Datasets:

rithwik-db

/

processed_demo

like 0

The story behind this movie is very interesting, and in general the plot is not so bad... but the details: writing, directing, continuity, pacing, action sequences, stunts, and use of CG all cheapen and spoil the film.<br /><br />First off, action sequences. They are all quite unexciting. Most consist of someone standing up and getting shot, making no attempt to run, fight, dodge, or whatever, even though they have all the time in the world. The sequences just seem bland for something made in 2004.<br /><br />The CG features very nicely rendered and animated effects, but they come off looking cheap because of how they are used.<br /><br />Pacing: everything happens too quickly. For example, "Elle" is trained to fight in a couple of hours, and from the start can do back-flips, etc. Why is she so acrobatic? None of this is explained in the movie. As Lilith, she wouldn't have needed to be able to do back flips - maybe she couldn't, since she had wings.<br /><br />Also, we have sequences like a woman getting run over by a car, and getting up and just wandering off into a deserted room with a sink and mirror, and then stabbing herself in the throat, all for no apparent reason, and without any of the spectators really caring that she just got hit by a car (and then felt the secondary effects of another, exploding car)... "Are you okay?" asks the driver "yes, I'm fine" she says, bloodied and disheveled.<br /><br />I watched it all, though, because the introduction promised me that it would be interesting... but in the end, the poor execution made me wish for anything else: Blade, Vampire Hunter D, even that movie with vampires where Jackie Chan was comic relief, because they managed to suspend my disbelief, but this just made me want to shake the director awake, and give the writer a good talking to.

0neg

Some have praised _Atlantis:_The_Lost_Empire_ as a Disney adventure for adults. I don't think so--at least not for thinking adults.<br /><br />This script suggests a beginning as a live-action movie, that struck someone as the type of crap you cannot sell to adults anymore. The "crack staff" of many older adventure movies has been done well before, (think _The Dirty Dozen_) but _Atlantis_ represents one of the worse films in that motif. The characters are weak. Even the background that each member trots out seems stock and awkward at best. An MD/Medicine Man, a tomboy mechanic whose father always wanted sons, if we have not at least seen these before, we have seen mix-and-match quirks before. The story about how one companion, Vinny played by Don Novello (Fr. Guido Sarducci), went from flower stores to demolitions totally unconvincing.<br /><br />Only the main character, Milo Thatch, a young Atlantis-obsessed academic voiced by Michael J. Fox, has any depth to him. Milo's search for Atlantis continues that of his grandfather who raised him. The opening scene shows a much younger Milo giddily perched on a knee, as his grandfather places his pith helmet on his head.<br /><br />And while the characters were thin at best, the best part about _Atlantis_ was the voice talent. Perhaps Milo's depth is no thicker than Fox's charm. Commander Rourke loses nothing being voiced by James Garner. Although Rourke is a pretty stock military type, Garner shows his ability to breath life into characters simply by his delivery. Garner's vocal performance is the high point. I'm sorry to say Leonard Nimoy's Dying King is nothing more than obligatory. Additionally, Don Novello as the demolition expert, Vinny Santorini, was also notable for one or two well-done, funny lines--but I've always liked Father Guido Sarducci, anyway. <br /><br />Also well done was the Computer Animation. The BACKGROUND animation, that is. The character animation has not been this bad for Disney since the minimalism that drove Don Bluth out the door. The character animation does nothing if not make already flat characters appear even flatter. Aside from landscapes, buildings and vehicles there isn't much to impress.<br /><br />The plot was the worst. Some say hackneyed or trite. I'm not so sure about that. Any serviceable plot can be made into something new with the proper treatment. Shakespeare often started from a known story and plot and was famous only for putting on a new coat of paint. So the treatment is the thing. And _Atlantis_ obviously lacks that.<br /><br />I cannot begin to go into all the logic gaps without a spoiler section. The plot was bad. The plot's bridges snap like twine and the ending does not make sense. To add to that, the script and the animation is peppered with annoying sloppiness.<br /><br />** SPOILERS **<br /><br />1. Right at the beginning when Milo reveals that runic or Celtic symbols have been wrongly transliterated and the "Coast of Ireland" should read the "Coast of Iceland", we begin to have problems. The writers of the script would need to know the British take for Eire or Eireann as "Ireland", and completely ignore the older, Latin term Hibernia. But more than this, they need to know of the Vikings conspiracy to call the greener island Iceland and the icier island Greenland. <br /><br />By making it the matter of a mis-tranliterated "letter", the writers have doomed themselves to requiring a runic version of English and a post-Roman date on the script. Since this is long after Atlantis was supposed to have sunk into its undersea cave. And without visible clues and less technology than Milo had, made the inscription far less trustworthy.<br /><br />2. The Shepard's Journal could not be written before the sinking of Atlantis, or it would know nothing about the cave or the crystal lying "in the King's eye". It must have been written after the sinking, but without even the technology that Milo's expedition had, how the heck did anybody get by the Leviathan. So how could it know more about anything after that? And why would it be written in Atlantian? <br /><br />Automatic writing and clairvoyance or astral travel can explain these things. However clairvoyance and astral travel do not require the shepard to write in Atlantian. So it's got to be some sort automatic writing. Since noone left in Atlantis can read, it must be the spirits of the crystal beaming messages to the surface. This would have made more sense. But could also have been explained within the movie: Milo could have discovered that this power had been calling him all his life--appeared in dreams, etc. This needed to be explored in the movie.<br /><br />3. The Atlantians should simply not be able to comprehend modern languages. No-one expects that the original Indo-Europeans would be able to converse in Europe, anymore than Romans would understand that hard "c"s or their day became French "ch"s (pronounced like "sh"s, no less!)<br /><br />4. Current Atlantians were alive before the cataclysm--when apparently they *could* read, yet now are unable to read what they used to, or operate similar machinery. <br /><br />5. The Mass Illiteracy points out a crucial flaw in the movie. NOTHING seems to have happened to this culture. It seems suspended in air until Milo can rescue it. Even though it appears that life is not a constant struggle for survival, no-one wants to compose poetry or write novels and perhaps it is a combination of Atlantian school systems going downhill toward the end and lack of good fiction that caused Atlantis to fall into illiteracy.<br /><br />5. Kida can be excused for not knowing how to read or operate the machinery if she was so young when the Cataclysm of Stupidity set in--But ANY OF IT **HARDLY** qualifies her father for Deification!! Kashakim's foolishness almost single-handedly wiped his people from existence. Killed a bunch in the cataclysm, stalled progress (not a lot killed here, but he oversaw a massive slide in culture and progress) until someone could take the crystal to kill everybody, if they weren't boiled in lava first because the Giant Robots weren't there to protect them. <br /><br />A bolt of blue electricity should have shattered Kashakim's likeness, when Kida tried joining her father's image to the circle of GREAT Kings of Atlantis! <br /><br />6. Even though Milo was the only one who could read Atlantian, Rourke and others knew enough to look through a book of gibberish and find a page on a crystal--which he knew to be a crystal and not some stylized astrological or "phases of the sun" diagram.<br /><br />7. If Milo's grandfather had told Rourke about it, it still does not explain what how Rourke would have suffered from Milo's reading it as part of the book. Ripping out the page--which was dog-eared in Rourke's hand, even though Milo found NO sign of a torn page in the book apparently--only was there to tip off the viewer that "something was not quite right". Unless the word "crystal" would have set alarms off in Milo's head that somebody would try to steal it, Milo would have suspected nothing. It's just thick-headed foreshadowing.<br /><br />8. The crew's "double-cross" was not a character change. We learned that Vinny, Sweet, Audrey and Cookie had been going along with Rourke from the beginning. However, the "change of heart" falls flat. It was a change, and needed to be better motivated. Hard to do with characters who weren't given anything to begin with.<br /><br />9. Niggling little bit that the lava flows up over the dome, instead of filling in the rest of the area that we view the sequence from. It's liquid; it will not flow over the protective dome until it fills up all lower areas.<br /><br />10. The ending STINKS!-- and makes no sense other than to appease political correctness. With it's powersource restored, Atlantis is no longer a weak power, needing coddling. The giant robot guardians and the sky-cycles shooting blue lightning suggest that they have less to fear from us than they might. The technology is superior to ours, and definitely to early 20th-century. In the end Milo needs to teach the Atlantians to read, for what? The whole idea is to leave their little quiet, chastened culture alone, not to send it into hyperdrive. <br /><br />** END SPOILERS **<br /><br />Perhaps, the Lost World plot and the turn-of-the-century setting should give me a hint that this is more an homage to pulps. The failures I find with the film agree with this idea. But I am at a loss why I should pay to see thin characters and plot holes simply because many dime novels had them as well. And pulp stories is part of the "crap they can't sell adults anymore", anyway. We have become a bit more sophisticated and our pulp needs to grow up as well. Raiders of the Lost Ark lost none of its pulp feel and avoided so much badness.<br /><br />4 out of 10--the movie is enjoyable but as I think about the plot, it seeps ever lower.

0neg

I have to admit that by moments I had to laugh at how bad that movie was... But the laughs were too few and since this whole thing was in no way a parody, it felt more like an insult to the viewer's intelligence. The worst acting I have ever seen from any of these people...

0neg

Hickory Dickory Dock was a good Poirot mystery. I confess I have not read the book, despite being an avid Agatha Christie fan. The adaptation isn't without its problems, there were times when the humour, and there were valiant attempts to get it right, was a little overdone, and the events leading up to the final solution were rather rushed. I also thought there were some slow moments so some of the mystery felt padded. However, I loved how Hickory Dickory Dock was filmed, it had a very similar visual style to the brilliant ABC Murders, and it really set the atmosphere, what with the dark camera work and dark lighting. The darker moments were somewhat creepy, this was helped by one of the most haunting music scores in a Poirot adaptation, maybe not as disturbing as the one in One Two Buckle My Shoe, which gave me nightmares. The plot is complex, with all the essential ingredients, though not as convoluted as Buckle My Shoe,and in some way that is a good thing. The acting was very good, David Suchet is impeccable(I know I can't use this word forever but I can't think of a better word to describe his performance in the series) as Poirot, and Phillip Jackson and Pauline Moran do justice to their integral characters brilliantly. And the students had great personalities and well developed on the whole, particularly Damian Lewis as Leonard. All in all, solid mystery but doesn't rank along the best. 7.5/10 Bethany Cox

1pos

Some movies you just know you're going to love from the first few seconds. This is one of those movies. Tracing it's roots back to "Double Indemnity," and "The Postman Always Rings Twice" in the 40's - this was a great example of Modern Film Noir in the 90's. Nick Cage plays the "down on his luck" main character who gets entangled in a husband-wife murder plot - and his luck goes from bad to worse to even worse as he tries and tries to get away from the people, town, violence and threat of Red Rock West. Lots of twists and turns, great performances by Cage, Hopper and Walsh, an hypnotic slide-guitar musical backdrop, and seamless directing make this a real joy. Favorite Line: When Cage looks at the empty gas gauge in the get-away car, shakes his head and says: "F***in' story of my life."

1pos

While not exactly offensive, the 1967 version of "The Perils of Pauline" is certainly moronic. The title might lead you to expect a tribute to Pearl White (the original Pauline in the 1914 silent 20 episode serial) but for that you would be better served by the 1947 version starring Betty Hutton. This 1967 version is like a mix of "Casino Royale" and the weakest of the Elvis movies. Worst of all it is not a blend of these but more like someone scotch-taped together segments from each so that the thing skips back and forth between the two styles. <br /><br />What unity there is in the production comes from the pairing of Pamela Austin (Pauline) and Pat Boone (George Steadman), a good match because both lack even the most basic of acting skills (imagine Mandy Moore playing opposite Dan Quayle). <br /><br />Austin would later play opposite John Aston in "Evil Roy Slade", with the talent disparity between them actually painful to watch. In the mid-60's she was the "Dodge Rebellion" girl, as such she was featured in a similar series of perilous situations-imagine Sandra Dee in a dark blue jumpsuit. When the automaker's ad agency replaced her with the "Dodge Fever" girl someone got the bright idea to showcase her in a feature film. <br /><br />What story there is here begins with Pauline growing up in the Baskerville Foundling Home run by the actress who played Mrs. Chatsworth Osborne Sr. on "Dobie Gillis". George falls in love with her (Pauline-not Mrs Osborne) and sabotages several opportunities she has to be adopted. George leaves to seek his fortune and 19 year old Pauline gets a job tutoring a young oil rich Middle Eastern prince. When he tries to add the attractive blonde to his harem she runs away and goes from peril to peril. These include African pygmies, a 99½ year-old millionaire who wants to freeze her until his one year-old grandson is old enough for marriage, the movie industry, and the Russian space program.<br /><br />All this is intended to be silly and charming but manages only the silly part. There is some effort to incorporate a silent film look to the action sequences by simulating the under- cranking of a camera (which speeds up the action). Unfortunately everything else (film stock, production design, editing) is depressingly 1960's. Nothing here even approaches the images of Pearl White strapped to a log moving toward a buzz-saw or tied to railway track waiting for the approaching train.<br /><br />Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.

0neg

Never cast models and Playboy bunnies in your films! Bob Fosse's "Star 80" about Dorothy Stratten, of whom Bogdanovich was obsessed enough to have married her SISTER after her murder at the hands of her low-life husband, is a zillion times more interesting than Dorothy herself on the silver screen. Patty Hansen is no actress either..I expected to see some sort of lost masterpiece a la Orson Welles but instead got Audrey Hepburn cavorting in jeans and a god-awful "poodlesque" hair-do....Very disappointing...."Paper Moon" and "The Last Picture Show" I could watch again and again. This clunker I could barely sit through once. This movie was reputedly not released because of the brouhaha surrounding Ms. Stratten's tawdry death; I think the real reason was because it was so bad!

0neg

There are often badly-matched couples (in the general sense of the term) -in Huston's movies :"African Queen" "Heaven knows Mister Allison" "roots of Heaven" "Misfits" ..."The Barbarian and the geisha" (check the title) is another good example,so to speak.It seems that Japanese stuff was trendy at the time as such works as "Sayonara" " the world of Suzie Wong" and "the teahouse of the August moon" bear witness. Huston's effort might be the worst of this rather bad lot(with the exception of "Susie " maybe).John Wayne perfectly fits in Ford's world ,in Huston's he's like a bull in a china shop.His Japanese partner is totally bland.Even the dramatic scenes (cholera epidemic) do not save the movie from absolute boredom.<br /><br />Only those utterly enamoured of Huston's every work need to choose this ,among all his other great movies around.

0neg

This first installment of Crispin Glover's personal magnum opus asks you to think a little, and so can't be recommended for any viewer who doesn't want to sit and puzzle over Glover's imagery or follow the surprisingly simple—but weirdly obfuscated—thread of his narrative. To the more casual viewer, yes, it's probably going to come off as a confusing mish-mash of odd, startling, and disturbing imagery for imagery's sake. <br /><br />You get the sense that Glover doesn't mind that this is the case, and he'll almost as gladly listen to why someone hated the film as to why they enjoyed it. Glover's innate eagerness for and about his work and how audiences interpret it is strongly communicated not only through the film itself, but also through the unusual question and answer sessions that he frequently conducts following showings; he clearly hopes that people will continue to think about what he has presented.<br /><br />The easiest way to interpret and dismiss the film is to label it as Dada or nihilist, a juvenile attack on the modern movie industry from an actor who's worked both without and within. But there's a reason why Glover performs his slideshow before showing his movie, and it's not only to sell books; his books juxtapose and create a narrative from images and text that Glover pieced together, and What Is It? does similarly with imagery drawn from Western culture. <br /><br />What Is It? is an endearing and compelling film in ways one hardly expects while viewing. Much has already been made about Glover's use of actors with Down's syndrome, and indeed that is one of the most initially striking aspects of the film. So jarring, in fact, that many seem to interpret it as some sort of far-reaching crusade to see a more realistic and/or dignified portrayal of the disabled in movies and television—or, on the absolute other end of the spectrum, as a kind of direct exploitation of the disabled. But it's not either, and maybe that's part of what makes this film so uncomfortable for many: the underlying agenda is not a political one or one of hatred, but one of looking beyond the mainstream culture into a kind of outsider ugliness. It's not a film about Down's syndrome, but it is a film that is owned by the actors with Down's syndrome who appear in it.<br /><br />I'm the sort of person who is entirely gung-ho when it comes to ugliness and strangeness being portrayed so starkly that it is beautiful; happily for me, this is pretty much exactly how What Is It? presents itself to viewers. Glover uses the strange images of snails, death, and the disabled in part because he wants his audience to feel discomfort at either the sheer oddness of the imagery or the visceral reaction one has to the dying screams of an anthropomorphized snail. In some ways, the weirdly compelling (and occasionally downright grotesque) elements of What Is It? remind me of the work of the painter Francis Bacon… he of the infamous popes, yes, and the odd distortions of the human figure that inevitably make viewers cringe and want to look away. Like Bacon's paintings, Glover's film manages to be opulent and humble, grainy and polished, chaotic and well-realized… and the contradictions help to make it all the more disconcerting. But still this is not an entirely serious film, and it largely manages to sidestep the greatest pitfalls of pretension through the use of humor that, for the most part, derives from the use (and juxtaposition) of familiar items, images, and names of popular culture. And when What Is It? is funny, it is very funny.<br /><br />Overall, What Is It? is an impressive first film from Glover as a director and writer, and his presence as an actor in the film proves not to be nearly the distraction one might expect it to be. Watching it is like being an observer in the kind of dream that isn't exactly good or bad, but just strange… and that leaves you feeling slightly grimy when you wake up. If that's the kind of art you enjoy, What Is It? is likely to exceed your expectations and be well-worth the effort of catching it in the theatre, along with The Big Slide Show and Glover himself. All in all, it's an experience you're unlikely to forget any time soon.

1pos

Definitely the worst movie I have ever seen... Can somebody tell me where should have I laughed? There's not a single hint or shadow of an idea. The three leading actors are pestilential, especially the one (I think it's Aldo) from Sicily who _can't_ make a Sicilian accent!!! Not to say about the dream-like insertion about Dracula... just another expedient, drawn from the worst cabaret tradition, to make this "film" last a little longer. Massironi and Littizzetto do what they can, but this so-called movie was really too, too hard to rescue. I would have given it "0"/10, but the lowest mark was 1/10 and so I had to overestimate it by one mark.

0neg

_Les Acteurs_ is the absurd story of Jean-Pierre Marielle desperately waiting for a cup of hot water, the story of a conspiracy against actors, the story of aging actors whose careers are slowly less active than they used to be, but a stunning tribute to French actors and their cinema.<br /><br />Supported by a solid reflection about cinema and acting (the fourth wall, the hidden cameras, to play or not to play), the story of this film in which most of those famous actors play their own role (not to be mixed up with living their life in front of the camera - the film is not voyeur) is quite vague, and follows the actors in series of episodes which make the film quite amusing. As André Dussolier quits the film and leaves Josiane Balasko to play his part (great actress, she's hilariously serious especially when, in Dussolier's role, she bitches about herself), as actors run in each other on the street, asking for autographs, as fights and gossip happen, we recognize pastiche of other scenes in which each (or others) have played.<br /><br />Actually, for whoever does not know the actors (most of them being at least in their 50s) or does not know French Cinema, this movie has less interest, since most of the references will be missed, but it will still offer a good track of reflection on aging, on acting, on public life...

1pos

Coming of age movies are quite usual these days. For 1980, "Foxes" really gives its meaning. Jodie Foster plays her character straight out. Ever since she did "Taxi Driver" four years earlier, she has a stronger character in this movie. She's Jeanie, a high schooler who has plenty of guts, and seems to get out of any situation she's in. Scott Baio plays Brad way before Chachi on "Happy Days". He's deemed immature by the other girls. Cherie Currie is Annie, hangs with the wrong crowd, chased by her policeman father. Jeanie and her three other friends decide to live on the wild side until they move into a rented house where a party get totally out of hand. Exploring life on the other side of the tracks can be either fun or dangerous. Annie is rescued by Jeanie and Brad all the time whenever she gets wasted. Reality comes back hard where she is killed in a automobile accident. And one gets married to a much older man. Growing up isn't easy, sometimes we got to explore life how it is. In reality, you got to be careful about the people surrounding you. For me, I was my own person, and I tend to stay that way! Great music, great plot, this movie's a gem! 4 out of 5 stars!

1pos

I just finished watching this movie and I found it was basically just not funny at all.<br /><br />I'm an RPG Gamer (computer type, none of the DnD tabletop stuff) but I found none of the jokes in this funny at all.<br /><br />Some of the scenes seemed to drag out a lot (tilt and zoom could've been cut down to 5seconds rather than over a minute) and it feels as though the director was just trying to fill in time.<br /><br />I think I laughed a total of 2-3 times in the entire movie.<br /><br />The acting itself wasn't all that bad, around the standard that a B Grade movie should have.<br /><br />I'd suggest not bothering with this movie unless you're a huge DnD fan and even then it would probably be best to steer clear of it.

0neg

I saw this film in my cinema class. I am glad that I did not pay to see it. I came into it with an open mind, and was even a little excited. I really enjoy Ed Norton and Evan Rachel Wood, and the rest of the cast was interesting. I just never connected with this movie. The acting was great, the cinematography was interesting, but the storyline, or rather, lack thereof, was a problem. There was no central, connecting theme to the movie. Was it a romance between Norton and Wood? Well, no, not really. Was it a western? Kind of, but no. I'm all for twists in movies, I recently saw "Brick" and loved it, but the place that this movie went was just too out there. It was so weird, and if I weren't required to have sat through the whole film, I would have walked out. The writing wasn't terrible, but it was just all over the place. By the time this movie ended, I was just left terribly confused and wishing that it had ended sooner. There was just something about this film that didn't resonate, I understand more offbeat films like "Fight Club", but I just did not care about the characters at all.

0neg

Icy and lethal ace hit-man Tony Arzenta (a divinely smooth and commanding performance by Alain Delon) wants to quit the assassination business, but the dangerous mobsters he works for won't let him. After his wife and child are killed, Arzenta declares open season on everyone responsible for their deaths. Director Duccio Tessari relates the absorbing story at a constant snappy pace, maintains a properly serious and no-nonsense tone throughout, stages the stirring shoot-outs and exciting car chases with considerable rip-snorting brio, and punctuates the narrative with jolting outbursts of explosive bloody violence. Delon's suave and charismatic presence adds extra class to the already engrossing proceedings. This film further benefits from sterling acting by a bang-up cast, with praiseworthy contributions by Richard Conte as wise Mafia kingpin Nick Gusto, Carla Gravini as Arzenta's supportive lady friend Sandra, Marc Porel as Arzenta's loyal pal Domenico Maggio, Anton Diffring as ruthless, calculating capo Grunwald, and Lino Troisi as the venomous gangster Rocco Cutitta. Silvano Ippoliti's glossy cinematography boasts several graceful pans. Gianni Ferrio's funky score hits the get-down groovy spot. Erika Blanc and Rosalba Neri pop up briefly in nifty bit parts. Better still, there's no filler to speak of and we even get a decent dab of tasty gratuitous female nudity. The startling conclusion packs a mean and lingering wallop right to the gut. A solid and satisfying winner.

1pos

Usually I'm a bit of a fan of the bad eighties & early nineties film featuring now has beens...but this film is so incredibly terrible that it was a real endurance test to sit through. Guys dressing up as girls has been done to death - but never so pathetically. Corey Haim's performance was abysmal as usual, Nicole Eggert was not much better. This has no redeeming qualities, even if you are a number #1 fan of an actor/actress in this piece of trash - stay away!

0neg

THE MAN IN THE MOON is a warm and moving coming of age drama centering around a farming family in the 1950's. The main story follows a 14-year old girl (Reese Witherspoon) who develops a crush on a 17-year old neighbor (Jason London) who ends up falling for her older sister (Emily Warfield) and how an unexpected tragedy alters this family's dynamics forever. The 1950's are lovingly evoked here and the screenplay gives you characters you come to care about almost immediately. Witherspoon already begins to show the Oscar-winning talent she would develop in this early role and London makes a charming leading man. Warfield lends a quiet maturity to the role of the older sister that is effective as well. Kudos to Sam Waterston and Tess Harper who play the girls' parents and Gail Strickland, who plays London's mom. I was unexpectedly moved by this quiet and affecting drama that stirs up strong emotions and gives deeper meaning to the phrase "family ties."

1pos

Any Way the Wind Blows is Tom Barmans (who is also know as front man of the rock formation 'dEUS') debut movie. Entirely shot in Antwerp (Belgium), the movie starts on a sunny friday morning and skips rather superficially between the events that fill the day of a dozen of main characters. When the movie ends, you have a lot of stuff to think about, because most of the different story-lines are left wide open.<br /><br />The movie has a (purely instrumental) sound track that will rock your socks off. In most scenes, the music truly enhances the general atmosphere and feel, really making the movie hallucinating to watch at certain points of time. The main scene in the film, the party, is very well shot.<br /><br />The director didn't hesitate to use video clip techniques, having his main characters dancing on one of the best sound tracks I've heard lately.<br /><br />The screenplay is great stuff. Camera angles and colors are very well chosen. The 'costumes' are very hot and very 'seventies' too. And I loved (most of the) acting.<br /><br />The thing I liked most about the movie, are the subtle touches of absurd, surreal, very dry or even cynical humor that interleave.<br /><br />Without claiming to be a comedy (this movie certainly is not a comedy but rather an alternative piece of art), it still manages to have its audience giggling and even burst into laughter at some times.<br /><br />This is one more directors' debut that shouldn't be an ending. I hope to see more Tom Barman movies in the future because I had a good time. Cheers.

1pos

The film lacks style, i mean original style. everything looks copied including action, first appearances in the movie, songs, dialog delivery, etc etc. Yes, there the goof-ups were original, like in the beginning a car is shown with number UP**** number and few seconds later it starts falling down a hill with number MH**** . That was one in many goof-ups of the movie :) Anything good in the movie? yes, for kareena fans, if there are any, Kareena in bikini. For akshay fans, his dialogs and action stunts. Thats it. nothing else. So watch it on your own risk and don't blame the director or actors. Director is already insane and actors, i pity them.

0neg

Hidden Frontier has been talked about and reported on by several news agencies for their long commitment to creating the best Star Trek stories and to providing an example of the togetherness that was Gene Roddenberry's mission. Their focus on homosexuality, depression, war, and acceptance of different races is on par or exceeds those of the other Trek series and movies. The production value started off as smaller and choppy but over the 7 seasons of production the acting has improved, the stories are more complex, and the visual graphics have gotten smoother and more impressive. In season 6 episode 1, Countermeasures, there is one of the biggest space battles in Trek history. The ships are rendered well and the space battles are impressive and exciting. The real draw to Frontier is not the ships or the backgrounds, but it is the people and the interplay and growth of characters. There are also nods to other Trek series and movies with places and characters we all know. I recommend any Trek fan to check out Countermeasures and you will be hooked!

1pos

First of all when I saw the teaser trailer for Wendy Wu, I was definitely excited. Brenda Song, one of the hottest girls on Disney Channel, would be doing martial arts and I was fine with that... until I saw the movie. The action was poorly constructed, the movie couldn't have realated to anyone, the fighting was unrealistic and it sucked... along with the plot. If you really think about it's a wannabe Buffy the Vampire Slayer, a girl who is the descendant of other warriors who were women, a girl wants to ignore her calling and wants to become homecoming queen, the watcher who bug's her to prepare for a big fight against some ancient evil. The idea just wasn't all that original, the movie is waste of time.

0neg

Now my friends, films like "La Bête" (aka "The Beast" or "O Monstro")only can be done in the old continent :),in this film we see all: horses dirty sex, nymphomaniac kind off gorilla, non sense dialogs, etc, etc, etc... In the serious terms now,its an allegory, that men sometimes could be bestial, visceral and brutal,Walerian Borowczyk (the director) shows us the loss of innocence, sexual violence, rape and brutality. Its a astonishing cinematic experience, bizarre and full of grotesque scenes. For all fans of European shocking exploitation, i recommend this film.If you like this one i recommend: "Orloff Against the Invisible Man" and "Alterated States".

1pos

Despite the rave reviews this flick has garnered in New Zealand, any hype surrounding the production is sadly undeserved. Apart from a clichés-only plot, the movie is let down by some weak acting, accents, and overall lack of tension.<br /><br />Whilst having the overall look of a big budget (for NZ), the feel is decidedly small-town Kiwi...<br /><br />Has anyone not seen The Brothers ?? ( http://imdb.com/title/tt0250274/ ) Those who have will pick the similarities straightaway....I've heard comments that scenes like the boys playing basketball etc were shot to poke fun at the clichéd "boys talking crap", but it comes across as forced...<br /><br />I believe Oscar Keightley sees himself as deeply ironic, but again his delivery always seems merely vaguely self conscious.<br /><br />Those who have any doubts left at all that Samoans-living-in-NZ culture has been deeply , hopefully not permanently ,affected by American speech , culture, and everything inbetween will certainly have their minds made up at the end of this movie.<br /><br />Robbie magasiva always looks good on screen , but is let down by the script..<br /><br />It always rubs me up the wrong way when a "comedy" has scenes that are set up in such an obvious way, you are left feeling like having a good groan at the clichéd punchline - see the wanna be white boy...<br /><br />I know someone who found this movie hilarious -however, that person has the brains of a tadpole, and would struggle to spell her name if offered a million dollars....<br /><br />That kinda sums up the mentality of this flick , OK but not great , fun but not funny.....Wake up NZ - this is NOT a 5 star movie despite all the glowing (middle class white guilt ?? :-) ) reviews....<br /><br />My advice ? if you watch it, get drunk first!!!

0neg

I first saw Martin's Day when I was just 10 years old, at home, on The Movie Channel, and still remember the impact it made on my life. It touched me as no other film had touched me, and I remember balling my eyes out.<br /><br />After the first time I saw it, I couldn't find it anywhere else. I would ask around and no one had ever heard of the film! I guess it was one of those more rare films that not many people knew about, because no one, and I mean no one, knew what I was talking about. I searched and searched throughout the years, checking video stores shelves and scanning cable TV listings, but always came up short. Finally, in 1996 I found out I could special order it, I did, and have probably watched it at least 50 times since--and it still makes me cry, every time.<br /><br />Martin's Day is about Martin Steckert, a man who is in prison (but genuinely a good guy), who yearns to make it back to the special lake where he grew up as boy. This was a special place, where he lived off nature, spent time with his dog, and was left alone to enjoy life. Soon into the movie, he escapes and starts making his way back to the lake.<br /><br />It isn't long before the cops find him, and Steckert grabs a child as a hostage to convince the police to back off. Soon Steckert and his hostage (the 2nd Martin) become best friends, and have many fun adventures together--from robbing a toy truck, to hi-jacking a train, all on the way to this special lake.<br /><br />Throughout the movie, Steckert has great flashbacks of him at the lake as a boy.<br /><br />I won't ruin the ending for you, but I will tell you, this movie is a must see. It is the BEST movie I have EVER seen in my life! I am, without a doubt, the biggest fan of this movie EVER! I managed to find the song that the two Martin's are singing throughout the movie ("I'm going back, to where I come from...). I'm even planning a trip to Canada to see the lake and cottage where Martin's Day was filmed. Crazy, I know--but that movie just means so much to me.

1pos

Surprisingly enough does movie does have some redeeming quality in it when it moves toward its end. For the other part this movie is being a really bad and lame one, with a small budget, insultingly bad written script and everything that goes with it.<br /><br />It's silly that with all the money going around in the Christian circles they never can seem to get sufficient funds to make a decent movie with. I'm not a religious, so I couldn't care less really but film-making does some like a good tool to reach a new audience for churches and getting people more interested and curious in reading the bible for instance. In that regard these movies always seem like a wasted opportunity.<br /><br />The low budget does really hurt the movie and brings it down. It makes the movie laughable to watch with its effects and it just gives the overall movie a campy B-movie like feeling.<br /><br />But what's hurting this movie more is its writing. The stuff that just happens in this movie is just insulting to the intelligence and then I'm not even complaining or talking about the religious aspects of the whole story. The way the movie progresses is just so improbable and the people within this movie do such highly unlikely things that it's being insulting to its viewers.<br /><br />I also hated how the movie was being like a soap opera at times. Seemed to me that they simply had a hard time turning this into a full length movie and they added in some characters and dramatic developments just to fill things up. I just couldn't cared less really at times.<br /><br />Still it needs to be said that the movie gets more solid and steady toward its end, when its story gets more focused on its essence. Still it remains predictable all but it prevented this movie from being a complete wreck to watch and as far as these type of movies are concerned, there are far worser one to watch out there, though I don't think this movie will win over any new souls.<br /><br />4/10

0neg

My kid makes better videos than this! I feel ripped off of the $4.00 spent renting this thing! There is no date on the video case, apparently designed by Wellspring; and, what's even worse, there's no production date for the original film listed anywhere in the movie! The only date given is 2002, leading an unsuspecting renter to believe he's getting a recent film.<br /><br />This movie was so bad from a standpoint of being outdated and irrelevant for any time period but precisely when it was made, that I'm amazed that anyone would take the time and expense to market it as a video. It might be of interest to students studying the counter-culture of the 1960's, the anti-war, anti-establishment, tune-in, turn-on and drop out culture; but when you read the back of the video case, there's no hint that that is what you're getting. If you do make the mistake of renting it though, it is probably best viewed while on drugs, so that your mind will more closely match the wavelength of the minds of the directors, Fassbinder and Fengler. Regardless of your state of mind while watching it, I can tell you that it doesn't get any better after the first scene; so, knowing that, I'm sure you'll be fast asleep long before the end.

0neg

I had high hopes for Troy and I am so bitterly disappointed. The film was directed so badly it made my stomach ache. The pacing was so slow, the dialogue laughable and the film - well apart from a nice fight scene between Achilles (Pitt) and Hector (Bana) - the rest was shallow.<br /><br />And why, oh why does Hollywood always insist on rewriting stories to fit 'consumer approval'. Agamemnon didn't die in Troy, the war lasted 10 years and Achilles was killed by Paris OUTSIDE the walls of Troy with an arrow to the ankle! It annoys me that such a classic story as this is turned into a soap.<br /><br />And don't even start me on the 'lack' of chemistry between Helen and Paris. She was the woman the war was fought over and it didn't even look as if the two of them cared a great deal about the other. No sparks, no emotion, no hope.<br /><br />I have to say in the films defence Brad Pitt, Eric Bana and Peter O' Toole acted very well with a bad script but that isn't enough to save this awful movie. <br /><br />Can anybody tell me where the £200 million budget went? Maybe in all the trees they used for the funeral pyres - where did they get all those trees?<br /><br />I am so disappointed it hurts.

0neg

I loved that this film recognizes the intelligence of the viewer, allowing the layers to peel from the characters through their interactions with each other about the unspoken loss that has so affected each of them. <br /><br />The cinematography is a beautiful, and is an inspired reflection of the vision of someone I believe is an extremely talented new filmmaker with the maturity and artistic insight to tell a story that others with much more experience have failed to accomplish. I see a bright future for this writer/producer/director who had the ability to focus on a goal and accomplish it with integrity.<br /><br />Kudos for this achievement.

1pos

<br /><br />According to reviewers, the year is 1955 and the players are 20 year-old college kids about to enter grad school. Jolly joke!<br /><br />1955? The synthesizer keyboard was not invented yet, but there it is on the bandstand. The Ford Pony Car was not invented yet, but there it is playing oldies music. The synthesizer appeared to be a model from the mid 1970's. The Pony Car at best is from the mid 1960's.<br /><br />20 year-old college kids? Josh Brolin had seen 32 birthdays when this made-for-TV movie was produced.<br /><br />The plot is so predictable that viewers have plenty of spare time to think of all the errors appearing upon their TV's.

0neg

"Land of Plenty" is not a film. It is a tombstone for the directorial career of German Director Wim Wenders.<br /><br />Many felt it in "The Million Dollar Hotel" and now "Land of Plenty" makes it perfectly clear; not only has Wenders lost it, he's actually turned into a BAD director, creating horribly weak and superficial stories and scenes.<br /><br />One might argue that the "time you lose it" comes for every director, but Wenders' case is extreme. It's as if he completely forget everything he knew about cinema and started all over again - only to get sloppish results.<br /><br />In a few words, this film does not deserve your time.

0neg

I've seen a slew of "80s rocker horrors" over the years, from rubbish like "Terror on Tour" to ridiculously fun gems like "Slumber Party Massacre 2." Somehow I managed to keep putting this one off, which is strange because it's probably the most popular and well received one. Well, I finally caught up with it and it's easily the best of this mostly awful (but almost always endearing!) subgenre. The plot (which was pretty much lifted in the film "Black Roses") concerns a mulleted misfit named Eddie, whose ridiculed by all in his high school for his taste in music. He loves 80s metal, especially his idol Sammi Curr (played by the late great Tony Fields.) After Sammi is killed, Eddie favorite radio DJ gives him Sammi's final recording. Once Eddie plays the record backwards, he discovers he's a bit tougher, and bad things start happening to those who taunt him. Is Sammi's music possessed? "Trick or Treat" is well-made and a total hoot. The special effects are awesome, even though it does feature the typical 80s laser beams. I grew up in the 80s, and while I wasn't a fan of heavy metal, I do remember the urban legend about playing a record backwards hearing the sounds of Satan worshipping. Haha! I also remember being told by my older siblings and neighbors that both KISS and Ozzy worshipped Satan, so it's very amusing to see them both make cameos as a harmless radio DJ and a anti-rock priest. If only I had seen this film as a kid! While the film seems to poke fun at the popular connection in the 80s between alleged devil worship and heavy metal, the viewer never really finds out why Sammi Curr is back from the dead creating havoc and killing whoever gets in his way. This is movie's weakest point, but if you can overlook that, it's loads of fun.

1pos

I got a free pass to a preview of this movie last night and didn't know what to expect. The premise seemed silly and I assumed it would be a lot of shallow make-fun-of-the-virgin humor. What a great surprise. I laughed so hard I cried at some of the jokes. This film is a must see for anyone with an open mind and a slightly twisted sense of humor. OK.....this is not a movie to go to with your grandmother (Jack Palance?) or small children. The language is filthy, the jokes are (very) crude, and the sex talk is about as graphic as you'll find anywhere. What's amazing, however, is that the movie is still a sweet love story. My girlfriend and I both loved it. Steve Carell is terrific, but (like The Office) the supporting cast really makes the film work. All of the characters have their flaws, but they also have depth and likability. Everyone pulls their weight and the chemistry is perfect. I can't wait to get the DVD. I'm sure it will be up there with Office Space for replays and quotable lines.

1pos

"Foxes" is a great film. The four young actresses Jodie Foster, Cherie Currie, Marilyn Kagan and Kandice Stroh are wonderful. The song "On the radio" by Donna Summer is lovely. A great film. *****

1pos

THE LAST WAVE is never going to win over the mainstream audience. It is a slow-moving but fascinating film for those who are willing to go along with it. An Australian properties lawyer is asked to take on the case of five aborigines accused in the murder of one of their own. All sorts of portents and omens soon pop up, as the man's death involves a tribal issue that was not meant for white man's court, and pretty soon the lawyer is having trouble distinguishing reality from fantasy. It looks like the end of the world may be at hand, and he and the aborigines may know this but no one else does. Richard Chamberlain as the lawyer is at his peak here. David Guptil, a familiar face from several other Australian flicks and a decent actor, is one of the five aborigines on trial. THE LAST WAVE is simply not for everyone, anymore than is MAGNOLIA (both happen to have strange things falling from the sky). Check it out on a slow Saturday night.

1pos

If you like films about school bullies, brave children, hilarious toddlers and worm eating, then How to Eat Fried Worms will appeal to you.<br /><br />The film is about a boy named Billy, who when arriving on his first day at a new school, discovers that some of his classmates have played a prank on him by putting worms into his lunch. The school bully, Joe and his "team" of friends start teasing Billy and calling him "worm boy".<br /><br />Billy decides to play along by saying that "he eats worms all the time". Joe and his friends don't believe him but Billy assures them and bets Joe that he can eat ten worms in one day otherwise he will come to school with worms in his pants.<br /><br />The boys take Billy up on his bet, leaving the weak stomached child with a mission to gain respect from his classmates by eating worms cooked, fried, or alive.<br /><br />The film may sound gross but there are a lot of messages in it. For one, it portrays true friendship and how to accept people for who they are. It also shows you why some bullies resort to bullying other children.<br /><br />The film's protagonist, Billy is a strong minded and brave person who all of us can relate to. It is easy to empathize with him as we silently cheer for him to reach his goal, even though we might not always agree with what he's doing or the choices he makes.<br /><br />The children in the film are portrayed exactly how children are in real life and the film deserves a lot of credit for that. The child actors are the stars of this show, showing true emotion and feeling than most other children's movies portray.<br /><br />Some adults may not enjoy this film but kids will, perhaps even teenagers.<br /><br />There are hardly any other good movies on circuit at the moment, so if you're not in the mood to see snakes on a plane, try worms on a plate in How to Eat Fried Worms. It is a feel good fun film and not just Fear Factor for kids.

1pos

This solid little horror film is actually one of Renny Harlin's best. The story is pretty routine stuff, but the atmosphere is what really makes it come alive; in fact, the ghost story is almost an afterthought. The real horror comes from the prison setting itself, and Renny H. spares no detail in showing us how bad the conditions are inside that crumbling, leaking, rat-infested old hellhole (with a sadistic warden, too!) Viggo Mortensen is excellent as usual in the lead role, supported by some very authentic-looking prisoners (there are no pretty boys in this cast.) Horror fans should check this one out.

0neg

When I really began to be interested in movies, at the age of eleven, I had a big list of 'must see' films and I would go to Blockbuster and rent two or three per weekend; some of them were not for all audiences and my mother would go nuts. I remember one of the films on that list was "A Chorus Line" and could never get it; so now to see it is a dream come true.<br /><br />Of course, I lost the list and I would do anything to get it back because I think there were some really interesting things to watch there. I mean, take "A Chorus Line", a stage play turned into film. I know it's something we see a lot nowadays, but back then it was a little different, apparently; and this film has something special.<br /><br />Most of the musicals made movies today, take the chance the camera gives them for free, to create different sceneries and take the characters to different places; "A Chorus Line" was born on a theater stage as a play and it dies in the same place as a movie. Following a big audition held by recognized choreographer Zach (Michael Douglas), Richard Atenborough directs a big number of dancers as they try to get the job.<br /><br />Everything happens on the same day: the tension of not knowing, the stress of having to learn the numbers, the silent competition between the dancers…And it all occurs on the stage, where Douglas puts each dancer on the spotlight and makes them talk about their personal life and their most horrible experiences. There are hundreds of dancers and they are all fantastic, but they list shortens as the hours go by.<br /><br />Like a movie I saw recently, "A Prairie Home Companion", the broadcast of a radio show, Atenborough here deals with the problem of continuity. On or behind the stage, things are going on, and time doesn't seem to stop. Again, I don't if Atenborough cut a lot to shoot this, but it sure doesn't look like it; and anyway it's a great directing and editing (John Bloom) work. But in that little stage, what you wonder is what to do with the camera…With only one setting, Ronnie Taylor's cinematography finds the way, making close-ups to certain characters, zooming in and out, showing the stage from different perspective and also giving us a beautiful view of New York.<br /><br />In one crucial moment, Douglas tells the ones that are left: "Before we start eliminating: you're all terrific and I'd like to hire you all; but I can't". This made me think about reality shows today, where the only thing that counts is the singing or dancing talent and where the jury always says that exact words to the contestants before some of them are leaving (even when they are not good). It's hard, you must imagine; at least here, where all of them really are terrific.<br /><br />To tell some of the stories, the characters use songs and, in one second, the stage takes a new life and it literally is 'a dream come true'. The music by Marvin Hamlisch and the lyrics by Edward Kleban make the theater to film transition without flaws, showing these dancers' feelings and letting them do those wonderful choreographies by Michael Bennett. The book in the theater also becomes a flawless and very short screenplay by Arnold Schulman; which is very touching at times. So if it's not with a song it will be with a word; but in "A Chorus Line", it's impossible not to be moved.<br /><br />During one of the rehearsal breaks in the audition, Cassie, a special dancer played by Alyson Reed, takes the stage to convince Douglas character that she can do it. The words "let me dance for you" never sounded more honest and more beautifully put in music and lyrics.

1pos

Watched this as a late TV movie last night purely by chance. The blurb for the film said something to the effect of mother stays with daughter and goes on romantic journey, as I tuned in there's the carpenter hard at work on a new conservatory - played by Daniel Craig no less - so the plot was immediately apparent.<br /><br />It turns out that eponymous mother's carpenter love interest is also the daughter's boyfriend, so there's trouble brewing and not too many surprises. But I'd been caught by Anne Reid's compelling performance and I was hooked. The direction allows her plenty of space for staring into mirrors and adjusting scarves, when she exudes sadness.<br /><br />The sex scenes were fascinating and taboo-breaking. Shouldn't older women's bodies remain covered up? Not here and we're treated to a delicious reawakening in the Mother's sexuality. Even more startling are the drawings she's made that (SPOILER!) once discovered confirm her daughter's suspicion that something's going on here.<br /><br />Cathryn Bradshaw as the daughter didn't convince me quite as much as the rest of the cast, but that could be me. With her waves of pre-Raph locks I kept expecting to see Julia Sawahla, whose more intense face would have suited the confrontations better to my mind. Bradshaw has a rounder happier face that didn't carry the anger that emerges as the film progresses.<br /><br />The ending is weak. If the goodbyes for Mother as she leaves in disgrace are so indifferent then perhaps we could see some close-ups of those waving goodbye and see something of their individual reasons. Whatever she's done, she's a recently bereaved widow leaving for the lonely home she shared with her husband for 30 years, and I found the lack of sympathy jarring. For a film so full of emotion (and be warned it's like opening champagne, you'll never get the lid back on) the ending is a cold contradiction.

1pos

This could be well have been THE definitive film noir of all time, had not the Columbia Studios cut so much of Orson Welles's original. What we are left with is a flawed, yet brilliant film that showcases the overwhelming talent of Welles as an actor/director and Rita Hayworth as a serious dramatic talent.<br /><br />'The Lady From Shanghai' is film noir at it's most sizzling and confusing. Welles, with an uneven accent, portrays Michael O'Hara, a journeyman Irishman, who, after a fateful encounter with the seductive, dangerous Elsa Bannister (Hayworth, in a GREAT performance)finds himself virtually coerced into accepting a job as a crewman on her and her crippled husband's (Everett Sloane) yacht. Elsa, or 'Rosalie' as Michael likes to call her, plays the innocent, helpless doll very well, ensnaring O'Hara in her web. As the lovers conduct a not-so-secret affair at sea, Arthur Bannister's partner in his law firm, George Grisby (Glenn Anders)comes aboard. He is a weird, untrustworthy figure who offers Michael a unique proposal: He will get $5000 to assist Grisby in the faking of Grisby's death, so it looks murder. The plan is for Michael to get off a technicality, and run off into the sun with Elsa. But things do not go to plan.<br /><br />Hayworth delivers us one of the best femme fatales of all time in a very ambiguous portrayal. At times she seems genuinely vulnerable and child-like, at others brutal, world-weary and hard. Always she is brilliantly beautiful, whether he situation calls for her to be dripping wet in a swimsuit or dressed in black, brandishing a gun. Hayworth is beautifully photographed here, and she is a far-cry from her famous 'Gilda' role. Her then-husband Orson Welles cut off her trademark auburn locks for a dyed blonde crop (angering Columbia boss Harry Cohn). It was a terrific marketing ploy, and he change suits her changed attitude wonderfully. She is not the sympathetic femme fatale that 'Gilda' is, here- instead she is a predatory, black-hearted dame who sees murder as a very useful option.<br /><br />The Welles and Hayworth pairing came at a time when the couple were having extreme difficulties in their marriage. They would divorce after the film was made, so this is also a curiosity for providing some view into the complicated relationship. They are hateful, not romantic, lovers in this, so it's hard to gauge whether or not they had real chemistry on screen. Certainly every encounter is potent and filled with raw sexuality, with Welles as the 'fall guy' (he even admits it himself in the film!) and Rita as the double-crossing babe.<br /><br />Welles character is the typical noir 'drifter' with not much sense. As Welles voice-over proves to use, O'Hara indeed does not use his brain very much 'expect to be thinking of her (Elsa)'. Welles usually played intelligent, charismatic fellows, so his turn here as the dim-witted Michael is unusual and very interesting. Indeed, Welles was an actor of fine talent and he pulls off it well.<br /><br />Everett Sloane is suitably slimy as Hayworth's crippled husband. One wonders why he hires Michael. It is obvious that his wife is interested in him romantically, so why does he invite a 'threat' on board? One interpretation could be that Michael provides the 'service' to his wife that Bannister cannot in his crippled state. There is definitely something to that theory, with a lot of implications toward Elsa's behaviour before she met her husband (was she some sort of prostitute?)and Grisby's knowledge of Bannister's most intimate secrets being hinted at in several scenes.<br /><br />This is a jumbled, convoluted film with a plot that is ultimately flawed. We are more interested in the love triangle than the murder plot, as with most noirs. Welles provides us with many of his usual brilliant cinematic touches, including the justifiably famous 'hall of mirrors' climax. It's a terrific scene, one ending that can almost obliterate the faults earlier on in the movie and lift it into greatness. This fun house scene is visually stunning, with a Dali-like feel to the painted sets (apparently Orson painted them himself). Subtle visual imagery utilized throughout the film by Welles enhances the plot and makes this a thought-provoking experience.<br /><br />The dialogue is scorching and confusing, delivered superbly by Rita's alternately breathy low voice and helpless, high-pitched little-girl voice. Hayworth proves her acting capabilities in this one, and proves that SHE is the ultimate femme fatale of 'noir'. It's a pity (only a slight one , as Rita was a brilliant dancer) that she did so many delightful yet frothy and often forgettable musicals for Columbia in the 40's instead of darkly-themed noir like this. She was a brilliant actress when given the chance to show off her talent.<br /><br />9/10.

1pos

I've seen tons of HK actioners, and this one is right at the top of the genre. The action scenes are as exciting and kinetic as anything you've ever seen in any action movie. The kung fu is spectacular, the pyrotechnics eye-popping, the stunt work heartstopping. The editing is perfectly paced, heightening the tension and complimenting the fluid camera work. This film is directed by old pro Corey Yuen, whose resume is stuffed with some of the best work of the genre, including the Jet Li vehicle The Legend of Fong Sai-Yuk. If there is one thing lacking in this film it is the presence of a three-dimensional character, though Martin, the male lead, comes closest to it. This movie is full of archetypes rather than characters--the sexy killer, the goofy thief and his bitchy girlfriend, the cackling villains. That said, Shannon Lee has a terrific screen presence; she's great with the fighting, the stunts, and the guns. When she's onscreen it's hard to take your eyes off her. She's that good. Why isn't this woman a major star?

1pos

This is one of the best movies I've ever seen. It has very good acting by Hanks, Newman, and everyone else. Definitely Jude Law's best performance. The cinematography is excellent, the editing is about as good, and includes a great original score that really fits in with the mood of the movie. The production design is also a factor in what makes this movie special. To me, it takes a lot to beat Godfather, but the fantastic cinematography displayed wins this contest. Definitely a Best Picture nominee in my book.

1pos

Jeanette MacDonald and Nelson Eddy star in this "modern" musical that showcases MacDonald's comic abilities. Surreal 40s musical seem to be making fun of 40s fashions even as they were in current vogue. Eye-popping costumes and sets (yes B&W) add to the surreal, dreamlike quality of the entire film. Several good songs enliven the film, with the "Twinkle in Your Eye" number a total highlight, including a fun jitterbug number between MacDonald and Binnie Barnes. Also in the HUGE cast are Edward Everett Horton, Reginal Owen, Mona Maris, Douglas Dumbrille and Anne Jeffreys. Also to been seen in extended bit parts are Esther Dale, Almira Sessions, Grace Hayle, Gertrude Hoffman, Rafaela Ottiano, Odette Myrtile, Cecil Cunningham and many others.<br /><br />Great fun and nice to see the wonderful MacDonald in her jitterbug/vamp routines. She could do it all.

1pos

In 1692 Salem, a devious child's lies about a slave's involvement in witchcraft sends an entire community into an uproar. Costume drama starring Claudette Colbert and Fred MacMurray isn't stuffy, though neither is it a vivid depiction of contagious hysteria. Worked on by three writers (Walter Ferris, Durward Grimstead, and Bradley King), the story elements are rather interesting (especially coming out of Hollywood in 1937), though to anyone who has since read Arthur Miller's "The Crucible", the hoked-up melodrama on display here won't be tolerated for very long. Biggest problem with the picture may lie in the casting: Colbert and MacMurray are an ill-matched pair of lovers hindered by the witch-hunt, MacMurray being far too contemporary a presence for these surroundings. *1/2 from ****

0neg

clara bow's beauty and wonderful appeal are the chief reason to watch this film. "hula" is not quite up to par with clara's best films but it is still enjoyable. she dances, she rides her horse, and pursues the man that she loves. this film is just over an hour in length and was directed by future oscar winner victor fleming (gone with the wind).the film moves quickly and clara bow has lots of screen time. if you like clara, i would reccomend "hula."

1pos

Jesse and Celine (Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy) are two strangers on a European train. The two come from widely different backgrounds, he's American and she's French, after they talk a bit on the train Jesse manages to get Celine to get off the train and explore Vienna with him. During the next several hours the two wander Vienna taking in all that the city has to offer and become madly infatuated with each other. But will this newfound relationship last past sunrise.<br /><br />This wonderful romantic-comedy is a breath of fresh air to a genre that has been in decline. Written and directed by Richard (Dazed and Confused) Linklater, "Before Sunrise" never bores because of its' small cast. In fact it flourishes due to the leads that make you love their characters and have a wonderful charisma between the two. Smart dialogue makes this a must for romance fans.

1pos

Old Jane's mannered tale seems very popular these days. I have lost count of the number of versions going around. Probably the reason is that her "ruts" are our "ruts" even at this late date. This TV mini-series gives it a mannered telling suitable to the novel. Headstrong, opinionated Emma is a pretty "modern" girl when you think about it, even though the ambience of Jane Austen's world may seem a tad artificial to us today. If you haven't seem EMMA, I'll only say that self-sufficient Emma does get her comeuppance. It's worth watching to find out how. The acting honours here go to the ladies: Kate, Prunella, Lucy and Samantha. They could almost have had a psychic connection to old Jane!

1pos

Roommates Sugar and Bobby Lee are abducted by menacing dudes while out shopping one day and taken back to a secluded island that the girls reluctantly tell the thugs that they last visited when they were ten years of age and that a fortune is located on. All that just pretty much bookends a movie that is pretty much one long flashback about the girls first visit to the island and subsequent fight with a cannibalistic family.<br /><br />This one is extremely horribly acted by everyone involved to the point that I started feeling bad for poor Hank Worden who truly deserved much MUCH better. As much as I didn't like "Barracuda" (that's on the same DVD) I have to admit that this film makes that one look like Citizen Kane.<br /><br />Eye Candy: one pair of tits (they might belong to Kirsten Baker) <br /><br />My Grade: F <br /><br />Dark Sky DVD Extras: Vintage ads for various drive-in food; and Trailers for "Bonnie's Kids" (features nudity), "the Centerfold Girls", "Part-time Wife" (features nudity), "Psychic Killer", & "Eaten Alive". The DVD also comes with 1978's "Barracuda"

0neg

After seeing only half of the film in school back in November, today, I saw that it was on Flix channel and decided to watch it to see the rest of it and to write a new review on it.<br /><br />The book that the film is based on, Hatchet, is OK. This is a terrible adaption of it though.<br /><br />Awful (and I mean awful) acting, bad dialogue, and average cinematography make up this terrible adaption of Hatchet.<br /><br />The film starts off Brian who is the cliché image of a late 80s teen (sporting a mullet, banging his head to cheap 80s rock music) and his mother driving in a car for him to get on a plane to fly up to see his estranged Dad (his parents are divorced...now cue the dramatic pause.) Now Brian has said goodbye to Mom and dog and is flying up to see his father. The pilot is a fat, ugly, rude man (wasn't like that in the book) who after 2 minutes in the air, has a heart attack and dies. In the book it goes into more detail with the pilot having more pains and it seemed to be that they were in the air much longer before the pilot had his heart attack.<br /><br />The plane (within another two minutes) has gone empty on fuel (leaving us, the viewers, to assume that he's been up there for hours even though the sun hasn't changed position and the scenery looks EXACTLY the same.) Now's he's crashed landed.<br /><br />This is the point in the movie where everything is a lot different then it was in the book. In the book it said his jacket was torn to shreds but in the movie it is perfectly fine with no tears or rips (looks like he just bought it), it never said he climbed a mountain, saw a wolf, and fell asleep up there on the mountain, it never said he was attacked by a bear (it said a moose but not a bear), it never said he eats the several bugs that he does, it never mentions the second tornado or that he learned to get those sparrows, skin them, and eat them or that little fish farm trap that he makes (that is destroyed by one of the tornadoes) nor does it mention him hurting his ribs from one of the tornadoes.<br /><br />I don't even think you can call what was depicted in the film a tornado. All it was was just a windstorm that knocked down several of his things.<br /><br />My favorite part of this camp fest was Brian's lame flashbacks (that are never mentioned in the book) especially the cliché scene of Brian waking up, walking over to the window and seeing his Dad (with all of his things packed that can all perfectly fit into just the back of his truck) leaving and screams "DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADDDDDDDDD!!!!" (yet of course his father didn't hear him even though he was just right outside) and he punches his fist through the window (wtf?) <br /><br />The ending is the only thing that is close to what happened in the book (I said close.) In the book I think one of the key things that the rescue pilot said to Brian when he landed was "you're the kid who they've been looking for! They stopped months ago..." yet they left that line out in the movie.<br /><br />There's a pathetic epilogue with Brian (somehow without counseling or therapy) getting back to normal with his family. I think we were supposed to assume that they were getting together for Thanksgiving (because they had a turkey on the counter.) Then it shows his temporary home (for what, in the movie, seemed like three days, but in the book was for several months) and his hatchet, still in a tree where he left it (also didn't happen in the book) showing where he carved a message, so perfectly done: "HOME" (where we really supposed to believe that he carved that that perfectly with just that hatchet?) <br /><br />No quote can sum this movie up better then when Enid from Ghost World said "this is so bad it's gone past good and back to bad again." Perfect description of this movie.<br /><br />I wouldn't recommend it to somebody (who hasn't read the book) and are just looking to watch a movie nor would I to somebody who has read the book (because they'll be disappointed and bored to death.<br /><br />For those who have read the book, leave what your imagination created as the movie. This is awful and will bring down your thoughts on the book.<br /><br />1/10

0neg

Greetings again from the darkness. What a relief ... a thriller that actually is thrilling! New "IT" girl Rachel McAdams ("Wedding Crashers" and "The Notebook") dominates screen time in this nice little classic suspense thriller from famed horror film director Wes Craven ("Scream" movies and "A Nightmare on Elm Street"). Craven even has a cameo as one of the passengers on the plane.<br /><br />What makes this one work, is the realism of the first 15-20 minutes as we see McAdams interact with 4 or 5 people either in person or on the phone. She is a natural. When she meets Cillian Murphy (the Scarecrow in "Batman Begins") in what appears to be happenstance, the film really takes flight. Watching the two yuppie-types flirt while the audience knows something evil is brewing, is bewitching film-making! The plane boarding sequence is mesmerizing and the 30 plus minutes onboard is excruciatingly claustrophobic. Craven keeps us guessing as to the involvement of others and if anyone will come to her rescue.<br /><br />As with many thrillers, the only letdown occurs during the climax when the lamb turns into a superhero. An interesting plot device leads us to believe little Rachel has the necessary pent up frustration to see this through, but we can't help but cringe a bit. The most overdone scenes involve irate hotel guests, an annoying airline passenger, Cillian's injury and the FX at the hotel. The strength of the film is in the character development and psychological games between the leads. Sadly the fine screen veteran Brian Cox is under-utilized, but overall this is an above-average suspense thriller worth seeing for all but the finale.

1pos

An obvious b-grade effort to cash in on the Hostel/Saw buzz, my expectations for this film were low (really low!) and yet it still managed to disappoint on every level. The acting is so bad it's not even funny, the plot-line is non-existent and the only scare was realizing that I had wasted 1hour 21 minutes watching it! I'm surprised to note that 34 people gave it a 10 star rating. I can only suspect that 33 of these are Cast and Crew. The 34th is possibly the directors mother? - although I'm sure even she would find it hard to go higher than a 2! DVD extras include an hour long "making of" feature. Which raises the question, "Why?" (although perhaps it serves to demonstrate what not to do!). Avoid at all costs.

0neg

A movie about Vixen (Erica Gavin) who has a Mountie husband who she loves...but she loves sex too! In the course of the movie she gets multiple men in bed--including her husband AND brother! Also there's a (tame) lesbian sequence.<br /><br />This film put Russ Meyer on the map and was (I believe) the first critically acclaimed X rated film ever. It was a big hit when it came out. Unfortunately, it doesn't date well.<br /><br />It is well-directed and Erica Gavin is just great (whatever happened to her), and it was VERY colorful...but by today's standards it's extremely tame. I'm surprised it has an NC-17 rating now--there's no hardcore sex and it only has topless females and no male nudity at all. Also it's (sadly) pretty dull and the addition of politics at the end was confusing (and pretty silly). It is worth catching though to see what was considered very shocking in 1968. Purportedly I saw the cut version (which has an R rating) but I've heard only a few seconds here and there are missing. <br /><br />Meyer's next film "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls" is much better and dates VERY well. Catch that instead.

0neg

Picking up right after the Moscow-showdown of Supremacy, this is Bourne's greatest adventure and his final climax. Throughout the tight, 115-min-runtime the movie takes Bourne from Russia to Madrid, Paris, Marocco and ultimately New York. Damon is every inch of the hard-trained killer Robert Ludlum imagined, he is the most deadly spy in the movies right now, and it's the underpinned emotions to his character that makes him so believable, and it's exactly the fine way Damon manages to combine these two polar-opposites of himself that's so breathtaking. In this third, Bourne is on a mission to save his soul and while watching it, Ultimatum delivers such an high-octane performance that you'll find yourself sweating and gasping over its truly powerful branch of ideas and pull-offs; just look out for two great car-chases and a fight-scene as realistic as Bond vs. Shaw back in '63. Director Greengrass has surpassed himself with this compelling thriller and this is probably as exciting as cinema thrillers get; a true pay-off to Bourne fans and a new breed of spy-thriller standard.

1pos

I cannot believe how unknown this movie is,it was absolutely incredible. The ending alone has stuck with me for almost thirty years. The road sign through the rearveiw mirror blew me away. If you liked "RACE WITH THE DEVIL" you will love this movie

1pos

This is a beautiful movie that is wonderfully acted by all players. It will make you laugh and it will make you cry. The very end of the movie gets me to mist up every time. If you want to see a great movie, this is it. Jimmy Stewert supplies a wonderfully witty performance and Frank Morgan as Mr. Matuschek is spellbinding. Morgan's diversity of character is nothing short of amazing. William Tracy as Pepi is terrific comic relief and delivers some of the movies most important lines and performances. Felix Bressart delivers a fantastic performance as Perovitch, a stumbling bumbling shop worker who's life's ambition is to please those he works with. It is a simple story of how close co-workers can become and how two people who have great animosity towards each other fall in love though unusual circumstances.

1pos

I'm a rather pedestrian person, with somewhat lowbrow tastes. However, I occasionally try to raise the bar on my cultural awareness. This movie was one of my attempts. I was in awe throughout the entire movie. I liked it so much that I got my own tape so I could see it again. This is a very thoughtful and emotionally striking movie. I saw it as a huge question to the viewer: What is the depth of sacrifice to duty one can accept, can be asked to accept, should accept? As a military member, this is of course an important question to me. This question weighs heavily on the viewer of this movie.<br /><br />Recommended.

1pos

Ten minutes worth of story stretched out into the better part of two hours. When nothing of any significance had happened at the halfway point I should have left. But, ever hopeful, I stayed. And left with a feeling of guilt for having wasted the time. Acting was OK, but the story line is so transparent and weak. The script is about as lame as it could get, but again, stretching out the ten minute plot doesn't leave a whole lot of room for good dialogue.

0neg

I will start by saying that this has undeservedly be panned by just about everyone! The fact is it wasn't what anyone was expecting, especially from Guy Ritchie. What everyone was expecting was cockney geezers and good one liners "do ya like dags?" etc, but this is far more mature than his previous works. I would agree that it is confusing but all the facts are there for us we just have to see them and listen harder, this film demands all your attention! Look past the cool and dazzling look of the film, try to listen to the dialogue rather than admire the performances and i think we will all get a more thorough understanding of the whole film.<br /><br />Yes this has its influences from modern classics( fight club, pulp fiction etc ) but it is in the whole original in both direction and pacing with a music score second to none. I feel that if everyone watched this film over and over they would understand it a lot more and maybe appreciate it for the fine piece of modern cinema that it is and i hope also that Ritchie continues in this vain as i far prefer this to his mockney "masterpieces".

1pos

This has to be one of the best movies to come out of HK in a long time, i was eagerly waiting to get my hands on this movie just looking at the title. Loads of fantastic actors in this show and i was particularly impressed with Sam Lee's impossibly believable insane behavior and Edison's portrayal of a killer machine, which totally reversed his normal idol image. i would definitely recommend to those looking for a stylish and action packed movie. However, i must warn you, this is also an equally depressing movie, as every character in the movie is in some kind of dead end and trouble of their own, and struggling to breathe. Makes you think about what is life about really.

1pos

In 2054 Paris, Avalon, a computer generated system, controls the city and when a young woman is kidnapped, detective Karas (Craig) must go against Avalon to find her.<br /><br />Renaissance is a splendid blend of film making mixed with a conceptual futuristic narrative that lights up the screen in a shocking manor with a noir themed ideology and conceptual montages that should delight many.<br /><br />Pixar are the animation masters. Their numerous Oscar winning films are endless from the charming Toy Story to the mystifying Wall-E and so any company or director has a real challenge to knock them of their perch. Renaissance isn't a film aimed for the young audience though, and like 2007's Persepolis, brings a strong and mature approach to the genre of animation to make an older and more challenging film to its targeted older generation.<br /><br />In 2005 Robert Rodriguez released a shockingly brilliant noir Sin City that shook up the whole usage of green screen with a splendid balance of filming in black and white with the odd spurts of colour and a year later, Christian Volckman took up a similar approach with this equally visually masterful stroke of film making.<br /><br />Volckman's picture however is a full on animation but it doesn't half look realistic for the majority of it's strong 1 hour and 40 minutes of running time. The faces of the character's are well portrayed and in particular, this film has got to be the finest ever for the usage of shadow. The fact we never know if its night or day is irrelevant when simply gazing into the stony faces as the shadows blend across their expressions. It is almost a clever use of pathetic fallacy, and is finely directed also.<br /><br />For anyone who has seen Persepolis you will have come to the conclusion it is one of the finest directed animations ever screened for the simple but highly conceptual artistic style by Marjane Satrapi<br /><br />Renaissance is equally on terms with that picture and in many instances rivals it with stronger graphics and a darker tone to reflect the mood. One scene in particular when Karas appears out of darkness is beautifully shot.<br /><br />The narrative revolves around a stubborn and nosey political government who keeps tabs on every citizen. The running of Paris is down to the mysterious Avalon which we don't see nearly enough to get an essence of its true dominance. Renaissance is controlling the narrative around a tired cop's attempts to rescue the mysterious woman, and then we see Craig's tired and boring cop attempt a rescue whilst battling with other elements. There are many things wrong with the scripting, not to mention the tired exasperated cop routine is now old, but there is plenty of dashing adrenaline and springy banter between characters to keep it alive right till a wonderfully shot shocking last couple of stages.

1pos

I bought this game on eBay having heard that it was a similar game to Elite. The gameplay is indeed very similar, and is very addictive. Once I'd played it a couple of times, I immediately went back on eBay and bought copies for all my kids so they could join in the fun too.... I have played this game right through and the storyline makes it feel as if you are actually in a movie, it's brilliant. If you have trouble feeling free to explore because of the restrictive nature of the storyline in the single-player game, simply set up a Freelancer server on your own PC (easy to do and the software is included) and play to your heart's content. There are still a huge number of Freelancer servers on the Internet, so multiplayer is no problem and is not all that threatening, because you don't often meant other players unless you want to. So go get a copy of this game, learn it by playing the single-player campaign, then set up an online presence and enjoy yourself. The depth of this game is staggering, with huge systems to explore and wrecks to find, as well as all sorts of other things to discover - hidden planets, wormholes, secret bases, the list is nearly endless. Fantastic game and especially as you can get it for a couple of quid on eBay. Get one with the full written manual if you can (blue box, not Xplosiv red box), it's loads better!

1pos

It's utterly pointless to rate this film. It's as if you would condemn (or praise) the newly born for his future life. Instead look at it as a powerful meditation at what could have been and what has been in the past 100+years. One hundred and eight years of the cinematograpy: what has become of the babe? I like to contemplate on what would have (creatively) happen if Europe wasn't interrupted (devastated) twice by the great wars of the XXth century. On her ruins the bogus neon castle of the non-creative and reactionary circus named Hollywood erected itself. Before 1914 French, Italian and Scandinavian cinemas were leading the way both financially and of course creatively. French film in particular was already threading some very original and creative pathways that could have (if not interrupted) possibly altered the medium history in some unimaginable ways. One wonders what the film history would look like today if it wasn't stultified and choked by the mercantile and cheap political agenda of the Hollywood's 80+ years of, what Chekhov might define as the reek of greed and harlotry... Be it as it might, please at least become aware of La Sortie as the key (or at least one of them) to the "Kingdom". Thus the birthplace of Cinema : Lumiere Brothers Factory, Lyon, France The date: March 19th 1895 (there's also a replica reel shoot in the Summer of 1895 so if you notice Summer lights and the workers' lighter clothing: that was the version shown to THE VERY FIRST PEOPLE WHO EVER SAW THE MOVING IMAGES. *Louis Lumiere: creative ideas, cinematography, direction it was all Louis' own domain because Auguste took care of the rest (money). *First film reels were all fifty seconds long: the camera(=le Cinematograph) & the cameramen (le cinematographer) having only paltry fifty seconds to make things happen! *Apparently Le Institute Lumiere has managed to preserve around 1500 of these first films executed mostly by an industrious brigade of Loumiere travelling cinematographers criss-crossing the globe. ***So, all the stars in starry heavens and a minute of silence for perhaps the most magical invention in Human history (so far).

1pos

this is not just a bad film, it's one of the worst films ever. it's so bad that i found it to be quite enjoyable. the acting, oh my god, the script, you gotta be kiddin'. how can you imagine the writer coming up with things like: - a kid who makes fireworks in school, fireworks SO powerfull, that when someone gets hit by it, they fly a hundred yards backwards and explode. -a girl is trapped in the celler, the killer is trying to break open the door. she gets a drill, but the wire isn't long enough. she first makes an extension cord, oh the horror, and then, when she's done, she drills through the door and drills through the head of the killer. WOW - and there are plenty more examples like that. oh yeah, and what happened to George Kennedy, he used to be great (Thunderbolt and Lightfoot/Cool hand Luke)

0neg

I have lost count of how many reviews I've written on Slaughter High. I've read a lot of bad ones and I will say right now this is a fantastic movie. Simon Scuddamore made his fame in a short time for his well known suicide, and even though this was his only film, he is what made the movie so great. At first I did not know anything about Simon until I read a review about his suicide. Then I found out due to the current webpage at www.IMDb.com he was born in 1957, in Dayton, Ohio. Simon may have played the most pathetic character known to man, but his real life self certainly had their strenghths and weaknesses. He did a good acting job, who can disagree? I always wondered how he felt showing himself naked in a movie. Must have been pretty embarrassing to say the least. I first saw this movie when I was 12 in the sixth grade. I agree with some pointers like the girl would not take a bath after somebody was murdered, and that high schools do NOT have bath tubs! I think Caroline Munro who was 36 at the time was the only other star that had any dignified acting talent, and unfortunately for Simon's death he made no future films. The reason(s) for his suicide are a mystery, and hopefully will be discovered in the near future. Doing the math on his webpage it tells you he was 29 years old when he made Slaughter High. He looked like a teenager. I give this film two thumbs up, the best horror film made. Probably because of their horrible acting the others didn't make fame in the movie business. -Jacob Young

1pos

This is an excellent film for female body-builder & female action fans! I think that Sue Price did a great job in this film series (Nemesis 2,3,4) and proved to be a great fighter. She has a very striking appearance and a will of iron to resist the powerful Nebula (Nemesis 2). Though not a film of great value and Sue Price's acting skills not the best to have met in my life, the movie itself was something awesome, a priceless gem for fans of female body-builder action! Well, some parts of Nemesis 2 have been copied by other famous sci-fi films, such as Terminator or Predator, but that's not the point. The point is that A.Puyn casted in that film a very talented body-builder who put all of her energy and body talent to show us the best she can do. I really enjoyed that film and watched with the same enthusiasm Nemesis 3 (a rather boring sequel) and Nemesis 4 (a much more interesting sequel than 3). What a pity it hasn't shown yet on DVD :-(

1pos

This is shallow hedonism and/or social commentary wrapped in a tragic tale about a jealous young woman's scheme to drive apart her father and his fiancée. Is it incest or just a view through the eyes of a daughter with an Electra complex? Who cares? All of the characters, except for Anne (Deborah Kerr) are vacuous and vile. Seberg is poor (I agree with the "boys with breasts" comment of an earlier review). The plot plodded. This predictable material was sufficient for about 30 minutes of film that unfortunately was stretched over an hour and a half! If you want to see great gowns and jewels on the Riviera, I recommend "To Catch a Thief" - in which you will get the added bonuses of an entertaining story and likable characters. <br /><br />I like for films to entertain me. I personally don't really care where a film is set. Whatever the time or place, I want a good story - comedy or drama. I also want to see some enjoyable characters. It doesn't hurt if I can relate to them. Poor Deborah Kerr gives a typically good performance, and so does David Niven in a despicable role.<br /><br />The "2" rating is solely for Kerr and Niven, and for the cinematography - the rich color scenes and the murky, foreboding black and white scenes. Unfortunately, all the great cinematography in the world cannot salvage a poor story with un-enjoyable characters. A sow's ear is still a sow's ear. Consequently watching this mess was a serious waste of my time.

0neg

At least the under ten year old set will stay interested. Eleanor(Geena Davis)and Fred(Hugh Laurie)Little, a nice well-to-do couple set out to bring home from the orphanage a new little brother for their son George(Johnathan Lipnicki). They come home with quite the odd new sibling...a sharp dressed little mouse named Stuart(voiced by Michael J. Fox). Yes, mouse. Stuart is happy to have found the sense of belonging even if it is in a super sized world that contains his new family's pet cat Snowbell(voiced by Nathan Lane). Stuart embarks on the experience of family loyalty and overall friendship. George will finally accept his tiny new brother when the dapper dressed Stuart saves embarrassment at a model boat race.<br /><br />Also in the cast: Julia Sweeney, Harold Gould, Estelle Getty and Jeffery Jones. And the voices of: Chaz Palminteri, Bruno Kirby and Jennifer Tilly.

0neg

Poor geeky Marty (Simon Scuddamore) gets horribly burned due to a cruel April Fool's day stunt gone very wrong. Flash forward a decade and those involved (including Caroline Monroe, known to horror fans for her turns in Maniac, Faceless & the Last Horror Film) in the prank are psyched for the upcoming 10 year high school reunion not aware that a court jester-masked killer is hiding out in the (now closed down) school and out for revenge.<br /><br />Chaulk this one up to being a guilty pleasure, I knew it's a bad film. It has all the characteristics of one. Yet there's just something about it that makes me feel compelled to watch it from time to time (preferably with beer in hand). I'm even willing to overlook the absolutely horrid ending (which, I do have to say, I hate) I guess I like it because it has a fun atmosphere about it and some pretty cool kills.<br /><br />Eye Candy (for the men): Josephine Scandi & Donna Yeager both get topless <br /><br />Eye Candy (for the ladies): a gratuitous cock shot of Simon Scuddamore at the start of the film <br /><br />My Grade: B- <br /><br />Lionsgate DVD Extras: Optional trivia track; trailer for this film; and trailers for My Bloody Valentine (1981), Monster Squad, Dirty Dancing

1pos

A Movie about a bunch of some kind of filmmakers, who want to make a documentary on a new kind of surfing in shark-infested waters. As an absolute fan of movies including some kind of vicious animals or monsters, I thought this might be my kind of movie... it wasn't!!! This should be more of a guideline of how not to do it! It has a lot of accidental humor in it and the evil beast is an incredible joke, in the final scene it goes after the main characters *rolling*, the feet are obviously waving in the air! It looks ridiculous! Good for a laugh though. If it were only for the lack of talent between the actors, the embarrassingly stupid dialogs and the hilariously stupid crocodile, it would be at least worth a laugh, but it gets worse: I'd guess, the people in charge of this movie noticed how weak it was, so they though up the old idea of "sex sells"... Totally, i mean TOTALLY without any reasons one of the main actresses shows her breasts to the beast. And somewhere towards the beginning there's some kind of meaningless "makeout". This is the last ingredient making the movie absolute trash to me. It's incredible how people actually spend time producing such rubbish! If you are seeking for a real waste of time: watch this movie!!!

0neg

So much has been written about the film's plot, the wonderful acting performance, the script, the melancholy, bittersweet atmosphere, the superb direction - what can I add? Just watch for one of the most heart warming, beautifully acted, poignant scenes ever filmed. It is Christmas eve and Frank Morgan's character (the owner of the shop - Mr. Matuschek)is recovering from his broken marriage and a suicide attempt. As each of his employees leave he invites them to a Christmas dinner. Each and everyone of them politely turn him down. They all have plans for their own Christmas eve. At this stage there is a deep sadness to this moving scene. Frank Morgan gives the performance of his career and this scene easily brings me to tears. Thankfully we have a happy denouement to this very special scene. The new employee, the errand boy, is the last to exit the shop into a beautiful snowy street scene. Desperately Mr. Matuschek approaches this boy and asks him how he would love to spend the evening with him, he will treat him to all the wonderful Christmas food that this errand boy has probably never seen!The chap is overwhelmed, he too is obviously as lonely as Mr. Matuschek and together they can have a wonderful Christmas meal. Every time I see this scene it moves me. If you manage to get the delightful DVD look at the great trailer with Frank Morgan introducing himself as Mr. Matuschek and an appearance by the director of the film- the talented Ernst Lubitsch. This film is a joy from beginning to end.

1pos

With a Bo Derek movie, the audience get just what they expect. A paper thin plot and a few shots of Mrs. Derek in no clothes. 'Ghosts can't do it' is just that. The first fifteen minutes is ordinary TV drama, as long as Scott [Anthony Quinn] is still alive. He is a very good actor with long experience in a lot of different roles, but it seems as even a famous actor need to work just for money sometimes. Bo Derek is the opposite, always playing a strikingly handsome young woman with or without clothes. The movie is a complete waste of time. If you want to see Quinn, rent Lawrence of Arabia or La Strada. If you want to see nude women or bad acting, rent any porno movie.

0neg

Kudos to the patience of Paul Muni, who spent hours and hours in the makeup room each day to look the part of Zola. Muni was the one of the biggest stars in the 1930s and I wonder how many people today -other than classic movie buffs - know anything about it. He was a giant in the business for at least a decade. He could have won the Academy Award for this performance, which would have given him two in a row, as he won it for playing Louis Pasteur the year before. My own opinion is that while he tended to overact a bit, I still think he was one of the great actors of the "Golden Age." Whatever part he played; you were riveted to the screen watching him.<br /><br />Unlike the Pasteur role, I thought this story smacked of a little too much of what we've seen in the last 60 years: going overboard to make a Liberal hero. Even in 1937, Hollywood couldn't suppress its disdain for police or for the military, here making it a point to tell us how "corrupt" those organizations are. Filmmakers just love it when authority is challenged and defeated. In that regard, this film is way ahead of its day since we've seen this big-time since the 1960s.<br /><br />However, it must be noted the facts support this story. It also does not in any way diminish Zola's accomplishments as a social reformer, getting rid of certain evils. Good for him! I wish they had spent more time showing that, than concentrating on one trial.

0neg

Director/star Clint Eastwood's "Sudden Impact" is an intriguing addition to the "Dirty Harry" series - a combination of crude film-making and genius. It's mediocre and silly in parts, brilliant and classic in others, with compelling, gripping pacing. There are numerous echoes of the first film here - the shoot 'em up "Make my day" scene recalls the "Do you feel lucky" one, one of the villains is as viscerally repugnant as the first film's Scorpio, an actor who played a minor baddie in the first one returns here as Harry's partner - just to name a few.<br /><br />Harry Callahan is still at odds with the higher-ups in the department, still mean, still tough, but now he's older and wearier. His constant conflicts with his superiors are a metaphor for his inner conflict - a respect and reverence for the law versus a desire to serve the pure spirit of justice, the two things not always being compatible. This "incompatibility" is the underlying theme of the series. The first film posed a simple question, "What about the victim's rights?" - (do they outweigh those of the criminal? Vice versa? Depends?). That film's answer was controversial, prompting a sequel (the highly enjoyable "Magnum Force") which set out to draw the line between Harry's brand of justice and pure, heartless vigilantism. Dirty Harry, like many of Clint's other roles, is the personification of vengeance, the protector of the the defenseless. This movie however brings it back to the victim, in this case Jennifer (portrayed by Sondra Locke), who decides to avenge the rape of herself and her now-incapacitated sister by ruthlessly hunting down and ritualistically executing the men (and one woman) who committed the crime.<br /><br />Without going into a play-by-play of the whole movie, I will say this - I mentioned earlier that "Sudden Impact" echoes the first film - it actually also sprinkles in little references and in-jokes from the whole series (the confusion concerning the captain's last name is an example - an intentional prank, I believe). The relationship between Callahan and Jennifer is neat - has our rogue cop hero found a soul-mate in this lady vigilante? And is she a vigilante or a victim justifiably standing up for her and her sister's tarnished rights? The exchange between these two at the very end of the film is a poetic denouement of the series, one which I personally (as a fan) found quite moving. That last scene alone makes Sudden Impact the legitimate climax to the "Dirty Harry" collection, the perfect answer to the conflict posed in the first film. (Not to knock "The Dead Pool" - that excellent movie was a relatively light-hearted suspenseful yet comic thriller featuring Harry Callahan, rather than a character-defining film like this one).<br /><br />This movie did well in the theaters - audiences in the Reagan Era found Harry and his ilk quite appealing, and the President himself frequently quoted "Go ahead, make my day."

1pos

Hmm, IMDb rating of 7.5, good comments, bla, bla ... okay, two of my friends and me, we orderd Pizza, sat down and wanted to see something as cool as Ichi or at least something brainless but funny like Versus. But Naked Blood sucked. It's a complete waste. Okay, the scene with the woman who likes to eat is quite outstanding. But that's it. Nothing more, nothing less. I won't summerize the plot, other people did already, I just wanted to stop the hype. But watch it and rate for yourself. Maybe we can push the rating where it sould be. One more thing that comes to my mind: the soundtrack is even worse than Carpenter ever was - okay, John's cool ... :) 2/10

0neg

I just saw this recently, after an interval of nearly forty years. It holds up well, especially Lionel Bart's outstanding songs. ("Who Will Buy" with it's magical counterpoint, just one of many standouts.)<br /><br />I disagree with the other post that decried its G rating. The ratings system, brand new at the time, never intended the G (General) rating to mean "completely devoid of conflict".<br /><br />Characterizing it as unsuitable for kids reminds me of the description I once saw of The Wizard of Oz: A girl arrives in a strange land and kills the first person she encounters. She then goes on a road trip with three male companions and kills again.

1pos

I don't remember this film getting a cinema release over here. I only saw it when it came onto cable. The film deals with the dehumanisation of children into killing machines. Specifically one person, the way he gets replaced and dumped (literally) into an off-world community where he finds himself unable to cope with coming to terms with who he really is and what he feels.<br /><br />Seems to me that a lot of people expected this to be Rambo in space, and would have been happy if it was.<br /><br />I'm certainly happy it was'nt - Kurt does a fine job of portraying an emotional cripple. The scene where he's sitting outside the compound shows this, albeit the decision for two slow-mo replays detracts from the moment.<br /><br />This is not a classic SF movie in the way that Bladerunner, Alien, Silent running, Logan's run or THX1138 were, however it is unfortunately the nearest I've seen to it in a long time.<br /><br />He changes in the movie to a believable degree, he does'nt crack Arnie one liners, he does'nt become Snake Plissken and there is no definative happy ending.<br /><br />That's why this film did'nt do well. It did'nt follow formula, and among a 18-25 year old target American audience, that's unforgivable as it was was'nt what they expected to see.<br /><br />Fear and discipline.<br /><br />Always.

1pos

Wow! So much fun! Probably a bit much for normal American kids, and really it's a stretch to call this a kid's film, this movie reminded me a quite a bit of Time Bandits - very Terry Gilliam all the way through. While the overall narrative is pretty much straight forward, Miike still throws in A LOT of surreal and Bunuel-esquire moments. The whole first act violently juxtaposes from scene to scene the normal family life of the main kid/hero, with the spirit world and the evil than is ensuing therein. And while the ending does have a bit of an ambiguous aspect that are common of Miike's work, the layers of meaning and metaphor, particularly the anti-war / anti-revenge message of human folly, is pretty damn poignant. As manic and imaginatively fun as other great Miike films, only instead of over the top torture and gore, he gives us an endless amount of monsters and yokai from Japanese folk-lore creatively conceived via CG and puppetry wrapped into an imaginative multi-faceted adventure. F'n rad, and one of Miike's best!

1pos

Ayone who whines about how this movie was crap or that it had no plot must have been looking for "Jean de Florrette". HELLO! this film was made to be a random act of comedy and in no way involves a plot in any way shape or form. I would also like to remind these whiners that if you are going to flay the crap out of this film that they seem to be missing the point. This film is clearly made for people who don't appreciate the so called "american humour" which seems to me just a pile of smutty crap. The point is everyone has an opinion and you should be a bit more appreciative that some peoples sense of humour may not be in line with your own before shooting your mouth off.<br /><br />Thankyou

1pos

There's a great deal of material from the Modesty Blaise comics and novels that would be great in a movie. Unfortunately, several attempts have been made and they've fallen short of the great potential in the character. So, no, this isn't the Modesty you know from the comic strip (currently reprinted in nice editions from Titan Books). This is Modesty some 5 or 6 years prior to the first strip, and from what you can piece together from her back-story, it's accurate.<br /><br />Miramax had the movie rights to the character, with Quentin Tarantino acting as advocate and technical adviser. Early drafts of the Miramax project attempted to adapt one of the best novels, but always managed to leave out some crucial element. Tarantino wasn't happy with any of them, and offered to remove his name from the project so they could proceed. To the studio's credit, they wanted to keep him in the process, since they knew he "got" the character and her world. With the movie rights close to expiration, they decided to try a very different approach. The result was "My Name is Modesty," a small direct-to-video movie that introduces the character.<br /><br />The movie does not introduce Willie Garvin or Sir Gerald. These characters are important to Blaise's adventures throughout most of the published stories. What this movie accomplishes is showing the strength of the character by herself. She never loses her composure, and you never doubt that she's in charge even unarmed in a room full of gangsters with guns. Most of the movie takes place within a casino, which undoubtedly saved money on the production. It doesn't matter. The film does not come across as cheap. Instead, it gives a fairly comprehensive (and believable) back-story for the character and demonstrates just how far she thinks ahead. Should Miramax adapt any of the comic stories or novels now, they've laid out the character's background nicely and won't have to spend much time on her "origin." I realize the words "Direct-to-Video" don't inspire confidence, but this film is well worth a look.

1pos

Tony Scott has never been a very good director, but every film he's made after "Crimson Tide" seems to bring him one step closer to being the inarguable worst working today (Michael Bay may fall into the same category, but at least his big, dumb, delusional epics entertain on some primally perverse level). And like other overblown Hollywood biopics ("De-Lovely" and "Confessions of a Dangerous Mind," for instance) chronicling the lives of pretentious, overrated, or outright shallow ciphers given an aura of "mystique" by a society that thrives on the juicy behind-the-scenes details, "Domino" is a film that begins with little potential, and dashes that infinitesimal amount before the sixty-minute mark. With an already-distended running time of 128 minutes, the film feels twice as long, and spending time with characters this obnoxiously superficial and forgettable (unlike the superior "Rules of Attraction," Scott's attempts to tinge the proceedings with irony via Domino's smug, self-aware-rich-girl voice-over only draws attention to the film's sledgehammer cluelessness) becomes an act only masochists could find pleasurable. The story? Spoiled-upper-crust-babe Domino Harvey (Keira Knightley, in an ersatz-badass performance as shallow as her gorgeous looks) is sick of the shallow lifestyles of the rich and famous in Los Angeles, and accosts gruff bounty hunters Mickey Rourke and Edgar Ramirez to learn a more exciting trade; along the way, there are double-crosses, shootouts, media attention (courtesy of a tongue-in-cheek Christopher Walken, phoning in his trademark sleazebag), and laughable hints at romance. Scott cuts the film together in segments that rarely last more than a few seconds, cranking up the resolution to make the film a neon-drenched nightmare that's frankly unpleasant to watch--if Scott's given an opportunity to shakily frame an image, ghost it, or distort it in some way, he will; but all this tacky stylistic overload overwhelms what little plot, characterization, and suspense the film has (to say nothing for its, ehm, "entertainment" value). Most of the characters come off as either contemptible or stereotypical, oftentimes both (observe the unbearable, several-minute segment where an African-American introduces a new list of racial categorizations on "Jerry Springer"), and I found myself wishing they would all get the "tails" end of our protagonist's coin by the end. "Domino" is utter, unmitigated trash--whatever interest in this individual Scott hoped to inspire in his audience, it is lost in a sea of migraine-inducing neon pretension a few minutes in.

0neg

First off I want to say that this film is worthy of more than the four stars I rated it. I gave it four stars because for me this 86 minute movie always seems like 2 and a half hours and is not engaging enough to sit through it all. However, "The Big Alligator River" (the title my DVD calls it) is better than your average nature strikes back movie.<br /><br />A tourist resort in the jungles of Southeast Asia is just opening and employs the natives while trying to manipulate the wildlife around. Mother Nature seeking revenge comes in the form of the god Kroona, a giant Alligator. But the creature isn't the only thing the tourists and the main characters (a photographer and the resort staff) have to worry about, the natives are getting rubbed the wrong way too.<br /><br />This movie is a pretty well-done adventure/horror story with a good musical score and direction. But the alligator itself, the main attraction of the movie, is obviously fake looking. Some of the close-ups of its jaws are good but that should be all we need to see. Some of the underwater far-away shots make it painfully obvious that what we are really dealing with is an alligator squeaky-toy you can probably get at a zoo souvenir shop. But the natives are believable, if not authentic.<br /><br />Probably not the movie that will give you non-stop thrills, if any, but shot and produced well enough to be given good mention. And like a lot of creature movies, this one ends with an extremely high body count. It also has lots of good jungle scenery. Acting is below par though, but who was expecting it to be better, eh? <br /><br />Much, much better than its recent American counterpart "Primeival" but nothing to be compared with "Jaws". But remember it may not be engaging at a few points.

0neg

I was babysitting a family of three small children for a night and their mother gave me this to show for them having just grabbed it at Wal-Mart earlier in the week. All three children actually got physically ill while watching it. I'm pretty sure it was the pizza they ate, or something they all had picked up from school, but really it could have been this film. Absolutely disgusting. How any one can produce this caliber of trash is beyond me. Fortunately, I turned off the film when I noticed the children were not responding and acting strangely. For any parents out there, I strongly advise you to refrain from letting young children view this movie.

0neg

It is first and foremost a chick flick, it is a romantic comedy. There is a fair balance between the two. This particular movie has the addition of some pretty sweet fight scenes, I don't think any wires were used or if they were they weren't flat out blatant. It isn't a terribly complicated movie so it easy on the brain, no need to analyze anything to get the deeper meaning, pretty simple, good chemistry between the leads, and a fun watch. I'd like it if they made brought out the full potential of the girls looks just once cause she can be amazingly cute, but throughout the movie they keep it low key kind of pretty. I'd watch it again...with a girl.

1pos

A very good start. I was a bit surprised to find the machinery not quite so advanced: It should have been cruder, to match we saw in the original series. The cast is interesting, although the Vulkan lady comes across as a little too human. She needs to school on Spock who, after all, is the model for this race. Too bad they couldn't have picked Jeri Ryan. I like Ms. Park, the Korean(?)lady. The doctor has possibilities. Haven't sorted out the other males, except for the black guy. He's a really likeable. Bakula needs to find his niche--In QL his strong point was his sense of humor and his willingness to try anything. He is, of course, big and strong enough for the heroics. The heavies were OK, although I didn't like their make-up.

1pos

This film is totally garbage. Some imbecilic intellectual comforting himself by making all his best to claim superiority of aristocrat over working class. Nothing more than a piece of self-complacence catharsis. Disgusting.<br /><br />If this kind of a movie is set in US, it will sure make itself a big joke. And simply because it comes out from 'the other side', it makes itself a masterpiece, a wonderful amusement for certain brain-washed and/or brain-washing westerns (some George W. maybe:). A typical cold-war sequelae, some kind of joke anyway.<br /><br />I would say, if this -- like expressed in this film -- is all what Soviet intellectuals had been thinking about all those years, then maybe they deserve all the miseries they claim they had gone through. BUT NO! 'cause like many others, I've read and watched real masterpieces made by real outstanding Soviet intellectuals. For example, something also relevant with dog, "White Bim Black Ear" -- both Gavriil Troyepolsky's book and Stanislav Rostotsky's movie -- is a real masterpiece. Real life, real tragedy, real sad, real pride and dignity, one of the real best of the Soviet era.

0neg

This movie was very good because it remember when I was young when I maked snow castle. It was so fun. This movie is interessant. This is a good quebeker movie with no much money and is also a magical movie because their wonderfull castle is very big and beautiful.

1pos

Cute idea... salesgirl Linda Smith (Yolande Donlan) inherits a teeny tiny little county of Lampidorra. That country, which wasn't even in North America, was made the 49th state... (of course, there were only 48 states at the time, since this was made in 1952...) Linda travels to the country she has inherited, and we follow her along as she tries to figure out what to do with this strange country and its even quirkier people. At one point, she sings a song that she claims is from her people the Navajo, and it gets ever-more sillier from there.... although Yolande Donlan's heavy lipstick and omni-present smile never get ruffled or shmeared. There are other songs scattered through-out as the citizens sing to welcome their new princess. Filmed in a glorious British version of technicolor, or some such equivalent, about the only big name here is Dirk Bogarde as British subject Tony Craig, cheese vendor. Bogarde made a big splash in the UK film industry after serving in the war, and was even knighted by QE II. Craig and "the new princess" keep bumping into each other, and their adventures become more intertwined as Lampidorra's financial problems worsen... Fun little farce....along the lines of Marx Brothers film. Also note that Donlan later married Val Guest, the writer and director of our little project, and stayed married for 50 years! Guest was better known for writing and directing his sci-fi flicks, in both the UK & the US.

1pos

I adored this movie. Not only because I am a big fan of Moritz Bleibtreu, although he is in practically all German movies that count. But also because he is NOT the main actor. The lead is taken over by Barnaby Metschurat, who was the only reason to watch 2001's Julietta, and who really carries this movie on his shoulders.<br /><br />A family moves from Italy to Germany seeking "the German dream" (this is my own invention and ironic...) of cheap labor in steel and coal industries. However, they end up opening a restaurant and the journey the movie takes to this point alone is so poetic and at the same time funny and charming. From this point onward, the story told is mainly that of the two brothers of this family, Giancarlo (Bleibtreu) and Gigi (Metschurat). Gigi's dream to become a filmmaker is threatened by rivalry with his brother and his mother's determination to return to Italy. What follows is a great - and totally neutral - look at what life can become formed by the choices you make.<br /><br />In the end, this movie doesn't say which life (Gigi's or Giancarlo's) was more successful or fuller or more interesting. It merely gives us a rewarding glimpse at what it must be like to search for identity when two countries and mentalities are involved. and this look is not driven by bitterness or disdain to either country, which makes it such a great film for any and every country dealing with the tensions resulting from immigration. The fact that director Fatih Akin's moved to Germany from Turkey in the 70s also lends this movie a large measure of its credibility and emotional accuracy. The icing on the cake are fantastic performances by the entire cast, especially Metschurat and - this I really need to stress - the little boy who plays young Gigi. That kid's performance would be a hard act to follow by just about anyone! Great movie, go see it.

1pos

(contains slight spoilers)<br /><br />It's interesting how Anthony Mann uses James Stewart here. Stewart is, of course, remembered by many as George Bailey from Frank Capra's "It's a Wonderful Life", so it's easy to find parallels between the two films. In "It's a Wonderful Life", Bailey gets to see the world as it would have been if he had never been born. In "The Far Country", Stewart's Jeff Webster, by not getting involved to help anyone else (except himself), gets to see essentially the same thing: A world in which he (for all practical matters) doesn't exist.<br /><br />By not getting involved (and by attempting not to care about anyone), Webster is forced to see those for whom he can't help but care get hurt, pushed around, and even killed while he stands by and does nothing. This reminds the viewer of George Bailey watching a world that has turned upside-down because he has also decided not to get involved by not ever having been born. <br /><br />Both movies end with the same image - a close-up of a ringing bell. Stewart, by turning around his philosophy of non-involvement, has, it would seem, earned his "wings".

1pos

The fact that most of the budget for this presumably went on the heavy-duty cast list shouldn't have mattered if it had been staged with flair and imagination and some sympathy for the original's satirical intent. Instead we get risibly bad song and dance sequences featuring picturesque beggars and whores, and the final alienation is accomplished by pulling back to reveal the action has taken place on a music-hall stage, appropriately enough for a production that's more Lionel 'Oliver' Blair than Brecht. The acting talent is shamefully misused: Migenes and Walters are good but don't have to try very hard: Migenes at least has a great voice and some feel for the material. Julia looks perfect as Mack, but struggles with the character, straitjacketed by a fake plummy accent. Harris's Peachum is embarrassingly mannered and Polly is atrocious. The adaptations of lyrics, script and music are often awkward: it was a bad move to base the film on Marc Blitzstein's bowdlerised Broadway version, but at least his words were singable, unlike most of what's been interpolated in gestures of faithfulness. And the attempt at overcoming the low budget by filming at claustrophobic angles on mist-shrouded sets lit in garish blues and oranges as if by some bargain-basement Vittorio Storaro fails utterly -- the film just looks cheap, shoddy and thoughtlessly made. Disgraceful.

0neg

"Sleepwalkers" is the first film which Stephen King has written a script for. Given this, and the excellent Santo & Johnny song that they used as the theme of the movie, you would be expecting a odd, and ultimately fulfilling viewing experience. Unfortunately, that's not what you'd be getting. The thing is, they could have probably made it a good movie. The beginning is intriguing what with it's small town spooky atmosphere. But something strange happens about 20 minutes into the film. The film turns funny for no apparent reason! From that moment on the whole atmosphere of "Sleepwalkers" is ruined.For those of you who have seen it, who can ever forget good old Johnny screaming out "COP KABOB!!" after jabbing the pencil into that one cop's ear?!? But don't get me wrong, the humor has no redeemiing quality. I just rented it again to see if mabye I was wrong the first time around, given how original the plot sounded, but I was right. Man, what a waste. I can't believe they got the rights to that Santo & Johnny song. I gave this a 2.

0neg

Let's eliminate any discussion about the use of non-Asian actors playing Asian roles. The movie is 67 years old. In 1937 studio chiefs believed that any actor could/should be able to play any role. Actors were under contracts, and did not always have a choice about what role they played. End of story.<br /><br />This is a truly great epic story of love, individual rights, class strata, and men/women issues. The centerpiece of the film is two brilliant performances by Luise Rainer and Paul Muni. <br /><br />Muni plays Wang, a Chinese farmer, who is about to take a wife (Rainer). From the start, he treats her with respect, during a time when women were looked on as little more than hired help. Without giving too much of the movie away, they go through the highs and lows of all relationships, and even though the story may take place in late 19th/early 20th century,the story and much of their feelings, seems credible.<br /><br />Other than the fact that the movie is about 5-10 minutes longer than it needs to be, and the performances of Charley Grapewin and Walter Connolly are typical 1930's cartoon characters, this is a really wonderful movie that, unfortunately, has become a victim of political correctness.<br /><br />9 out of 10

1pos

A couple(Janet and Richard) go camping out in the woods near a giant swamp. After camping and enjoying nature, the couple takes shelter in what they think is an abandoned farm house. Soon, a pair of escaped convicts show up and, after much delaying of the inevitable, they proceed to rape Janet and lock Richard in a birdcage.<br /><br />This LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT-like film has to be one of the most underrated horror films ever made. It's one of the more sick and twisted early 70s shockers. Moreover, I found this to be quite enchanting and beautiful in it's perverse tone. I love CAGED TERROR. The music definitely helps lend a sense of personality to the film as well as a lot of beauty. I found the film to be quite creepy.<br /><br />The flaws mainly have to do with the pacing of the film, which is to say that the film is rather slow and meandering. While I didn't mind the pacing due to the beauty and suspense of the film in question, I do think that it will both most people. The acting isn't too good nor is the dialogue, at least in the early scenes. This film takes a little more patience than usual, and it's really not for everyone.<br /><br />In short, this was a good film. Not the greatest horror film I've ever seen, but it is certainly a lot of fun. It's not exactly the easiest film to find. It's possible to find it in the USED section of a lot of stores if you look hard enough. It's not for everyone, but if you're a fan of trash cinema then it's definitely worth checking out.

1pos

This is a poor film by any standard. The story in Match Point had a certain intrigue, and the direction and writing a certain fascination (Woody Allen mixing his own culture with that of the classic English murder and exploring what can be done with it).<br /><br />Scoop, however has none of this. It is poorly written, the two leads are hopelessly wooden and the story itself has no interest at all. The genre that it spoofs requires at least some sort of subplot with witty explanations and tie-ups (why are tarot cards and keys kept under French horns in locked rooms?).<br /><br />Allen's delightful and witty versions of various Hollywood genres (Curse of the Jade Scorpion/Purple Rose of Cairo etc) have given us so much pleasure over the years. Even Hollywood Ending had a great central idea. Sadly his inspiration has deserted him this time.

0neg

This was actually my favorite series of Scooby Doo when I was younger. I thought each episode had more of an edge to it and the villains had a lot of creative thought put into them (and even very scary and believable as well). Some of the best episodes were "I Left My Neck In San Francisco", "Twenty Thousand Screams Under The Sea", "The Ghoul, The Bat And The Ugly" and "When You Wish Upon A Star Creature". If you have never seen these episodes please do. This series was a bit of a mixed bag though as there were other episodes which didn't seem to have the same kind of edge to them such as "Rocky Mountain YIIII!" and "The Ransom Of Scooby Chief". As like the series before it, it was very well put together, interesting storyline and brilliantly drawn. As everyone says though, it would have been so much better without Scrappy Doo. The character was tiresome and distracting to the story that was being told.

1pos

Stumbling upon this HBO special late one night, I was absolutely taken by this attractive British "executive transvestite." I have never laughed so hard over European History or any of the other completely worthwhile point Eddie Izzard made. I laughed so much that I woke up my mother sleeping at the other end of the house...

1pos

I think this is probably one of the worst movies I've watched in a long time.<br /><br />Trying to get the 'same characters' with different people is *such* a bad idea. If they couldn't get Sara Michelle G. and Ryan P. in this one, they should have just cut their losses and said to heck with it. Instead they get NEW actors that are horrible at what they did. I seriously felt like I was at a High School or (bad) College play with the lever of acting these people put forth.<br /><br />Where do they get some of these people? Was this their first movie? It sure seemed like it.<br /><br />This movie also parallels the original in a few lines of speech. I had just got done watching the first one and popped #2 in. I was all excited to get to watch the second one and it ended up being the worst show I've seen in a while. I don't hardly EVER *EVER* turn off a movie, but this one definitely went off after about 30 - 40 min.

0neg

As a convert into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, I try to absorb as much as I can of my new religion's history. I was invited to attend a showing of this film with my sons & the other young men & women as well as their families of our ward. <br /><br />On a beautiful spring evening, we drove to Kirtland, Ohio to the church's historical village located there. We were to have had reservations at the Vistor's Center to view this movie. Since my movie viewing was limited to only a few church documentaries, I was intrigued. The only "full length motion pictures" of the church's I had seen was "Legacy" and "My Best Two Years", both which I thought were very well written and preformed.<br /><br />At the beginning, the missionary interpretor passed out tissues stating that several people had been deeply moved to the point of tears by this movie. I thought "OK...but it takes a lot to move me to tears." Imagine my surprise when I found myself sobbing! It truly is a very moving & inspirational testament to the Prophet Joseph Smith.<br /><br />See it & believe in it's powerful message!

1pos

This is a very intriguing short movie by David Lynch, and saying the name David Lynch is probably enough for a lot of people. This is your typical Lynch short. A blonde and a brunette are in a dark room. The blonde has been crying, the brunette is talking in a threatening way to the blonde, and that's about it.<br /><br />With a lot of silent moments, but with the haunting music from Angelo Badalamenti, there is a strange form of suspense. This short feels a little like 'Mulholland Dr.', a movie I loved, and therefore I liked this one as well. It is probably especially for Lynch fans but there is a chance you like this.

1pos

Found this flick in a videostore, it cost $2 to buy. The whole movie stinks really bad! The so-called colonel, who would the hero here if the cover could have been trusted, must be in his eighties and is barely able to walk. He nevertheless manages to shoot some of the dumbest ninjas in the world. Then the story leaves the colonel, which makes sense given the old man's inability to DO anything worth mentioning, a now two terrifyingly eighties-looking guys take over, in what must have been some sort of story. I got lost a hundred times but didn't mind, because the movie is so bad, it's real fun to watch. Zero-Budget trash with actors not deserving that name. Go check it out!

1pos

I have heard about this novel a long time ago, many of my friends have recommend me to read it. I searched it in every place and finally found it. This is a book that every man should read, because it is genius and because of it's vision. I enjoyed every page.<br /><br />I knew about the movie and could not wait to see it. When I finally did I was very disappointed, many things that are in the book are not in the movie (I do not think that this is a spoiler) that just makes the movie not logical... Michael Radford might be a good director, but a bad writer. Especially as a book adopter. The movie is not dark at all, the writing is really bad, the only thing that is good, even great, is the acting. John Hurt is an amazing actor and the only face I myself could see as Winston Smith.<br /><br />What angers me the most are the people in IMDb that called this "The Best Adaptation Ever" without even reading the book! Or knowing anything about screen writing!<br /><br />You can only understand the brilliance of the story by reading the book, do not consider this as an alternative. As a fan of the book, I was very disappointed.<br /><br />The points I gave for this movie goes for the acting.

0neg