text
stringlengths 49
12.1k
| label
int64 0
1
| label_text
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|
This review contains spoilers. I didn't have any expectations about this movie. I pulled it off the video store rack with the movie, "White Noise".<br /><br />First, the credits for this stupid movie run about 5 minutes into it. The pacing from start to finish is slooooow. The main heroines don't like to wear a bra and the director appears to enjoy the jiggle effect as Anna Paquin descends the stairs. If you like movies for boobies, this one has a low level buzz factor.<br /><br />Second, it's nice that the movie rips off elements of Lovecraft and other horror genre mechanisms, but in better movies, there is at least some rational or consistently irrational behavior. This stinker tries to establish some sense of modernity and reality but then you have situations where no one calls the police even though they've uncovered a treasure trove of potentially incriminating forensic evidence, and otherworldly rituals are nicely spelled out in a comprehensive book on otherworldly rituals like on Buffy. I was waiting for Miles to show up and give some consultation on how to slay a certain demon type of so and so.<br /><br />The premise is that it is possible to open up an age of Darkness where creatures that crawl on the ceiling can cut your throat or turn the meat grinder effect on you. Ho hum. To do this you need to have a sacrificial circle and then have seven kids who must have their throat cuts by people who love them. This opens the world to the age of Darkness. At least that's what it says in complete detail in the book of ancient occult rituals. Which raises the annoying question of, uh, well, how did the ones who wrote the book know, and, if this is what happens, would you really leave this information in a book you can take out from the library, much less get it from a library in a world that is not covered already in Darkness, an age brought on by lunatics who could have performed this like much earlier using the "Occult Practices to Bring the World to Darkness for Dummies, 2nd Edition"? It turns out the father in the story is the 7th child, the one that ran away from the ritual 40 years ago; he was released by his father, who is the doctor/grandfather in the movie, who wanted to try the ritual with presumably, other stupid parents, who just wanted to see if dumb sh*t like this opening the world to darkness actually works. The grandpa let the father go because he "didn't really love him". Aduh. Stupid stupid movie written by a moronic director who appears to think he's some kind of Eurofilm Auteur. There's also a scene in the movie where the kid appears with big welts on his face and the mother grabs him and has this total lack of reaction. The whole movie is like this. People seeing really weird sh*t going on and not reacting to it in any sort of normal way. Must be bad plot and direction.<br /><br />Anna Paquin does her best to play her character realistically without cracking a smirk, and she does look smashing in a halter top, but at several critical moments in the story, her character doesn't bother to call in for back up. You know, more of the same, "I will walk into a likely demonic evil situation without any knowledge of defense or help from others carrying flashlights or firepower even though I sense impending doom." And even dumber as it may seem, even if you bring on the age of Darkness, these creatures who make you bloody can't attack if you have a light source, but they appear as people you know, and tell you to turn off the light source. Reminds me of the video game "Alone In The Dark"; maybe this movie is a rip off of that game's concept.<br /><br />The best actors in the film are the young kid and Anna. They both die at the end. The entire family dies. The Darkness creatures lead them to their death, but really, the stupidity of the characters in the family was the main cause of death. The other adults could be interchangeable with any other actors from the Red Shoes Diaries series of fine cinema.<br /><br />So to wrap up, the worst things about this movie are the stupidity of the characters in bumping around blindly in an obviously abnormal situation, the really crap plot (there is an old architect in the story who designs a house with a sacrificial altar hidden in it - the architect has suspected from the beginning there would be occult sacrifices in the house but doesn't tell anyone because, well, no real reason, they couldn't find the kids, but he didn't bother to tell authorities about the HIDDEN ROOMS which he designed into the house but he does like to hang around the house for a 40 year period because he worries about what is going on inside...derrrrh...duuuuh), the hackneyed use of scare mechanisms (more children standing around in the dark or only showing up in photographs, and blood on the wallpaper), and the egotism of the director which when you see him in the DVD features describing his crap work as a new and original rendition, makes you understand where the real horror of this movie lies.<br /><br />Is it entertaining? At 2x speed on a DVD player with the subtitles turned on, it can be entertaining, until your reach the end and realize the movie is crap, otherwise it draaaaaaaags on. The cinematic equivalent of a fatty shake; the empty calories are horrid.<br /><br />The movie gives the feeling the director must have seen "The Ring" and wanted to attempt to create something similar in mood, which in this respect, the film fails miserably, and so, also, in this respect, Jaume Balagueró, it is my opinion that you suck at what you do.
| 0 |
negative
|
...but memorable because it includes an actor I actually recognize! James Horan is, by these types of movies' standards, Lawrence Olivier. He's given some decent performances on stuff like Highlander and various Star Treks, so it's kind of amusing, if mildly depressing, watching him degrade himself here. Okay, yeah, there's a plot. Horan's character and his wife are fighting, he's having an affair with a movie reviewer while trying to do his "masterpiece" film, and their guest decides to enjoy the wonders of stripping. But watching Horan is really the only enjoyment to be found here.
| 0 |
negative
|
The fact that reviewers feel very intensely negative towards the show is an interesting fact all its own. If you dislike it so much, don't watch it.<br /><br />Certain reviewers assert that you have to be dumb, dim-witted, or plain old primitive to enjoy this show. Au contraire, my friends. I am not claiming that all the contestants are smart. There are smart ones, and there are dumb ones. But I WOULD argue that they probably have a higher average IQ than the average reviewer on this website. Thats right, I said it. There is a lot to be said for the science of seducing girls. I'm sorry, but please withdraw all sticks out of your asses, and realize the reason you hate these guys is that they threaten you.<br /><br />Those oblivious to social sciences, and more specifically, the science behind mating are clearly going to miss the boat completely.<br /><br />One thing is clear: The clubs aren't the only places to meet girls. I personally think that the worthwhile women don't even go to clubs, so that they won't fall prey to men like the ones we see on the show. But what are men like these???? Apart from the ones whose games stink, they are the epitome of men. They are men who meet women in the most difficult situations. These are men who take ownership of their own sexuality. These men don't beg for their girlfriends to not break up with them, and these men don't say "OK" to the phrase "let's just be friends". <br /><br />Sound familiar???? In fact, these are the very guys you're afraid of when you take your special long term girlfriend to the club. We all are. These guys know what women like. (again, only the ones who have "game")<br /><br />And even the ones who are bad...they are worth a laugh! <br /><br />If you have gone out to a club, and actually interacted with the people around you, you should find this show entertaining. <br /><br />Look, I am at a loss for why there is so much hate for this show. My best guess is that it aggravates the insecurity in men who have had bad experiences in clubs, or threatens men who believe women are beautiful self-less creatures who just want a nice guy to buy their attention.<br /><br />I personally love this show. It is pure entertainment, and best of all, its REAL. It is a very perceptive take on the most recent state of sexual psychology. Sex roles have never been so different from before, and this show provides a very real view of that,<br /><br />I think it actually takes some intelligence to take away something positive from this show. <br /><br />This show appeals to a certain target market, and if you're outside of that, then I guess you shouldn't tune in to the show. We could say this about any other shows though, couldn't we?<br /><br />Grow Up,<br /><br />ApolloHelios
| 1 |
positive
|
As I recall, my family made a point to stay home on the night "Nichols" was on (Mondays? Tuesdays? NBC?). It was a superb vehicle for James Garner, very well written, great ensemble cast. His character very much like the "Support Your Local..." films: Retired gambler with mysterious past settles into town and has adventures every week. In fact, it seemed fairly obvious that it was the same character. It was just a charmer of a TV show. A sleeper, like "My World And Welcome To It", which may have been its contemporary--I forget. I dearly wish these shows would be made available on DVD. It was Just Good TV. Perhaps "Briscoe County Jr." come close, but only by a mile.
| 1 |
positive
|
This was Laurel and Hardy's last silent film for Roach Studios. However, since the public had a real thirst for "talkies", this same short was re-made by the team just a few years later with only a few small plot changes. LAUGHING GRAVY was essentially the same plot except that Stan and Ollie were trying to hide a cute puppy from their grouchy landlord--not a goat like in ANGORA LOVE. This whole goat angle is the worst part of the film. While you could understand the boys wanting to keep a cute little dog (after all, it is snowy outside), why exactly they bring a goat home is just contrived and pointless. According to the plot, the goat followed them home and so they got tired of shooing it away and kept it. Huh?! This just doesn't make any sense--if it had been a giraffe or a cow, would they have done the same thing?! Apart from being an unconvincing plot, the movie itself is pure Laurel and Hardy, with a familiar plot and familiar roles for the comedians. This film features quite a few laughs, but unfortunately isn't one of their better films to wrap up their silent careers. This aspect of their careers just seems to have ended with a whimper.
| 1 |
positive
|
I enjoyed it. There you go, I said it again. I even bought this movie on DVD and enjoyed it a couple of more times. Call me old fashioned but I prefer movies like this to garbage like Die Hard 4 which hold up the box office and get critical acclaim just because you have some old guy saving America. Van Damme moves well for a guy of his age(47 I think), delivering kicks that reminds one of Kickboxer. If you like old school action and and explosions, this is the movie to watch. This is one of Van Damme's best works.<br /><br />Van Damme and Steven Seagal movies get released theatrically where I live so I never miss a chance to watch our old school action stars on the big screen.
| 1 |
positive
|
"They both believed that a hidden sentiment has unified them. This certitude is beautiful,but the incertitude is more beautiful. They believed that they had never been met.Nothing has happened between them.But those roads,those stairs,those corridors for all that time they could have been met." Although it did not mean to be,it was a swan song.Two young people,who are neighbors and have never been met,are found in the same places,the same times,doing most of the times the same things.They finally meet in the dramatic and very brilliant end that brings them together.Meanwhile the woman has met an old man.Their relation is brotherhood-like.He told her his life.It was like the young one's but with better prospectives.The young man can do whatever the old man has not lived.He can be happy with the woman. The ending is exceptional.There is a ship wreck.The only survivors are the heros of the "Three colors".The man and the woman finally meet.The scene lasts a few seconds.The woman there looks like the photo she had taken for an ad in the beginning of the film;sad in a red fond."But every start is only the continue.The book of the life is opened in the middle."
| 1 |
positive
|
In 1858 Tolstoy wrote this in his diary: "The political is not compatible with the artistic, because the former, in order to prove, has to be one-sided." This thought from a great mind is applicable to USA The Movie. The film might be read by those with a narrow focus as a 90 minute slam of Bush, Cheney et. al. as well as a ripping of America as an out-of-control imperialistic force that will ultimately be destroyed by its own folly and thirst for power. The more open-minded viewer will take note of the recurring images and themes that make this DVD a testament to postmodernist thought, as the main character breaks up into bits and pieces surrounded by recurring visuals of the natural world contrasted with the man-made constructions; towers, roads, video monitors, radio, vehicles. Above all the ominous threat of wars that have been and are to come smolder throughout. War and rumors of war are what is created, destroyed and recreated on the screen, in our conscious world and in our unconscious minds.
| 1 |
positive
|
Improvisation was used to a groundbreaking degree in this film, but it only functions as a novelty. No greater truth about the situation is got by asking the actors to improvise. The performances are not improved by improvisation, because the actors now have twice as much to worry about: not only whether they're delivering the line well, but whether the line itself is any good. So that's why the performances in many Robert Altman films are often really hestitant - because the actors aren't really confident saying lines which they've made up, and therefore aren't sure are any good.<br /><br />And, quite honestly, often its not very good. Often the dialogue doesn't really follow from one line to another, or fit the surroundings.<br /><br />It crackles with an unpredictable, youthful energy - but honestly, i found it hard to follow and concentrate on it meanders so badly.<br /><br />Nevertheless, a fascinating raw piece of film, and commendable 100% for taking the power over the green light into the street.<br /><br />There are some generally great things in it. This joke, for example:<br /><br />I'm a dancer. What sort of a dancer, like a ballet dancer? Oh no... exotic.<br /><br />And the whole party scene its in, the following trip to the park, and the scene where the boys go looking at statues.<br /><br />2/5. I wouldn't say they're worth 2 hours of your time, though.
| 1 |
positive
|
Minor Spoilers will follow.<br /><br />This movie is even more odd and unconventional than "songs from the second floor". There is no main character we follow around. There is no "plot" in the conventional way. There is no emphasis on an happy end. There is no crowdpleasing. In other words Roy Andersson is back with a vengeance. Instead of falling back on convention and fixed formula Roy Andersson concentrates his film around an idea. I will not go into what that idea is, but even if you don't "get it" i promise that you will see the greatest visual depth ever put to film. The majestic scenes from "songs" pale in comparison here. A work of visual splendor.<br /><br />So be kind to your fellow man, because after all "we are the living", and only you and I have the power to change our lives. That is at least what I thought when I saw the final scene in the movie, with the inhumane bomber planes sweeping in over the city in the film to take our lives away. <br /><br />And of course don't forget to see this movie when it gets a limited release near you. This is one of those movies that actually have the power to make you a better person, like de Sica's "Bicycle Thieves". A very warm and humanistic film.
| 1 |
positive
|
Seeing Gary Busey in a G rated film was a first and a nice one at that. I don't know much about the director, but he obviously knows how to spend a few dollars and get the most out of them. Where did Jillian Clare come from? My kids love her! The only thing I remember Christopher Atkins doing was Blue Lagoon. Disney needs to see this film and put him to work. The wife thinks he is very cute. I liked what he did with his character. He seemed so real. What we liked most was the message this film sends out. Greed sucks and faith, love and family wins! This is the first low-budget DVD we've bought that had so much stuff on it. The producers made this one for kids and the kids loved it. They liked the music and all the extras on the DVD. The director probably won't stick to family movies, but I hope he does - cause he really knows how to get the most out of kids, animals and stars like Gary Busey. The dog was great and seeing Gary Busey act like a dog was even funnier. There wasn't much we didn't like about this one. It hard to find a family film without all the crude humor, and Quigley was a delightful surprise.
| 1 |
positive
|
I had the pleasure of seeing this short film at the Miami film festival this past Saturday and let me just say I was astounded. It was the only film out of the whole program that I loved. It is beautifully shot, composed, edited, acted and written. After the screening I saw the director at a party and asked him what he was doing next. He said that he was working on finding financing for the feature version of the short. He described some scenes to me. It sounded like the kind of first film that launches the greats into the industry. If you ever get a chance to see this short I highly recommend taking it. Hats off to star crossed.
| 1 |
positive
|
The summary was promising but watching the movie was a huge disappointment. Nothing happens in this movie. Plot is linear and without surprise. Normal characters stay normal until end of the film, weird characters stay weird until end of the film. There is even not a single tentative to foul the viewer into thinking that the bad guy is someone else than the most obvious candidate. On the positive side, actors play quite well, and there is a tiny bit of atmosphere in the movie, but much too little to be any significant.<br /><br />People who vote 10 for this movie either didn't see it, or are member of the movie production team ! 4 is well paid.
| 0 |
negative
|
This movie was one of the worst I've ever seen, it did not left out a single clichee one could imagine about a Hollywood-so-called-Thriller. The protagonist is a loving father & a private investigator who is engaged in a special task: finding out if a suspected "snuff" movie is real.<br /><br />Certainly, he get's involved deeper & deeper, smeary pornoshops (run by mexicans) & sex theatres are his field of investigation as he's searching for the murderers of the woman in the "snuff" movie. Assisted by a "smart" (he read a book) sexshop employee, he's catching up with a murderous bondage-film producer and his personal perverts who are responsible for the film... ...and what do you expect? They are portrayed as the simple evil, no need for explanations, backgrounds, history: they are the bad ones, and he's the purifier. Boom. Killer of the killers. End of film. Is it that bad? Yes, I'm afraid so.<br /><br />Ironically, "machine" (the mega-pervert who did the killing) is even pointing at his ridiculous character: In the last scene, our hero forces "machine" to put off his leather mask (yep, of course he's wearing one) and recognizes that "machine" looks just like the normal 08/15 guy from the street. Then "machine" says: "blablabla I'm not a monster, my parents never abused me, I had a nice childhood, I just love to do what I do!"<br /><br />I just love to kill people. Yeah, sure, "everybody loves killing people" (Bender). It's not only the total lack of character what made this film so boring, it's also it's ugly "I have to kill these people"-attitude which makes you sick. In one scene, our hero has tied up one of the killers and tries to shoot him...but he can't. So what does he do? He calls the mother of the killed woman, says that her child is killed and asks her whether she loved her child so much that she wishes to see the killers dead. The mother cries yes, she'd love her child, he goes back to the tied killer and slaughters him.<br /><br />To come to the point: This film is breathing the foul air of lynchmob-supporters (certainly the police does not play any role in it), moralizes in a ridiculous form against pornography, does not take it's characters serious and wastes your time with a stupid plot. Probably the only good thing about this film is that it does not try to pseudo-psycho-analyze ... even that would be too much plot.<br /><br />Don't waste your time with this.<br /><br />
| 0 |
negative
|
This film immediately catches the eye, with the atmospheric aerial views of a very pretty Hong Hong. Filmed in those rich colours of 1950 films which modern blockbusters never seem to capture. Probably a sign of those times, because this is not a high powered, seen it all before film, full of havoc and violence. The havoc and violence are there though, in the backdrop, with thousands of refugees trying to get out of China This is a very moving and compelling story, full of hope and love in a tragic time, in recent history. The story of two people from different cultures falling in love. And the build up to them trying to overcome this is the heart of this very fine and moving film.
| 1 |
positive
|
Early 1950s Sci-Fi directed by Lesley Selander. Special effects of course are very primitive, but pretty good in comparison to what else was out there then. Drive-in Movie double feature fare; still interesting enough to watch. Two leading men, Arthur Franz the brilliant young scientist Dr. Jim Barker and straight talking and earthy newspaper reporter Steve Abbot(Cameron Mitchell)are joined on a manned flight to Mars by Carol Stafford(Virgina Huston)another scientist and two other space experts(Richard Gaines and John Litel). Upon landing on the Red Planet, the space travelers encounter inhabitants that appear friendly and mentally advanced. In actuality, the Martians are led by Ikron(Morris Ankrum), who has the idea of conquering Earth to vitalize their civilization. There is a beautiful Martian(Maruerite Chapman)that Dr. Barker intends to take back on the return trip. She is the movie's redeemable element.
| 0 |
negative
|
I'm a fan of this generally excellent though sometimes rather dull show but Season 3 has taken some terrible plot directions. The episode HERO is an example of what I mean.<br /><br />The story as it eventually unravels is that the Cylons deliberately allow Bulldog - a pilot captured several years earlier during a black ops mission - to escape, steal a Cylon ship and get back to Galactica. The plan is that when Bulldog gets back he will figure out that Adama left him to his fate and be so enraged that he will kill Adama, which he very nearly does.<br /><br />Now the problem is this - the Cylons set it up so that Bulldog thinks he has escaped by himself. This means that Bulldog gets off the Cylon ship with no assistance. So he kills a Cylon and walks out of his holding cell - that much we see. Then, we must suppose that he walks to the flight hangar, manages to get into a Cylon fighter ship and learn how to operate it, takes off and flies back to Galactica. Just like that.<br /><br />Now Starbuck managed to get one of them working in Season One, which was barely believable in itself, but she only had to fly it visually out of orbit before making contact with Galactica. Bulldog has to programme his ship so that it makes several jumps through hyperspace and manages to catch up with Galactica somewhere thousands of light years away, in an unknown direction. How does he manage to programme a ship that contains completely alien technology? Cylons connect to their computers by touch, there are no visual consoles or keyboards. And having managed that miraculous feat, how does he then know where Galactica is, bearing in mind that Galactica took off some 3 years before and is trying ever since to evade the Cylons - it does not leave beacons behind? Even allowing for the suspension of disbelief that must apply to any sci-fi show, this episode still absolutely no sense whatsoever.
| 0 |
negative
|
The lovely, yet lethal Alexandra (stunning statuesque blonde beauty Stacie Randall, who looks absolutely smashing in a tight black leather outfit) must find a magic amulet so her evil demonic master Faust can cross over into our dimension. It's up to fearless, rugged cop Jonathan Graves (likable Peter Liapis) to stop her. Meanwhile, two pitifully unfunny "comic relief" dwarf gnome creatures run amok in Los Angeles. Seasoned veteran schlock exploitation expert Jim Wynorski relates the supremely inane story at a brisk pace and takes none of this foolishness remotely seriously. The cast struggle gamely with the silly material: the adorable Barbara Alyn Woods as sassy, fetching police captain Kate, Raquel Krelle as tart, sexy hooker Jeanine, Bobby Di Cicco as Graves' bumbling, excitable partner Scotty, Peggy Trentini as alluring museum curator Monica, and Ace Mask as the jolly Dr. Rochelle. Mark Stevi's puerile cookie cutter script, an amusingly lowbrow sense of no-brainer humor, Chuck Cirino's bouncy cornball score, the two dwarf guys sporting obvious cheap rubber Halloween masks, J.E. Bash's plain cinematography, no tension or gratuitous female nudity to speak of, and the tacky (less than) special effects all further enhance the overall delicious cheesiness of this prime slice of celluloid Velveeta. An entertainingly brainless piece of lovably lousy dreck.
| 1 |
positive
|
Only watched this to see Joe Morton in an early role and honestly wished I hadn't bothered, he can and has since, done much better than this crap. Cannot understand why anyone finds this kind of stupidity funny but each to his own; it is an absolute mess and not funny in the least. No wait, ONE line only was funny, where Mr Kent (Joe) and his family are having dinner with this nut job as he's been invited for dinner (Lord alone knows why). Pest to Mr Kent: You know what it's like dog, you've been there Mrs Kent: Not lately, Joe's expression was funny but that's it one line does not make a great comedy and this tat is so far away from being funny it should be consigned to the nearest trash cart, it's only good enough for that. Joe Morton - glad to see you don't appear in rubbish like this anymore; you are far superior and a great great actor.
| 0 |
negative
|
Exciting, action-packed, and interesting film telling the tale of a group of men stationed at a naval base in Italy and their adventures aboard a Navy submarine during WWI. Tommy and Brick (played by Robert Montgomery and Robert Young) are two pals, and make for a couple of very handsome officers, I must say. A new Captain arrives on-board, already known by a few as "Dead Pan" Toler (Walter Huston) and he's a real stickler for following the rule book and a "code of honor". Soon Tommy and Brick are chasing after an attractive blonde at an officer's dance, Tommy insults the Captain - and, of course, the blonde is actually the Captain's daughter. But Tommy wins out anyway as he and the daughter sneak away from the dance to a street carnival outside, and soon bond during an air raid - unfortunately for him, she reveals she is married. Later Tommy gets himself into some real trouble when he disobeys orders in an effort save his buddy.<br /><br />This film is quite entertaining with an absorbing plot line that held my interest and top-notch performances by all. A climactic death scene featuring Sterling Holloway is haunting indeed - the most memorable scene in this film, I thought. Eugene Palette and Jimmy Durante add some humor here playing a couple of goofballs - Durante's character is actually studying to be a dentist via mail-order and continually has onshore run-ins with a British man who makes fun of his nose. Okay - if you're looking for a movie showing a man boxing a kangaroo, this would be the one.
| 1 |
positive
|
Half of the movie is is flashing lights and shaky camera. The rest is made up of predictable characters (think science vs. government, 'know-how' vs. authority, etc.) <br /><br />What is the worst aspect about this movie? Is it the cars being thrown around in the first 5 minutes, is the horrible 'Russian' accent of the 'cosmonaut', is it the uninspired characters, the poorly integrated Top 40 hits, or the "US will save the world" vitriol? No. It's the fact that regardless of the "sad" ending - there is very little suspense in this movie - we basically know what's going to happen.<br /><br />The one good part of this movie: "American components, Russian components: all made in Taiwan!"
| 0 |
negative
|
Given the subject matter of drug addiction Down to the Bone almost can't help but be a rather depressing film. But depressing doesn't necessarily have to mean bad. Unfortunately in this case it is in fact pretty bad. The film has some good things going for it, most notably the quality performance of Vera Farmiga in the central role of Irene, a working mom struggling with a cocaine addiction. But there isn't enough good here to outweigh the bad. The film's failings lie mainly with the story, which fails to captivate and never really seems to get going. Irene goes to rehab and comes home to a clueless husband who has no idea how to support her attempt to kick her habit. Irene grows close to another recovering addict, a male nurse from her rehab center. Complications ensue. But the story never really sparks to life. It doesn't seem as if the movie is really going anywhere. You can say it's a stark, realistic look at the day-to-day struggles of an addict. Maybe so but in this case it doesn't make for an interesting movie. The whole thing has a very "blah" feel to it. The minimalist cinematography doesn't help matters, adding another layer of drab to the incredibly drab proceedings. And none of the other performances measure up to Farmiga's. Hugh Dillon is OK as Irene's male nurse friend but nobody else in the cast adds anything of value to the proceedings. All in all this movie is a bleak, depressing and rather dull ride.
| 0 |
negative
|
I remember viewing this movie when I was a kid. I recall it terrified me immensely and it stayed with me all these years. I spent a couple of years trying to find it online...didn't remember the title, only the storyline. After searching and searching, I came across a VHS that was being sold on E-Bay. I was excited and when it finally arrived, I jammed it into the VCR and couldn't help but feel a bit nostalgic. Needless to say, I was slightly disappointed. This wasn't the movie I remember watching as a kid. It was boring at times and I found Beryl Reid's incessant whinning extremely annoying. Both performances by Reid and Flora Robson were good overall but the movie wasn't scary. I think any movie is worth viewing to form you're own opinion but sometimes, well......
| 0 |
negative
|
Whoa. I mean, whoa. I mean, whoa whoa.<br /><br />I saw this movie, waaay back when I was eight, in 1996. Back then, CGI films were a rarity; and good ones even more so. Also, back then we listened to things called CD players. But I digress. I used to like this movie a lot, way back then, and up till viewing it again, I've held reaally fond memories of it. Hey, it's Don Bluth! Anyone who hates "All Dogs Go to Heaven" is clearly a robot. But, again, I digress.<br /><br />Then, I saw it again. This really isn't one of his best, I can say now, eleven years later. I've seen a lot more films, and I've garnered a little bit more knowledge. Now, sure, the voice acting is good, I'll give 'em that. Story's...okay. I mean, we see it all the time. A LOT. But, it works. The musical numbers are what irk me. This would've been more at home in the eighties, with these kind of musical numbers. In '96, most kids movies had epic numbers, like the Lion King (which came out a year or so previous, but whatever)or stuff like that. You get showtunes here, vaudeville style.<br /><br />The animation kind of hurts, too. At times choppy, and at others completely changing style and format with the change of a shot, it's really hard not to notice.<br /><br />I still like "All Dogs Go to Heaven, but this could've been waaay better.<br /><br />4/10
| 0 |
negative
|
Can a film be too faithful to the book upon which it is based? Judging from the time-spanning 2007 adaptation of Khaled Hosseini's huge 2003 seller, the answer is rather ironically "yes". Like many, I was enthralled by the book, an impressive first effort by the Afghan-American writer/physician. So obviously were director Marc Forster ("Stranger Than Fiction") and screenwriter David Benioff ("Troy"), who pay meticulous attention to the most significant details of the story within the film's 127-minute running time. Yet, the seamless tapestry of heartfelt events in Hosseini's novel often comes across as episodic and truncated because Forster and Benioff are sincerely trying hard to remain true to the full scope of the story within the time constraints. Part of the challenge is how Hosseini carefully used symbolic acts to provide literary, then-and-now symmetry to what is essentially a three-act story, a technique that can come across as somewhat contrived on screen.<br /><br />However, the filmmakers do the most important things right, specifically giving the viewer an intimate look into a hidden culture heretofore conveyed through CNN news reports, ensuring authenticity by having characters speak in the Dari Persian dialect of the Afghan language, and capturing the emotional entanglements of the complex narrative. The first part of the movie is set in 1978 Afghanistan before the Soviet invasion and the eventual takeover of the Taliban. The focus is on the relationship between Amir, the son of an affluent businessman named Baba, and the devoted Hassan, the son of his father's servant. Connected by their mutual love of kite running, the two are thick as thieves until a tragic event separates them irreparably. Unable to find the courage that comes so naturally to his father, Amir is crippled by guilt for not having rescued Hassan from an unspeakable act performed by a trio of local bullies. Forster makes especially palpable the ethnic tensions between the Hazara and the Pashtun in Afghanistan.<br /><br />Upon the 1979 invasion by Soviet troops, Amir and Baba flee to the U.S. where the story picks up their story nine years later in Fremont, California, a suburban enclave of Afghan émigrés. Baba is reduced to working in a gas station and operating a flea market kiosk. Amir meets a local Afghan girl and marries. This is the film's least interesting passage since Benioff's treatment gives short shrift to ancillary characters like Amir's wife Soraya and most critically, Amir is portrayed by necessity as a reticent young man with a downward cast toward his self-esteem. The final section flashes forward twelve years where Amir, upon publication of his first book, is summoned back to Taliban-dictated Afghanistan to rescue Hassan's son from the Taliban, as a means to atone for his cowardice years earlier. There is true suspense and fear generated in this portion of the story as shocking revelations and old acquaintances come back to haunt Amir during his journey.<br /><br />A British actor of Egyptian heritage, Khalid Abdalla (the lead hijacker in "United 93") has the central role of Amir as an adult, a challenging role since he has to convey a constant sense of shame and diminished self-worth until the end. The other professional actors fare better - Shaun Toub (Tony Stark's savior Yinsen in the current "Iron Man") as Baba's business partner Rahim Khan, who holds the key to the truth; Atossa Leoni quietly affecting as Soraya; and best of all, Iranian actor Homayoun Ershadi who brings pride and dignity to Baba. Three young non-professionals were recruited from Kabul's school system to play the key child roles, and all are quite good. Zekeria Ebrahimi is up to the challenge of the toughest part as young Amir, and Ali Danish Bakhtyari is poignant as Hassan's nearly catatonic son Sohrab. But it's the sad-eyed, moon-faced Ahmad Khan Mahmoodzada who will break your heart as the young Hassan, especially in the devastating pomegranate-throwing scene. It's fair to say his performance is on par with the young Enzo Staiola's in Vittorio de Sica's classic "Bicycle Thieves".<br /><br />The technical aspects are well done, in particular, Roberto Schaefer's clean cinematography (western China convincingly substitutes for Afghanistan), Alberto Iglesias' evocative score, and even the CGI effects showcasing the kites in turbulent flight. The 2008 DVD has a solid set of extras beginning with an insightful commentary from Forster, Hosseini, and Benioff, although some of their dialogue seems rather forced. There are two featurettes included - the first is the 14-minute "Words from the Kite Runner", which focuses on Hosseini's connection to the story and the development of the novel, and the second is the 25-minute "Images from the Kite Runner", a more standard behind-the-scenes look at the production. Rounding out the extras are the original theatrical trailer, a few previews, and a PSA from Hosseini on how to help the Afghans during their current time of need.
| 1 |
positive
|
I saw this movie last night and thought it was decent. It has it's moments I guess you would say. Some of the scenes with the special ops forces were cool, and some of the location shots were very authentic. I won't be putting this movie in my DVD collection but it is fair enough to recommend for renting. I guess nothing set the movie at another level compared to others of the same genre. The action is good, the acting is decent, the women are extremely seductive and exotic in my opinion, and the story is pretty interesting. 7 out of ten
| 1 |
positive
|
After watching John preform this one of a kind show, I had to share.....It was really something to watch a grown man portray himself as a child. I like the fact that with every character he "became," you could picture what they looked like. It is more entertaining when you can understand the individual. "Freak" is what real "stand up" should be. John is REAL talent.
| 1 |
positive
|
If this film were to be rated on a scale of 1 to 10, one would need to create a new rating system, as this one should not even qualify. The film's plot, (if you can call it that) revolves around Charlie (Stephen Baldwin), an ex- special operatives agent who is being targeted by the brother of a man he killed while he was still working for the US gov't. If this sounds like an interesting scenario, please don't be fooled, as this film will not deliver that which its action-themed story suggests.<br /><br />Comedian Chris Rock once said that when one sees an actor doing a bad film that it makes one want to send the actor $50, given that the actor must be desperate for money to be doing such poor quality work. After watching this film, you may want to send Stephen Baldwin $100. <br /><br />It appears that Baldwin did not put any effort into his role in the film. In the film, Baldwin is forced to run all over the city of Los Angeles in order to protect his "honeycomb" (wife) from being murdered by the brother of a man he previously killed. However, throughout the picture it appears that Baldwin can barely pull off maintaining a light jog. His laid back performance succeeds in subtracting from any suspense that the film might have intended to portray. <br /><br />If you are the type of person who enjoys watching very bad films and laughing at their shortcomings, than this film is for you. However, if you are looking for a well made action thriller, it would be best to look somewhere else rather than renting this film.
| 0 |
negative
|
I will admit, I had the opportunity in the past to watch this film, and after about 5 - 10 minutes into it, I felt like many did. I was expecting a Monkey movie that was similar to the television show, but instead I was given... well, I didn't know what I was given to be honest.<br /><br />However, after finally watching this film, I realized that not only had I had a closed mind to the brilliance it depicts, I also found myself watching it over and over again. It's the one movie that never ceases to interest me, simply because it keeps me alert, as I try to attempt to decipher it's meanings. And just when I think I've figured out something in the film, it's answer is destroyed once I watch the film again. Brilliance indeed.<br /><br />It seems that most people who disliked this film are wanting to watch a film with primarily a clear plot. They want everything explained and all questions answered in the finale. Well sorry, if that's what you're wanting, this is not the movie for you. But if you liked movies like The Matrix (and better yet, their sequels) I think you'll appreciate the thought provoking, mindblowing experience this film will give you.<br /><br />Think of the film being like a dream. In our dreams, things make no sense, things we expect to happen don't, people places and things don't speak, act or function in the same way they do in reality. To complain about "Head" is like complaining about a dream you've had that you felt you could not understand. The mind is a complex system, and being that a film titled "Head" is just as complex, is it that difficult to relate the two?<br /><br />The music (and musical numbers) really stand out, especially Peter Tork's two compositions, which remain the best tracks in the film, "Can You Dig It?" and "Long Title: Do I Have To Do This All Over Again?"<br /><br />This film proves that The Monkees were much more than just four zanny guys in a 'pre-fab' group (as their critics called them) on a television show, but that they are actually much more intelligent and talented than the world would give them credit for. There's so many messages that can be derived from the film, both in regards to The Monkees and to the 'entertainment industry' in general, that it stands as a masterpiece of film-making that was far ahead of it's time.<br /><br />I feel, had this film been released as an independent piece at this point and time, it would actually garner the respect and admiration it deserves.<br /><br />And one finale note:<br /><br />One could compare this to The Beatles "Magical Mystery Tour" film, since The Beatles film appeared to be just as strange and bizarre. However, in my opinion, "Head" stands far above anything The Beatles put on celluloid.
| 1 |
positive
|
Dear Readers,<br /><br />I've found in my studies of movies that whenever Michael Bay makes a movie, people pan it and hate it, yet they still go to see it and it makes somewhere around 100 million dollars. Why? Because Michael Bay is one of the top five directors of all time. Standing alongside Ridley Scott, Spielberg, Kubrick, and Miyazaki, Michael Bay has cemented himself as Hollywood's best action/adventure director. That point is proved with his most panned film, Armageddon.<br /><br />An Asteroid the size of Texas is hurtling towards the planet and the only way NASA can think to take it down is to land a team of men on the asteroid, drill to its core, and drop a nuclear warhead inside then blow up the asteroid. Only one person is qualified enough to do it: Bruce Willis. Willis portrays Harry Stamper, a grizzled hardened oil driller trying to keep what's left of his family together. Not helping that fact is his daughter, Grace (Liv Tyler), having an affair with his best driller, AJ (Ben Affleck). Hired by Dan Truman (Billy Bob Thornton), the head of NASA, Stamper and his team of roughneck drillers train to become astronauts and save the world.<br /><br />Armageddon is a two part movie. First there's the funny parts where we meet the gang and wackiness abounds. Then they get into space and all the comedy gets sucked out the window and is replaced by mind-blowing special effects, cool music, and great serious acting. Murphy's law goes insane in the second part, meaning that everything that can go wrong, does in fact go wrong, increasing the tension of the film to outstanding levels.<br /><br />With a cool cast and crew (Michael Bay as Director, Jerry Bruckheimer and Gale Anne Hurd as Producers, and J.J. Abrams as one of the scriptwriters.), tons of special effects, great humor, awesome music, plus an intro done by Mr. Ben-Hur himself, Charlton Heston, Armageddon rocks big time.<br /><br />Signed, The Constant DVD Collector, Matt Macleod<br /><br />Parental Warnings: This is not a film for kids. The F-bomb is used a few times and lots of other swear words are used as well, plus there's a Strip bar scene and the extremely intense second part might be too hard for a kid to handle.
| 0 |
negative
|
This is an incredible piece of drama and powerful which hits you. I found the film was great and getting to grips with the two main characters disability, this was represented in a great performance by both two Michael and Rory. Whether the story is based around a true story I feel the story was trying to giving the audience a message that as a whole the general public should respect and feel for the needs of disabled people and that they should be given the same chance as any other human. On the whole this film reach into my soul and I too felt touched by the actors and the director sending out there creativity. The whole picture is that some actors take it beyond their character the play and only show part of the character that is believable to the audience, but I feel that theses two certainly made great use as their gifted talent to portray a masterpiece piece of drama. Certainly one not to be missed!
| 1 |
positive
|
This tale of the upper-classes getting their come-uppance and wallowing in their high-class misery is like a contemporary Mid-Sommerish version of an old Joan Crawford movie in which she suffered in mink. Here, people behave in a frightfully civilized manner in the face of adversity. A well-heeled London solicitor, (Tom Wilkinson), discovers that not only is his wife having an affair with the local gentry but that she has also killed their housekeeper's husband in a hit-and-run accident. He throws up, but otherwise his stiff-upper-lip hardly quavers.<br /><br />Written and directed by Julian Fellowes, who won an Oscar for writing "Gosford Park", (this is his directorial debut), from a novel by Nigel Balchin, it's quite comical although I am not sure how much of the comedy is intended. It's like a throw-back to British films of the forties where characters all behaved like characters in books or plays rather than like people might in real life. However, it's not all bad. Wilkinson is terrific, even if you never believe in him as a person while Emily Watson, (the adulterous wife), and Rupert Everett, (the highly amoral high-class totty), are both very good at covering the cracks in the material. Tony Pierce-Roberts' cinematography ensures that no matter how hard it is on the ear it's always good on the eye.
| 0 |
negative
|
Despite its pedigree, the most interesting things about this series are not the animatronics or puppetry, which, while charming, are little more than sideshows, at least in the story I saw, A STORY SHORT. In fact, loathe though I am to admit it, the programme's chief pleasure lies in that most ancient art, storytelling.<br /><br />John Hurt, in Rowley Birken QC-mode, grotesque, medieval make-up, relates a story about story telling, seated by the fire, accompanied by a cynical dog. One winter's day, starving and poor, he spots a fellow beggar thrown out of the Royal Kitchen by the nasty cook. The Story Teller tricks this latter into giving them an excellent soup. Furious, the Cook pleads with the King for permission to boil the villain, but, pleased with the Story Teller's wit, the monarch offers him a reprieve - for 100 nights, he must tell the King a new story: if he fails to do so, he will hand him over to the cook.<br /><br />The story may be old, but it's told with great gusto. Anthony Minghella's script is excellently dramatic (as befits a playwright), witty, and with some disturbing concerns beneath the fun, such as fears for the self, or the culturally self-generating power of storytelling, linked to the continuation of ideological power. For a programme aimed at children, it is bracingly self-reflexive (with little nonsense about film being the new oral culture); despite the Americanised style, there is a charming sense of medieval bustle, its grotesqueness and arbitrary terror, as well as its magic and power.
| 1 |
positive
|
This movie has more goofs than any other movie I have seen in my life. The special effects are damned terrible. For instance, near the end, when the Concorde is falling after the cargo door tears off, the thing spins like a toy. The special effects of Airport (1970) are way better than this crap. Also, the force of a Concorde opening up at altitude and speed would essentially turn the thing inside-out. (That is if it would even open at all) But the movie has its good points. Mostly when it ends. That's also cheesy. E.g. The Thing lands on a bank of loosely-packed snow, if it did that, it would splinter into a million pieces. Overall, 2 out of 10. Instant flop. Great laugh flick.
| 0 |
negative
|
Wish it would be released, as I would love to see the finished product! We saw the unfinished version before it came out. Loved all the characters and actors. Anyone know if it is out on video yet? Would love to see it again.Definitely worth renting if it's not going to be shown in the theatre. I had a hard time finding it because they renamed it.
| 1 |
positive
|
This film is really quite odd. Clearly certain *events* portrayed identify the main protagonist as the Dublin criminal known as "The General" but almost everything else is just wrong. We are not talking of a distortion of ancient history...but a complete distortion of irrefutable, documented facts. The question indeed is why? The garda are shown as latter day Keystone Cops, his gang as non-menacing, and the man himself as..well Kevin Spacey. Almost pure fiction anyway, why bother to try to give a semblance of realism? Having said all that, it is a poor exercise *any* way you want to look at it. Not worth a second of anyone's time.
| 0 |
negative
|
I vowed some time ago to never get another Joe Castro film (perhaps after "Near Death") but I sort of ended up with this one by accident, since it was a Troma release & I didn't read the cover carefully. Oops. Well, I watched it, and it's by no means good, but it's, I guess, sort of "tongue in cheek"....if it's not, it sure seemed that way. Some intrepid folks from the University of the Rio Grande set out to find if the Chupacabra exists, because of surveillance camera footage from someone's GOAT BARN that shows this weird thing hopping across the field of vision. And also because the person that this thing supposedly killed was the uncle of the leader of the expedition. There's a couple of camera men, one of whom whines the whole time, and there some ex-Marine named "Army" (?!), who is some kind of munitions expert or something. At any rate, the do find the Chupacabra on some guy's ranch & set out to find it, getting involved with two supposed witches along the way. The creature itself is rather ridiculous-looking, with spines on its back & a great big long tongue that Gene Simmons would die for. Eventually, after a bunch of folks done get killed, so does the Chupacabra, and they take it back to the university for an autopsy. So, is it from another planet? Is it a genetic creation from some lab in Puerto Rico? Uh, they don't tell us, really. Not exactly intriguing but not quite terrible either. Definitely not a wide audience for this one. 4 out of 10.
| 0 |
negative
|
I heard an interview with the main actor who said that the film was not intended to be a horror movie but he himself would describe it as mental horror. I strongly subscribe to that.<br /><br />It is not clear why he travels to this place, but everything there is monotonous, no bright colors, no honest smiles, nothing personal. Everything is ordered and everyone seems to be satisfied living this kind of life. Our "hero" though from the beginning seems to be misplaced and feels it himself. <br /><br />What makes this film so important and good is the remarkable similarity to life in many large cities or even countries nowadays. You have to function, you are not supposed to let your colleague know your weaknesses, you show off on your wealth, your car, etc., and most of all you lack the true love of life that children have. Naturally, in this film you see neither children nor old people - they simply do not fit in a society of strong workers.<br /><br />I would recommend this film to everyone - and make sure that this utopia does not come true!
| 1 |
positive
|
It occurred to me while watching "Imaginary Heroes" that any screenwriter attempting to make a drama about family relationships should seriously consider killing off a kid or two in the opening reel as a way of getting his characters to open up and reveal themselves. There must be something to this storyline, for it seems as if every other family drama that comes down the pike uses this device in one form or another ("Paradise" and "Moonlight Mile" are just two of the more recent examples that spring immediately to mind, although one could reach back to a golden oldie like "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" to make the point as well). It's not that the death of a child is an illegitimate subject for serious films to explore. Far from it. It's just that, like any topic, it can be so overused that it becomes just another movie cliché, a convenient bit of narrative shorthand to get the ball rolling and to give the characters something to grapple with for the remainder of the time we get to spend with them.<br /><br />The latest such work is "Imaginary Heroes," a film that borrows heavily from what is one of the earliest and, perhaps, best known examples of the "family coping with the death of a child" genre, the Academy Award winning "Ordinary People." Like the characters in that earlier film, the Travises seem, on the surface, to be the ideal suburban family, until, one fateful day, their oldest son, Matt, who is the "golden boy" athlete and, thus, the apple of his father's eye, kills himself with no explanation (one minor difference is that the son in "Ordinary People" dies as a result of an accident, not a suicide). It is Matt's younger brother, Tim, who winds up finding the body, and who assumes the role of protagonist in the film. Each of the remaining family members copes with the tragedy in his or her own way. Matt, who has always lived in the shadow of his older brother, becomes more and more estranged from the father who has virtually ignored him all his life and begins to turn to drugs for surcease. Ben, the father, becomes swallowed up in feelings of remorse and guilt, turning away from both his job and his family. His wife, Sandy, is the most complex character in the film, a free-spirited child of the '60's who feels oddly adrift in the role of mother and wife as she endures a basically loveless marriage in sterile suburbia. She spends most of her time after the tragedy trying to reconnect with her pot-smoking past.<br /><br />As written and directed by Dan Harris, "Imaginary Heroes" emerges as a wildly uneven film. For every scene that feels real and authentic, there is another that comes across as arbitrary and inauthentic. One sometimes has the sense that Harris would like to cram every possible life situation he can think of into his screenplay, an admirable goal, perhaps, but one that makes the film unnecessarily melodramatic in the process. Instead of identifying with the characters and being caught up in their plight, we often find ourselves thinking, "Oh, come now
what next?" For teen suicide is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the hot-button topics covered in this film; the screenplay also touches on drug and alcohol abuse, physical abuse, sexual identity conflict, life-threatening illness, even inadvertent gay incest. It is this "everything but the kitchen sink" mentality in the writing that robs the movie of much of the credibility it needs to really make us care.<br /><br />That is not to say that "Imaginary Heroes" is a bad or unrewarding film. Much of what it has to say about familial relationships and values in the 21st Century is insightful, original, pointed and profound. Prime credit for its success goes to the actors, Emile Hirsch, Sigourney Weaver and Jeff Daniels, who deliver incisive, sensitive performances in their respective roles. It is they who triumph over the narrative excesses to stimulate our brains and touch our hearts. Moreover, Harris, in his direction, achieves an effectively melancholic tone throughout, but one that is frequently augmented by some badly-needed flashes of daring dark comedy.<br /><br />"Imaginary Heroes" may appear unfocused and derivative at times, but its fine performances and subtle mood shifts make it a film worth watching.
| 1 |
positive
|
This movie was terrible. John Wayne is a brutal actor at times. The lead female playing the role of "Maura" did a good job and tried her best to make scenes believable despite Wayne's inept, one dimensional, over acting. Seriously, did you see him when he was supposed to be talking in his sleep? Ridiculous. And his character became such an awful person in the second half of the movie and then did nothing to atone for his behavior and is still forgiven by everyone including his arch nemesis without even so much as a 'sorry'. The story was completely implausible. We were supposed to believe that two grown men, both tremendous successes in their respected fields, would sabotage a job and risk the lives of innocent men simply because they disliked one another? YOu can pretty much randomly select any scene and it will probably leave you shaking your head in disbelief that someone paid money to have this film made. Its too bad because the only other Wayne films I've seen are the shootist and rio bravo, which were both great movies. Unless you're being paid don't bother watching this one.
| 0 |
negative
|
E. Elias Merhige's existentialist experiment in the enduring is definitely one hell of a boring watch. This is like something Alexander de Large was forced to watch in "A Clockwork Orange." But, despite just how unwatchable this film really is, it is a success.<br /><br />If you are reading this and have not already seen the film, then it is too late. For me, at least, the payoff (after 3 separate viewings with lots of break in between mind you) was seeing the list of characters *after* the story was told. That's when the simple message hit home. But i wonder if Merhige could have told a 5 minutes story in about 30, instead of 78.<br /><br />However, seeing as how the cast of credits is displayed prominently on the front page for this movie, the cat is already out of the bag and you surely will only appreciate this film if you appreciate existentialist film making from the early 20th century. Even then, you might puke.<br /><br />4/10 (but i commend Merhige for crafted a piece of art, even if it is unwatchable)
| 1 |
positive
|
"An astronaut (Michael Emmet) dies while returning from a mission and his body is recovered by the military. The base where the dead astronaut is taken to becomes the scene of a bizarre invasion plan from outer space. Alien embryos inside the dead astronaut resurrect the corpse and begin a terrifying assault on the military staff in the hopes of conquering the world," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.<br /><br />A Roger Corman "American International" production. The man who fell to Earth impregnated, Mr. Emmet (as John Corcoran), does all right. Angela Greene is his pretty conflicted fiancée. And, Ed Nelson (as Dave Randall) is featured as prominently. With a bigger budget, better opening, and a re-write for crisper characterizations, this could have been something approaching classic 1950s science fiction.<br /><br />*** Night of the Blood Beast (1958) Bernard L. Kowalski, Roger Corman ~ Michael Emmet, Angela Greene, Ed Nelson
| 0 |
negative
|
Along with having minor flaws to it, this film is a masterpiece, and most definitely the best war film I've seen. Not the mention it's one of the best films I've seen in all genres. I might have written this for No Man's Land before, but now I think this one's better. It's VERY sad in the ending, and I almost cried after the two shocking scenes that came within 5 minutes close to the film's final. <br /><br />Karel's performance as the main character was fascinating although he's supposed to be a rookie considering his age. This film makes you think a lot, makes you cry (or at least gets you close to it), and makes you hate any kind of war and political BS. The flashbacks to the prison-hospital make the film even more delicious. <br /><br />One tiny flaw about the film is the non-British accents of supposedly British people. Most of the British people on screen were actually British, but how about the ones who are supposed to be British and speak with a foreign accent? That really didn't fit into this adorable film. But it's pretty much the only flaw I've noticed. Effects could also be a bit better but then again, we all remember many films from one particular land that have tremendous FX and absolutely nothing else. <br /><br />Briefly, this film is a total masterpiece and every single individual should see it. If you want to travel to the Czechoslovakia of 40's, and if you want to virtually witness a tremendous amount of emotions at once, this film is for you. If you don't want to do those, this film will make you want to do so.
| 1 |
positive
|
Flash Gordon was a first rate serial. I know there were a few goofs, however, i didn't watch it for the flaws. Buster Crabbe is Flash Gordon. He was not a trained actor but he gave a very good, convincing performance. Jean Rogers is pretty and at 20 yrs. old did, in my opinion, a pretty good job. Charles Middleton as Emperor Ming, is superb. He was in a lot of other movies, quite versatile, he could sing and dance. His portrayal of "Ming The Merciless", in all 3 Flash Gordon serials, was top notch. The rest of the cast also did a very good job. Well, boys and girls, get some popcorn, settle back and enjoy. John R. Tracy.
| 1 |
positive
|
I have to admit, I'm not a big fan of Satanic horror movies and, in fact, I seem to like them less and less every time I see a new one, and that isn't really surprising when I end up watching films like Brotherhood of Satan! Despite its low rating on IMDb, I was surprised to hear some good things about this film and my expectations went up. This turned out to be a big mistake as this is exactly the film that its rating suggests it is: namely, a very bad one! The plot is your basic bunch of Satanists causing trouble, and we focus on a small town where people have been murdered and kidnapped and it's not really clear why. Naturally, Satanists are behind it and this is bad news for a mother, father and daughter on a road trip who become trapped in the mysterious town. I had a feeling that this film might be along the same lines as the crappy Satanist flick 'The Devil's Rain', and while it's not quite as silly as Robert Fuest's later film, it's not much better either. The plot seems to be fairly down to Earth, but it's also rather boring and I can't say that I enjoyed myself at all during this movie. Brotherhood of Satan obviously has its fans, but I'm not one of them; this is a film that I see no reason to recommend...
| 0 |
negative
|
This could have been a great movie with plenty of educational potential for teachers around the world about evolution, biology, the creative work in science, research and Darwin's life, but it is not.<br /><br />The screenplay is mostly historically inaccurate and transforms a true story into a Mexican soup-opera melodrama. While it is true that Darwin gradually lost his religious beliefs, this was in great part due to his findings during the voyage of the Beagle and not solely due to the loss of his daughter. He was certainly disturbed by his loss, but that did not made him literally insane, delusional and detached from his friends and family. The such portrayal of Darwin is an invention of the script writer. Thus it cannot be used in any way as place to learn a bit about Darwin's life and psyche. According to most historians, Darwin had the theory ready by the end of the Beagle voyage, and kept it from going public because he wanted to develop further the consequences of it and check against more data. In the movie, it is an imaginary conflict of Darwin with his religious beliefs and the mental illness that he developed after his daughter's death that kept him from going public.<br /><br />The movie brings a modern situation, the creationists vs scientists debate, into the life and times of Darwin, thus it is anachronistic. It depicts Thomas Huxley not as a man trying to develop further understanding of biology but as someone eager to "kill God", in his own words from the movie, and destroy the church, who would accept the theory of evolution for such purposes and not because it was a synthesis of plenty of disconnected data. Huxley is presented as a very arrogant and insensible person, a combination that I interpret was an attempt to ridicule active atheists who speak up against religion. In real life, Huxley accepted Darwin's ideas after publication only gradually, and before the work of Darwin he thought that there was not enough evidence to support evolution. His first support of evolution was published one month after the Origin of Species became public. He was agnostic but did not think it was necessary "to kill God", only thought that there was not enough evidence to believe in the supernatural. The debate creationists vs scientists appears throughout the movie, and creationists catch-phrases such as "It is only a theory" are part of the discussion. Of course, no such dispute or catch-phrases existed at that time. In fact, the Anglican Church published a positive review of the Origin's saying that they saw God's work in evolution, in some sense, quite in fact in contradiction to the way that the clergy is portrayed in the screenplay.<br /><br />Another awful aspect of this movie is that it gives the wrong impression to the general public that scientific research is done by a solitary crazy man who just writes a lot. Nothing could be further from the truth. The conception of the theory of evolution was the result of thorough observations of living forms by Darwin during five years in the HMS Beagle, and was developed gradually as it can be seen from Darwin's notes of the voyage. Even though the Beagle voyage was the sole most important part of Darwin's life to the conception of "Origin of Species", the voyage is briefly mentioned only once at the beginning, and no attempt is made to show that the book came as an elaborate analysis of observations. To make it worse, Darwin is shown performing a single experiment (pigeon breeding) to test his theory and, in the end, quits it. And I'm not really sure whether such experiment did actually occur.<br /><br />Great disappointment. It is not in any way a homage to Darwin and science.
| 0 |
negative
|
We arrived at the theater too late to see Rendition, which was our intention, and 'The Comebacks' was the only film that hadn't already started. I had an inkling of how bad a film it was after reading the short blurb at the ticket counter. The theater was empty when we arrived and only two other people entered before the film started.<br /><br />The screenwriters and director threw every imaginable sports cliché at the audience without creating a single laugh, not one during the entire movie. Think of all the football movies that have been made and the millions of dollars schools and fans spend each year on football and you realize how ripe it is to be parodied or lampooned. If you add Texas to the mix,you ought to come up with the sports version of 'Little Miss Sunshine', not a big yawn.<br /><br />The first film that came to mind as we exited the theater was 'Can't Stop the Music' By comparison, this was 'Can't stop the Music' without Bruce Jenner, Valerie Perrine, or the Village People.<br /><br />If the film had a single grace note, it was seeing Matthew Lawrence grown up.
| 0 |
negative
|
Perhaps one of the best movies ever made. Orry and Goerge's friendship runs deep, and the War puts a strain on their strong friendship. As a Southerner, I can honestly say this epic is as accurate as it gets. Brothers fighting brothers. Can you imagine what life must have been living during those times? The best part of the movie, for me, was when The South surrenders; General Grant is urging President Lincoln to really stick it to the South, he says, "Mr. President, a lot of folks want The South to bleed over what they've done..." President Lincoln, turns to him and in a very tired voice says, "The South has bled enough...and so have we..." I burst into tears, and take a deep breath. What a President! It's like a father saying his son has been punished enough, and despite his anger he realizes his point has been made. This War was a very dark time for our young country, and it had to be fought. President Lincoln knew this. I'm urging everyone who reads this to watch this movie, and add it to your DVD collection. Then, thank God that our country was preserved. As Jesus said, a "House divided against itself cannot stand."
| 1 |
positive
|
The main reason I loved this movie is because IMx (formerly Immature) were in it. They were in House Party 3 when they were 11, but they are all grown up now! I was a little shocked at some of the things they were doing in the movie (almost ready to tear my hair out), but I had to realize that they were not my little boys anymore. I think Chris Stokes did a pretty good job, considering that is was his first movie.
| 1 |
positive
|
The DVD version we bought had Sandra Bullock on the cover, but we've discovered it was a picture of her from another movie. Unfortunately, she is in this movie very little. You can, however, see how far she has come.<br /><br />The one other bright spot in the movie, besides her very small part, were a few of the location scenes, shot in NYC and New Jersey in the 1980s.<br /><br />The sound is terrible. Sometimes the background noise is so loud that the dialog is difficult to hear. Sometimes the dialog has been redone without any background noises at all, which is disconcerting. For example, sometimes when they are in the car, the noises from the car are too loud, and then suddenly there is absolutely no extra noise at all. The director is fond of close-ups on faces, and then it's clear that the movie has been over-dubbed because the words don't match the lip movements. Through most of the movie, the voices sound like the people are speaking into a tin can.<br /><br />Background music, when there is music, is distracting instead of adding to the movie.<br /><br />The direction is laughable. Goofy camera angles and sound effects make the movie look like a joke, especially during times when there is supposed to be tension, like in the middle of gun battles. The writing is terrible. There are some subplots that make no sense, and most of the characters come off looking very stupid because there is no explanation at all to their motivations. The writer/director tries to explain some of the relationships between the men that were together in Vietnam, but none of it makes sense. These top assassins and former soldiers don't seem to be able to see other people's shadows or hear other people moving. The actors go from calm to panic and back to calm again without any warning. It's simply a combination of bad directing and bad writing.<br /><br />The production values are so bad that at first, we thought we had stumbled on someone's student film that just happened to have Sandra Bullock in it. If you like laughing at really poorly done student films, then this movie is for you. Otherwise, avoid this movie.
| 0 |
negative
|
And one only, in my opinion.<br /><br />That reason is Margaret Leighton. She is a wonderful actress, on-stage as well as on the screen. We have few chances to see her, though. I think that's especially true in the United States.<br /><br />Here she plays a sympathetic role. Not only that but she is also very pretty and meant to be something of a bombshell.<br /><br />Walter Pigeon does not hold up the tradition of Drummond performers. He is always reliable but he's not much fun. He's not a rascal or a knave. Consequently, this seemed to me a talky endeavor with little action or suspense. But check it out for Leighton.
| 0 |
negative
|
I'm impressed that 'Hail the Woman' was made at all; released just one year after American women got the vote, this turgid drama makes an earnest plea against the sexual double standard which judges women's sexual behaviour more harshly than men's.<br /><br />SLIGHT SPOILERS AHEAD. A prologue, set in the Plymouth colony in 1621, shows a Pilgrim girl sentenced to the ducking stool for flirting with a boy; the boy is not penalised. Now we come to Flint Hill, New Hampshire in the present (1921). Oliver Beresford (Theodore Roberts) is a bombastic bible-thumper: what we call in Britain and Australia 'a God-botherer'. Beresford is determined that his son David (Lloyd Hughes) become a preacher, regardless of how David feels about it. As for Beresford's daughter Judith ... well, Beresford is confident that women aren't important enough to be anything more than wives and mothers. Apparently, God told him this personally.<br /><br />David's evangelical career is compromised when he impregnates Nan Higgins, the stepdaughter of the local odd-jobs man. (Tully Marshall's character is identified in the credits solely as the 'Odd Jobs Man', but a close-up of a cheque reveals his name to be Jake Higgins. The prejudices of 1921 require that he be merely Nan's stepfather, not her biological parent.) To save his son from scandal, Beresford buys off Nan's stepfather with a cheque. Nan goes off to the big city, to melt into oblivion as one more unwed mother.<br /><br />Judith is naturally dismayed by the limitations imposed upon her by her gender. (Or rather, by other people's perceptions of it.) She meets Wyndham Gray (excellent performance by Edward Martindel), an author who encourages her to transcend sexist stereotypes. But Judith is informally engaged to local lout Joe Hurd, who won't put up with such nonsense. Hurd is played by Vernon Dent, a burly performer now remembered solely for comedy roles (as a second banana to Harry Langdon, and as a villain in Three Stooges movies). He gives an excellent performance here, in a role outside his usual range. Sadly, in real life Dent spent his final years in poverty and total blindness due to diabetic retinopathy.<br /><br />Eventually, Judith ends up working at an orphanage. This being 1921, I expected the orphanage to be whites-only, so I was pleasantly surprised when it turned out to include one Chinese boy. (And unpleasantly surprised when he's used as the butt for a racial joke.) The movie makes one odd error here. In a Christmas sequence, we see the orphanage mistress reciting 'A Visit from Saint Nicholas' ... but (in a dialogue title) she credits Santa Claus with SIX reindeer rather than eight. This is followed by a brief animation sequence, showing Santa with six reindeer hitched to his sleigh. I assume that the animators (either by accident, or to save money) left out two reindeer, and the title card revised the poem to match the error.<br /><br />Lloyd Hughes was generally a bland and unimpressive actor. His most famous performance is his role in 'The Lost World', where he's easily upstaged by a rampaging brontosaurus. For his climactic scene in 'Hail the Woman', Hughes gives a memorable performance as he finally rebels against his father's tyranny. In his performance as the gospel-shouting father, Theodore Roberts has been accused of overacting to the point of making his role a caricature. I disagree: sadly, decades after this film was made, I continue to encounter 'holy' fools exactly like this man ... willing to destroy the lives of everyone around them, and firmly convinced they have God's authority to do so.<br /><br />In the central role of Judith Beresford, Florence Vidor gives a sensitive, realistic and intelligent performance. I normally dislike Vidor, who tended to be cast in glamour roles but wasn't pretty enough to justify them. Here, her character's physical appearance is less relevant than usual.<br /><br />This entire film is impressively directed by John Griffith Wray, a director who deserves to be much better known. Sadly, Wray died at the onset of the talkies era, in his mid-thirties: had he lived another ten years, he would surely have helmed several early sound classics. In 'Hail the Woman' there are several extremely beautiful screen compositions: I was especially impressed by a scene in the New England forest, when Vidor and Dent have a quarrel in front of an enormous uprooted tree. (I wonder where this was actually filmed.) 'Hail the Woman' deals with unpleasant subject matter, but it deserves to be much better known, and I'll rate this ambitious drama 9 out of 10.
| 1 |
positive
|
I am astonished at the major comments here for this OK surf film. It really stems from the "California Dreamin" school of barnyard to beach antics and isn't really plausible. The idea that the lead kid learn to ride a board SO well in a concrete wave pool that he beats the real surfers at their game in the real ocean, is just plain silly. In Australia where most urban teens do surf, this film was laughed at audiences took it all with a grain of sea salt. Made in the 80s but with its heart in the 60s, it is fun to watch and looks and sounds good, but it is not a in a classic class at all. Even the actors didn't outlast this. We're seriously in LIQUID BRIDGE or RIDE THE WILD SURF or BEACH BLANKET BINGO land here. Oz stars like Occy and BIG Wednesday hero Gerry Lopez are drafted in to add head nodding recognition to our farm boy's wave prowess, but it only made the crowd in the cinema guffaw. It is for 10 years olds who do not question much. It's not even IN GODS HANDS and that was silly too.
| 0 |
negative
|
This film has me seriously doubting again whether Armando de Ossorio was a good filmmaker or not... His BLIND DEAD films are praised by many fans. This I can understand. But wanna-be Gothic vampire trite like MALENKA doesn't show any signs from a gifted filmmaker. And that also goes for SERPIENTE DE MAR. It features horrible acting, a dumb plot, stupid events, a lot of other things you can expect from a bad monster-movie and also veteran actor Ray Milland, who does his best to mumble his way through this film while not having much of a clue about what he's doing in it. Apparently Milland was already very ill while shooting SERPIENTE DE MAR (his last theatrical feature) and going out with a ridiculous stinker like this, makes it all the more sad. One last appearance alongside Peter Cushing in a made-for-TV film directed by Roy Ward Baker (also in 1984) doesn't change much about it.<br /><br />But the sock puppet/sea serpent is a hoot to behold. Watch it swirl up a lighthouse and crush it. See it destroy a harbour with miniature boats. Look at it demolish bridges and munch on charming miniature trains.<br /><br />Good Badness? Yes. 3/10 and 7/10
| 0 |
negative
|
Take a few dark and stormy nights, fog coming in from the coast, obsession and doubt, two brothers who have a mysterious connection based on hatred, a suspicious disappearance, a shoe in the night silently grinding out a glowing cigarette butt, and, finally, a tremulous heroine who finds herself threatened as much by her own doubts as by one -- but which one? -- of the men around her. Sounds like we might have a good 80 minute noir. Instead, under the direction of Vincente Minnelli and with two A-list leads, Katharine Hepburn and Robert Taylor, Undercurrent becomes a nearly two-hour matinée melodrama, a long slog of threatening angst amidst the perfectly groomed, coifed and dressed cast. When you glance at your watch half-way through a movie and with a sinking heart see that you have another hour to go, both you and the movie probably have problems. <br /><br />Minnelli, in one of his earliest non-musical movies, doesn't lay on the rococo hothouse approach as heavily as he later was known to do. Still, what is basically a simple story of greed, murder and obsession is turned into an endless Katharine Hepburn vehicle. Hepburn shows us in carefully lit close-ups how to demonstrate fear, love, anxiety, giddiness, happiness, doubt, suspicion and terror. Robert Taylor is more or less along for the ride. <br /><br />Hepburn starts the movie as the tomboyish Ann Hamilton, an energetic young woman in slacks who helps her father with his inventions. Their housekeeper is determined to get her married. When Dr. Hamilton decides to sell an important formula to Alan Garroway (Robert Taylor), it's love at first sight. Garroway is the smooth, handsome, dynamic inventor of the Garroway Distance Controller, which was vital in the war, and which has turned him into a hard-charging millionaire manufacturer. He's a captain of industry, as one of his many Washington friends says. Ann Hamilton, now Ann Garroway, may still be a bit of the tomboy, but her husband shows her how to dress and how to be a successful social hostess for all those Congressmen and judges her husband knows. She learns fast and eagerly. They both are obviously and blissfully in love. <br /><br />But wait. The canker is about to gnaw. Ann realizes she knows nothing about her husband's family. None of his employees or friends seem inclined to talk about them to her. When she learns bit by bit that Alan's mother died in the old family home in Middleburg while seated at the piano, or that he has a brother, Michael, who has disappeared, Alan becomes very quiet...and sometimes goes into a rage. He always apologizes. But wait once more. Did his mother really play the piano? Didn't she really die in bed? Wasn't Michael caught taking money from the family firm and Alan sent him away? All this plays out against the exquisite hotel suites, the manicured country home in Middleburg with the horse stable and the tasteful ranch house by the sea. Everyone in the movie except employees are dressed to the nines. There are exclusive cocktail parties and intimate dinners for twenty. Even in a black- and-white movie, Minnelli can't help but give us dining tables filled with crystal and china, tasteful and elegant furniture and lots of gowns. <br /><br />By the end of the movie, when all is finally known, when Ann on horseback is chased along a high, extremely well-designed mountain trail by the bad guy on another horse, when she is threatened with death by boulder and her pursuer finally meets death by horse, it's a relief. Even Robert Mitchum, who plays Michael, is unable to bring much tension to the movie. What might have been in lesser hands a taut little B-movie, instead with the A list is just an overwrought melodrama, too big for its bones.
| 0 |
negative
|
The second episode of the new "Lost" gives you just what its fans were lacking - a fair amount of riveting action. From the very first scene, you keep seeing brand new features you weren't expecting to encounter. It's the best proof that the series, ingoing its 4th season, is still alive and kicking hard.<br /><br />Although the producers don't amaze us with some more flash-forwards this time, the return to flashbacks is more than satisfying, as it brings some shocking facts. The flashbacks introduce a few fresh characters, and the familiar ones turn out to be connected in a surprising way.<br /><br />The fresh characters dominate the whole episode and I can't say it does any harm. Their scenario parts and their actors both do extremely well, providing us with a bracing feel - right after the episode, you'll realize that the show really needed people just like that. And here they are.<br /><br />"Confirmed Dead" is full of gripping action and greatly written dialogues. I'm sure I'll quote the best scenes of the episode for the long time - they're just that good that they remain on the spectator's mind. The episode is entertaining, smart, and perky. You like "Lost", you have to watch it. My vote is ten.
| 1 |
positive
|
Just about everything in this movie is wrong, wrong, wrong. Take Mike Myers, for example. He's reached the point where you realize that his shtick hasn't changed since his SNL days, over ten years ago. He's doing the same cutesy stream-of-consciousness jokes and the same voices. His Cat is painfully unfunny. He tries way to hard. He's some weird Type A comedian, not the cool cat he's supposed to be. The rest of the movie is just as bad. The sets are unbelievably ugly --- and clearly a waste of millions of dollars. (Cardboard cut-outs for the background buildings would have made more sense than constructing an entire neighborhood and main street.) Alec Balwin tries to do a funny Great Santini impression, but he ends up looking and sounding incoherent. There's even an innapropriate cheesecake moment with faux celebrity Paris Hilton --- that sticks in the mind simply because this is supposed to be a Dr. Seuss story. Avoid this movie at all costs, folks. It's not even an interesting train wreck. (I hope they'll make Horton Hears a Who with Robin Williams. Then we'll have the bad-Seuss movie-starring-spasitc- comedian trilogy.)
| 0 |
negative
|
First off, let me say I wasted Halloween movie night by watching this garbage. Second, let me inform you that the current DVD available by Shriek Show is not uncut, so you gore hounds will be very upset. Third, that one scene is the highlight of the film and since it's been cut, well, you see where I'm going.<br /><br />I know a lot of horror fans dig this movie. It is atmospheric, shot in the woods with some very nice scenery, waterfalls and such. But after the opening kill, which has a very brutal shot of a machete being jammed through a hunter's crotch, you get no real brutal kills after that. And, with a slasher movie, you sort of want that. At least, I do. The director and co. do nothing new with the killer in the woods idea, several of this type of movie were all made right around the same time in the very early eighties. The only thing this has going for it is that you don't hate the actors as much as you might in other films. They are sort of likable. The kids have a reason for being there: one of them owns a deed to some property on the mountain. But what is not explained is why his family has property there. There is no cabin or house, so why buy property in East Jesus, especially if you aren't a hunter or whatnot? Well, I'm sure some people do buy land for camping purposes, but that just seems unusual. Anyway, two squealing backwoods inbreds show up and start stalking the campers and picking them off one by one. And, as I said before, you get pretty much nothing in the way of decent deaths after the machete kill in the beginning. The ending has a sort of off the wall kill by Connie, but even that isn't enough to save this from being almost equal with the completely forgettable film, The Forest, which is mind-numbing.<br /><br />If Shriek Show had been able to get a real uncut print, then this review might have been a little more forgiving, but this is the day and age of uncut/unrated DVD releases of old obscure films for cine-hounds like me. When you slight us, you get the crud review. Sadly, the presence of the great fatherly George Kennedy is the only highlight of this movie to set it apart from the other garden variety trash that was churned out back in the day.
| 0 |
negative
|
Well OK, I've seen Wrath of the Ninja.<br /><br />It isn't something that I would recommend to people who aren't seriously into japanese fighting movies. This is a sort of japanese fighting ninja movie, with a complex plot. It's about these 3 old ninja schools that had these 3 "Swords of Sorcery". I saw the subtitled version (NOT recommended by the way, it's easy to miss something) and I didn't really keep up with it all. It had some good scenes tough, but in general, it wasn't much to my liking.
| 0 |
negative
|
A friend of mine once rented this, thinking since Peter Fonda starred in it, it couldn't be bad. WRONG! It's bad as anything can be. There is so much to laugh at and it's not the jokes. For instance, in one scene Hawken walks into the forest and when he comes out he is suddenly wearing a completely different outfit! Where was "the director's" brain when he shot that scene?!? Probably the same place Fonda's was when he agreed to do this flick. It's truly a shame one has to see such a fine actor go dumb in this poor excuse for a film.<br /><br />Nobody's performance in this movie can be called acting. Jack Elam is brought in just to bring up the star count here, but all he does is looking startled in a very dark and awfully shot scene in some kind of bar. Not to mention the "Indians", the girl was so godawful I wanted to shoot her just to end her misery and mine as well. If I could give this a 0, I would. Shame that mark doesn't exist here. This truly reminds of a bad joke or an amateur footage made just for fun. This should serve as a proof of how bad B-movies can get.
| 0 |
negative
|
To preface my remarks on the film, I know the topic is horrendous and words can't adequately express the compassion any decent person would have for people dealing with the post-horrors of an atomic bomb dropped near them. <br /><br />However, this film doesn't really deal with in a horrific way except for the first 10 minutes. Some of the images there are horrifying, and should be as a reminder what devastation nuclear weapons can produce. Seeing burned people walking around aimlessly or man combing his hair and clumps of hair coming out, etc., is not a pretty sight. <br /><br />But after the first dozen minutes, this Japanese film concerns people dealing with the aftermath of Hiroshima in the mid-to-late '40s. I actually found the story developing quickly into a boring soap opera. <br /><br />Almost all the story occurs five years after the bomb and deals mainly with one family's problems at that point. This is why it became more of a melodrama than some shocking story of nuclear disaster. It's simply a story about how these people got on with their lives from about 1950 on, whether one of the women was permanently damaged and if so, should she marry? <br /><br />This could have been a real impact film but it didn't go in that direction
| 0 |
negative
|
"The Apartment Complex" is a campy comedy full of kookie characters created in lieu of a real story which tells a young psych student (Lowe) who takes a job managing an apartment complex and becomes embroiled in a murder mystery...um, if you can call it that. This low cal watch contains no suspense, no thrills, no drama, no action, precious few funny moments, a dash of nudity, and almost no romance. "The Apartment Complex" is passable, forgettable junk food for only the most needy couch potatoes.
| 0 |
negative
|
This usually all sounds a lot better in my head (so forgive me for rambling) I'm hardly Tarantino's biggest fan (and will *try* not to stoop to calling him a 'hack'....which is quite hard) I don't like to mock or critique a movie before seeing it. So with cautious hesitation, i walked to the cinema today to watch 'Inglorious Basterds'<br /><br />Now, to call it a 'rip-off of a rip-off' would be unfair here. Tarantino is happy enough to take the title from Enzo Castellari's (less than spectacular) Dirty Dozen clone, but not it's plot points (that, he takes from all other genre of movies) 'Inglorious' opens with a Nazi officer and his lengthy interrogation against a farmer who is hiding Jews in his basement. This is such an anti-climax, in that, it's dialogue is stale, and outcome signposted a mile off. Of course, one of the hidden Jews makes her escape (but more of her later) We (the obviously, easily pleased) audience are treated to the introduction of Lt. Aldo Raine (ha-ha, that name almost sounds like B-movie king ALDO RAY....ha-ha Quentin...keep those 'tributes' coming) and this character is played by none other than Brad (DALLAS) Pitt (sorry, DALLAS was about the only good thing he's ever starred in) and with jaw-jutting, Mr Jolie treats us to a hound-dogged, southern drawled, smirking Nazi-killer. Meanwhile Mr Tarantino forgets that actual grown-ups may be in attendance, so assumes that the teenyboppers won't have heard of the 'Dirty Dozen'?<br /><br />Raines 'platoon' consists of (John Cassavettes looking) blood-thirsty Jewish soldiers, all looking to get the big payback on Adolf Hitler. Tarantino in all his superior knowledge, pays special attention to two of these men, by casting his long time best buddy (and fellow homage-sycophant) Eli Roth (as the baseball bat wielding 'Bear Jew') The other man is called Hugo Stiglitz (and i'll wager more than half the QT fan-boys had never heard this name before this movie) Keep up the good work Tarantino, you've managed about 6 or 7 'hommages' so far (in the first 15 minutes) keep adding them, and it may detract from the plot (or lack of?)<br /><br />Anyhow, cutting a long (and extremely boring and protracted) story short, both Raine and his men (the 'Inglorious Basterds') and the sole survivor from chapter one, both have separate plots to kill Hitler at the showing of a Nazi-propaganda movie, in a french cinema (owned by the fore-mentioned survivor, now grown up)<br /><br />More boring (and pointless) conversations follow two and fro, as Pitt mugs away at an audience past caring. And any genuine suspense, leading to the assassination of the most deadly tyrant of all time, is thrown-away by the directors insistence of placing a 1980's David Bowie song in a WWII movie.<br /><br />My problems (and there are many) with this movie, is the re-occurring problem i have with most Tarantino product.....he rarely knows when to either start or stop. I don't need 'homage' after 'homage' to get the *joke* (whatever it may be) I knew of Inglorious Bastards, Enzo Castellari, Aldo Ray, Hugo Stiglitz (and the ultimate crime of the entire movie) Ennio Morricone's haunting score from REVOLVER. I go to the cinema to see the stars.....if the best you can do is the dire Barad Pitt, i'll assume You (Mr Tarantino) are the main draw here? I don't want the audience directing the movie. I pay to see YOUR vision, your ideas, your creativity....NOT how you can patchwork (time and time again) endless scenes from endless movies. It's high time the fan-boys (on IMDb) employed some 'tough love' on your 'idol' (god knows, if you don't....the studios should?)<br /><br />The tired old argument with Tarantino worshippers is "well, if you can do better...do so" Let me tell you, if i was a 46 year old director, with the (unfortunate) pull QT has.....i'd want to offer YOU a lot more than a warmed up muddled re-hash of better WWII movies than this tripe. The directors he attempts to emulate, made movies so bad by accident, or due to budgetary constraints. It's a cop out, time and time again, to hear his fans campaign his lack of imagination as 'art'. I'm sure he's capable of better (but after giving him the benefit of the doubt, once more....and not to mention 2 and a half hours of my life.....) maybe he isn't?
| 0 |
negative
|
Begotten is, no doubt, someone's attempt at originality, but, what we have here is art in its most morbid, grotesque form, so, for that, Begotten has my respect, but, to be realistic, it makes no difference what this abomination is about, but for the record...<br /><br />In the ultimate in incoherent horror, we begin in an unknown time, in an unknown place. Right off the bat, we are plunged into the psychotic nightmare that is Begotten, a god is, seemingly depressed, mutilating himself with a razor, I mean, really trying like hell to end it all, it takes a while (why wouldn't it?) After this ultra-morbid introduction, something is happening, something is rising from the corpse, say hello to Mother Earth. What does she do? Well, she gives birth to a thing. The thing would have probably preferred to stay in the womb, but that's life. The psychotic nightmare realm of Begotten welcomes the thing the only way it knows how. The thing, along with Mother Earth is mutilated by unknown, hooded, assailants, with evil intentions being the only clarity available. From this point on, things drag as they've never dragged before. Interesting, grim images, with a totally decent soundtrack, is the high points of the remainder. Not to give the impression that I don't recommend this evilness, because I do, but only once, and only for people with an appreciation for the dark side.<br /><br />From my description, it may appear that I don't "get" Begotten. Trust me, I get it, and yes, Begotten is art if I've ever seen it. Everything in this film, regardless of how unrelated it may seem, is significant. That, perhaps, is the only thing that makes Begotten art. With that said, most of us require some form of entertainment value, and this is coming from someone who enjoyed The Chooper. Probably the most intriguing first five minutes, I've seen in a film, but let's be realistic, the next 7 hours and 55 minutes would put one in a coma, that is, unless it's just meant for some kind of psychedelic purposes, in that case, never mind. But, how would one rate such a uniquely boring masterpiece? Depending on how much your attention span can take, It should be either 1 or 10, any other number just wouldn't make a statement. It hurts to do this, but as far as entertainment value goes, Begotten just ain't it. 1/1
| 0 |
negative
|
Flatliners left quite a noticeable impression in my head. The story is quick paced and leaves you constantly absorbed and at many times quite tense. Its about five remarkable student doctors (notably Julia Roberts and Kevin Bacon) among whom, one of them has devised the mechanism of remaining dead (or getting flat-lined)for a few seconds and then coming back to life.<br /><br />The procedure is quite 'complex' involving a plethora of medical knick-knacks - injections, electric blankets, oxygen masks and a variety of esoteric medical terms. I strongly suspect doctors coined all these words so that they never need to get layed off. But funnily they follow the KISS (Original version for engineers: Keep It Simple, stupid) (Extended version for doctors: Keep it Stupid, Simple) philosophy as well. At the risk of getting euthanized by some revenge-taking doctor reader, let me continue.<br /><br />So the first guy who gets flat-lined hopes to find the answers to life which philosophy and religion cannot convincingly answer. He hopes to get it answered (and become famous) through applied science. He flat-lines for around two minutes and then comes back into our world left quite shaken. During death, he has a vision of an incident, when he was young, which left the strongest impression on his life. He killed another boy when he was kid, by accident, and he still feels responsible for it.<br /><br />With the success of the first flat-liner, the others follow suit each of them extending their flat-line time further and further to test the limits of how long one can remain dead and experience life after death.<br /><br />Meanwhile monsters from the past and future, keep coming back to haunt them after their flat-line experience. The first flat-liner is haunted by a young kid who tortures him when he is alone. The second who camera-ed all the women he took to bed, sees television sets all over playing his videos. The third is haunted by a young girl who he teased in school. The fourth is haunted by her suicide-dead father, for whom she feels responsible.<br /><br />All of them are driven insane by these haunting and obsessions and think that the past seems to want to take revenge on them. The main focus on getting flat-lined is that your entire life passes through your eyes, at the moment of 'dying', whatever stage that is, and you are left mostly with the strongest impressions of life in your mind. Since they didn't die these strong impressions have somehow resurfaced and have become the focus of their lives.<br /><br />All of them somehow come to terms with (and extinguish) their past demons. All of them except the first one who realizes the only way he can move on through life is getting flat-lined AGAIN. During this flat-line session, he sees himself getting flat-lined the first time and also sees the boy he killed, trying to kill him this time round. The boy kills him this time for a few minutes and in doing so has sought revenge. For a few minutes in the movie one is left wondering if he gets to come back. Thankfully (because most of us like happy endings) the boy absolves him of his past and he comes back to life again.
| 1 |
positive
|
OK, I saw this film through Mystery Science Theater 3000, but I did see the movie, so I figured I would leave a comment on it. I just love once again how Joe gets stuck with the crummy roles while his brother and nephew's are just getting the Oscar winning roles left and right. Soultaker is technically what you would call the movie that was meant to be good. It seemed like the director and actors just took this movie extremely seriously and had very cheesy effects, a story that didn't make much sense, and not to mention pretty crummy acting abilities. This is one of my favorite MST3K episodes, simple because a lot of what they mention is what we are thinking throughout the film and I'll explain why in a moment.<br /><br />Natalie and Zach are a couple who broke up and are now trying to work things over. But since Zach is in upper lower class and Natalie is in middle class, it just ain't gonna work. But on the way home, they and Zach's friends get into a car accident and now the angel of death/Soultaker is after them to meet his quota of soultaking. But also it seems like he's had some kind of other life relationship with Natalie and just can't seem to move on. So now Natalie and Zach must race against the ever appearing five million times a minute clock to save their souls and lives.<br /><br />Well, I guess Zeppelin was wrong when he sang that there was a stairway to Heaven, I wonder if Black Sabbith was wrong too, lol. Basically there are a lot of plot holes in this movies, like no one can see the characters and they can't be killed, yet somehow they can still press buttons and open doors? The Angel of Death had a very strange face and was a bit distracting from the story itself. Soultaker was just a lousy film that was rushed and makes you just feel so bad for Joe, the under-appreciated Sheen/Estovez brother.<br /><br />2/10
| 0 |
negative
|
Being from the Buffalo area I was well aware of the movie having read many articles in local publications. I was most impressed with the movie, especially its clever plot, the acting and the local scenes. Nice to see so many older, quality stars in the various roles. I feel that especially those of us over 50 will find the movie excellent and you can leave the theater feeling that your time was well spent.
| 1 |
positive
|
This movie is a sleeper - I've watched every miniseries that was ever on TV, some many times, and this one is the best. Wonderfully cast, superbly acted, and the characters are well-developed. Helen Morse perfectly fits the part of Jean Paget - strident, in control, sharp, and a bit belligerent. She bounces well off of Joe Harmon, the cowboy/taciturn/"It'll be okay" sort of guy. I was sorry that the movie didn't stick to the book, in that there was no romantic interest between Noel Struan and Jean Paget. For those who don't know, this is taken from a true story about English women marched around Malaya for 3 years by the Japanese, who indeed did not know what to do with them. Very few of them survived. Neville Shute talked to one of them, and this is her story. This movie deserves to be in everyone's collection who loves WWII stories.
| 1 |
positive
|
This is a family movie set in 1950's rural America about a boy whose Uncle presses sheep killing charges against his dog Drum, starting not only a family legal feud but community discord as their town begins to take sides.<br /><br />This is formula film that attempts to be very touching and sweet. Its biggest weakness is that the only people who could really act were Scott Bakula (Defense Lawyer), Ron Perlman (father/Drum's owner) and the dog. (John Shuck and Kathy Garver, "Sissy" from the original "Family Affair," as the Uncle and his wife, were okay.) The children were not that good (basically they looked like they were acting) and that's a problem when the film really revolves around them (Aaron Fors, who plays the bully Donny makes me think of what the actor Russell Crowe must have looked liked as a child, only with no talent but a lot of ham). <br /><br />Favorite line (spoken by the Prosecutor after Scott Bakula's Defense closing trial speech): "We'll be lucky if they don't lynch us." <br /><br />Favorite line spoken by Ron Perlman (after his son punches the bully): "Now making him your friend, that will be the hard part."<br /><br />Cute enough to rent/buy used.
| 0 |
negative
|
This movie is very scary with scenes where the Devil uses Gabriels horn to open Heaven and pull the good angel-dogs out and imprision them on Alkatraz. The devil sings and dances to a few songs about the joys of being bad, and at one point, eats a live rat.<br /><br />We got this movie free with a pizza. You get what you pay for.
| 0 |
negative
|
Even if you do not typically enjoy documentaries, odds are you will find this one fascinating. Not only does it have a well-mapped out plot that while easy to follow, contains its interesting detours; it also has a very strong emotional resonance, and not one that relies on a simple specific tone. Instead the emotions here are as profound and turbulent as the seas featured.<br /><br />That being said, if you know nothing of Donald Crowhurst and the 1968 single-handers boat race around the world...as was the case for me...please stop reading, and rent/view this film. <br /><br />SPOILERS FOLLOW<br /><br />My friend Brian recommended this at the same time that my Aunt had sent me a clipping linking this film with Antonioni's work In 2007, I was mesmerized by several of Antonioni's films, still am! To connect this film to Antonioni, I think is a bit of a stretch, the character most likely to be seen in one of Michaelangelo's movies is Francoise Moitessier de Cazalet. It's funny on the main IMDb page, he isn't even listed as playing "Himself" which is probably a function of his lengthy name, as opposed to his self realization/renunciation. Since Moitessier sails right out of the race, that could be considered is a bit like Anna in L'Avventura. Quite a major minor character.<br /><br />While there are many things to love about this film: the actual footage from the time, the stoic best friend, the sheer power of the Roaring Forties, I walked away with a simple connection. A man, truly at sea. There have been times in my life where I wonder how I got to such a point, caught between dreams and reality, feeling like a stowaway in my own skin. It may be that I'm reading too much into this documentary, and that in turn the directors read too much into Crowhurst, but I found that sense as spell-binding as the other secrets kept in this film.<br /><br />On the odd chance that Crowhurst's wife (who seemed a remarkable study in restraint with understandably conflicted overtones) and his children (so young in the found footage, and still young at this late date in the sense of their pain and pride for their father), I am certain the comments here and the film itself fail to catch the man that your father was. In his death however, he has given the world a glimpse of something like a lost myth, he is a pre-GPS Odysseus. Never finding his body adds to the air of frail immortality, if not the stature of a cosmic being of which he had writ.<br /><br />This film sticks with you after the viewing, as if you expect another twist to emerge from the deep waters. Or at the very least, you hope for the Moitessier sequel.<br /><br />Thurston Hunger 8/10
| 1 |
positive
|
Ah yet another Seagal movie.In no less than a few mere months arrive to populate the video store shelves.As bad as Submerged?No.But that is not saying much.Like perfume on a pig.<br /><br />Seagal is professional thief who wants to quit,but goes for one last job only to be double-crossed by his boss.He lands in Prison and is befriended by a Gangster who helps him to break out and seek payback.<br /><br />Its good to see Seagal finally not playing an agent,cop,or what he usually plays.We actually get a USA Location in Las Vegas it seems. Then an eastern European territory as usual. There is no wire-Fu either here.Don Fauntleroy does an okay job.<br /><br />However most of the action and fight scenes with Stevie are clearly doubles.Scenes from other movies,a lack of realism and logic in even tiniest situation.Seagal and Treech make a so-so team inspiring(unintentional) laughs one minute.Sighs the rest.<br /><br />Several notable faces turn up to slum it.. sleepy Kevin Tighe is a long way from his emergency days.Nick Mancuso shows up in sleepwalking mode to take a check.No more rappers.Please?<br /><br />At this point the action scenes and plots are more predictable and recycled generically more than ever.Its a stale scene that Seagal needs to get out of or hang it up.He should have gotten out a while ago.
| 0 |
negative
|
After the book I became very sad when I was watching the movie. I am agree that sometimes a film should be different from the original novel but in this case it was more than acceptable. Some examples:<br /><br />1) why the ranks are different (e.g. Lt. Diestl instead of Sergeant etc.)<br /><br />2) the final screen is very poor and makes Diestl as a soldier who feds up himself and wants to die. But it is not true in 100%. Just read the book. He was a bull-dog in the last seconds as well. He did not want to die by wrecking his gun and walking simply towards to Michael & Noah. <br /><br />So this is some kind of a happy end which does not fit at all for this movie.
| 0 |
negative
|
Newly-pregnant Knight bolts from husband for non-specific reasons which are apparently self-related. On the road, she becomes entangled with Caan, brain-damaged former football star, and Duvall, wacky but abusive cop. The type of movie that could only have been spawned in the 60's. Worth a look for its non-formula plot and for early performances by future stars.<br /><br />Disappointing resolution does not take away too much from rest of flick, which shows an interesting slice of life.
| 1 |
positive
|
Some nameless aliens off on a distant ship from a distant planet have sent the giant robot Kronos to rob the world of its energy. They've got a prototype clanking around Mexico for openers and if he proves successful more will be sent. It would certainly take a lot of time for just this one Kronos to perform that task.<br /><br />For reasons I can't explain the aliens first capture the mind of leading scientist John Emery who telepathically directs Kronos to his first targets. Since Emery is killed off later and the monster seems to function well enough without Emery as a controller, why the aliens needed him in the first place is a bit bizarre.<br /><br />In any event scientists Jeff Morrow, Barbara Lawrence, and George O'Hanlon who work under Emery aren't fooled a bit about his nature. And of course they come up with a plan to deal with the raging metal giant.<br /><br />Kronos is a perfect film for the Fifties, the bad guys are never seen they're just out there looking to undermine mankind. It's a perfect film for the Cold War. And Jeff Morrow assures us we'll be ready for them in the future.<br /><br />The players look like they're having a grand old time mouthing as many clichéd lines the writers could put in the script. I get the impression that Kronos is the kind of film Ed Wood might have done on a bigger budget with a bit more care.
| 0 |
negative
|
After his success with A Nightmare on Elm Street in 1984, director Wes Craven for some reason decided that his next project would be this TV movie. I'm not a big fan of this director on the whole; early exploitation flick The Last House on the Left as well as his modern slasher Scream sit well with me, but the rest of his work is very hit and miss and I'd hesitate to call him the master that others have labelled him as. The main theme here is cryogenic freezing, although it's more a springboard for the plot rather than an important part of the movie. The main influence here is obviously the excellent 1974 zombie film Deathdream and we focus on Miles Creighton; a businessman cryogenically frozen for ten years before an accident that means he has to be thawed out immediately. Miles is a part of a project for people that are ill; they pay to be frozen in the hope that they will be revived in the future when their illnesses can cured. Miles is successfully revived and it's seen as a miracle...but the person that wakes up is not the person who was frozen, as Miles returns without a soul.<br /><br />This film could actually have been quite decent judging by the idea behind it, but instead we're given a plot that doesn't really have a lot to it and it has to be said that Craven doesn't make the best out of the potential of the film. The 'soul' is the main focal point, but it would seem that not having a soul and simply having a murderous intent/no compassion are the same thing, which feels a bit unimaginative. The film was made for television so it's not particularly nasty and it's obvious that not a lot of money was spent on it as the whole production feels very cheap. Michael Beck never became a very popular actor and that isn't surprising judging by his performance here; while he is passable, he largely lacks charisma and is not formidable in the central role. The plot doesn't flow too badly but there's a real lack of suspense and/or tension and things slow down too much too often, which results in the film being rather boring on occasion. It all boils down to a predictable ending also. Overall, I have to admit that I was not impressed at all by this film and as far as Craven's filmography goes, Chiller would have to go down with Shocker, the Scream sequels and The Hills Have Eyes II as a miss.
| 0 |
negative
|
Blade is a fantastic action/thriller that keeps you captured for the whole duration and Wesley Snipes delivers what I would say to be his best performance yet.<br /><br />This film has everything that you would ask for in an action/thriller, it has plenty of blood, guts and gore, a twisted, disturbed bad buy, moments of humour but most importantly a very good story line with plenty of twists.<br /><br />Their is constant action throughout the film with breathtaking stunts and effects, Wesley Snipes fighting movement is fantastic.<br /><br />This film is in my opinion a must see, Wesley Snipes cool, solid appearance makes this film and I can't wait for the sequel 'BLADE 2' being released next year.<br /><br />My IMDB Rating - 9 out of 10
| 1 |
positive
|
I read a viciously hidden remarks on a previous comments stating that this film showed a bunch of gay guys romping around their gayness.<br /><br />This couldn't be more misleading. "Eighteen" is not a gay film. It has only three gay characters in it and one of them is the victim of prejudice of people like the one who wrote the comments, despite his confession of fairness.<br /><br />Pip's grandfather was not gay. The tender scene of the soldier and his sergeant is male bonding at the crucial moment of death. But some people gets appalled by a kiss and welcome scene of guts flying out of a man killed by a bomb.<br /><br />The focus of the film is the straight relationship of Pip and that sweet girl and their facing their social obligation and parenthood.<br /><br />Ralph Rewes www.r1313.info
| 1 |
positive
|
Joe is the movie about the dark side of the force of the 1960's in America, and Susan Sarandon had nice boobs. This movie scared me so much when I saw it in the theatre that I never liked Peter Boyle until Young Frankenstein and was still quite leery of him even after that comedy. Looking back now from today's experience, this film seems current again in being direct and to the point of half the electorate's approval of John McCain's "Joe The Plumber" typecast and their fear of electing a black man as President of the USA in the coming weeks. A black Prez would be seen as sweet revenge of the "niggers" but bound to again bring fire to many minds if not the streets, this time by Joe enthusiasts. So, the spirit of Joe in the film is resurrected in the campaign of Joe The Plumber! Still, I love to be American and be terrified at both and by the knowledge that they illustrate what ironically Gregory Peck said our civilized law also is: "a living, breathing reality!" God help us.
| 1 |
positive
|
Andy Lau and Lau Ching-Wan are both superb in Johnny To's tautly directed crime thriller which puts most Western efforts to shame. Think of it as the Hong Kong 'Heat', only better! Everything about the film screams class; from the performances to the soundtrack, the cinematography to the script. The tone remains serious throughout, but the film has a nice line in black-humour, friendship and romance at it's heart. Sure, it gets a little preposterous later on, but it would be a hard-hearted viewer who didn't find something to love about this movie. Thank God, Hollywood hasn't (yet) re-made and ruined a classic. Do yourself a favour and see this film!
| 1 |
positive
|
Seeing the title of this movie "Stupid Teenagers Must Die" made me believe this was a spoof of some kind. I discovered later on the original title was "Blood and Guts". Both titles are misleading, though. This is not a spoof, neither a serious splatter movie. This is something in between, failing in both areas. A group of teenagers is attending a séance at a spooky house and then the killing starts. Sounds over familiar, doesn't it. Well, this movies adds nothing whatsoever to the endless stream of similar movies. And it is badly made. Because of the lack of light the entire film is grainy. Now this effect can be highly effective, but it isn't in this case. The young cast isn't acting too badly, but the director has no clue as what to do with actors. In numerous scenes the actors are clearly waiting for directions, but these are given too late. It could also be an editor's mistake, of course. The characters are unrealistic and the story line just stinks. The sound is terrible at times: conversations are undecipherable, but when talking loudly or screaming the actors are very loud indeed.<br /><br />This is not the worst horror movie I have ever seen, but it still is a bad one. For me a 3 out of 10.
| 0 |
negative
|
I had never heard of this film till it popped up on cable TV and I can't understand why. Geena outdoes Arnold as an action hero in this film! Geena is an ex-CIA assassin who is brainwashed and given an identity as a schoolteacher with a quiet family life in a rural town. She continues that life for 8 years with a husband and daughter. Clues start coming to her that she may have been someone else, especially when someone tries to kill her. It seems that her former employers have discovered that she never died and want to make sure that she does. She hires Samuel L. Jackson, who is a former police officer. Together they form a pair that is as entertaining as Mel Gibson & Danny Glover. When Geena finally regains her memory she undergoes a transformation into the killing machine she once was with the song "She's Not There" playing in the background. What follows is Geena and Samuel have to go after the bad guys and hopefully stay alive. All through the rest of the film Geena has to decide who she really is. The killing unfeeling machine? The mother/schoolteacher with the quiet family life? Or a combination of both? Especially, since the bad guys grab Geena's daughter. Great action scenes that rank up with any of the Die Hard movies!
| 1 |
positive
|
Catherine Brreillat is a French director who loves to provoke her audience. She takes us along to witness how a film is done on location. The movie in production seems to be based on herself, since the person at the center of the story is Jeanne, a woman director, much like Ms. Breillat. Jeanne acts as the alter ego of the real director.<br /><br />Jeanne reaches an impasse at the start of filming. Not only has she picked the wrong time to photograph this movie during a cold spell, as it involves beach locations that are obviously too cold for the actors and extras. Jeanne has problems with the two principal actors, especially, the male lead who has problems accepting the way the director has decided to show him in the movie; the lead actress is no angel either.<br /><br />Movie making, Ms. Breillat tells us is a process like no other in a creative work of art. First, there is the writing period, in which, in this case, Jeanne, has written a screen play, that when it goes into production reveals problems the writer/director didn't think about. There is the problem of how she wants to photograph a love scene in which the young woman of the story has her first sex contact. What appeared clever in the written page, doesn't necessarily translate into an easy time in front of the camera. The actor is made to wear a false penis and has a lot of problems accepting the fact that a make up has to touch him in ways he never thought he would ever be touched by another man.<br /><br />The luminous Anne Parillaud is marvelous as Jeanne, the director. She makes observations about the production, the actors, and the crew that fit well into the story being told. Gregoire Colin and Roxane Mesquide play the lead actors, with all the insecurity that some actors bring to a movie set. Jeanne has to massage their egos in order to get what she wants in the end. Ashley Waninnger plays Leo, Jeanne's assistant.<br /><br />"Sex Is Comedy" allows Ms. Breillet to give us her own take on films in general. This is a great look at the way movies are done in a typical Breillat style.
| 1 |
positive
|
Thank you The FilmZone for showing this sleazy soft core sex flick at 1 a.m. I truly enjoyed it. To be honest, I expected a lot more from a sexy cast with McKayla, Dru Berrymore, and of course, the talented Chloe Nicholle (as Rebecca Carter).<br /><br />The production values are truly bad mainly because of the low budget but a little more effort wouldn't harm. For example, the cinematography makes it look like a hard core porno movie. There's absolutely no effort in lightning. But let's ignore that fact because let's be honest, we watched "Pleasures of Sin" because of the high amounts of sex.<br /><br />The sex factor is pretty good and offers steamy, explicit scenes. Chole Nicholle delivers the best performance of the female cast.<br /><br />So my advice is , watch this movie if you are in the mood for good explicit sex or just watch it if you are a fan of Mrs. Nicholle.<br /><br />Recommended only for the sex scenes; don't expect anything else.
| 1 |
positive
|
There are other reviews here expressing similar views, but I still feel impelled to add my comments. The film is generally well-made from a technical point of view, apart from possibly being too long. The acting is mostly very good, although Kevin Spacey isn't given much space to explain his character's motivation (apparently ambition rather than racism), and Sandra Bullock's only function seems to be as eye candy, which she admittedly manages very well.<br /><br />At a fundamental level the film's heart is in the right place in being opposed to racism, and I get the impression that it tried to set out to be some kind of definitive treatment of racism, perhaps why so many famous names agreed to be in it. However, it seems the writers bit off far more than they could chew (I haven't read the book, so I don't know how much of that is down to Grisham). The biggest problem, as many others have said, is that it ends up advocating vigilante justice. Aside from the fact that I don't agree with that position, I don't think that such a view actually helps the anti-racist cause at all - it's more likely to be applied to acquit white defendants who kill black victims. At the end the prosecutor invites the jury (and the audience) to imagine that the raped girl was white - but follow that through and imagine the defendant to be a white man who murdered black rapists ... in the end the message seems to be that it's OK to kill someone as long as you hate them enough. It's also convenient that the man killed was presented as totally evil and his guilt was in no doubt, which removes any of the moral ambiguity likely in a real case.<br /><br />Samuel L Jackson gives an excellent performance, but unfortunately this also undermines the plot - he comes across as someone with considerable integrity, but it's hard to believe that he would be willing to hide behind an insanity plea (and indeed he doesn't, when push comes to shove). We're presumably supposed to think that it's because he faces the death penalty, but in fact at one point he's offered a plea of manslaughter, although if you blink you might miss it. Why not take it, given that he must know his chances of acquittal are slim? Or if he wants to make a stand in court, why plead insanity?<br /><br />There are less serious flaws too. The medical experts, on whose testimony the case supposedly rests, are jokes - both are discredited for highly implausible reasons, and neither of them offers any real psychiatric diagnosis. The message seems to be that expert witnesses will say whatever they're asked to say, and shouldn't be believed. The fact that the injured policeman supports Jackson is moderately plausible, but still a bit convenient (and what if he had died?) I find it hard to believe that the KKK would march down the street in broad daylight. Other apparently serious crimes (riot, arson, kidnapping, attempted murder) go by without any visible attempt to detect or prosecute them. And the scene where the dog comes bounding back is ludicrous.<br /><br />My final reaction is to be left feeling rather dirty - as though I must be a racist because I disagree with the resolution. It may be that the film intended to explore different viewpoints and leave the audience to decide, but if so they seem to have forgotten it by the time they got to the end. The film did make me think about my views, read what other people thought here and add my own opinion, so at some level maybe it succeeded - but I worry that it may have re-inforced highly illiberal views in some people, which I hope is the opposite of what it intended.<br /><br />Final thought - try watching Law and Order, it covers issues like this with much more depth in about 38 minutes of screen time!
| 0 |
negative
|
Dead or Alive: Final, the movie that supposedly brings together the three films in the very loose Dead or Alive trilogy, and connected mostly by its stars, Riki Takeiuchi and Sho Aikawa and that each film has its share of bizarro-world fixtures and neuroses and heaps of violence, is admittedly the weakest of the lot. That none of the three films ends up being a disappointment is less a testament to the creativity of the material but to the pound-for-pound guts that director Takashi Miike takes with the surroundings and the material. Here he presents an overtly dystopian future, however low-key, where a homosexual mayor/dictator (Richard Chen) has the entire village drugged except for a group of rebels. There's also replicants- robots- in this year of 2346, one of them is Ryo (Aikawa), a robot of complete lethal skill but also with the capacity to love and learn and so forth. Then a cop, Takeshi (Takeiuchi) happens to be the mayor's top guard. But things start to unravel on both sides, Ryo teaming up with the rebels and Takeshi with his employer, though blood-soaked mishaps like a hostage trade-off gone bad, and with Takeshi finding out his wife and son are robots (not done in an Alien mood, mind you, just suddenly as if in a the power went out), and that he himself is one as well. And it all leads up to one last, inexplicable showdown between the two men.<br /><br />Strange that there's yet another film where Miike has peaks and valleys here, sometimes finding that middle ground of success where science fiction can have some meaning to it. But there really isn't anything to take from this story, except that the mayor/dictator is a dingbat with no back-story who gets his rocks off making sure his drug stops couples from getting pregnant and that everything remains under control. He also has along with him his love slave, I'd guess, in the hilarious non-speaking part of a saxophone player who also doubles sometimes as a human fixture when not plugging away the moody blues. Meanwhile, we get the conventional sides to Ryo and Takeshi's stories, and they're never uninteresting, just not totally convincing enough to hold interest. Of course Miike isn't above having some fun, like when Takeshi plops Michelle (Maria Chen) in to the water to get her to swim after a near-assassination attempt on the mayor, or in having the original rebel leader speaking English for no good reason at all. There's even a playful homage to old sci-fi cartoons at the start of the film. But there's nothing very compelling substance-wise, with the exception of Takeshi's minor turns at becoming "good" midway through the film (helping one couple get by with clearance to have a kid), and mostly Miike's strengths this time are purely stylistically and in the choice of locations and sets.<br /><br />It's like a grungy Japanese Alphaville where everything still has a contemporary feel through all of the special effects. And I really liked the yellow-green tint Miike used through the movie, as it impacted very well in outdoor scenes and added just enough grittiness in the indoor scenes. But as for peaks and valleys, one sees this ever more clearly- and the sci-fi movie channel level of visual effects, with maybe a few more dollars put into it- during the climax. This contains some of the funniest material in the most delirious, Freudian sensibility from the director, even if it has to get started by unbearable contrivance; the way that Ryo and Takeshi finally meet up is sort of random and just a means for the producers to try and cheaply tie together the past two films, when it wasn't needed. On the other hand, in terms of the sheer guilty entertainment value of a flick like Miike's where one sees something totally unexpected and very crudely sexual, it ranks right up there with the best scenes in Happiness of the Katakuris and Visitor Q. Overall, Dead or Alive: Final is a cheesy 90 minute effort that doesn't take itself TOO seriously, and is better off all the more for its wicked contrivances, militaristic decay and cultural hang-ups put on pulp-level display.
| 1 |
positive
|
The film itself is only a compilation of scenes which have no inherent meaning to someone living outside of Russia. I won't deny that some of the images and techniques were quite revolutionary at the time (filmed 1928) but the problem with the film is that it has no interest to the intellectual or common man. We are merely watching an arranged form of pictures, ranging from a one arm man beating a horse, to a toothless soldier in the war. Everything in between is awkward, haphazard and quite unnecessary. It would have been possible to invent a forum which kept the viewer interested but this would not be it although the method of the director is quite brilliant.<br /><br />In all, one should view this if they are an art student, on hallucinogenic drugs, or a student of pre-Tarkovskian cinema.
| 0 |
negative
|
If you like the 80's rock, you should definitely see this movie! I've only seen it recently and completely fell in love with it!<br /><br />Overall, the movie is very entertaining, provides you with a great load of rock tunes and not a single second of the movie do I find boring! It was a great idea that some of the real-life musicians were in this, doing what they do best. I was happy to see Zakk, as well as Blas Elias, they all delivered solid performances. I tend to agree with a lot of people saying that the first half of the movie was much better than the second one, specially in the terms of the script.That could have been worked on a bit better, but not a major biggie. One thing that did bother me a bit was Jennifer Aniston's performance. I thought she wasn't the right person for this role,I just couldn't see her as a rock star girlfriend.But as the movie goes on, you somehow realize that she did a good job with this.There is a certain amount of honesty and sincerity she delivers that just doesn't live you cold. <br /><br />To summarize, a good and a funny movie, that doesn't go deep into characters but provides you with a good fun, a sense of nostalgia and of course the mighty vocals by Jeff Scott Soto and Mike Matijevic!
| 1 |
positive
|
I had never heard of Silverwing before, then I saw it on Toon Disney and instantly loved it! I also think that it is not just for kids, and that people of all ages would enjoy it. It has a great plot, great effect, and cool characters. I will always love the show, and I heard it will be coming on on DVD worldwide soon, and I'm going to get it! I haven't read any of the books, but I intend to. The show deserves a 10 out of 10, and I hope the books are just as good. Well, that's all I have to say. But I still have 2 lines I have to fill up, so...who do you all think is the coolest character? Mine is Shade, and my second favorite is Marina.
| 1 |
positive
|
Well, now that all of the director/ productions company's friends and relations have posted their shill reviews after seeing this at various festivals, I guess it's time to show reviews written by people who actually paid 10 bucks to see it.<br /><br />Like the director's "Dear Jesse" (the only other one of his films I have seen), "Loggerheads" suffers from a lack of focus and too many ideas crammed into an indie budget. I swear, this guy might have better luck doing miniseries. I kept waiting for the various plot threads to come together, but they only intercepted at points blatantly forshadowed in a way obvious to all but the most dense viewer. It was like watching a season of Lifetime made-for-TV movies crammed into one, long (did I say LOOONG) sketch on the old "Carol Burnett" show. Maybe an enterprising male suitor could take his girlfriend to see this and then exclaim "Hey...remember all of the chick flicks we went to last year...the one about the adoptive mother...the one about the gay guy...the one about the Christian housewife. We went to THREE Chick Flicks last year; so now we have to go see Terminator 4!" I guess one has to do anything to cast a familiar actor to get funding, but what oh what is Bonnie Hunt doing in this flick? She isn't exactly known as a dramatic actress, and this attempted "performance" won't be sending Mr. Oscar to her door. I mean (speaking of Lifetime Original Movies), wasn't Valerie Bertinelli or Farah Fawcett available? Ms. Hunt has always come off to me as cold, maybe she should have played the other mom? I wish I would have chosen "Capote" to fill my weekly Gay-themed Indie Allowance..oh well, maybe next week. I think there is a good reason why Capote is playing at tons of theatres all over the NYC area and this one is playing at only one; let the distributors faith in this flick assure to to run in the opposite direction if you don't trust this review!
| 0 |
negative
|
I got interested in this movie because somebody had made a beautiful video for Björks "Bachelorette" with clips from it. So I watched the movie. And it is indeed stuningly beautiful. A masterpiece of animation.<br /><br />Unfortunately, the story doesn't keep up. It starts out well, with interesting plotlines about people fencing for the possession of the Rose Bride, but suddenly elevators fill up with water and looses their walls, people float away, and finally for no reason whatsoever, Utena is tranformed into a car, and a highspeed chase ensues.<br /><br />I like much Anime for it's ability to make alternative universes, but this universe is just stupid. If you are gonna watch this movie, turn of the sound, it's better that way.
| 0 |
negative
|
What can you say about a grainy, poorly filmed 16mm stag film, where the best and most attractive performer is a German Shepherd? Nothing that would be positive. Avoid this travesty at all costs. In any case, it would be difficult to find, since bestiality remains a taboo and illegal subject in the USA. I strongly suggest IMDb to re-visit their weighting formula for establishing ratings, since an 8.8 rating for this piece of fecal matter is absurd! I am, by no means, a prude and have spent many hours enjoying the classic porn movies of the 70's & 80's; but this is inferior product even by the looser standards of the (then illegal) stag loop.
| 0 |
negative
|
This movie was sadly under-promoted but proved to be truly exceptional. Entering the theatre I knew nothing about the film except that a friend wanted to see it.<br /><br />I was caught off guard with the high quality of the film. I couldn't image Ashton Kutcher in a serious role, but his performance truly exemplified his character. This movie is exceptional and deserves our monetary support, unlike so many other movies. It does not come lightly for me to recommend any movie, but in this case I highly recommend that everyone see it.<br /><br />This films is Truly Exceptional!
| 1 |
positive
|
One IMDb reviewer calls Eaten Alive a passable film for the "cannibal connoisseur." Are there such people? I didn't know. But if you are one of them, hey, have a ball. The rest of you might find this tripe a bit hard to swallow (pun intended), even if, like me, you consider yourself a horror film connoisseur. I have been an avid horror fan for about 15 years now, although I never got around to the cannibal subgenre until a few weeks ago, and I guess I owe my short-lived interest in these groan-inducing movies, strangely enough, to China's total disregard for copyright laws. You see, I bought a two-disc DVD collection of all of Wesley Snipes' films for 20 yuan (about $2.75), which turned out to include Last Cannibal World, Mountain of the Cannibal God, Eaten Alive, Cannibal Holocaust, Next, with Nicholas Cage, and something called Voodoo Lagoon, along with Blade 1-3, in Chinese. Nice.<br /><br />Being a second sequel, I immediately got a sinking feeling when the movie opened with a cannibal in street clothes wandering around major American cities, shooting unsuspecting Americans with poison darts and then scrambling away at full speed. Having run out of ways to keep movie cannibals scary, it seems that now they have made their way to the mainland. Later, you may be shocked to learn that this guy is on a "training exercise." Lock up your daughters! <br /><br />Before long the movie settles into the old missing sister routine, as a young blonde woman named Sheila begins her own investigation of the disappearance of her sister, who looks nothing like her in any way, but she's willing to spend most of the movie naked so I guess that doesn't matter. It seems that, after shooting one of his victims, the hapless cannibal we met early in the movie, not used to big city life, ran into the road and was struck dead by a moving van. <br /><br />The brilliant police force find a mysterious bit of film on him showing Sheila's sister involved in some bizarre ritual behavior, but other than the film, the guy is a complete mystery. As the piteous police chief laments, "we know nothing about him except that he's dead!" Poor guy, he must be getting a headache from all this. I recommend a nap. Luckily, Sheila is the kind of girl who can throw around tens of thousands of dollars like it's nothing in the search for her sister. Perfect for hiring a plucky backwoods guide caricature, since the police are clearly going to be no help.<br /><br />Obviously, nothing new is added to this miniscule sub-genre. Quite the contrary, cannibalism almost seems like a background to a completely different kind of bad movie, about the rescue of a missing person from the dangerous elements. Thickening the plot of that clothesline is not difficult, all you have to do is add in a cartoonish jungle cult of people who follow some guy who calls himself Jonas, who believes in using pain as a way to reunite man with nature, a process they call "purification." Personally, I prefer just peeing outside occasionally.<br /><br />One of my favorite parts of the movie is when Sheila is caught by one of the cult members - an overweight guy who looks like he took a three-day weekend from the office to appear in this movie. As he pulls out his trusty medical kit to give her an injection, he warns her, "If you don't believe in Jonas and purification (through pain), God help you." He then gives her a shot and, when she winces from the tiny pinch, he politely apologizes to her. I sense a true believer in this guy!<br /><br />As far as the gore, there are plenty of nasty sound effects over random shots of animals getting slaughtered and more than enough disgusting footage of women being cut up and eaten alive, so I guess right there the movie lives up to its name. The acting is astonishingly bad, as can be expected, and interestingly enough, the editing is also spectacularly botched but still strangely effective. <br /><br />Unfortunately, I think you have to be able to relate to people who believe in utterly insane cults in order to relate to anyone in the movie. There are plenty of outlandish religious ceremonies that take place, which make it more and more difficult to understand why Sheila's sister decided to turn her back on normal society. I'm all for individualism and doing your own thing, but come ON. <br /><br />After a while the movie descends even further into your basic, run of the mill escape movie, just before we witness the most wildly inappropriate rendition of Glory, Glory Hallelujah in film history. WOW. <br /><br />Note: in this movie, a woman is raped with a severed snake. If you need any more reason never to watch it, seek professional help. Avoid this mess at all costs.
| 0 |
negative
|
The credits at the end read "ALL directed by Shigeru Izumiya". That's a fitting way to phrase it because it seems like filmed material from several projects were thrown together somehow, barely even attempting to make it all form one consistent work. It more felt like one of those music clip things that are marketed as feature films to cash in on those video commercials, just that here we have the marketable music and the live performances missing, except for one scene, which may as well be marketed as a weird music video clip in Japan. Whatever.<br /><br />It makes zero sense. Visually it isn't too special either, although it has its moments (for example the female creature with the "death powder" who is strapped onto a bed base and some morphing sh!t throughout) and it certainly has an industrial-y feeling to it. Usually I'd call the effects dilettantish but what this film offers in this regard is baffling more than anything else. You remember those cheap video effects from 70's and 80's music videos that make them look so dated, like a picture within a picture flying through the screen? There is quite a lot of these kind of effects in this, and without any apparent reason. The most half-assed seeming effort comes in the form of a picture collage. The pictures sort of look like album covers. Whatever.<br /><br />I don't know what's up with the subtitles of the version I saw. The Chinese ones (or whatever those hieroglyphics are) sometimes seem to show up when nothing is even said and the English ones often show up without the Chinese ones. The English subs talk much about life without death (is it possible?), and a mind without a body, which provides what comes closest to a comprehensible conflict between characters in this film. One guy (a scientist dude) says that life without flesh is death while another guy (a metamorphosing dude) who claims his mind is beyond his body now that he got the "death powder" blown into his face and that he now knows the secrets of the flesh and whatnot; metamorphosing dude is visibly p!ssed off about the scientist dude's claim. Whatever.<br /><br />Erm, The End - All Written By Perception de Ambiguity
| 0 |
negative
|
For those with access to the BBC or the CBC, this has proved to be spectacular. Like Battlestar Gallactica, this is a show rebuilt from the ground up. But in the case of Dr Who, they saved the best parts. I can't believe I am saying this but.. this is by far the best Dr Who. This has none of the cheap production values and sometimes slow plodding of the old show. The acting is quite good and there is a real sense of continuity and history. The new Doctor is easily the equal of the great Tom Baker, and the writer (former QAF lead) seems to have made even the minor characters come alive.<br /><br />I know...I'm gushing..but this should be on everyone sci-fi geeks list. I just don't know why it hasn't made its way here.. Whatever you do...if you ever loved Dr Who or sci-fi..see this!!!
| 1 |
positive
|
Dear Mr. Seitzman, Or Whomever I May Hold Responsible For Mr. Seitzman Not Meeting His Rightful Fate Of Being Eaten Alive by Rabid Wolverines;<br /><br />I do not know you, and so cannot comment on your character; for all I know, you give to charities and help little old ladies cross the street. Still, I must insist, for the common good, that you never write another screenplay as long as you live. Put down the pen, step away from the laptop! <br /><br />If you refuse to heed the pleading of wounded brains, I have watched a movie or two in my life, and I believe you will find my counsel helpful: <br /><br />1. Do not include love scenes in which overwrought teenage boys name the body parts of their girlfriends after US states. If you must pen such a scene, please do not name the breasts "New York" and "New Jersey"; it causes unnecessary speculation as to which cities occupy the nipples. Also, it is almost incomprehensibly stupid and annoying.<br /><br />2. Do not rely solely on John Hughes movies in order to reinforce class distinctions.<br /><br />3. Do not bludgeon the audience over the head with exhausted clichés. Yes, yes, Kelley and Sam stand out in the rain, and it cleanses them of their cares. We get it. Yes, the roses continue to bloom in Kelley's dead mother's greenhouse, even though every other plant has begun to rot. It Is A Symbol Of Their Love. It is also very painful when applied via blunt-force trauma to the backs of our heads. For the love of God, Mr. Seitzman, we get it. We all get it, all across the land. Amish people, the hard of hearing, unborn babies - we all get it.<br /><br />4. Do not require the actors to perform mime sequences. Ever. No, never.<br /><br />5. Did I mention that you should ease up on the trite symbolism? Because the audience can draw the parallel between the rebuilding of the restaurant and the building of the relationship between Kelley and Sam without any help. Truly. We get it.<br /><br />6. Go through your script, and cull out the following lines, and any lines resembling them: "I don't know what we are anymore." "I don't want to lose you." "He's just like the rest of them!" (And its corollary, "Daddy, you don't even know him!") <br /><br />7. Yes, yes, she's in heaven, running around in a field. We get it.<br /><br />8. And in other news, we get it.<br /><br />I have seen dozens of terrible movies in my life; I never expected to suffer for your art, and I would have just left the theater, but an elephant with the words "DOOMED LOVE" painted on its side fell from the sky and pinned me to my seat.<br /><br />In closing, your writing bites, you owe me ten dollars, and I hate you.
| 0 |
negative
|
I hadn't planned on watching O12 because I didn't like O11 that much. I thought O11 was a nice but slightly boring little bank robbers movie with a sensational arsenal of stars. Anyway I was talked into watching O12 one night and I regretted it a lot. The plot is not only boring but also senseless. I honestly don't even know what it was all about. I left the movie after 3 quarters and got some coffee with another girl who didn't like it. Much more pleasure I can tell you that. But even the guys who stayed till the end later reported to me that the plot continued being awful and useless. My advice: Don't watch. Go watch Team America (hilarious btw;-)) and forget about Ocean's Twelve.<br /><br />In my opinion the most boring and senseless peace of crap to be on the screen in years.
| 0 |
negative
|
Hollywood has churned out yet another garbage that's wildly overhyped and underwhelming on a first-time viewing basis. Hannibal is bad, terrible, inept, lame, droll, idiotic, contrived, laughable and utterly atrocious (no pun intended). Minor spoilers follow...<br /><br />This movie has huge logic holes - more than any Bruckheimer/Bay movie - or for that matter - any movie that exemplify the indulgence of Hollywood exaggeration. It's a slick Hollywood production designed to cash in on Hannibal Lector mania, directed by "so-somber-he-takes-this-way-too-seriously" hack director Ridley Scott and produced by a hack Italian producer with an inflated ego whose credo is "doesn't matter whether film is s**t, money is good".<br /><br />I can't get over the fact that acclaimed screenwriters David Mamet and Steven Zaillian wrote this tripe adapted from a lame and pretentious book by a good-novelist-turned-hack-author Thomas Harris. David and Steven - well-known and immensely talented screenwriters - wasted their effort on a poor screenplay in exchange for fat paychecks. Another factor in the disappointment of this film.<br /><br />There are too many ludicrous scenes to list that are laughable in clunky execution and poor logic e.g. Starling/Pazzi cell-phone in the midst of Lecter pursuit that turns up Inspector Pazzi as the victim. Not to mention laughably bad dialogues delivered by Tony Hopkins with a smirk and Julianne Moore, Ray Liotta and others who cannot act with the straight face. Hopkins gives the true meaning of "scenery-chewing" along with hammy acting by Gary Oldman as a deformed psychopath bent on exacting revenge against Lecter.<br /><br />The gore effect is good, but only serves to repulse rather than provide suspense which is notably absent from Hannibal. The predecessor - Silence of the Lambs - is more believable with tension and suspense. Suspense is what made Silence of the Lamb work as a spectacular mix of psychological horror and thriller, not to mention superbly written and tensely directed. The "brain dinner" sequence is so laughably fake it borders on self-parody.<br /><br />The ending is kinda blatant and idiotic - are we supposed to believe that Lecter is still a menace to society with the last shot establishing his glittering eye glaring at you? Ooh, scary... <br /><br />
| 0 |
negative
|
It takes a lot for a movie to reach the already numb particles of my brain which have not already been tapped out due to the overcharge and redoredoredocopycopycopy world of movies. But this movie has made it onto my 'Magic Movies' list. To become a 'magic movie', it must leave every string of my being quivering in that which I can only define as 'bliss' and 'complete satisfaction'. This movie has tapped into the fibers of how my mind thinks and if not for the deeply personal bond my head and the head of whoever made this shares, it would look like another 'dead rave scene' movie from back when the 90's exploded with its Ecstasy craze. This is not how the movie came off to me at all. It's reached into me and pulled up something that I thought was dead for a very long time and pushed me as far as to give it a critique of my own. I forgot how long it's been since I've seen something that left me feeling this good inside. I strongly suggest seeing this movie.
| 1 |
positive
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.