review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
This is a case of a bunch of people thinking they are so clever they have a story that fits the time. Remember the all-around political conspiracies caught on camera in the years leading to the Watergate and a little later? Most movies trying to cash in on made-for-TV 'o so powerful, o so mind numbing' conspiracies were in fact caught in their own navel-gazing attitude.<br /><br />I was never a fan of The Conversation which I find as much dated as others conspiracy stints of the time but Coppola was true to his main character and Hackman was a pretty engaging actor to observe. I mean these conspiracy movies are mostly drowning in the character pool of noir heroes. Lots of questions unanswered, lots of dis-communication... Well this takes at least Bergman to build a movie about such un-visual bases.<br /><br />The Next Man is a perfect example of its time: one political soup served with an idealistic character and an horrendous conspiracy tightening its web around him. Neither part is interesting in itself and the whole doesn't get any better. In fact you can tell how much it will be bad from the very first sequences piling up 'watcha that' murders without ever advancing any storyline. Pedestrian directing at its worst as most of the movie is one pompous accumulation of scenes revolving around violence naively brought under the viewer's eyes. | negative |
Nick Cage is Randall Raines, a retired car thief who is forced out of retirement when he's forced to save his the life of his brother Kip (Giovanni Ribisi) when he screws up on a job, by completing his brothers job of stealing 50 cars in one night. He has to get together his old crew that he can trust to help him pull it off and get his bro out of dutch. But the cops are onto him, so can he pull it off? This was one of the great candidates of a film to re-make as the Original was far from a classic. And if you don't go into it expecting much, and turn the thinking portion of your brain off so you can ignore the plot hole ans just take the movie for what it is. You'll end up enjoying the ride. Watch it on a double-bill with "The Fast and the Furious" for a night of high-speed hijinks, just don't take the car out for a spin right afterwards.<br /><br />My Grade: B- <br /><br />DVD Extras: 7 minute Jerry Bruckheimer Interview; Bruckheimer Bio/Filmography; Action Overload: Highlight Reel; The Big Chase; "0 To 60" featurette; "Wild Rides" featurette; Stars On The Move; The Cult "Painted On The Heart" music video; Theatrical Trailer, and Trailers for "Shanghai Noon", "Mission to Mars" and "Coyote Ugly" | positive |
This is one of those movies you see in the video store that you just HAVE to get because it just looks so horribly bad. And indeed, we couldn't take most of it. There was a lot of fast-forwarding going on.<br /><br />But then we came across a scene where Robert Englund seduces the female protagonist (her name somehow slips my mind at this time). CRIPES. I've never watched a single scene from a film so many times (I'm estimating forty or so). And I've never laughed so hard in my life. You see, Englund has this thing for showing off his loins. I last saw the film a couple months ago, but I can't stop laughing as I type. Anyway, the scene is a montage of shots-- Englund ripping off the lingerie of the girl, Englund riding a horse naked, and some mysterious woman fellating a snake's head. This is absolute genius. You've got to see it for yourself. | negative |
I first saw The Victim (aka Out Of Contention) well over 25 years ago when I was very young. Being a passionate fan of Bewitched since I was a child, I loved to watch anything that starred Elizabeth Montgomery. This movie was (and still is) a real treat - whether you are a fan of Miss Montgomery's work or not. Elizabeth always shines in her roles, such as her portrayal as the rape victim in A Case Of Rape and as the suspected murderess in The Legend Of Lizzie Borden. Her performance in The Victim as Kate, a terrified woman trapped in an isolated house during a storm, with a killer after her is brilliant. If you like exciting suspenseful thrillers than this is one movie that will keep you on the edge of your seat till the end. Another great performance well worth mentioning is that of Eileen Heckhart who plays the eerie and suspicious housekeeper. Unfortunately like most of Miss Montgomery's movies, The Victim is not available on DVD and I believe that although it was released on VHS some years ago, it is a rarity these days. I was lucky to have taped it when it was aired on television some ten years ago and so have a nice copy of this very good movie. A must see! | positive |
David "master of debonair" Niven plays the Big Boss (IVAN) who preys upon the unfortunate Richard Jordan (PINKY) by forcing the hapless ex-con to exploit his ill-found new position in a bank. Elke Sommer (Miss PELHAM) most effectively provides the female interest, whom Pinkie cannot simply cannot resist.<br /><br />It seems they were unable to decide on one name for this film so instead they used four .... makes sense ???<br /><br />Sadly, this turn out to be one of Niven's last roles.<br /><br />Overall, this film is fun and well worth watching if you manage to catch one of its rare or late night TV screenings.<br /><br /> | positive |
There seems to be little in the way of middle ground where Watch On the Rhine is concerned. One either likes it very much, applauding its sincerity, its liberal point of view and fine acting, or else loathes its obvious propaganda, mediocre dialogue, cardboard characters and overall tendentiousness. I fall very much in the latter category, and found the film and play,--concerning the activities of European refugees in Washington during wartime--a crushing bore, worthwhile mostly for the acting, and even then only intermittently. That author Lillian Hellman was on the side of the angels is irrelevant. Her plays were written for people who shared her point of view, and she seldom explored ideas that weren't already held by the author and audience except to point out how dreadful the "other side" is. Even when I find myself in one hundred percent agreement with what she has to say,--as in Rhine--I still can't stand the way she says it. Her characters are unreal, and while her ear for dialogue shows a certain facility for the way people talk she possesses no real brilliance or originality. She really had nothing new to say. I thoroughly agree with the late Mary McCarthy's long overdue dismantling of Hellman reputation some years ago. For those who think the theatre is dead or in extremis and yearn for the good old days, I urge a peek at Watch On the Rhine, as bad in its way as Angels In America, which only goes to show that the theatre had one foot in the grave sixty years ago. | negative |
This final installment of the "Airport" franchise was so incredibly awful that it took me awhile to realize it actually wasn't a slapstick comedy, like "Airplane". George Kennedy shooting a flare gun out an open window to divert heat-seeking missiles was comical. What would happen to your hand if you held it out a window at mach two speed? You'd lose your grip on the gun and get a broken arm. The passengers were unintentionally hilarious, as was the interior of the plane. The sophisticated French woman coming on to slobby George Kennedy was like Jackie Kennedy coming on to Ernest Borgnine. Ain't gonna happen. Susan Blakely, a talented and unappreciated actress, did not get any points on her resume for this one. Neither did Robert Wagner. This movie was so lousy it seemed surreal. | negative |
so if a guy meets you and he says 'I want you to look at my erection!' don't be alarmed, maybe he wants you to look at the film he made about how his house was to be built. yes! that's the only thing what happens in this movie! it's like the worst Warholian BEEP I ever saw! it's like filming the inside of your toilet before you flush it, in fact, it's less interesting to look at than that.<br /><br />but if you do watch Lennon's Erection, be warned that he put a lot of background noise in it too. I mean, really, it's as if the building is being attacked by space mutants from hell or something! in the meanwhile, the building in progress is growing up as an erection can do too (in almost 20 minutes, what an accomplishment).<br /><br />so if someone does ask you to watch his erection, be sure he wants to videotape it all. | negative |
For avid Sci-Fi fans this movie is just what you've been waiting for. Watching this movie gets you lost into the characters, especially Riddick, the movies bad guy. This is the case where you root for the bad guy and want to see him live and win. As you watch the survivors struggle to stay alive you long to see who lives and how they survive these unknown creatures that have taken over this planet. An excellent movie, Vin Diesel did a wonderful job as convict Riddick and the acting and suspense were ravishing.A+ | positive |
Two kinds of movies we like are (1) westerns, and (2) movies from 30 or 40 years ago. We ought to have liked A Man Called Sledge; BUT.....<br /><br />BUT... this picture is disagreeable, annoying and stupid from start to finish. Since there is nobody in the story (good or bad) to warm up to, there is nobody to motivate the necessary suspense to keep the viewer interested. No camaraderie among the guys trying to steal the gold, and no camaraderie among those trying to protect it. Sledge has a pretty girl friend, but there's no reason why she slobbers all over the guy or why she wants to be in the same room with this no-account pig.<br /><br />The film also suffers from an intrusive and gawdawful musical score, and from extremely bad writing and direction by Vic Morrow.<br /><br />Of the last 30 older movies rented from Netflix or Video Vault, this was the rock bottom, the only true dud in the bunch. | negative |
If you've ever wanted to see a film that stresses style over substance, this is for you. To me, Son de Mar is beautiful to SEE, but there's precious little substance, unless mawkish, melodramatic, manipulative love yarns turn you on. This may be one of those famous 'chick flicks' you've heard so much about. <br /><br />We're about half-way through this film before anything really happens: Ulises (Jordi Molla) goes out to sea looking for tuna, and doesn't come back, leaving his wife Martina (Leonor Watling) and son to fend for themselves. Then, in a furious six minutes of screen time, they bury Ulises, Martina gets married again, and her son grows into mid-childhood. This rapid transposition is jarring, to say the least, and very sloppy: after 40 minutes of more or less hanging around, we're suddenly into a full-blown melodrama, all in six minutes. I think this is called wayward narrative pacing.<br /><br />Five years later, Ulises (as in the wandering superhero Ulysses; get it?), returns to his 'Penelope' (Watling) only to find she's married to Sierra (Eduard Fernandez), an inexplicably wealthy guy (what does he DO to earn all that dough?) who inexplicably keeps crocodiles as pets. When Martina, in great anger, questions Ulises about his absence, he tells her that he'll take her to the island of Sumatra someday and she'll understand EVERYTHING.<br /><br />And here's the thing: he DOESN'T take her to the island of Sumatra. The reference just dies somewhere in the script. He DOESN'T really explain where he was and why he ignored his wife and child for five years. He DOESN'T acquit himself as an honourable guy, and the movie DOESN'T fill in the plot holes that are staring at us for at least half of the film. I can only assume that director Bigas Luna wants us to fill in the story lines with the mystical clues (fish, reptiles, the sea) he offers through breathtaking cinematography and evasive dialogue. It just doesn't work. The narrative 'arc' on this film ends up looking more like a wobbly clothesline.<br /><br />I'm sure Jordi Molla is a good actor, but I just couldn't buy his Ulises as any kind of hero (which is what the original Ulysses was supposed to be). With moist sensuality, he spouts a short stanza of identical poetry from Virgil roughly 2,000 times and each and every time it excites Martina to explosive orgasm. This guy should be rented out to reinvigorate stale marriages. I'm sure Virgil would be impressed. He didn't get laid that often, as I understand it. <br /><br />This poetic 'device' figures prominently in the film, and I had no choice but to assume it was a gender reversal of Ulysses' famous 'siren song' (i.e. beautiful maidens singing seductively to far-off sailors, who were doomed if they answered the, well, siren call). If this is what Bigas Luna is up to, you can see the problem -- he's offering convoluted symbolism in a snatch-and-grab attempt at High Art. Once again, it just doesn't work, at least in my eyes.<br /><br />Watling is a beautiful and magnetic young actor, but she gives us a character here who doesn't seem to have much intellectual or even romantic depth. It's beyond me how she could desperately fall in love with a guy who sports a for-rent sign on his face (as in vacant), oily 1960s-style hair that looks more like seaweed, and one of those trendy 21st-century 'beards' (you know, four days' growth, no more, no less). He's SUPPOSED to be a dreamy kind of guy (I think), but those eyes of his suggest he might be suffering more from overexposure to a preposterous script. <br /><br />But, don't despair, this film is great to look at. Just don't try to connect the dots on the red herrings or think too much about what you're hearing in the way of dialogue. You can do a lost of fast-forwarding on this film (particularly in the first 40 minutes) and you really won't miss much. | negative |
Sometimes a premise starts out good, but because of the demands of having to go overboard to meet the demands of an audience suffering from attention-deficit disorder, it devolves into an incongruous mess. And for three well-respected actors who have made better work before and after, this is a mortal shame.<br /><br />So let's see. Premise: a loving couple who lives in a beautiful home is threatened by a bad cop. Interesting to say the least. Make the encroaching cop a little disturbing, why not. It was well done in THE HAND WHO ROCKS THE CRADLE and SINGLE WHITE FEMALE, and it's a proved ticket to a successful thriller.<br /><br />Now herein lies the dilemma. Create a disturbing story that actually bothers to bring some true menace into its main characters while never going so far as to look ridiculous, or throw any semblance to reality, amp up the shock factor, and make this cop so extreme -- an ultra bad variation of every other super-villain that's hit cinemas since the silent age.<br /><br />The producers, and directors, chose the latter. Thus is the resulting film -- badly made, with actors trying their darnedest to make heads or tails in roles that they've essayed before, and nothing much amounting to even less. | negative |
William H. Macy is brilliant as Everyman caught in a desperate situation. Starts off with a bang and never lets up. Twists and surprises are fresh, unpredictable. Use of film noir clips and frequent quotes and references to 30's and 40's flicks makes this a delightful "must" for movie buffs. | positive |
Man about the house is a true situation comedy in every sense of the word. The comedy concerns a character called Robin Tripp (played by the great Richard O' Sullivan) who finds himself after a wild party, ending up at the home of two ladies called Jo and Chrissy. Ironically the party was held to say goodbye to their old flatmate. The obvious ends up happening as he moves in.<br /><br />Man about the house was a pre-cursor to Cooke and Mortimer's spin off show George and Mildred which featured the 2 characters who were landlords to Jo, Chrissy and Robin. These two characters would actually turn out to be the linchpins of man about the house with Mildred (the late and much missed Yootha Joyce) in particular getting some of the best lines of the series. A semi-regular character was Larry (Doug Fisher) a useless person who was always on the scrounge and only ever came round when he wanted to borrow something (and never to return it).<br /><br />The American's did a version called three's company but it doesn't stand a chance when compared to this far funnier original. Thames took a risk in producing a comedy about a man sharing a flat with 2 women at a very conservative time but they should worry as the ratings at the time suggest that around 20 million people just wanted to watch a good old fashioned bit of comedy with inspired casting and a sharp script. What a pity modern comedy can't reach that high standard.<br /><br />This programme is available on network DVD | positive |
Adrian has just gone out of the asylum, being rich and with no parents, his life seems empty. One day, he meets Gonzalo, a poor boy whom mother is prostitute. Desperate for earning some money, Gonzalo helps Adrian to search about his life and who where his parents. This is a movie from a new director, and it is perfectly clear in most of the film: scenes not correctly directed, dialogues a little forced, some incoherences in the script...Anyway, the ending is unexpectedly well done (well, just a little) and that saves a little the film. Actors are known and with great quality, nevertheless, they are not inspired enough to make the movie interesting; all of them have done better papers in other film. The film results boring and probably you will spend most of the time thinking how much time will pass until it ends. Of course there are lots of worse films, but, sure, there are many many better ones. | negative |
A quite easy to watch tale of 2 thieves, with that love/hate type relationship between them. Chrisopher Walken stars and is very good as the silent rogue with a scam bigger than he's letting on. | positive |
Its such a shame that an important film like this is virtually unknown.<br /><br />I don't think Alan Bates has done a better film than this.<br /><br />Its never shown on television. The only time I can recall it being shown on British TV was in the summer of 1998. I have it on tape but sadly the quality isn't great due to a dodgy aerial at the time...<br /><br />I remember wanting to see this film for some time before it appeared on TV. It was shown on Channel 4 in the early hours of the morning, thereby ensuring that it still remained unseen except for a very small audience.<br /><br />I was living in Bristol at the time and it was ironic that, when I finally saw the film, I realised that I had walked past the VERY house where it was filmed several times before!! The film treads a fine line; a married couple attempting to make light of their tragic predicament of coping with their severely mentally handicapped daughter by laughing about it and even involving the child in their jokes.<br /><br />The direction and the acting are so superb that the film is always compassionate and moving and is never in danger of lapsing into bad taste.<br /><br />A couple of years ago I saw a clip of the filmed theatre production with Eddie Izzard in the role of Bri and Victoria Hamilton playing Sheila.<br /><br />It showed Izzard improvising and larking about and Hamilton jokingly telling the audience to ignore him when he's being like this.<br /><br />I maybe taking this out of context as I only saw a brief clip but having read the play and seen the film this is clearly such a delicate subject that such an approach is both insensitive and disrespectful.<br /><br />Izzard was praised for his performance but I felt uncomfortable with what I saw.<br /><br />It is perhaps surprising that such a successful play failed to find an audience when it was finally filmed.<br /><br />This is one of the best British films of the 70s and hopefully it will be released on DVD one day. | positive |
This movie is a terrible attempt at a spoof. Its attempts to parody various sports movies are half-baked and not at all funny.<br /><br />Even things that should be funny - like the female kicker from India who's always wearing traditional dress over her uniform - aren't really funny. The fact that the football team studies and gets good grades which makes the coach mad didn't get any laughs either.<br /><br />The plot of having a traditional loser get one more chance by coaching a loser high school football team really had potential as a spoof. It's a classic and trite sports theme. But alas, the screenplay was too weak for ANY cast to pull it off. And this cast is no exception.<br /><br />There is gratuitous use of women in bikinis and underwear, so it's not all bad from that aspect.<br /><br />But Animal House or Talladega Nights, this is not. | negative |
This is a film that left me breathless........ wanting to learn more of the Afghan history and traditions. With todays "evil doer" mantra clouding reality, it was inspirational to experience the beauty of the people and their beliefs.<br /><br />Casting was impeccable, the scenery simply marvelous. The acting was first rate and the fact that the Academy overlooked this (except it's music) is unforgivable.<br /><br />The script is wonderful and such and emotional journey. Provoking an "ugly cry" from this watcher.<br /><br />A film worth watching a second and third time. | positive |
<br /><br />Crackerjack, starring Mick Malloy & Judith Lucy - both part of the cast in the early 90's Saturday night comedy show "The Late Show", Bill Hunter, an Australian movie icon and John Clarke, who we still see regularly on Australian TV along side Brian Dawe.<br /><br />Crackerjack, losely is about a guy in his early 30's (Jack Simpson, played by Mick Malloy) who pays his yearly memebership at the local bowls club in order to get a few car park spaces for which he uses himself and rents out to others as cheap inner city parking.<br /><br />The club falls on hard times, and pulls all the resources and memebers together it can, Jack gets a phone call telling him to turn up to next Saturday's bowls match or lose his membership (and conseqently his car park space)<br /><br />I wont spoil the rest, but the film is funny, light hearted and contains everything a good aussie film should.<br /><br />If your not Australian, then some of the jokes and humour will no doubt baffle you, if you are an Aussie - do yourself a favor and sit yourself down to Crackerjack.. Its now available on DVD, I already have my copy!<br /><br />10/10.. Awesome flick!<br /><br /> | positive |
My favourite movie of all time. This was a flawed piece of work by Coppola and seeing the documentary 'Heart of Darkness' made it even more compelling. Coppola at this point was king of Hollywood after making 'the Godfather' and 'GodfatherII' and had developed the ego necessary to even dare try to make a movie like 'Apocalypse Now'. Through sheer arrogance he went to the Phillipines with a partial script and thought he would know what he would do when he got there. Just as Captain Willard thought he would know what to do once he got to Col. Kurtz's compound. And just like Willard, he DIDN'T know what he was going to do once he got there. This is such a masterpiece of American cinema, beautifully photographed and the river is such a perfect metaphor and backdrop for the story. What I like most about 'Apocalypse Now' is that it offers no answers or conclusions. Consequently, because of this open-endedness, it infuriates some viewers who like their movies to be much more obvious. <br /><br />This movie defies categorization. Some call it a war movie which it isn't at all, really it is more of a personal study of man. The best pic about Vietnam is 'Platoon' in my opinion and if a viewer is seeking a retelling of the Vietnam War go there first for answers. <br /><br />Coppola should be commended for his take on the bureaucracy of war which he conveys quite effectively with the meeting with Gen.Corman and Lucas (Harrison Ford) and the Playmate review. The sheer audacity of Kilgore makes him an unforgettable character and the dawn attack will always be a Hollywood classic.<br /><br />It is an almost psychedelic cruise to a very surreal ending which makes it a movie not accessible to everyone. Very challenging to watch but rewarding as well. I could offer my explanations on each scene but that would be totally pointless. This movie is intended for interpretation and contemplation as opposed to immediate gratification.<br /><br />A little footnote, definitely if your a first-time viewer of Apocalypse Now, watch the original version first, the 'Redux' version is, I think, more intended for the hardcore fan and is more of a curiosity than a 'new and improved' version of the movie | positive |
I really wanted to like this film and I don't think I was terribly disappointed. Being an American History teacher, I felt an obligation, almost, to see this film and as far as the history went, it wasn't bad. Sure there were a few mistakes here and there (especially with the timeline--the movie only appeared to last a few months or perhaps a year--not over six years of actual fighting), but the overall spirit of the film and the battle sequences were excellent. Unfortunately, the movie ALSO included a pretty meaningless subplot involving a difficult to believe romance between a poor patriot and a rich Loyalist. For the most part, it really served to distract from the overall plot and just seemed "tacked on"--like a plot device instead of a real honest-to-goodness romance. In fact, as much of the romance boiled down to the dumb cliché of "love at fist sight", it was kind of annoying the more I think about it.<br /><br />However, in spite of this romance, the film is truly interesting and inspiring---plus, in so many ways it seems as if the much later film, THE PATRIOT, was copied from this Griffith film!!! Both films followed the exploits of an evil leader fighting for the British and using horrible and evil tactics against the civilians--and both having the secret intention of using this as a "springboard" to starting their OWN nation in the America!!! The only major difference is that this film is set in the North and THE PATRIOT was in the Carolinas. It sure would have been nice if Mel Gibson and the rest had acknowledged their debt to D. W. Griffith for the story ideas. It just doesn't seem all that likely that the two stories were created independently of each other.<br /><br />PS--Despite me liking this film and some other of Griffith's films, he DOES deserve to once again "burn in hell" for his having White actors portray all the Black servants in the film! This is a sick and bigoted thing that Griffith did in so many of his films--especially in BIRTH OF A NATION. I gotta assume based on this and the way he portrays Blacks that he was A-OK with slavery and was quite the apologist for this "quaint institution" (don't get mad at me--this IS meant as sarcasm). | positive |
Julie Brown hilariously demolishes Madonna's attempt at a rockumentary with gut ripping humor and truly original and catchy songs that rival Madonna's own. Cinematography and sets are top notch.<br /><br />Kathy Griffin and Chris Elliott offer their own injections of comedy that enhances and compliments this film. Appearances by Bobcat Goldthwait and Wink Martindale, as themselves, is an added bonus.<br /><br />It's hard to tell if Brown's performance is meant to insult or playfully tease Madonna, though I hardly think the Material Girl would find humor in it.<br /><br />My Favorite line: "Why don't you come here (to the Phillipines); all they eat is dog and I'm a vegetarian." | positive |
Highly flawed but just about watchable `comedy' that runs like a Farrelly brothers reject. The most criminal thing about it though is the casting. I couldn't for one minute believe Jerry O Connell and Jake Busey in the role of superstuds, who could pull any woman at the drop of a hat, nor could I believe (the very beautiful) Shannon Elizabeth as a streetwise tough cop!. Story is predictable but does manage to raise a titter on a few occasions, although, the `gross out', meant to be `shock comic' scenes, (one involving an amputated testicle, and another set in a sperm bank) are just plain awful. If this film is on TV then its probably worth watching if you are extremely bored, but please don't waste your money renting it!! | negative |
I have seen this film probably a dozen times since it was originally released theatrically. Anyone who calls this movie trash or horrible just doesn't understand action films or recognize a good one. Perhaps to some the incidents and outcomes may seem far fetched, but in my opinion screenwriter Shane Black ( Lethal Weapon/ Kiss Kiss Bang Bang) crafted one of the most well thought out action adventures you will ever come across. Over the top or not this film flows like clockwork and the action just keeps coming. The final action sequence is one of the best I have ever seen in any film. The cast in this film crackles. Genna Davis gave a tremendous performance and its a damn shame there was never a "LKG" sequel. Samuel L. Jackson is hilarious as her sidekick Mitch a down on his luck private eye trying to help her discover her lost past and make a few bucks. If Baffles me how anyone could not like this film. It packs so many thrills and its so funny. The wisecracks in this film still make me laugh just as hard 10 years later. In my mind the first Matrix film and the Long Kiss Goodnight were easily 2 of the best and most original action flicks of the 90's. Incidentally Shane Black made a fortune when he sold this script. At the time it was the highest selling screenplay and its worth every penny. It's so sad that audiences never gave this movie a chance, cause they would have witnessed Renny Harlins best film and Genna Davis like you have never seen her before. Long live "The Long Kiss Goodnight"!! | positive |
I never comment on a film, but I have to say that this was one of the worst films that I have ever seen. I feel it was made by a beginner film student and not to put down talented film students, but this was horrible! I did not buy the lead actress and felt I was in acting class with her while she was on film. Her decisions were very safe and I feel she was mimicking other actresses in films and not acting and making her own decisions. The direction was very confusing and the sound was louder than the actors themselves. The end may have made a little more sense if there was someone narrating the events and not a song. I love Patsy Cline but she her songs appear quite frequently in films. Maybe the song selection could have been a little more original. The song "crazy" was such a cliché. As I said before I never comment on films and have seen my share of good and bad, but this was the worst. Sorry. | negative |
If Edward Woodward was the the flicks watching this film then that's what he would scream out in horror. <br /><br />I'm sorry folks but enough's enough. We had Get Carter, The Italian Job, Alfie and now this. What's the similarities? No. It's not exactly a coincidence that three of the originals star Maurice Micklewhite and the other stars another great British actor. The main common ingredient in those originals IS the britishness of the films. They weren't made to impress Hollywood. They were quirky English films with a unique charm/atmosphere that just cannot be replicated in the USA. The word is CULT and what better way to destroy a cult film than to bastardise it with a remake or even a sequel. <br /><br />Wicker 06 had a tough task before it even hit the road. Wicker 73 is even more enigmatic that other said cult films; it defies genre, intelligent scripts, A-grade actors, the music score, set-pieces that defy description and all the stories surrounding the film.<br /><br />So here comes a remake. Don't worry. No originals were harmed in the making of this remake. Some major aspects of the story needed to be reworked for the modern USA - communications, paganism, virgins. But that's just about the whole premise. So we give the cop a Nam style trauma past complete with shock music flashbacks for the cheap scares. Then with no mobile phone mast on the island that sorts the communication out - but in the real world this wouldn't happen. Cops just don't go missing. Give him a blood link for motivation rather than the clash of beliefs and you have the remake. Wafer thin though, isn't it?<br /><br />It's just that it was all laid on with a trowel. The name alterations were simply hammy, almost Carry On, there was no sense of community on the island, no centre of town to catch your bearings, just a few houses dotted about a forest and that was it. Willow was just annoying by not giving out any info at all and Cage was useless to let her get away with it. When he went into the well you just knew he would get locked it. The screenplay was signposted all the way to the end - and you just wanted it to hurry up and end. The epilogue was absolutely hilarious and didn't know when to stop. <br /><br />That ending is probably the best way to summarise the difference between the two. One ends in the most beautiful sunset after the most horrific day. The other ends with a post-production explain-it-all-to-the-thickies type conclusion.<br /><br />I loved the original but went to the cinema with an open mind and was excited to see the film. I left thankful in the knowledge that this film will probably end up beneath a highway somewhere only this time mercifully forgotten forever. | negative |
Warning--this film has some amazingly graphic images and should never be seen by kids.<br /><br />The artist who this story is all about was indeed a fine Korean painter who rose up from the lowest depths to become their greatest painter. Unfortunately, in so many ways, this guy was also a jerk in so many ways. Some of this was the artistic temperament and what may have seemed annoying was just his demanding nature when it came to art. But, other times he was simply a drunk jerk--especially when he was on his way to becoming a great artist. Late in the film, his being annoying, abrasive and needlessly cruel seemed to have diminished. While all this didn't make him a particularly nice man, it is important to capture on film so we understand a lot about the nature of the artist.<br /><br />I really found the movie fascinating and loved how the artists actual works were shown throughout the movie (like in LUST FOR LIFE). I really wish I could show this to my students (I teach at a school for the arts), but can't because there is just too much adult material. Yes there is nudity, but even more problematic for any audience (particularly younger ones) is when he,....hmmm,...I don't think IMDb will even let me describe what occurred, but it was very graphic and involves bodily fluids. Not only a nasty and disgusting scene that did NOT need to be seen, but a reason to keep junior from watching this otherwise wonderful film. It's a real shame. | positive |
I was the Production Accountant on this movie, and I also got to do some voice-over work on it, so I'm not entirely unbiased, but if it were awful, I would say so. I thought it was a fun film, not a critically acclaimed masterpiece, by any means, but there were plenty of laughs along the way. The Bible states that laughter does good like a medicine, so watching this movie could be good for your health.<br /><br />So many of the actors in this picture hadn't yet reached their peak at the time we made this film. Susan Sarandon, of course, is one who has since gone on to much greater fame. Melanie Mayron was seen on TV on a weekly basis as a photographer in the "Thirty-Something" TV drama series. Robert Englund later became known as Freddie Krueger, still haunting people's dreams. One of my personal favorite actors on this show was Dub Taylor, who played the sheriff. He was an excellent comedic actor, and a truly nice, sincere person. We all had fun working on this show, and I think that fun comes through. | positive |
I suppose it depends on when one actually sees the movie for the first time that their impression is formed the way it is.<br /><br />I saw it as a child on TV back in 1973, when it was "The Stranger" and I loved it. Such was the time when the space program to the moon was a reality, when shows like "Search", "UFO", and "6M$ Man" were showing a child of 12 of what the world could hold in their future. Adventure and technology.<br /><br />You got to see shows only once and that was when the network aired them. The only way people could slash your shows was by making their own parody of it; they didn't get to take your show and add in their own comments over it.<br /><br />I did not know what this concept of a "pilot" was. I saw the movie and was hoping thru out that Stryker would get home; did not know that there was a possibility of it continuing beyond two hours.<br /><br />Back then, would I understood what so many people hate about the movie now? I doubt it because I don't remember it as such. Do I understand now? Not really for to understand the story, one must not see it from their perspective but rather from that of the characters in the movie.<br /><br />If one is watching as an American, it might be humorous about the lack of security in a police state.....but if one is a subject in that state, then compliance could be expected and security can be less. When things are suppose to be perfect, perfect to an extreme degree, perfect that one is not suppose to doubt, then one is not likely to question as quickly when things are out of order.<br /><br />The subplots of the movie are interesting such as the old man who remembers the time before but watches his words since he suspects that there are spies everywhere. Or that the police state values knowledge to some extent for they are careful about how they control or harm their brain power.<br /><br />These days, one is likely to know exactly what the movie is about before they see it, so much of the suspense, surprise is lost. But the duet between the astronaut and his doctor at the beginning of the movie is a perfect exchange if one considers that this movie was made well into the Cold War and the astronaut's biggest fear is that he has crashed in the USSR. One gets quite a distance into the movie before it becomes apparent that such a possibility is the least of his concerns.<br /><br />This is the primary difference between "The Stranger" and "Doppelganger". The latter can be considered timeless since any comments it has about the USSR are comparatively minor and lost early on in the movie. In the former, those links are through out the movie, supposedly directly in the beginning and then as a theme variation after wards.<br /><br />All that said, despite my fond memory for the movie, it is rather easy to see that it would not have made it as a series. Each week, Stryker would make friends, Benedict would chase, Stryker would get away. Eventually, Benedict's society would get rid of him. Someone else would pick up the chase. A rut would develop. There might be a jab at something new such as perhaps another crew member from Stryker's mission showing up, but it probably would not be enough to keep the show going.<br /><br />If one goes in with the knives that others have used to slash the movie, odds are they will slash it as well. But if one remembers that this was made during the Cold War and what fears and estimations of the other side were during that time, of what the popular environment contained for the viewer, then they may find some entertaining and intellectual themes in it. | positive |
Beethovan Lives Upstairs is a very bad movie. In my World History class, our teacher had us watch this movie and Amadeus to be able to compare the two composers or something. We watched Amadeus first and it was a very good movie, but when she had us watch this movie directly after that, I couldn't believe what I was seeing. The acting was horrific, the costumes were ugly (the little boy's was especially ugly and girlish), and the cinematography was z-grade. My Friend compared it to a home movie without the date display in the bottom right corner. I understand this was a T.V. movie from Canada and probably cost $10 to make, but please, they could have done better. I have seen a few good T.V. movies in my time, but this was not one of them. The biggest thing that I don't understand is why my World History class couldn't just watch Immortal Beloved or something. How is it possible to compare composers when given the movie Amadeus, for Mozart, and Beethovan Lives Upstairs, for Beethovan? It's not possible to do that when this is the choice of movie for Beethovan. I give Amadeus an A- (9 out of 10) if anyone cares to know, but Beethovan Lives Upstairs gets an F (1 out of 10). | negative |
When I decided to try watching a movie about cryogenic zombies ("cryonoids"), I wasn't expecting a whole lot. That's exactly what I got, and then even less. Aside from a shortage of special effects (squibs?) and a severe lack of any acting talent, "The Chilling" also sports the absolute worst script I've ever seen made into a movie. I had to stop the tape numerous times during the first 45 minutes in order to repair the damage done to my intellect for witnessing such atrocious dialogue as there is found here.<br /><br />Furthermore, the collection of characters is so formulaic and one-dimensional it's ridiculous: the corrupt doctor; his assistant, played by Linda Blair (we know she's his "assistant" because he repeatedly refers to her by that title); the recently-widowed businessman with a heart of gold who develops a romantic interest with Blair's character; his criminal son; the Blair character's alcoholic, abusive, unemployed boyfriend, whom we are introduced to in the most contrived use of a flashback; and, of course, the rough, tough, bearded security guard who becomes the hero.<br /><br />Apparently, the preserving fluid which some cryogenics lab uses on its bodies is highly conductive, naturally resulting in disaster when all of the lab's containers end up outdoors in a remarkable sequence of events during a lightning storm (on Halloween night, no less). As for the zombies themselves, if you enjoy watching people in green latex masks walking around in aluminum foil suits, then "The Chilling" is the movie for you. The zombie action is very weak at its best; the zombies' primary killing method seems to be grabbing people by the shoulders and shaking them to death. The businessman and the security guard do most of the zombie fighting, including a highly suspenseful scene of re-freezing the undead with liquid nitrogen. Let me tell you, the steel mill scene in "T2" has got nothing on "The Chilling" in portraying an enemy getting frozen in his tracks like that.<br /><br />How Linda Blair ended up stuck in the middle of this piece of dreck is indeed a mystery. True, her career didn't exactly skyrocket during the 80s (sadly), but this movie is an embarrassment for her. The script doesn't even have the decency to put her to any good use. The most that her character is given to do is shriek out things like "Here they come", "Do something", "Hurry!". The only thing I can figure is that poor Linda was compensated for her work on this film in rations of food. The hero is played by Grizzly Adams himself, Dan Haggerty. In this picture, he faces stiff acting competition from his beard and the security dog, and he does his best to outperform them both.<br /><br />The only frightening part of "The Chilling" is the introduction which brings up the factual elements of cryogenics and suggests that "the film you are about to see could happen in your own community". As I was counting the number of times a few of the names are repeated in the closing credits, I was floored to suddenly see Lucasfilm get credited. Fortunately, it was only for the movie's sound production. 1/10. | negative |
I really wanted to be able to give this film a 10. I've long thought it was my favorite of the four modern live-action Batman films to date (and maybe it still will be--I have yet to watch the Schumacher films again). I'm also starting to become concerned about whether I'm somehow subconsciously being contrarian. You see, I always liked the Schumacher films. As far as I can remember, they were either 9s or 10s to me. But the conventional wisdom is that the two Tim Burton directed films are far superior. I had serious problems with the first Burton Batman this time around--I ended up giving it a 7--and apologize as I might, I just couldn't help feel that Batman Returns just has too many small direction, plot and script problems scattered throughout to justify a 10.<br /><br />But Burton _almost_ trumps the problems with sheer force of style, and even though there are a lot of small flaws, Batman Returns is still a great film, especially if you're a Burton fan, as Batman Returns has just as much in common with The Nightmare Before Christmas (1993) and Edward Scissorhands (1990) as it does with anything else in the Batman universe.<br /><br />The film begins strongly, with the Cobblepots having a baby. We see their dismay--people walk out of the birthing room with horror on their faces, ready to vomit. Later, they have the baby in a small cage. Finally they take it out for an evening stroll and dump it in the Gotham City River. The baby ends up becoming Batman villain The Penguin (Danny DeVito).<br /><br />Meanwhile, Max Shreck (Christopher Walken) is the film's "evil capitalist", comparable to Grissom (Jack Palance) in Batman. He is planning on duping Gotham City in various ways, and we see him emotionally abusing his secretary, the timid Selina Kyle (Michelle Pfeiffer). When Kyle discovers one of the nefarious plots, Grissom tries to get rid of her, but she is rescued by cats, becoming Catwoman.<br /><br />While all of this is going on, The Penguin, who has long been only rumored to exist and who is thought to be dangerous, begins a scheme to be presented to the public as a good guy, despite having less than benevolent, ulterior motives.<br /><br />Before re-watching Burton's Batman films this time, I didn't remember just how little the films are about Batman (Michael Keaton). It's almost as if Burton didn't feel the character was interesting enough to focus on. The focus here is much more on the villains, especially The Penguin. Batman doesn't appear very often, especially in the beginning of the film, and surprisingly often, we're watching him watching The Penguin.<br /><br />Although some viewers necessarily count the above as a flaw, I can't say that I do, even if I'd like to know more about Batman and follow his story more. The villains' stories are interesting, too, and as an "origin story" for two major Batman villains, Batman Returns is already more than complex in terms of plot.<br /><br />However, there are some character problems that I do count as a flaw. The Penguin has a cadre of circus performers who do his bidding, but even though they're frequently on screen, we never get to learn anything about them. Burton has a core of characters as intriguing as those in Tod Browning's Freaks (1932) available, with actors as interesting as Vincent Schiavelli, but he just doesn't have the space to use them.<br /><br />For that matter, he hardly has space to explore Catwoman. The film plays as if Catwoman may have been as developed and featured in as many scenes as The Penguin, but that cut of the film would have been 4 hours long. So the bulk of the Catwoman scenes had to be excised. Of course, all of this barely leaves any room for Batman. Burton has Batman turn very dark in the public's eye in this film, and unusually, he never bothers to resolve this. As far as we know, at the end, Gothamites still think that Batman is a murdering lunatic. That's an interesting development, but unfortunately it ended up being dropped between this film and the next.<br /><br />As for the script, although there are minor problems including some non-sequiturs and bizarre decisions (in terms of logic) made by characters, it's clear that Burton and writers Sam Hamm and Daniel Waters are not exactly trying to tell a traditional story. A lot of the dialogue is pun-oriented, but often this is fairly subtle and/or complex (of course, sometimes it is very blatant or transparent, too). It helps to look at Batman Returns as a more "poetic" film, as I believe was the intention. This also carries over into more general plot and directorial decisions--plenty of odd character actions, including from minor characters, are done in service of a general mood or style, and that style works very well.<br /><br />"Dark" is the easiest way to sum up Batman Returns in a word, and whether that's a positive or negative depends on your disposition. Anyone who knows me knows that I love dark. So for me, Burton's style largely transcends the flaws in the plot and the script. In many ways, Batman Returns is like an insane, campy horror film, with beautifully eerie production design. Like Batman, Burton is still making many references to other films, but instead of Vertigo (1958) and Star Wars (1977) (well, there's still a slight Star Wars reference), he invokes films like Nosferatu (1922) (including that "Max Schreck" was the name of the actor who played the Dracula-like character there), Motel Hell (1980), the aforementioned Freaks, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (1971) (which has a surreal, dark edge to it) and zombie films--made most explicit in The Penguin's final scene.<br /><br />In terms of visuals and general atmosphere--and that includes the general "feel" of the story, the characters and so on--this couldn't be a stronger 10. | positive |
We have an average family. Dad's a famous rapper, we have the "rebelious teenage daughter", the adopted white kid, and the cute little kid. And we have careless housemaid, what show has had a housemaid like that? Do we have a messed-up Brady Bunch? Yay! When it first came out I thought it was really cool, mostly because I was young. The music was bad. The raps were so bad and they were too g-rated. All of his raps were about his family and friends and problems. The dad was kind of the "Danny from Full House" type of dad. Always gave the advice out. But he wasn't a clean freak. They had a house-keeper for that. Remember? The plots were basically Lil' Romeo was in trouble of some sort, or... not that's it. Oh and maybe some preteen drama. Yeah that stuff is good. Not really. But its still a good show for kids. But Nikelodean could do better. | negative |
"Sir" John Gielgud must have become senile to star in a mess of a movie like this one.;<br /><br />This is one of those films, I suppose, that is considered "art," but don't be fooled.....it's garbage. Stick to the "art" you can admire in a frame because the films that are labeled as such are usually unintelligible forgeries like this.<br /><br />In this masterpiece, Giegud recites Shakespeare's "The Tempest" while the camera pans away to nude people. one of them a little kid urinating in a swimming pool. Wow, this is heady stuff and real "art," ain't it?? That's just one example. Most of the story makes no sense, is impossible to follow and, hence, is one that Liberal critics are afraid to say they didn't "understand" so they give it high marks to save their phony egos. You want Shakespeare? Read his books. | negative |
Apparently I am swimming against the tide of the glowing comments on this film. I have not seen it since I was 4 or 5 years old but there is one thing I remember distinctly...<br /><br />The Bunyip was TERRIFYING!!! Nightmare inducing terrifying. With the creepy music and the little girl and kangaroo running/hopping away for their lives...<br /><br />As a kid I also remember the animated Hobbit... no worries. Watership down? Didn't blink an eye. Dot and the Kangaroo? It still haunts my dreams. And I have several friends the same age who also think it was massively creepy. Maybe we can get a group rate on therapy.<br /><br />In short: one freaky film for its time. | negative |
Some bad reviews here for this and I understand why but treat it as a low budget serial killer film and you might get more from it than most.<br /><br />I thought that this worked in a way because afterwards I felt dirty and wanted to take a long shower so that is some degree of success isn't it?<br /><br />I would say there is just the right level of sleaze here to get under your skin although the acting is maybe a bit too uneven. David Hess is only in this brielfy so don not get your hopes up to much if you like Last House.<br /><br />Other than that - worth a look. | positive |
The core issues at play (God & Satan / Good & Evil) can be & should be tremendously compelling (as demonstrated through thousands of works of art/music/literature/film). End of Days, unfortunately, is nothing but a 2Dimensional Cartoon. Byrne's acting ability stands so obviously in sharp contrast to Arnold's corresponding lack of ability and is further underlined by a plot filled with nothing but stereotypes.<br /><br />The single compelling scene occurs at the very beginning with the transformation of the Gabriel Byrne character and his subsequent interaction with his wife? girlfriend? It is both erotically charged & repellent -- modernizing the vampirish themes, the seductive power of evil. | negative |
I have to say this is one of the best movie i have seen so far for naruto. the action was a lot better then the first movie because it had a lot more fight scene and it came to u at a faster pace. it was amazing, the choreograph was excellent as well as most of the visual effects.<br /><br />the story line is something new to naruto. but it is basically the same as the first movie. in the series u see them fight against other ninjas,but in the movies (1+2) u see them fighting against machine of mass destruction. it is nice to see them fighting something other then ninja, and that it was great to see some other power other then chakra. and how other people from other land across the ocean fight. also sakura finally killed someone that is more stronger then her. (she have truly become strong) it was a lot better then the fillers on the series that i'm watching now. when u watch this movie the fast action scene will surely make your heart pound. With new jutsus and garra in the movie, u know it is good. and the music was good as well, but i find it to be lacking something. But the ending theme song was a plus. (dind dong dang) i think was a really good song. I totally recommend it.<br /><br />all in all i give this movie a 10, because i just love it. if u do decide to watch it, enjoy it. lol | positive |
I'm guessing that we all, no matter if we are fans of cars, luv the sound of a Dodge Challenger as it growls along the road, the noise a 57 Chevy make as it screams with ecstasy when it tears round a corner and, most of all, the blast of sound as a classic vehicle bursts into flames as it explodes. I'm not the biggest car enthusiast by any stretch of the imagination, but any of the above really does rev my engine! There's no denying the importance of transport on cinema. It has even been said that the invention of the train was one of the biggest influences on early cinema (looking out a window almost like a moving picture and the idea of being transported to a different time/space). But the car remains the most popular and most luved, it's even got its own genre: the carsploitation genre. A genre that focuses purely on the beauty of cars. In effect, it's just porn! Car porn! And I'm not talking about that rather nasty documentary on Channel 4 in which men actually had sexual intercourse with cars. Whatever floats your...car, I guess. Moving on... whilst RUNNING ON EMPTY isn't quite as pornographic as VANISHING POINT (Richard C. Sarafian, 1971) for instance, with its close ups of the car in motion, all it's bumps and curves (!), this doesn't mean that the car isn't the main focus of this film. In fact, the cars themselves become characters (more on that later). They're objectified and fetishised as much as the women, in fact, maybe even more. And holy holy, are these cars something! Every car in this film (besides the ones in the background) are simply beautiful works of art, there's no question about it.<br /><br />As I was saying, these incredible cars are, in a way, given characters themselves. You actually start sympathising with the car! SPOILER Most notably during the scene in which the car is being wrecked and burnt SPOILER OVER. This has become almost a convention of the carsploitation genre; the evil 1978 Plymouth Fury from CHRISTINE (John Carpenter, 1983), Satan's custom Lincoln Mark III in THE CAR (Elliot Silverstein, 1977), the nifty little Mini Coopers from THE Italian JOB (Peter Collinson, 1969) to the friendly Volkswagen Beetle in THE LOVE BUG (Robert Stevenson, 1968) and of course each car from DEATH RACE 2000 (Paul Bartel, 1975) and even WACKY RACES (1968-1970) all of which had their own character. Ironically however, this emphasis on the car often over takes (!) the human characters! And this is certainly the case with RUNNING ON EMPTY, in which only one human character (the blind character who drives his car with his hearing rather than sight) has any sort of dimension, the rest are very much stock characters. These are all your stereotypical Australian 1980s teenagers; big hair, annoying accents and none of whom would look out of place in NEIGHBOURS, especially the Kylie Minouge look-a-like. But who gives a damn? It's all about the cars racing and crashing! That's it! If you don't like that you really are watching the wrong genre.<br /><br />The car scenes are certainly the selling point of this film, and the best thing it's got going for it. They are fast; very fast! And we're not talking about the rather annoying technique some films seem to use where they record the car 'speeding' at around 40mph, and then speed it up. Oooh no! Not with this film you don't. These cars are zooming along at top speeds in real time no fancy editing tricks here. So, we've got speed. Check. What about crashes? Check, check, check! Whilst there isn't cars crashing EVERYWHERE a la the incredibly BLUES BROTHERS (John Landis, 1980) , when cars do crash in this film, they certainly crash! It would seem that they use gunpowder or something similar to build the cars as one little hit and KABOOM they're up in flames. It kind of reminded me of THRILLER: A CRUEL PICTURE (Bo Arne Vibenius, 1974) in that sense.<br /><br />Between these simply awesome scenes (especially the very start and the very end) there are quite a few scenes which slow everything done and, in my opinion, fail to add very much to the film. Note: more exploding cars needed! However there are a couple of exceptions here which are great scenes SPOILER especially the attempted rape scene.<br /><br />So, all in all, this is a man's film! A boy's film! Full of cars vroom vroom vrooming around the outback and a couple of tits thrown in for good measure too. I'd recommend this little film to anyone even if they are keen cyclists (!) it's a great film which you can just switch your brain off, sit back in your leather chair and put on full volume! I'll give it 3.5 luvs out of 5 luvs Bruuuuum! P.S Amazon are selling this for just over £2 it's a real bargain although the DVD lacks any special features whatsoever. | positive |
I don't think this movie had the effect on me that was intended: seeing American soldiers shooting wounded soldiers from the other side, and punching wounded prisoners in their wounds to torture them into making them talk made me root for the other side. It certainly made the US forces look anything like "the good guys". Was this supposed to be acceptable? | negative |
Yes sure, this is a Friday the 13th rip off but I have no problem with it. It's a good effort, the killings aren't that gory but the acting of one girl carries the movie, what a scream queen, Jennifer Ritchkoff. For a low budget movie the effects are nicely done, okay, sometimes you can guess how it is done. Some people have problems with the use of the camera, I can't see what's wrong with that. It's so strange that so many people dislike this movie, I really enjoyed it. Of course the script isn't original but give me one that is, I mean, so many slashers are made in the woods. maybe it is all predictable but it's a worth see, I have seen a lot worser, I can tell you that | negative |
Up until the last few minutes of the movie, I would have given the movie a score of 7 or 8 stars. However, the ending is so terrible and "Hollywoodized" that it completely undermines the first 80% of the movie.<br /><br />The plot revolves around a submarine and the possibility that they received an order to fire their nuclear missiles. The Captain, Gene Hackman, is all for launching, while his first officer, Denzel Washington, is in favor of confirming the launch orders first. The problem is, to launch BOTH the captain and 1st officer must simultaneously use their launch keys. Hackman is determined to launch and Washington stands firm until eventually this results in armed insurrection aboard the sub. Eventually, the mistake is discovered and the missiles are not launched. Cool. However, here comes the part that just doesn't ring true. After they are back on land and go before a review board, Washington and Hackman (who'd just spent half the movie trying to kill each other) shake hands and are all buddy buddy! Huh?! Too trite an ending to make the movie worth while for me. | negative |
the acting is good.thats the positives out of the way! SOSN is shallow and superficial.Almost all the characters are middle class and English.The gay men are depicted as fickle sexual predators aiming to use children in their empty lives.This film could only appeal to people who know hampstead heath and would get minor satisfaction from pointing out any landmarks.There is no time to engage with the characters and has a result you really don,t care about them,Catherine Tate at the height of her comedic fame stars as a woman seeking a divorce from her husband and on screen for about the same time as her Nana sketches failed to convince,however if she had said "what a f****** liberty" i would have agreed <br /><br />I'd rather take a walk in the Park;unintelligent rubbish! | negative |
Like the above poster, I got burned on the title thinking I was getting the other Piranha... This movie is everything the above poster said and worse... <br /><br />Poor camera, lousy acting and just plain horrid storyline...<br /><br />There was very little here that was even worth watching... How this movie even got released is beyond me. <br /><br />Make sure the movie you buy is the one you want... and not this one.<br /><br />The movie I bought was labeled "Piranha" and not "Piranha, Piranha!" which is what it actually is... This is the only way they sold this movie at all.<br /><br />Peace Out. | negative |
For once a Barbie movie that is good. I'm 18 and a embarrassed to say this but I'm hooked on these movies. I hated Barbie when I was younger but the movies I love. Shiver is so cute and I've fallen in love with him. He's so cute as the polar bear and totally in love with Aiden. Oh man I'm in love with Shiver. I love Annika determination not to give up on hope and eventfully it works. I love this movie and hopefully they will be other good ones. Barbie & Swan Lake is other brilliant movie. I would recommend this movie to children of all ages (even boys) because the movie is that good and I'm hard to please. Barbie and the Magic of Pegasus is a movie that is enchanting and exciting. | positive |
I was pleased to see that she had black hair! I've been a fan for about 30 years now and have been disgusted at the two earlier attempts to film the stories.<br /><br />I was pleased that the screenwriters updated the period to include a computer, it didn't spoil it at all. In fact I watched the film twice in one day, a sure sign that it was up to standard. This is what I do with books that I like as well.<br /><br />I thought all the characters were well depicted and represented the early days of Modesty Blaise extremely well as evinced in both book and comic strip. I would also have to disagree with a comment made by an earlier reviewer about baddies having to be ugly. Has he actually read the books?<br /><br />I thought this was a very good film and look forward to sequels with anticipation. | positive |
There are four great movie depicting the Vietnam War. They are (in no particular order: Apocalypse Now, Born on the Fourth of July, Platoon, and finally Tigerland. All but Tigerland focus on the actual war and the men in it. Tigerland focuses on men in advanced training for the Vietnam War. The character of Boz is one of the most important depictions of a man questioning war, and the absurdity of it. This has been done in many war movies, but rarely in boot camp. Also, this is a very complex character, whose method with dealing with his feeling and emotions are the driving force of this movie. The character of Boz makes this movie so good. It is a shame it did not get a major release. It belongs on the shelf of any movie fan alongside the aforementioned movie titles. | positive |
This movie is absolutely horrible! I thought because it had good actors in it like Gabrielle Union, Hill Harper, and of course the infamous Billy D. Williams. The movie is long, and drags on with a documentary style of showing Gabrielle Union, who has died in the movie, talking about her family; which by the way is a confusing family because you never know who's who, and who's related to who. I would not recommend this movie to anyone, and I wish I could take it back where I got it from. I fell asleep from time to time because of the boredom. Do not waste your time or money on this movie. It could had been more true to life with more drama, and less boredom. | negative |
Dumbland is not for all. In fact Dumbland maybe in for nobody except Lynch and that's what make it funny and a collective cartoon. Violent? Yes. Profanity? Yes. Absurd? Yes. A piece of garbage? Never. Dumbland is a wonderful picture of some Americans that don't have brains and hit wife and kids for fun. From México I can say I love it! My favorite episodes are: 1- My teeths are bleeding, all the noise around and violence make me wanna scream and put me behind my bed. 2- Get the stick! Yeah baby get it and learn a lesson: some people never be thankful for your actions. 3- Ants. The more Lynch episode of all, music, surrealism and a very sweet revenge... | positive |
(Review in English, since Swedish is not allowed)<br /><br />I saw this movie with extremely low expectations, and I can sadly inform you that the movie barely lived up to them.<br /><br />As much as I loved to see Janne "Loffe" Karlsson on the big screen again, the writers should have realized early in the scriptwriting process that seven people falling into the water, isn't original or funny. The story is very thin and the jokes are used and predictable, the ones that ain't, is just plain boring. I smiled like three times during the entire film.<br /><br />The placement of Swedish Findus products is (unintentionally) funny, why not just a big sign saying; "Findus made it happen!".<br /><br />Göta Kanal 2 doesn't need to be seen at the cinema or on DVD, just wait for it to air on TV, it wont take too long. | negative |
In Victorian times a father is separated from his family when he is falsely accused of treason and they are sent to live in the country. The children adapt to their new situation, make friends, and enlist the help of a kind old man they wave to on the train to help reunite their family.<br /><br />Actors who direct movies are often not very good at it. Jeffries however, the great veteran actor of dozens of British comedy classics, is one of the few exceptions. His brilliant conception (he also wrote the script, from the novel by E. Nesbit) of a classic British children's story is what raises this film to art. Whilst the story may be highly idealised, the wonderful performances and the fabulously evocative Yorkshire dales settings combine to make a truly memorable movie. The photography by Arthur Ibbetson is the definition of good movie-making - not a shot is wasted in telling the story but at the same time the images combine to create a fabulously romantic atmosphere. Agutter is simply perfect as the kind-hearted Bobbie (okay, I fell in love with her at an early age, but I defy anyone to disagree) and Cribbins, whose comic acting pedigree is on a par with Jeffries, is unforgettable as Perks the humble-yet-proud railway porter. This is a film out of time; romantic, charming, hugely enjoyable and with a beautifully naive sense of good-hearted kindness towards all. | positive |
When this film gets it right it really gets it right. And when it goes wrong... I'd say that a full 3/4s of the film is great. I can even isolate the bad bit. It's everything that has to do with the romance. Everything that you need to know about it is said in the first five minutes but it drags on for about 30. I'd recommend skipping that section if you can. It does nothing except explain his exile. It should have been a minor plot point quickly thrust aside. Fortunately, the period from about 0-30 and 1:00-2:19 (The End) is excellent.<br /><br />There are a number of excellent performances in this film, and an equal number of terrible ones. Just like everything else in this movie the acting is either perfect or terrible. Peter Ustinov as the slimy one-eyed slave Kaptah is perfect. It is one of his best performances, up there with his role in Spartacus. Victor Mature as the ambitious Horemheb is also perfect. Again, one of his best roles. Jean Simmons is wasted as Merit, the perfect girl in love with our hero John Carradine gives a nice supporting role as a philosophical grave robber; and Michael Wilding is excellent as Akhnaton, the idealistic pharaoh who tries to bring peace and monotheism to Egypt only to see it fall apart due to his unwillingness to fight. Now for the bad. Edmund Purdom as Sinuhe is sadly miscast. This is doubly unfortunate as he is the main character. The entire film revolves around him. He actually does rather good as the disillusioned exile and the wise old man. This is because of his sorely limited range. He doesn't seem able to put any passion into his words. This is especially apparent during the love scenes which are beyond awkward. He spends the last half of the film as an old man, a performance at which he is decent enough at. He does have the perfect voice for the character. The less said about Bella Darvi as Nefer, the treacherous Babylonian woman, the better.<br /><br />The costuming and sets are magnificent. This is the only film that I know of that attempts to depict life in Egypt that isn't overshadowed by Jews or Romans. The film takes place in the 14th Century B.C. which is before even Exodus. The only monotheists are the pharaoh Akhenaten and his followers. There is the same strong element of religious zeal that can be found in most epics, but it is done differently and it only shows up at the very end. An interesting note: by having Akhenaten followed by Horemheb as pharaoh, the film completely skips over the most famous pharaoh of all: Tutankhamen. Seems kind of a strange thing to do when using that name could increase awareness of the film.<br /><br />Be warned: this is a 1950s epic film. If you don't like that type of thing then don't expect this one to be different. It is different, but it is still an epic. I appreciate this film, and I appreciate what it did and what it tried to do. This is a film that should be better remembered than it is. | positive |
What this film has is its realism , you really do get the feeling screenwriter James Slater has been doing his homework on the subject of downhill skiing while director Michael Ritchie shoots the movie in a fly on the wall documentary style . However the problem is unless you`re a big fan of the sport there`s not a lot in DOWNHILL RACER to grab your attention .<br /><br />Before anyone asks why I watched it , I did so because it featured the great Gene Hackman in an early role but that`s not really a good enough reason for watching | negative |
"Like the first touch of pleasure and guilt, like a spontaneous youthful flirt of fascination and fear, like a climax of contrary emotions" said one of the movie buffs after viewing LOVE AT THE TOP, the misinterpreted title version of stylish director Michel Deville's LE MOUTON ENRAGE. <br /><br />Vincent Canby in New York Times, however, just after the 1974 premiere of the movie stated: "LOVE AT THE TOP which opened yesterday at the 68th Street Playhouse, is a 1973 French comedy that dimly recalls a number of nineteen-fifties English comedies about the rise and rise of cynical young men possessingand possessed byambition." Yet, the significant difference that he mentioned was the fact that LOVE AT THE TOP is not concerned with the English class system...(January 27, 1975)<br /><br />Having left the evaluations up to single individuals, of course, the test of time has done its just job. What may be said with certainty after more than 30 years is that we can hardly find such movies like LE MOUTON ENRAGE where decadence appears innocent, where liaisons appear youthfully enthusiastic, where feelings occur so manipulative. <br /><br />For Romy Schneider's fans, it seems useless to point out that this film is a must see, not only because she gives a unique performance (as she did in all of her roles) at the heyday of her career (9 years before her sudden death) but because she is particularly attractive here. It is not TRIO INFERNAL where the, so to say, 'forced escape' from and the mockery of Romy's sweet image haunted for years by saccharine Sissi meets its most discouraging manifestation, but a film where the brilliant actress is given a fair role. She plays Roberte, a woman who becomes the object of lust for the story's lead, playboy Nicolas Mallet (Jean Louis Trintignant). It is him who takes financial profits from lustful liaisons. This movie can boast truly memorable and unique shots of Romy and she is given some of her very best scenes. Romy's sex appeal is unforgettable here.<br /><br />Another strong point of the film is its execution of the content with a development of individual perception. Immoral as it may seem, the director makes a perfect use of contrast: conventions vs pleasures, innocence vs decadence, genuine lust vs instrumental affair. Nicola owns most of the features that viewers may like or detest, may find attractive or disgusting; yet, his are the features the viewers must treat seriously, more to say, they are the ones we all must accept. That is why, one is led to a peculiar, gently wild, erotically unique world of the main character. Although he sleeps with lots of women, there are two women that represent a sort of contrary worlds for Nicola: Roberte Groult (Romy Schneider) and Marie-Paul (Jane Birkin). He manipulates them, makes love to them, cannot refrain from both desire for their bodies and desire for money; yet, he perceives them differently. Yet, despite all of this 'adult maturity,' he is emotionally like a little boy who plays with a toy-car on the table - a sort of 'detailed insight into male mind...' in a comedy-like way, of course.<br /><br />Finally, there are very good performances, which makes LE MOUTON ENRAGE slightly underrated. Not only the aforementioned Romy Schneider does a brilliant job supplying the viewers with an extraordinary insight into her role, but young Jane Birkin appears to be convincing in the role of young, inexperienced streetwalker Marie Paul, Jean Louis Trintignant makes it possible to see Nicola in the right way. This artistic merit lying in performances goes with terrific music by Camille Saint-Saëns, the tune that will ring in your ears for long. Therefore, apart from some flaws of the movie like dated colors, slow action (sometimes), possible clichés (noticed by some viewers), the merits should be found significant. <br /><br />LE MOUTON ENRAGE, in sum, is a clear manifestation of contrary manipulative tools in life. It is worth seeing as a moment in Romy's career, a prelude to strong eroticism, a chain of contrary emotions, of love and hatred, appreciation and disgust compared to the first orgasm and the first angasm... But aren't we, humans, 'viewers,' movie buffs built upon such contrasts? | positive |
This is a weird and compelling film. The topic, about the atom bombs created at Los Alamos, NM in the USA and used on Japan during the latter part of World War II, is huge, and of course deeply disturbing. The film's plot takes on a lot of heavy issues and the actors have to carry much of the creative tension. I had never seen the film, or was much interested in it I have to admit, until I read the book "Smoking in Bed: Conversations with Bruce Robinson." Robinson wrote the story and screenplay. I think the film was better than I expected from reading Robinson's point of view in the conversations about it, but I can see how he thought it got derailed. I think Paul Newman is pretty good, but is somehow at bottom, miscast. He's too Hollywood. At one point, a big, mean-looking guy storms into Newman's office and has such a striking presence, I immediately thought he should be playing the character Newman is playing. The other lead, who plays the head scientist, is also fairly good, but somehow not brilliant enough to portray the huge angst that goes with the part - the immense responsibility for creation of an ultimate machine of death and destruction. One of the more effective characters seems to be a composite personality, played by John Cusack. He is oddly affecting throughout, and in the end, is the character whose fate really hits home and who made me think most vividly of the fate of more than 200,000 Japanese people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. | positive |
Although I am not a Michael Jackson fan, I like some of his early songs and some from Jackson 5 too. 'Thriller' is one of his great songs and it comes from the best-selling album ever with the same title. As for the video, it is awesome, one of Michael's best, but also very eccentric and weird.<br /><br />There is a story behind this video, but it's so complex that even I can't fully understand it. It's freaky. The freakiest things are Jackson's transformation into a werewolf, his evil red eyes at the end (like a werewolf) and those dead people dancing.<br /><br />The video is very dark, thrilling, chilly and original. There are great sceneries and settings. The music itself is full of life and rhythm, characteristic from the good old pop from the 80's.<br /><br />I like Vincent Price's soliloquy. He does a great narration with his distinctive and unique voice and his evil laughter at the end is awesome! My favorite videos of the 'King of Pop' are "Billie Jean" and "Don't stop 'til you get enough" (both among his best songs). | positive |
Tigerland follows the lives of a group of recently drafted men into the army who are called up to fight in Vietnam in 1971.<br /><br />At this point, America knows they are fighting a loosing battle, and the director takes us through a 16mm handheld documentary shot film of the lives of several recruits in the 'Tigerland' training camp in Louisiana.<br /><br />The film is more of a character study no real plot, but it focuses on a key character Roland Boz, who is a dissabordinate yet intelligent man, who only wants to escape the camp. We are taken through several characters in the unit waiting for the story to unfold.<br /><br />I'd have to say this is a great story about Vietnam and more importantly about the army in general.. Great acting, and very memorable. Also the directors use of film and style works so well, cause it looks a lot like the old film footage you always see regarding Vietnam. Its great to see how the film shows that all the infighting and problems were so significant to the problems of fighting this battle. The particular scene where Boz walks away from a training mission where an instructor is showing how to use a radio as a torture device just about sums up everything about war in a nutshell... and it's futility.<br /><br />Fantastic film. Not just about Nam but about who individuals have to decide what is morally right by being 'in the army'.<br /><br />Rating 9 out of 10. | positive |
To all the reviewers on this page, I would have to say this movie is worth seeing. So It was made in 1972, so what. The fashion in the movie was exactly the same fashion of its time. People who didn't study culture of the decades would think that this movie is a cheese ball. Compared to the modern series, `Left Behind,' (Which is made for our time right now) it does look cheezy. However, the only cheezy part of the movie is the fashion, which again was over 30 years in the past. BUT. The message that is sent in this film is very powerful, and carefully preserved. There is just so much to say, but I refuse to say it. (for fear of spoiling it) So go out and see this film! If you don't like the message that it sends, then you have issues, that need some attention! | positive |
I really should give this stinker more credit that 1 star, because the film has so many eye-rolling lines that it's almost worth the price of the rental. <br /><br />The acting, if you want to call it that, is so stilted and contrived that it makes Ed Wood's actors appear life like. "Sammy," the lone black character, must be Mimi's husband in real life because he appears in her other films, but he has zero acting ability. His lines are priceless due to his absurd delivery, though I suspect the intention was to create a sympathetic character. His old man make up in her other turkey ("Pushed To The Limit") is no-budget, junior high school quality, with cotton ball eyebrows and white spray painted hair.<br /><br />I cannot fathom anyone actually buying this video, unless people like to throw their own Mystery Science Theater parties and need a copy of something like this on hand. It really is Beyond Fear-- it's actually Beyond Funny. | negative |
Another one for the Babes & Bullets crowd. The story is much edgier than any other musical I have seen: cannons hidden up the missing legs of females, and places each generatively in the other in a way that comes closer to intelligent comment than we might expect for the locale. More effective than contemporary 'drama.' It is hard identify with a woman who keeps a cannon up her pants -- in lue of leggage. Pretty remarkable if you consider the context.<br /><br />Despite the cannon up the leg thing providing 90% of the surprises, this film also chronicles how greed supersedes all other considerations in the lives of a group of yakuzas who pursue a woman who keeps up her leg a concealed cannon/rocket-launcher (hence no group shower scenes or thongs) The hidden projectile-launcher which is pulled out from the behind the protagonists back, seemingly from nowhere, in miike's Dead or Alive (1999), The torch brought forth out of thin air by the heroine towards the end of the original Tomie (2000), or the harrowing flame-thrower scene in Sunny Gets Blue (1992), all testify to an almost third-world Cantinflas-esquire influence in the contemporary Japanese cinema, of which I am at a loss to explain, but cannot complain.<br /><br />You won't see good quality movies of this essence made in Hollywood, its all but extinct and with cheap crap they pump out for a cheap thrill, is all but laughable. This is a true film and while its great in its entirety, the ending is a brilliant, if not unblatant rip-off of certain Sergio Leon pictures, involving cannons where legs should be, and certainly is appropriate! | positive |
I am a big fan of Arnold Vosloo. Finally seeing him as the star of a recent movie, not just a bit part, made me happy.<br /><br />Unfortunately I took film appreciation in college and the only thing I can say that I didn't like was that the film was made in an abandoned part of town and there was no background traffic or lookie loos.<br /><br />I have to say that the acting leaves something to be desired, but Arnold is an excellent actor, I have to chalk it up to lousy direction and the supporting cast leaves something to be desired.<br /><br />I love Arnold Vosloo, and he made the film viewable. Otherwise, I would have written it off as another lousy film.<br /><br />I found the rape scene brutal and unnecessary, but the actors that got away at the end were pretty good. But the sound effects of the shoot-out were pretty bad. There are some glitches in the film (continuity) but they are overlookable considering the low-caliber of the film.<br /><br />All in all I enjoyed the film, because Arnold Vosloo was in it.<br /><br />Jackie | negative |
This documentary begins with an interesting premise -- it makes an intriguing and convincing argument that the history of Jesus as is commonly believed is probably a myth. Sadly, though, after priming us with this, the movie completely shifts gears and becomes little more than a non-stop attack on Christianity, and pretty much focusing on the easy targets.<br /><br />The writer/director clearly has some issues with the Church (he is a former evangelical Christian and has some legit anger) and this film seems to be his form of release. It'd be interesting to see the first 20 minutes expanded, but as a whole, the movie is disappointing. | negative |
The great cinematic musicals were made between 1950 and 1970. This twenty year spell can be rightly labelled the “Golden Era” of the genre. There were musicals prior to that, and there have been musicals since… but the true classics seem invariably to have been made during that period. Singin’ In The Rain, An American In Paris, The Band Wagon, Seven Brides For Seven Brothers, Oklahoma, South Pacific, The King And I, and many more, stand tall as much cherished products of the age. Perhaps the last great musical of the “Golden Era” is Carol Reed’s 1968 “Oliver”. Freely adapted from Dickens’ novel, this vibrant musical is a film version of a successful stage production. It is a magnificent film, winner of six Oscars, including the Best Picture award.<br /><br />Orphan Oliver Twist (Mark Lester) lives a miserable existence in a workhouse, his mother having died moments after giving birth to him. Following an incident one meal-time, he is booted out of the workhouse and ends up employed at a funeral parlour. But Oliver doesn’t settle particularly well into his new job, and escapes after a few troubled days. He makes the long journey to London where he hopes to seek his fortune. Oliver is taken under the wing of a child pickpocket called the Artful Dodger (Jack Wild) who in turn works for Fagin (Ron Moody), an elderly crook in charge of a gang of child-thieves. Despite the unlawful nature of the job, Oliver finds good friends among his new “family”. He also makes the acquaintance of Nancy (Shani Wallis), girlfriend of the cruellest and most feared thief of them all, the menacing Bill Sikes (Oliver Reed). After many adventures, Oliver discovers his true ancestry and finds that he is actually from a rich and well-to-do background. But his chances of being reunited with his real family are jeopardised when Bill Sikes forcibly exploits Oliver, making him an accomplice in some particularly risky and ambitious robberies.<br /><br />“Oliver” is a brilliantly assembled film, consistently pleasing to the eye and excellently acted by its talented cast. Moody recreates his stage role with considerable verve, stealing the film from the youngsters with his energetic performance as Fagin. Lester and Wild do well too as the young pickpockets, while Wallis enthusiastically fleshes out the Nancy role and Reed generates genuine despicableness as Sikes. The musical numbers are staged with incredible precision and sense of spectacle – Onna White’s Oscar-winning choreography helps make the song-and-dance set pieces so memorable, but the lively performers and the skillful direction of Carol Reed also play their part. The unforgettable tunes include “Food Glorious Food”, “Consider Yourself”, “You’ve Got To Pick A Pocket Or Two”, “I’d Do Anything” and “Oom-Pah-Pah” – all immensely catchy songs, conveyed via very well put together sequences. The film is a thoroughly entertaining experience and never really loses momentum over its entire 153 minute duration. Sit back and enjoy! | positive |
They say David Duchovny took six days to write the script for this movie. That sounds about right.<br /><br />This movie is one of the worst films I've ever seen and I've seen Gigli. It's not as bad as Gigli, but that's like saying Saddam Hussein wasn't as bad as Adolf Hitler.<br /><br />Tom Warshaw has been living in France with his French wife and 13-year old son. He has been pretending to be French all this time. He reveals to his wife that he is actually American. For some reason, this comes as an earth-shattering reveal for her, despite the fact that she always commented on her husband's American accent. Also, their son - remember, he was born in France and never knew his father was American - speaks perfect American English without a hint of French accent. That's just one of several huge plot holes in this movie.<br /><br />The main bulk of the movie is a flashback to Tommy's youth in New York City during the 1970's, as he explains to his wife why he has been hiding in France. His best friend as a boy was Pappas, a retarded adult played terribly by Robin Williams. I assume Duchovny thinks that "retarded" is someone who is just sort of dumb, because Pappas comes off only mildly slow at times, while other times he comes off as just Robin Williams. Yes, Williams actually fits in his tired improv schtick although he is supposed to play a person who is mentally slow.<br /><br />Tommy's mother, played by Duchovny's wife Tea Leoni, is a pill-popping nurse who is distraught over the recent death of her husband. Leoni does a good job, but she mainly just smokes a lot and yells at Tommy for things that don't seem to be too important. The script didn't give her much to work with. Tommy also befriends a lady (whom he calls "Lady") who is in prison and offers him advice through her jail window (this house of detention is called "House of D" for short, thus the title). Tommy has no qualms yelling his personal problems out loud on a city street so this incarcerated felon can offer him advice, and he does so many times without care.<br /><br />I don't want to bore you with the entire summary of the movie, but plot holes are abound in this film that tries way too hard to be touching but comes off as, well, bad. Real bad. Real real bad. Near the end of this train wreck, the script gets cornier and cornier and ends with a laughably crappy ending.<br /><br />Critics tore "House of D" apart and rightfully so. I can't believe some people actually like this movie. It is a painful film to sit through and I felt weak afterwards - not from emotion, but from how terrible it was. | negative |
I can safely admit (as an IMDb geek) that 'Phantom Lady' will never crack into my film noir top twenty. It may not even sneak into the top fifty. But rather than discredit the film for not being as good as so many other classics of the film noir genre, it should be noted that 'Phantom Lady' has enough strong and lasting images in it to make it a worthwhile viewing. All that is required from the viewer is the ability to get beyond the dreadfully slow beginning.<br /><br />The film doesn't get cooking until 'Kansas' (Ella Raines) sets about trying to prove all but single handedly the innocence of her boss, Scott Anderson (Alan Curtis), who has been convicted of murder. 'Kansas' is Anderson's secretary by day and amateur detective by night. As the novice sleuth she does quite well for herself while working the streets of New York at night. Little by little she starts putting pieces of a murder mystery puzzle together. To be honest, the film belongs to Raines and it is only due to her presence that the film works well at all. Somehow she is able to breathe life into a film about a condemned man who is not interesting in the slightest. I'm not sure if this splintered dynamic of a characterless leading man becomes the fault of the actor or the director, but clearly this is where something becomes terribly wrong with the film.<br /><br />As interesting as Raines is as a novice detective, things really accelerate into another hidden gear when 'Kansas' pays a late night visit to a wandering drummer (Elisha Cook, Jr.) in search of some information to help her condemned boss. She and the drummer paint the town a new kind of red while visiting the "all night" jazz clubs. Trying to describe this scene will either prove an injustice to the scene or worse yet, it could ruin the scene all together. You'll know the scene once the last cymbal crash has finished ringing out. If you're lucky enough to have this film on DVD, you'll more than likely be rewinding this scene again and again. As good as Raines is, it is this scene that makes this film noteworthy. It is mainly because of this scene that I rate 'Phantom Lady' a 7 instead of a 6.<br /><br />For the most part this film comes off as tepid and bland with a few great scenes and one magnificent scene. It is the 'drum/sex scene' that separates this film from any others of the same ilk.<br /><br />And just like it is said in the film that "you never go wrong with Vanilla", I would also like to add that "going with Vanilla" is the safe fall back choice when one can't decide on having a tastier treat.<br /><br />7/10. Clark Richards | positive |
I can not quite understand why any of the "reviewers" gave this documentary "0" other than for political reasons. No, the film did not investigate both "sides" of the story, but then surely one film in favour of Chavez against the tides of propaganda against him should be seen as an attempt to balance out the narrative overall (especially given A. the history of CIA involvement in Latin America in fermenting civil unrest - google National Security Archive and B. the coverage in that country and elsewhere of the clearly faked scenes of Chavez supporters shooting non-existent opponents). What is most amazing about this film is the fact that the film makers stayed in the presidential palace all of the way though the coup - surely a first in documentary making - images of a coup from both sides!!! | positive |
I just got back from the GLBT Film Festival at the AMC Loews 34th in NY. A friend told me about this film. Audience response was very positive! Lots of good solid laughs as well as some quiet moments of realization. Top notch in every area. A movie that makes you think, and then makes you realize how lucky we'd all be if we could turn back time and live without shame or guilt. I imagine this will come close to, if not win, the audience favorite award! What was most surprising was the fact the the movie appears to start off as a satire and then slowly weaves into a genuine commentary on the negative and sometimes violent reactions of the very group it started to satirize. There isn't any mean spirited humor at the expense of one group, just a slow realization that we would all be better off if we just went back to the gentle innocence that we all started off with. | positive |
I had just reached thirteen when I first saw this series and I am watching it again, on DVD, over thirty years later. The pictures over the opening credits have never left me. It has affected my view of the world and the peoples in it. My parents were with me long enough to have seen the series with me, and we always discussed the programme afterwards. It gave me a love for studying history and the highest marks I got in our school's public exams!<br /><br />Sir Laurence Olivier's voice and delivery is timeless and perfect. I get the feeling that the people who lived through it would feel that this is their version of the history of the Second World War. I cannot imagine ever getting bored looking at it. Maybe an similar Cold War series could now be contemplated, although who could replace Sir Laurence is difficult to imagine.<br /><br />Buy it! | positive |
One of the worst movies I have ever seen. Excruciatingly slow-moving, boring and stupid. Lots of juvenile bathroom-humor, drawn out into painful tedium. I like Jeff Daniels, but he should stick to acting and forget writing. I am amazed this is rated as high as it is. I call it a turkey. | negative |
...okay, maybe not all of it. Lured by the false promise of bikini-clad women on the movie's cover...but the HORROR...THE HORROR... ...whatever you do, do NOT watch this movie. Gouge out your eyes, repeatedly bash your skull in...do what it takes. Never again--never forget!<br /><br /> | negative |
Lets make a movie about a talk show that already exists and basically have everything that happens on the show! Well if that idea doesn't intrigue you, which it shouldn't, stay away from ringmaster. I had the displeasure of seeing this in the theater and actually being able to sit through this mess of a movie. I guess jerry springer doesn't play himself as it shows from the cheap props for his show (yes it looks even cheaper than the real jerry springer show) and he is only known as jerry in the film. The plot (if you can call it that) is about a daughter while living with her mother decides to start sleeping with the mother's live in boyfriend. So the mother's brilliant idea is to call the jerry springer show as well as getting it on with her daughter's boyfriend. (Is it any coincidence they live in a trailer park). Meanwhile somewhere else in america a woman finds her cheatin' man with her friend in bed together. So of course call america's therapist Jerry springer! I'd talk about the rest of the film but even thinking about the film now is giving me a headache. Jamie Pressly who plays the daughter looks totally unattractive in the movie. And remember Michael Dudikoff the kick ass karate master from the american ninja series? Well take a look at him now as a white trash drunk. The thing is he really looks too horrible and out of shape to call it "getting in touch with his charecter". But if your idea of fun is seeing Jerry Springer sing a country song about his own show or guys hooking up with transvestites...well...JUST WATCH THE SHOW INSTEAD! ... at least steve was smart enough to stay out of this flick. | negative |
I saw the film yesterday and stopped it at half time because I felt it was a waste of time. The idea to make a film through the eyes of a headsman - one of the "evil guys" throughout most fantasy and medieval films - is great and offers plenty of possibilities but... the film couldn't catch one of them. I was not feeling for any of the characters, the plot was all too predictable (to the point that I followed it)and the second leap of time in the storyline made me quit. Those who expect a deep insight into the emotional situation of a headsman in the middle Ages, a social outcast to that time, might be disappointed. | negative |
I'm sorry to say this, but the acting in this film is horrible. The dialogue sounds as if they are reading their lines for the first time ever. Perhaps I got the "dress rehearsal" version by mistake. The director over-uses slow motion during special effects perhaps as an attempt to compensate for the poor performance of the actors themselves. The story is pretty well written, and the fight sequences are actually better than I have seen in many action films. The fights seem pretty real. But all of this happens while to two leading actors time and time again miraculously survive incredible amounts of point-blank automatic weapon fire, grenades, morter rounds, and bazookas. The enemy soldiers are definitely some of the worst shots I have ever seen, especially when they have the escaping truck in their sights from about 30 yards, and every bazooka shot is wide by at least 50 feet. Those bazookas need serious site calibration. | negative |
As Most Off You Might off Seen Star Wars: Return Off The Jedi You May Knows Its A Good Movie But As You Might Have Seen On Video They M|might have a party At The end And They Just Probably End The Movie with the party with no a spirits or anything But on the original one (Live TV) When they are Partying But before i say more when Ben obi-wan dies in the Imperial Ship Or Death Star They Saw him Disappear And Yoda Dies From Either Old Age Or Internal Illness But because Luke killed Darth Vader (Real Name: Anakin Skywalker) When They All Are Partying At The end when Luke Or Someone Stops the Spirits Off Ben And Yoda Stands Starring At Him And Smiling While Another Spirit Appears Is its Darth Vader but not as A Sith As The Old Usual Selve off Him And Started Smiling with Ben And Yoda I reckon That made the movie ending a little bit interesting But the Producers or anyone should off made a spirit off Padme And Mace Windu And Other Jedis that got killed with Younglings Under There Arms in the back ground | positive |
Really bad. Why anyone thinks this is a good film let alone funny is a true mystery. I like comedies as much as the next man and I LOVED "A Christmas Story." The fact that it has the same director and was based on the same writer's memoirs has me completely puzzled as to why this film is such a complete failure on every level. Charles Grodin is woefully miscast as the father for starters. For another it does not seem to have the same pacing -- it just doesn't flow well. Everything seems tired and forced. The joy of life that permeated the first film is completely absent here -- you just want the movie to end. I wouldn't even recommend this movie for curiosity-seekers who enjoyed "A Christmas Story." It's that bad. 1/10. | negative |
This movie causes more unintentional laughter than anything else I've ever seen. Really, if you are a Tolkien fan, rent it just to laugh at it with your friends. I won't be the millionth person to rip apart its flaws... all I will say is that the movie (for me, anyway) lost major points for turning my favorite character, Sam, into a bumbling idiot. Shame, shame... 3/10 | negative |
I'm a fan of both Shakespeare and MST3K, so I waited anxiously to see this episode. I'll comment on the movie first, then the MST3K episode. The recipe for this movie: take talented actors, rich and beautiful Shakespeare material, and a $1.25 budget. Mix well, then drain of all life and movement, until dull and lifeless. Serve cold in a big, plain stone cauldron. Movie, I give 3 out of 10, because the actors at least deserve a little bit of credit. Okay, now the MST3K episode. I'll admit it, the first time I saw it, I fell asleep halfway through. I understand that was the reaction of several other veiwers as well. However, when I watched it a second time, I realized that there was a whole host of intelligent references and good lines I missed the first time around. The trick with this episode is: listen carefully! It takes a couple of viewings to catch each line. Give it a second chance, and You'll see what I mean. MST3K Episode: 7 1/2 out of 10. | negative |
This film wasn't programmed in Italian cinemas,I have seen it at a manifestation called "fantafestival".I find it terrible because some scenes seems like music videos chaotic and dark, the use of fluorescent colors is ridicule and there's no suspence in the film. Music is completely out of the story and I don't have words to describe the visual effects.If you look at the first scene the film seems to be interesting, but a few minutes later it becomes busy.The story is interesting but the development needs a complete review. | negative |
If you watched the series and love the league as I do then prepare to be disappointed. I went to the cinema with a group of die-hard league fans and we were all in agreement that this film wasn't as funny or dark as the three series before. In my personal opinion it was a money spinner. The writing was contrived and the plot confused - no not confusing just confused with what it was trying to do. It was self indulgence of the worst kind from writers who are far more talented than my pitiful criticisms. I hope the league at least can be honest enough with themselves and acknowledge this film as being inferior to the superb three series. I will not be buying it despite owning most of the league memorabilia. | negative |
Back in the day if Marion Davies had had her druthers and didn't just listen to William Randolph Hearst, she'd have done more films like Show People and been a lot happier. In fact when you see her get her first big break in two reel comedy, she'd have loved to have done that in her career instead of such epics like When Knighthood Was In Flower and Janice Meredith. <br /><br />What you're seeing by all accounts in Show People is the real Davies, a gifted comedienne, a superb mimic and a generous good hearted person. She could really identify with the character of Peggy Pepper aka Patricia Prepoire, she put up with her share of pretense in her Hollywood stardom.<br /><br />If the plot of Show People was set in the legitimate stage you would call it a backstage story. I guess it being one of the first movies about the movies you could call it a behind the camera story. Marion is eager young hopeful who arrives in Hollywood like so many others, looking for that big break. She wants to drama, but her introduction to the movies is as the foil for the burlesque comics. She gets her share of pie and seltzer in the face, but learns her trade. And also wins the heart of young comic actor William Haines.<br /><br />She does get her first big break, but it doesn't come for Haines as well and Marion does get to do legitimate drama with actor Paul Ralli, playing Andre Telfair, a pretend no account Count of Avignon. Somebody here was taking a shot at actor Lou Tellegen, lover and husband of Sarah Bernhardt and Geraldine Farrar and others and to hear tell of it, one of the most despised people in cinema.<br /><br />Show People was one of the first films to have the unbilled cameo appearances of stars as themselves. You will get to see folks like Charlie Chaplin, Douglas Fairbanks, William S. Hart, Mae Murray, John Gilbert, Eleanor Boardman etc., just being themselves in and around the film colony. That in itself makes Show People a film worth saving.<br /><br />Show People also made good use of standard Tin Pan Alley songs like, Ain't We Got Fun, I'm Sitting On Top Of The World, You'd Be Surprised, California, Here I Come. As the film came out on the cusp of sound being introduced, a song called Crossroads was introduced in it. It's not a bad number, but no credit is given to the boy and girl singing it in the soundtrack. I guess since they're not seen, it was felt no billing was necessary. Still I'd like to know and I'm sure you would to if you are fortunate enough to see Show People.<br /><br />It's easy to see why Marion Davies liked this film so much and considered it a personal favorite. She looks so at home in this film and her real life lack of pretense shines through in her performance which makes it a real treat for the audience. | positive |
I have become a big fan of the work of Barbet Schroeder, so maybe I am already a little biased by now, but I think this movie is great, although there may be a few lengths. It is a romantic unromantic view of the Great Liberation in the later sixties, stylistically amazingly polished (great set design!) and in my opinion still very watchable.<br /><br />Basically this is an ironic re-telling of the story of Adam and Eve who are driven from paradise after having tasted the forbidden fruit" which has turned from an apple into a hypodermic filled with heroine. The woman seduces a man into using it thus accelerating his doom. I say accelerating as the guy seems to be doomed and bound for an intensive life and an early grave right from the great title sequence onwards. There is no place for any hope.<br /><br />Although the story is rather sad, I was captured by the beauty both of the beautiful location Ibiza and Mimsy Farmer. I found her character was at once shallow, enigmatic, endearing, annoying, interesting and boring. Somehow she represents what men see in women in a basic, unoffensive way. Architecture and built artifacts in general are put to very good use which seems to be a Schroeder trademark of sorts.<br /><br />There is even some humor, mainly delivered by Stefan, the German main character and his accent. His main nemesis is not a snake but an older German of dubious reputation and provider of the heroine - called Wolf. Although it is a German name and Stefan is German, he pronounces it verrry English and in fits of jealousy spits the name out at his girlfriend in regular intervals becoming a boy who cries ... At times Stefan has to work in order to earn a cellery". At one time the guy goes snorkeling and afterward awkwardly clambers up a rock with his rubber flippers never has male frontal nudity been funnier in movie history. | positive |
This movie is about Carlos "The Jackal" (Quinn), an international terrorist who, by CIA agent Henry Fields's (Sutherland) description, appears to maim women and children for the heck of it. At least that's what he says to guilt US Naval Officer Annibal Ramirez (Quinn again) into taking on the assignment of posing as Carlos and setting him up as a traitor in the eyes of the KGB. Ramirez is apparently physically identical to Carlos but mentally he is his antithesis. He is borne of order and Carlos is borne of chaos.<br /><br />The movie isn't all shoot-gun-jump-around action, and that's a good thing. In its first half, Ramirez undergoes training to act and think like Carlos, and that's actually where the movie achieves its distinction from other run-of-the-mill action flicks. An Israeli agent (Kingsley), joins Fields in training Ramirez, and together they appear to take on the roles of parents in the birthing of Ramirez's new character. Ramirez is taught to dislike the things Carlos dislikes, to act on the split second like Carlos would, and even to make love like Carlos (courtesy of an ex-girlfriend of Carlos's). Naturally all that he is taught would be put to good use in the later half of the movie. It's a little contrived but Quinn gives a riveting performance as a Carlos-wannabe.<br /><br />Another thing I liked about this movie was that it didn't utilize the much overdone plot point in evil twin movies - you know, the one in which the evil twin insinuates himself into the good twin's family. Ramirez's family does come into the picture, but instead they highlight how his new character wrecks havoc on his family life.<br /><br />Good chuckle humor is injected into this movie, often coming the acerbic duo of Sutherland and Kingsley. An exception is the overused and apparently gratuitous joke involving Ramirez's first name (Annibal, Annabelle, get it?). Also overdone was the constant harping by the duo about how powerful and cunning and intelligent Carlos is. In my opinion, during the final showdown, the payoff wasn't able to match the build-up.<br /><br />On the whole, the movie was enjoyable. I'm not a big action flick fan but this movie was more intelligent and engrossing than the average action movie and it maintained my attention throughout.<br /><br />My rating: 9/10 | positive |
Let me start out by saying that I used to really like Betty Grable, particularly from "Down Argentine Way", but by the time she got around to this disaster, she had also got "round" and frankly the whole film was an embarrassment. Costarred with Douglas Fairbanks JNr (who must have been fairly desperate) the story was bad, the colours good, and the film far too long. It had some of the old standbys in it like Harry Davenport and Reginald Gardiner to try and stimulate interest but with no success. The music score was woeful, and I have to say not one tune was memorable in any way....as I was such a fan of Miss Grable, I always wish I had never seen this one! | negative |
When I first saw this show, I thought it looked interesting. I watched it, saw how it revolved around Sarah, like the character sees the world...revolving around her. I got it, but wasn't laughing very much.<br /><br />Onstage and in her show, she's racist, crude, insensitive and hugely self-centered. I didn't get her at first, and took it all at face value. Then I got to see her movie, Jesus is Magic. I think that served as a Sarah Silverman primer for me, explaining to me just what 'language' she's speaking. She's like Marilyn Manson, working so hard to give us a faceful of horrible ideas and images, but you eventually realise it isn't an assault, it's a statement. And once you understand that, you find you're glad someone's finally giving it to you straight.<br /><br />I don't mean to suggest only smart people will understand, or that to hate this show is to prove your idiocy. While I like a lot of 'smart' shows, I still to this day do not see the humor of Curb Your Enthusiasm. I get the impression that it's good, but I just don't get it. Many people will never get the Sarah Silverman Program, but I'm glad I eventually came around.<br /><br />The creators of this show do work hard, every episode is loaded not just with dialogue and plot, but with songs, or dream sequences, production numbers. These people aren't putting together something to fill a time slot and please advertisers, they appear to be on a mission to make the best show they can put together. If I was to predict the future of this show, I'd say it will go the way of Arrested Development and Freaks & Geeks. It will get canceled before it's time and live on in fans' hearts and on DVD. But take heart, SSP creators, your audience IS out there, and we'll be watching for as long as they let you make the show. | positive |
As a non-theist Im not going to comment on the great mans theory which changed the world 150 years ago. Safe to say, science is based on evidence, religion is based on blind faith. Nuff said there then.<br /><br />The film was produced by the BBC, and to be honest, it could quite easily have been shown on television. While the acting is superb, the film itself isn't really worthy of a full blown cinema release. That said, if it reaches a wider audience this way, then so be it. But I have seen many period style dramas on BBC TV and they were well up to the finished standard of this. Just don't expect too much of a big budget thrill ride when going to see it.<br /><br />In some ways, I found the movie almost going out on a limb to apologise to religious fundamentalists. While it attains a good sense of tension the whole way through, I couldn't help wanting it to get to the publication of The Origin Of Species much quicker than it actually did (you'll wait right until the end for that). And it seemed to dwell much more than I was ever aware on Darwin's struggle with himself and his wife Emma, portraying him almost as some kind of insane lunatic at times - which is hardly true. There are many other errors and facts missing in relation to the real story of the lead up to the publication of Origin too, but the whole premise of the movie focuses almost entirely on the difficulty Darwin faced domestically with the book, and a small portion on the death of his beloved daughter Annie. This gives the film its most moving scene, where Annie passes away as she asks one final time to hear Darwin tell her the story of a captive orangutan which died of pneumonia. Though, you'll probably feel a bigger connection with the primate in that scene than with Darwin's daughter.<br /><br />With the early controversy apparently surrounding the movie in the USA it will work well to promote it and ensure many more people will get to see it. But to be honest, there is actually very little in it that insults any mythical Godhead. Its hardly headline news about a theory that has been around 150 years after all. But, as fundamental Christians (and many other religions which we're all well aware of) like to wave a placard or two whenever possible, I guess this movie is as good excuse as any. Personally, I cant see what all the fuss is about. But maybe they're just monkeying around... | positive |
Certainly this film has the ring of truth about it, as it purports to be based on actual occurrences at a Marine base. It deals with the attempted cover-up by the local Marine commander of unacceptable conduct by a Marine major which resulted in his being shot to death by his former girl friend, a Marine captain. The man and woman had been lovers, but the captain attempted to break off the relation when she discovered her boy friend was married. He continued to stalk her, going so far as to fire his side arm in her direction at one time. Finally he broke into her home, attacked her with a knife, and was shot twice with her service pistol and killed. The civilian prosecutor ruled the killing self defense, but the Marines decided to charge the captain with murder. The major, you see, was a decorated hero from Vietnam, and an old friend of the commanding colonel at the Marine base. The captain, too, had made some enemies in her motor pool command, rejecting some male advances in a very butch style.<br /><br />There is considerable psychological freight motivating and controlling the actions of the principal participants in this drama, which the very capable cast gets across nicely. The director and editor, however, seem determined to obscure the happenings as much as possible with frustrating flashbacks and shifting points of view. You're lucky if you know where you're at most of the time. Bear with them, though; it's a worthwhile story as the captain's court martial trial unfolds, and it seems every man's hand is against her, even her attorney at times. <br /><br />The verdict? Well, after all, this is rather a suspense story, so you'll have to see for yourself. There is a kind of "pacifist" message folded into the film, but forget about that. Sure, "war is hell", but sometimes it can't be avoided. We'll need those Marines then, even if they aren't always the best champions of fair play internally. As Kipling says in his poem "Tommy Atkins":<br /><br />"It's Tommy this and Tommy that, And Tommy wait outside. But, it's room for Mr. Atkins, When the troopship's on the tide." | positive |
"Hail The Woman" is one of the most moving films I have ever seen in my entire life. I watched it twice in a row and sobbed my eyes out.<br /><br />This silent film masterpiece deserves a much wider viewing audience; unfortunately the sole surviving print is so badly scratched that most people won't watch it all the way through, and they will miss the gem shining underneath the rough. This film could use a digital restoration, to help bring out its beauty, but I doubt it will get it from anyone, since its main theme is Spiritual restoration before Christ of the family unit, and this is not politically correct these days. However it remains a powerful theme for those whose hearts are hurting from the pain of broken family relationships.<br /><br />The cast is magnificent, especially Florence Vidor, who literally glows as Judith, the daughter; ethereal Madge Bellamy as Nan, the poor girl who gets pregnant and is cast aside; Theodore Roberts as the crotchety old domineering father who destroys everyone around him through pride; and handsome Lloyd Hughes, as the son David, afraid of his father, but really of life itself. <br /><br />This is a nice film to watch at Christmas, especially. You will not regret being patient and viewing it in its entirety despite its deterioration. | positive |
Another French film with absurdity. Baise-Moi(F*ck Me) tells the story of two young women who come together to kill and f*ck. One of them is a porn star who escapes from her community after being raped and killing her boyfriend. Second one is a hooker who kills her flatmate and sees her boyfriend being shot dead. After those incidents they meet at a tube station(both misses the last train)then the whole thing starts. They find a bound and come very close. They abuse men sexually, take drugs, drive around the country and have lots of sex. Thats all about Baise-Moi really. We can see that they have no mercy for their victims. They even kill a woman for her money. Both actresses are real porn stars in France that affects the movie in two different ways. They look so comfortable in sex scenes, nonetheless, they can't make the whole film worth watching as ,to me, the film does not require no further ability of acting than that. It is a version of Thelma and Louise on a different level. I could recommend you loads of things to do instead of watching Baise-Moi. So, bother to watch if you wanna see a pointless, kinky film. * out of ***** | negative |
As a member of the cast, I was a member of the band at all the basketball games, I would like to let the world know after being in the movie, that we were not allowed to see it since it was banned in Oregon. This was due to the producers and the director breaking the contract with the University of Oregon where it was shot. Seems that the U of O sign was shown. While we were shooting, we were allowed to eat several meals with the cast and production staff. Mr Nicholson was quite memorable for being one of the most ill-mannered men I have ever met. Quite a time for a young 20 year old. BUt certainly not what campus life was really like in the late 60's and early 70's despite what Hollywood may think. Trombone player from Oregon | negative |
I was looking forward to seeing John Carpenter's episode in Season 2 because his first, Cigarette Burns, was by far the best from Season 1 (and I did like other episodes from that season). Oh, how I was disappointed.<br /><br />In fairness to Carpenter I think the primary problem with this episode was absolutely horrible writing. The characters, aside from the subject matter, seemed to behave and speak as though they were written for an episode of Walker, Texas Ranger. The acting was bad, and I normally like Ron Perlman a lot, but I can only blame them so much because the writing was so horrible. I'm not going to try to guess what the writers were trying to do because that would be useless but it appeared as though they were trying to mix horror (obviously) with some form of social commentary on abortion and religion. In this case, not surprisingly, it seemed a chance to bash a certain variety or religious nuts as well as fanatical anti-abortionists. And I am in favor of both aims but it was done so horribly that I was embarrassed to watch characters act and speak with such stupid inconsistency. This failed totally to offer any worthwhile opinion on the subjects and the horror element failed as well alongside such inept writing.<br /><br />While I don't think Carpenter can be blamed for most of the badness here I will say he did choose to direct the teleplay and therefore has that to be held responsible for. There are a couple small bits that I found nice, hence the 2 stars I gave it.<br /><br />The actual gore and monster effects were good, but the CGI gore (two separate gunshots to the head) were so obviously inferior quality CGI they should've never been given the OK. I'm generally very critical of CGI but not because I have a problem with it in principle. I have a problem with the execution of it. The technology, while amazing in some respects, is not good enough to match "real" effects, whether they be miniatures or gore especially when it is supposed to match something organic and/or alive, and therefore shouldn't be used until they are. CGI can be used well in small amounts or obviously if the whole film is animated.<br /><br />I'll also take this opportunity to note that the show title, Masters of Horror, is a bad title to have. There simply aren't many actual "masters of horror" around. Maybe two or three. If the show were called "Tale of Horror" or something like that it would be fine. But as it stands the criteria for directing one of these episodes, and therefore being criticized for not being a "master of horror" is that they have directly at least one horror film in their career. And it didn't even have to be a good one. | negative |
I enjoy quality crapness, and this ranks up there with some of the finest. the cg is out of this world, or at least pre-dates our world, and the insanity of a 6 foot bloke in a rat outfit chasing after people is laughably bad. I quite enjoyed some of this, but the acting is so goddamn awful, and even the obligatory nude scene doesn't really have any baps out in it. just a complete waste of time if ever i saw one. I don't know who wasted more time, me watching this, or the poor saps who got dragged into making it in the faint hope that this will launch their acting careers. I can assure you, it wont. However, on a brighter note, I have managed to successfully do the 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon from this movie, so I think it was almost worthwhile watching the 91 minutes of it. | negative |
This film had no huge stars in it, but did have a very good cast filled with excellent supporting actors AND Gene Tierney before she became a big star. With George Sanders, Reginald Gardner, Harry Carey, Bruce Cabot, Jospeh Calleia and Cederic Hardwicke, you'd expect more from the film than it actually delivered. Most of this, I suspect, is because of a second-rate script, as director Henry Hathaway was a competent and well-established man at the helm.<br /><br />The film is set in East Africa during WWII--just before the Americans entered the war. The Brits are trying to control their African colonies while subversive Nazi elements are trying to stir up trouble among the locals. One of the white men in the film is a double-dealer--working for the destruction of the British Empire! But, lovely Tierney, playing a sultan's daughter(!), is out to help save the day for good ol' Britain.<br /><br />American film makers have long sided with the Empire and the 1930s and 40s saw a plethora of pro-empire films. Nowadays, with changed sensibilities, the notion of seeing the happy black natives dying for Queen and country seems ridiculous--and it would be hard to root for either side! Still, in its day, this propaganda piece was effective in drumming up support for the British--though when seen today, the film suffers from a long-winded script and silly casting. The one bright moment in the film is the final showdown between George Sanders and the enemy agent. Too bad after such a potent scene the film just seemed to talk and talk--losing some of its punch. | negative |
The subject this latest adman-turned-movieman tries to tackle in his debut (ad)venture is quite an age-old topic of discussion by almost any cultural standard -- timeless romance (pun intended).<br /><br />However, the exploration (and exploitation for Desi auds) falls woefully short as the usual inclinations to 'pepper, spice and sugar' up the usual masala mix of b/g score, dialog, dance, drama, etc creates a nice-looking package with not much inside.<br /><br />In the first 40 minutes of the movie, the kitchen scene has been repeated at least 8-9 times. Further repeats follow thru-out the movie (after all the lead character's a cook). But therein lies les problemos -- no story! Hah, no wonder. Someone forgot to write a script.<br /><br />Amitabh puts in a Cheeni Jyada (more) amount of over-acting. Really when is this guy ever gonna stop?? How many 60-somethings prance around like that even when teased by a nubile 30-something??? Timeless mind yes, but surely what about the not-so-ageless bod? And sole? Sorry, soul?! Reasonably good acting by Paresh Rawal who has the only sensible role in the film. The director lacks any sense of realism getting all caught up in his new-fangled discovery of a hot new idea. Nowhere are we presented with any real-life problems or issues such a pair might face, other than actually getting married which is only the initial obstacle. The sub-plot of a little kid with cancer (the bachelor boy's first love) goes nowhere and whatever little bit of poignancy this otherwise insipid presentation would have evoked is quickly killed off along with the girl's character.<br /><br />Anyway, nice try but not quite there yet. | negative |
The Canterville Ghost (1996).The director made this too sappy a production. Maybe it's the generation, but I really liked the Charles Laughton version. There is a time and place for "emoting" and this production does not translate very well. Patrick Stewart, reciting Shakespeare was very good, but still inappropriate. Would neither recommend nor watch again. The close-ups and padded text and sub-plots were lost on me. Adding extraneous material and scenes takes away from a truly great work. The screenplay writer should find another profession in which to misplace his talent, maybe afternoon soap operas would be a better venue. Check out the really good version and pass on this one. | negative |
I am not so much like Love Sick as I image. Finally the film express sexual relationship of Alex, kik, Sandu their triangle love were full of intenseness, frustration and jealous, at last, Alex waked up and realized that they would not have result and future.Ending up was sad.<br /><br />The director Tudor Giurgiu was in AMC theatre on Sunday 12:00PM on 08/10/06, with us watched the movie together. After the movie he told the audiences that the purposed to create this film which was to express the sexual relationships of Romanian were kind of complicate.<br /><br />On my point of view sexual life is always complicated in everywhere, I don't feel any particular impression and effect from the movie. The love proceeding of Alex and Kiki, and Kiki and her brother Sandu were kind of next door neighborhood story.<br /><br />The two main reasons I don't like this movie are, firstly, the film didn't told us how they started to fall in love? Sounds like after Alex moved into the building which Kiki was living, then two girls are fall in love. It doesn't make sense at all. How a girl would fall in love with another girl instead of a man. Too much fragments, you need to image and connect those stories by your mind. Secondly, The whole film didn't have a scene of Alex and Kik's sexual intercourse, that 's what I was waiting for
. However, it still had some parts were deserved to recommend. The "ear piercing " part was kind of interesting. Alex was willing to suffer the pain of ear piercing to appreciate kik's love. That was a touching scene which gave you a little idea of their love. Also, the scene of they were lying in the soccer field, the conversation express their loves were truthful and passionate. | negative |
This is absolutely the best 80s cartoon ever, maybe the best cartoon of all time. It had everything action, adventure, thrill, and much more...<br /><br />I can't imagine how hard it was for Ruby-Spears company to make this great cartoon, there has been spent a lot of money for this masterpiece of work and it was worth it, for example just the beaming down scenes were hard because I wouldn't call the 1980s for a great technology year with computers like now in the world we live in so the beaming down scenes were excellent!<br /><br />The cartoons will never be the same as they were before, that is why I hope that they all will be released on DVD specially The Centurions as it's my favorite. I have the whole complete set of 65 episodes on DVD-r but it's not the same because if they were released on DVD the people in the world would be able to buy it and see the DVD's in almost every store which means a lot to the fans. My good friend Ted made this petition to either get the show back on TV or better on DVD, that is if we get many requests to get them back on DVD.<br /><br />So please help us by signing the petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/6600F/petition.html | positive |
Killjoy 2 is the same as killjoy 1. Bad acting, bad characters, annoying clown, bad lines, you name it. Honestly, I'm not all that surprised that more people haven't seen this movie. The only reason I watched Killjoy 2 is because I wanted to think that the filmmakers learned from their mistakes. They didn't. This movie is just as bad, if not worse, than the first one. That clown.... that goddamn clown.... I hate him! I hate him so much! And I don't hate him because he is a good villain... I hate him because he is annoying beyond belief! I hope that the filmmakers realized after trying and failing again that this movie is unrepairable. The last thing we need is a Killjoy 3. | negative |
Officially the first martial arts movie in USSR cinematography featuring actual martial artists like Tadeush Kas'yanov and Russian Bruce Lee - Talgat Nigmatullin. Bad people highjack a ship in the high seas but fortunately just about everybody on board is a trained martial artist. A collectible for martial arts aficionado. | negative |
I saw Teen Devian in 1993 telecasted in Doordarshan on a Friday night, and could scarcely believe that such a remarkable film was ever made in Bollywood. It was mind blowing a film with a "modern" storyline, superb music, three lovely ladies and my fave superstar Dev Anand.In this unusual storyline, Dev falls in love with three women the simple Nanda, the ravishing Kalpana and the sophisticated Simi. They too are enamored with him and want to marry him. This puts Dev in a dilemma (which is the crux of the storyline)- whom to marry?. He consults a hypnotist who asks Dev to gaze into a crystal ball. Dev finds the answer and marries Nanda. Beautifully directed (most probably by Dev saheb himself & not by Amarjeet the official director) the B&W classic has evergreen music some of SD Burman's (helped generously by RD Burman) best compositions. "Uff kitni thadni hai yeh ruth" is the probably the most sexiest song ever composed in Hindi films. Credit should also be given to Majrooh Sultanpuri for penning the memorable lyrics Teen Devian is a breezy musical which completely suited the style of Dev Anand and he did full justice to the role. Unfortunately Teen Devian has never received the recognition & popularity it richly deserves.<br /><br />A must see for any Hindi film buff, I will rate the eternal favourite 9.5 out of 10. | positive |