) Branagh's Hamlet, which achieved new heights of faithful rendition, but otherwise offered little new. Macbeth, on the other hand, maybe enabled audiences fresh to Shakespeare to appreciate some of the drama's fullness without extensive study; similarly, more familiar audiences might find a greater depth than the unaided stage performance could accomplish. Such interpretation plays a vital part if audiences are to fully engage, not only intellectually but also emotionally, with the points Shakespeare wanted to make.<br /><br />Radford's adaptation of Merchant of Venice does just this. It takes crucial moral dilemmas involving religious bigotry or the keeping promises and, with minimal messing of the Bard's holy tome, conveys them faithfully within the spirit of the original story.<br /><br />The first of these, religious bigotry, gives meaning to Shylock's otherwise outlandish behaviour. We see the Jews of the period relegated to a walled ghetto, only allowed out if wearing an identifying red cap. Not being allowed to own property, one of the few ways they can earn a living is by money-lending. This makes them both useful to their Christian oppressors and at the same time the object of their vilification. The idea behind (both old and new testament) biblical prohibitions against usury probably stems from not making a profit by helping one's friends. This is extended by the bigoted Christians to curse those they spit on (we see Shylock not only spit on, but fellow Jews thrown into the waterways for sport - in an atmosphere that can only be described as threatening).<br /><br />The topicality of the film is curious, since the bigotry of right wing Christianity (as personified by Bush-following Americans) has turned full circle, as they are now the main supporters of Zionism, and the Jewish political leaders bite at their Palestinian neighbors much as Shylock tries to bite at Antonio (once he thinks the law gives him the power to do so). The psychology is self-evident - kick a dog repeatedly and it will become vicious. The circle easily continues as the victims of oppression themselves easily lose their sense of moral values and become oppressors.<br /><br />The stringent sleight of hand that the disguised Portia uses to save Antonio has some merit, both as a clever interpretation of the unsophisticated law that the Venetians of the play so rue and also as a moral pointer. Shylock may 'have his pound of flesh' according to his contract, but may not have any blood. An easy analogy could be made as far as warfare and terrorism goes - it is much easier to justify fighting among combatants or attacking ill-doers if soldiers or evil-doers are the only victims - when there is massive collateral damage, as when innocent citizens, including women and children, are killed in their hundreds, the warmongers' arguments (whether those warmongers be Israeli, Palestinian or US American) carry far less popular support. <br /><br />There has long been much argument whether Shakespeare was being anti-Semitic in this story. One wonders if he had to adapt the ending for a largely Christian audience who had little dealing with Jewish people. Far from teaching him a greater good, the ending enforces Christianity and humiliation upon Shylock - a course likely simply to perpetuate pent up resentment. Both camps look just as bad - one simply holds more power than the other. The slight amelioration of the judgment simply gives the Christian judges a better public image, or as Bassanio so acutely (observes when choosing the caskets and solving the riddles to win Portia's hand):<br /><br />In religion, What damned error, but some sober brow Will bless it and approve it with a text, Hiding the grossness with fair ornament? There is no vice so simple but assumes Some mark of virtue on his outward parts.<br /><br />Of course, the bigotry applies to organised religion (rather than spirituality), especially when organised for political purposes, but one that easily goads ordinary god-fearing people who are not in the habit of splitting hairs. The kindness, mercy ('Chesed' in Judaism) which is so fundamental to true Christianity, is something also practiced to a wonderful degree in Judaism as in most creeds. The Jewish faith distinguishes between kindness and charity, ways of practicing both effectively, and ways of making it part of one's being rather than just an outward show. Both Shylock and Antonio are bigoted and use their respective faiths to abuse those of another faith. While Shakespeare maybe pointed up the chasm between the goodness prescribed by different faiths and its absence in practice, the film version reduces much of the window for interpretations of anti-Semitism and brings a greater degree of realism to the psychological causes.<br /><br />The keeping of promises (the men to their wives) is dealt with less well, as are the comic elements inherent in the cross-dressing sub-plots. Bassanio, however strong his love for Antonio (are there homosexual elements there?) cannot make sound moral judgements when showing his gratitude to the 'judge', and so breaks his promise (for which Portia forgives him, displaying a triumphal character for women, not only as supremely intelligent and witty but also as more truly merciful and considerate of others than her bigoted male counterparts, including her husband.)<br /><br />Some of the acting is a bit stilted, and there are too many regional (English) accents, but on the whole Merchant of Venice delivers a fresh and rewarding reworking of Shakespeare. I enjoyed the acting, and also the very beautiful soundtrack by Hayley Westenra and others, singing ballads penned both by Shakespeare and Edgar Allen Poe. All in all, Merchant of Venice is a not inconsiderable achievement of British (as far as any film can be said to be of a particular nationality these days) cinematic tradition.
| 1 |
positive
|
Peak Practice was a British drama series about a GP surgery in Cardale a small fictional town in the Derbyshire Peak District and the doctors who worked there. It ran on ITV from 1993 to 2002, and was one of their most successful series at the time. It originally starred Kevin Whately as Dr Jack Kerruish, Amanda Burton as Dr Beth Glover, and Simon Shepherd as Dr Will Preston, though the roster of doctors would change many times over the course of the series.<br /><br />The series was axed in 2002 and ended on a literal cliffhanger when two of the series main characters plunged off a cliff. Viewers wrote to ITV in their thousands and a petition for one last episode was set up by website Peak Practice Online. However, all pleas were unsuccessful and ITV said they would not make any more episodes.<br /><br />Peak Practice was replaced by Sweet Medicine, another medical series set in Derbyshire. It lasted a few episodes before it was dropped from the schedules.<br /><br />Cardale was based on the Derbyshire village of Crich, and the series was filmed there and at other nearby Derbyshire towns and villages, most notably Matlock and Ashover. After the end of this programme, ITV attempted to launch a follow-up series called Sweet Medicine, which extended the stories of different characters from the original show.
| 1 |
positive
|
Rather than go on location and make a realistic film about drug addiction in the Windy City, contrarian director Otto Preminger decided to go the opposite way and make his movie appear as artificial as possible, thus flying in the face of the fashion set by men like Kazan, Huston and Zinnemann, who were making their pictures all over the world. Nelson Algren, on whose novel the movie is based, went on record as despising it. What, one wonders, was Preminger up to, and why did he do the movie this way?<br /><br />The sets in the film are so minimal as to suggest a Mr. Magoo cartoon. Louie, the drug pusher, is attired as to resemble the sort of gangster the artists at Mad magazine used to draw. Arnold Stang, wonderful comedian that he was, seems out of place in a serious picture like this, and his very appearance, topped off by an exaggerated and over-sized baseball cap, elicits laughter. Robert Strauss, another actor best known for humorous roles, is likewise out of place, as his large, heavily jowled face and Runyonesque delivery of lines seems more appropriate to a Jerry Lewis movie. Against all this, stars Frank Sinatra, Kim Novak and Eleanor Parker have to work overtime to just keep the viewer from snickering. Sinatra is jittery and manic throughout, suggesting a man ill at ease with himself, hence wholly appropriate for the role of a drug addict. Miss Novak, plant-like and sublimely deadpan, is sympathetic and seems a product of the artfully dingy slums she graces in the film. Parker is pure Hollywood and very hard-working as the crippled and crafty Zosch. She is never convincing, but then neither is the film.<br /><br />I wouldn't recommend this movie to anyone interested in a realistic depiction of the lives of drug addicts in America. The Caligari sets alone make it unbelievable. Preminger may have been aiming for a dream effect, as the cardboard backgrounds give the proceedings the surreal feeling of a nightmare operetta, perhaps harking back to Preminger's early days in Vienna.
| 1 |
positive
|
This is one peace of art! If you like comedy you should watch this! Here comes a funny moment from the movie: "spoiler"<br /><br />Nikolai and Goroshkov are walking together in Paris for the first time. They are visiting the local market. And Goroshkov goes: -"Look Nikolai, how much food they have! Look! One-two-three-ten-thirty-fifty-hundred kinds of meat! But if ask for a tiny-tiny peace, just for the taste, they won't give you. French are very greedy!" Then Goroshkov takes Nikolai to a TV-shop...Goroshkov: "Tell me, who needs all these televisions? Look at this monster here, for example!" Goroshkov points a finger at the "monster"-TV and goes: "And this motherfu*ker...he is supposed to be digging a ditch, but no, he's on TV...wait a minute... that's ME! hahah!"<br /><br />Wanna laugh? Watch the movie, you won't regret!
| 1 |
positive
|
As I am a fan of hospital and medical shows, I have found this one gripping and sometimes humorous (especially the scenes with Dr Whitman) which brings a bit la light relief. However, I was looking forward to the last episode because I expected that the bad ones would be punished and the good ones reinstated. Instead of that, the hospital management are making even more fools of themselves in an unbelievable manner and it's getting worse and worse for the good ones. You can't help wondering what the unions are doing or doesn't Rob, Donna and Maria know what unions are there for ? Besides, never seeing the outside, trees, grass, sunlight is a bit oppressive. Anyone understood what the last words were ? i.e. the answer Rob Lake gave to Mrs Strawberry's children question "Why are you telling us all that?" It was very frustrating not to be able to understand it.
| 0 |
negative
|
I'd honestly give this movie a solid 7.5, but I clicked 10 to try to offset the 5 pages of imbecilic, unjustified 1-star reviews. This is an interesting story, all of the acting is good to very good (even Ms. Diaz, who is totally out of her usual grinning-bimbo role here, yet plays it well.) The sets are perfect and the cinematography is consistently appropriately creepy. It's a fine morality play and there is *no* reason to explain the origin of the god/supernatural being/alien/whatever that's "running the show," so I'm glad the movie doesn't try. It's really irrelevant to the story, which is relatively long but quite compelling and summed up quite satisfyingly in the ending. <br /><br />Before you decide this movie is terrible (or really, anything under a ~7.5) read some of the dozens of 1-star "hated it" reviews that are rife with misspellings, lack of punctuation and capitalization, and juvenile criticisms. Maybe the trailer was misleading or something -- I didn't see it -- but some of these reviewers were apparently expecting Terminator 4 or Saw 5 (one reviewer actually compared this movie to Saw! How utterly inappropriate and unrelated!) <br /><br />Seriously, most of these reviews read like you-tube comments -- according to these "critics" this movie is too confusing yet too predictable, not enough action yet there's too much going on, too smart yet too dumb, explains too much yet leaves too much unexplained... oh -- and it's apparently a "waist (sic) of time." Do consider the quality and source of the reviews before taking them to heart. I'm afraid these 1-star kids failed to understand the phrase "altruism coefficient" and were therefore utterly incapable of understanding the movie's premise (despite adamantly claiming that they "get it" right before explaining how confusing it was!) If you know what those two words mean you will have no trouble understanding (and enjoying) this movie.<br /><br />I really wish there were a reviewer reputation system here so I could be sure to ignore the rating of everyone who gave this movie 1 star forever.<br /><br />See it for yourself and enjoy the fine presentation of an interesting couple taking an interesting moral "test" and facing the consequences. It's a good time, in my opinion.
| 1 |
positive
|
This movie was painfully awful. Most of the movie consisted of people running in the woods, walking thru the woods, or dancing in the woods. More than half, at least. Then two kids who discover two 'horribly mutilated bodies' in the woods, return to the woods the very next night for a romantic walk. ????? There is no time continuity. its day, its night, its day, its really really night, its dusk, its pitch black, its day. All the woods scenes go on like this until you think you will lose your mind. really bad. The sheriff discovers a five foot claw print embedded in the dirt of the woods and theorizes that a super large alligator may have learned to walk upright. Really a silly movie with no real motivation written in for the characters. Might be entertaining for young kids, as an alternative to really graphic stuff.
| 0 |
negative
|
Hmm, is it right to compare Tiffani Thiessen and Mark-Paul Gosselaar's post Saved By The Bell acting? Of course it's not right, it's ridiculous. And is right to give this movie a `10' rating? Hahahahahaha... that's funny. This movie wasn't so horrible, though; better than I expected it to be. Made-for-TV movies are often so so so similar. So many of them have the same feel to them. This one had that same feel but it worked even though it was yet another tortured wife who's gotta get the b*stard in the end story. Before it started I had envisioned Ms. Thiessen as a vixen type 90210 seductress but here she was as innocent as Kelly Kapowski which was refreshing. Eric Close surprised me by playing his part really well. With some decent writing the director got a pretty good, convincing performance out of him without being at all cheesy. All in all it was somewhat interesting, definitely better than most TV movies. My grade: B-
| 1 |
positive
|
The film has so much potential which was not developed. Mark Hamill gives a good performance and so does Bill Paxton. The scenery is beautiful and the ultralight aircraft are neat. The problem with this film is that the story is way underdeveloped and the plot goes nowhere. The film at certain points almost puts you to sleep. I give it 3 out of 10 stars for the flying scenes.
| 0 |
negative
|
I saw this movie when it was first released in Pittsburgh Pa. I had traveled from Youngstown Ohio, a distance of approx. 85 miles. I knew nothing of the plot nor the players. I had read no reviews nor had I talked to anyone who had seen it. Believe me I will never make that mistake again. It was being touted I believe as the first feature length movie filmed in the new 3D process. That was what enticed me to make a 170 mile round trip.<br /><br />There was a waiting line two abreast that stretched (I kid you not) 2 or 2½ blocks long and moving very slowly. I could hardy wait to be seated. If I had only known at that moment what I soon would know, I could have been ¾ of the way back to Youngstown by the time the feature started.<br /><br />By the time the first 3D scene was shown, I was already nodding off. The novelty quickly wore thin and from then on it was pure agony.<br /><br />Without going into excruciating detail, I can only offer the following advice. If you have ever seen the famous film PLAN NINE FROM OUTER SPACE, supposedly the worst movie ever filmed, it in my humble opinion stands head and shoulders above this garbage.<br /><br />I don't know if this has ever been shown on tv, if it has I don't know why. If you ever get a chance to see it, do something else. Take a walk, cut the grass, wash the dog, have someone flog you with a rubber hose. ANYTHING. Your time will have been better spent.<br /><br />This has been my first movie review. It might well be my last unless a worse movie comes along and I wouldn't make book that will happen.<br /><br />Bill<br /><br />
| 0 |
negative
|
This is a slightly uneven entry with one standout sequence involving an over-the-hill gang reminiscing in the diner that once - thirty years previously - was their hideout; one ho-hum duologue between two ageing rock musos; a noirish kidnap turned on its head and an opening sequence (plus epilogue) involving heist artist wannabe Edward Baer and current 'hot' property Anna Magloulis which has its moments. No movie in which Jean Rochefort appears can be dismissed lightly and here he shines as one of the over-the-hill quintet, indeed the film is worth seeing for Rochefort alone but each of the sequences has something to offer and it's definitely worth a look.
| 1 |
positive
|
The weakness of this comes from the confusing storytelling, plots often coming out of nowhere. But it really didn't matter because I still enjoyed it to it's full length. Once you actually accept that this movies not to be taken too seriously then you'll enjoy it even more. It's basically a love story, a confusing one at first but as it evolves it really is something worthwhile. Sure it's been done so many times before but the complicated version of this is quite inspiring and touching.<br /><br />The over the top fantasy and cgi was overwhelming at first but I still enjoyed its purpose. And people quit whining about how it borrowed from other movies!! Guess what we know!! And it doesn't really matter because its purpose was to humour and entertain. Sometimes people has to stop being so critical and think for a moment before they start yapping about. Comparing this to Hollywood standards is utterly stupid and ignorant, It's a totally different style and target audience. As far as I'm concerned some the best films I've feasted my eyes upon are from eastern producers and directors. There's your Police story 4,shaolin soccer, kung fu hustle, dragon tiger gate, fist of legend, hero, crouching tiger etc...I for one like this movie and haling from the Philippines, US, england, Libya and now Australia, I'll always be interested in these types of films. Now try and judge my perception, but I warn you I do see things from from the point of view of those 5 countries I've lived in. So you better be as experienced and open minded.
| 1 |
positive
|
i happen to love this show. Its a refreshing take on some older sci-fi feels and styles. they aren't afraid to shoot, and when they do people tend to die. Far too many show's are afraid of this and end up just pointing the guns and then having it be a standoff. Farscape also comes complete with a large amount of heartwarming characters. They all grow on you till the point where it confuses you to hear them discuss taking some of the animatronic ones out of their box's to make the mini-series. From beginning to end farscape leaves you with a feeling of hope, and dispair, as new and unexpected things happen and then people live and die, surprising you every time. Worth a watch even if you don't have the time.
| 1 |
positive
|
The two leads, an Englishman and an Aussie filming an American Civil War story in Romania, have not the slightest spark between them, are utterly unbelievable as lovers, and wholly unsympathetic. There is no story, no characterization, virtually nothing to keep the eyelids separated during this interminable bore fest. Renee Zelwegger, also hopelessly miscast, practically chews the fence posts, but at least watching her embarrass herself provides some comic relief. Nicole Kidman is a decade too old for the role and has not the slightest idea what's going on. Jude Law's moron role could have been played equally as well by any of the Romanian extras. The only requirement is to wander about the forest looking stupid while watching a parade of guest stars steal the show. Not that it mattered, because all of the guest star roles were completely unnecessary as they did not advance the so-called plot by one iota. And as if all that wasn't enough, the auteur felt it necessary to throw in some spinning, whirling, kung fu jumping off horses. What was that about?
| 0 |
negative
|
I don't know if it's fair for me to review this. I'm not a fan of gratuitous violence. I've never understood the movie industry making heroes out of mob members and cold blooded killers. When The Godfather came out, I thought they had broken the mold, but the decades have produced a series of well-acted mob movies with major stars and directors doing them. This one is obviously low-budget, but it is certainly well done. At some point in all of these I feel like I want to take a shower. If such characters actually exist, it is hard for the soul. I always intellectualize that humankind will rise above this sort of thing. This kind of crud has to be stopped. I hope the people that go to films like this are more voyeuristic and less vicarious. I feel sort of the same way about slasher movies. Why do we have a fascination with death and dismemberment? In fairness, I am judging this on the acting and directing, and for what it is, it seems to work pretty well.
| 1 |
positive
|
This is a very touching movie. This is a story about a special bond between a child and his grandfather. A villager (Arun Nalawade) brings his grandson, Parashuram, to the city to get his eyes treated. But comes to know that Parashuram (Aswin Chitale) has some rare cancer of eyes and has to undergo an operation and will lose both his eyes. The movie is all about the emotions and the turmoil both them go through and how they accept the whole thing. The movie avoid any melodrama and tells this story in a simple way. Though the movie is in Marathi, language is not a barrier at all.It proves that to make good movie you do not need item songs, superstars and usual masala. Excellent performances. This is India's entry for Oscars 2004. Hope it gets the nomination at least. Would rate 10/10.
| 1 |
positive
|
I'm surprised with the questions and issues this documentary has brought up in the reviews here, specially because they're indeed interesting questions. Surely, the ones who could best address it would be the makers of the film themselves. Nevertheless, I think I can shed some light upon something that I think has been overlooked, which is, in my opinion, the purpose of the film, what it is about and what it's trying to convey. What's its message after all? At the risk of pointing out the very obvious, I'll start saying the filmmakers have an intention. They're trying to tell a story, extract meaning out of it and get a point across. With this in mind, we can shoot down many of the criticized points, particularly the ones involving what people expected in contrast with what the filmmakers were really trying to show. Causes and consequences of violence? The film is not about that. It's not "enlightening Non-Brazilian audiences" about the Brazilian favelas' issue? Well, who wanted to do that? Is AfroReggae this or that and supported by whom? It doesn't matter in this context. Not enough women in the film for your tastes? It's not about equality or the feminist cause. Every little detail about Anderson's life, mother, son, family and all the aspects and the workings of the AfroReggae movement? Well, don't be so picky because it doesn't matter. There's just so much length a story can have before it can't become a film anymore. If the authors were to show everything everyone is expecting, they'd have to make a 6 months TV series instead. If you are expecting all that, you approach the film the wrong way.<br /><br />The film is actually about two individuals who started a movement. Two individuals full of ideals. Two individuals who thirst for change. Two individuals trying to do something about all the wrongdoing going around them. Individuals who went rock bottom and wanted to get up again. It's all about finding purpose in life, drawing inspiration from misery, changing the destiny and becoming something else than what they were destined to be -- criminals and drug dealers for that matter. It's about achievement and hope and not about the cruel reality of violence in Rio de Janeiro, though it's an integral part of the film given that's what the characters are constantly surrounded by. Unexpectedly and not without a reason, the film ends up centered much more on Anderson's course through difficulties in life. This is because they were faced with Anderson's accident while they were shooting the film. I'm not sure about this, but they may have even seriously considered ending the filming right there, leaving behind all effort spent. But Anderson wanted to keep going. And so they did, risking to lose in having a film with a bit of an identity crisis, considering the sudden change of course, but gaining in showing someone overcoming such a devastating happening. It's very evident for who watches it that the film begins about AfroReggae and winds up about Anderson. It's very unique in this sense (the shift of the story line). Maybe their only sin is not making it evident upfront, which may initially rise expectations that will go unfulfilled.<br /><br />As for the importance or ordinariness of Anderson, I'd say not everybody wants to change the whole world, end all violence, feed all the hungry, be like Mahatma Ghandi, be as known as Mother Teresa or whoever other known personalities there are. It's much easier to relate to and draw inspiration from someone who is, such as everybody else in fact, trying to transform his or her own harsh life, raising problematic kids, coping with permanent injuries or diseases and even managing to pay the bills by the end of the month. To understand the movie you have to see that's about leaving behind a past of involvement with drugs and crime, making up for it, and trying to persuade others not to go down the same troublesome path. Though you can criticize if the way they chose to do it is effective and doubt the ideology of the method, you cannot deny their intentions.<br /><br />Also, the perception that Anderson is special or a chosen one may have partially something to do with the fact that the filmmakers became very involved in the lives of the characters they were depicting. As much as becoming friends with them. There's no way it wouldn't tint the whole movie with a more favorable light over Anderson. If a dear friend becomes paralyzed in an accident, it's not just a fact, you make a big deal out of it. And this is not necessarily bad. It's not much that they treat him like "a chosen one" as much as they go to great lengths trying to show him as a seed for transformation and source of inspiration.<br /><br />In conclusion, don't watch this documentary for the scenes of the reality of poverty and crime it contains, watch it for what it is much more, an inspirational story.<br /><br />Nike-Ad-like? Seems just damn good and professionally made to me and doesn't affect or detract from the intentions of the film. Romanticized? Speculate on its credential as a documentary if you will, but why not when it's supposed to cause reaction and inspire? Isn't trying to better people's lives through music and dance -- the essence of what the subjects are trying to do -- romanticizing the very own reality? Pardon me, but showing just the plain facts is what reporters do and you can watch it on TV every night.<br /><br />If I wanted to become a filmmaker, I wish my first film would also be this great.
| 1 |
positive
|
This is a "docu-drama" of (mostly) the later years of KW's life, with nearly all the parts played by actors (but spot which TV quartermaster plays himself!). It was made for the BBC4 arts channel but my guess is there will be syndication and DVD releases soon. KW is ably played by the excellent Michael Sheen, here repeating his previous stage role with great success. Most of the supporting cast are also very good, and a nice touch is the recreation of period TV appearances with the new actors. This is not, however, light viewing - anyone familiar with KW's diaries and general unhappy demeanour will already know how twisted he could be in later life - so don't expect 80 minutes of Carry On styled buffoonery, since the emphasis is decidedly downbeat throughout. Recommended, but it's tragi-comic, indeed.
| 1 |
positive
|
Sigrid Thornton (SeaChange) was seemingly born to fill the role of Cato's Philadelphia Gordon, in this story that is often compared with Margaret Mitchell's American Civil War classic Gone With the Wind. Waters (Heaven Tonight) is in arguably his best role also as her larrakin love interest, and the two leads head a wonderful Australian cast in this, arguably the most well-known and best-loved of Australian miniseries. It's<br /><br /> an outstanding production all round, though don't try watching all of it in one hit, and it deserves to be remembered as a magnificent portrayal of life in pre-Federation Australia. Rating: 8/10
| 1 |
positive
|
SPOILERS A Jewish Frodo? Yep, that'll be Elijah Wood again.<br /><br />Ever since the concluding part of "Lord of the Rings", Elijah Wood as Frodo has found it increasingly difficult to get away from that major role. Playing a football hooligan, a psychopath and now a young Jewish American, Wood has tried any route he can to escape this typecasting. Now, with "Everything Is Illuminated" he might finally have achieved this. Playing a role which isn't as radical as other efforts, he truly gets to the soul of his character. Still, it isn't like Wood does this alone. Aided by a magnificent adaptation by first time directer Liev Schreiber and a wonderful performance by newcomer Eugene Hutz, Wood has found a magnificent production to spread his wings. "Everything is Illuminated" is a magnificent, moving piece of cinema.<br /><br />Jonathan Safran Foer (Wood), a young American Jew, sets out to the Ukraine to find the mysterious girl who rescued his grandfather and helped him get to America. Arriving in the country, Jonathan meets the all talking, all dancing Alex (Hutz) and his racist grandfather (Boris Leskin). Travelling across the country, the three slowly learn more and more about the history and relations that Alex and Jonathan never knew existed.<br /><br />It's a strange feeling when the film progresses into it's second chapter (it is actually divided into four overall). The first part, whilst occasionally a bit funny, is mostly serious and intense. So when we are given a brief history of Alex and his family in the second part, to switch from serious to hilarious is a weird step. It doesn't quite work, but as the film progresses, it definitely learns it's lesson as this mix of humour and sadness merges finer as time passes.<br /><br />To the ultimate credit of everyone involved, as the story does continue, so do we begin to fall for the characters more and more. Elijah Wood is magnificent, Boris Leskin is so intense and strong that it raises questions why Hollywood has never properly noticed him. Most notable of all however is newcomer Eugene Hutz. Playing an intensely troubled character, Hutz is absolutely brilliant. He shows the split between his relatives and the real world with almost perfect skill, and when his character is communicating with Wood, you genuinely connect with him on a deeper level. Without Hutz, the story is so strong that the film would still be magnificent, but with him, it hits the next level.<br /><br />As a debut work for actor turned director Liev Schreiber, the story is also a brilliant piece to start. A work of passion (Schreiber's grandfather himself an immigrant to America), he manages to truly embrace the emotion of the content, and by presenting us with some truly beautiful scenery and some magnificent shots, he manages to really hit home. The final half hour in particular is so beautifully created, that it's a challenge for a tear not to form in any viewers eye. It is a moving story, and with Schreiber's help, it becomes even more powerful.<br /><br />Constructed with love from a passionate director, "Everything is Illuminated" is a beautiful piece. A road story with a difference, it is magnificently acted and wonderfully written. It's a film that everyone should see, and it is the perfect way for Elijah Wood to finally lay Frodo to rest.
| 1 |
positive
|
Jon Good's Wife (simply one of the worst titles for a film ever), or The Red Right Hand (another absolutely awful sounding title that means nothing & has no relevance to the film) under which I saw it, is set in 'Salem, Massachusettes 1978' (incidently the year I was born which was quite possibly the best thing to happen during those 365 days) where five old college friends meet up for a school reunion, gay-boy fagot Roger Mather (John Kuntz, is that surname for real? Just say it out loud...), Martha Alden (Kim Brockington), Rebecca Lawson (Jenna Stern) & her boyfriend Jake Stabler (John Doe), Alan Hobbes (Michael Kevin Walker) & his wife Sandy (Megan Rawa) plus John Good (Marc Ardito, why is the spelling of 'John' different in the title?) & his wife Sara (Abigail Morgan). From the word go there is an uneasy tension in the air & when someone mentions their 'missing' friend Calef (Jason Winther) lots of unpleasant memories come flooding back. Then comes the phone calls, the mysterious nose-bleeds, hallucinations & guilt as the true horror of the events all those years ago finally comes to light...<br /><br />Produced, executive produced & directed by Kurt Gioscia who also wrote the thing & Kurt St. Thomas who gets the art direction credit too & if that wasn't enough they both act in the film as well! Personally I thought Jon Good's Wife was awful, I mean she can't cook or anything! Ha ha ha, only joking! Seriously though I didn't think much of the film overall, for a start it's pretty slow going & the entire first 30 minutes is solid snooze material of the reunion consisting of lots of catching up with each other & dull character building exposition. The film never explains itself, what's with those weird nose-bleeds for god's sake, the mysterious phone calls, the almost inconsequential death of one of the group that might or might not be natural & what the hell was Sara all about? She comes across as some nosey, sex crazed, dirty talking, shameless, bitter blackmailing know-it-all whore who apparently sleeps with just about every man she meets! Some of the dialogue she spouts wouldn't be out of place in a porno & it just seems totally at odds with the rest of the film which plays out more like a drama than the horror/thriller it was supposedly meant to be. Then there's the ending, if there's a worse way to end a film then to just leave literally everything hanging in the air with no closure whatsoever I have yet to see it. The whole thing was very predictable as well, I mean is anyone watching this not going to know that when they all mention their friend Calef went 'missing' there wouldn't be more to it?<br /><br />Directors Gioscia & Thomas make an infuriating film, on top of the predictability & annoying climax there is a retrospective narration by Alan which I simply don't understand as he has no more or less significance than anyone else & at what point in time is he narrating from? The reasons behind this narration is never made clear or elaborated upon. There's no tension because the whole things so by-the-numbers.<br /><br />Technically the film is OK but nothing special & some of the locations & clothes didn't look particularly authentic to me, this never convinced me it was taking place during the late 70's. The acting was alright & what about actor John Kuntz last name? I suppose if his wife was standing next to him we could describe them as a couple of Kuntz, right?!<br /><br />I really didn't think much of Jon Good's Wife (a blow up doll would have been better! Ha ha ha) & I'm not sure who it would appeal to. Forget about any gore, horror, violence, scares, atmosphere or excitement, in fact forget about everything that would have made this film watchable because it ain't here. Not recommended.
| 0 |
negative
|
Looking at the ratings you would assume this is a classic, but yet again its just another example of poor independent film makers trying to drum up interest in their movie. They aren't even being smart about it 10/10 in the votes? I guess that to buck the curve and offset all the 1/10's it will get. Is this better than any decent zombie movie? No.<br /><br />Acting, corny and rubbish.<br /><br />Sound effects, cheap and nasty, if it wasn't for where the actors looked you wouldn't know where it was coming from.<br /><br />Cinematography. These people act like they have borrowed their dads camera right after watching the matrix. Less is more, but more from this team is absolutely pap.<br /><br />Zombies are rubbish as well. I don't doubt most of these people will never be heard from again, and it will be for good reason. I hope zombies eat their eyes as this was 90 minutes of pap that I wont get back.<br /><br />And falsifying ratings just makes it a million times worse.<br /><br />One reviewer said it was one of the best horror movies he has seen in the last 30 years? I can only assume that his recent cornea transplant was a success then.<br /><br />Watch the trailer as thats a warning as to how bad this film is.
| 0 |
negative
|
'Tycus' is almost as bad as a science fiction film can go.<br /><br />I can hardly find something good to say about this film. The premises are completely wrong. A comet is supposed to hit the Moon and cause catastrophic damage to Earth, but nobody believes the scientist who predicts this.A whole underground city plus a launching pad for nuclear armed rockets is build in the California mountains without anybody noticing. When the comet nears Earth the news make it to the TV and newspapers hardly a day before the event. And so on, and so on ...<br /><br />Neither does any kind of emotion make it to the screen. Is the genius who discovers the comet and builds the underground city a savior of humanity or a beast? The director or Dennis Hooper who is playing the role did not seem to decide until the film was done, and actually it does not make any difference because acting and directing is so confusing that you end by wondering what does this film try to say. The special effects are so cheap that not only that they cannot be convincing in the era of computer effects, but they could not have been convincing even in the 50s, four decades before this film was made.<br /><br />A total waste of time.
| 0 |
negative
|
This critique tells the story of 4 little friends who went to watch Angels and Demons the movie on the first night it came out, even though it was a school night, because "Angels and Demons is worth it." Two of the four had read the book. Of those that didn't, a guy, was wearing pink skinny jeans. This was the least eventful part of the evening after watching the abhorrent Angels and Demons.<br /><br />The movie starts out in a lab where the antimatter is being created while another process is going on. And apparently someone knows about it or something. Notice how very confused I am.. I don't get what happened: they were just making the antimatter. Vittoria finds her own father dead... WHAT? The Illuminati symbol sent to Langdon is a PRINTOUT, not a burn on someone's chest. They take out the X-33 scene. They take out Maxmillian Kohler. They, pretty much, take out CERN and the symbology connected to it. They take out the Hassasin and replace him with some religious, British dude. They take out the Illuminati Diamond. They take out Vittoria's near-rape scene. They take out Langond's fight with the Hassasin (now British dude on crack). They take out the press dude following them around. They take out the death of the fourth cardinal. They take out the fact that the Camerlengo becomes pope. They take out the Camerlengo's grand scheme. They take out Langdon's being in the helicopter and landing on that island toward the end. They take out the fact that Vittoria's father was a scientific priest. They take out Langdon's fun and most unfortunately, they take out Vittoria's sexual appeal.<br /><br />Other than the movie COMPLETELY losing focus of the details, the movie is acted HORRIBLY. One must admit, though, there were some good things. For example, the Sistine Chapel recreation must have been extremely difficult and it was extremely well done. The explosion scene was MIND-BLOWING. Other than that, SCREW THIS MOVIE FOR RUINING THE BOOK FOR THE PEOPLE WHO DIDN'T READ IT.
| 0 |
negative
|
I need help identifying an episode of King of Queens. It begins with a scene where Doug is talking to Carrie on the phone, and he suggests that they agree to stop ending every conversation with "I love you." However, it's hard to do and he ends up calling her back, only to close with "I love you." It's a very clever moment and one I think says a lot about relationships that have lasted a long time.<br /><br />I THINK (but I'm sure) that's it's the same episode where Doug gets some local construction guys to whistle and throw lurid comments at Carrie to perk her spirits up.<br /><br />I saw this episode recently, but it was probably a repeat. Don't know what network I saw it on. Can anyone tell me the title and season of this episode?
| 1 |
positive
|
If "Love Me Tonight" is "the musical for people who don't like musicals", it has to be said that "The Gay Desperado" is definitely not a musical for people who don't like opera. In fact -- despite apparently being based on a comic operetta -- it is not really a musical at all but a spoof bandit story with interpolated unrelated arias to show off the voice of one character; and what a voice it is.<br /><br />Nino Martini, as the young singer Chivo who joins the bandit troop to get a spot on the radio (no, the plot doesn't make a lot more sense later on either...), has a glorious golden tenor whose style hasn't dated a day since the era when it was recorded. The trillings and warblings of some of his musical contemporaries belong to a bygone fashion, but it's very easy to picture Chivo belting out "Nessun Dorma" to a World Cup crowd and topping the charts in the process. Unfortunately, while he has an engaging grin and a decent dramatic range, he is completely incapable of acting and singing at the same time. The result is that the otherwise rapid-paced film grinds to a shuddering halt every time Chivo lays his hand on his breast and starts to declaim, and the viewer's tolerance of the result is likely to depend on his appreciation of operatic performance.<br /><br />Aside from this drawback, the film is an enjoyable broad-brush satire on Hollywood conventions and the Mexican bandit stereotype in particular, which achieves the vital goal of all such spoofs in making its characters engaging enough in their own right to hold the viewer's interest when the joke would otherwise have grown stale. The bandit chief and his sidekick have the traditional double-act relationship, there is an enigmatic peon with a carved-teak face, and a spirited heroine (a young Ida Lupino) who performs the generic "you say you hate me but you love me really" routine with a refreshing twist.<br /><br />Overall the film is entertaining and pretty funny, and I feel I did get my money's-worth -- but it can't be denied that the musical interludes, while admirable in their own way, introduce severe pacing problems.
| 1 |
positive
|
I was truly looking forward to this title. It sounded and looked fun. The idea of someone making a cheesy 50s monster movie could have been worth a few laughs, but instead this title only bores. First off, there is almost no Froggg in the entire movie which is the biggest disappointment. I have to sit through 75+ minutes of lame drama and dialog to get a few glimpses of the Froggg humping a bare breasted chick. Why? On top of that the film lacks any sort of fun plot. I mean give me something thats a bit more interesting than just a bunch of talking heads. I wanted to see some hot chicks search for the creature in the swamp, I wanted to see some cuties dragged off to his lair in desperate need of rescue (Creature from the Black Lagoon stuff), I wanted to see a few goofy action scenes of the Froggg going on a killing spree, or it maybe escaping a silly trap. Something exciting! Geez, have fun with it, be creative! Who wants to sit through endless and tiring dialog scenes in a creature flick? My advice to the filmmakers: Keep going, your concepts are good, but your execution needs to be a lot more inspired. Have some fun with the creature, put the humor in the action and most important...put more creature in a creature movie!!!
| 0 |
negative
|
This is classic 80's humor. If you were a teen in the 80's this was a summer hit to go see. It was a early look at those now super stars. This and Better off Dead just are fun and silly movies to sit back and enjoy. Everyone can admit they had a crazy summer when they were a teenager. Even crazy family and friends like these characters. To be introduced to some of these characters was so much fun. The uncle who is crazy sitting every waking moment at a radio waiting to win a million dollars, the grandmother who only likes the granddaughter and handed a bill to the kids after dinner, the twin brothers who look nothing alike, and to meet hoopz was so much fun. This may not of won an award but it is just a fun movie to get lost in one afternoon.
| 1 |
positive
|
Well, how to make a movie as provocative as possible? This cartoonishly straight shocker tries by having two low-life Paris women (one prostitute, one recently raped ex-porn actress, no less) lash out and go on a national sex-and-killing spree- of men in particular. <br /><br />Very short running time gives you a hint of the experimental nature of this violently hardcore "Thelma & Louise"- but it's done completely without irony or contemplation for any possible feminist message... And since we don't get very close to the protagonists, the violence actually feels muted and numbing- and maybe that's a good thing. <br /><br />As a liberal advocate of freedom of expression, I always welcome when the "serious" movie industry dares to contain full-on sex scenes. But the question is: Does it work for the movie as a whole? Is it any good? Here, not very, although we're given a new meaning to the phrase "a shot in the ass"! <br /><br />3 out of 10 from Ozjeppe
| 0 |
negative
|
This movie makes "Glitter" look like "Schindler's List." Tarantino and the Weinsteins really need to consider more carefully before putting their names on a product. Green-lighting a P.O.S. like this, regardless of the friendships involved, is just bad business. Larry Bishop needs to be kept away from a movie camera at all costs. Writer/director/producer/actor Bishop shows that his skills are inadequate for any of those jobs. A vanity project gone south, "Hell Ride" allows usually good actors to chew the scenery... at least when the camera isn't centered on Bishop's feeble attempts to steal every scene he's in. (Which is virtually EVERY SCENE!) My final three words on "Hell Ride" are STINK, STANK, STUNK.
| 0 |
negative
|
I was also disappointed with this movie. For starters, the things that happen to him don't seem too terrible to me (Sorry male chauvinist PoV). As is pointedly said by one of the lady captors: "Most men would _pay_ to be in your position". To which he replies "But this is not _my_ choice". OK, OK, fair point, so how bad was it really? Please let us know. But now the kicker: He does not let _anyone_ know, until after the movie-end (unseen). Not his girlfriend, not is mentor, not the police, not anyone. In stead, he comes up with the brilliant plan of f*ck*ng every girl he knows, so he may recognize the tattoo (or something) of one of his captors. I thought he'd just had enough unpleasant sex during the 12 days of his captivity? Isn't it time to take a little break from all that? For me, his, to put it mildly, ill advised actions broke the "suspension of disbelief" of the movie. I took out a book while watching the last half hour out of the corner of my eye.
| 0 |
negative
|
Written by science fiction veterans Gerry and Sylvia Anderson. This space fantasy is aptly directed by Robert Parrish. Experienced American astronaut Colonel Glenn Ross(Roy Thinnes)agrees to a manned flight to the far side of the sun. The mission is to be controlled by Jason Webb(Patrick Wymark)and his Euro Sec Space Agency scientist John Kane(Ian Hendry)will accompany Ross. The two will explore a newly discovered planet that is in the same identical orbit as Earth...except it is always hidden on the other side of the sun. Ross is the only one to make it back to earth and has a very incredible story to tell. Special effects may be better than the story line. Nonetheless fun to watch. The cast also includes: Lynn Loring, Loni von Friedl, George Sewell and Herbert Lom.
| 1 |
positive
|
"The belief in the Big Other as an invisible power structure which exists in the Real is the most succinct definition of paranoia." Slavoj Zizek <br /><br />This is a review of "Marathon Man" and "The Falcon and the Snowman", two films by director John Schlesinger.<br /><br />Though Hitchcock and Lang brought the "conspiracy thriller" to Hollywood, the genre only blossomed in the late 60s and 70s, with films like "The Parallax View", "Z", "Marathon Man", "Capricorn One", "The Manchurian Candidate", "Three Days of the Condor" and "All The President's Men". This was the age of Vietnam and Watergate, the public deeply suspicious of all political leaders.<br /><br />The genre remained quiet in the 80s and early 90s, until the "X Files" TV series sprung to life. With taglines such as "The Truth Is Out There" and "Trust No One", the series posited a world of vast conspiracies and government plots, the common man at the mercy of all manners of ridiculously elaborate schemes. The only way out of the maze? "Fight the future!" as the tagline of the series' final season proclaimed. It was apparently our duty to trawl through the labyrinth of information, discovering some elusive "truth" that ensured our own freedom.<br /><br />This trend ended with the boom of the internet, conspiracy thrillers now giving way to "conspiracy documentaries". The internet generation lapped up such independent documentaries as "Loose Change" and "Zeitgeist", whilst in the mainstream Michael Moore titillated his audience with stuff like "Fahrenheit 9/11". All these documentaries believed in a "secret order", a cabal of wealthy politicians and businessmen who conspire to reduce human rights and enslave the world. They struggle to create a mono-myth, linking various conspiracies and hidden agendas into a single, all encompassing narrative that explains the purpose and point and future of everything.<br /><br />This need to "streamline narratives", to make them more "efficient", is reflected in the scientific community, who battle to create a "Grand Unification Theory" and ultimately a "Theory of Everything", merging everything from Quantum Mechanics to Special Relativity into one giant all encompassing formula.<br /><br />So ultimately, the "conspiracy thriller" is rooted in man's desire to have control. The modern subject is one who displays outright cynicism towards official institutions, yet at the same time believes in the existence of conspiracies (an unseen Other pulling the strings). This apparently contradictory coupling of cynicism and belief is strictly related to the demise of the big Other. Its disappearance causes us to construct an Other of the Other (conspiracy) in order to escape the unbearable freedom its loss causes. Conversely, there is no need to take the Big Other seriously if we believe in an Other of the Other. We're therefore allowed to display cynicism and belief in equal measures. <br /><br />Man thus seeks to assert control over a wayward universe, to create a kind of paternal babysitter (be it God, a mathematical formula, a conspiracy theory, an explanation for violence/conspiracies/murder/war etc) who provides meaning and symbolic order. The Big Other provides reassurances to the believer. It's a "lifestyle choice", akin to religion, in which his place in the world is dependent on sheer irrationality. <br /><br />The problem with most "conspiracy thrillers", from the innocent days of Hitchcock's "Topaz" all the way up to modern fare like "The Da Vinci Code", are two fold. Firstly, they are not incorrect in suggesting that something is "wrong" amongst the "elite" or "best people", but they are incorrect in individualizing and personalizing processes that are social, collective and systemic, an approach which implies that it is just a question of personal morality rather than social structures. Secondly, and most importantly, these "conspiracies" ignore the fact that the Big Other simply doesn't exist. There is no symbolic order pulling the strings.<br /><br />Some modern "conspiracy thrillers" ("Eyes Wide Shut", "Existenz" etc) acknowledge this, with their untangleable webs of lies, accidents, truths and half truths, nothing ever adding up, nothing ever making sense, the real and the hyperreal, the truth and the desire, all blurred, without any identifiable ground zero, but these are mostly films by intellectual directors.<br /><br />Compared to these modern "conspiracy thrillers", "Marathon Man" and "The Falcon and the Snowman" are positively archaic. "Marathon Man" is a about a grad student (Dustin Hoffman) who gets embroiled in his big brother's business (Roy Scheider), which unfortunately has to do with spies, guns, double agents, diamonds and evil Nazi dentists. Scheider is suave, Hoffman is excellent and Schlesinger hits us with some neat visuals (the reveal of the Eiffel tower is stunning), but what's most interesting about the film is the way that its various plot lines don't intersect until the 1 hour mark. Even then, it takes a further half hour for things to start making sense. Unfortunately, the film ends with a clichéd showdown between the villain and the good guy, everything neatly resolved and explained.<br /><br />"The Falcon and the Snowman" is a bit more ambitious. Sean Penn and Timothy Hutton play two friends who sell government secrets to the Soviet Union. Hutton works at a civil defence contractor and smuggles information out of his office and into the hands of Penn, a small time drug dealer who has no qualms selling to the KGB. Penn does this strictly for the money, whilst Hutton is disillusioned with the American government (particularly its attempt to depose the leader of Australia) and so sells the secrets strictly because he hates how his country conducts crimes and games of espionage. In other words, the film is about a conspiracy undertaken as a response to conspiracies.<br /><br />"Marathon Man" 7.9/10 <br /><br />"The Falcon and the Snowman" 8/10 <br /><br />Aside from an oddly slapstick car crash and its clichéd ending, "Marathon Man" is an effective thriller, with several neat scenes. "The Falcon and the Snowman" is even better, Penn turning in a memorable performance.
| 1 |
positive
|
I went to see this film last night at the National Film Theatre in London, as a birthday treat. It was the the first time I've seen it, and I think it has now overtaken the dreadful "Twister" as the worst film I have ever seen. Disjointed for no reason, self indulgent and full of imagery that oscillates from the crass and obvious to the obscure and unintelligible, not particularly beautifully or grimily shot, I really don't understand why this is considered classic, gay or otherwise. I normally enjoy films that push boundaries or even films that are hard to watch because of their length or unusual cinematography. But this was truly, truly awful.
| 0 |
negative
|
If you can make it through this flick without laughing out loud at the screen, you are a better filmgoer than I.<br /><br />Count the logic lapses, common-sense leaps, and credibility stretches... betcha need more than two hands!<br /><br />P.S.: If one more film uses a location that is clearly UCLA, and claims that it is a different university (in this movie's case: Berkeley), I'm going to lose it.
| 0 |
negative
|
The songs are fantastic and the story-line is good. Like many other acting schools, mine also produced HAIR. For most hair production it's a golden opportunity to do nude, but my production was fully dressed... I don't think full frontal nudity in a movie or a play guarantees artistic quality... And so did the creators of the movie. The movie version is great with classic hits following each other while letting the plot develop to the chilling climax. A great cast of actors, dancers and singers.
| 1 |
positive
|
As far as fake documentaries go (fakumentaries anyone?), this one is up there with the best! It looks very real and that is what it aims for. In recent light of events (Guantanamo) this movie is even scarier, so you could say it was ahead of it's time, when it was released in the 70s! <br /><br />One can only hope that a government like that doesn't exist! Looking for terrorists and interviewing people just like that? Of course the people interviewed all seemed to have the same (70s mentality): Screw the politicians and politics in general. Maybe that wasn't so clever one might think ... but hey, don't forget: It's only a movie! ;o)
| 1 |
positive
|
This game is one of the best horror/shooter games I've ever played. The plot is a little choppy, but the game never fails to send you plenty of chills and excitement. Many people shelved the game when they found that there are no cheat codes for it and very little health potions and ammo to be found. But actually, after you've gone through the game once, you are more familiar with the monsters and different rooms, so you can easily get by the second time around. The puzzles are great, not too hard, not too easy. There are tons of different monsters so you never get bored. And there are plenty of gaming areas. You really feel like you're in a good Stephen King novel as you play. It's nice and creepy. Pick this game up cheap and have some fun.
| 1 |
positive
|
I saw this movie when it aired on the WB and fell in love with Riley Smith immediately. I would recommend the movie to people of all ages who just feel like being entertained and not much more. I wish they'd air it again or cast Riley Smith in another movie!
| 1 |
positive
|
Well, that's what this should have been called, anyway. Mainly, due the the ridiculous, ham-fisted use of what can barely be called symbolism by the director. It would not have surprised me to find out that this was A) One of Lea Pool's earliest efforts, and B) at least semi-autobiographical. Turns out A is wrong, although I don;t know about B. I will bet she attended boarding school, though, and had a rather terrible same-sex relationship of SOME kind. This is the message that was beat down our throats by this film, and the short film which preceded it, the name of which I no longer recall.<br /><br />At any rate, the character development was clumsy (Who introduces herself by saying what her name means? Nobody.) the symbols were about as subtle as an all-glass elevator full of teen-age girls losing a cable and plummeting eighty stories. All over a loudspeaker. Honestly, the cry of a falcon when Perabo declared she was a raptor and leapt off the table? That was ridiculous to the point of parody. And it was only one of far too many symbols meant to show even the dumbest of viewers what her point was. And that was that she had a crappy childhood and feels the need to make movies about it, ala Vincent Gallo, instead of seeing a therapist, ala all of us who get on with our lives. There was nothing tender, nothing sweet, and nothing moving about this film. It was poorly enacted trash, and the actors could not save the Brett Ratneresque over the top "HEY THIS IS MY POINT IN THIS MOVIE" use of film techniques, writing, and acting. Sorry, but it was terrible.
| 0 |
negative
|
While sleeping, Mr. Eko is assigned by his brother Yemi (Adetokumboh McCormack) in a dream to go with John Locke to disclose the meaning of the "?" symbol. With the pretext of chasing Henry, Mr. Eko brings John with him and they find a second hatch called "Pearl" underground the question mark symbol marked on the field, where a video explains that the other hatch is a psychological experiment and people behavior pressing the buttons of the computer every 108 minutes are actually subjects. Meanwhile, Jack unsuccessfully tries to save Libby.<br /><br />In this episode, John Locke loses his faith in the island when he finds that they have been monitored in the hatch. The disgusting Michael sees the anguishing Libby wishing that she was dead, while Hurley, Jack, Kate and Sawyer are suffering her pain, in a deep emotional contrast. My vote is eight.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): Not Available
| 1 |
positive
|
"The Honkers" is probably Slim Pickens best performance of all time. When we were shooting, everyone connected with the production figured that Slim was Academy Award material. Unfortunately, United Artists had a James Bond picture in release at the same time and did not devote much attention to "The Honkers". I personally feel this film was under-rated by most critics. Sam Peckinpaw's "Junior Bonner" was out at the same time and seemed to impress the critics more than our film. Also, Cliff Robertson had a rodeo film out a few months before our release and that might have hurt us, too. The picture is worth watching, if just for the rodeo footage--some of the best ever filmed--shot by James Crabbe. The director and my co-writer, Steve Ianat, died a few weeks after the picture's release, cutting short a promising career and leaving behind his lovely wife Sally, his daughter, Gaby, and newborn son, Stefan. Please give this movie a shot. I'm betting that you'll say it was well worth while. I thank anyone who has taken the time to read this. Stephen Lodge
| 1 |
positive
|
i have rated this movie a 1/10 and have done this in good nature. this movie is not as it seems and i don;t get the point of it. take the first joke for instance. Their's that sign at the beginning to start. well that was OK but then they start having some guy talking about the hood and then he dies then theirs the other guys who talks then he dies after the other guy says people don;t get to their birthday with out dieing. and he gets a cake now. then he dies. <br /><br />The jokes are just stupid they are;t that smart and i would have thought they would have been better from some one like the directors of scary movie:<br /><br />Shawn Wayans (written by) & Marlon Wayans (written by) & Phil Beauman (written by)<br /><br />but it sucked and i hop next time they want to make another comedy they make some good jokes not lame ones.
| 0 |
negative
|
Delightful! It never pretends to be a masterpiece, but it's a mini-gem of late seventies British comedy. Given that the producers wanted to sell it abroad, it stars an American (the late character actor Richard Jordan), but at least he isn't the usual dull Hollywood hunk type. Surrounding him is the cream of British character acting talent, led by a wonderfully waspish and superior David Niven.<br /><br />Niven's Ivan the Terrible naturally gets the best one liners and all the best reaction shots. He also manages to be surprisingly menacing and intimidatingly dangerous. The moment in the snooker club when he drops the charming facade and threatens Richard Jordan will come as a shock to those viewers who think of Niven as being only a light drawing room comedy star. He is filled with genuine power and ruthlessness as we see all at once how Ivan earned his nickname. All the more surprising given how ill Niven was at the time. Shortly after filming this production he lost his powers of speech to Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (known as Lou Gehrig's disease). This is the last picture Niven made where you can hear his own voice, being dubbed thereafter by the comic impressionist Sid Caesar.<br /><br />Alongside him you can spot numerous familiar faces from seventies cinema and television. Elke Sommer (flashing her breasts in true seventies era politically incorrect bimbo mode), Oliver Tobias, Michael Angelis, Brian Croucher, Davy Kaye etc, etc. Davy Kaye gets one of the biggest laughs as he holds up a security guard caught making a phone call. "Who you ringing?!....Bloody Dial-A-Disc! You gormless git!" <br /><br />Great shots of London street locations; making the film a period patina time capsule of red phone boxes with chunky round-dial manual handsets, black cabs driven by "Cor blimey, gov!" cockneys, and ladies and gents modelling all manner of deeply dodgy late seventies retro leisure wear and hair styles. <br /><br />Unlike the classic Ealing comedies of an earlier era, the 'hero' is allowed to get away with his crime and escape to a life in the sun. How times had changed! The morality code by which crooks in films always had to be seen to be punished had long gone by the seventies, with anti-heroes like Pinky Green earning status through their cheeky anti-authoritarianism and determination to 'cock a snook' at a stuffy capitalist establishment of be-suited fat cat businessmen. We are encouraged to cheer as Pinky makes off, unpunished and free as a bird with his ill gotten gains. Compare that to the ending of The Lavender Hill Mob!<br /><br />Highly entertaining, quaintly dated in its fashions and attitudes, and the stuff of late night cult viewing. Perfect to watch at midnight after the pubs have shut; if you're of a certain age, are feeling a touch nostalgic, and have always wanted to see David Niven in a branch of McDonalds, silently intimidating an American via the use of a retractable telescope!
| 1 |
positive
|
This is my fourth review of a Charlie Chan movie in series chronological order on these consecutive days. This is also my first comment of one I've seen previously though it's been about 24 years since then, so I didn't remember much of it. In this one, the Honolulu detective is investigating an espionage ring that was initially tracked by a former Scotland Yard acquaintance who has turned up missing in the Big Apple...This is the best of the Chan entries I've seen so far in current memory with every clue being connected (though, of course, if I look at them at closer examination, there could still be some holes though I can't think of any right now). And "No. 2 Son" Jimmy (Victor Sen Yung) is somewhat of a help when he first identifies the poison that results in some murders early on, though, of course, he blunders a little later. Among the returning supporting cast from the last Chan film-Charlie Chan at the Wax Museum-are blonde Joan Valerie as June Preston and Stanley Blystone, who's brother John G. helmed a lost Chan one called Charlie Chan's Chance, as a fingerprint expert. Nice intrigue especially with an exciting climax aboard a bomber plane. Oh, and watch for a certain Stooge at a police line up...
| 1 |
positive
|
Well, I've just seen Buster Keaton's film debut in Fatty Arbuckle's The Butcher Boy and-despite the crude way everything just seems to happen for almost no logical reason-I found plenty to laugh at. Like when Buster orders molasses from butcher boy Fatty, Fatty makes Buster come back to pay, Buster says he put it in the bucket that has the molasses, Fatty dumps molasses in Buster's hat and takes money, Buster takes hat back on head as it gets stuck, Fatty attempts to remove it while molasses fall to floor, Buster's feet are now stuck on floor and so on. That probably didn't read funny but on screen it was hilarious as were some more slapstick involving flour being thrown and a later sequence that takes place in Fatty's girlfriend's boarding school with Fatty dressed in drag and Buster helping Fatty's rival also in drag. Like I said, many scenes don't make a lick of sense but the visuals, especially those involving Arbuckle and Keaton, are laugh inducing even today. Recommended viewing for Keaton completists.
| 1 |
positive
|
This was a very gritty movie about anti-semitism. However, unlike GENTLEMEN'S AGREEMENT (that also deals with anti-semitism), the movie has aged well and doesn't seem heavy-handed. In other words, it deals with the topic without seeming preachy or trite by today's standards.<br /><br />Robert Ryan plays one of the most vile characters, as he beats a guy to death just because he's Jewish. Robert Mitchum plays the investigator trying to get to the bottom of this crime.<br /><br />I give the movie kudos for its gritty and unflinching look at hate. It is in many ways an example of Film Noir--even though the topic isn't about the usual gangsters or robbery.
| 1 |
positive
|
This is a pale imitation of the Die Hard franchise that just sucks. The low ambitions of the movie are clearly on display when the terrorists hold the Vice-President hostage and he has to call the White House to beg them to transfer some money. In most movies of this genre the President is kidnapped or held hostage because after all he (or she) is the most powerful person in the country with finger on the nuclear button etc etc. Would most Americans have really been worried if Dick Cheney had been kidnapped? The honest answer is- probably not. Why the terrorists would choose a Stanley Cup final to carry out their operation and why, despite many explosions around them, the audience inside the hockey stadium is oblivious to the situation, are unanswerable questions. Let's just say this film is really hokey, not hockey. Those who liked the film and found it to be exciting should get a life.
| 0 |
negative
|
No redeeming features, this film is rubbish. Its jokes don't begin to be funny. The humour for children is pathetic, and the attempts to appeal to adults just add a tacky smuttishness to the whole miserable package. Sitting through it with my children just made me uncomfortable about what might be coming next. I couldn't enjoy the film at all. Although my child for whom the DVD was bought enjoyed the fact that she owned a new DVD, neither she nor her sisters expressed much interest in seeing it again, unlike with Monsters inc, Finding Nemo, Jungle Book, Lion King, etc. which all get frequent requests for replays.
| 0 |
negative
|
John Leguizamo must have been insane if he thinks this was a funny movie. I laughed more times watching Remains of the Day. Pathetic plot, unbearable acting. Horrible music -- Michael Sambello IS a "Maniac."
| 0 |
negative
|
I first saw this film when released in 1980. From other sources, I've learnt that the only release of the 219-minute cut was in New York City, after which it was severely cut to 149 minutes. So, I guess I saw the shorter version first which, at the time, I thought, was a very interesting anti-Western, if a trifle confusing...<br /><br />So, it was with even more interest that I finally obtained a DVD of the full-length version. I'm glad I did because this second viewing has confirmed for me that the movie is a true classic, and the critical vitriol poured on Michael Cimino was unwarranted, to say the very least.<br /><br />Yes, it's a long movie, but so have been many others. For example: Once upon a time in America (1984) at 227 minutes; Cleopatra (1963) at 320 minutes; The Ten Commandments (1956) at 220 minutes; Spartacus {restored version} (1960) at 198 minutes; Gone with the Wind (1939) at 222 minutes and others. So, it can't be the fact of running time that made so many froth at the mouth way back, when Heaven's Gate came on the scene.<br /><br />But note this: all of those above movies have everything to do with reinforcing myths about history and heroes.<br /><br />Not so Heaven's Gate: in this narrative, the American West is shown in all its grim and unrelenting harshness, injustice, and poverty. And that's probably the first reason why so many disliked this film: it laid out the circumstances of the Johnson County War of 1892 in Wyoming, showing how the Wyoming Stock Growers Association hired 50 assassins to hunt down and murder a large group of European immigrants accused of cattle rustling; and all with the assistance and conniving of authorities, right up to the President of the United States. For an essay on that war, with the background and what happened, there is a link at Wikipedia under Johnson County War.<br /><br />Very few like to be reminded of the really dirty periods in their country's history, and which fly in the face of what the country is supposed to be. Had it been a documentary, it would have been barely palatable for most; as entertainment, it was almost bound to fail commercially and be torn to shreds by the shrill and infamous.<br /><br />Leaving aside the socio-political diatribe, for a moment, that Cimino launched herein, what about the narrative the story of the three main characters? Well, it probably wasn't unusual for men of that time to fall for a local prostitute, just as it's probably not unusual now. It's a fairly standard love triangle whereby Ella must choose between the two men, and ultimately decides upon the younger man, Nathan, who, although not above resorting to cold-blooded murder when it suits him, shows more spirit and commitment than the older James (or Jim, as most people in the film say). For some, that part of the story threads too slowly, perhaps; in the context of the wider narrative about the war, however, it is, I think, entirely appropriate.<br /><br />And that war is depicted graphically, viciously and cruelly with scenes of carnage that are exquisitely staged and edited flawlessly although in the final massacre between the Association and the immigrants, I'm certain that some scenes of wagons blowing apart are repeated. A minor point and perhaps brought about when the 219-minute cut was restored? Any way you look at it, though, it hits you in the face with the noise, dust, chaos and confusion of war...<br /><br />Which brings me to another criticism by others: the noise and dust is such that it's often difficult to hear the dialog and even see clearly what is happening. I'll admit that I found that to be a trifle annoying at first, even backtracking to replay parts to try to catch the image or the words until I realized that really wasn't necessary if you accept the director's intent: life is chaotic, it is difficult to hear and see in crowded situations and, in war, it's the sine qua non of this mise-en-scene. In short, it's as though you truly are present in and within the scenes...<br /><br />And what of the title? From Shakespeare, it refers to a figurative nearness to God and so, if you equate God with the natural world, the stunning scenery that pervades the movie and it is stunning, hauntingly equal to that of David Lean's Doctor Zhivago (1965) is a useful metaphor. I tend to think, however, that Cimino had something more to say, namely the idea that the brave immigrants the God-fearing salt of the earth were denied entry to heaven on earth and the freedom to build a life for themselves in the land that espouses to be freedom's champion.<br /><br />Was that Cimino's intent to gut the myth of the American West? To show how, in America, only the rich get rich while the poor are massacred, one way or another, throughout history? Is that anything new? Not really, as we all know. Where it really hurt, however, is in showing how America was not and, by implication, is not the land of the free and the home of the brave. Instead, after absorbing this narrative, we are left with an impression that the underpinnings of America have more to do with a land of dispossessed slaves and a home for knaves...
| 1 |
positive
|
This is one of the worst movie I have ever seen. It's a thriller with a rather ridiculous ending. I watched this movie hoping for the best and instead found something truly bad. the movie starred two actors that I like very much, Rebecca DeMornay and Antonio Banderas. Sure they had decent chemistry together but for what? The movie's premise was bad to begin with and the execution just made it even worst.<br /><br />Miss DeMornay plays Sarah Taylor, a psychologist trying to analyze a convicted serial killer whose defense hinge on multiple personality disorder. That pretty much will give you a hint to where the movie is going and the identity of the killer. Early in the movie she gets an unexpected visit from her father. This being made in the 1990's when the bad daddy was the in thing in Hollywood is another clue to the ultimate conclusion.<br /><br />Mr. Banderas plays a mystery man named Tony Ramirez, who comes into Sarah's life. The whole first meeting and first encounter between Tony and Sarah is so badly done and so unconvincing it makes you wonder how it even got shot. And there's a sequence where the two of them are supposed to be knowing each other that is so sappy it doesn't seem to belong here. One thing that I would admit was that there was a sex scene that's very hot. Anyway creepy things start to happen after he arrives, weird packages arriving, things falling off the wall that could kill Sarah, incident that say things aren't normal anymore. <br /><br />Overall the movie was badly conceived, the editing at times seem jumpy, and the conclusion was laughable. Another thing that bugged me about this movie was the whole Orchestral music playing in the background. A more subtle musical score would have been better. I have to say this, no matter how bad the ending was, Miss DeMornay was very good in that sequence. It's sad that she never got first rate materials in her career. She's that rare combination of talent and beauty.
| 0 |
negative
|
(May contain spoilers) This movie is the epitome of weirdness. I rented it hoping for a film so bad it would be funny. However, I still honestly can't decide if this film was intended to be scary or humorous. It combines the emotions in a rather disturbing way. Apparently this is trying to be clever but in actual fact it isn't. For instance, when the knife comes out and tries to kill the teacher, it starts playing happy music. When we go to Toxico, we have up-beat, quasi-Mr. Roger's Neighborhood music. However, when the little kid's dreaming of falling in "blood" and when he finds the leg, these are clearly intended to be tense. So, watch this film, and decide for yourself. It is too weird to be described in words and for that I say, kudos.<br /><br />"Nose-dive... WOW!"
| 0 |
negative
|
Eager electronics whiz Brian Foster (a likable performance by Wesley Eure of TV's "Land of the Lost") creates a computerized watchdog called C.H.O.M.P.S. (an acronym for Canine Home Protection System) for his boss Mr. Ralph Norton (nicely played by Conrad Baain), whose home security business is floundering. A rival company hires a pair of inept criminals to get their grubby hands on C.H.O.M.P.S.; said task proves to be easier said than done. Director Don Chaffey relates the endearingly dopey story at a constant brisk pace, maintains an amiably silly and lighthearted tone throughout, and stages the goofy slapstick gags with considerable flair. Moreover, the game cast mug it up with infectious aplomb: the adorable Valerie Bertinelli as Brian's sweet fiancé Casey Norton, Chuck McCann as klutzy crook Brooks, Red Buttons as McCann's equally bumbling partner Bracken, Jim Backus as evil CEO Mr. Gibbs, Hermoine Baddeley as nice old biddy Ms. Foster, and 60's AIP exploitation feature regular Larry Bishop as smarmy, duplicitous suit Ken Sharp. Best of all, the titular pooch is a cuddly delight: C.H.O.M.P.S. jumps through fences, walls and windows with amazing agility, performs acts of exceptional strength, runs faster than a deer, and even does a few nifty martial arts moves. A subplot about a hulking neighborhood hound named Monster supplies a few extra belly laughs (Monster is voiced by some uncredited guy with an appropriately deep, growly voice). The groovy animated opening credits sequence, Charles F. Wheeler's glossy cinematography, and Hoyt Curtin's funky, pulsating disco score are all solid as well. A cute little kiddie flick.
| 1 |
positive
|
Fantastic series, one of my few favorites (Miami Vice and Tour of Duty are the other two, and this series is right up there with them).<br /><br />These guys aren't into wearing frilly tights - they dress more like woodsmen. Everything about this series breathes an aire of realism, artistic license or not.<br /><br />It paints a picture of a Europe only slightly out of the grasp of paganism, as most of the villagers still have their local deities, and there are Satan worshipping nuns, and magi, witches and sorcerers casting spells.<br /><br />However, what comes to the fore most, is that it's a series of it's time. Rather than the version of the fifties, which was a lament against centralized government and the McCarthy era persecutions, this series is thoroughly grounded in the 1980s, Thatcherist bleakness, and has a strong environmentalist leaning. Robin's protector is a nature worshipper called Hern The Hunter, who often appears wearing the head of a deer, and is a personification (as is this Robin) of The Green Man, an alternative version of Osiris (the Egyptian god of vegetation and resurrection - it is interesting to note that in these series, Robin In The Hood isn't a person, but a concept; when the old one is killed, a new one is summoned telepathically by Hern - the person may die, but Robin In The Hood will live forever, hence the concept of resurrection).<br /><br />The music and score are really outstanding, and performed by the Irish formation, Clannad. When watching it, I couldn't help but think how _boring_ authentic medieval Anglosaxon folk music would have been. :-)<br /><br />All this is beautifully shot in the lush forrests of Wales, which pass for The New Forrest.<br /><br />The only down side is that in the initial episodes of both series, the actors have to overcome their own skepsis, and convince themselves that this really is a serious work. After that, they get into it and the acting is great! Michael Praed as the first Robin (the second is played by Sean Connery's son, Jason), Judi Trott makes a beautiful and fragile redheaded Marion, Phil Rose as the portly and really kind-hearted friar Tuck, Ray Winstone as the volatile and lovelorn Scarlet, Clive Mantle as the giant shepard Little John, Peter Llewellyn Williams as Little John's bumpkin friend and fellow shepard, and Mark Ryan as the ex-Hashashin/Assassin Nazir - all of them giving great performances. Also great are the steady Bad Guys, Nicholas Grace as the bug-eyed, scheming Sheriff of Nottingham, and his aristocratic, bumbling sidekick (and Robin's half brother, as it turns out) Robert Addie as Sir Guy of Gisburne. Really cool too is fashion designer Richard O'Brien, as the evil Lord Owen of Clun's (Olliver Cotton) magician Gulnar (he appears near the end of the first series and later in the second).<br /><br />The Tithe Barn in Bradford on Avon stood in for the Sheriff's castle. (Check it out on bradfordonavon.co.uk under "places of interest".)<br /><br />So, if you're at all into mythology, the Middle Ages, romanticism, don't waste your time on Xena or Hercules - this is the real thing, so go out and watch it!<br /><br />Alex
| 1 |
positive
|
Martino, a young teacher in the island of Elba, has been formed by Maestro Fontanelli, an excellent educator, to be his own man and to say whatever he thinks, something that gets him in trouble at the school where we first meet him because he is teaching revolutionary ideals. The island is in a frenzy because of the arrival of one of the most influential men in European history of the 19th century. Napoleon is coming to his exile, not exactly a high point in his life.<br /><br />With surprise, Martino is chosen to accompany Napoleon who is writing his memoirs and is in need of help for his own project. The young man comes from a sea merchant family. His brother and sister want him to go on an commercial expedition, but Martino has decided his place belongs in Elba because he will try to assassinate Napoleon. Little deters him after his mentor Fontanelli is tried for treason and condemned to be shot by a firing squad.<br /><br />Martino finds his consolation with the much older Baroness Emilia, a beautiful woman. In his own interaction with the deposed emperor, a different kind of man emerges. Napoleon is seen as a more human person who really enjoys the company of Martino, not suspecting with the plans the young man's own plans for him. Unfortunately, Martino is not able to put his design into action because Napoleon has other plans in mind.<br /><br />Paolo Virzi, the director of "Caterina va in citta", shows why his early promise is still there. Mr. Virzi also collaborated with the screenplay, which is based on a novel by Ernesto Ferrero. The director shows he is as good in intimate drama as well as with this type of spectacle. Alessandro Pesci, the cinematographer, does an excellent job with the images he was able to get.<br /><br />Elio Germano, a young Italian actor is the best thing in the movie. He is playing against more experienced players, yet he manages to convince us he is the idealist youth trying to get justice to what he perceives is a noble cause. The great Daniel Auteuil is a more subdued Napoleon than one would expect from anyone's interpretation of this larger than life man. Monica Belucci is the love interest of Martino, but she has little to do. Omero Antonutti plays Fontanelli.
| 1 |
positive
|
In the beginning, with the careful, remote location and sweeking metal sound, I thought of the opening scene in "Once upon a Time in the West". When it gets to the city, then it begins to feels like "Kitchen Stories", or "Drifting Clouds", even possibly "Grimm".<br /><br />Then it turns out that this is more similar to "Joe Versus the Volcano" in theme (not style). And the movie executes from beginning to end the same, understated style. Letting you observe, take in the steel, blue-grayish tone of the suites, dresses, wall color, furniture, bedsheets, mirrors, cars, music, background sounds and even people's expression. Then near the end, there is one shot of a completely different tone - warm orangeish-yellow with soft music and ocean splashing, children and laughter.<br /><br />But maybe the observation is too long for me, I would much rather to see the alternative side or what happens to the character after the ending shot. Still beautifully done.
| 1 |
positive
|
Wow! What a movie if you want to blow your budget on the title and have it look real bad ask the guys that made this movie on how to do that. They could have spent the money on a good rewrite or something else. Or they could have spent it on beer when they made this movie at least it would have come out better.
| 0 |
negative
|
This is the most pitiful excuse for a comedy show I've ever seen. I'm confounded that this guy was given his own show. It smells of complete and utter desperation on the part of comedy central, trying to fill the void left by the talented and incomparable Dave Chapelle. He's a tip from Ned's bag of comedy gold: Is a punchline not funny? Need to give it that extra push into hilarity? F***ING YELL IT AT THE TOP OF YOUR LUNGS. Simple, no? And as an added bonus....finish half your jokes with...THEN YOU'RE RE-TAH-DED!! or DUH-DU-DUUUUHHHH! Oh man. So....funny. Beaner...hilarious. Wetback....does the laughter ever stop?<br /><br />To illustrate my point in a more cerebral way, i'll cite an example. Mencia jokes about how "retarded" it is to rebuild new orleans, because it's so close to the water. Genius. The line of distinction between a great comedian and a hack has never been drawn so clearly. While a good comedian would find hidden humor in the tragedy, finding subtle ways of weaving a joke into something that we can all laugh at and take solace in, Ned goes for the obvious. Move the city. Great. Wait, is that funny? Ned doesn't have the intellectual capacity to find the deepest meaning of things. The hurricane didn't flood the city, ned. The levee project was underfunded and in serious need of federal dollars...and behold! They broke. I guess that's God's way of telling us we shouldn't be there. After all, he's got a seat in congress. What a fool.<br /><br />Chapelle was a master of turning a tired racial comedic spin on its head. He was effortless at it, and at all points, we were laughing with him. While mencia talks about black people not being able to swim *yawn,* Chapelle took it 300 yards further with the black and blind white supremesist. You don't have to be scathing to be edgy. You have to be original. <br /><br />Mencia and his legions of fans are like that closeted gay dude who laughs all too emphatically at gay jokes, thinking it somehow masks his own insecurities. Except of course, with Ned, he's laughing all too emphatically at the "retards." Du-du-duuuuh.
| 0 |
negative
|
One of the greatest crimes made against Sci-fi television was the cancellation of Farscape. One of the most well-written, well-acted and over-all best shows ever to grace the airwaves, it set new standards for Sci-fi television. Once the flagship, highest rated, critically acclaied show of the Sci-Fi Channel, it defies explaination as to why shows like Buffy, Tremors: The Series, and even StarGate: SG-1 have lasted as long as they have. Yes, even Buffy. But I'll save my Buffy bashing for another time. Farscape was poorly treated by the Sci-Fi channel, continually tossed around in scheduling, reruns rarely shown and never really advertised. But while the show has been cancelled, all those involved in the production of the show want to bring the show back (even Henson Company CEO Brian Henson). There is also an extensive fan-based movement to bring the show back . Overall things are looking far from dark, and hopefully, fans will get their season 5.
| 1 |
positive
|
It seems that no matter how many films are made on the subject, there is no shortage of stories that emerge from the Second World War. It stands to reason that a conflict on such a scale as global warfare would capture the imagination of filmmakers everywhere and provide them with ample material on which to base a story. Heading in a different direction than most mainstream movies about the war is Dark Blue World, a film that does not deal with the traditional major battles of the war, does not tell the story of many of its major figures, and does not even focus on soldiers of any of the major allied or axis powers. Dark Blue World instead ventures into the world of refugee soldiers fighting in exile for their occupied nations.<br /><br />The film does a marvelous job of portraying the challenges faced by Czech pilots flying under the British Royal Air Force, expressing the frustration that they felt both at the language barrier between them and the other fliers, but also at being restrained from achieving vengeance against the Germans until being re-trained.<br /><br />Dark Blue World also works quite well outside the arena of the war film as being a story about human relationships. A love triangle develops between the two main characters and an English woman that complicates the teacher-mentor relationship of the two exiled soldiers. This relationship is extremely well acted throughout, developing into almost a father and son relationship at many points.<br /><br />The aerial combat in the film is among some of the best and is also very interesting in exploring the cultural challenges mentioned above as the men struggle to fly their machines, fight the enemy, and relay commands and replies in an unfamiliar language. The tension and struggle of these scenes continues the tension between the men on the ground, just as the tension on the ground continues that felt in the air.<br /><br />This may not be a film for everyone. The hardcore war film buff may find its exploration of relationships a bit off-putting, but it is on the whole an excellent film regardless of the bellicose element or not.
| 1 |
positive
|
It'll be a blue Christmas indeed if you subject you're family to this. I loved the original movie, and this one was not worthy of being its sequel. Actually, for all intents and purposes, it is not its sequel. Only one character from the original cast returns. Granted, that character happened to be the hilarious cousin Eddie, but he simply is not hilarious being the protagonist of a movie. His niche is that of the wacky relative who performs zany antics--alongside Chevy Chase. Chevy Chase was needed in this film for it to be a success, and he definitely was not there. As far as I am concerned, a movie is not a "Vacation" movie unless good ole' Clark Griswold is at the helm.
| 0 |
negative
|
When I was younger, and today, Mr. Bean is a work of genius. Three-time BAFTA nominated Rowan Atkinson stars as the almost silent (miming) human looking alien dropped onto Earth causing chaos and mischief wherever he goes. He has tried to do an exam, put his pants on in front of blind man (he didn't know he was blind), gone to church, tried to dive at a swimming pool, made lunch on a park bench, seen a scary movie, changed in his car, had a picnic with a fly intruding, spent Christmas with his girlfriend (Matilda Ziegler), looked after a baby in Portsmouth, been to Room 426 of The Queens Hotel in Portsmouth, won a pet contest with his Teddy, driven on top of his Mini on a new chair, and even met and knocked out the Queen. Guests included Rudolph Walker, Richard Briers, Angus Deayton, Nick Hancock from They Think It's All Over, Caroline Quentin, The Day Today's David Schneider, Richard Wilson, The Fast Show's Eryl Maynard and The Vicar of Dibley's Roger Lloyd-Pack. It was nominated the BAFTAs for Best Comedy (Programme or Series) and Best Light Entertainment Programme. Rowan Atkinson was number 18 on The 50 Greatest British Actors, he was number 24 on The Comedians' Comedian, and he was number 8 on Britain's Favourite Comedian. Outstanding!
| 1 |
positive
|
Roger Corman has enjoyed his shares of cinematic infamy in his illustrious low-budget career, spanning over 300 movies. While few (if any) would call him great, his films' obscure connections to underground culture (via reference, tribute, or influence) have ensured him a warped legacy of sorts. Throughout his career, he has also developed a bad habit of remaking his own films ("Piranha", "Humanoids from the Deep", "The Black Scorpion", etc.), without improving on them in the slightest. "Raptor", "written" and "directed" by "Jay Andrews" (Jim Wynorski, the man behind one of my favorite cinematic guilty pleasures, "Chopping Mall") takes that practice to a disturbing new low regarding Corman's mid-'90s "Carnosaur" trilogy.<br /><br /> Wynorski's credits are in quotes because "Raptor" isn't a tribute to the "Carnosaur" films, and not even a remake. "Raptor" IS the "Carnosaur" films, or at least the film's dinosaur-induced death scenes, haphazardly spliced together with trace elements of the original plot and some newly shot scenes (many of which consist of "dino's eye view" shots in a lame attempt to make the inserted scenes look less obvious). The "new" material was written around the footage, instead of vice versa, and is totally unremarkable, with huge gaps of logic (e.g. two separate teams are sent in by the military simply so footage from parts 2 and 3, where the soldiers had different uniforms, could be included), which is amazing considering how little logic plays into any of the "Carnosaur" films already. The actors' lack of any feeling in their characters (though in fairness, any character dimension is only presented in the script once, maybe twice) brings to mind the terribly wooden acting in 1950's b-films, and it certainly doesn't make anything between the ripped-off attack scenes worth watching. Even more embarrassing for the actors of the new scenes is when there is an obvious discrepancy in the physical build between the new actor and the actor in the original scene. When the only scene evoking any response in a film is the oldest trick in the horror book, the "spring-loaded animal", something is seriously wrong.<br /><br /> As it stands, this is a despicable practice in two b-grade figures (who need not worry about ruining their reputations, because they haven't got one) ripping off their own material, for the cheapest and quickest of dirty tricks, simply because they can (why else would anyone feel possessed to rip off a series meant to be a rip off of the "Jurassic Park" series?). There isn't much more I can say other than that this film carries my very highest recommendations AGAINST viewing; the only good thing about it (besides gazing at Melissa Braselle's navel) is that now I don't have to see any of the "Carnosaur" movies.
| 0 |
negative
|
First off, I'am a horror fan. But this "Tobe Hooper" production (come on, the man from the original Texas Chainsaw and Poltergeist !!) was below standards, even for a fan. The acting was not bad at all, some characters were unbelievable, but the leading ladies were OK. The story was something we've seen a hundred times already, without any surprising twist or whatever. Never exciting or intense, and do not count on any special effects besides blood splashing up. The scary zombie kids are white paled faces with dark eyes and that is it.. That might have worked in the early 70's but not now. Director J.S. Cardone didn't do a good job in keeping the suspense, half way thru there is a risk you will fall asleep. My vote is based primarily on the leading acting, but this could have easily have been called Children Of The Corn 8: From The Corn Fields to the Mines... Enough said..
| 0 |
negative
|
One of Fuller's (a combat veteran himself) early works of average quality, but accurately hits on the many conflicting aspects of life in postwar Germany. The main character starts the movie in Apr'45 as a Sgt with C Co, 157th Inf, 45th Div, which really did end the war in Munich as in the movie. (Same unit in the previous month had fought heavily in Aschaffenburg and then liberated part of the Dachau facility). To the uninformed the movie may seem confusing by flip flopping between showing the good & bad of the german people. But anyone who has been there or at least well read on it would know that most of what is portrayed in the movie are things that really did happen in 45-47 Germany. The only inaccuracy I noticed was minor: while on a boat cruise of the Rhine passing the remains of the Remagen bridge he comments he crossed there. But his unit really crossed well south of there - north of Worms Germany.
| 1 |
positive
|
When "The Net" was first being advertised, the ads made it look ridiculous. Then, when I saw it, it was actually quite good. Angela Bennett (Sandra Bullock) spends her days working on the computer and has never gotten to know her neighbors. Then, through a series of events, her identity gets erased by a cabal of shadowy people, and she can't prove that she exists.<br /><br />Some parts of the movie are a little bit far-fetched; you'd probably know which parts if you saw the movie. Still, it's a good look into what the existence of the Internet may have wrought on unsuspecting people. I do recommend it.
| 1 |
positive
|
Let me depart from many comments I've read here, and say that this film ranks as one of the five best Bonds, along with On Her Majesty's Secret Service, From Russia With Love, Licence To Kill, and For Your Eyes Only (the ONLY time Roger Moore actually played the role of Bond, instead of futzing around). Of course, Sean Connery pulls the whole thing together -- as co-writer, co-producer, and in his best performance since From Russia With Love. He is fit, energetic, and obviously enjoying himself. His acting is mature, confident, and laced with the right amount of humour. This is in contrast to his mechanical performance in Thunderball, his sleepwalking through You Only Live Twice, and his jowly, paunchy romp through that cartoon known as Diamonds Are Forever!<br /><br />This is an imaginative reworking of Thunderball, without having the sets and machines overwhelming the characters and plot. This cast is far superior, as well. Klaus Maria Brandauer brings his unique style to the role of Largo, without relying on an eyepatch, SPECTRE ring or a boring uniform. Kim Basinger is athletic and lovely, Barbara Carrera is dynamic, and for once, we have a great Felix Leiter in Bernie Casey. The depictions of M and Q are original, and the addition of the bumbling agent Small-Fawcett is fun without lapsing into slapstick.<br /><br />Director Irvin Kershner makes good use of his locations (the Bahamas and the French Riviera) without losing sight of his actors. Although close inspection reveals some mediocre special effects and lapses in continuity, Kershner keeps the film moving at a good pace, unlike Thunderball (which even its director, Terence Young, did not like). Obviously fans will miss the gun-barrel trademark and the 007 theme music, but they are, after all, owned by Eon Productions.<br /><br />Michel LeGrand may not have composed the most memorable score, but it captures the atmosphere of the locations without being overly intrusive. Not surprisingly, his best moments are in the south of France, with his French love song (at the health spa) being particularly attractive. And tell me, how many really remember the music for Moonraker? I personally would rather forget Man With the Golden Gun and A View To a Kill!<br /><br />The Eon folks can sneer at this film if they like. (Yes, Octopussy made more money.) At least Connery's mature 007 didn't swing through the jungle emitting a Tarzan yell. He did not frolic with a Bengal tiger, nor did he fight off "Indian" snake charmers with a tennis racket. Despite Eon's desperate efforts to stop this production, Kevin McClory and the late Jack Schwartzman put together a fine film, one that I think Ian Fleming would have appreciated.<br /><br />If, however, you would rather see James Bond get kicked in the shins by a dwarf, engage in another tiresome struggle with "Jaws", jump into bed with Grace Jones, or lead a slapstick firetruck chase through San Francisco, this is NOT the film for you!
| 1 |
positive
|
How is this a documentary? Much more like a walking ghost tour one might take in any given Southern city. Quotes were generously dropped throughout without the first effort at identifying the source. George Orwell was the most identified quoter. <br /><br />Documents were referred to without ever being produced in any form. Flat out fraudulent shots depicting period film stock were spliced aside historical film reels with no separation from reality and self-promotion. Film reels which were entirely unrealistic and improbable for the time at hand were dropped in, as if trying to ape Blair Witch, hoping to drum up a spook house on what would otherwise simply be dead real estate. <br /><br />Is this not in some way a great disrespect to actual victims of TB, a dance on their collective graves for the sake of commercialism? The line between actual footage and manufactured self-service is so thin; the drippings of doubt so insignificantly played down; the scientific boundaries so blatantly ignored... how could this possibly be listed in my TiVo as documentary? <br /><br />It's a vacation promo, and at that it fully succeeds.<br /><br />Hell, I'd visit the joint if I could locate it on Google Earth. Not scary said a previous poster. Not too serious either, says I. Fascinating story. Flimsy film-making.
| 0 |
negative
|
Worst. Movie. Ever. I can't believe they had to hire Jeremy Irons to give this piece of crap some credibility - and still failed. Did they think that if they stuck to the plot of the book that their target audience wouldn't be able to figure it out on their own? (probably). "Hey, let's make lots of things explode and give Mina big boobs, and have her speak in an adorably fake broken English. That'll make the morons watch." "But sir, that's not how the book went at all, I think we're mot being faithful to Mr. Wells' message." "F*ck it, we're going to the box office here, never mind some dead author's ideas on human nature. Also, let's add in Orlando Jones with some classic 'Black attitude' as a supporting character, and never mind the interesting conclusion to the book - Guy Pierce has to get some p*ssy at the end."
| 0 |
negative
|
I work at a movie theater and every Thursday night we have an employee screening of one movie that comes out the next day...Today it was The Guardian. I saw the trailers and the ads and never expected much from it, and in no way really did i anticipate seeing this movie. Well turns out this movie was a lot more than I would have thought. It was a great story first of all. Ashton Kutcher and Kevin Costner did amazing acting work in this film. Being a big fan of That 70's Show I always found it hard thinking of Kutcher as anyone but Kelso despite the great acting he did in The Butterfly Effect, but after seeing this movie I think I might be able to finally look at him as a serious actor.<br /><br />It was also a great tribute to the unsung heroes of the U.S. Coast Guard.
| 1 |
positive
|
I have an affection for these twists on British social norms and it is rare that one loses me. But Our Betters did lose me a bit. It's a tale of social climbers and their joy at breaking the rules but personally I found it a little dull. <br /><br />I liked the duchess though she whines a little too much and Constance Bennett amiably fills the role of Lady Greyston, a role that Bette Davis could have played backwards.<br /><br />But the movie comes the life in the third act when Ernest joins the party. He is so lively and fun (and in truth probably wears more makeup then Lady Greyston). He gets the last line of the film and it's a gas!
| 0 |
negative
|
Make sure you make this delightful comedy part of your holiday season! If you admire Dennis Morgan or Barbara Stanwyck, this film is a fun one to watch. They really work well together as you would see in this movie. The whole cast was very entertaining. Since I'm a Dennis Morgan fan, this film was a real treat! But...everyone can enjoy it! Recommended!
| 1 |
positive
|
I thought the movie was sub-par. The acting was good but not great, the story was funny but did not come out that way. The director dropped the ball on this movie. It was not James (jim) or Tea. IMHO it was the music that killed it. There is a scene where things go down hill and Jonny Cash music is playing - man was that depressing (not funny) killed my mood. After that the movie could not recover. The deportation scene had potential funny situation, good acting good set up - I even smirked but the music again was unsuited to the scene. The music kept me from being pulled in to the movie.<br /><br />I say it had potential but was poorly done, i would even say rushed into final production. Kind of reminiscent of the prequel to the exorcist: the beginning. The theater release was good, I though so after watching it, but the movie release exorcist:dominion was a helluva lot better. Same story just different director. Same should be done here.
| 0 |
negative
|
I had the unlucky experience of stumbling upon a preview for this movie and thought it might be interesting. I am a fan of the two main actors, and I even find Meatloaf to be oddly appealing, but that couldn't compensate for the droning plot of this movie. This movie attempts to make social comments and be artfully intelligent. I am sure the audience gets the sociological message clearly, but has to suffer in the process. Personally, no matter how bad the movie is, I can't stop it in the middle. Something drives me to finish the worst of movies, but I often regret it. This is one of those...
| 0 |
negative
|
Synopsis: Kid is not accepted into any colleges. He creates a "college" where he and his friends can party by using their parent's tuition money. <br /><br />Wow. A Paean to ignorance. <br /><br />If you believe that we're all OK, man, then this movie is for you. Furthermore, you must understand that:<br /><br />1. Kids have it all inside them--they just need to let it out.<br /><br />2. Teaching really stifles the innate creativity that everyone is born with. <br /><br />3. Someone else should pay for you to follow your passion. <br /><br />4. 300 teenagers can live together in harmony, as long as you take away those restrictive rules. <br /><br />5. Extemporaneous speeches are often much more convincing than a prepared presentation. <br /><br />6. If the Board of Education allows you to open a "charter school" with "nontraditional teaching techniques," it's because they have your best interests at heart. (Not that they are willing to let go of low-functioning students who will end up working fast food anyways.) <br /><br />This movie is one in the college comedy genre, i.e. Animal House. It follows the pattern pretty closely. What's new here though, is a complete attack on higher education, not a parody of the bad elements. It's missing the sympathetic insider, a professor who embodies the worthwhile part of university life. <br /><br />This lack of balance will doom this film to the back rows of Blockbuster. It is so one sided, that I wondered if it was an ironic self-referential take on the whole genre--for about one minute. The movie has no deep meaning, no layers, no introspection. It's as if they let some kids who never went to class do what comes naturally. And what is natural is what the name of the school is: S***. <br /><br />(Never thought I'd say this: Go see something with Will Farrell instead. His comedies can be surprisingly sophisticated.)
| 0 |
negative
|
This film attempts to cash in on the success of Richard Curtis movies, particularly "Love Actually" (which I loved) - a series of disparate scenes following the love lives of various couples. <br /><br />It's a great idea poorly executed. The script tries to be a little too clever and simply doesn't resonate. Most of the acting is stilted which is more a reflection on the director than the actors.<br /><br />The version I saw (on a plane) was called "Scenes from a Park", which is a more appropriate title as not all the scenes were of a 'sexual nature'.<br /><br />I was so looking forward to this movie, but ultimately it is disappointing. Don't bother.
| 0 |
negative
|
Rourke does his usual bit part,as a sinister,rancorous,Neanderthalian,ferocious,evil jerk,in the same mold as in "Picture Claire","Out in Fifty","Get Carter","Double Team" and the rest of the garbage he happens to be in.<br /><br />He has very few lines.<br /><br />Of course,all this is just junk,undervaluing Rourke,abasing him,and doesn't matter for his characterization as an actor.Still ,after seeing "A Prayer ...","Johnny Handsome","Barfly","9 1/2 Weeks","Year of the Dragon",etc.,etc.,for many years I considered Rourke an outstanding,smart,intelligent man.I think he has changed since.<br /><br />He looks callous,calcined.<br /><br />"He went about with gloomy looks;/Despair inhabited his breast/And made the man a perfect pest."(Belloc,"The Example").<br /><br />I had absolutely no other reason to watch this dull movie except that Rourke was in.
| 0 |
negative
|
What impressed me the most about "One True Thing" was how up-front it was when the daughter mentions her mother's cancer at the beginning of the movie. As depressing the subject matter was, it was a refreshing change of pace instead of being blindsided with the revelation about a character's fatal illness 2/3 into the movie ("Love Story" "Terms of Endearment", etc.). <br /><br />Meryl Streep, Renee Zellweger and William Hurt give very strong performances that don't go over the edge. The characters they play seem human; they're not perfect people. (Arguably, one might not say that about the "Martha Stewart"-type character Streep plays but throughout the film, I found her character to be noble in a non-sappy way. She's dealing with her plight the best way she knows how.) <br /><br />"One True Thing" is an observant, unsentimental family drama in which the tears at the end were well-earned.
| 1 |
positive
|
Well let's be fair. Following up a cult classic like Road House is no easy task. Now subtract Swayze from the equation and you get a monumental task. So with Patrick not on board whose bonehead idea was it to proceed anyway and make this piece of garbage? I am going to blame the director who didn't even provide 5 minutes of decent footage throughout the entire film. I was actually shocked they got Will Patton (Armaggedon) to jump on board. Johnathon Schaech did an OK job with the lead but the writing was atrocious. Turning down his partner brunette bombshell (Crystal Mantecon) in the film's first 5 minutes made me want to eject it right there. But I stuck with the film hoping to catch a glimpse of that great cheesy humor that worked so well with the Double Duece. No such luck. The cover of the DVD is hilarious, they show these two stacked blondes who make one 10 second appearance in the film. Costar Ellen Hollman actually puts in a decent performance as well. But again the effort is futile in a piece of garbage and disgrace such as this. Has Jake Busey ever been cast in a decent film? Could they not pull at least a few actors in from the first film for some kind of nostalgia treatment? Even one of the old bouncers or two, or Jeff Healey for a performance would have been nice. Take this film out of your Queue immediately. -LostFlix
| 0 |
negative
|
At one time `Buddy Cop' movies ruled the box office. It seemed that every summer flocks of Beverly Hills Cop wannabes descended on our nation's theaters. Not any more. Lately the gusher has dried to barely a trickle. The drought has eased a bit recently with the release of Showtime, a movie that is a genuinely funny and consistently entertaining example of the genre.<br /><br />Mitch Preston is a dedicated cop. He's not a Dirty Harry type by any means. He's just incredibly focused professional who's completely intolerant of anything that gets in the way of the performance of his duties
like, say, a T.V. cameraman. Mitch deals with the cameraman in a socially irresponsible way and so falls into the clutches of Chase Renzi, a producer looking for a killer hook for her `reality T.V.' cop show. She thinks that Mitch will give her the `edgy' boost it needs to be a hit but feels he may be too unlikable to carry the whole show by himself. Enter Trey Sellars, a patrolman-cum-actor who's watched way too many Police Story re-runs. Of course Mitch and Trey mix like oil and water and much merry mayhem ensues.<br /><br />We know that Mitch and Trey are bound to become best buddies by the end of the movie. That's the way buddy-cop movies are suppose to work. In fact, it has to be said that Showtime rarely deviates from the time-honored clichés as writ by Lethal Weapon and Tango & Cash. There's a high tech McGuffin to get the ball rolling (in this case an automatic rifle that fires rounds big enough to stop tanks.) There's a slick foreign baddy with an accent of undetermined origin. There are chases, shootouts and explosions. We all know this going in and we have a pretty fair idea how it's all going to turn out. You know what? There's nothing wrong with that. Yes, we know the well-worn bases are going to be touched but the fun here is the trip, not the destination. Showtime doesn't strain to be original. Instead its energies are funneled into its characters and humorous situations. As a result, Showtime does a competent job with the action sequences but really shines in its comedy.<br /><br />Robert De Niro is dryly funny as Mitch. In the past I've thought De Niro to be a cold and unexpressive actor given horribly to mugging when called upon to do comedy. Lately, though, he's grown on me. He seems to be injecting more humanity into his roles. Eddie Murphy is hilarious as Trey. The best way to describe his performance is that Trey is what Murphy would be if Murphy weren't so talented and hadn't hit the big time. Rene Russo has a droll time playing motor-mouthed show biz shark Chase Renzi. She stalks through the movie chasing high Nielson ratings with awe-inspiring determination. In her zeal she re-vamps Mitch's life to make it more camera friendly. She even calls upon T. J. Hooker himself, William Shatner, to show Mitch how be a more `authentic' cop. Shatner is funny, playing himself precisely as we expect him to be, loud, oblivious and slightly obnoxious.<br /><br />I have to admit I was really looking forward to Showtime and I wasn't disappointed. Ten years ago this movie would have been a guaranteed hit. Today it's doing moderate business at best. That's a pity because Showtime is a whole lot of fun.
| 1 |
positive
|
The movie is an adaptation of a Japanese story by the respected author Yukio Mishima. It simply doesn't make the transition into a credible story about Brits and Americans.<br /><br />The story moves sluggishly, especially the part where Miles and Kristofferson are separated and the director fills in with the cliched shots of a ship's prow cutting through the waves, and the little route line filling in on the maps, while their letters are heard in overvoice. The film moves so languidly that I even fast-forwarded through the sex and masturbation scenes which, although long, are not really either passionate or erotic. The film did achieve a measure of notoriety when Kristofferson's then-wife divorced him for extra-curricular activities with Miss Miles during the filming. I guess they enjoyed the sex scenes, but it isn't quite the same for a viewer.<br /><br />There are no characters to hang on to. The sexually frustrated widow is unlikeable, the little kid is detestable. Kristofferson is amiable enough, but he just doesn't have the acting skills to bring much to the role, although perhaps we don't really want get too involved with him, considering his ultimate fate.<br /><br />As for the little kid, well, he kinda falls in with a bad crowd after his dad dies, and they help him plot some evil against the man who enters his mum's life. Now this is a really bad crowd. They don't just shoplift and smoke dope, nosireebib. They slip a mickey to a cat and vivisect it. This is shown in gory detail. But of course, this is only practice so they can do the same thing to Kristofferson!<br /><br />So the movie mostly moves slowly, with no characters to relate to, and when something does happen it is unrelentingly morbid.<br /><br />The ending is about as unsatisfying as any movie you'll ever see.<br /><br />This all might have made some sense if the Japanese locale and cultural context had been retained. As it stands, it is just abysmal.<br /><br />
| 0 |
negative
|
When I first heard that this movie was going to be made, I was very excited to see it. The ideas to make a movie of this caliber, as good as it was, must have been very difficult. I wasn't really sure if anyone could encompass all of the Pope's many amazing qualities in a movie, but the movie did his memory justice. In my opinion the most important task was to reveal to the people who the Pope started out as. To his days in Poland, all the way to his last days in the Vatican, this movie followed every aspect of his life. Thomas Kretschmann, the man who played the Pope in his adult life and on, did a very good job at getting the emotion across. Overall this movie was educational, but also very entertaining.
| 1 |
positive
|
Jack-O (1995) was a really bad movie, we are talking snoozefest x 100, no entertainment value whatsoever, no budget, no gore, Z-grade actors etc etc, this film was an awful addition to the horror movie industry and shouldn't have been made!!! The only reason i purchased this movie was because i knew Linnea Quigley was in it, and sure enough, she does her obligatory nude shower scene, which is lovely yes.<br /><br />But as for the film itself........ i fell asleep at the 40 minute stage and had NO desire at all to finish it, it's just bigtime lame OK.<br /><br />I love horror movies, i'm an avid fan, a MASSIVE fan, i love low budget horrors, i love it all, but i hated this rubbish, so i think that will tell you all you need to know about "JACK-O".<br /><br />I give this movie 2/10, the "2" is for the 2 minute Linnea shower scene, the movie itself is a total ZERO!!!!
| 0 |
negative
|
taking into consideration the Chan films that would follow, this isn't bad. Plenty of stereotypes beginning with the Black man in the beginning and when the police captain orders that "every Hindu in town" by rounded-up. A parade of stereotypical characters enter the scene including Shemp of the Three Stooges. Charlie seems to move quickly around the city going from Sutton Pl. to the W. Village in a flash.The ending is silly. An obvious toy airplane is used as it climbs through the sky and then nose dives. Ed Wood couldn't have done it better. The final scene is absurd as the murderer will obviously incriminate himself in his attempt to quiet the one person who knows his identity. Overall, it is worth watching.
| 1 |
positive
|
The year 1950 saw two very different and interesting westerns: 'The Gunfighter' by Henry King, and 'Wagon Master' by John Ford. 'The Gunfighter' was historically notable as it clearly influenced Zimmerman's 'High Noon' (1951) and later revisionist westerns.<br /><br />However, I personally find 'Wagon Master' superior to it's contemporary counterpart. Ford's minor masterpiece isn't much about storytelling; it should be conceived more as a poem describing conceptions of old west. Although optimistic and warm at heart, we are deserved from naivety because it's completely free from pretentious underscoring. Frontier scenery is well used as it supports the poetic narrative perfectly. Add naturalistic camera work and we are transported among the mormon travellers to witness western folklore told in cinematic means.
| 1 |
positive
|
All right guys, here's the deal with this movie. it's not the best but for all of you 80s kids out there it'll bring back fond memories of your childhood. Personally, i love this movie. i still love rainbow brite and the care bears. so, in my opinion, if you aren't a kid now or were a kid that loved and/or loves rainbow brite you won't like this movie at all.
| 1 |
positive
|
I have mixed emotions about this film, especially as it compares to its forerunner,<br /><br />"An American Werewolf In London." That film had it's funny moments, it was still more of horror tale than anything else. This updated version, now set in Paris, does not have that "edge" at all and simply isn't in the same class....but it does have some good things going for it that the first film did not have and overall it's still fun to watch. <br /><br />So, "werewolf purists" aside, most of whom think this film is pure garbage compared to the London version, I'll still give it decent marks since I don't care what others think. I liked it even though I agree "London" is better and I prefer that version, too. <br /><br />The first 30-40 minutes of this movie is strictly played for laughs including a hysterical scene with a "balloon" in a restaurant. It also introduces the lead female character, played by Julie Delpy. I don't see enough of this actress. She doesn't seem to make that many films, or least ones I hear about over here in America. This French actress has a face that is classic beauty, so the film got points for having her in it, and she looks great.<br /><br />When the horror starts, it can get scary and the special effects are good. I also liked the lack of profanity in this film, unlike the first one: no f-words and no Lord's name in vain - amazing!<br /><br />However, there are plenty of sexual remarks and there is one scene with a guy running out of bar tied to a cross which was blasphemous to me. The soundtrack is heavy metal which isn't appealing to a middle-aged guy like me, either. This film is geared a lot more toward 20-somethings, if that helps anyone.<br /><br />It's entertaining.....just don't expect it to live up to the first film.
| 1 |
positive
|
A movie about a French girl who gets raped by street hoodlums. The rape scene itself is shot in all it's gory detail with all the male and female organs and their interactions clearly visible to the camera. In a fit of rage, the victim grabs her friend's (or was it brother ?) gun, shoots him and runs off with the weapon. She meets this prostitute who has just seen her pimp shot down, they team up, and make off towards Paris. A series of crazy, meaningless and wild killings follow, the girls seem to enjoy every murder more than the one before. One poor guy gets shot in the ****hole. There are good doses of sex thrown in between the numerous killings.<br /><br />The movie is not the most violent I have seen, I would say Saving Private Ryan probably had more violence in it. If violence is what you are looking for, then there are lots of other movies out there. And if it's sex you are out for, then I would suggest one of those XXX ones.<br /><br />I went to see the movie because of all the hype the media was giving it. The movie itself is no big deal, just a lot of violence and sex shot with something like a hand-held camera. I was surprised this movie had a 15 year age limit in Sweden, if 15 year-olds can watch this movie, they should be able to watch XXX movies too.
| 0 |
negative
|
This is a great flick! It is funny for everyone, even adults. We got Jason Voorhees/Leatherface like killer in this, along with other wacky characters. Very funny flick, for children of all ages. Must of rented this every time we went to the video store! Buster and Babs make a good pair, and gotta love the duck. He is probably my favorite character! I was never big on the TV show but this movie just brings back so many great memories. Must see for families, fans of the show, or anyone! Enjoyable no matter how small or old you are! RENT IT NOW AT YOUR LOCAL VIDEO STORE!<br /><br />P.S. NEEDS A DVD RELEASE!
| 1 |
positive
|
I caught this on television one day when I was young and loved it. In the 1970's, there were a bunch of lame comedies that tried too hard to be be funny so it this was a nice surprise. It's one of the best comedies of the 1970's and the definitive summer camp comedy thanks to Murrary's excellent comedic performance, which still stands as one of his greatest. This is the film that really got Ivan Reitman noticed as a director. Reitman proves with this movie that he is one of the most talented comedy directors of all time. While this film is hilarious and MEATBALLS 2 is so bad that it's fun, MEATBALLS 3 and MEATBALLS 4 are absolutely dreadful. Recommended for those who enjoyed STRIPES and GHOSTBUSTERS.
| 1 |
positive
|
How poor is this movie? Well, I got it less than two months ago and can hardly remember what it was about...<br /><br />I also paid a £1 for this on DVD, the old story of 'put-a-new-cover-on-the-box-and-some-fool-will-buy-it' syndrome. All I really recall it that the cast ran around a lot, use of cars must have been too above the budget and that a vampire was involved. Then again, guess you could know that from the film's title.<br /><br />Straight to video rubbish or straight to cheap-jack DVD as it is now. This stuff will be in the bargain bins at rental shops, supermarkets and charity shops until the death of the sun. Only cockroaches will rule the earth but this trash will still be around. God bless the dawn of the DVD age....
| 0 |
negative
|
i have to admit thanks to this movie i'm now afraid of mannequins. hahaha.<br /><br />but yes, first off the acting in this movie at least by my standard is pretty swell. most of the actors are pretty decent in their roles. the script also seems to be pretty good too, sure some cheesy stuff in there but also some decently written character and some damn scary scenes. i STILL get shivers thinking about that one scene with the dude and the mannequins. brrr.<br /><br />yeah, I'll say you should check this movie out it's pretty good, and very entertaining. a good watch. 8/10
| 1 |
positive
|
The net is an excellent movie! It's about Angela Bennett(in a great performance of Sandra Bullock) who is a computer expert who works for the Cathedral Company, cleaning virus and testing games for the clients. Angela is a typical nerd who doesn't have friends outside of the cyberspace,almost doesn't take vacations and go out, and stays almost all the time connected. One day her friend Dale Hessman(Ray McKinnon) asks her to help him,sending Angela a disk with a strange program that has many confidential informations. At the same night, when Dale was going to meet her, he is suddenly killed in a plane crash.Going to Mexico in her vacation,Angela meets a beautiful guy called Jack Devlin (Jeremy Northam)who shows to be a cold blood killer bastard and one of the guys behind all the secret of the Diskette.<br /><br />Her life then turns into a nightmare: All her records are erased and she is given the new identity of Ruth Marx, a woman with serious problems with the police.<br /><br />This movie is great because it shows how we, humans,depend a lot of the computers and machines(sometimes more that we should) and how vulnerable we are if someday ,someone decides to control and change our personal records,without letting us the chance to prove the error.
| 1 |
positive
|
I enjoyed Carax's "Les Amants du Pont Neuf" and was therefore expecting this film to be of a similar standard. Well, the first 10 minutes were OK, but then it disintegrates into a rather pretentious journey of a young man looking for the essence of life. A sad disappointment.
| 0 |
negative
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.