text
stringlengths 49
12.1k
| label
int64 0
1
| label_text
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|
First separate the story from the film. The story about a second continuing war in heaven is good, very good. Religious themed films aren't the main choice for a lot of people but angels at war is. I really loved the story, and some of the imagery provided to back it up like the field of angels on spikes....awesome imagery. The actual film though was just poor, i can't find any reason for the main character - the priest-cum-cop being in there at all. The lead female also...no reason to be there, the main characters dialogue was just empty, it had no substance, the story could have been told well without them. Now, some sterling performances did feature, Walken, Stoltz and Mortensen pulled off some wingers, though their scenes were mostly with the lifeless leads.<br /><br />One other thing i am not getting from this film is why it features native American rituals to purge the dark soul. The child that carries it is clearly of native American origin but apart from the end scenario there is nothing that connects here with that heritage. The plot concerning the dark soul itself it barely told, odd considering that the dark soul is the driver for the whole premise of the film. The back story of its original owner (the colonel) is briefly touched but not enough to allow understanding as to why its his soul that is the special one.<br /><br />I cannot find a justification for the scrolling scenery shots in this film either, several of the plains around 'chimney rock'. I get the feeling they had a helicopter and wanted to make the most of it as none of the shots have any relevance, nor are they in keeping with the mood -> Horror. The film falls into the sci-fi category more than it does horror. There was no real shock or scare scenes, some mild gore and blood but no fear element.<br /><br />So, aside from 3 roles played damn well this film is a big ole' dud. Unfortunately the dud factor outweighs the good acting factor, just too many weekend actors.
| 0 |
negative
|
This was one of the worst movies I've ever seen in my life. They said this was the man's answer to Waiting to Exhale...All I'm going to say is that we really didn't respond at all. I couldn't believe that it was actually made. The director should choose another profession, because he can't make a movie. The script wasn't good. It made no sense and was very messy. Bet movies are much better than this was, and I was horribly disappointed to see the talented actor Terrence in this bad excuse of a movie. If I could turn back the hands of time I wouldn't go back to Media Play to never buy the movie, I would just keep it wrapped sitting on the shelf, instead of wasting my time watching it.
| 0 |
negative
|
Funny, yes. A Freleng classic! To watch Sylvester turn green is always a treat, and it brings us back to the days when cartoon slapstick was brave and geared for the adult mind.<br /><br />Loved it!
| 1 |
positive
|
"... the beat is too strong ... we're deaf mutants now--like them", Rex Voorhas Ormine<br /><br />I am surprised that this movie has been uniformly bashed. Let me be the first to actually discuss the virtues of "The Beat" and why YOU MUST SEE THIS FILM NOW.<br /><br />Make no mistake, this movie is cheesy and "bad" in the conventional sense: the story is preposterous, the poetry is silly, and the acting is inconsistent.<br /><br />But these are the film's CHARMS--all of these ingredients form the recipe for one of the most UNDERAPPRECIATED CHEEZY FILMS of the 80's.<br /><br />If the reference to "deaf mutants" didn't pique your interest, then perhaps this will: What kind of name is "Rex Voorhas Ormine", anyway? It is such an unusual name (for North American audiences) that I said to myself, "even the names of the characters in this friggin' movie are firggin' silly."<br /><br />Well, "The Beat" is so fabulously cheezy that the "meaning" and "symbolism" behind "Rex Voorhas Ormine" is revealed not-too-subtly by Bart Waxman (the misguided guidance counselor you love to hate). I won't spoil the revelation behind Rex's name, but please don't get too excited, O.K.?<br /><br />Overall, the acting is inconsistent (John Savage--who plays the "concerned teacher" Mr. Ellsworth is pretty good, as is the fellow playing Bart Waxman, but the rest of the cast are unconvincing). That said, the acting does NOT detract from the film. Why? There is a SINCERITY in each of the actors' performances that makes the characters they play endearing. So although the performances may suck, you are still left with the impression that the actors are really trying to do their best. As a result, the actors' sincerity succeeds where their acting fails (which is quite often).<br /><br />The homage to "beat poetry" in this film is bad, bad, bad. But this is a good, good, good thing when it comes to entertainment. Would you actually enjoy "better quality" or "more respectable" poetry--especially in a film like this?<br /><br />Folks, that would be BORING (think about the droll they made us read in high school--sanitized to avoid "corrupting the youth", politically conservative and devoid of any critical analysis, etc.) Even if you don't like poetry or "arty" movies (with all of the "intellectual" posturing that implies), you most certainly can (and should) appreciate LUDICROUS POETRY in a WANNABE ART FILM!!!! How could you not enjoy the following?<br /><br />"do you remember the roar of the dinosaur? a woman's scotty craps on the floor bad scotty bad, oh the woman's so sad she washes her hands and then waits by the door today, yeah--today!"<br /><br />Yes, that is an example of some of the remarkable poetry liberally sprinkled throughout "The Beat." But what about the story, you ask?<br /><br />Well, the story is preposterous. But then again, that is the beauty of this film. Apart from some cliches, stereotypes, and predictable plot points, there are enough genuinely unique elements to the plot/story to keep things interesting. Who is Rex? Where did he come from? What the heck is he talking about? Deaf mutants? Illiterate angels? Do Billy and Kate REALLY understand what Rex is saying? Is the audience supposed to understand Rex and his poetry posse? (I've seen the movie several times and I still haven't figured everything out.)<br /><br />Will bad poetry and high school talent shows really END GANG VIOLENCE?<br /><br />I guarantee that you have never seen anything quite like "The Beat"--a perfect combination of brilliantly bad poetry, mediocre-yet-sincere acting, and a "mythopoetics conquers gang violence" storyline that has YET TO BE RIVALLED BY ANY FILM EVER MADE.<br /><br />Bonus for fans of classic NYC hardcore: The Cro-Mags make a rare film appearance as the "Iron Skulls" and it's a hoot to see them perform several songs. I wish they included more concert footage, but maybe that will be an "extra" included on the "collector's edition" DVD I fantasize about.<br /><br />
| 1 |
positive
|
I felt cheated out of knowing the whole story. While there could be a twist, this twist was so significant, that I felt betrayed. I believe it could have used a better writer who could weave all the elements of the story together better. The writer could have revealed more of the 'twists' throughout the movie, rather than all at once at the end. That aside, I believe that the actors did very well with what they had, particularly Matt Damon, who actually had a little character in his character, little quirks that weren't egotistic or like a smooth criminal who always knows what he is doing. The other main characters were their own separate entities who just happened to converse with one another. The cohesiveness of the group in Ocean's Eleven was gone.
| 1 |
positive
|
This movie is very violent, yet exciting with original dialog and cool characters. It has one of the most moving stories and is very true to life. The movie start off with action star Leo Fong as a down and out cop who is approaching the end of his career, when he stumbles on to a big case that involves corruption, black mail and murder. This is where the killings start. From start finish Fong delivers in this must see action caper. This movie also co-stars Richard Roundtree.<br /><br />I really enjoyed this film as a child but as I got older I realized that this film is pretty cheesy and not very good. I would not recommend this film and the action is very, very bad.
| 0 |
negative
|
...But not this one! I always wanted to know "what happened" next. We will never know for sure what happened because GWTW was Margaret's baby. I am a lifelong fan of Gone With the Wind and I could not have been more repulsed by the movie. I did compare "Scarlett" to the original GWTW because any film worth following GWTW needed to be on the same quality level as the first. Rhett was cast beautifully, although NO ONE will ever compare to Mr. Gable. I am also a strict Vivien Leigh fan!! She WAS Scarlett. She fit the bill. Not another actress in this lifetime or another will ever fit the same shoes but with "Scarlett" the job could have been done better. Not enough thought went into finding the proper Scarlett, that was evident.<br /><br />Overall, something to look to but if you want to know the what happened to Scarlett and Rhett, I suggest writing it yourself or finding fan fiction. This movie is not worth the time.
| 0 |
negative
|
Bill Paxton has taken the true story of the 1913 US golf open and made a film that is about much more than an extra-ordinary game of golf. The film also deals directly with the class tensions of the early twentieth century and touches upon the profound anti-Catholic prejudices of both the British and American establishments. But at heart the film is about that perennial favourite of triumph against the odds.<br /><br />The acting is exemplary throughout. Stephen Dillane is excellent as usual, but the revelation of the movie is Shia LaBoeuf who delivers a disciplined, dignified and highly sympathetic performance as a working class Franco-Irish kid fighting his way through the prejudices of the New England WASP establishment. For those who are only familiar with his slap-stick performances in "Even Stevens" this demonstration of his maturity is a delightful surprise. And Josh Flitter as the ten year old caddy threatens to steal every scene in which he appears.<br /><br />A old fashioned movie in the best sense of the word: fine acting, clear directing and a great story that grips to the end - the final scene an affectionate nod to Casablanca is just one of the many pleasures that fill a great movie.
| 1 |
positive
|
Sometimes reading the user comments on IMDB fills me with despair for the species. For anybody to dismiss 2001: A Space Odyssey as "boring" they must have no interest in science, technology, philosophy, history or the art of film-making. Finally I understand why most Hollywood productions are so shallow and vacuous - they understand their audience.<br /><br />Thankfully, those that cannot appreciate Kubrick's accomplishment are still a minority. Most viewers are able to see the intelligence and sheer virtuosity that went into the making of this epic. This is the film that put the science in "science fiction", and its depiction of space travel and mankind's future remains unsurpassed to this day. It was so far ahead of its time that humanity still hasn't caught up.<br /><br />2001 is primarily a technical film. The reason it is slow, and filled with minutae is because the aim was to realistically envision the future of technology (and the past, in the awe inspiring opening scenes). The film's greatest strength is in the details. Remember that when this film was made, man still hadn't made it out to the moon... but there it is in 2001, and that's just the start of the journey. To create such an incredibly detailed vision of the future that 35 years later it is still the best we have is beyond belief - I still can't work out how some of the shots were done. The film's only notable mistake was the optimism with which it predicted mankind's technological (and social) development. It is our shame that the year 2001 did not look like the film 2001, not Kubrick's.<br /><br />Besides the incredible special effects, camera work and set design, Kubrick also presents the viewer with a lot of food for thought about what it means to be human, and where the human race is going. Yes, the ending is weird and hard to comprehend - but that's the nature of the future. Kubrick and Clarke have started the task of envisioning it, now it's up to the audience to continue. There's no neat resolution, no definitive full stop, because then the audience could stop thinking after the final reel. I know that's what most audiences seem to want these days, but Kubrick isn't going to let us off so lightly.<br /><br />I'm glad to see that this film is in the IMDB top 100 films, and only wish that it were even higher. Stanley Kubrick is one of the very finest film-makers the world has known, and 2001 his finest accomplishment. 10/10.
| 1 |
positive
|
"The Journey" is a romantic version of the cold war. It's about an English woman (Deborah Kerr) trying to smuggle her former love, a Hungarian scientist (Jason Robards, Jr.), out of Hungary during the Hungary Revolt in 1956. She's on board a bus with thirteen other international people who are trying to get out of Hungary through the Austrian border.<br /><br />Of course, the bus gets stopped by the Russians for a security check. The Russian officer-in-charge (Yul Brynner) becomes attracted to the English woman (Deborah Kerr)and delays the trip. Of course, the Russian officer knows the truth about the Hungarian scientist posing as a British citizen, but he decides not to arrest the scientist because he is waiting for the English woman to come to him. Of course, this all sounds absurd, but it is a fun movie to watch. Despite the romantic flow of dialogue between Mr. Brynner and Ms. Kerr, which seems inappropriate in the situation that they are in, the movie becomes suspenseful and interesting. The good acting overrides some of the silly dialogue. Perhaps, some people involved in the Hungarian Revolt would not appreciate this movie; they would consider it a piece of fluff. <br /><br />This is my favorite Yul Brynner role. He speaks with his own, masculine voice and is very attractive, especially when he becomes vulnerable. This is Deborah Kerr's second time working with Yul Brynner since they made "The King and I" in 1956. They make a very attractive couple. Too bad they never worked again. This was the second sexy role Ms. Kerr took since "From Here to Eternity". Despite the fact that Ms. Kerr was wearing heavy winter clothes throughout the movie, she was very beautiful and sensual. <br /><br />The fine supporting cast was headed by Jason Robards, Jr., in his first film role. Some of the international cast were recognizable, like for instance, Robert Morley from England. However, the rest of the actors, I have never seen before or since, were just great in the movie. In the background, it was fun to see Senta Berger, as one of the maids, speak a few lines of Hungarian. A few years later in 1966, she was in a movie, "Cast a Giant Shadow", with Yul Brynner as his leading lady. She is still working today.
| 1 |
positive
|
I was living in Barstow Ca. in 1968 when the movie The Killers Three arrived at the local theater. The trailer was enough to get me to pay my hard earned money to see this movie. I was really expecting a Bonnie And Clyde movie and I got Dick Clark playing a shy nerdy guy while Robert Walker and Diane Varsi played an poor attempt of reinacting Bonnie and Clyde. Needless to say it never went over well. Maybe this is why it never made it to video. Even as a kid I was left some what ripped off as I left the theater. After all the best parts where in the trailer of the movie. The movie was dull and pretty much pointless. By the way, Dick Clark gets killed so it wasn't a total let down.
| 0 |
negative
|
This is the best of the films (so far) that Christopher Guest has created using his very talented ensemble cast. Previously, they'd made the excellent WAITING FOR GUFFMAN and following BEST IN SHOW, they made the very enjoyable A MIGHTY WIND. As for their latest, FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION, the less said the better.<br /><br />The film appears to be a documentary about dog shows and several contestants in particular. You follow these few chosen dogs from pre-show preparations all the way to the big night where one of them is chosen best in show at the fictitious "Mayflower Kennel Club". However, none of these people are real dog show enthusiasts but talent improvisational actors that parody many of the common types of people you meet in the dog show world. Amazingly, even though the characters are rather outlandish, there is a lot of truth to the personalities they are parodying--as decades ago I had some experience with dog shows and this is a VERY cutthroat group of people! My favorites of the dog owners were the incredibly high-pressure and tense yuppie couple who just exuded anger and volatility. I also loved the openly gay couple, as they were terribly funny and clever. However, the best performance probably wasn't from any of the couples but from Fred Willard who played the world's stupidest and least talented announcer in human history. His comments were uniformly inane and often betrayed his as an incredibly stupid person--how he got to be the announcer for such a prestigious show is anyone's guess. The other contestants featured were also quite funny--the high-priced professional poodle handler and its rich owner, the country boy and his hound as well as Winkie's "parents" who could barely scrape together enough to make it to the show.<br /><br />Despite the improvised style of film making, the pieces all fit together wonderfully and told a very funny and compelling story--one that is NOT for dog owners only. Exceptional acting made this one of the best comedies of the last decade. Clever and consistently funny.<br /><br />By the way, try to find this on DVD as the extras were actually worth seeing. While a bit painful to watch, I loved seeing Harlan Pepper and his beach ball collection in particular!
| 1 |
positive
|
i haven't seen this in years but when i was about 6 i first saw this on VHS and i must have watched it at least 10 times. now like i said its been awhile so i might screw up the plot but i remember some Columbian terrorists taking a prep school hostage with demands for the head terrorist(the "wishmaster")father to be released from prison. now i could just check the plot here on IMDb but i'm pretty sure thats right. any way, a group of boys at the school decide that they're not gonna just sit around and wait to die so they decide to fight back. this film has always been stuck in my mind. there are so many images that i haven't forgotten like Joey's(i think?)death scene or billy spitting in the terrorists sandwiches or the one kids(no idea of his name)fake asthma attack. just a great film. it may be films like this that have given me my tolerance for film violence because if i remember right this movie is pretty graphic. guys getting mowed down by helicopter machine guns, a special forces guys hand getting blown off by a grenade(not sure about that but i seem to remember something like that towards the end)and the most bloody being the lead terrorist getting capped in the head in gory detail. great action, great humor, good acting, wonderful film experience. i've got to watch this again after all these years!
| 1 |
positive
|
If you are in to bad movies for the entertainment of witnessing bad movies, bad acting, bad production etc..aka Mystery Science Theater 3000 quality....you will love Pacific Inferno. Jim Brown will be forever remembered as one of the greatest football players to ever play the game...as an actor he will forever be remembered as one of the greatest football players to ever play the game... I am not sure who Rolf Bayer was...but I am hoping he was 15 or 16 years old when he directed this, perhaps he may have been the next Spielberg in the making...because if he was a grown man directing this...a 15 or 16 year old could have done better.... The basis or plot for the movie probably had some historical merit and maybe even truthfully accurate...but the actual film may be one of worst movies made in American film history...I kept waiting for Lee Marvin, William Holden or Charles Bronson to pop in to somehow save whatever "face" was left of this film. I would have loved to have been at the red carpet, black tie gala for the Hollywood opening when this movie previewed...as this movie had to have many a viewer laughing and cringing under their breath... it is on the dime DVD racks now....look for it for entertainment value...this movie is so bad it is too good to pass up...
| 0 |
negative
|
Ugh, bad, bad, bad, but I have seen worse which is why I gave it a 2 instead of a 1. Just got finished watching this movie and I thought it was about as rotten as the flesh on Dr. Chopper's face. The worst line of the movie had to be "I like to introduce you to someone... meet my inner b*tch" which consisted of the lone survivor of the fantastic 5 group throwing a trash can at Dr. Chopper and then falling on the stage. Second worst line, "I'm the park ranger that's gonna f*ck you up" What, this freak ain't even a cop????? Did anyone else notice how everyone instantly dies from the magic gut stab (no one dies that quick from a gut stab, I know this cause I see them frequently in the operating room) except super park ranger. Dude had like a bucket of blood poor out of that wound, writhes around on the floor some, and then comes in for the finale to take a parting shot at Dr. Chopper while inner b*tch lies cowering on the floor. And if that don't beat all, he doesn't even have the decency to die then like everyone else. Inner b*tch helps him limp outside and proceeds to tell him not to die while she runs for help cause he's like her only friend left alive now. Since when did these two become friends? I don't think a frantic meeting in the woods where he tells you to head for the city qualifies as getting to know you time but whatever. <br /><br />Only watch this movie if there's nothing else own and you have nothing else to do with your time.
| 0 |
negative
|
I have never felt the need to add a review to this website until now, but having just sat through the film I felt it necessary to warn parents who may be thinking of showing it to their children. Please don't! This is no Disney film. This film tells us 'life is cruel' and if you show it to your children, in my opinion, you are too. <br /><br />The video box describes the film as a 'delight for all ages' and the IMDb plot outline describes it as a 'family film'. I just had to find a definition of 'family film' and came across the following: "Usually consisting of comedies or adventures, these films are often based on children's literature and can involve any number of helpful animals, friendly supernatural beings and fantasy worlds, all geared to stimulate and appeal to the imagination. Whatever the situation, there is little or no offensive material and generally a lesson is learned on the way." Not an apt description of Tarka The Otter, which contains some thoroughly unpleasant scenes, totally unsuitable for young children, and an ending that qualifies the film as a 'feel bad' movie. The lesson learned? As I said: life is cruel. Family entertainment? I don't think so. Unless you hate your family, that is. <br /><br />Another review, more revealing than this but worth reading, can be found by following the 'external reviews' link.
| 0 |
negative
|
In the animated series: <br /><br />Aeon Flux was an amoral rebel that was completely detached from everything and everyone. She was cruel, selfish, loving, unpredictable, witty, caustic, confident, sarcastic, lethal, untamable, ambiguous all at once. The original Aeon had layers upon layers of depth. She almost never allowed her personal emotions to show through. The original plot was deliciously ambiguous and thought provoking. You could never tell what Aeon's motives were. Aeon was a militant anarchist whereas Trevor was a radical idealist, because of this they could never have any semblance of a stable relationship.<br /><br />In the movie:<br /><br />Aeon Flux works for the Monicans and her political motives and personal motives are very clear. She was pretty, loving, vulnerable, easily tamable, emotional and very predictable. The Aeon in the movie had one layer of depth at most. The plot was obvious and contrived. Everything is completely laid out for you from the beginning. There was virtually no conflict between Aeon and Trevor, at least in terms of personal philosophies. The only conflict between them was that they were on different sides.<br /><br />The movie was a horrible disappointment to me. I felt betrayed. They took the idea of one of my favorite animated characters of all time, squeezed all the depth and personality out of her, and pumped her full of Hollywood clichés. The essence of the animated series was completely lost in this movie. <br /><br />The only reason I'm not giving this movie a "1" is because the visuals were incredible. It was neat to see some of the familiar animated scenes like the fly in the eye done with CGI.
| 0 |
negative
|
I was plagued by nightmares involving Sesame Street and the Muppet Show during my childhood. I loved the programs, but when I slept, I'd dream about muppets not unlike the ones on TV...but not quite the ones on TV.<br /><br />They would speak gibberish and laugh and sing while eating each other and killing each other. They'd take a bite of their cute felt flesh and it would tear apart followed by arterial bleeding. NICE! But that was the past...I LOVE THIS SHOW! I saw Peter Jackson's MEET THE FEEBLES years ago and wondered why there wasn;t similar work out there. Well here it is, as sick, twisted and somehow socially potent the old Hobbit's vision.<br /><br />If you like this show, and you haven't seen MEET THE FEEBLES, get it on Amazon or some such film source. You're in for a treat.<br /><br />By the way, Clarence would totally kick Triumph's dog ass.
| 1 |
positive
|
I watched this because a friend told me it was damn good, and I watched a video on it, so I was really into watching it. I watched it, and, damn, the fighting scenes are REALLY good. If the guys can't fight like that in real life, they sure fooled me. There isn't as much fighting as I would like, I have to say, but the fights that are in the movie are pretty spectacular. They don't show much, but you can tell it's violent and cool. But there's also the plot, that goes around a love triangle between the main characters, though it's a bit twisted. Tae-sung is a carefree guy who seems to love getting into trouble, as well as fights. He's the leader of his school, and is the rival of Hea-won, who's the leader of his own school - a bit of a playboy, hot-headed and a rich boy. Then there's Han-kyung, a girl with not a lot going for her - her father just passed away and she moved back with her mother, the guy she liked is dating her old friend -, and then she meets Hea-won, who goes to her school, and Tae-sung, who calls her "nuna" (older sister). Eventually, she discovers Tae-sung is her brother, fruit of one of her father's affair, and he loves her despite of their blood relation. Meanwhile, Hea-won falls for her, and takes her as his boyfriend. But she is torn between her boyfriend and her little brother, who confesses her love to her. Overall, it's a wonderful movie, but if I was really depressed after the end, and I just couldn't help but think, Damn, are all Korean movie I watch about fighting/death/depressing stuff/incest?? 'Cause that sure was the case with Old Boy, and Temptation of Wolves. It's a very good movie, but people have to be ready to cry at the end.
| 1 |
positive
|
I don't understand why everyone hates this movie, aside from the fact that they're just jealous their music careers never took off like mega Popstar Aaron Carter. Like it or not Aaron has seen more success in his young life than most people could ever dream of having, so it only seemed natural for him to do a movie. Lou Pearlman and company have been known for over-exploiting their pop protégées, you remember Justin Timberlake's foray into TV movie Model Behavior? Granted this movie isn't big scale and impressive, but it's not supposed to be. It's not trying to impress people or be an Emmy award winner, it was released straight to DVD. It's just a cute little movie about an awkward teen who gets her dream of being with her favorite Popstar; I know a lot of you out there have had that dream at some point or another about you favorite singer, don't deny it. It's sweet and gentle and I applaud it for not stepping into the realm of sex, violence, and vulgar language that seem to be creeping into more and more of our movies today. Where's the decency? Where's the line? Teen dramas come in dozens these days because teens are a big market for companies, at least this one is more tolerable to me than Bratz (aka Slutz) with all the fake little girls running around going "Oh Mah Gawd!" in tank tops and mini skirts and is fathoms better than those gore fest movies like Saw. I feel for the main character girl because I was nerdy outcast girl in High School who loved Aaron Carter and NSYNC and the Backstreet Boys and other pop music and still do; and like Aaron's character would get crushing "testophobia", especially in Math. If you judge this movie solely based on the fact that you don't like or are jealous of Aaron Carter and his fame, then of course you're going to hate it and trash talk it in reviews. The only reason Britney Spears' dribble Crossroads got a higher score is because she has boobs. Accept this movie for what it is, not what you want it to be. I think this happy formulaic teen movie ends on a high note and makes you want to sing.
| 1 |
positive
|
It's a bit difficult to believe that this came from the same director that gave us HELLRAISER. Where's the style, the foreboding, and the charm? I mean, HELLRAISER is not a great horror film, but at least it had something. NIGHTBREED is like a large ball of bad ideas poorly executed. From the opening there is a problem with subtlety: the monsters are shown in the first shot! The opening dream sequence shows too much for too long. Our hero doesn't display professional acting skills (but no one expected that from this bastard genre). There are killings that one wishes were more interesting. Then we have David Cronenberg. The man was never really meant to be an actor. He fills the role of the creepy psychiatrist adequately, but what he should have done was step behind the camera and save this disaster. Then we come to Midian, a creepy fake graveyard with an over-creepy fake gate. This thing is not a huge improvement over the cemetery in PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE. It gets worse when we meet the creatures in it. There is nothing really wrong with the character design and make-up effects here (well... except for the guy with no scalp, the guy with a pointy chin and forehead, and the fat guy with dark circles around his eyes), the problem is the way they act and the terrible dialogue that is given them. Barker's photography of the subterranean city is tired and this part of the story could have been made much better. Some might call what follows SPOILERS. After our hero dies and becomes "nightbreed" we wait around to see what he'll turn into (there's talk of things that fly and werewolves), but when the time comes for him to change they appearantly thought their hero too pretty to give a decent creature design. With the turn in Cronenberg's "character" the story just gets less interesting until the battle of freaks vs. norms (which is just bad). Barker's mythology failed him here. There is no genius and little originality behind any of NIGHTBREED. The picture could have used a larger budget, a serious script, and character design that doesn't leave you saying "oh...oh, how lame." What a waste. Not scary, not cool, not even very dark, just weak.
| 0 |
negative
|
Some said that this was a nose candy glorification flick, but short of the original Dr. Hyde's concoction, no drug has yet been developed that can provide THIS effect. If Viagra was the slime mold stage, that white sparkling powder is the Stephen Hawking evolutionary rung (or at least the pharmacist idiot savant branch). This reality show is really about the sacred cows of medicine, seen as was the emperor without clothes. Few of us want to question the health field; both because most of us would not have lived to our current age had we been born before "modern medicine", and because our subconscious hopes that we will continue to live on if we have faith in the helping professions. So the geniuses who produced this movie made jokes out of those Calcutta Bessy's, giving us the sugar that allows us to swallow the modern institution of medicine. The timing was right, and many were able to see the business side of the healing companies behind the curtain of Oz. A decade before, when George C. Scott ranted through the movie The Hospital, my wife and I were sitting in the packed premiere in Oklahoma City. Just as in Jekyll & Hyde's remake, we were almost unable to keep from falling out of our seat, and laughed and howled uncontrollably for the duration. The hundreds of other audience members were deadly silent. They were shocked that doctors, nurses, & the hospital institution were being mocked. It was as if the Pope, Billy Graham, and Gandhi were were sitting in the Animal House, beer stained tee shirts and all, competing to see who could tell the funniest God knock-knock jokes between belches. Had The Hospital been a slapstick comedy rather than a satire, they might have been able to see what was being shown to them. Unfortunately they were like Republicans at a screening of Michael Moore's 9/11. Perhaps smaller golden parachutes would have been given to the corrupt medical corporation leaders, health insurance companies would have had a tougher time denying medical care, and health providers would have been demystified earlier, if George C. Scott had tap danced in a tutu while delivering his terrible truths. But--forget everything I just said. Watch the movie, be consciously made as happy and joyful and full of laughter as the best ever Saturday Night Live skit, and let the subconscious soak in the documentary of the underlying reality. Just don't blame me when "Got to Got to Got to Got to" becomes one of your sayings, or when "Hyde's Got Nothing to Hide" occupies that portion of your brain now paralyzed by "Its a Small World After All". Or when you start calling your local hospital Our Lady of Pain and Suffering instead of Our Lady of Eternal Construction. Even Oklahomans were changing their favorite terrible boss wishbone winner entreaty from "Piss on him and leave him for dead", to "Body in a pit, you in it....." The smell of death...it's gone! Chicken sushi! Mary. MARY. MARYEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
| 1 |
positive
|
This is one of the worst movies I've seen in my life. If you're looking for a nice theatrical effect, skip it and watch something else.<br /><br />But if you're looking for camp-value, this is it. Here's my advice: Gather a few sarcastic friends and watch the movie strictly for the purpose of making fun of it.
| 0 |
negative
|
I have been a huge Errol Morris fan ever since I saw Thin Blue Line and heard it saved a life. To date, this movie is his best piece of work.<br /><br />The plot is a mixing of Stephen Hawking's Book of the same title intertwined with the man's life. The story is told through interviews with family, friends, and Hawkings himself.<br /><br />Don't be fooled; It totally sounds boring but the whole package is dynamic and thought provoking. The blending of life and theories is seamless and thoroughly entertaining. I was particularly moved at how well they humanize this genius and omniscient man. Tho physically powerless, Hawking's greatness and shear brilliance is encapsulated into a real live human being that we are allowed to laugh at and aw over at the same time.<br /><br />Find this movie. Watch it and enjoy. And if the studio who owns this picture reads this, A 15 year Anniversary edition would be perfect NOW...
| 1 |
positive
|
I just spent about 1.5 hours waiting for the movie to begin. It didn't. The story is vague and uninteresting, the speed in the movie is absent and the voiceover irritating. I can't understand why movies like this one are even distributed.
| 0 |
negative
|
A very suspenseful giallo from the director of "L'Anticristo"(1974),this one begins with a brilliantly-handled sequence involving a priest,a little girl,and a broken doll.However the main story is about maniac(David Warbeck)marrying a traumatized cripple to kill her for her money.The plot,whilst not original,is really suspenseful,the acting is good and there are several skillful and gory murders.The score by Francesco de Massi is quite effective,some of which can also be heard in Lucio Fulci's "The New York Ripper"(1982).Highly recommended for fans of Italian cinema!
| 1 |
positive
|
Normally, I don't like Chuck Norris films. I appreciate his work as a martial artist, and his fight scenes are usually fairly well-choreographed. Chuck is undeniably one of the martial arts greats. So, in my local used bookstore, I found a film I hadn't seen before and took it home.<br /><br />While the acting in this movie was worse than most Chuch Norris films, I was hoping to see at least one fight scene. I quickly began to realize that this wasn't a typical Chuch Norris film; rather it was a Christian film, destined to illustrate the "good will win out" paradigm.<br /><br />There is really nothing on the packaging to indicate that this is a Christian film, with the exception of the label ... Goodtimes Entertainment, which I had never heard of before. I'll certainly keep that in mind the next time I see a film from that company.<br /><br />I don't have a problem with Christianity ... I do have a problem with sneaky proselytizing. If someone is going to make a religious film, at least have the good sense to indicate to the viewer that such is what they will get. The only redeeming part about the exercise is that I spent only $3.25 to spend 97 minutes to watch a great martial artist not fight. At least it was during supper-time, and I spent some of that cooking and eating.<br /><br />In short, if you're looking for a mediocre martial arts film, and not hoping for much, don't bother with this film because it doesn't even offer that.
| 0 |
negative
|
If you're looking for a not-so-serious mob movie, with a female as the lead, you're in the right place. Pfieffer has acted much better than this. You can see she has matured beyond this picture.<br /><br />When I first picked this movie up, I expected Pfeiffer was poorly miscast, however, she plays her mob wife role to the hilt. Not a bad performance from Baldwin, either.<br /><br />If you don't pay attention to the hair, you might enjoy this movie. But don't take it too seriously...
| 1 |
positive
|
The cast was well picked. Pauly Shore is hilarious and does a good job of bringing the plot of the movie together. However, Tiffani Amber Thiessan is who really makes this movie special. Her talented acting combined with her great looks makes this movie a definite see.
| 1 |
positive
|
Well, sadly, I can't help but feeling a little bit disappointed after my much, much, MUCH-anticipated viewing of "Just Before Dawn". Jeff Lieberman is a terrific filmmaker and he can undoubtedly do great things with a tiny budget, but I nevertheless expected to see a far more sadistic and gruesome early 80's slasher. But actually I'm beginning to think that Lieberman isn't the one to blame for this, but WE gorehounds are! It's more than obvious that Lieberman intended to make his take on the backwoods-slasher look like "Deliverance" and absolutely NOT like "Friday the 13th", which immensely popularized the sub genre one year earlier. The horror and constant sensation of menace doesn't mainly come from the demented maniacs with their machetes, but from the genuinely ominous and isolated Oregon forests where this movie was shot. In case the film seems slow and uneventful, this is only because Lieberman takes his time to introduce the dark woods and eerie mountains as extra characters in his film. We hardly ever see the killers in person, but there always appears to be someone luring from behind the trees or from underneath the mountain lakes. Bearing this in mind, "Just Before Dawn" becomes a highly admirable horror effort and actually a lot better than its contemporary blood-soaked colleagues. Amidst a nearly endless selection of gory and sickening slashers, Lieberman successfully puts the emphasis back on tension and character development. The plot revolves on five twenty-something friends heading for a camping vacation in the Oregon woods, where one of them owns a small piece of land. The woods are deserted and, naturally, the campers ignore forest ranger Roy's (George Kennedy!) advise to return back to civilization. Shortly after, they brutally encounter an inbred family of which the twin sons have murderous tendencies. All five main characters are surprisingly likable and convincing! No irritating stereotypes for which you don't feel sympathy anyway, like slutty girls or football jocks. As a result of this "natural" character, you automatically cheer for them, even when they eventually almost turn into savages themselves. The sublime camera-work supplies the film with an at times unbearable tension level and Brad Fiedel's chilling electronic score only adds to this effect. "Just Before Dawn" is a fine slice of early 80's horror, as long as you don't desire blood to drip from your TV-set.
| 1 |
positive
|
Heart of Darkness Movie Review Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness is pretty dark, deep, and very profound. I would have to say reading the novel is way better than the movie. The character Mr. Kurtz, played by John Malcovik was totally the wrong actor to do the part. He fit the character in "Of Mice and Men." The movie left out man key parts that I consider important to get the true message of the story.<br /><br />The movie is poorly edited. It shows a lot of non-important and annoying flashes. In the novel it has a very suspenseful atmosphere, but in the movie it lacks that kind of feeling. In the book there is so much that was left to the imagination of the reader. For example when Marlow spent timeless hours and days waiting for rivets and that entire scene was left out of the movie. In the novel Marlow waited very long time for the rivets to come for him to fix his boat. This was a big source of futility in the novel. The movie added more parts that were useless and kind of didn't make sense. For example, when Kurtz was talking to Marlow at the end of the book and Kurtz snapped the monkey's neck and killed him. That kind of just ruined everything, didn't make any sense to me what so ever. So my suggestion to you is don't view the movie, just read the book. You will understand more and have a better interpretation of the story.<br /><br />~Chris C.
| 0 |
negative
|
Another Son of Sam is definitely not an Oscar winner. Technically, it's horrible. The acting is not too good either. But there is something about it that makes you want to watch more (sort of like a car wreck). The ridiculous close-ups of the killers eyes are more funny than anything. If you are looking for a scare...this ain't the flick for you. It's very obscure and nearly impossible to find. I'm sure there's a reason for that. For a while, it was titled HOSTAGE. It don't matter what you call it, it's still a poor choice for entertainment. It might be good for a MST3000 party or something. Can you believe they would use such a title as ANOTHER SON OF SAM? If that don't have exploitation written all over it, I'll eat my hat. I remember when this was shot in Belmont, NC. A lot of local personalities were used as talent.
| 0 |
negative
|
Wow, this film was terrible. It is as simple as that. It is actually the first time that I walked out early, as far as I can remember. This turned out okay, though: I had a very nice chat with two most charming girls while we all waited for the rest to finally give up on that crap they called a "movie".<br /><br />Where to start. Bad acting, bad jokes. Faecal humour, which I simply cannot stand. Sorry, but snot, pee and scat are *not* funny. You have seen the title picture? That scene actually drags on for about 5 minutes, with the two "heroes" hitting and mutilating each other, which is supposed to be humorous all by itself. It is not.<br /><br />Apart from body fluids, violence and cross-dressing, I do not remember much about this. At least not much good. I was really, really disappointed by this piece of garbage. Or let us be honest here: given that I am actually a big fan of "british" (i.e., black) humour, I was angry.<br /><br />So, want my advice? Three words: do not watch.
| 0 |
negative
|
This outstanding film has about the best acting that you'll ever see, and that alone makes this a must-see. The entire cast is excellent, but then again, it had to be in order to keep up with Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep. It didn't take me long to get hooked on this film, and aside from a courtroom scene that is merely good, this is top-notch entertainment. This is a rare film that actually deserved all the Oscar recognition that it received. See it for yourself and you will definitely not be disappointed.
| 1 |
positive
|
Imagine watching a slide show where the projector lingers on every slide long enough for you to completely memorize it three times over. Now imagine that the images in the slide show consist entirely of mundane scenes a small park; and empty tennis court; a piano. Now imagine that the people running the slide show are having a frustratingly slow, semi-lucid conversation about events that only occasionally relate to the slides they're showing you. Great you've just imagined the entirety of the film `India Song.'<br /><br />The film is an agonizingly slow montage of images that do little except to simply scream out `Look at me! I am PROFOUND!!' with such blatant self-importance that the images themselves and the movie as a whole are rendered not merely bereft of profundity, but COMICALLY bereft of profundity. The visuals could easily have been replaced by a series of static images as described above, since it is so rare that there are actually people on screen, and even when they are, the people actually move only slightly more often than the furniture. They never speak or interact in any meaningful way they just stand there looking at each other, and occasionally crying. The most energetic moment in the entire first hour of the film is when three people walk across a parking lot in slow motion. In fact, the visuals could easily have been left out entirely, as the story is told completely through narration. The story is about a woman who hates India because it's hot, and hates people don't hate India because it's hot (this point is covered several times). It is also about a man who feels that he is entitled to sleep with the aforementioned woman, since she will sleep with anyone who asks her to, but he doesn't get to sleep with her simply because he never asks, and he's very upset about this. So he stares at her as a single tear runs profoundly down his cheek. Later on, he stares at his bicycle, as a single tear runs profoundly down his cheek. Actually, you don't get to see the single tear running profoundly down his cheek when he's staring at his bicycle, but you know it's there anyway, just because that's the sort of film this is.<br /><br />At best, the narration becomes background hum, serving as a perfect compliment to the coma-inducing visuals. Simply staying conscious through the entirety of this film would require a supreme act of determination. To watch it and actually come away with a serious and meaningful idea of what it was supposed to be about would induce the same sort of migraine as trying to read lengthy technical documents in the dark. This film is perhaps the greatest monument of pseudo-artistic pretension that man will ever know.
| 0 |
negative
|
How? I wondered why I hadn't seen this in theaters, or even a single commercial for it, and then after I saw the movie, I realized I was duped HARDCORE. I am a big Transporter fan, and a big Blade fan, so when I saw this I imagined some killer fight scene between two badasses, lots of gunplay, a whole bunch of stuff. Instead, I got the Ryan Phillippe movie with a brief cameo by Statham and Snipes. The guy that does the audio and video in the crime lab got more screen time than Wesley. It was like renting a Jackie Chan movie expecting a bunch of kung fu and getting Erin Brockavich. I expect bad movies from Hollywood, but actors like Snipes and Statham should treat the fan base better.
| 0 |
negative
|
Great British director Christopher Nolan (Momento, Insomnia), directs this odd film about a struggling writer obsessed with following people. This proves harmless at first but soon turns dangerous after taking the game a step further after meeting a like-minded man who shows him the ins and outs of breaking and entering. The two men soon get in over their heads in a strange world involving the mafia and prostitution. Jeremy Theobald plays the writer and Alex Haw the like-minded friend. Both are great performances. This low budget movie was shot total guerrilla-style with no permits for any locations and no big stars but has what a lot of huge budget films don't have which is a clever script and creative direction. An impressive debut by one of todays best directors. Good Stuff!
| 1 |
positive
|
If there's one theme of this film, it's that people can cope with hardship by having a good imagination. This family is poor, their father works graveyard, and their mother works double-shifts, and Peter is constantly picked on for a variety of reasons, and becomes increasingly frustrated that he is often mistaken for a girl. He is just starting to approach that age of 10 or 11 where your perceptions start to change, and thinks like your appearance start to matter. The backdrop of this story is the 1967 World's Fair and the Centennial of Canada. The film's greatest moments come during the various fantasy sequences where we see just how they cope. Watch the flim, and if you've ever had a childhood friend that you dreamt with, and then for some reason, lost, you'll really like this film. Perhaps kids will like this film, but only adults will truly appreciate it, including its references to bolshevik's and what parent's will do for their children.
| 1 |
positive
|
Should I have expected anything other than putrid from Carrot Top? This was on of the worst movies I have ever seen. It is by far the worst comedy I have ever seen. "Chairman of the Board" did not add humor to my attitude, rather it enraged me. That's right, Carrot Top is such a bad comedian that I became enraged that this man is making movies.
| 0 |
negative
|
At initial thought, the concept of this show seemed to be a joke and a gag, just for Stan Lee's amusement. I expected nothing more than a sleazy, animated version of Barb Wire with low production values, much like those short pieces of crap you see on Adult Swim for short term amusement, but can never taken too seriously. Boy was I wrong!<br /><br />Stripperella has even better production values than similar Marvel Toons. The animation is very good and it seems that they've taken this series very seriously and given it a full effort to make it a professional production as possible.<br /><br />The humor is good too, on the sexy, suggestive and sleazy side. It is very similar if not exactly like the Simpsons style. You may encounter clichés and a lot of predictable humor but its still fun nevertheless. If this were running today, I'd surely see it regularly. Its surprisingly one of the better toons ever made.
| 1 |
positive
|
Even the Maria Montez/Jon Hall technicolored baubles of the '40s are eclipsed by "Princess of the Nile," Fox's entry in Hollywood's mid-'50s obsession with things Egyptian (see "Land of the Pharoahs," "Valley of the Kings," etc.) Pure, unadulterated, mindless hokum, lavishly produced (low-budgeted, actually, but using sets and costumes left over from "The Robe," this Technicolored spectacle looks like it cost millions). 71 minutes of eye-candy (the plot, having something to do with nefarious derrings-do in ancient Egypt, is beside the point) offers the cinematographer and audiences the delectable sight of Debra Paget wearing an assortment of see-thru veils, most of which hit the ground when she shakes and shimmies thru a slave-girl production number unparalleled in film history. Female moviegoers were not shortchanged: Fox's handsomest young contract player, Jeffrey Hunter, is as photogenic as Ms. Paget, while Michael Rennie lurks around in the background, stirring up evil doings in the land of the pyramids. For those who might think Paget & Hunter can't act and were only hired for their physical attributes, check out their subtle, overlooked, heartbreaking work together a few years later in "White Feather" (another Fox production that has sadly vanished into the realm of "lost films"). "Princess of the Nile" still stands in a class by itself as a cheerfully mindless, breathlessly fast-paced, dazzling testament to the glories of 3-strip Technicolor--and the seductive charms of Ms. Paget (all of 20 at the time). Put this one-of-a-kind kitsch classic at the top of your "guilty pleasures" list, and enjoy. Satisfaction guaranteed!
| 1 |
positive
|
Playwright John Osborne's (Look Back in Anger, The Entertainer) dramatisation of Oscar Wilde's only novel positively revels in the homosexual subtext of the original, perhaps too much so. Nonetheless, the dialogue, the acting, with a cast headed by Sir John Gielgud & Jeremy Brett, and the brilliantly cerebral production (marred only by a "too quick" ending) make this worth the while of any lover of Theater, with a capital "T".
| 1 |
positive
|
Okay, so this was made way back in 1993. Directed loosely by Robert Iscove and written loosely by John Miglis, it's supposed to be based on a true story. Hard to believe anyone could be so stupid and blind to the truth. For certainly it was obvious from the beginning that this dame was after all she could get.<br /><br />Tim Matheson, looking somewhat older than I remember him, played the empty headed man who was looking for romance in his somewhat dull and empty life. Well, it came to him in the likes of Tracy Pollan, a somewhat vacant looking girl with kinky sex as her means of conquering her guys.<br /><br />Come on, phone sex, even in the 90s was old hat. Can't believe someone would fall for that old line. But Mr. Matheson seemed to buy it. And it cost him plenty. <br /><br />The hardest scene to take was when he finally threw the dame out of his apartment, putting all her junk in the hallway (IN FRONT OF HIS APARTMENT) and then had the stupidity not to change the locks. That's when I had enough of this trite movie. It made me want to wish the dame had tried it on me so I could have the satisfaction of telling her to take a hike.<br /><br />I give this chestnut a 1 out of 100. That's how bad I thought it was. I guess you can't blame the actors. But they were awful. Did they actually try to play this with a straight face?
| 0 |
negative
|
My original comment on this particular title was deleted, by a IMDb user or the staff, only because I just happen to dislike this film to the point I had to sincerely write what I felt after seeing this poor excuse for a film. where's my freedom of word?<br /><br />Obviously this movie was made by students, 'cos so lame and amateurish it felt. Of course even they have to start from somewhere? The script was incoherent mess and so was the acting. With low budget and b- class actors, what can you expect? There's some CGI in places, so poor, it looks like done with an old PC. Some may say, this is sort of an "Alien" clone, only this time it's Dracula (in a vintage costume) who's sucking the other cast dry, one by one. The sets are unconvincing, cheap and small (boiler rooms), although the story takes place in a large space craft. <br /><br />It would be fun to know what the stars (Erika Eleniak, Casper Van Dien, Coolio and Udo Kier) thought about the film after it was released... Coolio must be the worst rapper turned actor ever!<br /><br />It was a total waste of my time and money, don't know why I even bothered to rent this flick. Honestly, I just hate this film. With Uwe Boll's House Of The Dead, Dracula 3000 shares the questionable honor of being the worst movie ever. (Well, I've seen even worse than these two)<br /><br />Avoid! Any other film will do better.
| 0 |
negative
|
The reviews for RENDITION generally haven't been favorable, so I waited until it moved to the local discount theatre to see it. The film tells the story of Anwar El-Ibrahimi, an American-Egyptian scientist who is plucked from his international flight and hauled in for interrogation after a strange coincidence links him to a recent terrorist attack in an unnamed North African country. Not as bad as I'd feared, it's an interesting and thought-provoking entry in the "ripped-from-the-headlines" thriller genre.<br /><br />The film ultimately asks tough questions concerning U.S. methods of prying information from political prisoners: Is crossing the formerly-uncrossed line of (openly) employing torture on suspected terrorists something our country should be doing? Does it yield useful information that helps save lives? If so, at what cost? What sort of monsters do we create when innocent people are taken prisoner and tortured? By sanctioning the use of torture, what sort of monster do we as a country become? It's always disappointing when a film with such provocative material is sloppy with some of the details that make good films great. For example, I'd like to have empathized with Anwar's wife, who spends the entire film trying to track him down, but the only identifiable personality trait she's given is an advanced state of pregnancy. RENDITION also seems to imply that Arab women who don't go along with their fathers' arranged marriages are only asking for trouble, and there's a poorly-conceived scrapbook kept by another of the film's main characters that too conveniently spells out in great detail all the information his love interest just happens to be in urgent need of at that particular moment. I laughed out loud, when the moment should have been filled with dread.<br /><br />The film features a good central performance by Jake Gyllenhaal and strong (but too brief) appearances by Hollywood veterans Meryl Streep and Alan Arkin, as well as impressive turns by Omar Atwally as Anwar El-Ibrahimi and also by actors Moa Khouas, Zineb Oukach and Yigal Naor, all of whom I would much enjoy seeing in future films that have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism. Good luck to them. The five or so stories RENDITION follows are woven together nicely, until the filmmakers insert a slight-but-effective twist that finally alludes to the never-ending cycle of carnage that violent attacks of terror beget.
| 1 |
positive
|
Some martial-arts purists think that comedy was the worst thing that could have happened to the old-school kung-fu flick; and it is true that the introduction of comedy into the genre signaled the end of the "chop-socky" period in Hong Kong film. But the fact is, one can only carry-on a primarily physical exhibition of prowess for just so long, then everyone gets bored with it. And that's really why the chop-socky died and how the Hong Kong "New Wave" action film was born: the producers, the actors, the directors all just got bored with hitting people for ninety-minutes straight.<br /><br />Given that, and given the fact that Liu Chia Liang is a professional director with a considerable list of films in his resume, this film has to be seen as something other than just another kung-fu comedy. Rather, it is a comic film within the martial-arts genre, and in fact one of the best ever made.<br /><br />What Liu has done with this film is really a pleasant surprise: he has taken a martial-arts plot and re-constructed it along the lines of a Hollywood-style musical! Complete with episodes of singing and dancing! It was around the time of the making of this film that some film-makers and film fans began to recognize that the cinematic performance of martial-arts (really derived from the acrobatics of the Chinese opera) has more in common with dance than with fighting. (I will continue to point out this connection until most Americans realize what they are actually supposed to look for when watching a martial arts film - well-choreographed body movements, using the plot of an action film as an excuse for their performance.) At any rate, quite clearly Liu Chia Liang made this connection and decided he would explore it close to its limits.<br /><br />The result is an incredibly charming entertainment, filled with marvelously human characters attempting miraculous kung-fu (and tripping over their own shoelaces as often as not when they do so). and the film being set at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, allows Liu the opportunity to explore the nature of the Westernization and Modernization of China that contributed so greatly to the making of the China we know today. So the film has considerable historical import as well.<br /><br />Also, fans of Stephen Chow's recent Kung Fu Hustle should really watch this movie carefully, as Chow clearly learned from it before the making of his own film.<br /><br />A very amusing, well-made film. Oh, yes, and the kung fu in it is really, really good.<br /><br />Purists won't admit it, but this is probably director Liu's best film.
| 1 |
positive
|
It's not often I feel strongly enough to post something about a film. This was, however, simply the worst movie I have ever seen. The performances were laughable at best, at worst they were, well, there's no other word for it, awful. Especially the lead female who's random sexual come-ons have to be seen and heard to be believed. Honestly, the plot is nonsensical,the dialogue appalling and the characterisation...there is none. I'm surprised it's not an Alan Smithee film. I can't stress this strongly enough... avoid at all costs.How do movies like this ever get made? This is no budget film-making at its very, very worst.
| 0 |
negative
|
Tracy and Matt, Michelle and Sebastian: these are the two couples whose lives of addiction, crime, and squalor are brilliantly captured in this raw and honest HBO documentary. They're in turns petulant, charming, repulsive, astonishingly stupid, and dedicated: to the drugs and to each other. They're also each very different: Matt is a working class boy who clearly revels in his naughtiness, whilst prep school dropout Tracy supports the couple with Western Union money from her moneybags father, who makes a surprisingly sympathetic cameo towards the end of the film. Meanwhile widow Michelle (whose hubby died of an OD) earns her daily bread by posing as an NYPD vice cop willing to cut her would-be Johns a deal to avoid prison time, and sad sack companion Sebastian lives off the proceeds. You'll be pulled into their stories and will wish the film went on for twice as long. Unlike most documentaries of this kind, there's no coda providing us with an update about their progress (can Matt and Tracy really keep that Brooklyn apartment? Will Michelle go back to Bellevue for more detox? And can Sebastian become any more pathetic?). As a result, the film seems incomplete, but that may have been the point. Essential viewing, as long as you aren't completely averse to scenes of people shooting up.
| 1 |
positive
|
To say that this is a good show is not to say anything at all. After all, this show is made by the same crew responsible for Airplane and other hilarious and brilliant movies. Writing is superb. Even though the show is built on one-liners, they don't become overbearing or annoying. Leslie Nielsen is flexing his comedy muscle to the full extent as if saying: You ain't seen nothing yet. The format was definitely polished to introduce Naked Gun. When watching these movies, notice how many schticks are taken from the TV show. The brilliant part is that they don't have to be changed too much. The show was truly a testing ground for bigger and better versions to come later.
| 1 |
positive
|
There were so many things wrong with this movie i have trouble keeping them all straight. But one thing that really bothers me is that if Jigsaw was the one laying on the ground in the bathroom, what happens if Zep never shows up? What if Zep was killed by Danny Gloover before he made it to the bathroom? Does Jigsaw simply just get up and walk out? Could the guy in the middle of the bathroom not be jigsaw, but another part of Jigsaw's game? What if Zep killed the wife and kid, how does Jigsaw get him the antidote for the poison if he's lying in the middle of the bathroom? Why does the doctor wait till the last minute to finally cut off his foot? It was too late, it was after six and as far as he knew his wife and child were already shot dead, it wasn't the best time for heroics. These are just a few questions i had about the film, but i may be missing something or everything as i have only seen the movie once. Please Help!
| 0 |
negative
|
Despite some really scenic locations in the orient and some sporadically energetic music by Franco Micalizzi, this film doesn't quite reach the level of Joe D'Amato's similar efforts while staying just about as trashy. The author of the original book "Emmanuelle: The Joys of a Woman", Emmanuelle Arsan, directed and had a smallish role in this film, which mostly pornographically showcases a very young Annie Belle as she gets in a variety of oddball sexual situations. Her boyfriend, played by ZOMBIE's Al Cliver actually approves of her sleeping around and even persuades her to continue her practices even after the two of them are married! Orso Maria Guerrini drops by as a professor who is oh so usually married simultaneously to two women, one of whom is played by Arsan herself. Despite beginning promisingly and having a few hilarious lines of dialog like "can you see me with the naked eye?" ... "I can see you better naked!", the film shambles along plotlessly up until the less-than-spectacular finale. Much like D'Amato's EMANUELLE AND THE LAST CANNIBALS, the main characters are all in search of some lost tribe, but don't get your hopes up, there's no violence at all in this film, and not much sex either for that matter. Just a lot of nudity and silly dialog. I couldn't help but find some appreciation for this little film, if only for the completely cornball logic the film goes by.
| 1 |
positive
|
This is one of my three all-time favorite movies. My only quibble is that the director, Peter Yates, had too many cuts showing the actors individually instead of together as a scene, but the performances were so great I forgive him.<br /><br />Albert Finney and Tom Courtenay are absolutely marvelous; brilliant. The script is great, giving a very good picture of life in the theatre during World War II (and, therefore, what it was like in the 30s as well). Lots of great, subtle touches, lots of broad, overplayed strokes, all of it perfectly done. Scene after scene just blows me away, and then there's the heartbreaking climax.
| 1 |
positive
|
The first half hour of "Homegrown" was rather boring and not absorbing, but as the film progressed, so did my interest in the characters and the plot. Several scenes are really scary and you fear for the main characters who you actually grow attached to. The story is about three hired hands on a hidden illegal marijuana farm in southern California. They witness the murder of the farm's owner, Malcolm (John Lithgow), and they take over the weed for their own. The three rather simple-minded farm hands soon get swept up into a scary world of mafia and local interest, while all of the time trying to convince everyone that Malcolm is still alive. While the movie had several faults and a slow beginning, it turned out to be worthwhile. 7/10 stars.
| 1 |
positive
|
Some films are designed to just entertain you, others to make you laugh, or cry, or uplift, others, like this, aim to provoke, to make you think, and to make you angry. I was angry during this film, not at the film, but at the fact that it was true, that America, the free, does torture in the illogical view that it is doing it for the greater good. The torture scenes in this movie were harrowing, the indifference of people was shattering, the film was compelling in its argument, and showed just how wrong it is to torture people. Of course now that makes me a "bleeding liberal" labels shoved on people by others who shut their minds to the facts that this does happen and should not. People who don't realise that as the movie said, for every person tortured,you get ten or one hundred people rise up to perform acts of vengeance. You get an ever increasing cycle of violence. This film did not make me hate America, although I can see how it could do, but it made me hate the way that America has reacted in its post 9/11 world. There is a significant quote in the film, just after we have learned that 19 people have died and seventy five were injured in the bomb scene, the quote is "one American is dead" - that makes the difference. You cannot kill an American, America can kill thousands but you cannot kill a single American, or they will do whatever it takes, including torture to enact justice. This is the American way apparently. Call me a liberal, call me naive (although I think the people who think torture is fine are naive) call me deluded, call me anything you like, but this film is a brilliant example of what is wrong in America and the west today. I wish this film would be shown to all school students, at a minimum. This film will stay with me a long time, part of me wishes I could forget it, because I wish this type of thing never happened, but I know it does, the other part of me wishes I would never forget, because we need to remember these shameful events to prevent them from happening again. Whatever happens to me, this film will be with me for a long time, and I will be telling everyone I know to watch it, not to be entertained, but to be provoked, because sometimes we all need to be provoked.
| 1 |
positive
|
Overall I found this film good: exceptional acting with disturbing scenes (some essential, some useless) and weak second half. CONTAINS SPOILERS The film is divided in 2 parts. I thought the first half of the Pianist was terrific. We meet Erika Kohut (wonderful Isabelle Huppert), a piano teacher, and get introduced to her world. She is single, struggling to find her space against an over-protective and borderline tyrannic mother. We understand that she has lost or has seldom experienced love as a physical+emotional chemistry: she protects herself by being sharp and offensive to people, releases her sexual tensions in sex-shops, as a voyeur, or in sadistic self-mutilations ... This first half is very clinical and builds an incredible tension in the film, almost unbearable.<br /><br />Then comes Walter, a young, handsome and outgoing man (played superbly by Benoit Magimel). Though he gets to feel Erika's coldness in the beginning, he seduces her and slowly wreaks Erika's fortress. He loves her deeply but she needs him to fulfil her sadistic desires. Then when she is about to fall for him, he is disgusted by her world and in the end we discover that Erika is unable to love or feel at all (especially since Walter is portrayed as someone impossible not to love). This is the second half of the film, very touching as we see Erika's inability/inexperience to love lead her to self-destruction. This second half seemed less mastered by Haneke, and sometimes had non-credible (ie. too shocking) scenes which paradoxically lessened the drama.<br /><br />Of course, this is a crude film at least in the French version: you see porn sequences from the sex shop, daring mutilation and sex scenes. The much talked-about fellatio scene between Magimel and Huppert was quite good I thought, and is central to understand Erika's sick relation to love. As to the actors, Huppert is marvelous all through the film, Magimel gets better and better up to perfection, and Girardot (the mother) is excellent.<br /><br />
| 1 |
positive
|
"One Dark Night" is a staple in the 1980's low budget horror genre. Filled with retro puns, clothing and scenery, "ODN" transports the viewer to a simpler time, when horror films were just that... Horror!<br /><br />Nothing so intense that you can't understand whats going on, the film tells a dark fable of what happens when you mess with the dead. Well acted by it's stable of scream-queens, and a fine directorial job by Tom McLoughlin, whom revels in the time and makes you believe what he's presenting. There is no "Who done it?" and certainly no big twist at the end. It is straight-forward and in your face horror from beginning to end, with a lot of 80's humor thrown in for added spice. I give it "8" simply because some of the special effects fall short towards the end of the film, but at least there is no CGI... Perfect film for new fans to the 1980's horror genre, or anyone looking to re-live a fun night of classic horror bliss.
| 1 |
positive
|
It is amazing what you can see if you wake at 2 am and turn on the telly. I didn't know they showed films like this. I immediately thought of Roger Corman, who reused locations for movies or used other films locations for his own movies.<br /><br />The makes of this film could just move the camera angles and add some time and they would have an XXX film.<br /><br />There was no story, just minimum dialog that led to stripping and sex. I bet there wasn't 100 words in the whole film, but there sure was a lot of very large busts and hot lesbian action. There was male/female action too, but it was only about 25% of the movie.<br /><br />Another interesting thing came to mind in watching this film that may interest those who are buying hi def DVDs. Sony refused to license Betamax to adult film makers and adult films came out on VHS. You can guess what happened to beta max as the adult film industry makes millions of videos. Sony has again refused to license Blu-ray to the adult film industry and they have just signed a deal with Toshiba. You can guess which high def system will disappear.
| 0 |
negative
|
Recently was traveling in Norway from Bergen, Norway and stopped in the small town of Voss, Norway and there was a monument in honor of Knute Rockne who was born in Voss years ago. The people all know about Knute to this day and tour guides are proud to stop at his monument. This film is a great history of this great man and his great love for Notre Dame Never realized that Knute has such great talents in chemistry and laboratory science and also taught chemistry for years and at the same time coached the football team. Ronald Reagan played the role of George Gipp, (The Gipper) who was an outstanding football player; Reagan had a short role, but gave a great supporting role in this film. Donald Crisp, (Father John Callahan) was outstanding as a priest who always had great faith in Knute during his entire life at Notre Dame. This is a great Classic film and will be viewed by many generations to come. Enjoy.
| 1 |
positive
|
PREY <br /><br />Aspect ratio: 1.37:1<br /><br />Sound format: Mono<br /><br />A lesbian couple (Sally Faulkner and Glory Annan) living in a remote country house are driven apart by the arrival of a young man (Barry Stokes) who turns out to be a flesh-eating alien, the vanguard of a massive invasion...<br /><br />Despite its shoestring budget and leaden pacing, Norman J. Warren's follow-up to SATAN'S SLAVE (1976) amounts to a great deal more than the sum of its meager parts, thanks to a surprisingly complex script by Max Cuff (apparently, his only writing credit): Faulkner and Annan indulge an obsessive relationship whilst living in isolated splendor within the English countryside (rendered alternately beautiful and ominous by Derek V. Browne's eye-catching cinematography), though Annan's discovery of bloodstained clothing in an upstairs room marks one (or both) of these doe-eyed lovelies as psychologically disturbed, which may explain the absence of their respective families, some of whom appear to have lived in the house at one time or another and 'left' under mysterious circumstances. Stokes' unexpected arrival throws the relationship into disarray, partly because Faulkner has a pathological hatred of men and partly because Annan is attracted to him, creating tensions which result in a climactic whirlwind of violence. There's an extraordinary, multi-layered sequence in which Faulkner attempts to 'emasculate' their clueless visitor by dressing him in women's clothing, though Stokes' alien mentality allows him to rise above the intended mockery.<br /><br />In the early scenes, at least, the relationship between Faulkner and Annan is depicted with uncommon grace and dignity, but this heartfelt sapphic liaison quickly devolves into crowd-pleasing episodes of sex and pulchritude, culminating in an explosion of horror when Annan allows herself to be ravished by Stokes following a violent argument with Faulkner. The closing sequences are (quite literally) gut-wrenching, especially Annan's final scene, which appears to have been clipped for censorship reasons in 1977 and never fully restored (what remains is still pretty vivid, so brace yourselves!). Excellent performances by the three leads, bolstered by Warren's unobtrusive direction, which takes full advantage of the stunning woodland locations, thereby compensating for the film's budgetary shortcomings. Originally released in the US as ALIEN PREY.
| 0 |
negative
|
This is a film that every child should see before they grow and get distorted often passed down ideas from generation to generation of family. I grew up in two different places although only 20 miles apart. I went to school & had friends of every color creed & religion for the first 8 years of my life. Then I moved to hillbilly country (although not anymore) where it was very unusual to even have one African-American kid in your class. My graduating class in high school had 2 or 3 African-Amercians (god why can't I just say Black? You can call me a honky or whitey or whatever! all of this political correctness peeves me as it does most others!) Anyway back to the film give this a try to see what happens when people get a distorted view or just what ignorance or a lack of understanding does to a culture or a country! This is an excellent film everyone should see especially children.
| 1 |
positive
|
I caught this on IFC last week and I thought it was typical of the indie short subject film: heavy on style, little on substance and originality. Does it comes as any surprise that a coming out film stars an unusually attractive (and blond to boot) boy with 70s shag hair and too-cool-for-school clothes? Plus, this film wallows in late 1970s chic, which works for some (Sofia Coppola's "The Virgin Suicides" comes to mind) but not for this director.<br /><br />Another reviewer compared this to Harmony Korine's work and I agree. Yet I don't view this as a positive thing (what has HE done lately, anyway?). "Bobbycrush" is really just a waste of time and energy for all involved. If you happen to see it late night on cable, turn the channel and watch something else instead.
| 0 |
negative
|
As a big Dostoyevsky fan, I had always been disappointed with Hollywood's halfhearted attempts to get into the Russian romantic aesthetic -- case in point, Yul Brynner as Dmitri Karamazov. I had thought the whole problem was a poor casting decisions, but then I saw Yul as Major Surov and changed my mind. When given an intelligent script to work with, he suddenly came alive and was as noble, sexy, and conflicted as you could ever want a Neurotic Russian Officer to be! So he was a better Dmitri as Major Surov than he was as Dmitri. But that's because writer Tabori actually gave Yul, as the Conflicted Russian Officer, the kind of Conflicted Russian Officer lines that are worthy of real literature, and that have real meaning and pathos in them. For example, a propos of folk music, he says musingly, "You hear a man crying in the dark. And if you listen carefully enough, you know what he cries for. You look surprised, Lady Ashmore. Despite what you may have heard, tractors and Marxism aren't the only things the Russian cares for. There is always time for music."<br /><br />Brilliant!!
| 1 |
positive
|
Mickey Rourke hunts Diane Lane in Elmore Leonard's Killshot It is not like Mickey Rourke ever really disappeared. He has had a steady string of appearances before he burst back on the scene. He was memorable in: Domino, Sin City, Man on Fire, Once Upon a Time in Mexico, and Get Carter. But in his powerful dramatic performance in The Wrestler (2008), we see a full blown presentation of the character only hinted at in Get Carter. Whenever we get to know him, Rourke remains a cool, but sleazy, muscle bound slim ball.<br /><br />This is an Elmore Leonard story, and production. Leonard wrote such notable movies as taunt western thriller 3:10 to Yuma, Be Cool, Jackie Brown, Get Shorty, 52 Pick-Up, and Joe Kidd. This means that we get tough guys, some good, some not so good.<br /><br />It also means we get tight, realistic plots with characters doing what is best for them in each situation, weaving complications into violent conclusions. Killshot is no different. Tough, slim ball killer Rourke stalks unhappily married witness Lane. Think History of Violence meets No Country for Old Men. It is not as intense, bloody or gory as those two, but it is almost as good. If you like those two, including David Croneberg's equally wonderful Eastern Promises, you will like Killshot also.<br /><br />Director John Madden has not done a lot of movies. His last few were enjoyable, if not successful: Proof, Captain Corelli's Mandolin and Shakespeare in Love.<br /><br />Diana Lane hasn't had a powerful movie role since she and Richard Gere gave incredible performances in Unfaithful. Lately she is charming and appealing in romantic stories such as Nights in Rodanthe, Must Love Dogs, and Under the Tuscan Sun. Here she is right on mark, balancing her sexy appeal with reserved tension.<br /><br />This is a small part for Rosario Dawson. Yet Dawson does a good job with it. You see a lot more of Lane, including an underwear scene to rival Sigourney Weaver in Aliens and Nicole Kidman in Eyes Wide Shut.<br /><br />While you are in the crime drama section, also pick up Kiss, Kiss, Bang, Bang, and Gone Baby Gone, and Before the Devil Knows Your Dead. The last has wonderful performances by Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Ethan Hawke, Marisa Tomei and Albert Finney.<br /><br />Killshot flopped at the box office. More is our luck. It is certainly worth a 3-4 dollar rental, if you like this genre. 6/20/2009
| 0 |
negative
|
I have heard an awful lot about 'The English Patient' and I finally decided to get the CD and find out what all the ballyhoo was about. What I found out was a cinematic delight and should, I repeat 'should' always be watched with an open mind. If you are a religious, moral zealot, I am afraid this is not a film for you as you will fail to see the beauty of this cinematic masterpiece as you will keep on harping on the moral dilemmas this film creates. As I remember correctly before I watched this film I read the review in this site and was thoroughly disgusted by the views of that person who I quote said 'that the protagonists thoroughly deserved what they got'. When it comes to morality I agree with him but this is not the way to comment on a film of this magnificence. <br /><br />I must admit rarely have I seen such a wonderfully crafted film. I keep on hearing the background soundtrack in my subconscious. First and foremost this is a love story and yes it's an extramarital affair (moralists beware) but lets not keep focusing on that. Instead let's focus on how the story was told. It's an admixture of flashbacks and the present. Its set in the world war II and tells us the story of a survivor of a plane crash (Count Almazhy played wonderfully by Ralph Fiennes) who is looked after by an army nurse (Juliet Binoche) in war torn Italy just before the beginning of the end (defeat of the axis powers). The burn scarred patient very much in pain kept on remembering the torrid affair he had with an English woman Katherine (Kristin Scott Thomas) shown in flashbacks set in pre-war Africa. The past and the present are interwoven so adroitly in the story that you're sort of transported in the story and get the feel of a first hand viewer. The locales in the desert and in Italy are beautiful and so are the characters. I am a romantic and am not ashamed to say I had tears after it ended. Watch it with someone you truly love. The movie starts and ends with the same shot of the desert where the sand dunes twist and curves like a woman's body and it was breathtaking. The sense of loss and grief was conveyed so overwhelmingly by the actors that it makes me wonder why god! Why do we have wars that destroys beauty and the most unforgivable of all, the destruction of Innocence. <br /><br />Anyway it deservedly won a bunch of Oscars and I will go hunting for other works of director Anthony Minghella.It kind of brings back the romanticism in the David Lean genre of films.It almost reminds me of 'Lawrence of Arabia' which was also based in the desert.Happy viewing folks.
| 1 |
positive
|
They say that it is always better in horror movies to leave things to the imagination of the viewer- to hide certain details from the audience in order to tickle their sense of imagination, dip into their fears and let that give birth to their darkest thoughts.<br /><br />That was not the case when I watched Bakjwi, under the American title Thirst. Now playing at select theaters near you. Seems like the film makers did not want to spare you any details. There WILL be blood in this film and you WILL try to look away.<br /><br />For rest of review please visit http://without-terebi.blogspot.com/2009/08/thirst-aka-bakjwi.html Thanks and hope you enjoyed reading above.
| 1 |
positive
|
It pains me to say this about an Australian film but Mr. Accident ranks with the worst of the worst films I have ever seen. What's even more tragic is that it doesn't fit into the 'it's so bad it's good' category. What annoys me the most about this film is the fairly large amount of money that has been frittered away on a pointless, unfunny, underdeveloped, inept screenplay. Dumb performances (What are Garry McDonald and Elisabeth Gore aka Elle McFeast doing in this trash?), inadequate direction, no plot and a general sense of meanness totally take away from the interesting production design and leave you with a truly horrible taste in your mouth. Comedy! Ha! Do yourself a favour and stay away!
| 0 |
negative
|
I don't understand the people here. The film is neither as good as as bad as some people say here. Except for De Kok the acting is OK. The problem with the film is mainly the script. The characters are not believable. The sex is done okay, but the psychology behind the people makes very little sense. The film doesn't look good, but what do you expect? The film was shot for very little money on video. Off course then it doesn't look as good as a normal film, duh! The one thing I do agree on is that the music is bad. Sounds like a cheap soft erotic film from the '80's. The film is not good, okay, but you have to give some credit for pulling this of without any money.
| 0 |
negative
|
I shot this movie. I am very proud of the film. It was a great experience which shows up on the screen. Halfdan Hussey is an excellent collaborator who had a vision and was able to capture the movie in the exact way we envisioned while prepping the film. The sets are amazing and well crafted for each character. John York and his team built sets that not only fit the characters, they worked well in shooting the film, allowing us to move seamlessly through walls and from one set to another. Each character has an amazing arc, which makes for a great story. I feel like all of the actors gave excellent performances. I disagree with some of the other comments that say the acting was not good. Watch it and decide for yourself.
| 1 |
positive
|
I saw this movie on TV back in the 60s and it still stands up well even after brilliant performances as a DI by R. Lee Ermey, Lou Gossett and even Frank Sutton (in a comic vein) on Gomer Pyle USMC. I wasn't in the service but my brother had a recording of a Drill Instructor in the Air Force and it was scary. Others in the family who were Marines told me that Ermey and even Sutton were pretty spot on in their roles. The only thing missing in "The D. I." is the language. In 1958 they couldn't yet use profanity on film, yet Jack Webb came across pretty damned tough without it. I think it's his best role ever. In Dragnet he was quite stiff I'll admit, though not as bad as George Raft, but he used it only to effect in "The D. I." You never forget the funeral for the dead flea! The romantic part was just to stretch the movie, but didn't really interfere with the basic plot. Don Dubbins was pretty good to but he never surpassed this film in his career. As far as patriotism, Jack Webb was TV's John Wayne. He carried it a bit too far in some Dragnet episodes, but not in "The D. I." After 40 some years I hoped the film could stand up to the likes "Full Metal Jacket" and others; and it did!
| 1 |
positive
|
As a huge fan of the original Operation Delta Force, I thought I'd pick this film up. I figured it couldn't be too bad. However, here's a list of things I learnt from watching Operation Delta Force 4: Deep Fault.<br /><br />- The Delta Force, despite being the elite in American armed forces, are mostly mildly-overweight men in their late 30s and early 40s.<br /><br />- The Delta Force, despite being the elite in American armed forces, carry standard police issue pistols or AK-47s on their most important missions.<br /><br />- The Delta Force, despite being the elite in American armed forces, haven't learnt that during stealth missions, wearing bright red ski jumpers and running around in open spaces aren't exactly going to keep you out of sight.<br /><br />- When you drop a Molotov cocktail into a tank, it explodes externally like a grenade.<br /><br />- When you get hit by tank fire, you can run away, although the smoke caused may present minor difficulties for breathing.<br /><br />- You can die from one standard gun shot, but you can also live despite being hit multiple times by a sniper rifle, and a few times by an AK-47.<br /><br />- In hand-to-hand combat, members of The Delta Force, despite being the elite in American armed forces, are regularly pummeled by railroad attendants.<br /><br />- If bad guys are approaching you while on a slow-moving train, there's nothing to worry about - between the 4 of them, they can't manage to figure out how to get an automatic weapon to fire automatically, let alone hit anyone from 5 metres (16 feet) with at least 50 attempts between them.<br /><br />- If you're short on actors, just recycle them - the bad guy from Operation Delta Force 1 plays a good guy called Mac in Operation Delta Force 4, and the guy who played Mac in Operation Delta Force 3 now plays Skip Lang, a different good guy.<br /><br />- It's not OK for The Delta Force to shoot an unarmed terrorist, even if he's attempting to reload his weapon to kill you.<br /><br />- Grenades explode on impact with the ground when thrown by members of The Delta Force. When thrown by non-Delta Force personnel, they explode at exactly the point where the Delta Force members have thrown the grenades back at the bad guys.<br /><br />- Tanks can drive faster than standard trucks.<br /><br />- Militias and personal armies use the exact same chopper that the UN used in Operation Delta Force 1.<br /><br />- When a chopper arrives, a bad guy in that chopper cannot see you if you lie face-down.<br /><br />- Shooting someone multiple times in the chest will cause minor damage. Stabbing that person in the knee will kill them inside 5 seconds.<br /><br />- The Delta Force steal cars from old people to get around when in foreign countries, because the US Military do not provide them with any means of transport. This may also explain why they caught public transport.<br /><br />As you can see, this is not really the finest moment in film-making, but it's good for a laugh.
| 0 |
negative
|
As i watched "Wirey Spindell" i couldnt but laugh at what was taking place on screen. Wirey sure got a lot of play from both boys and women but i was confused as to why the actor that played Wirey in H.S. was 10 years old. Then the actor changed age to like 20 to play Wirey when he was a senior in HS...but whatever, i thought it was funny.
| 1 |
positive
|
I stumbled across this film while channel surfing, and was blown away. It was being broadcast on a lesser known short films program here in Australia.<br /><br />It has been a long time since I have been so impressed by a film, especially one so short. <br /><br />The power of the story, the quality of the acting and the stunning cinematography... wow. If it were available, it would make a very worthy addition to my DVD collection.<br /><br />I am undoubtedly impressed, and I will look forward to Joshua Leonards' next film.<br /><br />An exceptional experience 10/10
| 1 |
positive
|
Was really looking forward to seeing a continuation of Lonesome Dove but this was total garbage. Cinematography was terrible. Shot way too tight. Was almost viewing the Grand Canyon through a stationary telescope. Editing was cut, cut, cut. Not even smooth. More like a bad student editor. Don't know if McMurtry did the screen play but the dialog was terrible. Really like Val Kilmer's portrayal of Doc Holiday in Wyatt Earp but what in heck was he doing with this character in Comanche Moon??? I have no idea. Even looked like it was shot on a sound stage using the old Bonanza sets. How can the director of the original Lonesome Dove gone so wrong with this? Where was his head.............. Can't say much for the acting either. It's a shame to have messed up such a beautiful western that could have been but more like they rushed this one just to get it in the can. Have read other reviews and see that others felt the same way. Not even curious to watch the next few nights cause it would be just a waste of time like the first night was.<br /><br />(2nd post)..................OK, since nothing else was on TV I must be honest and admit that I watched the last 2 nights of Comanche Moon. And I will be honest to tell you that I didn't make it to the end of either of the last 2 episodes because I fell asleep! I can only admit that I was watching the two main characters very closely and I could pick out some mannerisms that Steve Zahn did while portraying the character that Duval did such an excellent job with. So I must give Zahn credit for that. As for Karl Urban's portrayal....simple dead meat. Can only say again that I was very disappointed only because I cared so much for the original LD and like others .......have defended my feelings for a truly great western.
| 0 |
negative
|
A dedicated Russian Scientist dreams of going to Mars. He eventually gets there but it takes the whole film before we are able to have a laugh at the Russian style of Revolution in Mars.
| 0 |
negative
|
One of the more obscure of Anthony Mann's Westerns, The Last Frontier was also his only cavalry Western (aside from one brief episode in Winchester '73), though naturally he focuses on the outsiders and internal conflicts rather than offering a Fordian celebration of comradeship and shared ideals. Set not in his beloved high country but in the foothills and forests, it's a much more cynical view of life of the frontier, in many ways his Fort Apache without the need to preserve the legend: this outpost is made up of misfits, failures, cowards and the odd competent officer ignored by his superiors, badly led while the Civil War takes priority and all the best the army has to offer.<br /><br />Victor Mature and James Whitmore are the free trappers who find civilisation creeping up on them when they are relieved of their pelts and packhorses by a local tribe aggrieved by the incursion of the Cavalry into their territory. Rather than blame the Indians for their losses they decide it's the army's fault for building the fort and decide to demand compensation from them, ending up joining their ranks as scouts instead. But despite the best efforts of Guy Madison's amiable and competent acting commander to bring Mature into the 19th Century and make him fit to wear the uniform, the arrival of Robert Preston's humiliated Colonel eager to revenge himself on the tribe that drove him out of his own outpost and Mature's clumsy infatuation with the Colonel's wife (Anne Bancroft, too much of a blank slate here to do much with the role of a woman who's tired of being saved by men who think they know what's best for her) soon drive matters into much darker territory. It's not long before some of the soldiers are busily planning on killing each other, both sides trying to goad their subordinates into doing the deed for them: little wonder that at one point Mature throws away the bluecoat he has long coveted in disgust, screaming "I would have died for this, but it's nothing but a dirty filthy blue rag!" The Stallone of his day, Mature was one of those actors who could surprise you with the odd excellent performance here and there when matched with the right part and the right director. This is not one of his better days despite having his most complex part, perversely enough as a simple man well-meaning but drunk, violent, uneducated and with a unsubtle, almost childlike lust for life, the part seems designed with Burt Lancaster in mind, with some striking similarities to his character in The Kentuckian. But Robert Preston's Ahab-like Colonel is clearly the best role, determined to resurrect the career he destroyed in a single disastrously suicidal Civil War engagement by launching another pointless suicidal campaign against the tribe that added another humiliation to the list that keeps him out of sight and out of mind of the promotion board. In his obsession to redeem his career he moves further away from any hope of moral redemption, driven as much by his sense of shame at his wife's sympathy as by the promotion of former comrades he regards as his inferiors. He's beyond salvation, but there's still a recognisable human being in there and one not entirely without a sense of integrity he genuinely admires Madison's courage in making a futile attempt to get Preston's orders countermanded by their superiors fatally skewed though it is.<br /><br />Like its hero, the film is a little rough around the edges (and boasts one of the most surreal and jaunty title songs of any Western), but that only tends to make it more interesting, and there are plenty of Mann's typically elegant camera moves and plays on perspective, while the frontier setting is convincingly harsh and primitive. Unfortunately the deficiencies of the early CinemaScope lenses are very apparent in Columbia's DVD, with the image often dark (2.55:1 CinemaScope required a huge amount of additional lighting and early Scope films show a lot of trial-and-error) and grainy.
| 1 |
positive
|
This for one has nothing to do with the absolutely fantastic first flick. And of course us Americans just have to remake everything successful into English, because man reading subtitles is SOOOOO Hard isn't it! From what I've see in the new trailers with the adorable now pregnant Jessica Alba (well that sure ruins every teenage boys fantasy everywhere doesn't it!) It looks EXACTLY the same but probably w/double the budget. I thought the original was one of the best horror/suspense/mystery flicks I have seen in any language in quite a long while. I would recommend watching that one and skipping this one all together, there is no reason to watch this as there is no reason this even called "The Eye 2" except to capitalize on the excellence that was the first flick. Do yourself a favor watch "The Eye" with the volume turned up and get ready for some probable jumping. I watched it w/headphones on and was pleasantly surprised on the excellence that was the direction of the Pang brothers. If "The Eye" remake does well which I'm hoping it does for the sake of the Pang Brothers movie careers, but at the same time it seems a shame that people won't/can't see the original, because very often/almost always the remake isn't as good as the original. Watch this one if one wants to be mildly kinda of boring flick, but the original is no comparison to this sequel in name only flick.
| 0 |
negative
|
This is one of those made-for-TV B movies that is so awful it kind of endears.<br /><br />Bad acting, predictable script and cheesy special effects that were pretty much some of the cheapest tat seen make you have to keep watching to see if it gets any better.<br /><br />It doesn't!
| 0 |
negative
|
Stan as a bullfighter, and a good one, is quite a surprise. Usually overshadowed by Oliver Hardy, this silent short allows him to take the lead, and the limelight.<br /><br />One can only draw the conclusion that his character "Rhubarb Vaselino" was a parody of the many Rudolph Valentino movies of this era.<br /><br />Be prepared to laugh yourself silly at some of the dialog, and keep an eye on the special effects.<br /><br />I viewed this on DVD in a Vol.1 & 2 collection.
| 1 |
positive
|
Granny, directed by Boris Pavlovsky (who?), sees eight friends experiencing a night of terror when a psycho-killer dressed in a old hag rubber mask and a nightdress interrupts their party.<br /><br />They say you can't judge a book by its cover, but it appears that the same is not true of DVDs: I was in the mood for a REALLY bad horror film last night, and since the cover of Granny featured a shoddily photo-shopped image of the titular killer swinging an axe, terrible typography (they even use the system font Sand, a definite design no-no!), and credits featuring absolutely no-one I had heard of, I reckoned it would be pretty lousy.<br /><br />It was!<br /><br />When a film clocks in at just under an hour long, it really shouldn't waste too much time before getting to the action; Granny, however, spends the first 20 minutes or so with its unlikable group of friends indulging in pointless games and extremely banal conversation. Anyone who actually stays with the film long enough for the killing to begin (and I doubt most sane people would bother) will be treated to several dreadful death scenes featuring amateurish gore, loads of awful acting, and a surprise ending that comes as no surprise (if you've seen April Fool's Day, then you'll guess what the twist is way before it is revealed).<br /><br />Granny is uninspired, unexciting, and almost unwatchable. Avoid.
| 0 |
negative
|
Considering the film’s reputation as truly the worst of the worst, I was looking forward to watching Wood’s Crappus Opus (my word); it’s not necessarily any more inept than the other Woods I’ve watched – however, being from the REEFER MADNESS (1938) school of film-making, GLEN OR GLENDA doesn’t come across as readily ‘enjoyable’ as his genre efforts.<br /><br />Also, this surely emerges as Horror legend Bela Lugosi’s nadir (his first of three ‘collaborations’ with the director): one wonders whether he was really aware what kind of film it was (considering the actor’s history of heavy medication and the sheer senselessness of his cameo). Besides, Lugosi’s idiosyncratic delivery is perhaps at its most awkward here…though Wood’s script is mostly to blame for this – given the impossible dialogue (with repeated nonsensical allusions to “puppy-dog tails” and “big fat snails”) he handed the ailing star! By the way, Wood himself plays the central role (under the pseudonym Daniel Davis) – and, being just as worthless in this area, proves to have been an all-round dog!; Dolores Fuller – his wife and co-star – was similarly untalented (she would also appear in JAIL BAIT [1954])…but, at the very least, the image where the latter finally lets Glen wear her angora sweater did give Tim Burton’s affectionate biopic ED WOOD (1994) its famous poster! <br /><br />Incidentally, the latter film features a presumably fictionalized meeting between Wood and Orson Welles – well, for all intents and purposes, GLEN OR GLENDA constitutes Ed Wood’s CITIZEN KANE (1941) given its gleeful propensity for gimmicky narrative techniques: in fact, the barest thread of plot is padded with stock footage galore (many of it irrelevant, such as the bewildering instances of S&M) and inane dream sequences (highlighted by the presence of an impish demon sporting outrageous bushy eyebrows that would make Martin Scorsese weep with envy)! The film’s sincere attempt at a plea for tolerance and psychological probing into the affliction/phenomenon of transvestism is, however, sabotaged at every turn by the sheer amateurishness of the approach.<br /><br />For what it’s worth, the edition I watched was the “Extended Re-issue Version” which included six minutes of ‘depraved’ footage (directed by W. Merle Connell) censored on original release! Furthermore, my copy went out-of-synch every so often (which forced me to rewind it slightly to get the audio back on track) – though, thankfully, this was the fault of the source conversion to DivX as opposed to the film itself.
| 0 |
negative
|
"Murder Over New York" is fun, but not as good as most of the other Fox Chans. This film would have been better named, "Charlie Chan in New York", the film's working title. This is Toler's chance to play Chan in the Big Apple. There is a lot to like here, though, including guest star Shemp Howard of the Three Stooges.<br /><br />This has one of my favorite Chan sayings, "Coincidence like ancient egg--leave unpleasant odour." Toler and Yung are good in this one and so is the supporting cast. But there is little or no mysterious atmosphere which I look for in these films. Still, it is good to see.
| 1 |
positive
|
Sometimes it is funny to watch films implode from your couch, but other times it is just horribly painful to both your eyes and your mind. House Party 4: Down to the Last Minute is one of those rare examples of when both your eyes and your mind are pleading with you to turn the film off. This final installment to the House Party series is by far the worst, not just sequel, but film released by Hollywood. It becomes very apparent early on in this "feature" that director Chris Stokes loved Ferris Bueller's Day Off with a passion. I say this because it becomes very clear that Stokes had no trouble lifting the originality of Bueller off John Hughes' hands and choosing to create a film completely void of humor. You would think that by "stealing" themes and images from a funnier film, your own film would at least be able to generate a giggle or two. With House Party 4, Stokes proved that he does not have what it takes to direct a sequel, much less a Hollywood film. From his confusing and choppy story, the inability to make sense of his characters, and recycled old/tired cliché moments, all Stokes is doing is hitting a bigger nail into the coffin that holds the House Party films. It reminds me of that student that forgets about his project due in an hour and quickly slops together super glue, macaroni, cat hair, chewing gum, and straws and presents it as "Hannibal Crossing the Alps". It just looks horrible and you feel embarrassed for the creator.<br /><br />So, where did this film first take the plunge into the realm of comic stupidity? Honestly, I do not think that most places will allow me to speak that long, so instead I would like to hit upon some of the larger topics that hit me the hardest. To begin, I still cannot shake the Ferris Beuller rip-off. It was as if director Stokes was ashamed of having to direct another sequel to House Party and decided to bring in a completely random formula (from a funnier film) and see if he could cut and paste elements from the original series into that formula. That was a huge mistake. When a director tries to do this, what eventually happens is confusion within the audience. We think that we are going in one direction, but instead we head in another one. That is exactly what you can witness in House Party 4. In one instance we have John-John trying to have the "biggest party of the decade" while also trying to score a record deal (ok, kinda reminds me of the original House Party), but then we whisk away to this random island where Uncle Charles is afraid of flying, Grandma gets drunk, and some idiotic mind-dulling moments with a supposed killer. Again, we begin somewhat strong, and end chaotic. This is the confusion in which I speak. Director Stokes did not have the ability to keep his hand on either the pulse of humor or the ability to tell a sequential story. He would rather cut corners, keep the jokes cheap, and think that the audiences are idiots than attempt to revive a stone-dead series. One would think that when a director was handed that task of filming another House Party film he would walk into it thinking that he/she would be the one to revive it or bring it back to life, instead Stokes just wanted to get paid.<br /><br />I realize that I am slowly growing older as the days go quickly by, but I do believe I still keep my hand in the younger generation's culture. I listened to rap and R&B growing up, but the group "Immature" never made it to either my cassette deck or my CD player. Why? I don't think they ever quite had a following, but apparently to director Chris Stokes, it would be beneficial to cast them as leads in his new House Party film. Didn't anyone at any studio realize that this was going to be in the red rather quickly? Or how about the option to have Stokes himself play the comedic car repairman, nothing like a director with no sense of comic timing casting himself as the only source of possible humor. It was one of those few instances when I actually missed Robin Harris, and I never thought I would find myself saying that to any film. Outside of a go-nowhere band playing the lead role, I also thought that the remainder of the cast only continued to suck the life out of this film. Uncle Charles was annoying when he attempted humor. Kim Whitely was completely wasted for her scenes (both literally and figuratively) while
well
everyone else pretty much falls into that category.<br /><br />Where did Chris Stokes spend most of the budget for this film? Not for special guest stars because while this film may have boasted some, there were definitely none present at the "unforgettable" House Party, nor the possible dream that perhaps Kid or Play would make one final appearance. House Party 4 followed no preset design, which ultimately ruined this feature from the foundation down. Can anyone explain to me why there was any need to use the "escaped murderer who happened to be a licensed taxicab driver" routine for humor? Stokes was reaching deep within the bottom of the barrel and only produced more muck instead of substance. For once I can admit to there being no redeeming value to this film. House Party 4 buried the series, and while I do hear that there may be more in the pipeline, I only hope Hollywood realizes that this series has died. Hollywood needs to let this series end, forget about the past and move forward in the future. I think a sequel to Who's the Man? would get them started in the right direction.<br /><br />Grade: * out of *****
| 0 |
negative
|
Biodoc on the enigmatic singer/songwriter who, according to friends' accounts, spent the last 15 years of his relatively short life seemingly on a mission of self-destruction. He died at 52, overweight and dissipated, of heart disease, after a protracted rampage of virtually non-stop overindulgence in alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana and cocaine, raucous partying, and flagrant misuse of his vocal instrument (he confided to a friend that he shouted out his lyrics at one performance with such force that spattered blood was left on the microphone).<br /><br />All of this despite the fact that he was: (1) widely considered to have perhaps the most gifted pop singing ability of his generation; (2) successful, after years of effort, in terms of industry acclaim - a Grammy, an Oscar, a decent recording contract with a top label, and at least two stellar albums - 'Nilsson Schmilsson' (originals), and 'A Little Touch of Schmilsson in the Night' (standards); and (3) very happily married (for the third time), with a lovely young family that he seemed to adore.<br /><br />The film's strengths begin with the completeness of its account of Nilsson's life, including fine use of archival film footage and many stills of Nilsson; the editors do an especially good job of bringing movement to the stills. We learn of his close ties to John Lennon and, later, Ringo Starr (Lennon often said that Nilsson was his favorite American musician).<br /><br />Even more impressive are the talking heads, often a documentary's weakest aspect. Here we get people like Perry Botkin, Jr., Ray Cooper, Mickey Dolenz, Terry Gilliam, Mark Hudson, Eric Idle, Rick Jarrard, Randy Newman, Van Dyke Parks, Jimmy Webb and Robin Williams, all telling amazing stories about Nilsson many uproariously funny, others deeply pathetic - and everyone conveying their deep affection for him. Equally informative and moving are interview segments with Nilsson's wives Annie and Una, his son Zach, and cousin Doug Hoefer. Best set of heads I can recall in a biodoc.<br /><br />The most glaring deficiency of the film is that it crowds out Nilsson's music. Even the performance of his greatest hit, "Without You," is cut short after about 8 bars. Arrrrgh!! There is no excuse for this, not given that the movie runs a full two hours as it is. Lose a few head shots and we could have heard at least that song through, and perhaps one or two more, like "One," or his Oscar winning cover of "Everybody's Talking.'" The filmmakers are simply too intent on plumbing Nilsson's psychological mystique and not attentive enough to his music. My grades: 7.5/10 (low B+) (Seen at the NWFC's Reel Music series, 01/07/07)
| 1 |
positive
|
College students (who are actually in their late 20's) on campus in Boston (which looks strangely like the Isle Of Man) are menaced by a fierce monster (assembled during a Blue Peter episode). The new teacher must save the day (Even though he is really... Oh, who cares?)<br /><br />I'll start with the positives... there is a nice shot of Eastenders new gal Samantha Janus's can in the obligatory campus shower scene with her best mate Katy Lawrence. A bit of side trivia: Katy was hired when she arrived at auditions with her sister, just as moral support to her sibling but ended up landing a part. Oh, joy. Picked from obscurity to... flash her pert buttocks in a meaningless scene added for titillation, then getting killed 30 minutes in for her troubles. Her latest (and only other credited role) is as Probationary Nurse #5 in Atonement. I wonder if she snuck a look at Keira Knightly (if extras and stars are allowed to mix) and wondered: where did it all go wrong?!<br /><br />I'll give a few hints Katy: If all the other British cast members are asked to speak with American accents in a doomed attempt at mass-marketing, and the only person who can manage it is the B-movie veteran USA native Todd Jensen, you know you're in trouble. If you look at your wage slip and it'll only just about cover your lunch and your bus ride home, you ain't starring in a movie with a trillion dollar budget. If the premiere is attended by loads of family members of the fourth assistant director and provokes gales of laughter when the Stickyback tape monster rampages through the sewers, it should dawn on you that this isn't exactly Alien. Or even a Critters IV, come to think of it. So Katy, in your next life (I'm a Buddhist, you see) perhaps you'll be a bit more selective in your choice of debut feature rather than impulsively jumping at the first pile of crap that heads your way. Flashing skin in your first movie does not guarantee long lasting success. Unless you're Sylvester Stallone. And he had the script to Rocky to back him up.<br /><br />To all intents and purposes this is as 0/10 a movie as I've ever seen. However, for sheer unintentional laughs and pure camp value, it gets a 1. Well done ;)
| 0 |
negative
|
There were so many classic movies that were made where the leading people were out-and- out liars and yet they are made to look good. I never bought into that stuff. The "screwball comedies" were full of that stuff and so were a lot of the Fred Astaire films.<br /><br />Here, Barbara Stanwyck plays a famous "country" magazine writer who has been lying to the public for years, and feels she has to keep lying to keep her persona (and her job). She even lies to a guy about getting married, another topic that was always trivialized in classic films.<br /><br />She's a New York City woman who pretends she's a great cook and someone who knows how to handle babies, etc. Obviously she knows nothing and the lies pile up so fast you lose track. I guess all of that is supposed to be funny because lessons are learned in the end and true love prevails, etc. etc. Please pass the barf bag.<br /><br />Most of this film is NOT funny. Stanwyck was far better in the film noir genre. As for Dennis Morgan, well, pass the bag again.
| 0 |
negative
|
This is one of the best of the early "Star Trek" episodes, with Kirk and his crew venturing into the unknown to do battle with an enemy known only by name. Imagine their surprise when they find out that the dreaded Romulans are racial offshoots of the Vulcans! Young Mr. Stiles, well-played by Paul Comi, is one of the few truly unlikable characters in the "Star Trek" universe. His barely disguised hatred of Mr. Spock is eerily similar to the post-9/11 hatred and suspicion many Americans have of people of Arab or Middle Eastern origin. The atmosphere of war-time paranoia is all too real. Then there's the Romulans: they're the ultimate Federation nemesis. The Klingons are nasty but basically harmless; more of a nuisance than a serious threat. The Romulans, however, mean business: they're the ancient Romans reborn in the space age; in spite of their Vulcanoid features they're clearly meant to remind us of imperial Rome, with names like Decius and titles like "centurion" and "praetor." The chain-mail armor is really cool. Familiar guest star Mark Lenard, who went on to play Spock's dad Sorek as well as the Klingon commander in "Star Trek: the Motion Picture" is an appropriately grizzled, war-weary commander, a character who bears a striking resemblance to Laurence Olivier's Crassus in "Spartacus." Also, his questioning of the Empire's unquenchable thirst for conquest reminds me of the similar misgivings Marcus Aurelius (Richard Harris) expressed at the beginning of "Gladiator." A must both for Trekkies and sword-and-sandal epic fans.
| 1 |
positive
|
In the New Year's Eve, the tuberculous sister of the Salvation Army Edit (Astrid Holm) asks her mother and her colleague Maria (Lisa Lundholm) to call David Holm (Victor Sjöström) to visit her in her deathbed. Meanwhile, the alcoholic David is telling to two other drunkards in the cemetery the legend of the Phantom Coach and his coachman: in accordance with the legend, the last sinner to die in the turn of the New Year becomes the soul collector, gathering souls in his coach. When David denies to visit Edit, his friends have an argument with him, they fight and David dies. When the coachman arrives, he recognizes his friend Georges (Tore Svennberg), who died in the end of the last year. George revisits parts of David's obnoxious life and in flashbacks, he shows how mean and selfish David was.<br /><br />"Körkarlen" is an impressive and stylish silent movie, with magnificent special effects (for a 1921 movie). The characters are very well developed; however, the story is dated and there is a weird and unexplained situation, when Sister Edit tells that she loves David Holm. Why should a enlightened woman love such a despicable man that wasted his life corrupting other people? Despite being religiously dated in the present days, it gives a beautiful message of faith and redemption in the end. My vote is nine.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "A Carroça Fantasma" ("The Phantom Coach")
| 1 |
positive
|
I love this show. I watched every episode last year. I bought the DVDs. And I tune into to watch tonight and I see for some reason you have retooled this great show. And you have taken what made it work and ruined it. You took one of the best aspects of the show away which was the 4 friends. Sam, Sully, Lizzy and Piper. I love the other characters as well, but they are good in small dozes like Derek, Darcy and even Sully. It is like the show lost some of its family and everyone else is trying to hard to fill in. It is overdose. While things are funny in small dozes when you are exposed to it all the time it goes from funny to annoying. I was so looking forward to the return of this show. So please bring back the charm. Even if you could not fit Piper into the show at least bring Lizzy back. But I loved those girls. They brought the fun. The show was about Sam trying to live his business life and handle his personal life and friends as well. That was the charm. And that great dog as well.<br /><br />I hope the network (FOX) forced the writers to do this and the writers did not willingly do this to the show. I will give the show a couple more episodes before I give up, but tonight's episodes were bad. I made a big deal out of the show returning tonight and had people over and I felt like a fool, because no one was laughing except 2-3 times. I apologized to them and said I don't know what happened. And about 10 minutes into the episode I realized they were not going to show Piper or Lizzy and this was no longer a must see TV comedy.
| 0 |
negative
|
I am surprised that this, well above average 80's comedy scores only a 5.2 from all the IMDB voters. Dan Ackroyd does his usual satirical turn as a con who seizes a great opportunity to steal a contract from his prisons physician. He retreats to California to start his work giving advice on a radio show pretending to be the infamous Dr Lawrence Baird. The only person that knows he's an imposter is the drunken priest (Walter Matthau) who comes along to be pampered by Ackroyd's new found wealth having blakmailed him. Charles Grodin throws in a good supporting performance too. For its genre I think this film deserves the same crediblity as 'Ferris Bueller' or 'Trading Places'. 7.5 / 10
| 1 |
positive
|
This should be re-named "Everybody Loves Sebastian". The 1983 rural go-nowhere town high school junior (or senior? - they seemed to flip flop on that one) with weird hair and "Leo-like" good looks has a big plate full of issues. His step-dad announces definite plans to have a sex-change operation, upon which his mom calls the marriage quits; Sebastian is called the "f" word by everyone and their mother, all-the-while "kissing around" with various girls, getting high on Ready-Whip at a supermarket, and saving a "strawberry" prostitute from the clutches of her ruthless pimp.<br /><br />Sebastian's "buddies" make Eddie Haskal look like a choir boy; bad association doesn't get much worse. Sebastian seems to go for "Harold's" suicide attempts record (although he won't admit suicidal tendanccies). For no apparent reason the genius level SAT scoring Sebastian MUST graduate a year early, although he has no clue about the future, nor does he want to attend college (what gives with this nonsense?).<br /><br />This film is a look into a few weeks in the life of someone who is PRETTY MESSED UP. The final scene suggests that things will be alright, although the HOW is left entirely up to the viewer.<br /><br />The makers of this film seem to bank solely on the undisputed appeal of the very attractive male lead. The "story" leaves a lot to be desired. Looking for "what will this gorgeous kid do next...?" doesn't exactly satisfy. The lackluster production values just don't measure up to other films, independent or otherwise. A low budget and weak story need more than a pretty face to carry it through. The "results" of this project are forgettable and an insult to intelligent cinema fans.
| 0 |
negative
|
'Northfork' is what is wrong with indie films. For all of their hard-edged commentary and attacking big subjects studios won't, this is the sacrifice we make. For nearly two hours I was subjected to the torture and pain of a film that starts by wandering like a blind man in a new place and ends without covering any new ground and thankfully dies.<br /><br />There are parallel stories that detail a dying town and a dying boy. Two men dressed in black (one of them James Woods) must coerce the remaining inhabitants of Northfork to leave before a dam opens up and floods the town. The other story has a boy returned to the priest (Nick Nolte) that gave him to the parents. He is dying and is visited, I guess, by angels. Among them Anthony Edwards with bizarre spectacles and Daryl Hannah in a bizarre costume reminding me of the pirate shirt from Seinfeld.<br /><br />Though this is the "plot," it is not what the film is about. The film is about nothing. It does nothing, says nothing, goes nowhere, and has nothing interesting to show. Perhaps by design, more likely an after-effect of the pretentious, surreal, David Lynch wannabe - we're an important artsy film can't you see - style of direction. The entire movie is filtered through a gray, bleak backdrop that, I suppose, fits a film about death. Instead, it simply makes the film that much harder to watch.<br /><br />If you want to see a film about men in black, see either 'Men in Black' films, neither too impressive but compared to 'Northfork' they are lifted to 'Citizen Kane' status. If you want to see a film about a boy dying watch 'Lorenzo's Oil.' If you want to see a film that has the destruction of a town through water watch 'O Brother, Where Art Thou?' If you want to watch a film better than 'Northfork,' there are hundreds. If you want to watch a film that is worse, there are only a handful. 0* out of ****
| 0 |
negative
|
This movie really shows its age. The print I saw was terrible due to age, but it is possible that there are better prints out there. However, this was not the major problem with the movie. The problem was that although the film was made in 1933, it was essentially a silent film with only the barest of dialog scattered (only a few sentences) in the film in the most amateur fashion. Sometimes the characters' backs were turned or they were talking with their hands over their faces--all in a pathetic attempt to obscure their lips and "cleaverly" (?) hide the fact that the film was dubbed. Well, its true that this Czech film would need to be dubbed into many languages but to do it this way was really stupid and obvious. It just looked cheap.<br /><br />Overall, the film looked low budget and silly. It's really a shame though, because there was a grain of a good story--a young woman who marries an older man who is either gay and/or has no interest in women. But in the 21st century, few people would really be willing to sit through this archaic mess. EVEN with a few glimpses of the naked (and somewhat chunky) Hedy Lamarr, it isn't worth all the fuss that accompanied the film when it debuted. Even by 1933 standards, this film was a poorly made dud. About the only interesting thing about the film is to see how different Lamarr looked in 1933 compared with the glamorous image Hollywood created when she came to America--she looks like 2 completely different people.<br /><br />It's such an incomplete looking and technically inferior film, I don't see how it has gotten such rave reviews. For technical problems alone, the movie can't rate a 10 or anything near it.
| 0 |
negative
|
Only Connery could bring that particular style with a line like that
Fatima crashes into Bond's arms when she water-skis up to the super agent in Nassau and apologizes, 'Oh, how reckless of me. I made you all wet.' The super agent replies, 'Yes, but my martini is still dry.'<br /><br />Barbara Carrera makes a great villain, stealing the show as SPECTRE executioner Fatima Blush
Fatima is number 12 in the SPECTRE chain of command, and is a gorgeous assassin who takes intense sensations of pleasure in killing
<br /><br />Fatima assumes all the deadly characteristics of Fiona, proving to be one of Bond's toughest adversaries
She is a victim of her vanity
She's good at what she does, and wants the world to know it
But her vanity is her downfall
Using every possible approach to eliminate 007, Fatima is a wild and cunning woman who makes love to the man she is about to kill
<br /><br />Austrian actor Klaus-María Brandauer (Largo) does not make a very formidable opponent for 007
Referred to as number one in the SPECTRE chain of command, Largo resides in the Bahamas, and travels aboard his super yacht, the Flying Saucer
<br /><br />Max Von Sydow becomes the fourth actor to appear as SPECTRE chief Ernst Stavro Blofeld, once more plotting to put the world at ransom
<br /><br />Kim Basinger takes the part once owned by the lovely French actress Claudine Auger
She is Domino, the mistress of Largo, who soon falls deeply in love with her rescuer
<br /><br />Black actor Bernie Casey becomes the sixth actor to play CIA agent Felix Leiter after Jack Lord, Cec Linder, Rik Van Nutter, Norman Burton, and David Hedison...<br /><br />Edward Fox portrays the new, unsympathetic 'M.' Pamela Salem is the third actress to play Miss Moneypenny. Lois Maxwell was the first and Barbara Bouchet was the second.<br /><br />Valerie Leon is the sexy lady in the Bahamas who fished 007 out of the blue water and saved his life by making love to him in her own room
Valerie was the Sardinian hotel receptionist in 'The Spy Who loved Me' when Bond and Anya arrive seeking Stromberg
<br /><br />Prunella Gee is Shrublands physical therapist Patricia
Saskia Cohen Tanugi is Nicole, Bond's Secret Service contact in the South of France
<br /><br />Gavan O'Herlihy is Jack Petachi, the U.S. Air Force communications officer who duplicates the President of the United States' 'eye print' and arms two cruise missiles with nuclear warheads
<br /><br />Rowan Atkinson is the bumbling foreign officer Nigel Small-Fawcett; and Alec McCowen is Algernon, the armorer who provides 007 some formidable items
<br /><br />If you like to see Connery playing a tense battle of wills, disguised as a masseur, attacked by robot-controlled sharks, giving away a considerable amount of money for a tango dance, thrown into a medieval dungeon, don't miss this second of only two "unofficial" James Bond films
| 1 |
positive
|
I'd never heard of this Aussie horror prior to Michael Elliott's enthusiastic review; in fact, after having read it, I decided to check if the DVD was available at my local rental outlet and it was (albeit a German edition i.e. sans the R1 extras), so I opted to check the film out immediately.<br /><br />While I wouldn't go so far as to give it full marks only a select few titles get them from me, let alone an obscure modern flick I have to say that I was quite impressed with BLACK WATER. Rather than looking back to previous crocodile movies, such as ALLIGATOR (1980) and LAKE PLACID (1999), it evokes the memory of two which saw a small group of people who go on a trip, get lost and find themselves at the mercy of the elements and the creatures inhabiting the place namely LONG WEEKEND (1978), itself a little-seen but impressive Australian production, and OPEN WATER (2005).<br /><br />The compact, simply-plotted film involves a couple and the woman's younger sister who decide to go fishing in a remote and forbidding part of the Australian wilderness, known as crocodile territory; very soon (in fact, before even 15 minutes have elapsed!), their boat is capsized and the guide killed by an alligator so our luckless adventurers take refuge up a tree. The DVD Talk reviewer believes the film suffers from spending too much time in this one location with the three arguing about what they should do, attempts to retrieve the boat, seeking a way out of the jungle through the trees (only to be met with nothing but water) and the occasional attack by the monster. However, I think the makers take the situation as far as it will go without slipping into tedium: this is due to the palpable suspense and, as Michael said, the believability of the characters (particularly the two women)
but also the fact that the crocodile here makes for one of the scariest and most memorable in recent memory (I wonder how they got it to 'perform')! <br /><br />I also agree with Mike that the film contains some really effective shock moments the alligator leaping out of the water to take a bite at the petrified heroes; its head suddenly emerging in front of the women as they're making for the boat; even though one of them does reach the vehicle, the monster manages to lift its massive weight and get in the boat with her!; towards the end, as the same girl manages to find a gun (on the mangled body of their guide), loads it and lies in wait for the alligator to appear, the latter sneaks up from behind her (incidentally, the creature is bestowed with the craftiness of the shark in JAWS [1975]). With this in mind, the finale is just as crowd-pleasing (though on an obviously smaller scale) as that of the classic Spielberg blockbuster even if it has a downbeat follow-up. Another definite asset is the film's sparse score which is generally rather lovely, but becoming unnerving at just the right moments.<br /><br />At the end of the day, BLACK WATER emerges as a breath of fresh air in the face of the demoralizing slump into which horror cinema has fallen of late; for this reason alone, it deserves greater exposure so as to remind us that there's hope yet for our beloved genre (without the real necessity of resorting to the gimmickry of a CLOVERFIELD [2008] to command attention)
| 1 |
positive
|
Let me start off by saying that I loved the original Grudge. It was bar none one of the scariest, most hair-rising experiences I've ever had in a filled movie theatre. I'm not kidding. Being a self-declared japanophile also made the flick look better in my eyes (if the setting had been changed to some American suburb I probably would've ended up hating the film).<br /><br />That said... this movie is a complete mess! I won't say it sucks, because A) the movie does have some good points, B) "it sucks" is the lamest put-down in the history of lame put-downs. So what does the movie have going for it? Well, for starters it has a pretty cool look: through filters and the use of bleak, washed-out colours, Takashi Shimizu almost recreates the downbeat, angst-ridden atmosphere of the original. A few scenes are genuinely shocking and unpredictable. Unfortunately, the rest of the film is just plain bad. Period.<br /><br />The story is all over the place, needlessly told Tarantino style, i.e. the scenes are out of chronological order. This technique is pointless in the case of this movie and it merely makes things more confusing. Frankly, a straightforward plot would've worked better. The original was also lacking plot-wise, but it did make sense and the film more than made up for its thin plot with lots of scares and a genuinely tense atmosphere. Grudge 2 has none of these elements and is just a waste of time.<br /><br />Let's not forget the TV-show acting skills which make the cast of the original Grudge look like Emily Watson and Katherine Hepburn. Simply put, the movie doesn't work. It's too slow, too dull, and just not scary enough to make up for the confusing plot (which adds nothing new to the story, by the way, so not even Grudge fans will be pleased).<br /><br />Oh, and what is it with the old man playing Japanese peek-a-boo on the bus?? Is this supposed to be comic relief? Artistic statement? Or what?
| 0 |
negative
|
I have absolutely no idea why I watched Ali G Indahouse except for the fact that Salon seemed to think a crime was committed by not nominating Sacha Baron Cohen for a Emmy for his work on Da Ali G Show. It is a sure bet that I will never watch that show as there was absolutely nothing funny about the movie. Comedy? Torture was more like it. It was just about the stupidest thing I every watched. I will admit that I was captivated by Rhona Mitra. I had not seen her in anything. She wasn't on The Practice during the time I was watching, so I guess I will have to check out Boston Legal one of these evenings to see how she does in something that may be worth watching.
| 0 |
negative
|
Christophe Lambert once said he was still making movies only to make good and easy money. When I see his latest releases, I can believe that.<br /><br />Beowulf is, all in all, in the "good" part of the crap movies : there are some good thrill scenes, indeed. The actors themselves aren't too bad. But the plot is silly, the "Mortal Kombat"-like music has nothing to do here, the ending is really s****y...<br /><br />Really, the only good thing about it is that me and my friends could laugh about how uninteresting it was. I even wish I wasted my money on something else.<br /><br />
| 0 |
negative
|
This is the final episode we deserved. At the end of the last season, things were left in a 'life goes on' mood, which was hardly the wrap-up that this realistic series deserved. While not a happy show, this series was always one that made you think (a rare thing on television), and this is no exception. 'Is death justified by reasoning?' 'Are morals reflective of society, or is society shaped by the morals that are selected by the few in power?' 'What is a just death, and can it exist?' All of these questions, and more, are posed by the writers of this show every week, and this is their final thesis. Fine acting, great writing, wonderful camera-work, brilliant editing, clean direction. If you have seen the series and you missed this when it first ran, then get a hold on a copy somehow. If you never watched the series when it ran, then this will stand up on its own, but it may be heavy going trying to keep up with who all the characters are and what they are alluding to in their varied pasts. For those of us who were avid viewers of the series in the last two seasons, this is very satisfying viewing.
| 1 |
positive
|
Perhaps I'm one of the only avid horror fans who thinks that the recent overload of Asian shockers is so over-hyped! Films like "Ringu" or the "The Eye" which are praised all over the world simply didn't convince me and they looked more boring than frightening. Well, this blunt opinion doesn't go for the South Korean gem "A Tale of Two Sisters". This is a stylish and utterly complex psychological terror-tale that REALLY gets under your skin! The plot, based on a local folklore tale, might be a little too confusing to get this film listed among the all-time greatest genre achievements, but the atmosphere and tension-building surely provokes feelings of great respect. This is one of those few films that are impossible to label: the events in "Two Sisters" qualify as mind-bending horror as well as intense family drama and a deeply psychological portrait. Besides a mesmerizing story, "A tale of Two Sisters" also has all the great elements that I feel are usually missing in Asian horror films like compelling music, good acting and innovative camera-work. The mansion were the family events take place is brilliantly illustrated like a truly creepy place where secrets and danger lurk behind every door. Several sequences (like the dinner with relatives or the nightly appearance in the girls' room) are pretty much the ultimate in eeriness. They really made me feel uncomfortable and I do like to believe that I've seen my share of spooky horror. "A Tale of Two Sisters" is a terrific movie-adventure and a definite must see for Asian film fanatics. A little warning for people with a short attention-span, though: this movie forces you to have your eyes and ears focused at at all time. It's also a film that requires repeated viewing, even though no one will never really "get it" for a full 100%.
| 1 |
positive
|
Casper Van Dien... what can I say? I enjoy the guy! His movies bring a certain flair to them that is actually not brought on by the director or producer, but by him! Recycled plots... check. Rip-offs of better movies... check. Wooden acting... check. It's not that Van Dien is a bad actor (he has been effective in Hollywood gloss as Starship Troopers and Sleepy Hollow) he just really has not been offered a script worthy of his talents; and yes, he does have acting talent other than being eye-candy. This movie offers a slight hint of what Van Dien can offer but is bogged down by the production of it all. The script can be better developed (see Oliver Stone's U-Turn). The directing can be better utilized (see Robert Rodriguez's From Dusk Til Dawn). The DP could've made the desert more exotic (see Russ Meyer's Faster Pussycat Faster Kill!). This script is weak because this is something we have seen before many other times so the double/triple-crosses are expected. The direction is weak because it is not offering anything new and telegraphs many of the weak script moments. The cinematography at times paints a lovely autumn desert flavor to it, but at other times it doesn't take advantage of the scorching light and the beginning sequence is horrible in cornflower blue.<br /><br />Now to the acting... Van Dien shows some grace and charisma to his Jake. He neither gets too methodical nor too campy in his role. A nice balance especially since the rest of the cast seems too distracted as to how they should be acting in this film (bad script or bad direction... you make your opinion). The only other person worth mentioning is Bryan Brown's villain as it provides the only real credit for acting in this film... aspiring actors forget trying to learn how to act in green screen, try learning how to act in a horrendous script and take notes on Bryan Brown in this film. He adds extra depth to his role and is a nice counter part to Van Dien's character. Jake always seem to either be one step ahead or control of any situation whether if it is out of his control. The femme fatale is weak (this is a desert noir after all) and is another nail in this film's coffin (you decide... script or direction). The Rosalita character should've been thrusted forward in the movie instead of being pushed into the back ground later on to make room for the real femme fatale. So watch the film for Van Dien and Brown; and for fun, try to skip a rock across the plot holes laced within the film.
| 0 |
negative
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.