text
stringlengths 53
8.97k
| label
class label 2
classes |
|---|---|
First saw this gem from Joe Sarno way back when, and I must say that after seeing it, I could never forget Jennifer Welles. At first I thought the film was moving a bit slower than i would expect for a Sarno film, but when Jennifer made her entrance, the first time I ever saw her anywhere, I was sat up and took notice. Her presence in this film is hard to avoid, and spices up every scene she's involved in. I've seen most of the rest of Sarno's films, and the other films starring or featuring Jennifer Welles, and I must say that this was both Sarno and Jennifer at their collective best. Sarno's direction in this film of domestic adult drama is superb, and Jennifer showed (figuratively and literally) an acting prowess that make this a must see. Co-stars Rebecca Brooke (aka Mary Mendum) and Chris Jordan, both frequent co-stars of Ms. Welles, and also frequent stars of Sarno's work, turn in believable performances as a pair of adventurous, yet normal housewives. This film is Sarno classic. | 1pos
|
... so what's in those missing 10 minutes that were so horrible they had to cut them out from the original film? We were three years into the film production code... Barbara Stanwyck had starred in the original play, but here, Carole Lombard plays Maggie King. Co star Fred MacMurray is probably best known for "Double Indemnity", with Stanwyck, as well as his hit TV show "My Three Sons". Keep an eye out for a young Dorothy Lamour (Bob Hope movies) and the too-fabulous Franklin Pangborn, who spiced up just about every film put on tape. Of course, he works in the beauty salon on the ship! Add the sublime Charles Butterworth and Anthony Quinn. Good timing and clever banter at the beginning. Maggie's buddy Ella is played by Jean Dixon, who was the best friend in "Holiday" and "My Man Godfrey". In "Swing High", Maggie the tourist meets a soldier who is leaving the army. Maggie misses her boat when it leaves port and gets tangled up with the soldier. The dashing 20-something Quinn has a small scene at the local bar in Panama where Johnson (MacMurray) has been playing the trumpet. Maggie, Harry (Butterworth), and Skid band together and try to figure out how to get back to the States. Some good singing by Lamour. Good (but brief) acting performance by Cecil Cunningham as "Murph", the wise, helpful owner of the local saloon in Panama. While others have lamented at how bad it is, it wasn't so awful, and is even a little exotic, with the fake Central America locale setting for the first half of the film. | 1pos
|
The tragedy of the doomed ship Titanic has inspired many books and movies. The battle between nature and technology always caught man's imagination. The latest film concerning this tragedy in the Atlantic Ocean was written and directed by famous action movie filmmaker James Cameron. The story of "Titanic" involves two fictional characters (Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet) from different backgrounds (one is a hobo-artist, the other is an aristocrat) and how their love triumphs over societal barriers and the tragedy of a sinking ship that they happen to be on.<br /><br />First of all, although using a historical name, this movie had little regard to history. The plot was built around two fictional lovers, French diamond, and treasure hunters. The deaths of over a thousand of people on the greatest luxury ship of its time became a mere background. Many historical facts were simply forgotten. Where was the radio operator that ignored the iceberg warnings? Why was there no mention of the ship that was only 5 miles away from the Titanic but did not come to the rescue because its captain failed to identify the distress signal? Omitting these facts is an insult to the tragedy. And what was the point of flavoring this historical disaster with fictional cheesy romance when the story is already as sad as it is.<br /><br />The overall plot was rather shallow; rich equals greed and corruption, poverty equals compassion and heroism. It is very ironic to spend $200 million to make a movie about how money corrupts. There was absolutely no human side shown in anti-heroes. It seemed like Billy Zane was playing a part of the devil. Casting was also very poor. If DiCaprio was 2 inches shorter than Winslet, you could swear she was his baby-sitter. The length of the movie was unnecessarily stretched to over 3 hours. First hour and the half was wasted on establishing the relationships between the characters that were known to audience long before they went to theater and the dialogue that was used to do so made it even worse. Hearing corny pick up lines such as "I see you" and "This is my side of the ship" generated more pain than the screams of drowning people. Also, jokes were too abundant and rather lame.<br /><br />"Titanic" did involve some moving scenes such as the part when the musicians were playing while the ship was sinking but they were no way near anything original. The best thing about this film were its special effects, and that is the only thing that truly deserved an award.<br /><br />Although this film lacked artistical value in overall sense, the public could not resist a sentimental story starring Romeo (DiCaprio), and so the movie became a success. Now it is safe to say that the industry will be less hesitant to invest large amounts of money in a single motion picture, so it seems that "Titanic" did achieve something after all. | 0neg
|
Just saying you've got a movie about John Holmes is a guarantee to get some folks in front of the screen, but writer/director James Cox delivers oh so much more. A "Rashamon" of the sleazy Hollywood set, the film splitters the July 1981 Wonderland murders through a variety of angles (and film stocks), but mostly through the filter of John Holmes' coked out weasel brain. In a film full of bad guys Holmes is either the most vile, the most pathetic or both. Several versions of the story emerge and merge as Cox flashes jump cuts and twisting title cards amid effects and emoting. The dialogue is fast and naturalistic and never once rings false. While the film takes places two years after Holmes had fallen out of porn and into a truly wicked drug fueled depravity, Kilmer relentlessly exudes a sexuality so intense it can be measured in inches. This sexuality at its edges creates a sense of foreboding that hangs over the entire film almost as heavily as the violence at its center. Those murders are teased at through the whole film though are never clearly shown, not even at the climax,though the violence of them relentlessly infuses the whole picture and much blood is splattered across walls and crime scene photos. Once again Val Kilmer as Holmes shows he can act wacko better than anyone else working. Strutting, cringing, bragging or begging, Kilmer is constantly in character and the character is constantly a fascinating car wreck. Stand out performances beside Kilmer definitely include Ted Levine as the lead cop in the investigation and Lisa Kudrow as Holmes estranged wife. The trio of criminals Holmes falls in with include the frighteningly high energy Josh Lucas, the ever interesting Timothy Blake Nelson and an absolutely unrecognizable Dylan McDermott in a pivotal role as the teller yet another version of the murders. Cox suggests that no matter how much we learn about Wonderland, there is always a worse version possible, but looking through the debauchery surrounding it is much more fascinating than understanding the truth. | 1pos
|
I cant help it but i seem to like films that are meant to be scary and are just plain bad. I have personally listed it in my own top 10 worst movies right under creatures of the abyss!. Watch this film and have a laugh just don't expect to see any academy awards for acting. More chance of understanding the film its self. In all honesty though i have seen much worse than this. Plus some maniac cruising round the desert wiping the same people out that just died is that unbelievable that its got to be original. i think its one of those love or hate movies. you can make up your own mind yes its awful but it pulls it off somehow thats why i love it | 0neg
|
Sometimes, making something strange and contemporary doesn't always work to everyone's advantage. While I will admit that the set design and concept of the film was rather interesting, the execution of these ideas into one congruent story just didn't work. This film was so hideously slow and pointless, not even Robin Williams could save this garbage. It's obvious Barry Levinson's dream fell flat on its face, but he should have warned the rest of the world about this slop. | 0neg
|
A particularly maligned example of Italian cult cinema with a nonsensical title to boot (if anything, the alternate THE MARK OF Satan is even less relevant to the plot!), this hybrid of Gothic Horror and Giallo (with a strong dose of Erotica) only contrives a flat sort of atmosphere throughout actually matched by handling which is downright dreadful! Here, we get the usual group of people (an acting troupe) stranded on an island (to which they were invited by a Count since he had become enamored of the leading lady, a dead-ringer for his missing spouse)! The characters are pretty much stereotypes: middle-aged but dashing hero (played by Giacomo Rossi-Stuart and whose family history bears more than its share of violent tragedy), demure heroine, sluttish companion (recalling Mae West and emerging the most annoying of the lot!), a meek but devoted stage manager (forever chided by one and all for his unmanly behavior!), a couple of lesbians, a mysterious gardener (the ubiquitous Luciano Pigozzi who, for once, gets in on the action, if you know what I mean), an envious housekeeper (nominal star Femi Benussi though, for what it is worth, this is really an ensemble piece), a religious fanatic of a butler, an impressionable chambermaid, etc. While the film is not by any means unwatchable, the atrocious dubbing, snail's pace, shoddy production (with the scenes depicting the raging sea lifted from some black-and-white film!) and the fact that the murders only occur within the concluding half-hour do not help matters. Besides, Marcello Giombini's score, though pleasant in itself, comes off as incongruously modern under the circumstances; that said, the revelation proves a surprisingly elaborate one (considering there is surely no shortage of suspects here). | 0neg
|
How sad there is no option to post a mark lower than 1. I watched this piece of nonsense and could barely believe what i was watching. Every single part of the film was awful. Music, acting, direction, story, everything, simply everything. I actually found myself laughing out loud at various points in the film. I particularly loved the bit where our hero is dashing through the hospital in soft focus slow motion, and knocks the clipboard out of the nurses hand, because, .............well. Just because. Product placement? Crucifix's (crucifi?) everywhere. If you are of a Christian persuasion and very easily satisfied, you may like this movie. If you do like this movie, you really need to get out more. | 0neg
|
I missed the first 10 or so minutes of the movie but don't think watching it from the beginning would've made any difference. I found the film extremely boring and was disappointed with the acting. I remember Patrick Swayze and some of the other actors (Roy Marsden, for instance) in outstanding roles but they all disappointed here due to a very weak script. "Kind Solomon's Mines"...the very short part of the movie inside the "mines" was about as exciting as watching paint dry and I doubt that even a pre-school kid would've been spell-bound by watching the fight of the "warriors". The entire movie was reminiscent of a cheaply produced American TV series. Give me Indiana Jones any day! | 0neg
|
Why should you watch this? There are certainly no reasons why you shouldn't watch it! Superbly and amusingly directed by Albert and David Maysles, Grey Gardens was originally intended to be a film on the gentrification of East Hampton, but it turned out to the brothers that it would be more interesting to produce a study on the eccentric life of the two Edith Bouvier Beales, the aunt and cousin of Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis. Their life was certainly an amusing one (Edith spent most of her day in bed singing operas, Edie performing pirouettes and majorette dances with their many cats, one was named Ted Z. Kennedy) The film is interesting because it is both funny and sad - Edith died shortly after the film was released (in February 1977) aged 82 after experiencing some of the fame that she and Edie received after the film (she danced and sang in a nightclub Edie Beale Jr was born in 1925 and is still living in Miami Beach.This film is both engaging and spellbounding. | 1pos
|
I saw the movie and really could not stop my tears. Its tragedy that India has no such leaders after freedom, who dare to do justice with their own children, when they don't behave properly.. In current generation, politicians bring their children's into politics without measuring their caliber and skills.. I remember the dialogue from Gandhi 'What kind of society we want to create/make with such people (about Harilal)?' No wonder that it will be a dream that India will hardly have such leader in this or next generation.. Einstein was right when he said about Gandhi that 'After 50 years one would hardly believe that such person with body, soul and mind (Mahatma Gandhi) had ever lived on this earth.' I sincerely want to THANKS a LOT to Anil kapoor, Feroze khan and all film actors/actresses for this wonderful movie about great person and relationship with his son. All father and son should watch this movie once and take some lessons for both roles. | 1pos
|
Although, I had no earthly idea on what to expect from this movie, this sure as hell wasn't what I would have had in mind, had anything actually come to mind. Once I heard of its existence, all I knew was that I had to own a movie called Please Don't Eat The Babies. unfortunately, I could only find a copy under its alternate title, Island Fury. Looking back, I guess I could call it a lose-lose situation. On one hand, I still don't get to be known as the guy who owns a movie called Please Don't Eat The Babies, and on the other hand, Island Fury would ultimately reveal itself to be an awful, pointless, boring, unwatchable piece of garbage. Yeah, definitely lose-lose.<br /><br />I'm not even sure what genre they're going for here. Just early 80's badness, with a flashback that might actually be longer than the non-flashback. First up, two teenage girls are being chased by two bad guys, once caught, the bad guys bring to our attention that one of the girls have a coin on a string, around her neck, and somehow, these bad guys know of a lot more of these coins hidden on an island somewhere. And this is where things start to get weird, somehow these guys know of a trip the girls took to some island, years earlier, when they were only 10. I guess this is supposed to mean that the girls should know exactly where this alleged treasure is. So, now, we're in the past, while the girls try to retrace their steps, so these bad guys don't kill them, although, I wouldn't have minded if they had. In the flashback, the 10 year old counterparts are on a boat trip with their sisters and the sisters boyfriends, eventually stopping by an island for some air, they get mixed up with some kid and his killer grandparents. Any potential suspense or reasons to keep on watching never shows up, but the flashback was undeniably better than the present, which, still, isn't saying much.<br /><br />For a while there I had forgotten about the original story, At one point, I Ithought maybe the director had too, and when the flashback ended, that would be the end, which would have worked for me considering this disappointment would have been a half-hour shorter. This pointless movie within a pointless movie does eventually end, and real stuff does happen, but it's stupid. I guess I didn't exactly expect a movie filled with infants being devoured, or anything like that, but I did expect some form of outlandish B-entertainment, mostly just a confusing, inept storyline, unsure of its genre. My advice would be to seek out something worthwhile like Attack Of The Beast Creatures. If anyone, I would only recommend this one to serious B-movie collectors who must have them all, anyone else interested probably has brain damage. What really gets me is that I still have no idea why they called it Please Don't Eat The Babies. 3/10 | 0neg
|
I was fooled to rent this movie by its impressive cover. Alas. It is easily one of the worst movies ever made. Judging by the acting of the film characters, it's more a comedy than a horror film. No surprise why no one else has written comments on the imdb. Avoid it. | 0neg
|
Surely one of the mysteries of the modern world!! - this film is NOT considered to be within the top 100 films of all time????<br /><br />If you watched this film and thought it was anything other than wonderful please let me know how? - Al Pacino's performance is as good as it gets! | 1pos
|
This movie made me very angry. I wanted desperately to throttle the "scientists" and unseen film-makers during the course of it. Very, very painful to sit through. Sophomoric and pretentious in the worst way. The little good information on brain function/chemistry and quantum theory is lost in a sea of new agey horse sh*t. The worst offenders were the crack-pot charlatans Ramtha and Joseph Dispenza. Mr. Dispenza informs us that most people lead lives of mediocrity and clearly implies that he, on the other hand, is living on a higher plane. Even the ideas and attitudes that I basically agree with are presented in such a heavy handed, clumsy, superior, pretentious, preachy manner that I felt the desire to disavow them. I think that's what made me so angry, the fact that they've taken what are indeed profound aspects of established scientific thought and marred them with their new age hokum. Much of it is based around the fallacy of applying concepts of quantum theory to the macro world. Fittingly, the dramatized portions with Marlee Matlin are amateurish and cliché ridden.<br /><br />I would refer people instead to Bill Bryson's excellent survey of science: "A Brief History of Nearly Everything." There's plenty of profound wonder about life and the universe in the actual, established science. | 0neg
|
Director Douglas Sirk once said `there's a very short distance between high art and trash, and trash that contains craziness is by this very quality nearer to art'. This statement defines his cinema perfectly, a very unique body of work that includes classic stage adaptations, adventure and war films, westerns and of course, his famous melodramas.<br /><br />Sirk's melodramas were, as the very word signifies, dramas with music. The music sets the tone for his masterful style, and every stroke of his brush (Sirk was also a painter) leaves a powerful image on the screen-turned-canvas. But this ain't life but its representation, an imitation of life. Sirk never tried to show reality, on the contrary. None of the directors of his generation made a better use of all the technical devices provided by Hollywood (most notably Technicolor) to distinguish the artificial from the real thing. Let's remember that his golden period coincides with the time when Hollywood films turned its attention into the social drama (Blackboard jungle, Rebel without a cause). Sirk always knew that cinema was meant to be something else.<br /><br />Another of Sirk's statements summarizes this: `You can't reach, or touch, the real. You just see reflections. If you try to grasp happiness itself your fingers only meet glass'. I defy anybody that has seen Written on the wind to count the amount of mirrors and images reflected that appear on screen. One ends up giving up.<br /><br />Therefore, we are in a hall full of mirrors where there's no difference between real and its false copy. Nobody can say that the Hadley are real people. That town ain't real either, with those hideous oil pumps all over the place. So in this realm the acting is affected, the decore is fake, the trick is visible. Everything is pushed a little bit off the limit (the sexual connotations of Dorothy Malone with the oil tower, for example). Sirk was criticizing and theorizing at the same time.<br /><br />`The angles are the director's thoughts; the lighting is his philosophy'. In Written on the wind we follow the fall of a traditional way of life both in a geometrical way and in terms of light and shadows. The Hadleys house, with its different levels connected by the spiral staircase operates in a strictly metaphorical way. A house that resembles a mausoleum, that no party can cheer up. As tragedy progresses from luminous daylight to shadowy night, Sirk's photography becomes an extension of the inner state of his characters, and so are the colours of the clothes they wear. Drama is thus incorporated to every element at the service of the director's craft.<br /><br />Sirk considered himself a `story bender', because he bended the standard material he was assigned with to his style and purpose. Written on the wind is a good example. It wouldn't work in any other hands.<br /><br />The other director that was using similar strategies was Frank Tashlin, who was for 50's comedy the same that Sirk was for melodrama. Their films are full of the machinery of american life -advertising, TV sets, jukeboxes, washing machines, sport cars, vacuum cleaners- to depict its emptiness and decay. I'm inclined to think that their films were regarded in a different way by their contemporary audiences. The game was played by both sides, so it was camp. Now we regard them as `cult' or `bizarre', because we are not those spectators anymore. That is why Todd Haynes's homage `Far from heaven' turns into a pastiche, because it reproduces Sirk's work nowadays as if nothing happened in between. Then Sirk turns exactly into that painting hanging in the art gallery that Julianne Moore and the gardener discuss in the aforementioned film.<br /><br />Sirk understood the elements of melodrama perfectly. There were always immovable characters (Rock Hudson and Lauren Bacall here) against which he could assemble a series of split ones. His balance through antithesis is remarkable and not surprisingly we root for the split characters, because these are the ones Sirk is interested in too. When Robert Stack flies the plane and `tempts' Lauren Bacall with all sorts of mundane comforts of the world below them (obvious Faustian echoes) we are strangely fascinated with him too, as we are when the devilish nymphomaniac little sister painfully evokes her past with Mitch alone by the river.<br /><br />In the Sirk's universe the studio often-imposed `happy ends' have no negative impact. In fact they worked just great. Sirk was fond of greek tragedy and considered happy endings the Deux ex machinea of his day. Thus the final courtroom scene fits well and one must also remember that the whole film is told in flashback, so we know from the very beginning that tragedy will fall nevertheless over the Hadley feud.<br /><br />It was pointed out the many similarities between Written on the Wind with the Godfather saga. I absolutely agree and I'm sure the parallel is not incidental. Both share the theme of the old powerful father head trying to keep his empire going while protecting his family. The temperamental son portrayed by Robert Stack has an amazing physical resemblance with Jimmy Caan's Sonny Corleone. The action of fighting her sister's male friend is symmetrical. The non-son in which the old man put his trust is also common in both films, as the fact that both families carry the names of their town. Even details as the gate that gives access to the property, and the surroundings of the house covered by leaves, suggest that Coppola had Written on the Wind in mind while setting his masterwork. Because both films deal with the subject of Power: the acquisition of power, its manipulation and legacy (even Kyle Hadley's sterility, the event that hastens the turmoil, is an issue easily tied to the central theme of Power, in this case, a weakness in sexual power). The other great film that deals with power and uses american life as its representation is Citizen Kane. One wouldn't think at first of similarities between Welles and Sirk's films but there are a good many, starting with the petrol business as the origin of the family's fortune and ending in the fact that Mitch Wayne (Rock Hudson), as Charles Foster Kane, was adopted by a tutor, having his own father alive. Amazingly, the same actor (Harry Shannon) perform both Wayne and Kane's fathers. This detail is cannot be a coincidence.<br /><br />Written on the Wind is a masterpiece in every aspect, in execution and vision, in style and technique, a highlight in the career of this wonderful director. Some say that this is his best film. In my opinion, `Magnificent obsession', `All that heaven allows', `There's always tomorrow' and `Imitation of life' are just as good. And for those who put Sirk in the level of Dallas or Dinasty I wish them no happy end. | 1pos
|
Your average garden variety psychotic nutcase (deliciously essayed with unhinged glee by Stephen Sachs) knocks off various dim-witted young "adults" (to use the term very loosely) in Dayton Hall University, which is being closed down for demolition. Featuring dreadful acting by the entire cast (Daphne Zuniga makes her ignominious and inauspicious film debut here as Debbie, a bimbo who has her head crushed by a car!), a hefty corpse tally of 10, okay make-up f/x by Matthew Mungle, a few bloody murders (baseball bat bludgeoning, chicken wire strangulation, your standard drill through the head bit, that sort of gruesome thing), a downbeat surprise twist ending which was later copied in "Intruder," a creepy score by Christopher ("Hellraiser") Young, a slight smidgen of gratuitous female nudity, and endearingly incompetent direction by Jeffrey Obrow and Steve Carpenter (who also blessed us with "The Power" and "The Kindred"), this entertainingly abysmal slice'n'dice atrocity sizes up as a good deal of delectably dopey and drecky low-grade fun. | 1pos
|
This Santa movie starts off strange and I think Santa might be a pedo. Instead of the usual elf toy makers, this Santa has apparently kidnapped kids from all across the globe and makes them sing a bit like characters from "It's a Small World"! I guess there are no child labor laws on the weird astral plane on which he lives (it's apparently NOT the North Pole and not on Earth)!! None of these kids seem very happy and I kept wanting to see commandos break in and rescue the tykes, though I guess for some of the third world kids, these working conditions were perhaps an improvement over local sweatshops. I sure hope that all they do is sing and make toys.<br /><br />Then, the scene abruptly changes to Hell where lots and lots of demons dance about like they are in a Busby Berkeley musical. This fun in put to a stop by Satan who orders one of them, Pitch, to go to Earth to ruin Christmas!! Personally, I thought this movie already did that! The Devil and his imps are actually kind of cute--like Hot Stuff from the Harvey Comics but with cool evil goatees! Or, if you are Puerto Rican, like a vejigante mask with a goatee! <br /><br />Somehow a poverty-stricken Mexican kid named Lupita, a group of jerky kids who want to mug Santa and some rich kid are key battlegrounds for the Devil and Santa!! So, if the Prince of Darkness (not Donald Trump, it's the OTHER Prince of Darkness) can somehow make her steal and be bad, he'll 'win'--what, we don't really know! In fact, as they root her on, you get the impression that the film makers intend Santa to be Jesus--as he has all these great powers AND fights the Devil over kids' souls! Later, Santa meets with his friend, Merlin. He asks him to make him a special powder that makes people dream nice dreams. Considering how much Santa laughs in the film (like a demented chipmunk), I assume he must use this drug A LOT! He immediately goes to see a blacksmith who makes him a magic key that opens ALL doors. Considering he keeps kids as his personal 'assistants', this magic key thing worries me immensely! During Santa's Christmas Eve ride, you see Lupita behave like a little angel--one problem down. Santa then takes time out now to take care of the rich kid whose parents are selfish jerks. He gives them some sort of crazy cocktail which magically solves their problems--two problems solved. This is a rare case where alcohol/drugs HELP kids and solves problems! And as for the little muggers, he gives them coal! Frustrated with his losses to Santa, Pitch then tries to steal the sleigh (which is pulled by creepy animatronic deer). When this fails, he destroys Santa's stash of 'magic powder'! As a result, Santa can't become invisible to avoid dogs and gets treed. Uh, oh...how can Santa take a detour to the Betty Ford Clinic if he's stuck up a tree?! Will St. Nick get down from the tree and get the monkey off his back or will the devils win? If you care, tune in and see. However, be warned that the film is bat-crap crazy! <br /><br />Technically speaking, the film is yecchy. While it is in color, it's really gaudy. The music is mostly done on an organ--which, along with bad singing from the kids, produces perhaps the worst soundtrack I've heard in recent memory. And the story is just incomprehensible and very, very, very creepy. Devils and a Santa that kidnaps kids is just plain creep-tastic. It's a film you should NEVER show to kids but makes a great film to watch with friends so you can laugh at it from start to finish! | 0neg
|
"They were always trying to get me killed," Alec Guinness once wrote of The Man In the White Suit's technicians. "They thought actors got in the way of things." He went on to describe how he'd been given a wire rope to climb down and, assured it was safe, narrowly avoided serious injury when it suddenly snapped mid-descent.<br /><br />"People get in the way of things" might be a maxim tailor-made for White Suit inventor Sidney Stratton (fittingly played blank slate-fashion by Alec Guinness) in Alexander Mackendrick's definitive Ealing film of 1951. Certainly, he cares only about his work, its realisation - and sod the consequences. And similarly, with the exception of a couple of peripheral characters, there's almost nobody to root for in this chilly satire on capital and labour.<br /><br />Told in flashback, the film concerns Stratton's invention of a dirt-resistant, everlasting fibre (fashioned into the white suit of the title), and subsequent attempts by the clothing industry and its unions to suppress it.<br /><br />While the industry fears the bottom will drop out of the market, the shop floor stewards worry about finding themselves out of a job. Abduction and bribery attempts follow, with both money and an industry chief's daughter on offer (Daphne, the delectable, 4-packs-a-day-voiced Joan Greenwood), to the tragi-comic end.<br /><br />"What's to become of my bit of washing when there's no washing to do?" bemoans Stratton's landlady near the close. A notion Stratton hadn't even considered - and has disregarded again by the movie's ambiguous coda.<br /><br />A superior, if decidedly downbeat comedy, expertly performed - and pretty much answering the oft-raised question of whatever happened to the everlasting light bulb and the car that ran on water... | 1pos
|
This movie is one of the worst comedy movies i have ever seen. I hate these Napoleon Dynamite rip-offs. Just face it people the dumb humor has been mastered already. Make something new for once. All these new comedies are just horrible. And coming out of SNL Andy Samberg is not ready for a lead role yet. I hope he can bounce back from this awful movie. And Will Arnetts character is just plain bad. Hey Will, did you read the script. The plot is truly the worst ever written. Now you tell me if this is weird. (this is the movie) Rod Kimble's step dad Frank is dying and the family needs $50,000 to pay for the heart surgery so Rod is planning this huge jump to raise money for Frank. Only so that Rod can beat Frank in a fight and prove his manliness. Yes thats the movie, you tell me, would u spend $7.00 to see that piece of crap!<br /><br />3/10 just horrible<br /><br />-adam | 0neg
|
This is a movie that demonstrates that mood and music and texture aren't enough to make a good film. Sure, the viewer is treated to numerous fine scenes of Los Angeles in the thirties--I especially liked the view of the trolley approaching the tunnel, and the tram rising up the hillside--but in a sense this fine cinematography is self-defeating, because it creates a mood that "something's going to happen"--and nothing does. The script too keeps feinting toward some plot or action or trauma--and time after time not delivering. Not even delivering the (I assume) theme of the movie, the characters' essential misfit. The lead actors, both too pretty for their roles, didn't convey any repression or agony, and the script didn't expose us to any.<br /><br />Now, Donald Sutherland? That's another story. His character was so well fashioned, so perfectly played, that I wanted the camera to follow him. | 0neg
|
Reign Over Me is a success due to the powerful work by Adam Sandler and Don Cheadle. While comedic actors going dramatic has been seen as somewhat of a distraction, Sandler is no stranger to playing more serious roles. Most of the characters he portrays have an unstable temperament and a vulnerability that can burst at any moment. He might even be typecast for characters with such hidden anger problems. However, this performance has some considerable dramatic weight, unlike his roles in less comedic fare like Punch-Drunk Love and Spanglish.<br /><br />In the film, Alan Johnson (Cheadle) runs into his old college roommate, Charlie Finerman (Sandler), whom he hasn't seen in several years. Five years before, Charlie suffered the overwhelming loss of his wife and three daughters in a plane crash. Charlie barely even recognizes Cheadle's character due to the repression of his memories and consequent reclusive childish lifestyle since the accident. It isn't until Alan persists in engaging him in conversation that Charlie remembers who he is. Their renewed relationship that follows will allow Finerman to have a friend who doesn't speak about his loss, eventually enabling him to confront the thoughts and feelings he has suppressed on his own terms.<br /><br />Though writer-director Mike Binder doesn't show much sense of an individual style and some of his shots and transitions are a bit awkward, he does have a knack of getting decent to great performances from his actors while being a talented and funny writer. He shot this film with a digital camera, as more and more filmmakers are doing today, enabling the crew to shoot the night scenes with limited lighting. This kept the colorful backgrounds of New York City in focus, but resulted in creating frequent digital grain, which resembles blue specks scattered and moving on the screen.<br /><br />Almost every main character in Reign Over Me gives a great performance. Jada-Pinkett Smith and especially Liv Tyler are memorable in their respective roles as a frustrated wife to Cheadle's character and a psychiatrist. However, it is Sandler and Cheadle that give some of their finest work to date. They completely owned this movie. Sandler actually plays a character that doesn't outwardly resemble or act like himself at all, partially credited to his Bob Dylan-esquire wig. Though Cheadle's character has more screen time than Sandler, they both should be considered to be leading roles, as they equally support and help each other throughout the film.<br /><br />Music also plays a great part in this film, especially the title song "Reign Over Me," or "Love, Reign O'er Me" by The Who, and later covered by Pearl Jam. In one of the most powerful moments of the film, Binder shows Sandler using music to shut out his feelings and memories, but this particular song provokes such intense emotion that rather than diminishing his anger, it incites his emotions. All an all, Reign Over Me is an enjoyable, sad, yet many times funny film, driven by its amazing leading performances. | 1pos
|
JESSICA: A GHOST STORY is as the name implies a ghost story. The theme is meant to be horror but comes across closer to comedy!<br /><br />A woman comes who was brutally murdered comes back from the dead. This constitutes what this movie attempts to pass off as a plot. There is really nothing more to it. The movie comprises of a series of loosely connected scenes involving a guy who had an affair with this woman prior to her death.<br /><br />Immediately from the opening scenes, this movie has the appearance of a "straight-to-DVD" effort. Unlike gems such as VACANCY 2, the movie has no sense of direction or creativity and certainly gives "straight-to-DVD" movies a bad name! The direction is as poor as can be with a complete lack of suspense, scares or tension. Even the drama elements are hopelessly handled and represent something more boring than even the worst soap opera you may have had the misfortune of enduring.<br /><br />The acting across the board is absolutely abysmal with no one actor involved managing to show even the slightest potential of a successful acting career.<br /><br />Many of the individual scenes are incredibly long, with very long pauses between dialogue exchanges. I'm not exaggerating!<br /><br />The only reason I give this movie a rating of 2 rather than 1 is because some of the poor acting combined with even worse dialogue made for a few unintentional laughs. I stress the word "few" in that sentence. This is not overall one of the "so-bad-it's-good" movies like CAMP BLOOD or THE NAIL GUN MASSACRE. If you want to laugh hysterically, watch those movies. If you want to see a proper horror movie about ghosts watch THE LEGEND OF HELL HOUSE, THE CHANGELING, RINGU, THE EYE (original Korean version), THE GRUDGE, ONE MISSED CALL or PHONE.<br /><br />I advise anyone who has had the good fortune of avoiding seeing JESSICA: A GHOST STORY to keep up the good work! Just forget this movie exists. Don't spare a thought for it! | 0neg
|
EDDIE MURPHY DELIRIOUS is easily the funniest stand-up concert film I have ever seen. Most stand-up acts usually have lulls at some point, but not this one folks. For 90 min there is not one moment that is not side-splittingly funny. From the moment Eddie does a hilariously dead-on impression of Mr.T, the laughs are non-stop.<br /><br />Sadly, this was done in 1983, and Eddie hasn't done anything nearly as funny. it's unbelievable that the man who wrote this phenomenally brilliant show, wrote a movie called HARLEM NIGHTS which was not very funny at all.<br /><br />Eddie, if you're out there, please go back and do a concert film in the vein of DELIRIOUS. Believe me your fans will love you for it. And I think you know that. | 1pos
|
Such is the dilemma(above) that Debbie must face at the close of this Sam Sherman production Naughty Stewardesses. Debbie has just hit town, become a stewardess, slept with an elderly rich man(who she describes is in his 50's but obviously hit that mark a decade or two ago), shoots nude scenes for a photographer she just met, and then is the central element to a kidnapping/extortion plot. Through it all and amidst all that emotional upheaval and soul-searching, what in heaven's name will Debbie do? Well, I cannot give it away completely but don't expect any real epiphany here. Let's face it. Naughty Stewardesses is just what it wants to be(at least two-thirds through): a soft core porn film with lots of topless women and a funny in that kitchy 70's way film. There is no grand art here. The movie was designed to make money and exploit a growing trend at the time to put nymphomaniacal stewardesses in films so that the audience could live out vicariously their voyeuristic tastes. By todays standards, the film is pretty tame. What this film DOES do wrong is try to be some kind of statement film at the end. C'mon, anyone here believing that little diatribe by Debbie while on the beach contemplating life. She would spend more time picking out which halter top she will wear that day then do that. And what about the ridiculous plot to steal 50 grand? It didn't make sense to me so how on earth did these characters "dig" it? Anyone buying Cal as a member of the PLO(something like that) or even as a director for hardcore pornography? He would be luck to get work at Seven Eleven! This is, as another reviewer noted, more of a Sam Sherman piece then and Al Adamson piece. You can tell when Al is in complete charge. There is virtually no budget and the film doesn't look nearly as polished as this. Adamson does a decent job directing this time and I have to give Sherman credit to a degree. While this film is bad just for what it was meant to be, it has a certain style to it. I liked the opening credits with the animation and photographs. I even liked the music of Sparrow. "Silver Heels" was a somewhat catchy tune. The movie doesn't look cheap really at all. Compare that to ANY of Al's horror films. As for the cast, yes, Bob Livingston is a bit old for the lead, but some examination went into his character and the obvious thread that young women are attracted to men with money was explored as well. I had major problems with Robert Smedley who was just plain awful in his role. The girls have all got great sets, so what else was required of them huh? Naughty Stewardesses is relatively harmless exploitation film from the 70's and will serve as a living time capsule for certain aspects of life during that decade. By the way, did I mention it is a pretty bad picture? | 0neg
|
If Mulder was looking for his real father here he is Darren McGavin, the first X Files, pity it was only one season long the producers of this show didn't know that they had the makings of a classic on their hands and in 1993 along came Chris Carter with what i call the follow up to the Night Stalker, The X Files. Both will go down as classics is my opinion the two shows taking the viewers to a level of experience that only comes along once in a while and who should appear in the X Files years later Darren McGavin, as Agent Arthur Dales helping our two favorite hero,s solving cases. Paying homage to the man i think so, well done Chris Carter bringing back a forgotten TV show in the form of David Duchovny as Darren McGavin if it wasn't for watching The X files and that particular show i would have never known about the Night Stalker. | 1pos
|
Gorgeous Techicolor production telling the unusual tale of the romance between a woman of strong religious faith and a Trappist monk who has left his monastery, breaking his vows. The film opens at a convent in Europe, where a former student prays - a lonely beauty in black named Domini (Marlene Dietrich). She is advised by the Mother Superior to go to the desert and "find herself", and lose her grief over her father who has recently died. In the train car on the way into the Sahara she sits opposite a very, very troubled man (Charles Boyer) - our former monk. She's soon at a hotel near a palm-treed oasis where she again sees our mysterious troubled man as he is stumped over what to do when confronted by a very seductive dancing girl. Domini becomes friends with him, though knows nothing of his past - romance soon to follow.<br /><br />This film is sentimental, melodramatic, and different (in a way, almost surreal and even a bit campy) - I found it to be quite fun and entertaining. The photography in this is really interesting - it is full of extreme facial close-ups and beautiful color shots of caravans of horses crossing the desert, silhouetted figures against a sunset sky. Marlene Dietrich gives a nicely done, though restrained, performance here and looks gorgeous. Charles Boyer - not usually one of my favorites - is actually pretty good in this, I think the part sort of suits him and he looks quite young and handsome too. Basil Rathbone is fine here, except given very little to do. Another great orchestral score by Max Steiner helps keep the drama rolling - all in all, a very enjoyable film. | 1pos
|
No wonder Pamela Springsteen gave up acting to become a full-time photographer; it's a much better idea to have her behind a camera than in front of one. While this movie is not without its interesting elements (mullets from hell, etc.), it is outweighed by flaws. For one thing, Angela, the murderous counselor, appears to be about the same age as the campers. Having an older, more threatening camp director would have done a lot for the film. And then you have the murder scenes. The budget was apparently too low to execute most of them properly (no pun intended), although drowning someone in an outhouse toilet is certainly original. But overall, there are a ton of movies out there that are scarier/more fun to spend an hour and a half of your life watching. | 0neg
|
Having seen "Triumph of the Will," I can only say this movie is ghastly, even measured against the historically low "standards" of the time. Naturally it's all totally fabricated and prejudicial. This is what one would expect of 1930's German propaganda. Unfortunately, the quality of the presentation, itself, is hackneyed and cheap. It's also so blatantly ridiculous that even contemporary Germans must've left the theater holding their noses. In a genre renowned for its base appeal, lack of originality and unapologetic wrong-headedness, this film doesn't even qualify as "bad." It would have to improve significantly to attain that status! | 0neg
|
I have loved this movie since I first saw it in 1979. I'm still amazed at how accurately Kurt Russell portrays Elvis, right down to how he moves and the expressions on his face. Sometimes its scary how much he looks, acts, and talks like the real Elvis. Thankfully this is being released on DVD, so all of us that have been waiting can finally have an excellent quality version of the full length film. I have heard the detractors, who say that there are some inaccuracies, or some things left out, but I think that keeping in mind that John Carpenter only had about 2 1/2 hours to work with, and that this was being shown on television (just two years after Elvis's death!) that he did a fine job with this. In fact I haven't seen another Elvis movie that even comes close to this one. Highly recommended. | 1pos
|
Ralph and Mumford, misfits in their own land, get duped into being unwitting pawns of Synanomess Botch. Twice Upon a Time is the story of them, the characters they meet, and their struggle to set things right. With a surprisingly impressive soundtrack and wonderful voice acting by some of the best in the business, this offbeat movie hits the mark.<br /><br />The animation process, while similar to that of the cut out "South Park" style, is much smoother and far more three-dimensional. If I didn't know that the animation was this style, I would swear that is was traditional pen and ink. If you can watch this film in Dolby Surround or THX, PLEASE DO! You won't really miss anything if you don't, but if you do, you will get much more out of the experience! | 1pos
|
Also known as the Big Spook War. The Great Yokai War is Miike's attempt at a family film and damn fine job he does as well. The problem is that I can't imagine many parents wanting to subject their children to this movie. The best kids movies are the ones that are scary or have mildly disturbing imagery, Neverending Story and Return to Oz spring to mind, but in the case of the Great Yokai War Miike probably takes things a little too far. In fact at the screening I was at the person introducing the movie reiterated to the two families there that it was probably not very suitable.<br /><br />The film kicks off with the young hero of the piece introducing himself and explaining about his current family problems. This brief moment of mundanity is sharply broken as a cow gives birth to a calf with the face of a human whom screams that something horrendous is coming before falling dead like the abomination it is (it is quite possible that the sheer hideousness of the creature is some bizarre Quato homage).<br /><br />Following an incredible introduction for main baddie Kato, and his henchwoman Agi (a surprisingly attractive Chiaki Kuriyami), by way of an apocalyptic army raising. The story reverts to normal for a while, but it doesn't take long before any and all logic goes down the drain and the young boy teams up with a group of Miyazaki rejects to take out the evil sorcerer.<br /><br />The plot of the movie is fairly basic and surprisingly hackneyed at times, the entire chosen one just seems completely out of place in a movie which so regularly breaks clichés, but is aided by a simple awe inspiring vision of a magical world. This really is a Miyazaki movie made into a live action movie, albeit a much seedier and more vicious than usual Miyazaki movie.<br /><br />The film is simply a joy to look at the designs of the Yokai is colourful, and largely practical, while the evil robotic monstrosities while not displaying the best CGI in the world have a practicality and menace to them which gives them far more of a palpable threat than you would imagine.<br /><br />The cast is uniformly excellent, they just make their characters seem perfectly natural which is commendable when you consider that most of them are in full body makeup or latex suits. Even Agi lumbered with a ridiculous beehive comes across as sultry and deadly thanks to surprisingly excellent acting from Kuriyami.<br /><br />While the film does have many elements which put it firmly into family movie territory; cute creatures, junior heroes, a thoroughly evil villain, a sense of mischief and adventure, and a telling lack of violence. There are elements which make you question whether Miike should have directed such a movie.<br /><br />The robot army is a genuinely terrifying menace everyday items warped into monstrous beasts that look like T-101 sans skin and with added chainsaws. These beasts rip characters to pieces; suck creatures into their blood stained mouths, and abduct children from their homes by swiping them right from under their parent's nose before indulging in a little patricide.<br /><br />The creation of the creature is equally arduous for young minds. The Yokai, essentially the heroes, are feed into a giant furnace full of a liquidised form of hate which corrodes the Yokai's flesh and forces their angry souls to possess lumps of metal. If kids thought smouldering Anakin was bad wait til they see a man sized hedgehog burning to death in a vat of molten hatred for a minute before being turned into an abomination of a motorcycle. There is also limb severing, in one case a severed hand twitches in front of the camera dripping with blood, a fair amount of sexual energy (Agi wears one dress designed specifically for fan service and seems to only have sleeping with Kato as motivation, while the Princess of the Rivers wears next to nothing and gets her thighs groped by the young hero in several scenes), and general humour which will go right over the heads of those that this technicolour wonder was seemingly designed for.<br /><br />Spoilers An Example of this being that the Yokai only become interested in the final battle when they think it is a big party. The subsequent battle more of a festival than anything, complete with beer, crowd surfing and moshing. Also a scene where Agi beats the tar out of a cute furry creature seems designed to appeal to the masses jaded by pokemon overkill.<br /><br />End Spoilers At the end of the day The Great Yokai War is easily on of Miike's stronger recent films. While it lacks some of the perverse charm of say Gozu or Ichi it is just continually pushing the audience down a road of general insanity. In fact this is easily Miike's most deranged movie in that he embraces the sheer magic of the subject so wholeheartedly.<br /><br />Well worth a watch just for the occasional flash of Gogo arse. | 1pos
|
This is just horrible, really horrible trash. Yes, we've got beautiful naked women dancing and having sex. But while this may work in the mechanism of a porn movie may have even been a hit as a porn movie this tries to mask itself as a "film" with actual things to say, with real emotion and struggle. It isn't. It's an excuse to get some girls naked and have a fun time. I'm sure all of these women (and men) in this particular movie could have faired decently in the porn movie business of the 1970s . . . but not in the actual movie business.<br /><br />The acting was hackneyed, so bad, I mean real terrible. The writing was even worse. I can't lay all blame on these actors they had nothing to work with. The very broad structure or plot of the movie could possibly be done and done well with good writers and competent actors. The very broad structure or plot is that of a psychotic man who spends his time shooting people from afar, as a sniper. These shootings were motivated from men not respecting their women enough. If there was more writing - better writing, much better writing - and less gratuitous sexual imagery we might have something to work with.<br /><br />This movie should have been shot, made and marketed a hardcore porn movie all along; it would have made more money. It practically is a hardcore porn film already, and it remains the only non-porn movie I've seen that shows a male erect penis. | 0neg
|
I am sad to say that I disagree with other people on this Columbo episode. Death Lends a Hand is frankly kind of a boring Columbo to me. After a few times, I get bored and changed the channel. I still love Robert Culp and Patricia Crowley and Ray Milland in their roles but the story was weaker in this episode than in the others. First, Robert Culp plays an investigator for Ray Milland's character. He hires him to investigate his young pretty wife played by Patricia Crowley to see if she is having an affair. In return, Culp's character blackmails the cheating wife who plans to expose his scheme to her husband ruining his career. Out of anger, Culp kills her by striking her in the face and setting the up the body elsewhere. I don't know. Maybe I just didn't care for this one at all. Of course, Columbo gets him in the end. It's just the question of how. | 1pos
|
This "film" is a travesty. No, wait--an abomination. NO, WAIT--this is without a doubt the absolute WORST film ever made featuring beloved characters created and established by other actors.<br /><br />I thought "Inspector Clouseau" with Alan Arkin (!) instead of Peter Sellers was ludicrous and sacrilegious, but even daring to "remake" Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy is asinine and money grubbing.<br /><br />Mr. Laurel and Mr. Hardy have been dead, respectively, since 1957 and 1965. Why anyone would even begin to imagine that suitable updates for L & H would be in the persona of Bronson Pinchot and Gailard Sartain is beyond me. I tuned in fully expecting to be horrified and embarrassed and I certainly wasn't disappointed. Everyone involved in this pathetic, moronic, disgrace should be blackballed from anything and everything associated with Hollywood and film-making. AVOID THIS MOVIE AT ALL COSTS--YOU HAVE BEEN DULY WARNED. | 0neg
|
Dennis Hopper is without a doubt one of the finest underrated American actors of our time, and it was interesting to see how he would play out his role as a cop on the case of a child serial killer. Most movies Hopper has always played to psychotic menace threatening to blow up stuff or go on a killing spree, but in this movie, Hopper tried his best to keep that intensity and emotion while carrying a shield. Once I got into the plot of the movie, I was hooked, but it's just the little things that ultimately murdered the film.<br /><br />The concept of the film is great - not only are the cops on the move of catching the killer, but we get a chance to see how the gangsters operate in catching the killer. The subplot of the football stadium is kinda ridiculous, but necessary to involve the gangsters in the killer hunt.<br /><br />That's about all that is good you can say about the film. Although Hopper did try to act like a tough, experienced street smart cop, I can't help but feel his acting was below par, and there wasn't enough conviction that he was truly attached to the case. The directing was also terrible - it didn't have the feel of a true film, but rather a TV-movie production. This is most evident when the gangsters meet for the first time to form an elite team to hunt the killer down. When the leading gangster shoots the other mouthy gangster in slow motion, the acting was weak, predictable and terribly unexciting. That's when I knew that 1st of all, the action is going to be atrocious.<br /><br />The angling of the camera was amateurish, and the recalling scenes or haunting images of the killer's little sister had no true distinctive effect. If it was supposed to be scary, it wasn't. Everyone's acting was terrible, and even for Hopper, I didn't feel for his character, and I just didn't really care too much about his relationship with his daughter.<br /><br />The final thing that bothered me the most is the swat team. Once I saw the swat team in action, I was thinking, finally, something good. But I was wrong. 1st of all, the entire swat team consisted of 4 guys. That is just impossible. 2nd of all, apparently the swat team has no training whatsoever because many times in the film they carry their HKA4 submachine guns with one hand. Had the killer been hiding near the staircase with a shotgun, these 4 idiots would've been blown to bits because they weren't even aiming at anything or paying close attention. They should have had both hands on the gun aiming forward, but it just looks like they're not taking the job seriously and are just flaunting around. 3rd, SWAT team members do not yell out commands such as "Keep your eyes open, watch out for yourselves, are we good to go...etc." In reality, they use hand signals or have radios. But they're literally yelling at each other - how are you supposed to catch the killer when he can hear you're coming??? And to top it all off, these guys have no plan - apparently they're just running up and down going on a wild turkey chase. Eventually they end up doing nothing. That was the last straw. I'm no expert on special forces, but basically what I've just outlined, is pretty common sense. When the audience knows the movie is terrible, the action pretty much becomes the life-saver of the movie - when you can't even make an effort to make the action great, the movie is lost.<br /><br />I give 2 stars for the concept, but the rest cannot be credited. If you want to watch a crime thriller, don't bother with this one. There's plenty of crime in the movie - but it has the lack of thrill. | 0neg
|
For long time I haven't seen such a good fantasy movie, magic fights here are even better than in LOTR, even considering that it's a 1987 movie and haven't computer special effects. This movie have good plot, good acting and interesting ideas. Recommend everybody to see it. | 1pos
|
I rented this horrible movie. The worst think I have ever seen. I believe a 1st grade class could have done a better job. The worse film I have ever seen and I have seen some bad ones. Nothing scary except I paid 1.50 to rent it and that was 1.49 too much. The acting is horrible, the characters are worse and the film is just a piece of trash. The slauther house scenes are so low budget that it makes a B movied look like an Oscar candidate. All I can say is if you wnat to waste a good evening and a little money go rent this horrible flick. I would rather watch killer clowns from outer space while sitting in a bucket of razors than sit through this flop again | 0neg
|
"Written on the Wind" is an irresistible, wonderfully kinky film, as only director Sirk could have done it. The movie is submerged in a bucket full of Freudian symbols, weird melodramatics and colorful contrasts. The connection between financial success and moral decay is the film's main theme. Sirk seems to suggest that sexual dysfunction is one of the side effects of capitalism. However, I prefer to see the movie as a prime example of what Sirk could do with kitschy material. The palette of colors is particularly impressive. The acting in the film is great too. Rock Hudson and Lauren Bacall are terribly glamorous and give the film an aura of elegance, but the movie belongs to Robert Stack and Dorothy Malone (she deservedly won the Best Supporting Actress Oscar), who manage to keep the film at a boiling point. Kudos to Frank Skinner's pulsating score, Russell Metty's brilliant camera work (every single shot is a masterpiece in itself), and the production design department. Also, the title tune is a beauty. It's an unforgettable movie. | 1pos
|
Twelve Monkeys is an insane time-travelling, action packed movie that stars Bruce Willis who plays James Cole, a man who is sent back in time to collect information about the devastating plague that ensues in November of 1996. Unfortunately, he is sent back too far to the year 1990 where everyone believes that he is insane.<br /><br />This movie is thrilling and has great acting performances from Bruce Willis, Brad Pitt and Madeleine Stowe. Twelve monkeys is one of the greatest time travelling movies that I believe anybody can enjoy. Terry Gilliam has created a true masterpiece<br /><br />10/10 | 1pos
|
This was basically an attempt to do the same thing with "Batman" that was done with "Gilligan's Island" in "Surviving Gilligan's Island." For those of you who missed it (and shame!) "Surviving Gilligan's Island" (full title: "Surviving Gilligan's Island: The Incredibly True Story of the Longest Three Hour Tour in History") was a special from a few years back, where Bob Denver ("Gilligan"), Dawn Wells ("Mary Ann") and Russell Johnson ("The Professor") related the story of the show's creation, cancellation, rediscovery & rebirth. Along the way, stories were dramatized with actors portraying the original cast and crew. It was very well done. It was funny, well cast and came across as a genuine document of the show.<br /><br />"Return to the Batcave: The Misadventures of Adam and Burt" is in a similar style. The re-telling of the history of the show, the re-enactments, the general feel are all the same. What's missing is the straightforward approach that "Surviving" took.<br /><br />In "Return", Adam West and Burt Ward both receive invitations to a car show to which they were not meant to be invited. After being allowed to stay, Adam and Burt witness the theft of the centerpiece of the show: the legendary Batmobile! Adam and Burt decide to chase after it themselves, leading them through clues that cause them to think about the history of the show. This eventually leads to the revelation of who stole the Batmobile and why.<br /><br />Choosing to use this conceit (actually having a plot) is the biggest letdown of this show. Unlike "Surviving", "Return" forces the viewer to follow a less interesting storyline (the theft of the Batmobile) instead of focusing all its attention on what the audience would most be interested in (the history of the show.) It is the historical sections that work the best. The casting (as in "Surviving") is excellent. Jack Brewer ("Adam West") and Jason Marsden ("Burt Ward") capture the feel of the actors without looking *too* much like them. Brett Rickaby ("Frank Gorshin") bears a stronger resemblance to his subject, but captures none of the late Gorshin's charm, only his characterizations. Other actors' portrayals are short and functional, with none standing out as especially good or bad. Many of the stories have been told before, but they mostly play out amusingly, with only the occasional clunky presentation. Another wonderful bit from the historical sections was the use of audition footage of Lyle Waggoner's tryout for the part of Batman. The only place where the flashbacks fail is when they insert obviously made up plot points to advance the main story. This downgrades the accuracy of the flashbacks needlessly.<br /><br />The "main plot" (if that is what we must call it) is, of course, ludicrous. This is not really a fault in and of itself, but it's just not carried off well enough to cover up the shortfall. Strong performances and good writing can make up for a silly plot (especially in these kinds of things) but we really get neither, here. The performances by West and Ward seem somewhat flat (even for them); the dialog too carefully written for it to feel natural. Again, I think the comparison to "Surviving Gilligan's Island" can be seen in that the dialog is mostly just there to set up a flashback. In "Surviving", that's all it intends to be. In "Return" it tries to do double duty and, unfortunately, often fails. Gorshin and Newmar do well (although I agree with others that Gorshin had not aged well and that Newmar had - and what's Waggoner taking to look that good?) but aren't given enough to do. Again, I think they all would have been better served by a more straightforward presentation than the one chosen here.<br /><br />Another odd point about "Return". This special is about the "Batman" TV series and its history, yet all the clips shown are from the theatrical movie. Even the Waggoner footage is technically movie footage. If you know you're "Bat-history", then you know that the movie was originally planned to be made first, only to be delayed in favor of the TV show when CBS needed to fill time fast. So when Waggoner and West were testing for the role, it was for the movie, not the TV show. Why "Return" only uses movie footage is unclear. It most probably has to do with rights issues, but it is a distinct distraction to those in the know: seeing Julie Newmar in the present, but only footage of Lee Meriwether as Catwoman in the past.<br /><br />Overall, I liked the show, mainly for the flashbacks. I would have preferred the style used in "Surviving Gilligan's Island", but I can understand why they'd want a more story-oriented piece given the subject matter. Besides, I like these people. It's nice to see them out and about, still having fun with one of the great pieces of entertainment history. I just wish they had done it a little better and when more of the original cast was still alive to be there. | 1pos
|
This movie stars Jay Leno as a Detroit cop, Tony Costas and Pat Morita as a Tokyo cop sent to Detroit to retrieve a stolen prototype of a car motor. A Japanese man traveled to Detroit hoping to sell it to a up and coming car company ran by a man named Derrick Jarryd. Unfortunately for him the men who were supposed to negotiate the deal killed him and took the prototype. An angry Derek Jarryd tries to distance himself from Phillip Madras who led the men. But Madras(played by Chris Sarandon) has none of it and threatens Jarryd forcing him to continue their partnership. Meanwhile in the same junk yard where the Japanese man had been killed, a friend of Tony Costas was also killed by the same men. Tony's friend had been watching the junk yard.<br /><br />Tony sets out to find the killer against his superior's order. Tony is on robbery while obviously homicide should investigate the case. While Tony is investigating the crime he runs into the Japanese cop and mistakingly he arrests him. Eventually they end up working together on the case. They make an odd pair and there are some genuinely amusing parts as well as some ridiculous scenes such as Pat Morita jumping and kicking right through a the windshield of a moving car and kicking Madras in the head. But it ends up being an enjoyable buddy cop movie, at least in my opinion. Jay Leno is no actor, but he is likable in the role and Pat Morita is good as well. Still, they make for one of the more unlikely buddy cop duos in an action film. If you liked buddy cop films, cheesy 80's movies or you want to see Jay Leno as an actor then I recommend this movie. | 1pos
|
Working at a video store I get to see quite a few movies and on occasion I try to watch some of the not so big movies. Proud happened to be one of them. The initial idea of telling of the story of a primarily black crewed ship during WWII had some merit. However in less than 10 minutes of watching the movie you find out that the primary point of the movie was to tell about racial tension in WWII. The underlying story is about the ship, the crew and their exploits in the war. This primary point is hammered at you to the point of excessiveness all throughout the movie. I commend the men that served on the USS Mason for their triumph in the face of adversity and for the hardships that they endured. A movie should have been made focusing on the accomplishments these men did for themselves, the Navy and for their country and not making a movie whose focus is racism during WWII. | 0neg
|
It seems there's a bit of a curse out there when it comes to gay cinema. Namely, happy endings aren't very common. Beautiful Thing excluded, gay films tend to end in broken relationships or untimely death. And some, like Come Undone, just end... period.<br /><br />The creators of this horrid piece of nonsense have a thing or two to learn about plot, direction, and timelines. Within the first ten minutes of this film, I found myself a bit confused, and even more so after the first glimpse of Jeremie Elkaim's character having a little psych session. It seems this film was randomly pieced together without the slightest attempt at continuity or consistency. There's no real way to tell when you're viewing the present or some sort of ethereal flashback. I could only take so much before it became truly unappealing.<br /><br />Stephen Holden of The New York Times called this film "...shimmeringly beautiful and utterly real." Well, it seems that Stephen invested in beer goggles prior to viewing, as this is truly far from beautiful. Due to all the praise this film received, I expected something worth watching. Sadly, the film lived down to its title. And by the end of the movie (which provided no resolution whatsoever, I might add) it's plain to see that the writers, the director and the film have all Come Undone. | 0neg
|
I just want to add my two cents worth, and forgive me if I am repeating something that has already been posted, but I feel it is worth reminding people of the everlovin' genius of Damon Runyon. Without the wonderfully street, hilarious writings of Damon Runyon this film would never have been made - nor most of the other great classics that deal with gamblers & the like from before 1960. Damon Runyon worked as a newspaper man, and he was from Colorado, but he sure did _get_ the street scene of the East Coast. If you are not a dedicated fan of old Hollywood comedies, I would recommend a few other flicks from Damon Runyon's writings; "the Lemondrop Kid," and "Little Miss Marker," both feature Bob Hope, who, aside from his politics, has always been a funny man. (As a West Coast liberal, I find his politics fairly funny, too!) Damon Runyon lives!!!! | 1pos
|
i just got puzzled why damn FOX canceled the season3 although season2 was not as good as season1 which is excellent indeed!!!i like it so much that i even thinking about buying DVD on Amazon.(failed! :_(i am a Chinese student and it's inconvenient for me to get a international credit card and $).i just hope FOX can bring back DA someday somehow! | 1pos
|
This might be the WWE's 2nd best PPV of the year after Wrestlemania it was a good suprise! John Cena had an excellent match in which he upset Chris Jericho. Jeff Hardy retained his IC title in a short sloppy match with Willam Regal. Bubba & Spike Dudley won a fairly violent tables match over Benoit & Guerrero. Jamie Noble had a really good match with Kidman which was suprising to me. Booker T defeated The Big Show in a no dq match, at one point Booker T gave the scissors kick to Big Show and sent him right through the table. In a stupid decision by the WWE Christian and Lance Storm, the jealous anti-americans defeated Hogan and Edge with a lot of help from Test and Jericho. RVD and Brock had the match of the night it was filled with great high spots and RVD got to retain his ic title through a DQ so I was happy he kept the title. Triple H also signed with Eric Bischoff and Raw which means little to nothing. And in the main event the Rock became the first ever 7-time WWE world champion defeating both Kurt Angle & Undertaker in a triple threat match. Overall this is probably the WWE's 2nd best PPV of 2002! 7/10 | 1pos
|
I used to love watching this. I had no idea it was part of a larger series. I must have been 6 or so at the time it was on TV. I just thought it was funny and for some reason I had a deep fascination for something that was clear that was in the president's pile of bathtub toys. My parents had taped this off of TV when it originally aired on NBC. The tape even had the old Sanka coffee commercial along with a few others. I'm planning on returning home sometime soon and will try to record the tape onto my computer so that those who want a copy can do so. If anyone of you would like to contact me, I think you can do that through the IMDb site feel free. I will keep you updated and let you know when I have the show in a digital format. | 1pos
|
In Iran, women are not permitted to attend men's sporting events, apparently to "protect" them from all the cursing and foul language they might hear emanating from the male fans (so since men can't restrain or behave themselves, women are forced to suffer. Go figure.). "Offside" tells the tale of a half dozen or so young women who, dressed like men, attempt to sneak into the high-stakes match between Iran and Bahrain that, in 2005, qualified Iran to go to the World Cup (the movie was actually filmed in large part during that game).<br /><br />"Offside" is a slice-of-life comedy that will remind you of all those great humanistic films ("The Shop on Main Street," "Loves of a Blonde," "Closely Watched Trains" etc.) that flowed out of Communist Czechoslovakia as part of the "Prague Miracle" in the mid 1960's. As with many of those works, "Offside" is more concerned with observing life than with devising any kind of elaborately contrived fictional narrative. Indeed, it is the simplicity of the setup and the naturalism of the style that make the movie so effective.<br /><br />Once their ruse is discovered, the girls are corralled into a small pen right outside the stadium where they can hear the raucous cheering emanating from the game inside. Stuck where they are, all they can do is plead with the security guards to let them go in, guards who are basically bumbling, good-natured lads who are compelled to do their duty as a part of their compulsory military service. Even most of the men going into the stadium don't seem particularly perturbed at the thought of these women being allowed in. Still the prohibition persists. Yet, how can one not be impressed by the very real courage and spunk displayed by these women as they go up against a system that continues to enforce such a ridiculously regressive and archaic restriction? And, yet, the purpose of these women is not to rally behind a cause or to make a "point." They are simply obsessed fans with a burning desire to watch a soccer game and, like all the men in the country, cheer on their team.<br /><br />It's hard to tell just how much of the dialogue is scripted and how much of it is extemporaneous, but, in either case, the actors, with their marvelously expressive faces, do a magnificent job making each moment seem utterly real and convincing. Mohammad Kheir-abadi and Shayesteh Irani are notable standouts in a uniformly excellent cast. The structure of the film is also very loose and freeform, as writer/director Jafar Panahi and co-writer Shadmehr Rastin focus for a few brief moments on one or two of the characters, then move smoothly and effortlessly onto others. With this documentary-type approach, we come to feel as if we are witnessing an actual event unfolding in "real time." Very often, it's quite easy for us to forget we're actually watching a movie.<br /><br />It was a very smart move on the part of the filmmakers to include so much good-natured humor in the film (it's what the Czech filmmakers did as well), the better to point up the utter absurdity of the situation and broaden the appeal of the film for audiences both domestic and foreign. "Offside" is obviously a cry for justice, but it is one that is made all the more effective by its refusal to make of its story a heavy-breathing tragedy. Instead, it realizes that nothing breaks down social barriers quite as efficiently as humor and an appeal to the audience's common humanity. And isn't that what true art is supposed to be all about? In its own quiet, understated way, "Offside" is one of the great, under-appreciated gems of 2007. | 1pos
|
I remember the first time I saw this movie -- I was in the office working over the weekend & the TV was on for background noise. But I gradually found myself more & more engaged in this movie I'd never seen or heard of, until I was completely absorbed. A Matter of Life & Death (the British title -- Stairway to Heaven in the US) is delightful, compelling, whimsical, & moving, all in one superbly-written, well-acted, perfectly-directed package. It's a classic that really does rank right up there with Casablanca, It's a Wonderful Life, Gone With the Wind, Citizen Kane, & Chariots of Fire. WHY has it never received the same public notice & video-store prominence? Fortunately, SOME knowledgeable critics HAVE put it on their "Top 100 of all time" lists. There IS hope -- 1940's Fantasia wasn't a hit 'til the '60s, & the Wizard of Oz was a dud at the box office, but made a hit by TV. Buy it -- rent it -- watch it -- demand it! You WON'T be disappointed! | 1pos
|
The movie was a huge disappointment. Especially since it was directed by Priyadarshan, it was sad to see such dismal standards. Poor screenplay(almost non existent) and song sequences with bad songs every minute and at the most odd times killed whatever humor the movie could offer. some of the scenes were funny, but it amounted to probably only 5 mins of the whole duration. The editing was pathetic. Dismal! overall the movie disappointed as the lack of story was only too evident. In fact only a few people stayed to watch the second half of the movie after the interval.<br /><br />One wouldn't miss anything at all if you don't watch the movie. Not worth spending valuable ticket money on this movie. wait till it appears on TV... | 0neg
|
When I was very young,on a local tv station,they would show kung fu movies of all kinds on Saturdays.I saw lots of Kung Fu movies on weekends.I remember lots of them.I saw great flicks like Crippled Masters,Blind Fist of Bruce,Kung Fu Zombie,Shaolin Drunken Monk,Rage of the Master,Tattoe Dragon,and...Five Deadly Venoms.I remember the day clearly.Me and my dad had just gotten lunch at Burger King.We were racing home to see what movie it would be this saturday.We ran in the house and jumped onto the couch,turned on the set and flicked it onto 56.The usual intro of many kung fu movie clips in the background with the words Kung Fu Saturday over it.Then under that was the Title of the film.It said Five Deadly Venoms.Then the movie began.I bit into my burger amused with the pre-credit sequence.I loved this movie the minute it came on.My favorite character was the Toad Venom.The plot was hard to follow at that age but that wasn't what lured me...it was the fighting.The fights were so...amazing.I moaned every time a commercial came on and soon the 2 hours of the best movie i have ever seen ended. | 1pos
|
This is a very funny Ealing comedy about a community in central London who, through an unusual set of circumstances, discover they are not English, but are an annex of the French province of Burgundy.<br /><br />The film features comic actor Stanley Holloway (best known as Alfred Doolittle in MY FAIR LADY), as well as a host of other classic comic actors of the period.<br /><br />The story was apparently based on a news item at the time, when the Canadian Government "officially" gave a hotel room to a visiting European member of royalty. The idea actually reminded me of the real-life case of the Hutt River Province in Western Australia, where a landowner "seceded" from the Australian Government due to a wool quota dispute. (It was never acknowledged by the Western Australian or Australian Governments).<br /><br />This is a great script that plays with a lot of political and economic issues, rather like the TV show "Yes Minister"; as well as being a great little eccentric character piece as well. | 1pos
|
Yes, a tap dancing horror thriller........with Shelley and Debbie! Goody Goody. This is demented and campy fun and part of the guignol cycle of the 60s that leaked into the 70s. Released as a double feature with the Burt Reynolds comedy FUZZ this mad scare is so bonkers as to be throughly entertaining. Like a mix of DAY OF THE LOCUST, THE OTHER and BABY JANE, I suggest any prospective viewer take on the idea that this is almost meant to be skew-iff and sit with someone with whom you can shriek and elbow all through it. Actually, get drunk whilst you watch it.....on cheap champagne. Again, with many 30s film ideas they are also about delusion; the struggle of the time for a better life getting bitter and twisted by emotional madness falling into murder. But this one is just plain crazy. It also reminds me a lot of BLOODY MAMA the De Niro - Winters shlock fest that makes this film look positively glorious. | 1pos
|
I went to see the Omega Code with a group of other Christians totaling about 15 people. We all expected a good piece of Christian film-making. What we got was an excruciatingly painful, drawn-out, and pretty boring attempt at a film. It has good looking production values but also has poor acting, a weak script with lousy dialogue, and no real sense of direction. From the first 15 minutes we all knew it would be a long night. We all hated it, and some people in our group placed this movie as reeking of more cheese than "Anaconda." None of us could believe that the movie lasted less than 2 hours. Flashy effects and crisp looking cinematography can't save this bad, bad movie. I'd give it a 3 out of 10, and the rating is only that high because I rented the abominable "movie" Werewolf (1996) the night before I saw this movie. | 0neg
|
I have to be honest, i was expecting a failure so bad, because it really did sound like they were trying to milk the original movie to get money. But that wasn't the case with this pretty funny (sometimes odd) movie. I loved how they told the story of Timon and Pumba, the story with Simba and him having trouble sleeping was funny. The jacuzzi bubble, and when Pumba leaves, the bubbles stop. It's all harmless fun, good for kids and some adults. I think this movie will last for a while because it is rather good for a straight to Video and DVD movie. While the movie does seem a little odd and kind of trails off toward the end, it works. 8 out of 10 | 1pos
|
THE GREAT CARUSO was the biggest hit in the world in 1951 and broke all box office records at Radio City Music Hall in a year when most "movergoers" were stay-at-homes watching their new 7" Motorola televisions. Almost all recent box office figures are false --- because they fail to adjust inflation. Obviously today's $10 movies will dominate. In 1951 it cost 90c to $1.60 at Radio City; 44c to 75c first run at Loew's Palace in Washington DC, or 35c to 50c in neighborhood runs. What counts is the number of people responding to the picture, not unadjusted box office "media spin." The genius of THE GREAT CARUSO was that the filmmakers took most of the actual life of Enrico Caruso (really not a great story anyway) and threw it in the trash. Instead, 90% of the movie's focus was on the music. Thus MGM gave us the best living opera singer MARIO LANZA doing the music of the best-ever historic opera singer ENRICO CARUSO. The result was a wonderful movie. Too bad LANZA would throw his life and career away on overeating. Too fat to play THE STUDENT PRINCE, Edmund Purdom took his place --- with Lanza's voice dubbed in, and with the formerly handsome and not-fat Lanza pictured in the advertising. If you want to see THE GREAT CARUSO, it's almost always on eBay for $2.00 or less. Don't be put off by the low price, as it reflects only the easy availability of copies, not the quality of the movie. | 1pos
|
Although Lang's version is more famous,Borzage's work is not devoid of interest ,far from it:its "celestial" sequences are even better.The metaphor of the train (perhaps borrowed from the ending of Abel Gance's "la roue" ) is eventually more convincing than the "up above" heavenly world.<br /><br />Borzage's tenderness for his characters shows in Marie's character and love beyond the grave is one of his favorite subjects (the ending of "three comrades" ).The amusement park seems to be everywhere: we see it even when we are in Marie's poor house.I do not think that the sets are that much cheesy,they are stylized to a fault.The fair from a distance almost gives a sci-fi feel to the movie.<br /><br />Borzage never forgets his social concerns: in the heavenly train going up,the Rich cannot stand to be mixed up with the riffraff but as "chief magistrate" tells :"here there's no more difference" .<br /><br />Not a major work for Borzage (neither is Lang's version),but to seek out if you are interested in the great director's career. | 1pos
|
OMG this is one of the worst films iv ever seen and iv seen a lot I'm a Film student. I don't understand why Angelina Jolie would be in this movie? Did she need the money that badly? I love AJ and have seen almost everything shes ever been in so i watched this 2 tick another one off. It was SOO bad! not even good bad, just bad bad. It had 1 or 2 funny little moments but all in all it was bad n a waste of 101 minutes. I cant even say AJ looked good in it because well she didn't. The plot is predictable unless you r expecting a re-telling of Romeo and Juliet then its not. All round disappointing. Maybe if your 12 this could be a good film otherwise I really don't recommend it. | 0neg
|
A clever script from the late SEBASTIAN JAPRISOT and smart performances from the two male leads - ALAIN DELON and CHARLES BRONSON (or should it be the other way around) result in an engaging and entertaining thriller.<br /><br />Add to the above the competent direction from veteran JEAN HERMAN and a sparse but effective score by FRANCOIS DE ROUBAIX, it becomes easy why this film has an odd timeless quality.<br /><br />This is a buddy buddy or bonding story with two loners, both disillusioned and world weary, returning, presumably from Algiers. Like the other colonial powers of this time (post WW II leading into the 60s), France had struggled to keep up appearances overseas. Losing Algiers was a bitter blow.<br /><br />ADIEU L'AMI (the original title) chronicles the actions of our two (anti) heroes as they struggle to make a go of it, after their discharge.<br /><br />One thing happens after another, and the viewer really has to pay attention, because JAPRISOT is lean and economical with his script: if it is there, then there must be a reason.<br /><br />Suffice to say, these two men battle it out, physically and psychologically, one long weekend. Their motivation is quite different, their goals are different - their survival depends entirely on each other. That ALAIN DELON and CHARLES BRONSON are outwardly so different - the former, arguably a pretty boy, and the latter an ugly thug, adds to the chemistry.<br /><br />That quest makes for a great story, which in turn, makes for a great film.<br /><br />Lest I forget there are women in this film, and true to the Japrisot method, they too are memorable, though not nearly as fleshed out; to say much more would be to spoil one's delight in discovering their true nature.<br /><br />FAREWELL, FRIEND HAS BEEN RELEASED IN THE UK; AN ANAMORPHIC IMAGE, 16.9 ENHANCED; IN English ONLY (not even subtitles for the hard of hearing); A RUNNING TIME OF 110 MINUTES; MONO SOUNDTRACK but the DE ROUBAIX music has lots of punch! <br /><br />Highly recommended. | 1pos
|
I loved this film because in my mind it seemed to so perfectly capture what I imagined life in French colonial Africa must have been like in the 50's ("my" generation anyway). But I was truly enraptured by its quiet pacing and by the glorious ending. Within the last 5 minutes of this film, you must focus intently on what's happening. Never have I been more impressed with the "wrap-up" of a film. I remember yelling "wow!" when I realized it was over. On the other hand, my two daughters fell asleep on the couch!! | 1pos
|
This film is beautiful to look at, but is like watching really bad experimental theater. The plot (if there was one) doesn't make any sense. But it is very "artistic". Lots of shots of half-dressed actors wrestling and looking deep into each other's eyes. Lots of arty shots through windows and with people out of frame. Mumbling and people wandering wistfully. Lingering close-ups of faces and bodies. By the time you get to the threesome on the roof with the cat, you'll be ready to throw a bottle of KY at the screen.<br /><br />It is supposed to be about a father and son's relationship, but you will just be wishing the two of them would just f*$& each other and get it over with. If you have always wanted to see bad Russian gay porn without any money shots, your wish has been granted. | 0neg
|
fulci experiments with sci fi and fails. usually in his non horror films we still get sum great gore, but not here. Sum very funny scenes like when the prisinors are forced to hold onto a bar for 12 minutes and if they drop they are electecuted. the guy falls and and has some kind of fit on the floor for about two minutes until his friends who were struggling to hold on anyway lift him off the floor. The city is an obvious model but not a bad one. and the end explosion is at best laughable. And dont get me started on the terrible battle scenes.<br /><br />4/10 | 0neg
|
Karen (Sarah Michelle Gellar), an exchange student in Japan who is just beginning to do some social work, is sent to aid an elderly semi-catatonic woman, Emma (Grace Zabriskie), after her previous caretaker, Yoko (Yoko Maki), disappears. Karen soon learns that something is not right in Emma's home, and she attempts to "see how deep the rabbit hole goes".<br /><br />Maybe it's a delayed influence from the success of M. Night Shyamalan's films, but slower-paced, understated horror films are a recent trend. In some cases, such as Hide and Seek (2005), the approach works remarkably well, and in others, such as White Noise (2005), the pacing tends to kill the film. I didn't like The Grudge quite as much as Hide and Seek, but this is still a very good film--it earns a 9 out of 10 from me.<br /><br />The Grudge has a couple significant differences from other recent examples of that trend, however. One, it is well known that this is a remake based on the Japanese film series that began with Ju-On (2000) (in particular, it's extremely close to the first half of Ju-On: The Grudge, aka Ju-On 3, from 2003). Two, as with many Japanese horror films, the slower pacing here isn't so much in the realm of realist drama as with surrealism. As is also the case with a large percentage of European horror, The Grudge should be looked at more as a filmed nightmare.<br /><br />Director Takashi Shimizu, also the director of the five Japanese entries in the Ju-On series to date (the fifth is currently in production), and writer Stephen Susco have largely dispensed with linearity and are not overly concerned with logic or plot holes when it comes to the horror behind the story. The idea instead is to present a dreamlike sequence of scenes, with dream logic, where the focus is atmosphere, creepiness, the uncanny, and for many viewers--scares. How well the film works for you will largely depend on how well you can adapt yourself to, or are used to, this different approach to film-making (although admittedly, some of the seeming gaps are filled in by previous entries in the Ju-On series). Traditionally, American audiences consider as flaws leaving plot threads hanging and abandoning "rules" for the "monster". A more poetic, metaphorical, surreal approach to film isn't yet accepted by the mainstream in the U.S.<br /><br />However, even if you're not used to it, it's worth trying to suspend your normal preconceptions about films and give The Grudge a shot. This is a well written, well directed, well acted film, filled with unusual properties, such as the story interweaving a large number of "main characters" (which is done better here than the more episodic Ju-On 3), good cinematography, subtle production design touches (check out Gellar's clothes, which match the color and texture of the exterior of Emma's house, when Gellar first approaches), and beautifully effective horror material.<br /><br />Even though it is more slowly paced that your average horror film of the past, the pacing usually enhances the eeriness, and there is no shortage of bizarre events to keep horror fans entertained. The supernatural premise of the film is absorbing, and based on interviews on the DVD with Shimizu, have prodded me to pay more attention to Japanese beliefs and folklore. Although the most interesting subtexts would probably arise with a more intimate knowledge of Japanese culture, it's interesting to ponder why so many Japanese horror films feature scary children and adults who look like scary children.<br /><br />I subtracted one point for the film slightly veering into clichéd mystery/thriller territory with a "here's what really happened" flashback, but even that was fairly well done, and otherwise, this would have been a 10 out of 10.<br /><br />Now that I've said all of the above, let me finish with a mini-rant: It's not that I'm anti-remake, but it is ridiculous that U.S. distributors and studios feel that we need remakes of foreign films to make them appropriate for consumption. The original versions of these films should just be playing in U.S. theaters in wide release. There is no need to present an almost identical film but just substituting white American actors for non-white or foreign actors. Yes, The Grudge is a fine film, but ultimately, I'd rather see something original using this talent, and be treated to the latest foreign horror films--not just Japanese, but also Indian, Spanish, Chinese, etc.--at my multiplex. In the hope that someone with some pull at the studios reads this, it is also more cost-effective to do this, as (1) you can completely avoid production costs, and simply make domestic distribution deals from which you receive profit, and (2) you can make money off of fans like myself who otherwise pick up the foreign film DVDs in foreign manufactured or even bootleg versions. | 1pos
|
A good cast and they do their best with what they're given, but the story makes no sense, the characters' actions are inexplicable, and there are too many moments of unintentional humor, as when a man is killed by being pierced with pieces of a phonograph record or when they get the witch drunk to a hip hop beat and then hit her over the head with a bottle and she grabs her hostage and pouts off. The scene when the two witch and her victim (played by the same actress) are in the house together sets up like a 3 Stooges routine, and the plot begs the question: if the witch wants to possess this other woman's soul, why doesn't she just do it instead of leading these people on this elaborate chase? Not to be missed is Christopher Walkin's eyeglasses and his automotive explanation of the afterlife (paraphrased): "The ancient Egyptianas - they wee materialists. They expected the body to last through eternity, like a used car that you souped up. But the Druids, they knew you couldn't drive in the afterlife. You had to get out and walk." Huh? The ending is absolutely indecipherable. Seems like they just ran out of film. | 0neg
|
This film could have been a silent movie; it certainly has the feel of one. I was extremely, extremely lucky to see this very rare version of this film. Extase, is a 'symphony of love', and transcends all language versions. French, which is the ultimate romantic language, seems quite suitable for this very sensual and lyrical version.A young Hedy Lamarr lights up the screen, in this film which, in a way is almost like a sex fantasy; but definitely far from being pornographic.Tech qualities may have been a little crude; but that does not detract from the magical spell this film exudes.Many lovers of early cinema, would absolutely adore this film. | 1pos
|
Playing a character from a literary classic can be a bit of a poisoned chalice for an actor, paying for the pleasure of a meaty character by competing with the fantasies of generations of readers not to mention the numerous other actors who've besieged the castle before. Fortunately for the fantasists, this version with the nicely cast Zelah Clarke and Timothy Dalton stands head and shoulders above versions that have come after it. It's the right length to do the story full justice, and makes considerable use of Bronte's cracking dialogue; none of that modern meddling away, cutting text and adding new and inferior scenes.<br /><br />The magic of the original story lies in the tensions created between the central characters, and the lives circumstances create for them to lead. Jane "poor, plain and little" grows up on the stinting charity of a cold aunt, her nature and independence shaped by a long spell in a very harsh school. She arrives as a governess in the household of Mr Rochester, utterly friendless and alone. She represses herself habitually out of duty and hard experience, but her passionate nature soon finds its touch-paper in her stern, keenly intelligent, enigmatic master, to whom she is drawn, as he is to her, by forces beyond their control. Rochester is the caged tiger, busy "paving hell with energy"; potentially dangerous to all who come into contact with him but "pervious, through a chink or two". His character is extraordinary: he takes extraordinary liberties with a paid subordinate; but then Jane is no ordinary employee, as he sees. But a dark secret, and severe trials, lie before them both.<br /><br />It's a pleasure to hear Bronte's remarkable dialogue spoken by such accomplished actors Dalton in particular seems formed for passion on a Brontean scale. If you've only ever seen him as a not-so-memorable Bond, you've missed the thing he's best at. Those who've commented that his Rochester is too handsome, miss the point of these dramatisations: his character has simply too much screen time for a really ugly man to retain the viewer's attention. Timothy Dalton is just right, not always or consistently handsome, but often glancingly, strikingly so, just as it should be. And Zelah Clarke's Jane is no wallflower; she conveys the emotions of a woman who habitually represses her sense of humour and her passionate nature very successfully, allowing her rare outbursts to show to more dramatic effect.<br /><br />Not so long ago the BBC aired an excellent dramatisation of Jean Rhys' enlightened and most unsettling riposte to Bronte, "Wide Sargasso Sea", imagining the back-story of the first Mrs Rochester. Do check it out you'll never see the 'hero' of "Jane Eyre" in quite the same way again. | 1pos
|
In one of her first movies, Romy Schneider shines as young queen Victoria of Britain, as she is suddenly put into the throne at the age of 18, learns to govern despite the machinations of the politicians, and eventually romances and marries Prince Albert of Saxony. Kitschy and campy (though surprisingly faithful to the real events), this romantic piece is irresistible. Seeing this movie about British royals spoken in German adds to its quaint charm. On that front, one wonders why an Austrian movie was made about an English queen; but then one remembers that in 1954, Austria was still under occupation by allied troops, including British ones. Maybe this was one of the reasons for the existence of this film. | 1pos
|
This movie is worth watching if you enjoy marvelling over special effects. There are some interesting visuals.<br /><br />Aside from that, it's typical nineties/aughties hollywood fare of dazzle without substance. True to the title.<br /><br />It's not worth picking apart the story. That's like performing brain surgery on a dinosaur. There's not much there to begin with. It's nothing original and not very special. So don't go in for the story at all. Just look at the effects.<br /><br />As has been mentioned, it got a little flashy at the end, diluting the purity of great FX treatment of an invisible (and at times half invisible) man. However if you ignore the "standard" pyrotechnics, it's a sight to behold (or not to behold).<br /><br />All in all, it's a decent FX film worth seeing for that purpose and that alone. | 0neg
|
This is an extremely-powerful based-on-a-true story film that can be infuriating to watch. I say that because how brutal a hounding press can be to people, in this case an innocent Australian couple charged with killing their baby.<br /><br />Meryl Streep received a lot of recognition for her performance when this film came out but I thought Sam Neill was just as good. Let's just say they both were excellent but the role was little harder for Streep because she had to learn an Australian accent. (She learned it so well I had trouble understanding her in parts.)<br /><br />Without giving anything away, all I can say is this movie will wear you out emotionally. | 1pos
|
The first scene in 'Problem Child' has a baby peeing into a nun's face. For this movie, that's witty. A nasty, mean-spirited 'comedy', it's inept on so many levels it beggars belief. John Ritter is the kind father who adopts the child from Hell, and kudos to him for maintaining his dignity in the surrounding onslaught of one-note, annoying performances and puerile humour. And what the hell's Jack Warden doing in this mess? Slackly directed by Dennis Dugan and obnoxious in its attempts to turn on the sentimentality when it's done with the crudity, the movie is made so badly it's quite a bizarre experience. But never mind all that. The lowlight of the whole thing is Michael Oliver, the most repulsive and unlikeable kid actor ever to hit the screen believe me, you will want to smack him right in the mouth. | 0neg
|
I think that most everyone wants to believe that extraordinary things exist and this film shows no restraint in trying to exploit that to the fullest. The presentation is very interesting, well presented and the graphics are state of the art, but from a scientific point of view it just doesn't work. Hydrogen filled flying bladders? They would need to be the size of a Mack truck to be useful. And then there's the ever-present possibility of a catastrophic explosion. I have no problem with fantasy, just don't try to pass it off as fact. Some folks will always misunderstand. All in all the film is entertaining, but I constantly found myself saying "oh brother, what a load of ....". If you want a FAKE documentary, watch This Is Spinal Tap instead. Or at the very least turn the sound off. | 0neg
|
A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away.....There was a boy who was only two years old when the original "Star Wars" film was released. He doesn't remember first seeing the movie, but he also doesn't remember life before it. He does remember the first "Star Wars" themed gift he got...a shoebox full of action figures from the original set. He was too young to fully appreciate how special that gift would be. But years later, he would get what to this day goes down as one of the best gifts he's ever received: another box full of action figures, ten of the final twelve he needed to complete his collection. It's now legendary in this boy's family how the last action figure he needed, Anakin Skywalker, stopped being produced and carried in stores, and how this boy went for about ten years (until he got into college) trying to track one down and finally bought it from someone on his dorm floor for a bag of beer nuggets (don't ask...it's a Northern Illinois University thing).<br /><br />I can't review "Star Wars" as a movie. It represents absolutely everything good, fun and magical about my childhood. There's no separating it in my mind from Christmases, birthdays, summers and winters growing up. In the winter, my friends and I would build snow forts and pretend we were on Hoth (I was always Han Solo). My friends' dad built them a kick-ass tree house, and that served as the Ewok village. They also had a huge pine tree whose bottom branches were high enough to create a sort of cave underneath it, and this made a great spot to pretend we were in Yoda's home. I am unabashedly dorky when it comes to "Star Wars" and I think people either just understand that or they don't. I don't get the appeal of "Lord of the Rings" or "Star Trek" but I understand the rabid flocks of fans that follow them because I am a rabid fan of George Lucas's films.<br /><br />I feel no need to defend my opinion of these movies as some of the greatest of all time. Every time I put them in the DVD player, I feel like I'm eight years old again, when life was simple and the biggest problem I had was figuring out how I was going to track down a figure of Anakin Skywalker.<br /><br />Grade (for the entire trilogy): A+ | 1pos
|
Kill Me Later" has an interesting initial premise: a suicidal woman (Selma Blair) on the verge of jumping off the top of an office building is protects a bank robber (Max Beesley) who promises to "kill her later."<br /><br />The actual execution of this premise, however, falls flat as almost every action serves as a mere device to move the plot toward its predictable conclusion. Shoddily written characters who exhibit no motive for their behaviors compromise the quality of acting all around. Lack of character depth especially diminishes Selma Blair's performance, whose character Shawn vacillates from being morose to acting "cool" and ultimately comes across as a confused dolt. This is unfortunate, as under other circumstances Ms. Blair is an appealing and capable actress.<br /><br />Compounding matters for the worse is director Dana Lustig's insistence on using rapid cuts, incongruous special effects (e.g. look for an unintentionally hilarious infrared motorcycle chase at the end), and a hip soundtrack in the hopes of appealing to the short attention spans of the MTV crowd. Certainly Ms. Lustig proves that she is able to master the technical side of direction, but in no way does her skill help overcome the film's inherent problems and thus the movie drags on to the end. Clearly, Lustig has a distinct visual style; however it is perhaps better suited to music videos than to feature film.<br /><br />The producers (Ram Bergman & Lustig)can be commended for their ability to realize this film: they were able to scare up $1.5 million to finance the film, secure a good cast, and get domestic and foreign distribution. This is no small feat for an independent film. Yet given the quality of the product, the result is a mixed bag. | 0neg
|
Ice-T stars as Mason a homeless African-American who finds himself hunted by wealthy hunters (Rutger Hauer,Gary Busey,Charles S. Dutton, F.Murray Abraham,William McNamara and John C. McGinley) however Mason proves to be much harder prey then the usual targets in this ridiculous and slow paced actioner which takes too long setting up actionscenes and then totally botching them. | 0neg
|
I have seen the film a few days back on a video tape and even though it was hard to swallow it at one take (because of its length and story), I liked it very much. I was impressed first, by the script and then, by the realization of this script. The film takes you on a ride, but that is not an easy, joyful ride; it goes through time and different political regimes and shows the influence of them to ordinary people's lives. What I loved was the inner logic the film followed; logic, which just like logic in life, was rather illogical and confusing at times but in the end, when I thought about it, all the events and twists made sense. It makes no sense though to try to re-tell the story as it spreads in more than 50 years of time. I also liked very much Nikita Mikhalkov's character Aleksei and the way he played it, as some critics would saw, with restless abandon. What I didn't like about it, was that I think he later played characters that remind me of Aleksei in films like "Cruel Romance" (Zhestokij romans, which I actually love) and to some extent in "The Insulted and the Injured" ("Unizhennye i oskorblyonnye"). "Sibiriada" shows, I think, what a great film-maker Andrei Konchalovski was before he went to Hollywood and made forgettable films like "Tango and Cash" and less forgettable like "Runaway train". I would prefer "Kurochka Ryaba" to them... | 1pos
|
Even though this was a disaster in the box office, It is my favorite film. It gives a powerful message of family. It has a lot of violence and has one song with a bunch of girls in bikinis. Compared to other bollywood films, the action scenes in this movie are more realistic. It is an incredible combination of Akshay Kumar and Amitabh Bachchan. If you want to see the Indian Godfather, Amitabh portrays that in this film. Don't read reviews by critic, they're just ignorant. This movie has good mix of comedy, romance, drama, and especially action. So if you want to see action more realistic than Main Hoon Na(still good movie), this is the movie. | 1pos
|
Umm.. I was quite surprised that someone actually gave this film high marks.<br /><br />Lets face it... Tori Spelling is not a great actress.. and this movie just proves the extent of her "talent". The movie's plot was weak... I bet the dork that came up with this concept was some perverted peeping tom. If there is a good thing about this movie, I would say it's that Tommy Chong's daughter, just for the fact that she's his daughter... and then there is that Soap-Opera-ish male lead who's decent good looks somewhat make him attractive, but ceases to help his dramatic abilities. *Why does IMDb require at least 10 lines? How many more ways can you simply say "This movie sucks"? | 0neg
|
TCM is keeping me awake all the time... they keep coming up with films Ive never heard of ... Senso.... now Ossessione... a very early film by Visconti!!... wow... the Italian version of The Postman Always Rings Twice...brilliant!! beautifully acted and directed ...Never heard of either leads who were excellent, Clara Calamai,as Giovanna, and especially, Massimo Girotti as Gino... what a sensual man !! more muscular and attractive than anyone else on the screen in 1943!!! His look was ahead of its time...many male stars from the 1950s were probably inspired by him... he should have been a major world wide star!! The film is much better than the Jack Nicholson/Jessica Lange version and less glossier than the MGM version (which I really like) with John Garfield and Lana Turner remember that white outfit ? who can forget.... This Italian version is different ..more realistic and with a very different ending... see it watch it...Im going to buy it !! | 1pos
|
A featherweight plot and dubious characterizations don't make any difference when a movie is as fun to watch as this one is. Lively action and spectacular stunts - for their day - give this movie some real zip. And there's some actual comedy from the ripping chemistry between the two leads. Quinn makes a good villain also, although his role is completely overshadowed.<br /><br />But don't be fooled by Maureen O'Hara's tough broad role, this is as sexist as any Hollywood movie of this era. You might be able to forgive that because of the time in which it was made, but it's still hard to get past. For all the heroism and gruesomely adult off-screen situations, this is still little more than an adolescent good time. | 1pos
|
I had no idea that Mr. Izzard was so damn funny, It really boggles the mind that he is not more well known! His command over the crowd and his timing is perfect.The monologue about Star Wars will kill ya too! If only all the stand up performers had his wit... | 1pos
|
I go to a lot of movies, often I bring my 5 year old son, I am so glad I did not bring him to this one. There are many references to sex and a skinny dipping scene, however, that is not the primary reason I would not take him to it. The trailers lead you to believe it is a light-hearted comedy; nevertheless, virtually all of the funny moments are in the previews. I kept waiting for it to get interesting, funny, or anything but serious; however, I nearly fell asleep as the plot-less story dragged on. I understand that dogs can be great company, that being said, the entire story focused on a poorly behaving dog that the owners were not savvy enough to train. If a human caused this much damage and mayhem that person would be banned. The worst movie I've ever seen with Jenifer Aniston or Owen Wilson, a waste of their talent. The best way to sum up this movie is, couple gets unruly dog, couple falls in love with dog, dog dies, couple sad. The End. | 0neg
|
Extremely well-conceived - part whatever happened to, part behind the scenes revisitation, part reunion film - all done in the same campy style that made the original series so much fun. I only wish this had been done 10 years ago to include more guest villains who have passed on. | 1pos
|
I have seen this movie many times and each time i watch it i can't help but be entertained by it. Gunga Din is one of those Classic movies made in Hollywoods Golden Years when the actors themselves had to draw the audience into a movie without relying on fantastic special effects and man made "monsters" to carry a scene. The onscreen charisma and comraderie demonstrated by Cary Grant, Victor McLaglen and Douglas Fairbanks Jr. is suberb and very entertaining to watch. The tongue and cheek attitude in which the three actors play their roles works beutifully and flawlessly. Some might consider it "corny" but i consider it "classic" filmaking and acting at its best. One must remember when watching this film that Europe was involved in a War with Germany and audiences went to the movies to escape from the horrors of war and to be entertained and taken away to a place where people were larger than life and did heroic deeds and good would always conquer over evil. Gunga Din accomplishes this perfectly by letting the audience laugh at and with the actors during their harrowing escapades. In short, its a classic film that doesnt take itself too seriously and doesnt want the audience to either. | 1pos
|
This film is the worst film, but it ranks very high for me. It is how a slasher movie should be. It takes place at a university in which there only seems to be a handful of students. The teachers are dumber than a sack of hammers. It is filled with good Catholic priest, sexually repressed humor. Bad hair, bad clothes. The dialogue is so cliched it is hard to believe that I was able to predict lines in quotes. The slashings have some creativity and seem to revolve around stabbing people in the genitalia. A lack of continuity in the soundtrack and characters that deserve to die because they are so bad, I recommend this film for a fun time. Get a case of cheap beer and some friends, watch it and laugh. | 0neg
|
SERIES THREE- BLACKADDER THE THIRD " If you want something done properly, kill Baldrick before you start" Hot on the heels of the second series the show returned with the current owner of the famous name down on his luck and in service as butler to the Prince Regent, a vain and stupid foil for Blackadders venom, played by Hugh Laurie. Baldrick is still in tow as the other piece of the comedic jigsaw. The format is similar to the previous show, after all now they had found the winning formula why change things. We see Blackadder trying to get rich off of the back of the gullible regent in many more ingenious ways, trying to make Bladrick an M.P.or trying to woe a suitable bride for the prince. In many ways this is one of the most accurate of the series historically, the prince regent did take control of the throne during his fathers bout of madness and some of the characters lampooned tell a lot about the times. Samuel Johnson, William Pit and Wellington all pass through the events and all manage to steal their scenes, not an easy thing with such a stellar cast | 1pos
|
Where to begin. This movie started out as something that seemed like a rip-off of "Darkness Falls". An old , disfigured woman living in the woods, giving kids presents for their teeth. Sound familiar? Then it changes. In "Darkness Falls", the tooth fairy only killed you if you saw her. The tooth fairy in this movie killed you no matter what. Why did they need the rocker, his hippie girlfriend or the Bubbas and their sister? I think the movie would've been fine without them. It seems like the producers sat around and decided that they needed to put extra people in the movie just so the tooth fairy would have people to kill. Although, it's nice to see a pretty blonde girl not being portrayed as a bubble-head for a change. Okay to rent, but I wouldn't suggest buying it. | 0neg
|
I was gifted with this movie as it had such a great premise, the friendship of three women bespoiled by one falling in love with a younger man.<br /><br />Intriguing.<br /><br />NOT! I hasten to add. These women are all drawn in extreme caricature, not very supportive of one another and conspiring and contriving to bring each other down.<br /><br />Anna Chancellor and Imelda Staunton could do no wrong in my book prior to seeing this, but here they are handed a dismal script and told to balance the action between slapstick and screwball, which doesn't work too well when the women are all well known professionals in a very small town.<br /><br />And for intelligent women they spend a whole pile of time bemoaning the lack of men/sex/lust in their lives. I felt much more could have been made of it given a decent script and more tension, the lesbian sub-plot went nowhere and those smoking/drinking women (all 3 in their forties???) were very unrealistic - even in the baby scene - screw the baby, gimme a cigarette! Right.<br /><br />Like I said, a shame of a waste. 4 out of 10. | 0neg
|
I watched this movie with some curiosity. I wanted to see if 1) Paul Muni could play Chinese and 2) Luise Rainer deserved her Oscar. I came away from the film thinking YES! Having seen Muni in only one film where he was quite hammy, I expected the same type of performance here. I was happily proved wrong. Although some might criticize him as being too childlike and stereotypically simple in the Hollywood idea of Asians, I thought he was just right in the role. Keye Luke, if he'd been given the chance to play a lead role, might have played him in much the same manner.<br /><br />I was particularly impressed by the camera work and the use of crowd scenes, especially during the sacking of the palace where O-Lan was once a slave. The graphic and grim atmosphere of the firing squad and the drought made this an epic quite unlike others of the same time where it was all glitz and glitter. I watched this film from beginning to end enthralled. I can't say the same for the "epics" of today. | 1pos
|
In New Orleans, an illegal immigrant feels sick and leaves a poker game while winning the smalltime criminal Blackie (Walter Jack Palance). He is chased by Blackie and his men Raymond Fitch (Zero Mostel) and Poldi (Guy Thomajan), killed by Blackie and his body is dumped in the sea. During the autopsy, the family man Lieutenant Commander Dr. Clinton Reed (Richard Widmark) of the U.S. Public Health Service finds that the dead man had pneumonic plague caused by rats and he needs to find who had any type of contact with the man within forty-eight hours to avoid an epidemic. The City Mayor assigns the skeptical Captain Tom Warren (Paul Douglas) to help Dr. Clint to find the killers that are infected with the plague and inoculate them.<br /><br />"Panic in the Streets" discloses a simple story, but it is still effective and with a great villain. The engaging plot has not become dated after fifty-seven years. Jack Palance performs a despicable scum in his debut, and the camera work while he tries to escape with Zero Mostel is still very impressive. My vote is seven.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Pânico nas Ruas" ("Panic in the Streets") | 1pos
|
If this movie was about a fictional character, the movie could stand on its own and be judged objectively. Unfortunately for the viewer, the movie is based on "facts" that are shaded very unfairly toward Ruben Carter. Many of the smaller facts were disregarded (Carter was NOT number one contender at the time of the murders, there is no proof at all that he saved a friend from a child molester in his youth), but some of the larger facts, like apparently being robbed of a decision to Joey Giardello because of "racist" judges, is inexcusable to those of us who have seen the fight on tape, and completely disrespectful to Giardello. Why Hollywood feels the need to make a hero out of someone who, at best, was in trouble and around trouble much more than any normal person should be (was arrested multiple times for beating women) is strange to me. Ruben Carter was never, by viewing his actions in the 60's and even now, when he refuses to speak to his son, a person that people can look up to. Everyone knows that Jewison can direct, and Washington can act, but why they chose this story as their vehicle is beyond me. Is Hollywood so much in need of a black hero that they need to bend the truth in all of their bio pics to make them believable? (Heres a suggestion How about Denzel playing a movie about himself? Now thats inspirational) Based on all of the inaccuracies in the movie, I would suggest passing on this one. | 0neg
|
This movie is quite possibly one of the most horrible horror flicks I've seen. The length wasn't nearly long enough to include a good storyline. Also, the way the foster parents died was just plain ridiculous. The mother suddenly dies from falling through a shower after tripping over an action figure, and the dad is shot by a police officer? I can see where some originality might have been what they were going for, but it could have been better. Also, the cheesiness of it all made me want to press stop before it was over. After hearing all of Lucy's name and figuring out it was 'Lucifer', I wanted to gag. Yes, it's interesting that Lucifer was a woman, but look at the name. It's a male's name. It should be given to a male character. All in all, the movie was a bore, and could have used a better plot. | 0neg
|
wow! this is a good movie! The acting wasn't good at all, but if you look at some moments in the film, rewind, and watch it again, it is genius! The man in the begin of the film walks with his suitcase against a three. WOW!I never expected that. Then he puts the coke in a suitcase and runs away. I bet that smoking guy against that three was one of his mates who sold the drugs later. And the genius quotes: ''nice shades, i need a pair'' ''their yours.. if you think you can take them..''.. just Brilliant! And the fighting is the best i've seen in a while. Look at the second guy he takes down after he hit the head of the first guy against the table. WHAT A HIT! And in the middle of the film, one guy in a car shot one time, then 3 guys fall, he is really good at aiming. It costs a lot of money to hire these guys like him. The end was brilliant, it was so exciting that james cahill walks 5 minutes up and down the stairs and shoot jason peters after his distraction moves. Jason Peters falls down, and roll over again while he is dead! I can't say with more words how great this movie is! | 1pos
|
A real blow-up of the film literally. This British film is boringly made.<br /><br />What an exciting plot! A terrorist places bombs on a train. How could the writers and producers of this stinker turn this into such a dull story?<br /><br />Glenn Ford, as the expert called upon to defuse the bomb, is given awful writing material to work with. Naturally, just as he is called in, his wife, Anne Vernon, is about to leave him. No wonder we never heard of Miss Vernon. After such a film, it would be enough to end her career.<br /><br />That elderly man who loved trains and interferes is our 1953 version of senile dementia. I thought it was highly insulting to show this man, even at the end. | 0neg
|
As a lesbian, I am always on the lookout for films relating to gays & lesbians. However, with this kind of crap out there--it would be enough to discourage any audience.<br /><br />I kept waiting for something to happen--anything!--a story to develop, or just for it to make some kind of sense. Neither occurred. It was just meaningless scenes, unconnected in any way with anything. The film failed to conveyed any kind of story or depth to the character.<br /><br />After an hour or more of this nonsense, I simply turned it off.<br /><br />Don't waste your time on this absurdity.<br /><br />1 Star - and it doesn't even deserve that. | 0neg
|
The film is about a young man, Michael, who cares for the elderly. One day he decides to kill some of the relatives of his clients. Around the same time he decides to model his killing after the Zodiac Killer of the 60's. He gets in touch with the author of a book about the Zodiac Killer and they form a friendship. Michael has a gun (aparently the only gun, as it seems to be in the hands of some of the other actors, only not portrayed as the same gun.) and he goes out a-killin'. Original. <br /><br />This is a great film if you like B movies. I thought the idea of the movie was good, but the editing and the acting really drowned the plot. I thought the 'blood' was just too fake, the lighting was horrible in some places, and the dialog was just too standard. The movie was shot on video, which is okay, but the editing of the film just made for some weird 'Plan 9' scenes. Not a bad movie for fans of the B-movie genre, but if you want something with a bit more polish, move on to something else. | 0neg
|
The first half hour or so of this movie I liked. The obvious budding romance between Ingrid Bergman and Mel Ferrer was cute to watch and I wanted to see the inevitable happen between them. However, once the action switched to the home of Ingrid's fiancé, it all completely fell apart. Instead of romance and charm, we see some excruciatingly dopey parallel characters emerge who ruin the film. The fiancé's boorish son and the military attaché's vying for the maid's attention looked stupid--sort of like a subplot from an old Love Boat episode. How the charm and elegance of the first portion of the film can give way to dopiness is beyond me. This film is an obvious attempt by Renoir to recapture the success he had with THE RULES OF THE GAME, as the movie is very similar once the action switches to the country estate (just as in the other film). I was not a huge fan of THE RULES OF THE GAME, but ELENA AND HER MEN had me appreciating the artistry and nuances of the original film. | 0neg
|
Soylent Green is a classic. I have been waiting for someone to re-do it.They seem to be remaking sci-fi classics these days (i.e. War of the Worlds)and I am hoping some director/producer will re-do Soylent Green. With todays computer animation and technology, it would have the potential to be a great picture. Anti-Utopian films may not be that far-fetched. The human race breeds like roaches with no outside influence to curtail it. We, as humans, have the option of putting the kibosh on the procreation of lesser species if they get out of hand, but there's nothing to control human breeding except for ourselves. Despite all the diseases, wars, abortions, birth control, etc. the human race still multiplies like bacteria in a petri dish. Classic Malthusian economics states that any species, including humans, will multiply beyond their means of subsistence. 6 billion and growing....that's obscene. | 1pos
|
I made the big mistake of actually watching this whole movie a few nights ago. God I'm still trying to recover. This movie does not even deserve a 1.4 average. IMDb needs to have 0 vote ratings possible for movies that really deserve it like this one. A 1.4 is TOO HIGH.<br /><br />I had heard how awful this movie was, but I really did not think a movie could actually be that bad, especially in this day and era. I figured all of the cheesy god awful movies were only from the 1950s and 1960s. My god was I wrong. Trust me folks, this movie REALLY IS THAT BAD. It is beyond horrible; it is beyond pathetic; it is beyond any type of word that I can think of for it. BATTLEFIELD EARTH looks like Best Picture of the Year compared to this movie. SNAKE ISLAND (which up until now was the worst movie I'd ever seen) looks like it deserves a few Oscars compared to this pathetic effort.<br /><br />I seriously can not believe that the makers of this movie thought this was a legitimate serious effort of producing a Hollywood movie. This has no business being called a movie. In the first 25 seconds of the film, I seriously thought I was watching some high school theater class attempting to make a short movie. Or better yet, I thought it was some Saturday night Live ripoff skit of the real thing. I mean, it looks exactly like that. The acting is horrible; the whole movie almost looks like it was shot with a 20 year old VHS video camera. the special effects.......well good lord Bewitched from back in the day had better special effects than this movie. The scene where he gets shot at the door is beyond laughable and beyond cheesy. I mean seriously, my Intro to Acting class from 4 years ago in college, all of us could have put together a better movie than this. And the worst part of the entire movie, where Arthur is naked in the bathroom. Oh my god I almost thew up right there. I have a strong stomach, but wow that was horrible. Some people should never be naked, and he's one of them. The plot of this movie just seems to go absolutely nowhere. They talk about legal issues that we never hear about again; Ben talks about getting into music that we never hear about again; arthur says he is looking for a job and money for college and the next thing we see is he's running a porn shop. Everything about the movie is just horrible.<br /><br />This really doesn't have much to do with my critique, but just so everyone knows, I am not a gay man. I DO however support gay rights and believe we should all be treated as equals. And I would support any gay person in my church, unlike the cruel priest in this movie, who by the way seems to cuss every other word. (WHERE IS THE F*(#*ing white out?) hahaha But I didn't want anyone to think I hated this movie just because of it being about two gay guys. It has nothing to do with that: This would have been just as horrible of a movie if it was Ben & Jill instead of Ben & Arthur.<br /><br />I just watched this movie to see if it really was as bad as they say. And yes it was even WORSE than I had read. Let this be a warning to everyone: ONLY watch this movie if you want to just sit back and laugh at how pathetic some movies in the 21st century can still be. If you watch this movie and are actually expecting a good movie or some entertainment, I have no sympathy for you whatsoever.<br /><br />On a final thought: How in the world are there 7 movies ranked BELOW this on IMDb? There is no way there are 7 movies out there that are worse than this! | 0neg
|
Dirty Harry has to track down a rape victim who extracts revenge by shooting her assailants in the goolies before killing them. Probably a more apt punishment would be to let them live after the initial shot and let them suffer forever like she and her sister has...Anyway..... an action-packed story set again in San Francisco and Santa Cruz. The chief rapist, played by Andy Drake is suitably vile and gets his punishment at the end (of course!). Not a classic movie but better than the others except for the original Dirty Harry. | 1pos
|