text
stringlengths 49
12.1k
| label
int64 0
1
| label_text
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|
First of all, I must say that I love this film.<br /><br />It was the first film that I saw from director Micheal Haneke and I was impressed that how good the direction was good !<br /><br />Haneke surely knows how to direct actors. What I found intresting is also Haneke's scenario. At first, you saw a woman who is very straight and seems to be a good piano teacher and very well loved and respected from everybody in her entourage. Then you realise that she has a mother who is a controle freak and is too much present in her life. Now you know that she is deranged, that she has emotional problems, but you don't know exactly what. And then you fall into her dark side, but her dark side is only reveal when a student sendenly fall in love with her. She can't controled herself anymore.<br /><br />The roles are very complexed and difficult to play, but Isabelle Huppert is marvellous in her role and she deserves the recognition she had at Cannes Festival. Benoit Maginel is very solid too, but a little bit eclipse by Huppert's performance.<br /><br />There is one thing that I found strange in the scenario is how the character played by Magimel is not very credible. He is too talented! It is rare that a person is a piano virtuoso, but pass the most of the his time to play hockey and study... It think that it is a weak point, but only a minor flaw.<br /><br />I just saw the movie once, so I can't do a very complete critic, because I didn't analysed the movie. I like what I saw ! so I give the film a 8.5/10<br /><br />Oh yeah... as for the end, Haneke showed that he really wanted to shock his audience. A motivation that don't think is necessary to make movies, but Haneke does it with style and precision, that is why his film is better than Baise-Moi for example.<br /><br />Vince
| 1 |
positive
|
This movie is... horrible and wonderful at the same time. I first saw it when I was about 13 or 14 years old, so it has a great deal of nostalgic value for me. In this movie, Cesar Romero actually plays the character of Octavio, the man who "discovered" Santana. There are also two other actors, Monte Markham (plays Sam, who is trying to save his daughter) and Peter Mark Richman (plays the priest), who have large filmographies, and these are the only performances that are okay. The rest of the acting and the movie itself have all of the B-film qualities that some of us cherish.<br /><br />I recently spent 2 years trying to acquire a copy of this movie, and it is almost nonexistent. I am assuming that it was discontinued very shortly after its release. But I did eventually find a copy and paid a pretty penny to acquire it. If you happen to come upon Judgement Day in a video store (unmistakeable with a cheesy green "satan" on the cover), count yourself among the blessed who live near one of the few video stores that still has a working copy. A must see for those of you who like to laugh at cheesy attempts at a scary movie.
| 0 |
negative
|
(Spoilers warning) I cannot say enough good things about this movie. It is a great horror comedy/spoof that does everything right for a change. The humor is great and ranges from funny to so-funny-you'll-cry funny. In one scene, Ed goes edit-crazy and deletes a big scene. When his boss is looking at Ed's edit, he yells out: "Where in the fu%# is my beaver-rape scene?!?!" Hysterical. There are also many other great, humorous & memorable quotes and moments throughout: Ed yells out "Don't you fu#$ing look at me!!!" while punching some poor schmuck repeatedly in the face. Very funny stuff. The plot of the movie itself is so ridiculous that it's priceless: Ed is a mild-mannered everyday guy that gets moved over to the horror-film editing department, and after a while goes nuts, sees monsters, and attacks people while quoting the horror movies that he has edited. This movie has it all and is simply hilarious. The DVD only costs about $7, and is a great bargain as it is the unrated widescreen cut. I own a lot of DVD's, most of which cost a lot more money than this one, but not many are as great as this movie. My Evil Ed DVD is one of the highlights of my collection and i would beat someone with a telephone receiver if they tried to steal it. Evil Ed oozes style and quality -- something that Hollywood filmmakers need to majorly learn. Evil Ed is a rare gem, and i would like to thank everyone involved in making this wonderful movie -- you did everything right, and i love Evil Ed! 10 out of 10!!!
| 1 |
positive
|
The positives: It's shot pretty well. Has some interesting peripheral characters. Likable main character (albeit weak).<br /><br />The bad: Plot/story. Editing. Characters wasted. Jessica Alba.<br /><br />I'm a fan of sappy movies, but this movie is cringe-inducingly bad. I don't understand how anyone can hand over $12M to this Guy Jenkin. And before I go any further, I just want to say that I don't dislike Jessica Alba--I really wanted to like her in this film. However, Jessica Alba in her fake accent and her model poses made me miserable. She has absolutely no screen presence in this movie, and she ruins every scene she's in. Needless to say, the romance does not come off as believable(not even a tiny bit).<br /><br />All I saw throughout was the actors flapping their wings, trying to get this thing off the ground with what little they were given--but sadly, all this movie does is sink. There is no emotional connection, no emotional conflict, and nothing is gained. It's a pretty empty movie.
| 0 |
negative
|
Went with some friends and one of my friends mom, thinking it would be a good way to start off the spring break, but the movie turned out awful. We all agree it shouldn't have been PG-13. More like R material. Lots of sexual dialog, cussing and referring to boy and girl parts (below the waist). Not worth the time or money. Strongly urge you not to go, or rent it when it comes out. If you do end up going, don't take smaller children. Not the type of movie to see with the family! If curious about the content, check out the content advisory section on the Superhero Movie page on IMDb. Most of the content that was meant to be funny was extremely crude. Especially when they make fun of Steven Hawking.
| 0 |
negative
|
I like the good things in life as much as anybody, I suppose, but until about five years ago, opera didn't figure into my entertainment choices. Oh, I made a few attempts to learn what all the fuss was about; I'd watched several television productions -- notably parts of Wagner's Ring Cycle on public television -- hoping to understand other people's fascination with the art form. And I knew I could like parts of various operas (I remember being surprised as a kid that I actually LIKED the snippets of "Madame Butterfly" in "My Geisha, and I enjoyed the opera scenes in "Moonstruck" and "Pretty Woman"), but unlike the characters in those films, I just didn't "get it."<br /><br />Then in 1995 I saw a live performance of "Rigoletto" presented by the New York City Opera Company, and that night I "got it." What a wonderful, glorious pageant of color and music and raw Emotion! And I do mean Emotion with a capital E! The key, I think, is that the operatic music allows the performers to over-act freely and believably in a way that would seem silly if their words were just spoken. Everything hinges on the music, of course, and when the music is magical, as it is in "Rigoletto," an opera can be a magnificent entertainment.<br /><br />A sympathetic family member gave me a laserdisc copy of the 1982 TV production of the opera, and I've found that since I can't see live performances of "Rigoletto" live on a regular basis, this video version is a fine substitute. Luciano Pavarotti is perfect in the part of the Duke; Ingvar Wixell is excellent as his mean-spirited court jester Rigoletto; and Rigoletto's beloved daughter Gilda is played by the somewhat plain-featured Edita Gruberova. The sets and costumes are lavish, and the location shots on the river late in the film bring a heightened sense of drama to the story that could never be matched on a stage.<br /><br />If you've never seen "Rigoletto," or if you think you don't like or understand opera, I urge you to find this one on videotape and buy it or rent it. If you don't like this, if this production of "Rigoletto" doesn't make you appreciate the power of the art form of opera, well, just give it up and move on to something else. But I suspect, if you're new to opera as I was, that you'll be pleasantly surprised.<br /><br />Bill Anderson
| 1 |
positive
|
I saw this movie when it was broadcast on television in February of 1983. I was in the hospital, having just given birth to my first and only child. I'll refrain from telling you the extent to which I was moved. Suffice it to say that the memory of the movie has remained with me to this day, almost 23 years later. I hope I can find a copy of this movie, if such a thing was ever made. This movie should be remembered fondly by anyone who ever saw it. However, I must admit that the fact it remains somewhat obscure is just fine by me. This way, it will always be a small secret to me and those who were also moved by it. I never saw Ms. Margaret perform a better part. Nor have I ever seen her in a more convincing role. I will forever respect her just for accepting such a lovely part.
| 1 |
positive
|
A scientific experiment designed to create a superhuman being has gone wrong.The creators become trapped in a remote desert outpost,pursued relentlessly and mercilessly by their own creation.James Stockton,the scientist whose research was used despite his protests to create the monster,is called the outpost to help undo the horror that now lurks somewhere within the dark halls.James,together with his son and daughter,soon find themselves trapped inside with the others,trying desperately to survive.And with the outpost sealed from within,there is no way out..."The Outpost"/"Mind Ripper" is highly unoriginal.The sets are pretty claustrophobic and there's a bit of gore.However as a horror it fails miserably on almost all levels.There's zero suspense,the script is weak and filled with big holes and the ending is extremely predictable.So-called master Wes Craven produced this one-I wonder if he is happy with this trash.Joe Gayton directs without any style.The acting is horrible,only Lance Henriksen can act at all.OK,I'm a big horror fan and was bitterly disappointed.Avoid it like the plague-it's just the same old boring crap again!
| 0 |
negative
|
I guess those who have been in a one-sided relationship of some sort before will be able identify with the lead character Minako (Yuko Tanaka), a 50 year old woman who is still in the pink of good health, as demonstrated by her daily, grinding routine of waking up extremely early in the morning to prepare for her milk delivery work, where she has to lug bottles of Megmilk in a bag in a route around her town like clockwork, to exchange empty bottles for full ones, and to collect payment and issue receipt. And there's always be that one delivery stop that's right at the top, needing to scale a long flight of stairs in order to achieve customer satisfaction.<br /><br />And peculiar enough, that stop happened to be a stop delivering to a man with whom she has been in love with for almost all her teenage to adult life, and not having the product appreciated, but poured down the sink. Having gone to the same school, we see that they're not talking to each other, and in their daily life always seem so close physically, but yet so far away. There's no eye contact, save for cursory glances by chance, and little acknowledgement of each other's existence. We learn that they share a past that probably destroyed all notions of being together, where clear attraction between the two was hampered from developing further by the earlier generation.<br /><br />While I thought Minako was an interesting woman in herself, one who has kept her feelings suppressed for so long, one can only wonder what kind of damage it would do. If I read that the original Japanese title means "At some time the days you read books" and it's accurate, I felt the movie had a wonderful finale with that shot of her well stocked bookcase, likely alluding to the fact that she's not alone after all, and had probably fallen back on her crutch of sorts to deal with the pain of being alone, and back to a lifestyle which she had already been accustomed to for 50 years. Besides immersing herself in two jobs, she has those books which serve as a form of escapism, and occasionally pens little sweet nothings to song dedication shows on the radio.<br /><br />Yuko Tanaka did a commendable job as the emotionally strong woman resigned to her fate and her decision to love none other, her object of affection, Takanashi (Ittoku Kishibe) was a more interesting character who has more facets. Staying true to marriage vows, he spends significant amount of screen time looking after his sickly bedridden wife (played by Akiko Nishina), while juggling with his job of social welfare in the Children's Affairs department in City Hall. I felt that as a childless couple, the job provided him a means to care, not for his own, but for other people's children, the troubled ones who are neglected and left to fend for themselves. In a rare moment of rage, we see how he angrily chides such wayward parents who don't appreciate and wastes their children's lives away.<br /><br />The story by Kenji Aoki provides little quirks to make its characters appeal and successfully attempted to provide a lot more glimpses and dimension into them as well, such as how Takanashi is a hopeless Haiku poet despite being a member of the Haiku club, and supporting characters such as the aged Minagawa couple, where Masao (Koichi Ueda) lent some comical though sad moments as he slowly turned senile, while wife Toshiko (Misako Watanabe) narrates and brings us through this love story of a single woman at 50. Even Akiko Nishina's performance as the bedridden wife was nothing short of arresting, with her character's enlightened state of knowing her husband's past, and making unselfish, and painful decisions in her sickly state.<br /><br />It's what you can expect from a typical Japanese romantic movie, sans young, nubile leads as star-crossed lovers, but with all other elements in place such as romantic set ups, love songs and those quintessential restrained but affectionate behaviour. I thought the story was in danger of going down the beaten track when unrequited love gets consummated, but director Akira Ogata managed to steer clear of the usual melodramatic moments in such stories, though the story did call for some obvious plot development into the final act that you can predict, especially if you're already way past your Romance Movie 101.<br /><br />Not being your average lovey-dovey story, I thought The Milkwoman told a strong story with unrequited love as a central theme, and frankly a recommended romance movie (though told at a measured pace) if you're in the mood for some bittersweet loving, reminiscence, and seeking to live without regrets.
| 1 |
positive
|
This has got to be the WORSE move I've EVER seen!!!!! It was not only boring, it was "gag me with a spoon" dumb. Where'd ya find the actors ... on a street corner? Who did the special effects...Maaco? For God's sakes I could have made a better movie with my CELL PHONE. And if that wasn't bad enough, you even had extras at the end of the movie so we could see just how stupid the actors are in real life. Who ever did the makeup for the aliens...must have spent $5 at your local used costume store and called it a day. And who in the world wrote up the movie description on the back of the DVD case should be shot. PUHLEEZ!! It's not even 1/8 % of what it is described as. That description is just to suck people in to buying, renting or paying a ticket to see it. No wonder there was never a trailer to it....ya would have drove them all away!!!!!!!<br /><br />Bad Actors...$5 <br /><br />Special Effects...$5.50 <br /><br />Fake Fire....$1.89 (cigarette lighter) <br /><br />Time Spent Watching This Movie....total waste! (I should sue ya for my time watching it)
| 0 |
negative
|
Sally and Saint Anne is a very funny movie. The first time my Mom told me about it I was 7 and Saint Anne had just been the Saint I had for my Communion Saint. My Mom knew this, so she told me to watch this with her. I did, and have seen it many times since because it is really funny. Aunt Bea from the Andy Griffith Show was in it and Sally's grandfather was the guy who played Santa Claus in Miracle On 34th Street. So, there were lots of actors we seen on TV shows too. There is a bad guy who keeps trying to steal the house away, and Sally keeps trying things with St. Anne to help raise money so they can keep the house. That includes a boxing match with Hugh O'Brian who plays her older brother. This is a good and funny movie that I still love.
| 1 |
positive
|
Ms Aparna Sen, the maker of Mr & Mrs Iyer, directs this movie about a young girl's struggle to cope with her debilitating condition.<br /><br />Meethi (Konkona Sen) has been an aloof kid ever since childhood and has shown signs of delusion, no one knows why. The dormant tendency however slips out of control, when the job assignment takes her to neighboring Bihar where she's raped by some political goons. The resulting trauma also leads to episodes of manic-depressive psychosis in addition to her schizophrenia. She careens out of control over the years, progressively getting worse and sinking deeper into her private 'world'.<br /><br />The juxtaposition of an 'unsettled' (divorced) elder sister and how her domineering ways make an already bad situation worse, is indicative of what a fine line there is between abnormal and *seemingly normal*. Ms Sen also makes an excellent commentary on the social alienation of such individuals. Social rehab is standard therapy along with all the deadly mind-altering drugs. But what about the poor and the destitute, who're always left to fend for themselves and usually fall by the wayside?<br /><br />The romantic connection between Dr Kunal and Anu was unnecessary. Also the cafeteria scene where Dr Kunal explains to Anu how real their world really is to them, was redundant. Anu should already know all that. The English dialog is a bit awkward at times though the acting compensates for that. Konkona and Shabana prove that their reputation is every bit worth it. Waheeda, Rahul and Shefali play their limited roles very well. <br /><br />Extensive research seems to have been done about this illness, its very evident. But its not clear if MDP can coexist with schizophrenia in the same patient, side-by-side. Also in the early part, Dr Kunal recommends E.C.T (shock therapy) while invalidating the fact that it doesn't work for schizophrenics, only for extreme MDP with suicidal tendencies and other forms of bipolar disorder.<br /><br />The ending of the remarkable story is suggestive of an unknown solution (maybe no solution). The movie could have ended on a nicer note, since worldwide the mentally ill can and do lead balanced and fruitful if not very fulfilling, lives under good medical care.<br /><br />Nonetheless, its an excellent film made with extreme sensitivity to the subject. HATS OFF to Ms Sen! No one in India could've done it better.
| 1 |
positive
|
Hi, I have to say you got some wrong information about the series here. The main author was Richard Carpenter, he created the series. Later on there were some other authors but they only did a few episodes.<br /><br />The first director who did most of the series (I think complete series 1) was Ian Sharp who created the distinct look of Robin of Sherwood.<br /><br />Clannad did indeed see some of the material and they read the scrips. I know this for sure because Richard Carpenter told it on a Con in England last year.<br /><br />I think this is a masterpiece of Television-Entertainment, because it has great characters and cast, good costumes and great story lines. For me still one of the best TV-series ever!
| 1 |
positive
|
This was a movie I came across by accident. I was flipping through and saw it was on Showtime so I watched it. Now i watch it at least once a month. This is a movie that is filled with symbols that might cause some people to trash it. Don't listen to people that hate this movie, if they want an action movie with expensive f/x they should have rented a movie that promises them. If you are in the mood for a good sci-fi, i highly recommend. If purchasing on DVD I recommend the Alliance Atlantic edition of the film, it contains many more extras than the Dimension Films edition.
| 1 |
positive
|
terry and june in my mind, is a all time classic, along the ranks with bless this house with the late sid james and the late diana coupland, but terry scott will be sadly missed even tho he passed away in 1994. i have all the dvds upto press and i look forward to getting all 9, also would be nice to see "happy after ever" released on DVD<br /><br />june whitfield is still going strong and terry scott will always live on in my memory<br /><br />terry scott r.i.p. there aren't many comedies today that i can think of that will stay in the legends list and yes the middle class bit does get on some peoples wicks but i don't mind, i think it would be brilliant to see some celebration of the life of terry scott
| 1 |
positive
|
Well, you know... Rutger Hauer and Robert Patrick both are really good actors. But WTF with this movie? The story was lame and the script was just terrible. The poor actors didn't have material to work with!<br /><br />The DVD cover invited you to a flight action flick. You would expect something like Top Gun... Huge disappointment! The flight action in this movie is so cheap that makes you puke. The aerial scenes are clearly taken from documentaries and some other footage sources, not made for this movie. And they didn't even care about the marks or the fighters models, taking for granted the audience will not notice it.<br /><br />As I said the story was lame. With a little effort from the writer and director it could have been very interesting. In short, it seems a B-movie made in the 70's.<br /><br />I feel very sorry for these actors who put their names here. They sure must be ashamed.
| 0 |
negative
|
A film like Crossfire puts another film that spreads around its social consciousness- i.e. the recent film Crash- almost to shame. Not necessarily because either one puts forth its message of intolerance-is-rotten more significantly (although I'd wager Crash throws the hammer down much more thickly in comparison with this), but because of how the storytelling and contrivances never get much in the way like with Crash. Maybe it's not really necessary to compare the two, as Crossfire is in its core all deep into the film-noir vein like its going out of style. It was interesting actually to see what the director Edward Dmytryk said on the DVD interview, where he mentioned that the budget for the photography was significantly lower (on purpose) so that more could be spent on the actors, and the schedule went through at a very brisk, quick pace. But then what comes off then as being incredible about the picture is that you would think looking at many of the lighting set-ups that it took a lot to do. Just for a small scene, like when Robert Mitchum's Keeely first goes in for questioning under the Captain Robert Young- the contrasts of shadows seamlessly in the room is exquisite. That there are many other lighting set-ups that go even further with so little marks this as something essential in the realm of just the look of the noir period. Just take a look at a shot of characters on a stairwell, the bars silhouetted against them, and see what I mean.<br /><br />But back to the substance part of the film- it's really a story that consists of a murder mystery, but one that we as the audience don't take long to figure on the answer. It's then more about something else then in the mind and soul of a killer that wouldn't be found in a common crime picture then, as there are really no 'criminals' for the most part in the film. There's a very calculated risk with this then that characters could be too thin just to prop up the (worthwhile) message against anti-semitism. But Dmytryk's direction of his top-shelf cast, along with a really terrific script by John Paxton fleshes out the characters, least of which for what they should have to not seem too thin alongside the message. And what would a noir be then without some attitude to go along with it? Mitchum helps that along, even in scenes like between him and Young where its very much based in the situation of the story's moment (i.e. a detail in the plot), by injecting a little sly wit into some of the dialog. It may already be there in the lines, but he helps make the character with a good edge for his scenes.<br /><br />Then there's also Robert Ryan, who excels at Montgomery as a man who you know you don't like much at first, just through his b.s. demeanor, but you're not totally sure about either. Then once it starts to come clearer- ironically through a subjective view-point of the suspect Mitchell (George Cooper) at the apartment of the soon-to-be-deceased Samuels- his performance becomes a great balancing act of being full of crap and also rather frightening in his blind-way. It's a good performance when also countered with Cooper, who has actual personal issues that he faces and comes forward with regret and humility. It's really after the film ends that one thinks about a lot of this, however, and while you're watching the film it's more about getting into the dialog and the flow of the scenes, and in the sometimes stark, overpowering camera moves on the actors, so the message is in a way secondary. Not that it isn't an important one, especially for the time period (coming right off of WW2), but years later its seeing the actors, even the ones that don't get the big marquee status like Gloria Grahame as Ginny (the femme fatale of the picture, if it could've had time for one which it doesn't) and William Phipps as Leroy (the "hick"), working off one another that sticks much strongly in the compacted screenplay.<br /><br />Dmytryk is also very wise in choosing to limit the musical score is powerful too, as for very long stretches we hear nothing, and mostly when it does come up it's incidental to the character's surroundings. He could've just as easily gone with added musical notes on some dramatic scenes for emphasis, most specifically the opening audience-grabber into the film. By sticking clear of that, and getting the right attitudes and nuance in camera and cast, it uplifts standards in genre material to a very fine, memorable level. My favorite scene would probably go to Finley's story about an Irish immigrant he tells to Leroy, where all such elements come into place well. It might not come in very high at the top of my favorite noirs- and I'd still throw-down Murder My Sweet as the director's masterpiece in this kind of picture- but it's assuredly higher in quality than something of the B-level too.
| 1 |
positive
|
Title: Opera (1987) Director: Dario Argento Cast: Cristina Masillach, Ian Charleson, Urbano Barberini, Daria Nicolodi Review: The only other Argento movie I had seen was Suspiria and that one blew me away with its style, colors and spooky story line. I next decided to go with Opera as I had been told it was one of his best. Man, I think I'm discovering what will ultimately be one of my favorite horror directors.<br /><br />Opera is about a young opera singer who gets her big break when the main star of a creepy modern opera take on Mc Beth gets hit by a car. Betty is the understudy so she gets to do the part herself. Too bad for her there's a psycho after her who makes her watch the brutal murders of her friends and co-workers.<br /><br />Wow, Id heard good things about this here flick, but I wasn't prepared for the level of greatness to which this film would take me. Yeah the movie has its shortcomings to which Ill get to later. But for the most part the movie blew me away.<br /><br />First off, this movie is not as filled with lots of colors as Suspiria. I was expecting it to be a bit like suspiria in that department, but no, to my surprise it had its own look and feel. The film is somehow devoid of color. It does have lots in colors in certain scenes (like the masterful kitchen/living room sequence) where Argento fills the screen with lush greens and blues, but for the most part the film has a grayish, black tone to it all through out and I liked that it had its own distinctive look.<br /><br />The real stars of this show are the incredibly well orchestrated death sequences. Wow. Every death scene was like a work of art. Beauty in destruction. These are not just your typical hack and slash death sequences, these deaths were carefully constructed to shock and get the most out of its situations. Loved every second of them, there's plenty of blood and mayhem here, but with style. Not gonna spoil em though.<br /><br />Then there's the direction. Man, there's some really original and beautiful shots on this one. I loved the inventive use of the camera on this one. You thought that Tarantinos shot in Kill Bill vol. 1 where we see the bullet coming out of the chamber of the gun was original? Well this is the movie he lifted it from! I honestly believe that Tarantino was heavily influenced by this specific movie with certain scenes in Kill Bill Vol. 1. Heck in the making of feature he mentions that the whole scene with Beatrix in the hospital and Elle Driver coming to kill her was influenced by Italian Giallos, and here my friends is the proof of that. Anyhows, Tarantino references aside, this movie has some amazing camera shots, like those scenes of the crows flying through the crowd in the opera house...great stuff. And a main reason why Argentos becoming one of my favorites.<br /><br />The acting from most of the cast was alright, but the best by far was Cristina Marsillach as the tortured young opera singer Betty. The looks in her eyes as the murders were being committed were great. The rest of the cast was a little wooden and stiff, but nothing that would deter your enjoyment of the film.<br /><br />There were very few things I didn't like about this movie. First off logic was thrown out the window in certain scenes. Specially those involving Bettys reactions after shes seen the murders. It seem to me that for the longest time, she just went on about her business, not telling anyone about the whole thing. Not even the police. I mean if you see someone brutally murder a loved one in front of your eyes...you don't just walk away from the murder scene and continue with your life. Someone would have connected her to the murders. She might have even become a suspect herself...but no. Also the ending is a bit anti climactic. You'll have to see this to understand, but it seemed a bit unnecessary the way the film ended, it felt like it could have ended earlier. It would not have felt so redundant. But thats about it, not real big problems for me really since I was enjoying the rest of this beautiful film.<br /><br />I've still got a lot of Argento territory to cover...but I'm devouring every step of the way like if I was eating a plate of the most expensive caviar. This guys really good. I think of his films as works of art, and I've only seen two of em! Cant wait to discover the rest of his films. Argento, you the man! <br /><br />Rating: 41/2 out of 5
| 1 |
positive
|
I don't know about the real Cobb but I got the distinct impression that the filmmakers' aim was to try to soften his jagged edges and reputation, not give us a true portrait of the man himself. In the movie, besides a few racist remarks, he's shown to be just another hard-nosed, cantakerous old coot (he's so full of life!) with a heart of gold(more or less). This is also the worst acting I've seen T.L.Jones do(he brings nothing new or subtle to his stereotyped character). He just doesn't flesh out Cobb in a way that pulls me into the movie. Not for one minute did I forget that it was Tommy Lee Jones on the screen pretending to be Ty Cobb. Robert Wuhl didnt impress either. The "comedic" elements in this movie were just distracting and didnt ring true at all. A bloody waste of time, it is
| 0 |
negative
|
If you're tired by the same repetitive, unintelligent material that the mainstream movie industry releases, you'll enjoy "You Are Alone". It is thought provoking, well shot and riveting.<br /><br />Without revealing anything that you don't find out in the first few minutes of the movie, this is the story of a young white high school girl from an upper middle class environment who is working as an escort and is discovered by her neighbor. The vast majority of the movie occurs in a hotel room where he hired her to come.<br /><br />Through their discussion, you explore two shifting views of prostitution, depression, loneliness. Yet the movie is not depressing. It talks about dark things without being depressing.<br /><br />As a viewer, your emotions and preconceived notions are moved around, but gently. You come out of it with a lot to think about. I like that in a movie.
| 1 |
positive
|
I found this to be a watchable all be it very predictable movie. There was some good stunt work that gave a fair degree of excitement and suspense to the story. One did however have to suspend ones credulity on a number of occasions for the plot to work. For example despite losing their transfer cable, couplings and harness when the pilot retracted the undercarriage manually, they fortunately found a spare on-board the aircraft complete with Caribbeans. According to the plot drilling a hole in the ceiling of the vault would disable the alarm system in the vault when the system was reactivated (I can't think why), according to Daltry there battery operated drill would be unable to drill through the vault ceiling however they just happened to have a hydraulic drill complete with hoses and fittings to fit the equally convenient take off points in the planes hydraulic system located above the vault. As the plane has a closed hydraulic system it is hard to see how this could be accomplished without affecting the control systems or at least setting hydraulic pressure alarms in the cockpit. Accepting this for the sake of the plot it takes them several minutes to drill a small hole through the top of the vault (tension will they be able to drill through before FED's get there to check the false alarm), yet from the time the vault door closed and before the FED's had walked the few feet to the second security door they had cut a squire hole in the roof of the vault big enough for them to get through. One can accept all theses and other inconsistencies for the sake of a good yarn, however what spoiled the movie for me was when what appears to have been an effort by the script writers to discuses what up to that point was a fairly predictable ending, they killed off the two hero's (If one can refer to crocks as hero's) Ketchum & Brooks one was shot and thrown out of a 747 at 10,000 feet the other wiliest sliding down the cable between the two planes the villain Daltry with one hand manages to unhook the cable carrying the weight of a full grown man with the air pressure of several hundred miles per hour pressing on him, and letting him fall to his death. And yet in the next sequence these two without any kind of explanation (however tenuous or implausible) have miraculously survived the full from 10.000 feet and had time to set up an elaborate scam to get the money. The only comment on there survival was to Sophie that her brother is a bad shot. Don't expect an Oscar nomination for this one.
| 0 |
negative
|
This was a great 1981 film which had a great story about three men and two girls who go on a camping trip together and go through thick woods and high mountains with a great water fall. This group of people run into property owned by George Kennedy, (Roy McLean) who plays the role as a Forest Ranger and rides a white horse. Roy McLean warns these young people that where they are going is no area for camping and they should turn back. Of course these young people pay no attention and proceed to have a ball swimming in the nude near the water fall and playing great music and dancing by the fire and having plenty of beer and wine. There is an old wooden one room school house that draws the gals and guys inside and it is from that point on the film starts to get very scary. There is one occasion when a young girl has to climb a tree in order to get away from a human beast who desires her body and starts chopping the tree down in order to capture her. Don't miss this film, there is plenty of everything.
| 1 |
positive
|
Farscape - is the one Sci-Fi Show which restarted the Interest in Science Fiction in me.<br /><br />But Farscape is so much more then plain and simple Sci-Fi. Comedy, Drama and much more :) The Acting is very good. Luckily Farscape survived also it's cancellation and showed with Peacekeeper Wars that it is not dead yet :) I hope there is a future for Farscape :) In my opinion it is also not problematic that some of the characters in the Show are muppets. You have to look behind that and you will see what a beauty Farscape is.<br /><br />Farscape set a new Standard in Television and i think it will be truly hard for new shows to prove that they can be equal or better than Farscape. I love this Show :)<br /><br />SaphirJD
| 1 |
positive
|
There's something wonderful about a "revenge" film. Everyone wakes up in the morning believing he/she is the star of "the movie," and that anyone who interferes with one's own personal agenda is in some way the enemy. Revenge plot films work particularly well if a person has low self-esteem. Rather than fighting back in the moment, the "hero" draws upon built-up inner anxiety to engage in a single act of power in an attempt to restore equilibrium. Quite naturally, in the "real world" this type of revenge seldom relieves the tension because life is not a movie; after the revenge is enacted the actions taken have their own consequences. A good revenge flick helps people ignore this bitter pill. In the movies the end credits roll and all responsibility resolved.<br /><br />"Swimming With Sharks" is advertised as a comedy, no doubt an act on the part of the producers to figure out just how to sell this oddity. It's dark, but it isn't dark comedy ("Company Of Men" and the works of Todd Solondz come much closer). Parts of the film are so brutal they pre-date the current "torture-porn" genre everyone is so obsessed with ("Saw", "Hostel"). There are some laughs. There are laughs in "Saving Private Ryan" too, but it isn't labeled comedy.<br /><br />The intrinsic problem with this film is that it hasn't earned its revenge case. It is ostensibly about a young man who is abused by his boss and eventually takes his boss hostage to "pay him back" for all the mistreatment. The hero (aptly named "Guy") is an "everyman" so vague we know literally nothing about him...what does he do with his spare time? Does he have friends/family? How did he get where he is? What are his interests (this becomes a running motif through the film, no doubt inspired by the film's author's own struggle..."What do you want?", the answer to which we are denied by a vague, cheat of an ending)? It's very difficult to care for such a character, even if acted well (even Tom Hanks becomes a creep in the wrong roll, such as "Punchline"). Kevin Spacey as the boss, "Buddy," is supposed to be a monster but he's too charismatic as an actor. The best laughs came when he abused his assistant--he seemed almost as surprised as the audience probably is at what Guy will endure. When Kevin's character is being tortured, the view taken suddenly becomes empathy for him. Guy is suddenly filmed as a leering monster without rationality. At this point any message the author had has been lost; there's no "hero" in this film, ergo, no reason to care at all.<br /><br />It's not a stretch to assume this story is based on the author's own troubled career in the film business. I worked for a similar boss and can vouch that it's not that far-fetched. I had similar wish-fulfillment fantasies at that time and thought that I was justified. I thought you could win over the most beautiful woman in the story (actually, the ONLY woman--there seem to be all of about four people in the universe of this film) just by being your eager, naive self, that eagerness won accolades and that a boss abused you because he was a mean person. Time and tide have revealed the truth that most "monsters" are really just the demons of an individual's personal psyche and resentment is usually based in the self. As the film points out, if Guy was so unhappy he only had to leave. The film doesn't offer any denouement at all, "surprise" ending notwithstanding. We still know nothing about the protagonists, we can't even be sure anything they said was based in fact and everyone magically gets to have his cake and eat it too. In short, there was no point to this story at all other than to point out that (shock!) the film business can be pretty brutal.<br /><br />There are plenty of good films that tell solid and satisfying revenge-style fantasies, both the feel-good variety ("9-to5," "Working Girl," "The Devil Wears Prada") and not so much ("War Of The Roses", the remake of "The Hills Have Eyes"). This isn't one of them--despite a fun turn by Benicio Del Toro in the Emily Blunt role from "Prada" and some interesting work by Spacey and Michelle Forbes, this is a frustrating, mean, confused and slightly dull creation of self- indulgence from a director who has, one hopes, "worked it all out" by now...
| 0 |
negative
|
When I first heard about this movie, I eagerly went out to rent it, believing (mistakenly) that it was one of those so-bad-it's-fun movies and that I was in for a treat. I was wrong.<br /><br />For starters, the pace is agonizingly, mind-numbingly slow. The pace doesn't even begin to pick up until the last 15-20 minutes of the movie! The plot was boring, and the ending was nonsensical and confusing. For those looking for a cheesy horror movie with cheap thrills, look elsewhere. This movie provides the cheesiness in spades, but is sorely lacking in "thrills," cheap or otherwise.<br /><br />Try "Child's Play," instead.
| 0 |
negative
|
I saw this "movie" partly because of the sheer number of good reviews at Netflix, and from it I leaned a valuable lesson. Not a lesson about ethnic diversity however...the lesson I learned is "Don't trust reviews".<br /><br />Yes, racism sucks and people are complicated, but the people who actually need to see this movie are going to be the ones who are the least drawn to it and least affected by it if they DO see it. The only reason that I can think of for the number of good reviews is that it's being reviewed by people who aren't used to thinking, or who've seen their first thought-provoking movie and somehow think that Haggis invented the concept. In fact, he basically made this film, which should be called "Racism For Dummies", as emotionally wrenching as possible, seemingly to give people who don't spend a lot of time thinking the impression that they've discovered some fundamental truth that's never been covered in a film before. Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintanence it's not... An after-school special for the unthinking masses, cut into bite-sized overwrought ham-fisted pieces to make it easier to swallow without too much introspection.<br /><br />It's as if they portrayed everyone as being the worst possible extreme, simply to make us happy that we're such good people because we don't identify with the characters. Let's face it people. NOBODY identifies with these characters because they're all cardboard cutouts and stereotypes (or predictably reverse-stereotypes). It's well acted (even if the dialog is atrocious) and cleverly executed, so much that you don't think to ask "where's the beef?" until you can tell the film is winding down. The flaming car scene was well executed, like much of the movie, but went nowhere in the end. <br /><br />The messages are very heavy-handed, and from the "behind the scenes" blurb, the producers were clearly watching a different movie, because there is very little to laugh about in this movie, even during the intended funny parts. I have to stress that this is NOT entertainment, more like a high school diversity lesson...call it the "Blood on the Highway" of racism. They could even show this in high schools if it weren't for the "side-nude" shot of Jennifer Esposito.<br /><br />In this film, everyone's a jerk and everyone learns a lesson (except for Michael Pena who gets the best role, but the most predictable storyline).<br /><br />This is a bad film, with bad writing, and good actors....an ugly cartoon crafted by Paul Haggis for people who can't handle anything but the bold strokes in storytelling....a picture painted with crayons.<br /><br />Crash is a depressing little nothing, that provokes emotion, but teaches you nothing if you already know racism and prejudice are bad things.
| 0 |
negative
|
This is one of those films that you watch with a group of people. You will have the best time. It's really, really bad, like Showgirls bad but without the quality of Showgirls.<br /><br />You've got the best mix of bad actors, bad director and bad script here. Everything that can possible be wrong that can make for an entertaining evening, you have here. The first being the tag line is "a bunch of teenagers..." These people are as much "teenagers" as my grandmother.<br /><br />The director has zero sense of suspense or tension. The 30 year old "teenagers" are standing around and the "monster" comes out and attacks and this pretty much happens throughout the movie when the monsters are revealed. There is no suspense building up to this or surprise or anything. It's more like when you were kids pretending to be chased by monsters and just kind of made up stuff as you went. And when I use the word "monsters" I exaggerate. More like a couple guys in Halloween masks bought at the .99 cent store.<br /><br />There is no doubt this script was spun off in a couple days, no rewrites and I can only imagine how bad and poorly formatted it looked on the page because it was clearly written by an amateur with no clue. It's another example of one of the bad things about this day and age: anyone can make a movie.<br /><br />But of course the best bad thing about this film is the acting. It's as bad as you can get. There isn't one person in this who has the slightest skill at acting and the lead is the absolute worst. He delivers every line in this monotone manner without any expression and you have to wonder how someone this bad could possible get a part in any movie, no matter who he knows. When he had to "cry" when his girlfriend was killed, it was one of the funniest scenes I've ever seen in a movie. Watching these people reciting some of the awful dialog is very very funny. But when the black guy said "tell her...tell her...I love her..." before his death scene, there was a huge laugh among our group. Funny, funny stuff.<br /><br />My only hope is this movie gets bad enough ratings to take its place where it belongs: in the IMDb lowest rating 100 movies. We can do it, folks!<br /><br />PS. Is it any surprise that the one "great" comment this movie got in here was from someone in Virginia (who has one comment, only on this movie and nothing else). And guess where the movie was made? Virginia. I've said it before and I'll say it again: people who work on the movie should NOT be allowed to comment on it.
| 0 |
negative
|
Following the whirlwind success of The Wrestler (see my review), Mickey Rourke had this "gem" head straight to video. Every copy was rented for months and I even heard some good buzz around it. So months later I caught it on a movie network and sat down to watch it. First of all...one of the locations in the film (Walpole Island) is a place I used to visit on a regular basis as a child because we lived very, very close to the reserve. Cool huh? That's about where the coolness ends with this dud. I mean the story is decent enough to warrant a four and even the direction is not bad but the performances are just awful, and downright ridiculous with some truly wasted star power and Mickey $%#@*&! Rourke playing a Native Canadian/American hit-man?!?! What in the Lord's name were they thinking?? He doesn't even resemble Native blood and his attempt at the generic Native accent made him look even more ridiculous. They could have went anywhere with this story...they could have hired a Native actor, or changed Rourke's character, how about a white man raised by Native parents? Instead they made Killshot a complete and utter joke.<br /><br />As you may have caught Mickey Rourke "stars" in Killshot, I use that term loosely. I have never liked Rourke much although his Oscar winning performance was decent enough. This shows and confirms my dislike for him. He looks bored, constantly bored, and his lame attempt at portraying a Native is bordering on insulting I would think. He makes a decent cold blooded killer but then the story never explores that part of him which is totally backwards to the story. Diane Lane, although well respected in Hollywood, turns in another drab performance. She has had her moments but overall she just usually doesn't take off in any one performance. She looks like she is going to be great but then when she isn't, its even more disappointing. Thomas Jane plays her protective husband. I've always felt Jane deserves a bigger career than he has. I think he's got action star in his blood. All said and done his performance in Killshot is actually not bad. He doesn't take things too far and he's tough and almost heroic in a way. Him and Lane manage to have decent chemistry but he doesn't get a lot in the way of his character. I have absolutely NO idea why Rosario Dawson A) did this movie and B) had a character at all. Her character is absolutely useless and had no point to the plot or story making any performance she would give equally as bad. I have rarely seen a character who is supporting so incredibly useless. The only redeeming character and performance in this film is that given by Joseph Gordon-Levitt as the deranged mini killer who wants to team up with Rourke's hit-man. Gordon-Levitt is over the top crazy and entertaining and his character is actually engaging. If this film had been entirely about him it would have been a smash. He literally saves this from utter crap. His performance is almost worth watching this drivel for.<br /><br />Oscar nominated director...whoa wait? Yes Oscar nominated director John Madden (I think the football coach could have done a better job) helms this mess. I have actually never seen Shakespeare In Love, but I remember the critical acclaim it received and it surprised me because the direction in this film and with the characters was downright awful. Screenplay writer Hossein Amini has done nothing I recognize but apparently has been slated to write the next Jack Ryan movie and after this mess I can't even imagine why they'd want him. I understand this is based on a novel and I really hope the novel is worlds above this mess. A little bit of action and some sort of hokey attempt at an emotionally charged story of a hit-man and his partner and the mess they get involved in. Unfortunately unless you're a HUGE Rourke fan or really love Joseph Gordon-Levitt then there is no reason to put yourself through this pain. I did it for you and I still feel the pain. 4/10
| 0 |
negative
|
"Just before dawn " is one of the best slasher films.It very realistic and atmospheric.It reminds me Tobe Hooper`s "The Texas chainsaw massacre " and "Deliverance ".Deborah Benson very good plays the heroine and director Jeff Lieberman created very creepy and dark movie."Just before dawn " is beautiful photographed and soundtrack is very disturbing.I never<br /><br />liked slasher films or gore except with this one.Very impressive and convincing movie ( at least for me )
| 1 |
positive
|
this is the worst film I've seen in a long long time, never mind the fact that so many useful things keep appearing on this island "how convenient!!!!", the acting is beyond poor from the outset, its like one of those really badly scripted soft porn films on channel 5, a complete waste of time, and i cant remember the lead actors name but i cant believe he still gets work!!! I've never seen him act "I've seen him in lots of films... But I've never seen him act. here are a few of the blaringly obvious errors, apparently petrol lighters still work even when they've been soaked in sea water!!! also according to this film you can walk into the sea naked but come out wearing bikini bottoms (I'm guessing the camera man and editor were students)there are plenty more errors but I'm ranting now, besides its no so much the errors as the cast the script and the whole film avoid at all costs
| 0 |
negative
|
As one other IMDb reviewer puts it, "...imagine 2001: A Space Odyssey in the desert" and you wouldn't be far off from a brief summarisation of what to expect from this piece of cinema (I deeply hesitate to use the word "film"). A lecture on philosophical views on creationism, the mythos surrounding humanities existence, the before and after, that was has been, the what is and the what will be. This for some maybe a "2001" on sand, but they tackle different philosophical viewpoints, one about evolution and the future, the hope and potential for mankind, while Fata Morgana itself is a somewhat more metaphysical trek. I only hope I can convey it effectively enough.<br /><br />Herzogs style will not to be everyones liking, and those who are not of a perceived hardcore branch of cinematic viewing may, and most likely will, find this extremely hard going, and may not even see it through to its finale after 72 minutes. Fusing together a montage of footage from the Sahara, including villages, villagers and various other places for a somewhat surrealist ending, music of various genres and an almost mythical narration, Fata Morgana is severely slow paced but ultimately hugely rewarding. <br /><br />Opening with a montage of various filmed shots of planes landing for nigh on five minutes, you already arrival at the introduction of the film immensely confused, and the sense that this will not be like anything you have seen before echoes clear in your mind. Divided into three sections, creation, paradise and the golden age, Fata Morgana attempts, and succeeds, in being able to juxtapose images of the natural beauty of the desert with the man made instruments that taint it. Its three segments are narrated by different persons each pertaining specifically to the particular section they are voicing and provide extra emphasis on the long soliloquy's and desert montages.<br /><br />Fata Morgana is a film dealing with the existence of man on our Earth. It looks at the natural beauty the Earth was designed for, and concurrently looking at the potential beauty we have within us, more notably shows us our negative contributions to the world in which we live. Each shot has been purposefully constructed, using what can only be described within the context of this film as 'The Holy Trinity Of Filming' in pictures, words and music. Each part of these three pieces provides something notably to each shot, but when brought together they create something greater than the whole of their parts, they create unbridled beauty and deep thought within our minds. I will not be able to do this film the justice it deserves with mere words alone, perhaps if I had pictures and a score, and I do know this will not be appreciated by the masses, but this a profound and I will not use the term "art film" because this is simply just art. This is moving art which moves the mind and stirs the soul. Whether or not creationism is your want is irrelevant, because this film is about intelligent design.
| 1 |
positive
|
The best bond game made of all systems. It was made of the best bond movie of all time. If you don't have the game Goldeneye you should rent it and if you don't have the movie Goldeneye you should rent it also to better understand the game. The best bond game of all!!!
| 1 |
positive
|
Who really wants to see that? Disgusting violence, disgusting sex, for such a long time. I do not want to, but I always stayed true to my philosophy to watch any movie as bad as it may be. This was the hardest (right after "Next Friday").<br /><br />It's basically just crap. How can you possibly call it anything else? The story of a Roman emperor as an excuse for gore and T&A. Yeah, yeah, "Hey, it's realistic, they have been like this." Fine, but why bother us with it? I don't care if it has been like this (and there are a lot of scenes where I truly doubt it). The point is, why should anyone wanna see it? Problem is, there is only one reason you could like the film and that would be that you like violence. There's nothing special about it, just cruelty. You can say "Cool!" as you'd say in splatter-slasher-movie. But horror movies with violence at least can give you chills and excitement, maybe characters you care about. But here everything is dark, dull and boring. Every character is mad. "The story of an emperor who can't deal with his power". What? In the very first scene he runs naked through the woods with his sister! I have no problem saying that we saw a madman for 2 1/2 hours.<br /><br />But maybe you get turned on by seeing Helen Mirren, being pregnant and dancing. Or 5 minutes of hardcore scenes that some people see as the message of the movie. Or castration, yeah right, that was fun! Real birth scenes, how hilarious! Humans, animals, who cares, let's just treat them as toys.<br /><br />I don't care what anyone says, this is no movie, this is just 2 1/2 hours of blood and sex, degrading and disgusting. Go watch a porn movie if you want sex or watch a horror flick if you want violence. At least those movies don't pretend to be some artistic masterpiece. And they are shorter.<br /><br />[0/10] [6 (1+ - 6-)] [0/4]
| 0 |
negative
|
Near-wonderful mixture of comedy, romance, and medical chaos has a 50-ish swinging-single doctor, tired of going to rock concerts with nubile airheads, dating a patient his own age whom he met on his rounds. Screenplay by Julius Epstein shows a fair amount of sophistication, though he doesn't have enough material to fill out the picture's last third, and one can almost feel the movie slipping. The subplot about the hospital being investigated for its shoddy business affairs isn't worked out satisfactorily, and it feels highly concocted anyway. Still, Walter Matthau and Glenda Jackson are a terrific team, Richard Benjamin and Art Carney very funny in support. Director Howard Zieff keeps it all popping, and even when Epstein's one-liners feel like Neil Simon rejects, Zieff zips right along happily. The results are dryly engaging and occasionally quite sweet. Followed by a failed TV series. *** from ****
| 1 |
positive
|
If you first saw this movie with Mary of the Fourth Form, then it's perhaps possible for the haze of nostalgia to encourage your charitable side. If not, it doesn't stand a chance. The young things' hipspeak is complete nonsense, people may have used the occasional word you'll hear here, but not huge batches of them in sentence after sentence. It doesn't so much date Dracula AD 1972 as blow it to pieces, from the moment anyone under thirty opens their mouth it's impossible to take the film seriously and as for it being a laugh, it's not even a smile. The idea of throwing Dracula into modern times is a good one and worthy of a far stronger script than Don Houghton can provide. The River Thames and Chelsea Male are no match for puppet bats, model castles and terrified extras, but you can't help but feel that with better writing it would have been so different.
| 0 |
negative
|
A four-and-a-half-hour O'Neill play gets boiled down to a little under two, and much of that running time is devoted to actors with frozen expressions on their faces as they read their characters' thoughts in voice-over. It can work onstage, but it looks hilariously stilted in this soap-opera adaptation, which soft-peddles its heroine's bad behavior and never explains why she has so captivated so many men. Norma Shearer and Alexander Kirkland, overacting ludicrously, are outclassed by a naturalistic Clark Gable--he's the only one who makes the frozen-face technique work. It gets even funnier when Shearer's and Gable's son, a surly moppet, does the frozen-face shtick. There are also Frank Morgan's brother Ralph as an unsuccessful suitor, given to soliloquizing "poor Charlie!" over and over again, and a young Robert Young and Maureen O'Sullivan. By the time they show up, the voice-overs have largely been abandoned, and it plays as a ripe soap, with a sentimental fadeout that actually plays "Silver Threads Among the Gold" as background music. Robert Leonard's direction is stodgy and he shows little facility for reining in hyperactive actors. It's certainly entertaining--there's nothing else like it, unless you count Groucho's satirical parody in "Animal Crackers," or an old Mad Magazine satire that rendered Shirley Booth's sitcom "Hazel" a la "Strange Interlude". But it isn't good.
| 0 |
negative
|
Red dust is both well acted and well made but what the movie is about i think will bore many viewers as it did to me. There was a film that was out earlier called "in my Country" with Sam Jackson and it was not that well received and both films were about nearly the same exact thing, I do think Red dust was better because of the more interesting performances especially by future Oscar winner Chiwton Ejofor but the plot is just to lacking, it starts off pretty strong but then the film hits the viewers with countless un-interesting court room sessions, this could have been a great film if the writing was not so lacking. But see if for the performances.
| 1 |
positive
|
This movie was really awful. It was not in the least bit frightening, or even startling. I went to see it with a bunch of friends and by the end of the night we were saying "The Ruins ruined my night." <br /><br />I would not recommend seeing this movie in theaters, renting it or even watching the movie on television by accident.It is an absolute waste of an hour and a half. <br /><br />The plot was nearly non-existent, the characters were horribly underdeveloped, and they gave no back story whatsoever for anything that was happening, and then left it completely open at the end as if preparing for a sequel.
| 0 |
negative
|
I absolutely positively can't believe my fellow IMDb reviewers. All the praise about how "original" this movie is, it's like they've never seen "Ring" or the million of imitations that's come out in the 10 years since that movie. And some of them claim to be horror movie buffs! I think not! "Shutter" is okay. Average, I'd say. I give it 5 out of 10, but there's just no way it's original and great and "the most frightening thing I've ever seen" as one reviewer said. Puh-leeeze, people. This one is plain. It's predictable.<br /><br />I swear, if I see another ghost movie where the hero traces the past of the ghost in order to find out why she's so mad and after them, I'm going to scream.<br /><br />"Original"? Give me a break. You people need to get out more. Or at least stop calling yourselves "horror movie fans".
| 0 |
negative
|
As a kid, I never understood WHY anyone would watch this very crappy show. It was pretty stupid and I always wanted Spridle and Jim-Jim to get in some sort of fatal accident (they were THAT annoying).<br /><br />Now, almost 40 years later, I have a new attitude about the cartoon. While I still think it was complete crap, this is only in regard to the American version of the show. That's because I was reading a book about anime and found out that the shows we watched growing up were completely different from those originally shown in Japan. You see, the idiots in charge of syndicating the series thought it was too violent so they cut this out of the episodes. That's bad enough, but what else they did is beyond belief--they actually chopped the episodes apart and spliced them together to create shows that were NOTHING like the originals! For example, one episode might be made up of parts of episodes 3, 6, 18 and 27! As a result, I really don't know if the original show really was bad--it might have been brilliant. But who can tell considering all we have to watch is this Americanized mess!?
| 0 |
negative
|
Everything everyone has said already pretty much rings true when it comes to 'The Prey'. Endless nature footage, bad acting - Aside from these elements, this is a watchable film for slasher fans that in some cases, is considered a cult classic.<br /><br />Jackson Bostwick and Jackie Coogan play pretty well off each other. There's also a three minute banjo solo that shows off Bostwick's skill behind the instrument. Not too bad if I do say so myself.<br /><br />The last ten minutes of the 'film' are its saving grace. The ending still haunts me to this day. This can also sport a short lived plus in that an early John Carl Bucheler does the special effects. Some may know him from films like 'Troll' and 'Friday the 13th part 7 - He directed both these films) All in all, this isn't a movie everyone will find something redeeming in. In fact, on a Hollywood level, this can rank right up there with one of the businesses most amateurish efforts, but for that handful (yet very loyal) of slasher movie fans in the world, even the bad acting and atrocious nature footage can be forgiven.
| 0 |
negative
|
Yul Brynner was a symbol of villein in the tine of 50,s , he play a role of Russian leader in Hungary at the time of revolution in this country in 1956 that made it against the Marxism.<br /><br />The script of this film made it by good taste from the writer that mixing love and adventure with showing different characters in the journey from Hungary to England.<br /><br />The best point in this film was the symbol of challenge from the Hungarian Resistance to kill the Russian major(Yul Brynner) in the hall time of the film that made a meaning about the disadvantages of this major from his bad works , but at the end he made a good work to help Deborah Kerr for escaping her and her darling to London to write in his book a good working to gain at the end people,s agreement and trustment after his assassination by the Hungarian Resistance.
| 1 |
positive
|
Remake of the classic 1951 "The Thing From Another World". 12 men are in a completely isolated station in Antartica. They are invaded by a thing from outer space--it devours and completely duplicates anything it chooses to. It starts off as a dog but gets loose--and has a chance to duplicate any of the men. Soon, nobody trusts anyone else--they're isolated--the radio is destroyed--their helicopter likewise. What are they going to do?<br /><br />The 1951 film had the thing just be a big, super human monster. That movie was scary. This one is too--but the story is different (and based more closely on the source material--the novelette "Who Goes There?") and it's scary in a different way. The movie starts right off with Ennio Morricone's extremely eerie score setting just the right tone and--when the Thing gets attacked--the amount of gore is astounding. There's blood and body parts flying all over--arms are bitten off, heads detach and--in the strongest one--one man is devoured face first by the Thing. The gore effects are STRONG and real nightmare material. I don't scare easy but I had to sleep with the lights on when I saw this originally back in 1982. Rob Bottin's effects are just incredible--how this picture got by with an R rating is beyond me!<br /><br />It also has a very creepy feel--gore aside, it is very suspenseful. You're not sure who is what and Carpenter's direction and the score really build up the tension. One complaint--no one is given any distinctive personality traits. They actors just remain straight-faced and say their lines. That's annoying...but the movie still works.<br /><br />This was a critical and commercial disaster in 1982--it competed with "E.T." and MANY critics complained about the amount of gore and there being no female characters in the movie. It's now considered one of John Carpenter's best. A must-see...for strong stomaches. NOT a date film!<br /><br />An amusing note: When this was released Universal sent a note along with all prints of the film. They suggested to theatre owners that they play the film in an auditorium near the rest rooms. They were afraid that people would be so sickened by the violence that they'd have to be close to a facility to throw up!
| 1 |
positive
|
French Cinema sucks! Down with all these psychiotric visions with their my-God-am-I-cultivated distinguished attitudes! Pestilence to conceited symbolic film-language and impervious chiffres! I'll no longer have a mind for that! Léos Carax, did you ever think about, that a dialogue in a film could be natural and vivid??? Maybe I'm too common to understand you? Or had it been your task to confirm all the clichés of a Frenchman the world can have? Guillaume the to-be-guilliotined comes to his home-palace, Mme. Deneuve, not in the picture, plays the flute: "Here am I, darling!" In this moment, I knew, that she's in the bathtub, and we`ll see her lying in there soon. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not prudish, and the incestous sex scene was the climax of the film. But this is, in Berlin, we say "etepetete", what means something like "être-peut-être", a snobistic, self-satisfied, and, the worst, seen that often in French movies I can tell! Other example: She, beautiful and willing, is looking at herself in a mirror, combing her hair, and her wild-bearded, dirty young guru rushs into the room, breathless shouting: "There's no escape, there's no escape!" Forty years after existencialistic Sartres and consorts- what's new, what's exciting about? My God, there's that woman and she loves and admires you, what would be more natural to be happy with your life? And when you're not, please explain much better, why!! Born French means you have to live a life in extravaganza, no escape, is that the point?
| 0 |
negative
|
When one thinks of Soviet cinema, the propaganda masterpieces of Eisenstein or the somber meditations of Tarkovsky generally come to mind. They're great films sure, but generally not the most entertaining material out there. However, the countries within the Iron Curtain apparently enjoyed their escapist musicals just as much as the states had. In fact, from the 1930s up until the 70s, forty of these song-and-dance extravaganzas were released to much adoration by the public. However, they are completely unheard of in the West, so this documentary attempts to rectify that situation. It does a terrific job of both showcasing these films and putting them into the proper cultural context. Despite the fact I've never been a fan of musicals, I found this documentary to be completely compelling from beginning to end. It goes to prove that, no matter how many films you manage to see in your lifetime, you're only skimming the surface of whats out there.<br /><br />As for the film clips themselves, they're very entertaining. While some of the musicals are blatant propaganda showing workers singing of how much they love working under the regime, some of the films (particularly the later ones) look quite accomplished from a production standpoint. Plus, they are all extremely campy because of how alien they are to my western eyes. There's a few similarities between them and the American musicals I'm used to, but the presence of strict government enforcing of a message gives them a surreal edge. They certainly don't resemble the musicals made in the West. This documentary is both one of the most bizarre and entertaining films I've seen in recent memory, and its an absolute must-see for any film buff. (9/10)
| 1 |
positive
|
Lackawanna Blues is a drama through and through. It details the life of a strong woman by the name of Rachel Crosby (S. Epatha Merkerson). Rachel is referred to as Nanny by all who know her, but she could have just as easily been called Wonder Woman. She epitomized strength, will power, confidence and resolve. She owned a home that she used to house just about every type of person that society would reject. Her tenants consisted of a lesbian, a psychotic war veteran, an amputee, and a host of other vagrants that made the home miles away from ordinary. Each successive event Rachel took in stride and handled flawlessly. She wasn't a dictator devoid of compassion, but in fact she was quite the opposite. She displayed compassion almost to a fault by giving shelter and refuge to so many that she seemed to over-extend herself.<br /><br />Merkerson did a good job, but I believe this role was right up her alley anyway. The movie had an even keel never straying from Rachel. There were of course dramatic moments but they were to be expected. Nothing was ever to shocking or profound other than Rachel herself.
| 1 |
positive
|
"The Journey" is a very good film. Produced in the spring of 1958, in Vienna, and released in 1959, this movie was quite popular in his early years. Despite the political problems, which influenced the movie's success (because the story happens during the Hungarian Revolution, the Cold War), "The Journey" is a very good film, but not well-known. I think it should be released immediately on DVD, because most of the people who have seen it so far want to have it at home. One of the most important qualities of the film is the extraordinary chemistry between Deborah Kerr and Yul Brynner, their intense relationship. All their scenes together are very important, but they also reveal the strong feelings, the great passion and love between the characters (Major Surov and Diana Ashmore). Another quality is the script, which is very well written. It was even published as a novel, by the screen player George Tabori. The film keeps its tension from the beginning to the end. At first, we didn't know if Diana and the other travelers could leave Hungary, because the Communist Major discovers that Diana's friend, Paul Kedes, is Hungarian and he isn't allowed to leave the country. The Major falls deeply in love with Diana and this is, in fact, the true reason why he doesn't want to let her go. But after he embraces her and gives her one of the most memorable kisses ever seen on screen, and she kisses him, too, he lets her go. And the end of the film is one of the most dramatic endings ever filmed-the Major and Diana say "Goodbye!", she arrives at the frontier with all the travelers, including Paul, while Surov is shot several times by some Hungarians, so he dies. Yul Brynner is very, very handsome and Deborah Kerr is very beautiful, charming, refined, just like an English Lady. Yul and Deborah are perfect together. They are one of the greatest couples of the Golden Hollywood. A true moviegoer should watch this film. "The Journey" has everything that a good film should have-a great, captivating story, interesting characters, a wonderful direction (Anatole Litvak is, in my opinion, at his best). Finally, I want to give a message to Warner Bros. Studios or those who restore and release classic films: Please, release "The Journey" on DVD as soon as possible.
| 1 |
positive
|
Well there's a few things about this movie. Everyone should see it. You see the nation of Iraq like you've never seen it covered by the media, and shot from a perspective that is hardly considered by most Americans, where the movie has its main audience. However all that glorious stuff in mind lets take a look at a few other facts of the movie. There were 150 cameras handed out to the Iraqi people most all of which view the war and subjugation of the occupying forces as a growing pain for the bettering of their nation. And in comparison to Saddam it is simply a feeble scratching at the skin. Also, Netflix as its main distributor advertised it before the fun election we just had by sending out a mass e-mail to its entire roster to see the film. Many of the, what should be labeled as opinions played out as facts listed off by the interviewed Iraqis are wrong. If one is to review the Red Cross' records of Abu Ghraib tortures it wasn't Saddam's henchmen who were being tortured it was a fine mix of a 80-90% innocent civilians and 10-20% rightfully detained people. Never was it disclosed that any of that 10-20% were Saddam's Henchmen or curfew violators. In addition the Arab world really has never listed 'Democracy' as one of their opponents, more correctly it is the USA's 6 Billion Dollars a year to Isreal, our military bases in Saudi Arabia and our interest in Oil. I agree that the media is a complete distortion, but this film shows that same distortion. I'm afraid that the Iraqi people that this film represents have been edited to speak with a Yankee voice. Yes its true that Saddam is a puke, and that his removal many see for the best. Its true that some Iraqis actually get paid a good wage. Just as its true that no Iraqi people have control of their most prized oil and US corporations do. Nor does it mention that 20,000 civilians have died due exclusively to US artillery. Still 15% of the country which once had running water and electiricity now does not. Nor does it mention that from 1993-2003 UN sanctions purposed and authored by the USA Government killed over 200,000 Iraqi civilians. Nor does it mention that Democracy in when people decide the government, not a massive war machine that sends the message, 'Be killed or Obey'. I am afraid that the cutting room floor must have quite a bit of Iraqis that aren't so happy with the Occupation. Just as the vast majority of the world was not for the war. In fact the America, Britian, Spain and the rest of them are not carriers of Democracy, they turned their back to it when they saw how full their pockets could be. Hurray, Saddam is out of power, but I'm afraid that no Iraqi is yet in power. Corporations are in power, the media is in power. Read, do your own research, and don't let them blindfold you.
| 0 |
negative
|
I would not recommend it whatsoever. It was like getting stuck in the middle row of a theater, so I couldn't leave, and watching a part porn movie (except they didn't take their clothes off - it was the body language and definitely the language). I have to say I was embarrassed. Filming was very low budget, no good dialogue. Yuck. Actors stunk except The two best characters who got killed off (?) and they were David Carradine and Dennis Hopper. It did smack of Kill Bill and that old movie with the two guys who ride the dessert on their chopppers. You know what I mean. blablabla. The filming was grainy and just a very low quality. There was nobody in that theater that liked this movie, and the people around me were younger and tattooed.
| 0 |
negative
|
Look, some film has got to the be worst ever. I suggest it may be India Song. When I saw the film in 1976 it was playing at the Carnegie Hall Cinema, a place frequented by people who care a lot about film. From about the halfway point, people were simply flooding out of the theater. My girlfriend wouldn't let us leave, but by the end, the theater was virtually empty. I kept telling people as they left that "the good part is still to come." And it was. The good part was the screen at the end that said "fin." It was the only good part. I am still annoyed by this film 24 years later. It was pointless, stupid and derivative (Marienbad, part 2). See it only if you want to spend an endless two hours learning to distinguish between merely bad and simply awful.
| 0 |
negative
|
Two young friends grow up together in Afghanistan. The events of their lives drive them apart and one of them has now been living in the USA for a good number of years. As he receives a phone call it is clear that he has to return, for there is trouble in the air.<br /><br />This is a film about life lasting friendships, mistakes and making up again. But also a film about darkness, pain and endurance. From the pleasurable young days of growing up and playing games to the falling apart, back to the playing of games. This is a slow film, but not too slow.<br /><br />It plays on emotions and that is quite right for a drama, but it does so a bit too much for my liking. This makes it too much of a tearjerker, loosing it a bit of the quality it carries. It is still good, but not fantastic.<br /><br />7 out of 10 kites ran aground
| 1 |
positive
|
Code 46 is one of those scifi movies where the government controls who you are allowed to love, and in fact will punish you if you try to procreate with the wrong person. The haves and the have-nots live in completely separate territories, the powers that be can remove your memories, etc. We've seen this stuff before, but that's OK- no movie is 100% original. This kind of premise is always fun to contemplate. Unfortunately, just imagining such a future is more interesting than actually watching Code 46. The characters are boring and rarely say anything interesting. Maybe that's commentary on a dehumanized future, but it's still dull to watch. It's sloooow.<br /><br />At times the imagery is nice, but usually (coupled with its "evocative" soundtrack) just looks like a glorified perfume commercial. Code 46 also sometimes uses the kind of television camera-work that I find annoying. You know, two characters talk as the camera artlessly "floats" on one side. Two seconds later it's floating on the other side of them in a vain attempt to keep your attention.<br /><br />My friends liked this movie. If they tried to get me to watch it again, I probably would not do so unless they agreed to pay me $50.
| 0 |
negative
|
I attended an advance screening of this film not sure of what to expect from Kevin Costner and Ashton Kutcher; both have delivered less than memorable performances & films. While the underlying "general" storyline is somewhat familiar, this film was excellent. Both Costner and Kutcher delivered powerful performances playing extremely well off each other. The human frailties and strengths of their respective characters were incredibly played by both; the scene when Costner confronts Kutcher with the personal reasons why Kutcher joined the Coast Guard rescue elite was the film's most unforgettable emotional moment. The "specific" storyline was an education in itself depicting the personal sacrifice and demanding physical training the elite Coast Guard rescuers must go through in preparation of their only job & responsibility...to save lives at sea. The special effects of the rescue scenes were extremely realistic and "wowing"...I haven't seen such angry seas since "The Perfect Storm". Co-star Clancy Brown (HBO's "Carnivale" - great to see him again) played the captain of the Coast Guard's Kodiak, Alaska base in a strong, convincing role as a leader with the prerequisite and necessary ice water in his veins. The film wonderfully, and finally, gives long overdue exposure and respect to the Coast Guard; it had the audience applauding at the end.
| 1 |
positive
|
When i watch this movie i too get excited when seen bed scenes of miss world. She has beautiful and charming body. When cute lady do bed scenes and show her fully nude body... i think male have hard to resist....i think its time for cute girls like hrishita bhatt also do nude scenes. At least no one wants to c nude body of ugly women like Seema biswas to c in bandit queen.I concur with what mallicka.b has said. The movie is portrayed in a way which appears to be a kind of vilification on the original content. Emotions aren't conveyed properly. I guess a couple of not-so-good performances also contributed to its mediocrity. In my view, Tabu would have been a much better choice for such a role instead of Aishwarya Rai. In some of her scenes, she looks a bit lusty, which is not ultimately what the movie should have portrayed. I also noticed a bit of over-acting in some of her scenes. I'm a bitter critic of Aishwarya Rai :) Can't help it; sorry for that. 'Raincoat' was a good movie by Rituparno Ghosh. And I saw Choker Bali after seeing Raincoat; I was not at all impressed
| 1 |
positive
|
I have just recently seen Heaven's Gate. After i watched this 3 hr 40 min epic western that's not a western, i read the book by Steven Bach. After considering all events and the movie itself, i still think this movie is a complete waste of time. I believe that when someone tells you to watch it, they are, in fact, trying to bore you to death. If for some reason you can enjoy this self indulgent over thought truely bad movie, i have to ask why. Though this isn't a reason to hate it, it is historically way off. It pretends to be about a situation that happened in Wyoming called the Johnson County War. Simply, the cattle barrons of the time wanted to kill all cattle thieves and claimed they were all immagrants. You find that you simply do not care about these people and hope they all get killed because at least then, something would happen. Everybody in the movie talks about things that happen, and it is never shown. After you sit though this giant waste of time you wonder how someone could actually make a 4 hr epic in which nothing happens. Oh and by the way the Johnson County war was not a war, it never happened. The Johnson County war, in fact, was called that because it almost happened, in actual fact, 2 people died. I can't warn you enough off this movie. However, if you're like me the, the idea of watching a movie that ruined careers and put United Artists on the "for sale" lot, sounds like an interesting case to study, then by all means, watch this terrible, narsisistic, movie with no sub-text, and a lot of photography.(which is lovely sometimes)
| 0 |
negative
|
H.G. Wells' War of the Worlds by director David Michael Latt is a slightly less-than-average flick which isn't too bad if one considers the budget he had to work with - only $1 million. For this budget, the production value wasn't too bad - the best part of it is the visual effects (I was thoroughly impressed with the CGI considering the budget) and sound design. The less-then-stellar parts of this film are the story which is VERY prolonged at best (but again I think this is because of the budget they had - they had to prolong certain scenes to create the feature length 97 minutes), the acting (again it's because the actors had no story to work with), very few exceptional camera shots, and the music. However, again, I can let the negative parts go for the most part only because this film was made for a meager budget and still had good production value. Still you should,d see it for the sake of seeing how a low budget version of War of the Worlds CAN be made even with flaws. 4 out of 10.
| 0 |
negative
|
William Shakespeare probably didn't envision Stephanos as a gay doctor, Antonio as a faithless wife, or Caliban as a goatherd with a Trinitron, but the Bard's had worse done to his good work over time, and might even enjoy the sumptuous pageant of life that is his "Tempest" as re-configured by Paul Mazursky and co-writer Leon Capetanos.<br /><br />This time, Prospero is Philip Dimitrius (John Cassevetes), a Manhattan-based architect tired of designing Atlantic City casinos for the amiable Mafioso Alonso (Vittorio Gassman), especially after discovering Alonso is carrying on an affair with Philip's wife Antonia (Gena Rowlands). Along with daughter Miranda (Molly Ringwald), Philip escapes to a remote Greek island with Miranda and his new mistress Aretha (Susan Sarandon), a nice Catholic girl who struggles with Philip's celibate lifestyle. Will a sudden storm bring all right in the end?<br /><br />Here's a thought on the career of Cassevetes: How many other actors could make a film so confused into something so riveting? A darling of film critics for his earlier work, often with his real-life wife Rowlands, he presents a central character who really suffers for his art here, but seems to enjoy himself and makes us enjoy him, too. It's not Prospero, but something rich and strange that makes for a terrific sea change all his own.<br /><br />"It's all here," he tells one of his faithful companions, Aretha's dog Nino. "Beauty, magic, inspiration, and serenity." That it is. "Tempest" transfers 1611 London to 1982 Manhattan and finds some nice resonances in Philip's displaced life. "Show me the magic", he calls out to a storm-tossed city skyscape, and Mazursky's version, augmented by Donald McAlpine's sterling cinematography of purple seascapes and naturally sun-burnished Greek landscapes, does just that.<br /><br />It's not a perfect movie, by any means. In fact, the big finale, which is the only part of the movie that follows Shakespeare's storyline to any faithful extent, is a mess. Rowland's character is hard to care much for in this film, and after meeting Sarandon in all her braless glory, it's hard to understand Philip's continuing concern for his wife, let alone his left-field desire to make an unhappy "sacrifice" in order to restore the natural order of things.<br /><br />But there's a lot to love about "Tempest". In addition to Cassavetes, there's Ringwald's film debut as his loyal but restless daughter, here as in the play an object of desire for the primitive rustic "Kalibanos" (Raul Julia). Ringwald here is very much the same teenaged muse of privileged adolescence that would inspire John Hughes, but with an emotional depth those later Hughes films didn't delve into. Ringwald and Julia never got any Oscar attention, but they both would win Golden Globes for their playful work here. He tries to woo her in her island isolation with his TV reruns of "Gunsmoke" in Greek, tempted by her 15-year-old body.<br /><br />"I want to balonga you with my bonny johnny," Kalibanos declares, getting shoved aside but winning our sympathy anyway, especially after performing "New York, New York" with a chorus of goats. (When "Tempest" hit the screens, Julia was the toast of Broadway as the lead in "Nine".)<br /><br />It's Mazursky's show, even if it feels at times that Cassavetes is running things with improvisational line readings and emotional breakdowns galore. (Philip introduces himself to Aretha by telling her "I'm right in the middle of a nervous breakdown".) He plays his character as an amiable obsessive, seeking to crystallize his happiness by building an theater in his otherwise uninhabited island.<br /><br />Adding to the enjoyment is Gassman's rich performance as the other man, who is as completely amiable as Julia while telling a youth-obsessed Philip: "Boys don't have half as much fund as we have. They're nervous...and they make love in the back of an old sports car." Despite being overlong and pretentious in spots, like so many art films, "Tempest" is entertaining in its excesses and a trip very much like Shakespeare intended, even if his dreams didn't involve smoking pot backstage at a Go-Gos concert.
| 1 |
positive
|
This show was a pleasant surprise after watching Mad TV on a Saturday night. Spike is an excellent host that you can tell is still getting used to it but he is doing great adjusting to his new job. I can imagine it being a difficult transition from writer(Seinfeld) to host however, unlike a lot of new talk show hosts he does not let airtime ride while trying to figure out what to do next. He is quick-minded and each segment and section rolls into one another smoothly. It also doesn't hurt that he's kinda sexy in a nerdy type of way so he's not hard on the eyes like Leno or Letterman. I can't remember the exact episode date that was my favorite but I especially LOVED the Idiot Paparazzi skit with a fake J-Lo and Katie Holmes. Great New Show!!
| 1 |
positive
|
FBI Agents Mulder and Scully get assigned to probe the mystery of what happened to an Arctic drilling team, in this early 'X-Files' episode that David Duchovny himself considers one of their first "rockin'" episodes. It pays loving homage to the much lauded John Carpenter 1982 theatrical feature "The Thing", and one can see the similarities. Visually, color and lighting schemes combine to give the story a hellish quality. Production design / art direction are especially impressive; the shots of the exterior of the Arctic camp are so reminiscent of the earlier film as to automatically create feelings of deja vu for some viewers. Naturally, our heroes are threatened by the weather, so the sound design, involving wind, evokes memories of "The Thing".<br /><br />The culprit is an ancient worm that had been exposed to the team; once inside a host, it stimulates aggressive behavior. This allows the paranoia aspect to take full hold, and the way the script is set up we can't be too sure of who's infected and who's not. This gives rise to the inevitable scene of testing. This episode certainly works at portraying the way that tensions can cause breakdowns in groups. It even allows Mulder and Scully to have moments where they're not sure if they can trust each other.<br /><br />Guest starring are a good small group of actors: Xander Berkeley, Felicity Huffman, and Steve Hytner as the scientists obliged to accompany Mulder and Scully on the mission, and Jeff Kober as the pilot who takes them to the camp. You can also see one time Jason Voorhees portrayer Ken Kirzinger as one of the ill-fated original team members.<br /><br />Incidentally, there's one direct link between 'Ice' and "The Thing": art director Graeme Murray, who worked on both projects.<br /><br />8/10
| 1 |
positive
|
Well I just discovered IMDb from my twin sister, Carol. Carol and I played the "Fat Identical Twin" in Midnight Madness. We didn't have to prepare much for the fat part, that came with us, and well and the rest was natural. ;) It was our first major film role and we had a blast making it. We were 21 at the time and lived about an hour and half from The Disney Studio in Burbank and the Hollywood, California area. We grew up in front of the TV and probably some of the first generation of latch-key-kids. Twenty years later, we still have lots of fun and are still 'heavy' or what ever is politically correct these days. We don't pursue acting any more but have been know to 'come back' when the right opportunity arrives. Carol is a Chiropractor in our home town of Southern California and I am in the Information Technology field in Georgia.<br /><br />I maybe bias, but I thought the film was cute, clean and fun. We knew it wasn't a master piece or an Oscar nominee, however, it was and still is a movie the whole family can watch and have fun together. It's nice not to have to worry if your young children can watch a video without having to fast forward certain parts. And no one was more exited when it was released on video as Carol and I were. Carol found it at Kmart for $6.99! Now that's an inexpensive way to capture one's memories and share it with others.<br /><br />Sincerely, Betsy Lynn and Carol Gwynn; The Thompson Twins
| 1 |
positive
|
I was actually satisfied when i played this game.The graphics were something new.The missions were great.But yet,I felt i wanted more out of this game.For a James Bond game its pretty good but not as good as his other games.It would be great if they could make a 360Remake for it.It would be much better then.This may just be cuz I'm into games as Resident evil,Dead rising and those kind of games.So it could be better but it was OK to play.One thing i absolutely hated about this game was Natalya!She was irritating dying all the time and she couldn't run either.I recommend this game for those who like FPS games more than i do.7/10 STARS
| 1 |
positive
|
Thomas Mann's controversial novel is the basis for the film "A Death in Venice. " Although in the book, the hero is an author, in the film the director Luchino Visconti who also wrote the screenplay, transforms him into a Composer. As such, the Author/Composer, Gustav Von Aschebach (Dirk Bogarde) on the verge of mental exhaustion is a burned-out artisan. After a long and successful career now seeks the peace and tranquility of a less hectic life. He decides to go on vacation to Venice where he hopes to rejuvenate his dwindling ambition. However, while staying at the picturesque seaside resort, he captures the attention of a beautiful young teenage boy, Tadzio (Björn Andrésen) who eyes him with curious interest and is immediately smitten by him. Although Gustav is captivated by the wondrous youth, he nevertheless must find some private time away from the boy's governess (Nora Ricci), while having to cope with a invading plague which seems to have infested the city. The movie dialog, like the novel remains subtle as are the few brief encounters between the boy and the artist. In the end. the audience unlike the book is hampered with innuendos and imaginative flights of fancy. Their affair is never given wing, substance or opportunity and were it not for the brief resolution in the book, the film allows only the possibility of 'what if.' Nevertheless, one can sympathize with the hero and wish him a moment's peace to obtain that which is forbidden, elusive but definitely criticized by prying eyes. Great story and a Bogarde Classic. ****
| 1 |
positive
|
I loved Heavenly Creatures and make it a point to catch it whenever it is on.<br /><br />So, imagine my delight when I discovered Love & Suicide while browsing NetFlix. Echoing Heavenly Creatures, an easy choice, to the top of my queue it went.<br /><br />I watched it last, made myself comfy, and waited. What I thought was some crappy preview of a stoned high school student's prank film project (I laughed out loud once or twice, thinking "that just lowered the bar of straight to video") turned out to be the movie. Horrible acting, amateur direction, weak dialog. I usually enjoy low budget films, there is something tangible and real about them because they cannot afford the superficial stuff to distract from the "meat" the acting, the direction, the plot, the story. I would liken it to a student who hasn't studied for an exam goes in knowing he is going to fail and just puts his head on the desk and sleeps.<br /><br />In someone else's hands the plot would have serious potential.<br /><br />Do not expect magic or even a cult classics like, say, Divine's Polyester, or Showgirls, at least there you learn to expect bad acting.<br /><br />Love & Suicide went from bad, to worse, to the WORST movie I have ever seen.
| 0 |
negative
|
Breathtaking at it's best, intriguing at it's worst, Francis Ford Coppala's groundbreaking epic 'Apocalypse Now' is one of the most iconic and celebrated motion pictures of the 20th century, and in my opinion, the greatest ever film depiction centered around America's involvement in Vietnam.<br /><br />What I like most about 'Apocalypse Now' is that it is uniquely different from any other films of the same genre. Growing up as movie buff, and with a particular interest in war films, I've seen many films, which have attempted to portray the 'images' and 'feelings' of Vietnam but have been unsuccessful in doing so. Films such as 'Hamburger Hill' and 'We were soldiers' fall into the category of trying to capture the atmosphere of Vietnam by depicting 'heroic battles' which are, more often than not, tainted by the zeal of Hollywood film production.<br /><br />In 'Apocalypse now' there are no battles, no heroes or villains, there is nothing in the film that suggests that it is intended to reflect the imagery of Vietnam through the physical aspects of war. Rather, it is a film, which powerfully investigates and explores the human psyche when it has been tormented by the absolute 'horror' of what was the darkest military conflict of the previous century.<br /><br />The sheer brilliance of the acting (in particular the interpretation of taciturn Captain Willard by Martin Sheen), along with the spectacular cinematography (filmed in the Phillipines), which provides crucial realism to the backdrop of the film, makes 'Apocalypse Now' an unforgettable epic.<br /><br />Evoking a myriad of emotions and leaving us with a maelstrom of mediation, 'Apocalypse now' is not for the light-hearted moviegoer. It is masterpiece that demands multiple viewings to be fully appreciated.
| 1 |
positive
|
If you like his show you might be a little disappointed. This movie has some very funny moments and the laughs are pretty constant but none are very memorable or as funny as the things on the show. The beginning sequence is really really silly and funny, and a great start. YEs! borat does make a cameo appearance.<br /><br />if you are a fan then watch it! if you don't know him or don't like him then don't bother. 6.5/10
| 1 |
positive
|
I am ashamed to admit in public that I even held the cover of this movie once! This is an absolute reason why one should research on the movie before seeing it! The 'makers' of this movie have called us all fools and gullible losers with too much time on our hands.<br /><br />Based on the mythical Indian shape-shifting powerful cobras and rebirth, the story takes us for a painful ride. College going 40+ actors (now really?) are the target of their former friend Manisha Koirala (who was in her former life a cobra, but is now a ghost!) and her pathetic, eternal, powerful boyfriend cobra/killing machine boyfriend Munish Kohli (who thankfully hasn't been seen since). Now do you need to know more?<br /><br />I vote for studying for the upcoming test in school rather than this movie! Give it a pass if you are sane. If not... then you'll probably enjoy it.
| 0 |
negative
|
Nothing I dislike more than a kung-fu movie that plays for laughs. It is the main reason I can't stand Jackie Chan (or his lookalikes). He was not always a clown, I must add. "My Young Auntie" is slapstick martial arts of the worst kind. It is a perfect example of how the subgenre was brought down to the mud by endless silly antics and childish behavior. Unless you are 5-year-old, I really don't understand how anyone could find this kind of film funny. But humor is indeed a very subjective thing. Personally, I think this type of approach did permanent damage to the beloved subgenre. I did think leading lady Kara Hui was very good here. But I had such a hard time sitting through this one that I could not enjoy her fine performance. If you don't mind all the silliness, you might enjoy it. I know I didn't.
| 0 |
negative
|
Simply miserable Lana Turner-Ezio Pinza vehicle. Pinza had a beautiful voice but he rarely uses it in a film that reminded me of "The Student Prince" with adults. Pinza is no leading man either. He looks like an elderly man ready to collect social security and go fishing.<br /><br />The plot is extremely thin and the supporting cast of Barry Sullivan, Marjorie Maine and Debbie Reynolds are given so little to do. Sir Cedric Hardwicke comes in at the end to announce that our King Ezio had better return to his people. As far as I'm concerned, the faster the better. Is that Lana Turner really singing with Pinza? Not bad if it is her. The picture would also remind me in a way of the 1960 movie "The Prince and the Showgirl" with Marilyn Monroe and Laurence Olivier.
| 0 |
negative
|
Set in 1962 Hong Kong (in turbulent times, as we are informed), this extremely intimate story of a failed romance between a two married people tied to their traditions manages to recall the essence of old Hollywood in scene after scene of lush colors, evocative yet restrained sensuality (as opposed of the requisite sexuality and occasional nude scenes which has become part of the norm of a romance in film), and the use of facial expressions to suggest subtle changes in mood or communication. It's not hard to see the influence of Marguerite Duras here, since she is known for minimalism in storytelling as well as describing powerful drama using the art of verbal and non-verbal conversation between two characters with a strong bond as well as the use of re-enacting scenes that could eventually take place in both the characters' lives. From Hiroshima MON AMOUR to MODERATO CANTABILE, her pen is strongly visible here from the moment we enter the cramped rooms of Mr. Chow (Tony Leung) and Mrs. Su Li-zhen (Maggie Cheung) to the last scenes which explain the intensity of regret that he feels as he recalls the opportunity which was lost in reaffirming this relationship.<br /><br />The plot even resembles something that Duras could have written: Mr. Chow and Mrs. Su Li-zhen, neighbors in a tenement apartment while both being fairly successful professionals, begin to discover in the most banal of ways that their spouses are cheating on them, and they discover quite naturally, it's with each other. The question is, should they act upon what they also feel towards each other or not be like their partners? Every scene plays with the notion that at any moment they will give in to each other, and at one point, it is suggested that eventually they do though as intrusive as the camera is in detailing to us their encounters (which seem to occur on a daily basis as seen by the frequent changes of Cheung's dresses), we never see it. And just as not seeing either of their spouses heightens their own love story, not seeing them carry through with their attraction makes the eventual separation even the more bitter because at every moment we want for something to happen -- some catalyst -- and the only one which comes is when Leung reveals to her that he loves her, followed by his quietly brutal revelation that she will never leave her husband, which implies that neither will he. It also gives us a glimpse of what culture and timing can do: from a Western point of view, a consummation of their romance into a more solid, lasting affair would have been possible especially in the 60s, but as it's Hong Kong, cultural values are markedly different.<br /><br />Performances here are of the high order: it's very easy to play a torrid love affair, but to continually play a repressed, platonic relationship that is brimming with desire only barely suggested is hard and makes all the sensuality more cerebral than palpable or visual. Cheung and Leung smolder and their blighted chemistry lingers long after the credits have rolled.
| 1 |
positive
|
Based on a Stephen King novel, NEEDFUL THINGS provides the intrigue and eeriness to keep you in your seat. A mysterious man(Max von Sydow) comes to town and soon becomes the most talked about citizen. Could it be that the devil himself has set up shop as an antique dealer in a small town in Maine? von Sydow is masterful and dynamic in this role that dominates the screen. Also starring are Ed Harris and Bonnie Bedelia. Harris is steady and Bedelia is deserving of your attention. Also in support are J.T. Walsh and Amanda Plummer. Not the best, nor the worst adaptation of King's horror on the screen.
| 0 |
negative
|
Barely came trough the whole movie... Acting is bad, dialogs are even worse. Felt kinda st00pid 4 watching it, but it was named the same as one of my favorite games, so I struggled trough. They even screwed up the sound. At certain parts of the movie the background music is so loud, that i had to turn the volume down. It would be great, if this was a competition about who can screw up more.<br /><br />Oh and PS: I don't know what's this guy "Uwe" capable of creating... I certainly don't think this movie is bad just because he's the director. I checked the list of his work, and this is his first(and probably the last) creation that I've seen.<br /><br />over&out.
| 0 |
negative
|
What can I say? An excellent end to an excellent series! It never quite got the exposure it deserved in Asia, but by far, the best cop show with the best writing and the best cast on televison. EVER! The end of a great era. Sorry to see you go...
| 1 |
positive
|
Once again, there's dastardly government agencies stopping at nothing to prevent public knowledge of some momentous events. In this case, the discovery of a new underwater species that could threaten the planet's ecology. Although the creature is no E.T. he does seem to befriend one youngster, who protects it at all costs, not realising it is but an infant of the species and is going to get a lot bigger and badder This 2005 series had a lot going for it. It is family drama, sci-fi, thriller with more than a few comedic moments. The characters are believable, well acted and well photographed. The show holds the attention. Of course, as with any sci-fi show, suspension of disbelief has to be achieved. And I think it is here. Alas, the series crashed after season one, so we never get a resolution. Infuriating.. There is a general comment I feel worth making here. Many TV networks and/or film distribution companies cancel, quite arbitrarily, seemingly excellent TV series particularly intelligent sci-fi ones. Now there may be some very good reasons for this, although the audiences are treated with utmost disdain and rarely told the reasons. This in itself is annoying. What really gets my goat is that, having cancelled the series, they then issue the thing as far as it's got, on DVD, in an obvious attempt to milk the cash cow as far as possible. For previous viewers of the series that's OK, they know what they're in for but
many of these unfinished series end on a cliffhanger. Two that come to mind immediately are "Surface", and "Odyssey 5". If you've heard good things about the series and not seen it you go and buy the blasted DVD and end up with an unresolved plot issue it makes me very angry!! I enjoyed "Surface" immensely and didn't realise the poor characters would end up in a situation that looked totally untenable and we'll never know what happened next. I believe that there should be a prominent notice on all such DVD issues, to the effect that the story is unfinished. Nowadays I check on TV series purchases (IMDB is an obvious excellent starting point) to find out whether a 'complete' series is really complete or not. Buyer beware.
| 1 |
positive
|
From the acting to Cardone's direction, this new twist on the familiar ghost's been-done-wrong theme, will keep you glued to your seat. Slow at times because it builds this 'what's gonna happen' tension. Medium-well on gore but what there is nicely nasty. Spoiler: The death of the jockhole and subsequent feast is a highlight for gore hounds.<br /><br />The writers crafted an old story but added twists and re-imagined you typical haunting. Cardone brings it to life . . . er . . uh death.<br /><br />Lori Heuring, Scout Taylor-Compton and the ever fabulous Ben Cross are real, no signs of acting here. Everyone in the cast is committed and truly isn't that what any director strives for. The actors believe, so we believe.<br /><br />Along with the traditional ghost story surprises the film is loaded with tons of atmosphere, from the mine, Hank's house and the Tunny home, there's a creeping fear from the first frame to the last.<br /><br />Horror fans, do yourself a favor and enjoy what amounts to be one of the true horror movies out there today.<br /><br />I end with a big kudo to Boaz Davidson (story) Ben Nedivi (screenplay)for without inventive writers Hollywood would be nothing but an ugly reality TV party.
| 1 |
positive
|
However closely the movie is to the comics, it doesn't matter. This movie radically moves away from the boredom of "Interview with the Vampire" (although it's acting was good) and slides in the wonderful action scenes. Very convincing tale and interesting with surprisingly good acting from all. Disadvantage - poor graphics. Does it matter? Nope.
| 1 |
positive
|
While its not the masterpiece that "Le Samourai" was (I've accepted by now that Jean-Pierre Melville was never able to top that classic), I find "Le Cercle Rouge" to be much better than "Bob le flambeur". I felt that "Bob le flambeur" was an above-average and influential b-film, but still a b-film. "Le Cercle Rouge" proves that as a filmmaker Melville improved as he continued. John Woo is a massive fan of Melville, even though their film-making style differs. While Woo uses fast-motion for shootouts and an operatic sense of violence, Melville has a minimalist style that suits him very well. He wasn't interested in creating quickly paced action films but more meditative crime thrillers. In that department, he was one of the best.<br /><br />"Le Samourai" is still his best work, mainly because it has more character development than this, but on a technical level they're probably equal. Besides, while "Le Samourai" had one great lead performance, this has four. Alain Delon is once again an ultra-cool gangster on the prowl - this man's silence is fascinating. Bourvil is superb as the police inspector on the case of the heist and escaped con. He steals every scene he is in, and proves that he was a skilled dramatic actor (in France he is best known as a slapstick comedian in the mode of Buster Keaton). Yves Montand is great also as the shaky and paranoid gun expert. Gian Maria Volontè (a regular in spaghetti westerns) is overshadowed by his three co-stars but still does an adequate job.<br /><br />Once again, Melville's direction is superb. Taking equal influence from both American crime thrillers and the French new wave, the man always seems to know the best shots and angles to choose. This is more slowly-paced than most caper flicks, but it really pays off by the end. "Le Cercle Rouge" is a bit short of being an absolute classic, but is still one of the best heist flicks ever made. Tarantino must've seen this before making "Reservoir Dogs". (8/10)
| 1 |
positive
|
FC De Kampioenen's only reason for existence is it's local popularity. It has caused this sitcom to run for over 15 years (and still counting).<br /><br />It deals about an amateur soccer team with the emphasis "amateur". Every storyline deals with the same subject: some misunderstanding that takes ridiculous (and predictable) proportions, to get resolved in the end.<br /><br />The show's been running for over 15 years now, and the production probably decided not to change a winning team. Which means that the show has had minor changes over the course of years (besides a couple of actors getting replaced (they nearly all left by themselves rather than being thrown of the show)). The humor hasn't changed a bit over the years and it was already outdated when it first aired in the first place.<br /><br />I guess you have to be Flemish to get this, and over 60 years old, to enjoy such an old fashioned TV show as this.
| 0 |
negative
|
This film proves you don't need a Hollywood budget to make something fun to watch. What stuck with me is how the crew from different locations was able to pull together with no promises of riches to make something just because they believed in it. I think anybody who makes low budget movies can relate to certain scenes such as actors who just can't get that one line, being bothered by the police, and having most of the crew disappear after the first week. Nobody got paid for this which says a lot for the people who had to travel cross country and for the long hours spent editing. After watching Stuie sell his personal property, use his own money, and trash his house to make the movie I am a bit curious how close his wife may have come to leaving. Good job to all.
| 1 |
positive
|
The idea of nine stupid prisoners escaping and going on a road trip sounds pretty good for a movie. Especially because it's meant to be funny and I guess heart-warming in some weird way. The problem is, the movie was very rarely funny and often just seemed pointless and needlessly gross. It was as if jokes or interesting scenes were being set up again and again but no one bothered finishing any of them--there was just no payoff. Also, the movie was just brainless and had the crooks meandering across Japan even though they left so many crime victims alive that it's impossible to believe they wouldn't have been caught almost immediately--especially since they continued to keep using the same stolen camper for days on end. And as far as being gross goes, I just didn't need to see scene after scene after scene of guys peeing along the side of the road. Plus, believe it or not, there is a scene where four of the guys are out raping sheep!<br /><br />All in all, I really hated this movie. And it's a shame, as I almost always love Japanese films--just not poorly made and uninteresting ones like this one.
| 0 |
negative
|
Seldom is seen a film sequel that surpasses or even equalls the greatness of it's original predecessor. Such a film is VIrtual Encounters 2.<br /><br />It's about a couple guys in college who sell virtual sex to the entire campus. If you like seeing naked chicks, this one delivers. Six-foot tall Chrissy Styler is an amazing specimen and you will be dreaming about her for days if you ever have the good fortune to catch the unrated version. She wears just the right amount of body glitter in her multiple nude scenes and her giant cans appear to be real. ( = Giddyup!!<br /><br />W/the exception of James Cameron's "Aliens," Francis For Coppola's "The Godfather Part II" and - of course - the Zuckers' "Airplane 2," this is the only sequel in movie history that takes a classic film and improves upon it. <br /><br />It's criminal the way this film was ignored by the academy. Nikki Fritz and that broad who gets tied up in the beginning (as well as the brunette who gets a rubdown towards the end) all deserved Best Supporting Actress nods. <br /><br />Shame on you, Hollywood!!!
| 1 |
positive
|
I managed to obtain an original BBC broadcast of this film on video and loved it so much I had to try and locate the original video in its original box; thanks go to Ebay.<br /><br />Deleted on any format since 1990, this exceptional wildlife film is finely constructed and well acted. Directed by Stewart Raffil (MAC & Me), the scenes of leaping Tigers running through the Alaskan wilderness is nothing short of stunning and its timeless tale of a trapper trying to survive on his own in the frozen wastes with two young tiger cubs is moving on each viewing.<br /><br />Why no major company has picked up this movie to distribute on DVD is a big wonder; but makes it that extra special to know its also hard to locate.<br /><br />If you find this film by chance or eventually track it down to add to your collection, make sure never to let it vanish out of your grasp. Films of this calibre, as shown, don't come often.<br /><br />A true masterpiece in every sense of the word, and highly worthy of its praised comments, "WHEN THE NORTH WIND BLOWS" will sink deep into your heart as soon as you see it.
| 1 |
positive
|
This film could have been a decent re-make, and gosh knows it tried (or Ms. English tried). Assembling talented actors together with a successful & experienced writer/director should be a formula for a decent film. But Ms. English's experience - according to her IMDb bio - is exclusively limited to television work, and it is glaringly obvious throughout this film.<br /><br />I am surprised that none of the reviews I have read mention what I found most unlikeable about this film, and what kept it from reaching even a portion of its potential: it looked and felt like it was made for television. To give some credit to Ms. English, many of the jokes that simply did NOT work on a movie screen would have been terrific on TV (and maybe a laugh track would have helped). So much of the camera usage and the lighting would have played out fine on TV but looked awkward or odd on a big screen. If the whole film had been chopped up into a mini-series or a sit-com, I think it could have worked. But this is cinema and sadly Ms. English's talents didn't translate. I cringed at so many different points in my embarrassment for the actors & the writers that I felt like I came out of the theater half shriveled! Meg Ryan is her usual perky, cute self (except for the awful plastic surgery she has had on her face), but where did she have a chance to use her talent?! She has made films where she doesn't recreate her stereo-typed role and done them well... but not here. Annette Bening seemed to simply go through the motions - such a great talent and yet such a poor performance! I enjoyed the other women characters but they were more caricature than substance, and it was sad to see. What worked in this film in the 1930s doesn't translate to the 2000s, and no one helped Ms. English get the changes & updates or subtleties right. If only she (as writer, director AND producer) had reached out for some assistance, I think it could have been good. But it was not.<br /><br />It's so frustrating to go to a movie that has good stars and a good writer or director and come away feeling it was a waste of everyone's time & money! This New Yorker cartoon I saw yesterday is appropriate: A few movie execs are having a meeting & the caption reads: "Let's remake a classic with worse everything!"
| 0 |
negative
|
Never, ever, have I been as impressed by a film as this little piece about four groups of people, that faces a crisis, or many. In some ways a little like Short Cuts, but totally different, at the same time.<br /><br />There are a heap of lead characters, whom we all learn to know very well as their stories unfold, and they are, as persons show their good and their bad sides, their weaknesses and their strengths, with lots of drama and laughter.<br /><br />The closest equivalent in a US movie, I can think of, which then is far weaker in every respect, is the Royal Tenenbaums. <br /><br />Four Shades of Brown, as the title would be in English, tells the story about a stressed out hotelier and his wife, and his elderly parents (who are traveling magicians); about the receptionist at an animal crematory and his family misadventures; about the members of a cooking course (who mostly talk about their sorry lives) and fourthly about the funeral for a womanizing trotter jockey, who tries to continue orchestrating the family from beyond the grave, by singing and appearing in 3D during the funeral, thanks to high tech equipment that has cost his entire fortune (the family gets nil, not even the famous horse is given to the family)!<br /><br />There is a warmth and compassion in this film, that is filled with grief and laughter, that I've never experienced before.<br /><br />Most actors were new to me, except Robert Gustafsson and one or two more, but they all deserve the big slam the film took at the Swedish Guldbagge extravaganza (= the Swedish "Oscar" Awards) a week ago!<br /><br />Male, female and male supporting actor prizes went to this film, plus a few more, to boot!<br /><br />If you have the chance, go and see it - the hours float by very quickly!
| 1 |
positive
|
Susan Sarandon. She made this movie for me. I've never appreciated her acting more than as I did in this movie. She really acted as though she were Adele August. I can appreciate actors and actresses who leave their individual persona and create a character who's truly believable. <br /><br />Natalie Portman as Ann August helped create the ideal antagonist as their characters developed through the movie. The movie was about them so the other characters were peripheral.<br /><br />I gave this movie an eight rating, but Susan received a ten from me because of her performance. As far as relationship movies go, Beaches and Terms of Endearment had a greater impact on me than this movie, but I highly recommend it.
| 1 |
positive
|
I saw this movie the day it opened in NYC, at the Ziegfield. At the time Madonna was not quite the cultural icon she is now. She had a couple of hits, was very good in "Desparately Seeking Susan" and I had tickets to see her in concert at Giants Stadium. <br /><br />"Who's That Girl?" gives Madonna an actual role to play, which is not just a variation of her own personality. She does the madcap/heroine routine better than you might think. Griffin Dunne is very well cast as the man around to witness all the shenanigans.<br /><br />The story involves a huge cat named Murray, a bride-to-be who has slept with every cabbie in NYC, a mean father-in-law, and a key. There are a lot of car chases and cops trailing their path. All the elements of a screwball comedy intact. <br /><br />Sir John Mills is seen briefly. He shares a glass of champagne with the leads and has the greatest apartment on the Upper West Side, complete with a rain forest and everything. <br /><br />Compared to most Madonna movies (the ones I've been able to tolerate anyway), this is fantastic. On its own, its not that bad. 6/10.<br /><br />PS The concert was lousy.
| 1 |
positive
|
I saw this only because my 10-yr-old was bored. He and his friend hated it but of course liked being at the movies. This is the first time I've strongly disagreed with Ebert in many years. There is not a single thing to recommend this film. Willis is good, as always. But the story stinks, is unbelievable, there is no real story, no action, no interesting cinematic sequences, no surprises, and worst of all, the child star is A thoroughly repulsive slug guaranteed to turn off any parent who does not have a dweeby fat slob for a kid. By all means stay away and spare your child - unless you want to punish him or her. There is no excuse for such lousy directing or writing and one hopes these filmmakers will suffer accordingly.
| 0 |
negative
|
"Fate" leads Walter Sparrow to come in possession of a mysterious novel that has eerie similarities and connections to his life, all based around the number 23. As the story unfolds in real life and fiction, Sparrow must figure out his connection to the book and how the story will eventually end.<br /><br />The Number 23 offers an intriguing premise that is undone by a weak execution. The film just failed on many different levels which is pretty disappointing because it held so much potential. The screenplay was probably the worst part about it. It was filled with silly sequences and laughable dialog that just killed the mood of the movie. It seemed like the screenwriter had a good idea, he just didn't know how to develop it to stretch over a ninety minute running time. The second half of the film was running low on ideas, the twist was pretty obvious and the ending was awful.<br /><br />Joel Schumacher is responsible for one of the worst movies ever and he did redeem himself a little with Phone Booth and a few other films but The Number 23 reminds me that he's still capable of making a stinker. He has the movie drenched in style but he just can't get a good focus. He moves the film at a clunky and slow pace. He switches from reality to what's actually happening in the book which quickly got annoying. The actual book in the film that's titled "The Number 23" is an awful detective story and the audience gets stuck listening to Carrey narrate it which just bored me to tears. When Carrey is finally done with book, we get stuck watching him run around trying to solve the mystery. At this point, the audience has lost interest and there is no real tension. We impatiently wait for the movie to reach it's horrible ending and unconvincing explanation before celebrating that film has finally finished.<br /><br />The acting was mostly average and pretty forgettable. Jim Carrey was clearly just sleepwalking through his performance and he didn't even seem to be trying. He was either completely over the top in some scenes or just very wooden. His narration was a complete bore to listen to and he put no life inside his character. Virginia Madsen did the best she could with a limited role but she needs to pick better scripts. Logan Lerman was pretty bland as was Danny Huston. Overall, The Number 23 was an awful thriller that offered more laughs than suspense or thrills. Rating 3/10
| 0 |
negative
|
If you have a chance, see this Russian(how should I call them: gems, masterpieces,hidden treasures?), war movies like this one, or The dawns here are quiet, or Proverka na dorogah... And , right after that, watch again the American war movies, or the international productions, those one with the allies and the Germans,etc. Or, even worse, watch the Italian war movies. Everything from the west will seem shallow, contrived, ridiculous, in comparison with the Russian movies. I am sooooo stunned by the quality of the aforementioned Russian war movies that I cannot find the words to praise enough their shattering superiority over Anglo-Saxon war movies.
| 1 |
positive
|
Having seen 'only' about 200 Hong Kong films in my time, I have to say this film is among my very top favorites. Not only is the plot engaging (and in some ways surprising, which these days is rare for any movie), but the chemistry between the two lead actors is superb. Top notch casting! And while often even the most serious HK films tend to insert quite a bit of humor in between all the drama and action, often spoiling the mood a bit, here the jokes are kept subtle and woven into the plot, even improving character relations. The music is also very well done, and the two main themes are very beautiful. With the release of the HK special Edition, they've even cleaned the picture (first release was grainy) and the subtitles, even if the quality of the translation is still lacking (nothing new there). All in all, if you have to see a HK film that isn't directed by John Woo or have Chow Yun Fat in it, this should be at least on your short list! A truly fascinating and entertaining watch!
| 1 |
positive
|
Although it has been off the air for 6 years now, Promised Land was one of those shows that comes along once or twice in a generation. Good cast, supporting cast(among them, Richard Thomas and Ossie Davis) and crew. The plot is believable with McRaney packing up his family and just saying "to hell with it all" after being subjected to so many disappointments and incidents since his return from Vietnam years earlier. I think a lot of Vietnam-era veterans, myself included, could really relate to McRaney's thought process in finally deciding on his course of action. Many of us did precisely the same thing in real life, after returning from that war and finding that America was not the same place we left. The show imparts not only values but a glimpse into what took place in one veterans life. In those two respects alone, I think it is one of the more poignant TV series of our time. Why this program only ran for 3 years is beyond me.
| 1 |
positive
|
I was impressed by the story. It had the "typical" predatory gay male and the "typical" Mormon missionary. But, they each also had friends and family who balanced their lives well. There are a number of characters, some nice and some not so nice, each with their own personality nuances. And, most reminded me of people in my own life.<br /><br />The story starts out with several humorous moments and slowly evolves into a heartwarming relationship film. The story progresses without obvious plot turns and never talks down to you. It makes you think a bit while waiting to see what happens. Even when I thought I could foresee something coming, I was surprised by how it actually came about.<br /><br />Not many movies make me laugh knowingly at real gay dialogue and then bring a tear to my eye when I feel the characters' pain. I watched the film on DVD, and couldn't bring myself to stop watching until it was over. (Usually, I watch a film in pieces over a couple of days.) It's nice to see a film with gay characters that is uplifting, but not preachy. I highly recommend this film! And, not just for gay audiences. The relationships transcend sexuality.
| 1 |
positive
|
Eaten Alive is a little film that opens in New York city and the arctic where tribe men shoot snake venom at a few people,then a woman enters the police precinct who's trying to find her sister that has disappeared after 6 months Sheila is from Alabama,but her accent sucks,she is teamed up with an adventurer who seems to just want her money and seems to say it a lot throughout the film.They venture through the amazon only to find a community with people and they find the sister,they're confronted by a mad man who has probably seen one too many Jim Jones preaches.He will bring them to a better place,it could be heaven but no,Mark and Sheila find out later its actually a suicide cult.<br /><br />Why do I call Eaten Alive a "little film"? Ill tell you but when I watched it,I was floored through all the run ins with the cannibals,Robert Kerman has a different role than his professor in Cannibal Holocaust.He's a bit annoying,once we meet him at an arm wrestling match that looked like Russian roulette we know hes one tough guy.Plus the strong misogyny just makes you cringe and it looked like I saw it somewhere,oh the scenes of animals killing each other.But the whole film revolves on those scenes,its like were actually watching a images of nature with parts of a film But after watching this film I realized that most of the films scenes are taken from other cannibal films,even the demise of 2 of the characters,well..most of the film is.That's why I call this a little film,when I did found out that scenes were borrowed I felt like throwing the disc across the room,this isn't a film just a simple montage of sorts .
| 0 |
negative
|
This is not especially well written. The songs are not memorable. The cast, however, squeezes a lot out of this Martin and Lewis in the Navy situation. They both look great as young sailors. They are believable. The scenes on the submarine show how cramped it must have been on those underwater missions in the 1950s and before.<br /><br />Lots of sailors in many scenes. Hundreds perhaps, in a big outdoor exercise field, and again in a boxing arena.<br /><br />You will see James Dean in his scene. He does stand out even though he is an extra here. In a scene where Jerry walks across a busy street we see some of his "almost accident" comedy which he would bring into play years later in The Patsy.<br /><br />Dean giving Jerry boxing instructions is a good comedy skit to watch for. Jerry in the boxing ring shows his high energy that was his trademark in the late '40s and early '50s. Dean and Jerry dancing is a bit of a treat. Not great, but better than most non dancing movies.<br /><br />Worth seeing if you don't mind black and white. Good ending.<br /><br />Tom Willett
| 1 |
positive
|
Writer & director Jay Andrews, a.k.a. Jim Wynorski, serves up more of his characteristic shlock with a decent cast menaced by grade-Z computer generated reptiles in "Komodo Vs. Cobra," as generic a rip-off of "Mysterious Island" meets "Jurassic Park" as you can imagine. The chief problem with this predictable yarn about monsters dining on mankind is the incredibly phony special effects. The cobra and the Komodo are hilariously awful. However, the graphics people do an okay job of integrating the monsters with their victims, not that any of this is in the least believable. Clearly, "Komodo Vs. Cobra" had a budget that so low that virtually everything non-human in its looks as fake as all get out. This cheesy monster epic takes place on a remote island where the U.S. military conducts top-secret DNA testing on animals. The result is that gigantic Komodos and cobra thrive in this tropical island paradise. As the action opens, the primary scientist is gobbled up by a cobra that likes to swim. After, we are introduced to a group of 'Greenpeace' like environmental protesters and a journalist. Planet One organizer Jerry Ryan (Ryan McTavish of "Hellbent") pays charter boat skipper Jim Stoddard (Michael Pare of CBS-TV's "Houston Knights") five grand with the promise of another five grand if he will take them to this forbidden island. Meanwhile, the U.S. military suspect that something is amiss on the island so they send their own team of men who give eaten by the supersized predators. Our heroes run into the last remaining scientist on the island, Dr. Susan Richardson (Michelle Borth of "Wonderland"), the daughter of the scientist responsible for this insane science project, who tells them that the military is going to target the island for destruction. The title match between the two overgrown predators occurs in the last quarter hour after our heroes, who have been consistently whittled down by the monsters, find a helicopter and take off in time before the military pulverizes the island. There's no tension, suspense, or anything worthwhile in this substandard creature feature. The best thing about this yawner is composer Chuck Cirino's orchestral soundtrack; it gives "Komodo Vs. Cobra" an epic feel. Usually, Jay Andrews writes and directs tolerable drivel, but this ranks far below his low standards. The sexy women fare better at survival than the guys. In one scene, our heroic group fords a river and we don't get to see any wet T-shirts. Drat! There's nothing in the way of memorable dialogue or relationships in this dreck. I think that the military guys do far too much saluting when they get their heads together to conspire. Let's hope that Michael Pare got a good payday out of this garbage. The ending as one of the scientists takes on the characteristics of a lizard comes strictly as an afterthought. It's not so bad it's good, it's just bad.
| 0 |
negative
|
This movie was bad but it was so bad that it may reach cult status in the distant future. A sort of film-noir meets Plan 9 From Outer Space. The story was, well, there wasn't actually a story. There is a place reserved for the Ed Woods and Russ Meyers of the world and this film proves it. "So bad it might be good" is the best way to describe it. I seriously doubt if this movie will be picked up by any legitimate distribution company therefore it is unlikely to see wide release.<br /><br />I will add that I expect to see more of actor Ron Carey. He made the best of what he had. The rest of the acting, if I can call it that, was quite forgettable. I have seen worse from big studios with vast budgets.
| 0 |
negative
|
Review: Nunsploitation films. They've been around since forever. A few that pop to mind are the Mexican devil worshiping movie Alucarda, Night of the Demons 2, The Convent and of course Dante Tomasellis Desecration. Cant blame somebody for trying to exploit a religious/holy image and twisting it around to make it scary. If done right, it works. Here comes the most recent addition to the nunsploitation sub-genre simply titled The Nun.<br /><br />The story is about this group of girls that live in a Catholic school. In this school there's a Nun who is particularly cruel to one of the girls. The girls acting in self defense against the abusive nun accidentally kill her and then decide to bury her and tell no one. Fast forward 18 years later and the nun is back searching for revenge from those who killed her.<br /><br />This movie was produced by Brian Yuznas Fantastic Factory. You know, the company that makes horror movies in Spain. Need a reminder of the kind of movies that this company churns out? Well heres a small reminder: Arachnid, Darkness, Romasanta: The Werewolf Hunt, Rottweiler. You get the picture. About the only really good movie that this company has produced (in my opinion) was Stuart Gordons Dagon. Thats it. Oh no, wait, I believe they also produced the excellent Christian Bale vehicle The Machinist. But thats it. So when I consciously rented this movie, I knew I wasn't going to watch anything that was mind blowingly good. Still, with all that mental preparation I was disappointed.<br /><br />One of the only good things this movie has going for it is its slick look. The movie has some nice cinematography. It doesn't look like a cheap horror film. The movies special effects were alright, with The Nun being able to travel through water. Well, that was an image that lended it self for some cool fx moments that sometimes scratched into cheesy territory but sometimes were cool enough to watch. I dug that scene with the Nun hurling herself at people like a bucket of water. Its not a particularly deadly move, but it made for a cool visual. There's some gore here but not a lot of it. One particular scene involving an elevator death was cool, but sadly the movie hit its peak with that scene. And it was only half way through. After that, nothing really cool happens and the movie deludes into an incredible borefest.<br /><br />The movie just turns into The Nun popping up every now and then to give us a boo scare, she would kill someone and then CUT! We get back to the characters talking crap, going through rooms, opening doors, you get the drill. And I just personally hate it when a horror movie turns into that. People opening doors and going into rooms. Boring! And when the characters do talk its terrible dialog. In one particularly stupid scene a character decides right out of the blue that the nun turns into flesh and blood whenever she is in the water so thats they way to go to try and kill her. And everyone just says OK! And they all elaborate this plan to kill the nun in a water tank. Now, who gave that guy this info and why did the others just take it for granted? Who the hell knows, but its scenes like that that make the movie look stupid.<br /><br />And yet another thing that got in the way of my enjoyment of this film was the fact that they used Spanish actors who have a very thick accent. When they try to speak English its very hard to make out what the hell they are trying to say. Id prefer to have them be dubbed then try and figure out what they are saying and become frustrated. The fact that this DVD has no English subtitles didn't help matters either.<br /><br />So in conclusion, this is a movie that has some slick visuals, nice sound effects but a terrible terrible script. I guess this just goes to show that you might have the biggest budget or the best special effects, but if your movie has a bad script with terrible characters and situations that your audience cant connect with, then you've still got a bad movie. Such was the case with The NUN.<br /><br />If you want to have some real fun with evil nuns, rent any of the films I mentioned at the beginning of this review. Now, as for the makers of this film, they should go say ten hail maries and light fifty candles to their saint of choice to see if they'll be forgiven for making this sinfully terrible film.<br /><br />Rating: 2 out of 5.
| 0 |
negative
|
Many animation buffs consider Wladyslaw Starewicz the great forgotten genius of one special branch of the art, puppet animation, which he invented almost single-handedly . . . and, as it happened, almost accidentally. As a young man Starewicz was more interested in entomology than the cinema, but his unsuccessful attempt to film two stag beetles fighting led to an unexpected breakthrough in film-making when he realized he could simulate movement by manipulating beetle carcasses and photographing them one frame at a time. This discovery led to the production of Starewicz' amazingly elaborate classic short THE CAMERAMAN'S REVENGE, which he made in Russia in 1912, at a time when motion picture animation of all sorts was in its infancy.<br /><br />The political tumult of the Russian Revolution caused Starewicz to move to Paris, where one of his first productions-- coincidentally? --was a dark political satire variously known as "Frogland" or "The Frogs Who Wanted a King." A strain of black comedy can be found in almost all of Starewicz' films but here it is very dark indeed, aimed more at grown-ups who can appreciate the satirical aspects than children, who would most likely find the climax upsetting. (I'm middle-aged and found it pretty upsetting, myself.) And indeed, prints of the film intended for English-speaking viewers of the 1920s were given title cards filled with puns and quips in order to help soften the sharp sting of the finale.<br /><br />Our tale is set in a swamp, the Frogland Commonwealth, where the citizens are unhappy with their government and have called a special session to see what they can do to improve matters. They decide to beseech Jupiter for a king. The crowds are impressively animated in this opening sequence-- it couldn't have been easy to make so many frog puppets look alive simultaneously --while Jupiter, for his part, is depicted as a droll white-bearded guy in the clouds who looks like he'd rather be taking a nap. When Jupiter sends them a tree-like god who regards them impassively the frogs decide that this is no improvement and demand a different king. Irritated, Jupiter sends them a stork.<br /><br />Delighted with this formidable-looking new king who towers above them, the frogs welcome him with a delegation of formally dressed dignitaries. The Mayor steps forward to hand him the key to the Commonwealth as newsreel cameras record the event. To everyone's horror, the stork promptly eats the Mayor and then goes on a merry rampage, swallowing citizens at random. A title card dryly reads: "News of the king's appetite spreadeth throughout the kingdom." When the now-terrified frogs once more beseech Jupiter for help, he loses his temper and showers their community with lightning bolts. The moral of our story, delivered by a hapless frog just before he is eaten, is "Let well enough alone."<br /><br />Considering the time period when this startling little film was made, and considering the fact that it was made by a Russian émigré at the height of that beleaguered country's Civil War, it would be easy to see this as a parable about those events. Starewicz may or may not have had Russia's turmoil in mind when he made "Frogland," but whatever prompted his choice of material the film stands as a cautionary tale of universal application. "Frogland" could be the Soviet Union, Italy, Germany or Japan in the 1930s, or any country of any era that lets its guard down and is overwhelmed by tyranny. It's a fascinating film, even a charming one in its macabre way, but its message is no joke.
| 1 |
positive
|
Being a middle aged mom myself, I very much appreciated seeing a romance between grown-up people that weaves in the many issues that effect us. <br /><br />Diane Lane beautifully portrays Adrienne and the sacrifice and conflict that a mother goes through, wanting to do what is right for her children, but still have a happy life herself. <br /><br />I am not a big Richard Gere fan, but he always does a good job with the guy who is sort of jerk, but learns something about himself.<br /><br />Criticism of their romance as unrealistic is hardly justified when compared to most other romantic movies. When Nicole Kidman and Hugh Jackman fall in love riding across Australia, with barely a conversation between them, its considered high romance. We get so much more here with Rodanthe. She redeems him. He sets her free. Its beautiful. <br /><br />The intimacy they create by sharing their deepest insecurity, fans into a flame of passion. How long it takes is irrelevant. Perhaps the movie was a bit too subtle in the point that it was the letters they shared over the following year that deepened their relationship- again another real-life time-honored way to get to know a person.<br /><br />As much as I enjoyed the plot and themes, the dialogue was not consistent in quality. Some lines rang so true, and other lines were embarrassingly trite and flat. <br /><br />I also enjoyed the relationships with Adrienne's teenage daughter and her best friend, reminding us that there are many types of love, not just romantic love.<br /><br />This is not a lighthearted romantic comedy, more a romantic drama. It does have a very relaxed pace that some might consider too slow. <br /><br />The beach house is a work of art- fabulous. Look for the driftwood bench on the porch in the first pan-over the house- very beautiful. I also enjoyed the music and scenery, which combined to create the effect of the location as being the third main character. It was this place away from their regular lives that allowed them to see themselves and each other in a different light.<br /><br />If you are old enough to appreciate these themes and are in the mood for a good cry- get out the Kleenex and enjoy this movie.
| 1 |
positive
|
A political satire of a comedian (Williams) who after dissing the political campaigns and presidents is forced into the running. But shockingly we wins and makes a mockery of the office. "Man of the Year" is not the funniest movie nor the best but in small doses it does work. Williams again teaming with Levinson after a hit with "Good Morning, Vietnam". The two seem to have a great chemistry and work off each other. I am not comparing them to Scorsese and DeNiro but you can get the picture. Although I wouldn't quite say to rush out there and see the movie in theaters I would recommend renting it. This movie is a comedy but also has a great satire, please if you like movies like "Scary Movie 4" this is not for you, take your brain with you to see it. - ***
| 1 |
positive
|
For a movie like this, there's always something to follow by in years to come. Clive Barker, the man who brought "Hellraiser", makes a horror movie that is part-Goth, part-Mythology, and all horror in-between. "Nightbreed" are a bunch of mutants who only come out at night, and roam the place called Midian. Now a man name Boone(Craig Sheffer) claims to suffer hallucinations he goes to this shrink Dr. Decker(David Croneberg) who "helps" Boone with his problems. Unaware of this situation, Decker claims to be a purist which he's only a hate-monger in disguise. Boone however, goes into Midian and make the claim that he's one of the mutants there. But a mutant named Peloquin(Oliver Parker) sees Boone as meat! His bite however, spares Boone so after he is killed by a gauntlet of fire arms, he's one of them now. After being mislead by Decker, Boone does everything in his power to protect Lori(Anne Bobby) from him. Lori saves a mutant from the sun, and in return helps the others as well. I liked the lady mutants one who gives a smoky "kiss of death" and the Porcupine Woman who dreamed Boone show off her power that is so seductive and deadly at the same time. I've enjoyed this horror movie all the way, and the rule of it is, never trust a shrink! Rating 3.5 out of 5 stars!
| 1 |
positive
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.