text
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| label
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
So much for JUDGE AND JURY, which lives up to its nonsense title. What good is there? The lighting is terribly foggy! Another horror movie you ask? Well, that's perfectly explainable. David Keith actually does pretty good at disguising clowns, chefs, and other shenanigans while being the killer who escaped death row. But overall, despite some new twists, it's reasonably stupid. Unapix has been putting out some ludicrous productions recently, and this one only means so much. We, the jury, find this film guilty for its indecent exposure to many of us sitting around believing it's a total waste of our time! | neg |
(48 out of 278 people found this comment useful, and counting...)<br /><br />People are such suckers for image and looks - as much as for the intellectually hollow "idealism" that lurks behind Communism. Che's charisma and looks have as much to do with his iconic stature as the misinformation that has been spread by Leftist propaganda (such as this movie) about him.<br /><br />I don't know what's worse: being captured by one of Che's murder-squads or having to sit through 4 hours of this typically Soderberghian garbage. The question isn't why this pet-project was made but what took them so long. By "them" I'm referring, of course, to Left-wing Hollywood and its "secret" love of Marxist tyrants (Lenin, Castro... take your pick). I am fascinated that it took decades for one of Tinseltown's least talented liberal directors to finally take on such an irresistibly biased propaganda project. Where was Oliver Stone all these years? Robert Redford? Tim Robbins? Warren Beatty? Alan Pakula? George Clooney? Barbra Streisand even? It's a mystery. All these overrated "artists" have often indulging themselves in similar, politically one-sided projects, yet somehow Che Guevara, who is arguably the most popular and well-known Communist, hasn't been a film topic of theirs yet.<br /><br />"Guerrilla" has all the hallmarks of an American truth-bending story of an epic scale; there is as much factual detail to be found here as in other similar Hollywood big-budget political fairy-tale bios such as "Malcolm X" or "Gandhi", i.e. almost none. The movie stars Del Toro as the famous Argentinian revolutionary. Nevertheless, however controversial and criminal this man's actions may have been, one thing nobody could take away from him: he was an intelligent manipulator who came from a rich family - which is why Del Toro fits the bill only visually. Del Toro may be an interesting, charismatic actor and he may resemble Guevara physically, but he exudes no intellectual qualities whatsoever, hence he makes Guevara come off as too primitive. Casting such mediocrities as Bratt, Philips and Franka Incompetente only underlines the director's lack of sound judgment.<br /><br />The movie is to the most part extremely slow (no surprise there), and visually uninteresting. Even a director as brilliant as Kubrick would have carefully considered releasing a movie that goes beyond the 3-hour mark, so it's quite telling that this Soderbergh, who has only made one or two solid movies and early on in his career, would think that His Oceanic Grandness was up to the task. If you think the film's length indicates that a bulk of Che's life has been shown here - then think again. Soderbergh focuses on Che's last phase, and a lot of the movie is tedious jungle nonsense, full of Guevara's alleged idealism. (Psychopaths don't have ideals.) I do wonder what kind of a mind this highly esteemed director has to have to actually choose to ignore some of Che's earlier life. Did he actually consider it too uninteresting? A massacre of 600 people holds no interest for the viewer, huh? Amazing. Some much better directors than this over-praised charlatan would have easily fit not one but two complete biographies into a 4-hour movie.<br /><br />Soderbergh, in a sense, becomes an accomplice by never addressing the negative, dark side - which is more than 90% - of Guevara. By spreading this kind of historical inaccuracy, consciously ignoring the ugly truth (God forbid he should taint the holy image of Che), Soderbergh proves himself not a humanist - a fake image which most Hollywood and pop music personalities struggle very hard all their careers to uphold - but the opposite: that he cares only about ideas, never about the people on whom these ideas are tested (like on guinea pigs). Soderbergh and the like are elitists of the worst kind; such people often have a latent contempt for the "proleteriat" (what a stupid term) they're supposedly siding with.<br /><br />Half of all students around the world wear Che's image on their red and orange shirts, but without ever knowing why. He has become an iconic figure for clueless, uninformed, very often young people, who think that by having this man's face on their chest that somehow makes them appear "edgy", intellectual, hip or interesting. In reality, wearing a Che shirt only underlines one's overall shallowness and total disinterest in self-education. (Wouldn't YOU want to find out more about a person before you start advertising his/her face to the world?) Wearing Che's by-now cliché image has become as common as having a Bart Simpson coffee cup. All those "Che-wearers" probably know more about Marge's blue hair than they'll ever read up on about Fidel Castro's dead ally.<br /><br />After everything that'd been done in the name of Marx, one would think that these mongrel "ideals" would be finally laid to rest. It seems mankind will never learn. Stalin, Mao, Kim Il, Pol Pot, Castro, Milosevic, Ceausescu, the Iron Curtain, a hundred million dead, more than a billion ruined physically and/or mentally through this system... so none of that matters, huh? <br /><br />The fact that Del Toro won a Cannes Award should only surprise those who are absolutely clueless as to how Cannes and other European festivals work - and vote. Hint: Sean Penn headed a jury not long ago.<br /><br />For my music-related rants, go to: http://rateyourmusic.com/collection/Fedor8/ | neg |
This movie is certainly well-constructed, beginning and ending in the dark, with focus on Lili Smith /Schmidt, Julie Andrews,initially the singing 'angel' later the notorious spy.<br /><br />It's beautiful! I saw the movie about 15 years ago and watched it again recently. While it was dismissed by critics in the 70's as overblown, 'cinema vulgaris', and lacking in structure (among others) time has proven them wrong. Blake Edwards certainly has produced a film that is almost of lyrical quality.<br /><br />The film soars and swirls (aerial photography; Julie Andrews in motion) and captivates. One must just buy into the premise that Julie Andrews is a spy whose mission has gone wrong. Overlooking the tepid chemistry between Julie Andrews and Rock Hudson, one must believe that these are lovers - who in all innocence fall for each other. And in the end, love is far more important than winning wars. And so is maintaining innocence.<br /><br />There is a lot of understated acting, and the film certainly reaches emotional depths often not seen in comedies.<br /><br />There are wonderful comedic elements (foreshadowing the French goons in Victor/Victoria), interesting diplomatic asides (reminding me of The Tamarind Seed, seen about 18 years ago) and a general sense of good-will.<br /><br />Suspend all disbelief and this movie will carry you away. Julie Andrews' belting out of war songs and the haunting 'Whistling Away the Dark' are reason enough to turn the TV on, just for the soundtrack. And the striptease number, like the 'Jenny' number in Star! works. <br /><br />This film has, like a good champagne, aged well. Paramount should bring it to DVD as soon as possible. The same applies to transferring the laser disk of Star! to DVD. These are both interesting pieces of Julie Andrews' meticulous and then underrated works. | pos |
and there are not many in cinema history. "Rouge" seems to be a bit of a hope. Hope in mankind and in life. But to say only that may be naive. Kieslowski could find the right way to tell the story of that embittered judge and the twentish but wise model. Perhaps that old and disappointing love affair will not be repeated -there's the new couple with the young judge after the accident-. But what to say about this master of the camera? You can't miss a second of the movie because you have to watch every and each one of those faces. Kieslowski loved human beings and that is quite evident in the way the camera treats the actors. Ms. Jacob and Mr. Tringtignant are perfect It's not only this movie but the downbeat "Thou shall not kill" and "A story about love" that may you think about contemporary cinema as a way of expressing an artist's point of view. Pity American public -the average one- could not see these films. At least they are not in the Maltin's dictionary. And even the Baseline does not know what to say about this unique man. abel posadas | pos |
This film was not nearly as much of a chore as I expected it to be. There are a few seconds of brilliance in this somewhat idiotic hardcore UFO conspiracy paranoia-fest. Most of the acting is mediocre, but fairly typical for 1970s-style stuff replete with pregnant pauses. A photographer and a model witness some strange goings-on in the woods and soon fall victim to these same goings-on. Flying saucers are spotted, more people disappear - but is it the aliens or our own government's ultra-secret group of cover-up guys? Soon enough, a reporter and a "UFOlogist" (apparently modeled on the character of the writer-director) are drawn into this unraveling fiasco and become the target of the ultra-secret agents who are as menacing as they are improbable and witless. Then the fun really begins.<br /><br />The movie, predictably, makes about as much sense as the average UFO conspiracy theory, but should be commended for taking itself so seriously. The camera work is OK for a low-budget film, the pacing is pretty good, the script is silly and absurd, and there are continuity issues which are fun to look out for. What are the few seconds of brilliance I mentioned? Honestly, I can't say much you without writing a spoiler. Suffice to say that the end of the film is, at least, worth fast-forwarding to if you can't take the middle. | neg |
The major flaw in this Spanish slasher/shocker is within it's script. For the first half hour it's an okay effort, building some suspense and an atmosphere of fear and dread. We even get some nice killings too! Then it goes completely downhill and turns into a whole catalog of "your basic slasher clichés". I must admit that I was quite disappointed because the trailer promised so much more. The final thirty minutes consists of some killings and a lot of running around in an abandoned convent. It should have been so much better (although the final scenes in the flooded room is quite okay)!<br /><br />First of all, we have the dialog. It's awful most of the time (there was quite a few giggles in the audience here and there when I saw it) and merely adequate elsewhere. It is also barely audible during a lot of scenes, drowning under the pressure of sound effects and the soundtrack (however that might not be such a bad thing after all considering the stupid lines we have to listen to!). There is one line in the whole movie that makes a reference to the "I know what you did last summer"-movies, indicating that the film makers wrote it all as one big joke, but I doubt it.<br /><br />And the ending...well, some will hate it, others will dig it. For me, it was mostly a question of the former because the final twist comes from out of nowhere! If the audience had been given some clues to the girls mental status, I might have thought otherwise. It also throws all logic out of the window, because the murderer could never had been in place for some of the kills! But as an avid horror fan I have learned to live with these inconsistencies in Spanish and Italian movies.<br /><br />But all is not bad. The movie has a big budget appearance, mainly due to the excellent cinematography (the scenes from past times really shines here), tight editing and an atmospheric soundtrack. Even though most of the actors are pretty bad, Anita Briem is an exception, making the most of what she has to work with. Real screen presence!<br /><br />And, like I mentioned before, the killings are gory enough for the fans of such stuff and they are usually accompanied by very good special effects involving images of water (but the "water theme" tends to get tiresome in the end though).<br /><br />So, to end this review, it's a movie that is quite fun in a "so-bad-it's-good" kind of way and it's also pleasing to the eye. But don't expect too much because it doesn't deliver as you probably think it will, judging from trailer and plot descriptions. | neg |
With some films it is really hard to tell for whom they were made. Huevos de oro seems to aim at the well educated Spanish middle class. There must be many inside jokes in this movie which you will not understand if you are an outsider. This can be pretty annoying.<br /><br />Symbols and references to art and popular culture abound, the movie alludes to the work of Salvador Dalí, Luis Buñuel and the Surrealists in general, a certain infatuation with bidet baths seems to point to Duchamp's ready mades. What's more, the main character has also a knack for karaoke tapes with songs of Julio Iglesias. But why all this is mixed together in a rather pretty but also gratuitous way simply eludes me. I can only guess that it all serves to highlight the vital, impetuous, boorish vulgarity of the main character who the director seems to admire and despise at the same time. How all the really pretty women run after him (the main character, I mean) is slightly disconcerting.<br /><br />The movie has three parts. It starts in the Spanish enclave of Melilla in Africa, where Benito, the main character, does his military service, apparently in the corps of engineers. Then it moves on to the resort town of Benidorm in Spanin where Benito just wants to build the highest skyscraper of the place and become a vulgarized Howard Roark. For the last part a defeated Benito moves to Miami, Florida, presumably in order to start a new life". But the change of places is not really explained satisfactorily. It is also somehow irritating that there is no character development and that the movie descends into a soap opera modus without being convincingly ironic. It must be said that Javier Bardem acquits himself very well playing the young stud who grows limp and deflated.<br /><br />I purchased this movie because I am interested in townscapes. And Benidorm is a kind of a special place, townscapewise. In this aspect Huevos de oro satisfied me only partially. In Jess Franco's She Killed In Ecstasy (1970) this specific location was used in a more rewarding way. | neg |
I share the same opinion regarding Underworld as the previous comment.<br /><br />I sat through the 1.5 hours of this movie wondering what this story was all about and more importantly why the author and/or director had made certain decisions for the plot. On the whole I found the movie to be unbalanced, consisting of strange sub-plots which (IMHO) actually had nothing to do with the movie. Furthermore, when writing a thriller I'd say you want your viewers to wonder about the story and not about the way the story is filmed... | neg |
Everyone has a first love, and though it is hard to define that feeling when you're younger, it is there, aching inside you. That is what Malaysian filmmaker Yasmin Ahmad aims to prove in her fourth feature, a movie where that most complex of emotions is recounted in a deceptively simple, straightforward fashion.<br /><br />Such an approach is especially convenient in this case, as the love story at the film's core involves two twelve-year olds, and would therefore make any attempts at "deeper" analysis seem contrived and pretentious. That they don't is also testament to the astounding performances given by the leading non-actors, Sharifah Aryana and Mohd Syafie Naswip. The former plays Orked (already seen as an adult character in Ahmad's previous picture, Gubra), a lively, almost rebellious girl who, perhaps influenced by her "British" upbringing (her mother studied in England), despises playing with dolls, preferring to play violent sports with the boys. Then one day she meets Mukhsin (Naswip), who has come to spend the holidays at his aunt's house, and all of a sudden she changes her habits: goodbye fistfights, hello bike-riding and tree-climbing. But what does this mean? Are they just friends, or is something more implied, something neither of them is yet ready to understand, let alone accept?<br /><br />Given the young age of the protagonists, answering those questions borders on impossible, and so, like in several "smaller" films (Lost in Translation comes to mind), there is no real closure, a choice that leaves a bittersweet, but ultimately satisfying aftertaste: the naturalistic, unfiltered acting (especially Aryana's) gets to the heart almost immediately, and a strong supporting cast (Orked's family most of all) helps keeping the minimalistic narrative fun and seducing. The down-to-earth approach isn't always that effective (the hilarious subplot regarding an adulterous neighbor is dropped way too early), and it is hard to justify the bizarre Pulp Fiction reference at the start of the feature, but the emotional strength of the teenage romance is enough to make this an interesting piece of independent Asian cinema. | pos |
An object lesson in how to make a bad movie which masquerades as Horror. Without going in too close I would imagine this is the results of a bunch of film school students all adding bits to the story and then actually ACTING in it! Its like a film workshop of some kind and its a film badly in need of an editor-in which case it would have lasted 10 minutes! The director of this garbage probably had more money than sense. Consider the number of submitted scripts or even unreleased films which would have benefited from this. The so called Granny who was killing people in some pretty stupid ways looked like Christopher Lloyd in Back to the Future-or maybe the musicians Johnny Winter/Edgar Winter. It starts off with 20 minutes of crass boring nonsense spouted out by the students-something about paranoia. Giving this rubbish 1 is because it can't get any less. It has not one single redeeming feature-and when one of the girls thinks the body on the floor covered in blood is the guy fooling about she has to actually TASTE the red stuff before she knows its not tomato ketchup! Its an insult to the intelligence of an idiot | neg |
Marie: You are smooth. Dan: No, I'm not smooth. I'm Dan.<br /><br />If you're anything like me, smooth and single do not go together. You see someone you like, rare enough as that can be, and you want to say something but you don't. Or maybe you do say something but it ends up being perhaps the least intelligent thing you've ever said in your life. More often then not though, you stare from afar and admire without having to deal with taking that which most agree is the only way to get anywhere in life a risk. You can't blame a guy for being a little frightened though. Maybe he's been burned hard before or maybe he's trying to focus all his energy on his career. There are reasons, some valid, some not, and all of them can be interpreted as excuses rather than reason. You tell yourself you don't need it or it isn't the right time for you but you still wish it were happening. Any way you break it down, it's not easy. Sound familiar? If you thought yes even just a little, then DAN IN REAL LIFE, the new comedy from director Peter Hedges, is a must-see. It will reach inside of you and somehow manage to both break and warm your heart all at once.<br /><br />The Dan from the title is Dan Burns (Steve Carell), an advice columnist who is admired for his insight into living a balanced, fulfilling and morally uplifting life. Four years or so before the film opens on Dan waking up to his day, he lost his wife and love of his life. After that tragedy, Dan was left to raise their three daughters alone. Between that and focusing on his career, finding love again was not one of Dan's priorities. And so he became more functional than feeling. Removed from the power of intimacy, Dan no longer knows what it means to be that close to someone and has resigned himself to never knowing that again. That is, until he meets Marie (Juliette Binoche) in a book and tackle shop in Connecticut on a quiet morning. They're interaction is casual, comfortable and it catches both of them off guard. There is only one problem really. She is already seeing someone. Unfortunately for all involved, that someone is Dan's brother, Mitch (Dane Cook). His entire family has come up to their parents' country home for their yearly visit and Dan must now spend the weekend pining and yearning for the fleeting feeling he had with Marie that morning. It only lasted an hour or so but it only took that long to awaken Dan's heart from its coma.<br /><br />With so many family members to deal with (Jack Mahoney and Dianne Wiest are at the helm), DAN IN REAL LIFE does drift away from its grander purpose from time to time. While the cyclone of kids and parents and aunts and uncles makes for trying times for Dan, Hedges also uses it unnecessarily as a means to distract, with the presumption that it would ultimately make for a more complete film. Luckily, Hedges has got Carell to carry the heavy burden. It is a pleasure to watch Steve Carell come into his own more and more with every picture he makes (despite the occasional EVAN ALMIGHTY-sized misstep). He is charismatic, charming and obviously a sharp humorist. As Dan, he is also self-deprecating, awkward and scared. Carell is the rare comedian who pushes himself to find character in his roles rather than rely solely on his comedic instincts and established persona. Perhaps more importantly, he is entirely relatable as Dan. Whether he's flopping down on the cot in the laundry room where he is subjected to sleep as the only single adult at this reunion or fidgeting around the kitchen, unable to stan d still in his anxiety, Dan is every guy who has even been unsure of himself and felt alone in the crowd. Carell gives Dan so much heart that he becomes the heart of the film itself at the same time.<br /><br />I wondered after seeing the film if I enjoyed the it as much as I did, despite its slight shortcomings (Juliette Binoche I know you might like to lighten up every now and then but I don't recommend it unless there is chocolate involved), because of where I am in my life. Would someone who has found that someone else derive as much meaning and comfort from this film? I can't say. What I can say, as someone who knows what it means to be lonely, DAN IN REAL LIFE knows what it means to be surprised by life and love and how these moments and people need to be appreciated and cherished. It also knows that anyone who might be feeling lonely on any given day or for months at a time needs to be reminded that surprises still happen. | pos |
This was god awful. The story was all over the place and more often than not I was confused because of horrible editing. I felt no sympathy for anyone because their characters were not developed enough. They were extremely superficial people with no dimension. Cheesy, cheesy stereotypes with subplots that went nowhere. The stripper chick was just a distraction, even if she was decent looking. I don't know what this was attempting to be, but how shocked was I when they showed this trash on Sundance? I almost cancelled my subscription. You'd think a channel like that would show more quality films. There are much, much better gay and lesbian themed films out there. "The Celluloid Closet" is an excellent documentary. I thoroughly enjoyed "Wigstock: The Movie". I'm sure there are others that have slipped my mind at the moment, but what I'm trying to say is that this just wasn't worth it. If you catch it on TV, ok, but otherwise don't bother.<br /><br />There were maybe three or four shots that looked really nice (sad I can count them on one hand), otherwise the cinematography was pretty crappy as well. The lighting was way off in a lot of places. I think some of the effects were used to try and add to something that just had practically nothing going for it.<br /><br />I can't deny Johnny Rebel is pretty hot (without the blond hair of course). Too bad his acting did nothing for me. Stick with real porn, buddy.<br /><br />3/10. | neg |
This movie is really not all that bad. But then again, this movie genre is right down my alley. Sure, the sets are cheap, but they really did decent with what they had. <br /><br />If you like cheap, futuristic, post-apocalyptic B movies, then you'll love this one!! I sure did!<br /><br /> | pos |
This is a low grade cold war propaganda film crossed with a soapie. It may have some long-term significance as a snapshot of 1950s US thinking, but there is little else to commend in the mawkish storyline, wooden acting and grating style. There are some interesting photos of long-gone aircraft, but that was not enough for even this aircraft enthusiast to leave it on the screen for the full length. | neg |
Many of the reviewers have made it a point to note that Pinjar is unlike the run of the mill films produced in Bollywood. While this is true, Bollywood films in general are geared to a specific audience and should be appreciated for accomplishing their aims in this regard.<br /><br />However,Pinjar is an excellent film for those seeking a change from the normal equation based Bollywood film. Set during the time of Partition between India and Pakistan, Pinjar focuses on a Punjabi girl who becomes the victim of societal and cultural attitudes toward the treatment of women in her time. Paro, the protagonist, is forced to choose between a life with a man who has abducted her and the fleeting hope of a life with her family back in Indian ruled Punjab. More than an issue of Hindus and Muslims, Pinjar addresses and defines a woman's role as a daughter, as a wife, and as a mother in India and Pakistan in 1947. Unlike typical Bollywood films which are escapist in nature, Pinjar is a film that makes its audience contemplate these issues during and after the film. | pos |
This film is another of director Tim Burton's attempts to capitalize on a familiar title to bring his `vision' to the screen. He has done it with `Batman', `Sleepy Hollow' and now this. This is not a remake. The only thing it has in common with the original is that it has simians that can speak (and Charleton Heston makes a cameo). Burton has reconstituted the entire story, watering it down for today's mass viewership.<br /><br />The original Planet of the Apes was a product of its time. During the 1960's America was struggling to redefine its civilization. It was a turbulent time of soul searching and rethinking social norms. It was the civil rights era where groups long considered inferior demanded to be treated as equal. In that context, POTA was allegorical, reflecting the philosophical turmoil confronting the audiences of the day. POTA was an extremely intelligent film that broached difficult questions and elegantly held the oppressions of American society up to scrutiny by making the white guy justify his intelligence to a species he considered inferior. The dialectic between Colonel Taylor (Charleton Heston), Dr. Cornelius (Roddy McDowall) and Dr. Zira (Kim Hunter) was thought provoking and intelligent with ironies both subtle and obvious.<br /><br />Burton's version is as much a product of today's times as POTA was of the sixties. This is Apes for Dummies. It is superficial and jejune, substituting politically correct platitudes for intelligent dialogue and focusing more on form than substance. The `surprise' ending is utterly incongruous and contributes nothing to the film except a cliffhanger that sets up the sequel. While the ending of the original POTA gracefully tied everything together in a single powerful scene, Burton's ending simply mocks the audience, taunting, `I know something you don't know, and you are going to have to wait for the sequel to find out.'<br /><br />From a technical perspective, as is always the case with Burton's film, the film is excellent. The makeup is fantastic and Burton's camerawork is outstanding (though I continue to dislike his dark look). However, thirty-three years of advancements in prosthetic makeup can not compensate for the insultingly vacuous script.<br /><br />The story has been reduced to a monster movie. The humans band together behind Captain Davidson (Mark Wahlberg) to fight the monstrous Apes, aided and abetted by a few turncoats (notably Helena Bonham Carter as Ari). The presentation is formulaic and simplistic with plenty of violence, perfect for today's fast food mentality.<br /><br />The acting is mixed. Mark Wahlberg is a fine actor who is simply miscast in this role. Walberg is excellent at playing dark, sullen characters that are tormented but strong. This part requires an inspirational hero, a profile not in Wahlberg's repertoire. Helena Bonham Carter is a brilliant actor whose character is so far beneath her ability that the disconnect is laughable. She tries desperately to do something with the flimsy character, but her interpretation presents like a cross between a college peace demonstrator and love sick teenager.<br /><br />Then there is Tim Roth. His is a virtuoso performance, single-handedly saving the film from total ruin. Roth is diabolically hateful as the malevolent General Thade. He creates one of the most villainous and despicable bad guys I can remember in some time. Additionally, his physical acting is superlative, rendering a chimp-man that is such a perfect meld that one can almost believe that the species exists.<br /><br />This film is a great disappointment. It is decent entertainment, as long as you check your brain at the door. I rated it a 3/10. From a technical perspective it is much better than that, perhaps a 9/10. However the story is an insult to the original franchise. It is simply another attempt by Burton at self adulation, using a familiar title to attract throngs to the box office so lots of people can see what a genius he is. Of course it's true, but it would be great if he used that talent to produce substantial films, instead of simple minded pap formulated for mass consumption. | neg |
Footprints is a very interesting movie that is somewhat difficult to categorize. "Psychological thriller" is the most appropriate description I can think of. The female protagonist, Alice Cespi, discovers that she doesn't remember anything of the last three days. The only clue she has is a torn photo of a hotel. She is also haunted by a recurring, very vivid, dream about a science fiction movie that she believes she saw many years ago. In her pursuit of the truth behind her amnesia she doesn't trust anyone, but little by little it becomes obvious that she has visited the town where the hotel is located before. This is an exciting flick whose main virtue is that it is virtually impossible to predict how the events will unfold, and particularly, how it will end. The unusual loneliness of the main character and the unreliability of everyone else ensure that the good old paranoid feeling is present throughout the film, whereas beautiful colors and some spectacularly filmed sequences make this a visually attractive movie as well. The important part of the one and only Nicoletta Elmi, everyone's all time favorite redheaded obnoxious child star of Italian horror, is an extra bonus. | pos |
The unpleasant "home invasion" genre can be traced back to Wes Craven's early sleazefest "Last House On The Left", with such nasty off-shoots as "I Spit On Your Grave", "Wrong Way" and "The Visitors" soon following in the footsteps of that film. Here, in this early '80s Italian offering the same plot is regurgitated once more, with the twist being that this one is set on a continental train. "La Ragazza Del Vagone Letto" known in English-speaking countries as "Terror Express" starts out surprisingly well but about twenty minutes in it takes a turn for the worse, as the sex scenes start to gain precedence over the more serious action and suspense.<br /><br />David, Phil and Ernie, three rich youths who wallow in terrorising and humiliating others, board a trans-continental express in Italy. The train is full of other passengers, among them prostitute Juliette (Silvia Dionisio) who rides the train frequently and has struck up a deal with one of the porters to act as a kind of pimp, persuading the male passengers to part with their cash for a night of passion in her sleeping compartment. The three cretins quickly set about upsetting the passengers with their aggressive, drunken behaviour, but matters get more serious when they seize control of an entire car on the express and barricade themselves in from the rest of the train. Pretty soon, they are revelling in their temporary control
. a young wife (Zora Kerova) is raped by two of the youths in a cramped compartment; Juliette herself is subjected to a prolonged sexual assault; and later the odious trio force the male passengers to role a dice in order to decide which one will rape a 16 year old virgin travelling with her parents (a concept made doubly tasteless by the fact that her father is one of the men forced to play the game). The only passenger who seems prepared to fight back is a convict who is being escorted to Germany, but what hope does one man have against three armed thugs? <br /><br />La Ragazza Del Vagone Letto gets off to a decent start. Various intriguing characters are introduced, and the three hoodlums are shown to have a genuinely unsettling influence over the travellers. Though the story is clearly the stuff of exploitation, the opening scenes are built up carefully and the film seems to be rising above the usual gutter-level of its genre. Things fall apart during a horrid scene in which Kerova is sex-sandwiched in a toilet compartment by two of the thugs. The scene is gloatingly filmed, and the effect does not seem to be to generate sympathy for the victim or hatred towards the perpetrators
instead, we are being asked to feel turned on. This is sensationalism at its worst. Further humiliating rapes follow, but the rape sequences involve too much lingering camera work over acts of oral sex and the female genitalia. One sequence featuring the 16 year old girl teeters on the brink of hard core and feels particularly "wrong". By the end of La Ragazza Del Vagone Letto it is easy to forget that it was intended as a thriller, for the final hour of the film is dedicated to pornography rather than suspense. Lovers of sleaze will revel in it; others might want to look elsewhere. | neg |
Necessarily ridiculous film version the literary classic "Moby Dick". John Barrymore is Captain Ahab, who falls in love with the pastor's daughter, Joan Bennett. His brother Derek is a rival for Ms. Bennett's affections. When Mr. Barrymore loses his leg in a whaling accident, Bennett rejects him. He must slay the whale and win Bennett back...<br /><br />There are several scenes which may have thrilled 1930 theater audiences; particularly the scenes involving Barrymore losing his leg. The film hasn't aged well, however; there are much better films from the time, both 1920s silents and 1930s talkies. The two name attractions, John Barrymore and Joan Bennett aren't at their best. <br /><br />**** Moby Dick (8/14/30) Lloyd Bacon ~ John Barrymore, Joan Bennett, Lloyd Hughes | neg |
I have read with great interest the only available comment made before mine on this movie and I would first like to say that I understand the point of view of the previous user who commented on this movie very well: viewed from an Israeli perspective, I can very well imagine that this movie touches upon very sensitive issues and that the slightest detail can have a great importance for a viewer who is more or less directly concerned by the events depicted in this movie. What I would like to say is that 'Distortion' was shown at a film festival in Geneva in November 2005 (Festival 'Cinéma tout écran') where it won the award of the audience ('Prix du public'in French). For what affects me, I liked the 'nervous camera' work of Mr Bouzaglo, who, in my opinion, portrayed an atmosphere of extreme tension and uneasiness in the movie very well, and I think that most of the swiss viewers appreciated this in the movie. This perspective, however, might seem totally 'alien' to an Israeli viewer, but not so surprising when it comes to swiss viewers, because Switzerland is a country which has NEVER been subject to any terrorist attack. It therefore comes as no surprise that the audience in Geneva judged this film with a much more 'detached' perspective.I would also like to quote what Mr Bouzaglo said when he was interviewed by a Geneva newspaper (I'm translating from French): ''After 50 years of living here and after undergoing all this violence, we may ask ourselves if it is still possible to remain normal.We might sometimes think that it would be easier to commit suicide than to go on living. We are like the characters in my movie,''on the edge of the edge''. This is the reason why the private detective, who is somehow ''voyeur'' is the happiest character in the movie, because he earns a living thanks to the system, he takes advantage of this situation'' This is, in substance, the main thing that I and the swiss public, in my opinion, pointed out in this movie, and that we did not pay attention to some inconsistencies regarding the characters in the movie which the precedent reviewer pointed out with great accuracy and humor. So, to sum up, different country=different perspective, but I think that this is somehow great, because it reassures me for what affects the future of cinema, that is to say that it well never be subject to a 'unique' of 'formatted' way of thinking. | pos |
As kids movie it is great. For the family it just sucks. I was truly hoping for something like the Goonies which is a great film for all ages. This movie was just geared too much to the kids with the silly script and characters calling each other little names like booger breath. ??? Alan Cummings was however a delight. And why do people compare Willy Wonka to this movie...just because there is a theme song closely resembling the Willy Wonka song doesnt make this film anything like Willy Wonka. | neg |
I couldn't tell if "The Screaming Skull" was trying to be a Hitchcock rip off or a modernized Edgar Allen Poe tribute. These days, someone would have chopped it up a bit and presented it as one of those TV anthology episodes from the old "Tales From The Dark Side"...but only after an extensive rewrite.<br /><br />The sad thing is, there seems to be a nice, nasty little story trying to get out from under the rubble of this movie, and the actors are obviously doing the best they can with both their talent and the material they have to work with. But the director just didn't know how to stage or pace a dramatic scene; the special effects simply didn't work; the screenplay telegraphed its threadbare plot points so plainly that a bivalve could have seen them coming; and the soundtrack kept playing German "oompah band" music when it was supposed to be trying to scare the audience. <br /><br />They tried; they tried really hard. But this is of interest only as a period piece.I suppose someone very young who hadn't seen a lot of suspense or horror might get a charge out "The Screaming Skull", but someone that young probably wouldn't get most of the subtext or plot motivation. ("Mommy, why is that nice man trying to scare the twisty faced scaredy-cat lady??") | neg |
Feeling Minnesota is one of the worst films I have ever seen, it is also one of the most disgusting films ever made. It has to do with a woman who is forced to marry a disgusting mob man. At the wedding she meets his brother Jjaks. They have sex in the house after they eat the cake than decide to run away together. The other brother of course comes after him guns blazing and he kills his wife. Jjaks wakes up to find her corpse in the bathtub and buries her. He than seems to become friends with Jjaks and they try to get money together because someone is blackmailing them because he saw them and the body. This loops about and several characters dies or come back to life, but it never comes together with anything that could be called a good plot. The performances are horrible by pretty much everybody. Cameron Diaz, Keanu Reeves, and Dan Akroyed. The direction, dialogue, and visual effects are just horrible. A disgusting and horrible movie. | neg |
Rachel McAdams. Cillian Murphy. Wes Craven. The Dream Team. This is one of the best thrillers of 2005. A great plot. A great twist. A great eye candy. This is one of Wes Craven's greatest movies apart from "Scream" and "A Nightmare on Elm Street". This could be the best. The plot is one of the best things about the movie and it is very simple. Lisa Reisert (McAdams) a struggling hotel manager, boards a late Red Eye back to LA. Little does she know that she has been followed by Jackson Ripner AKA Jack the Ripper (Murphy). They have a couple of drinks and end up sitting together on the plane. Later he reveals to her that he is an assassin who was sent to kill the Secreteary of Homeland Security who is staying in Lisa's hotel. And what does this have to with Lisa. Well, she would have to move his room to the top suite so they can bomb him, if she doesn't Ripner will murder her father (Brian Cox). The twist and bringing of the story really gives it the extra zing and the side characters and the side jokes really add to it. Overall, definitely one of the best thrillers of 2005. Definitely worth the see.<br /><br />3 1/2 out of 4 stars | pos |
I know, it's a movie. But when it comes to portray real life (in any matter) it should be as faithful as possible. I'm sorry, but "El Misterio Galíndez" isn't as accurate as it seems. Nor is the Dominican Republic depicted as it really is. In fact, it shocked me to see that the filming location for Santo Domingo was actually Cuba. And incredibly enough, movies with Cuban themes (Havana, The lost City, Bitter Sugar, The Godfather part II) were actually filmed in Santo Domingo! So what happened here? Why did they shoot the movie in Cuba instead of the D.R.? The Spanish dialogs with the Cuban accent are horrible! Those are not Dominicans! On the historic level, Galíndez would have never been hanged. He might as well been shot, decapitated or died from the inhumane torture he'd been receiving. Then, thrown his body in the Caribbean sea. But Trujillo would have never ordered death by strangulation. His sick mind wouldn't have allowed it.<br /><br />Acting isn't delivered as expected. Harvey Keitel looks like he's just expecting a paycheck. I prefer the leading actress in "Deep Blue Sea". The rest of the cast would have been excellent in some Cuban movie, and the same goes for the selected shooting location.<br /><br />I suggest "La fiesta del chivo" (The feast of the goat), from bestselling author Mario Vargas Llosa, directed by his cousin Luis Llosa. It's a bit more realistic with Dominican history. The Trujillo character is very well portrayed, and the Galindez incident is treated very briefly in this movie. | neg |
My top 2 actors happen to be in this film - Robert Ryan and Robert Mitchum. <br /><br />Ryan could play anything from Shakespeare to Arthur Miller and play it magnificently. In this film when he starts his speech "...people with names like Samuels and others with names that are hard to say" - it is chilling to watch him.<br /><br />Robert Young plays the policeman who is called to investigate the murder of Samuels (Sam Levine), a civilian, who is chatting with several soldiers in a bar. Mitchell is the soldier wanted in connection with it - his wallet has been found in the apartment. But Mitchell is a gentle soldier, who is only missing his wife.<br /><br />The story is told from different perspectives. Mitchell and Samuels strike up a friendship and go back to Samuels apartment. Samuels seems to know the loneliness that Mitchell is feeling. "For years you have been concentrating on one peanut and now it is gone you don't know what to feel" he says about the war.<br /><br />Ryan is superb as Monty, the psychotic racist.<br /><br />Robert Young (along with Dick Powell) was an actor whose career was re-juvenated by film-noir. "Crossfire", "They Won't Believe Me" and "The Other Woman" are great examples.<br /><br />Robert Mitchum is his usual laid back self as the philosopical Keeley.<br /><br />Gloria Graham and Paul Kelly as the "odd couple" are outstanding as well in their brief but telling roles.<br /><br />This is probably the best film about racism ever made. | pos |
I've been watching a lot of Asian horror movies lately, but this one has to be the worst so far. It started out interestingly enough, but lost momentum after the first 15 minutes of the movie. The added "drama" scenes, flashback sequences and serious plot holes left me hanging. What really happened in the tunnel? Just "something terrible"??? Who started all the killing if it wasn't the ghost? What did she want returned to her????? No answers whatsoever! Overall, not very scary at all and the movie makers need to come up with a lot better ideas than this...<br /><br />One positive was the cute actress, but that's about it.<br /><br />Not recommended. | neg |
This self proclaimed "very talented artist" have directed easily the worst Spanish film of the 21st century. Lack of emotion, coherence, rhythm, skills, humor... it repeats the same situation over and over again. It shows no character development. It does not even show any violent and/or sexual content, and it does not add anything new to the psycho-killer sub genre. So lame it should be shown at film schools as an example of "what not to do" in a first movie.<br /><br />BTW where the hell is the "talent"? there are scenes which have been shot almost identically; there are scenes which have two or more master shots and it is quite awful to see the action jumping from one master shot to another without a reason. The camera almost never moves, as if the "very talented artist" was afraid of showing his lack of visual skills. The actors playing the main roles act like amateurs, and the supporting cast is hardly believable. There are more holes than plot in the script (if ever there was one)...<br /><br />A really disheartening movie, and a whatsoever talented director. | neg |
Absolutely horrific film. Ameteurish and it isn't funny at all. Lead character played by Mehmet Ali Erbil is very annoying. Edits by E.T and star wars is just plain stupid.<br /><br />Actor Yilmaz Goksal is the only good think about this movie. He should master his English and move to Hollywood. Hollywood can not find an actor with his qualities. Other than Goksal this movie is a garbage.<br /><br />Director Gani Mujde is a comic writer and this movie is his worst written work to this date.<br /><br />Music of Cem Karaca is another plus of this waste of money. Actor Sumer Tilmac also have some presence. Actor who plays the three sons has no talent what so ever. | neg |
I liked Timothy Dalton very much even though he was a bit young and too handsome for Mr R. but I thought Zelah Clarke too plump and short. This version however was very true to the novel and very well filmed. I have seen 4 versions, Orson Welles is still my favorite Mr R , though George C Scott did very well and it's a toss up between Joan Fontaine and Sussanah York, although they were both a bit too old for the role. I recently saw a brilliant TV version of Rebecca with Charles Dance and Emilia Fox. I would love to see those two do Jane Eyre.By the time I got to watching the Ciarin Hinds version, I think I was Jane Eyred out, but I will never tire of those first few minutes of hearing Joan Fontaine's voice narrate the opening of the first version I ever saw. I always want to go back and read the book again. | pos |
We've all seen bad movies, well this one takes the cake. I've seen that Junior movie box staring back at many times from my many journeys to the horror section at the local video store, and I was a little interested, it looks like it pays some homage to Texas Chainsaw Massacre, so I thought I'd get it. Mistake! Junior sucks hard, long, and with commitment. In other words it's really bad. Although it does win my award for most creative use of a bikini top. AVOID!! | neg |
this film is quite simply one of the worst films ever made and is a damning indictment on not only the British film industry but the talentless hacks at work today. Not only did the film get mainstream distribution it also features a good cast of British actors, so what went wrong? i don't know and simply i don't care enough to engage with the debate because the film was so terrible it deserves no thought at all. be warned and stay the hell away from this rubbish. but apparently i need to write ten lines of text in this review so i might as well detail the plot. A nob of a man is setup by his evil friend and co-worker out of his father's company and thus leads to an encounter with the Russian mafia and dodgy accents and stupid, very stupid plot twists/devices. i should have asked for my money back but was perhaps still in shock from the experience. if you want a good crime film watch the usual suspects or the godfather, what about lock, stock.... thats the peak of the contemporary British crime film..... | neg |
Rating-10 Classic Waters! One of his best and most shocking films! Divine is THE most filthy person ever! Mink Stole also delivers a superb performance! | pos |
When I look for new cars, I expect not to be shown boats. When I drink fountain Coke, I should expect that the drink contains Coke. When I watch a movie that embellishes itself with the name of en excellent scientist, I expect that it is in some way relevant to that person or their work. This could have been people discussing my grannys' diary. The material covered is relevant only in that they vaguely tirade science. I fell asleep the first time I tried to watch it, & the second time I stopped watching it.<br /><br />I love science & documentaries. I would rather watch them over the latest blockbuster. However this falls far short of providing anything worth your time Avoid at all costs. | neg |
When i was told of this movie i thought it would be another chick flick. I was wrong. This movie sends a powerful message about judging others. I was deeply moved. Everyone i have encountered, I have recommended this movie to. No one has come back saying it was bad. Busy, also did a great job with her role in this film. I don't know much about her acting career but wow, they way she pulled off the end of this fill was great.<br /><br />At the beginning it was a little slow. But after she went to the hospital....wow, the movie picks up again. i have no idea why this movie hasn't been spoken of in the movie world. My wish would be for this movie to be released again and advertised more...because it sends a powerful message in a mere hour and a half. | pos |
Some nameless aliens off on a distant ship from a distant planet have sent the giant robot Kronos to rob the world of its energy. They've got a prototype clanking around Mexico for openers and if he proves successful more will be sent. It would certainly take a lot of time for just this one Kronos to perform that task.<br /><br />For reasons I can't explain the aliens first capture the mind of leading scientist John Emery who telepathically directs Kronos to his first targets. Since Emery is killed off later and the monster seems to function well enough without Emery as a controller, why the aliens needed him in the first place is a bit bizarre.<br /><br />In any event scientists Jeff Morrow, Barbara Lawrence, and George O'Hanlon who work under Emery aren't fooled a bit about his nature. And of course they come up with a plan to deal with the raging metal giant.<br /><br />Kronos is a perfect film for the Fifties, the bad guys are never seen they're just out there looking to undermine mankind. It's a perfect film for the Cold War. And Jeff Morrow assures us we'll be ready for them in the future.<br /><br />The players look like they're having a grand old time mouthing as many clichéd lines the writers could put in the script. I get the impression that Kronos is the kind of film Ed Wood might have done on a bigger budget with a bit more care. | neg |
Michael Is King. This film contains some of the best stuff Mike has ever done. Smooth Criminal is pure genius. The cameos are wonderful, but as always, the main event is MJ himself. He is the best, hands down. | pos |
Greetings again from the darkness. This one will be compared to "The Princess Bride" and although it doesn't measure up to that classic, it is extremely entertaining and well made in its own right. The story line is a bit odd and the whole wall thing is never really explained, but the execution is fine, even building up strong suspense.<br /><br />Charlie Cox plays Tristan, who falls for the wrong girl (Sienna Miller), and agrees to fetch her a fallen star ... who happens to be played by the stunning Claire Danes. Not much suspense on what happens with these two, but the suspenseful part comes in with the wicked witch played by Michelle Pfeiffer and the prince son of King Peter O'Toole looking to reclaim the ruby necklace our "star" is wearing. Lots of bad chasing the good.<br /><br />Along the way, an encounter with the strangest pirate you will see (including any from the Carribbean). Robert Deniro plays Captain Shakespeare - tough on the inside, and shall we say in touch with his feminine side. Another encounter involves the brilliant Ricky Gervais as a fast talking trader and that is good for a couple of laughs.<br /><br />Not your typical chase, coming of age, or fantasy film, but director Matthew Vaughn's ("Layer Cake") effort deserves an audience. Sadly the poor marketing campaign will probably prevent it from making any money. My guess it will find big success on video. | pos |
When robot hordes start attacking major cities, who will stop the madman behind the attacks? Sky Captain!!! Jude Law plays Joe Sullivan, the ace of the skyways, tackling insurmountable odds along with his pesky reporter ex-girlfriend Polly Perkins (Gwyneth Paltrow) and former flight partner, Captain Franky Cook (Angelina Jolie).<br /><br />Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow may look and feel like an exciting movie but it really is quite dull and underwhelming. The film's running time is 106 minutes yet it feels so much longer because there is no substance in this movie. The visuals were great and the film did a nice job on that. However, there is nothing to support these wonderful visuals. The film lacks a story and interesting characters making the while thing quite dull and unnecessary. I blame director and writer Kerry Conran. He focuses too much on the visuals and spent little time on the actual story. The movie is like a girl with no personality, after awhile it kind of gets bland and tiring. Sky Captain represents a beautiful girl with no personality. It's simply just another case of style over substance.<br /><br />The acting is surprisingly average and that's not really their fault since they had very little to work with. The main reason I watched this movie is because of Angelina Jolie. However, the advertising is quite misleading and she is only in the film for about 30 minutes. Her performance is surprisingly bland as well. Jude Law gives an okay performance though you would expect a lot more from him. Gwyneth Paltrow was just average, nothing special at all. Ling Bai's performance was the only one I really liked. She gives a pretty good performance as the mysterious woman and she was the only interesting character in the entire film.<br /><br />The movie is not a complete bust though. There were some "wow" and exciting scenes. There just weren't enough of them. The film just doesn't have that hook to really make it memorable. It was actually quite bland and it wasn't very engaging at all. It's too bad the film wasn't very good since it had such a promising premise. In the end, Sky Captain is surprisingly below average and not really worth watching. Rating 4/10 | neg |
TIGERLAND / (2000) ***1/2 (out of four)<br /><br />By Blake French:<br /><br /> Throughout the years audiences have seen and understood war films with every point of view possible, and somehow producers and writers always come up with new and innovative methods of portraying various soldiers on the battlefield. Joel Schumacher ("8MM," "A Time to Kill"), easily one of the riskiest directors currently working, has found resemblance with "The Thin Red Line" in the way his new drama "Tigerland" steps in an individual soldier's shoes. This movie, written by Ross Klavan and Michael McGuther, has more guts and irony than "The Thin Red Line" or even "Saving Private Ryan." Although the movie's dramatic impact is somewhat lessened due to the perversity of the material present, it certainly enlightens us on a new perspective of young men training for war. <br /><br /> I would want to know Joel Schumacher's experiences with the army. Are the men really this unabashed and brutal? I am sure some of them are, but the movie views its uncompromising world through the eyes of a young man named Roland Bozz (Colin Farrell), who is rebellious against the ideas of war. His personality instantly counteracts with several other characters, one who becomes his best friend, Paxton (Matthew Davis), and another, Wilson (Russell Richardson), whose flamed temper often exasperates Bozz's tension with the idea of going to war. The war depicted in this production is not found on a battlefield, but on training grounds of a Louisiana-based instruction camp between conceptions and fears of the soldiers in training. This film is specifically about the preparation for war, nothing more nothing less. It ends when the soldiers finally go to war, kind of disappointing since witnessing the characters in action would have served as a supurb payoff. <br /><br /> Shot on location in about 28 days using 16mm stock and a minuscule budget, Joel Schumacher accurately displays a gritty, perverse, cruel, and unmerciful atmosphere using hand-held cinematography, unique lighting techniques and direct sound. Schumacher's grainy and blown-out images make the movie feel like a documentary feature. This unusual style of filmmaking only contributes to the hard core realism of the movie, quite graphic in its use of coarse language, perhaps a little too disturbing. Waves of four-letter words pound the audience, some in shock of what they are hearing. Even the extreme amount of vulgarism does not keep the dialogue from prevailing as heartbreaking, true, and emotional.<br /><br /> If anything, "Tigerland" provides us with a minor appreciation of how much our soldiers go through for our country in the beginning stages of combat. Such bravery must it take to enlist in the army during times of war, knowing the hardships and risks that are being taken. Such thought-provoking ideas are made possible through the heartbreaking performances by the young aspiring actors who portray the various trainees. This movie is not for all audiences, but one that young men should take a look at before enlisting themselves in the army...and adult audiences should watch to appreciate the courage needed to do such. <br /><br /> | pos |
An unqualified "10." The level of writing and acting in this Australian movie is reminiscent of the very best of "old" Hollywood. Sam Neill and Meryl Streep are very good together. Neill matches Streep line for line, and take for take -- it is one of the best showcases yet of his prodigious acting talent and he is at his sexy and gorgeous best, notwithstanding the intensity of his role. This engrossing film is a treat for any movie fan who loves a gripping courtroom drama, portrayed in the most human but unsentimental terms. The movie -- which won several top awards in Australia -- boasts not only a superlative cast and director, but wonderful and authentic Australian locales. It proves that people are the same the world over. And, after all these years, people still delight in repeating the famous Streep line, accent and all: "A dingo ate moy baby!" Including that imp "Elaine Benis" on "Seinfeld." | pos |
If you live in the suburbs, are relatively well off financially, and do not really have much contact with the city life of england, then this is the comedy for you. Not something a mass audience would go for, but if you're like these characters they show you'll love it to pieces. Overall this is a comedy that the snobs at the BBC will sit back and laugh at for their pleasure and only a select few of the publics. Comparing it to BBC Comedys like Only Fools and Horses, Fawlty Towers, Black Adder, and other classics, this series tends to drift away from the BBC's regular product to the audience and deliver to somewhat of a folk culture. | neg |
Aside from a few titles and the new Sherlock Holmes movie, I think I've watched every movie Guy Ritchie has directed. Twice. Needless to say, I'm a big fan and Revolver is one of the highlighted reasons why. This movie is a very different approach from Ritchie, when you look at it comparatively with Lock, Stock... and Snatch. Revolver sets us up for a psychological thriller of sorts as a gambling con finds himself at the mercy of a set of foes he didn't expect and a guided walk for redemption that he didn't know he needed. Along with seeing André Benjamin of OutKast fame strut his acting ability, other standout acts are Ray Liotta playing the maniacal Mr. D/Macha and Mark Strong playing Sorter, the hit-man.<br /><br />After being sent to prison by a tyrannous casino owner, Macha, Jake uses his time in solitary to finesse a plot to humiliate Macha and force his hand in compensating him for the seven years he spent. When he wins a card game and amasses a decent sum from Macha, Jake finds himself on the brink of death as he collapses and is diagnosed with an incurable disease that's left him with three days to live. A team of loan sharks, however, have an answer for him and a ticket to life- only if he gives them all the money he has and relents to working for them, all in a ploy to both take Macha down and show Jake how dangerous he has made himself to himself. Along with having the air of death loom, and a pair of loan sharks having a field day with his money, Jake also has to deal with having a hit put out on him, which introduces Sorter - a hit-man under Macha's employ. The depth with the story comes when Jake realizes that some co- convicts he spent time with in solitary may very-well be the loan shark team out to take him for all he has by crafting all of the unfortunate events that Jake seems to find his way into. When faced with this reality though, Zack (Vincent Pastore) and Avi show Jake just how twisted he has become from being in solitary, having only the company of his mind and his ego then makes it so that their actual existence is elusive even to Jake. The movie unravels to a humbling process for both Jake and Macha as they both come to grips with their inner demons.<br /><br />The style of the movie is top-notch as you get the gritty feel of the crime world represented and the characters it includes. Although a lot of nods at Ritchie's previous films are here it still has a presence of its own from the dialogue, the sets and the experimental take on the gangster genre. It's also a great trip on humility and recognizing when you can easily let your ego or a preset notion mask you ability to accomplish what you want or overcome what you should. The characters are well crafted in this movie with all sides being fleshed out and, true to Ritchie fashion, they're all tied in by some underhandedness that throws a wrench in everyone's affairs. I could and would like to go on about this film and its unique nuances but I don't want to take too much away from it if you haven't seen it yet.<br /><br />It may take a few sittings to get through all the intricate layers but it's a great movie and it should be seen. If you're lucky and you haven't seen the watered-down US release, see if you can get the original UK version as it will make for a great discussion piece among friends as you try to puzzle in your take. I saw it with my crew around early-2006 and we're still talking about it with little things we've picked up on today. It has garnered its cult status, and it's well- deserved as the film where Ritchie stepped out the box and broke his norm a bit.<br /><br />Standout Line: "Fear or revere me, but please, think I'm special. We share an addiction. We're approval junkies." | pos |
Sheba Baby, is another Pam Grier Blaxploitation film. It was one of Pam's less visceral films of this genre. Pam plays Sheba Shane, who's a Chicago gumshoe. Sheba's father is the owner of a small loan company, in Missouri. When local mobsters try to run her father of of business, Sheba goes after the bad guys.<br /><br />Pam Grier had already made her mark in Blaxploitation films, by the time Sheba Baby came along. Fans of both Coffy and Foxy Brown, know that Pam is capable of an explosive intensity as an actress. In Sheba Baby, the fiery performance that viewers had come to expect from Pam, wasn't as evident in this film. Not that Pam doesn't kick-butt in Sheba Baby. She's just not as much of a runaway-train vigilante, as she was in her previous Blaxploitation films.<br /><br />The supporting cast in this film, are a distinct disappointment. So Sheba Baby is Pam's film, through and through. And though Pam's a bit more subdued than in her other films, she still gives a compelling performance in Sheba Baby. This film is definitely worth your time, if you're an ardent Pam Grier fan. | pos |
Timeless musical gem, with Gene Kelly in top form, stylish direction by Vincente Minnelli, and wonderful musical numbers. It is great entertainment from start to finish, one of those films that people watch with a smile and say "they don't make 'em like they used to!" But they never did quite make them like this. The climactic 25 minute musical sequence without any dialogue is among the most beautiful in film history. Movie magic, clearly derived from the heart and soul of everyone involved. A must see! | pos |
As main "character" Lillith Silver likes to point out - "you know f**k all about vampires". It is evident that this statement was aimed at the cast and crew, who create an exceedingly bad image of everyone's favourite bloodsucking undead. According to the misguided director, Vampires are all caked in white foundation and crammed into latex similar to a piece of meat in shrink wrap. With fangs resembling Bannana's and a bad case of asthma our main character Lillith creates a slapstick caricature of the "modern day" Vampire.<br /><br />The plot consists of a 9 year old boys' playstation collection jotted down on a piece of paper, then blended together to concoct this horrible tale. Lillith our pale protagonist is a Vampire Bounty hunter who makes a living from snubbing out members of everyone's favourite cult, the Illuminati! Rather than incorporate the classic assassin methodology of stealth and precision however, Lillith waltzes in through an open window and then proceeds to chomp her targets necks before shooting them point blank with a handgun (that apparently doesn't leave bullet holes thanks to the shoddy continuity). PC Plod is then assigned to solve the murders, he comes to the grizzly, yet strikingly obvious conclusion that Lillith is actually a Vampire and proceeds to hunt her down armed with the usual vampire dispatching tools including a cross, garlic and a sharpened piece of wood. Meanwhile, Lillith, who has gotten into the habit of bonking her boss, is distraught when an old nemesis kidknaps him and demands a Ransom to be delivered personally. As you may imagine, this doesn't go according to plan. I'm not going to put myself through the pain of the following scenes however, so I'll skip to the end. Lillith and her "nemesis" have a showdown, and after Lillith obtains victory it is then revealed, with all the extravagance of someone being told they have cancer, that the two are century old lovers and the whole plot was some kind of twisted game. Yes, that kick in the balls was the actual ending of the film. In my eyes, this joke of a conclusion is the icing on the latex clad cake, and seals this film in the "Never ever watch this" vault.<br /><br />As far as cinematic techniques go, the film merely doesn't bother creating any style. The director tries to rescue his disasterpiece from the brink, by throwing in some close ups and a few multi-angular shots, this however is not the saving grace the film needed.<br /><br />You may be screaming "but this is a B movie, its meant to be crap!". I however do not take pity. I have seen some cracking B movies, such as evil dead 2, and Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter, and therefore this disgrace cannot hide behind excuses. The budget was low, This is obvious by the lack of location and good actors. Maybe however if the director was more creative and spent less money on paying for makeup and fake blood, he could have done something decent with this sickening attempt. The seedy sex scenes are not beneficial in any way and merely served to give me a few chuckles at the obscene acting skills throughout. Half the budget must have been paid to the female cast merely for getting their tops off for lesbian romps. If I wanted to watch a vampire porno, I would have bought Muffy The Vampire Layer.<br /><br />The cast are bad, the story is worse and the effects are cripplingly fake. This film had some potential, however its seedy undertone and embarrassing portrayal of a classic horror character merely served to be its downfall.<br /><br />If you want a laugh with a few friends, I recommend you watch this mockery. If you are looking for a more serious Vampire action flick, try Blade or Underworld to sooth your raging bloodlust. | neg |
This movie was so incredibly boring, Michael J. Fox could've done so much better. Sorry, but it's true for all you people who liked the movie | neg |
ANOTHER great performance by Kiefer Sutherland. I love his movies, because he always plays his role very well. For a low budget film, this was done very good, and kept me on the edge the whole time. I love these type of movies, and I was glad I caught it on. I'll be buying the dvd or tape for sure.<br /><br />9/10. | pos |
There are a select few cartoon films where animals or something "not human" is portraying human beings and I think that this film is one of them. Apart from a few points of the plot and the characters - this film could be changed with all people rather than mainly animals. Although - it's good someone did not - I feel the cats are jolly good in this film portraying humans! :-)<br /><br />This film also focuses on quite a lot of adult issues - which is rather odd for a Disney film. It mentions alcohol*, shows a dog teaching another dog how to attack "tresspassing" humans and it shows a male cat called (Abraham Delacy Gieuseppe Casi Thomas) O' Malley, fancying a female cat, in a surprisingly human and adult way.<br /><br />As a cartoon film - or just a film in general, I feel this is pretty good quality - the storyline and characters are especially good. The film (in general) is set in France and you meet a family of cats - the mother Duchess and her kittens Marie, Toulouse and Berlioz. You also meet the kind (rich) old woman who adores the cats, the butler Edgar and an old man (who has CLEARLY lost his marbles) called George. The kind old woman discusses her will with George and Edgar overhears that what he receives from the will he will have after the cats have it. He is INCREDIBLY cross with this - and has an evil scheme in mind...<br /><br />A very cute film for every age - enjoy "Aristocats"!<br /><br />*Not including "Basil the Great Mouse Detective" and a few others maybe which I cannot think of at the moment. | pos |
If any style of film could be called my "guilty pleasure", it'd be this generic fantasy type. Guilty is the wrong word for it, though, as I'm pretty pleased to be an escapist from time to time. "Stardust" is good stock fantasy, the likes of which one should expect from Neil Gaiman (or Gaiman adaptation, as it were). It isn't the visual dream-scape of Mirrormask, it isn't the adult pretension of Pan's Labyrinth, and it isn't the fun-loving classic The Princess Bride, but it contains just what the fantasy-lover is familiarized enough with to be completely comfortable during the entire viewing. Fantasy lovers should rejoice--special effects work has finally become good enough and cheap enough that this stuff is in regular production now.<br /><br />The story of Stardust involves a young man named Tristan who, in order to gain the love and approval of the most beautiful girl in their small town of Wall, goes on an adventure to retrieve a fallen star. To make things difficult, however, Tristan's fallen star is actually a woman named Yvaine, and he's not the only one looking for her... some witches have their greedy eyes on the immortality the star's heart can give, and a brother's feud over the magic kingdom leads murderous princes in her direction.<br /><br />From there it's all pretty predictable, but it involves some attractive fantasy elements, some warm-hearted commentary on the nature of love, and the best part, Robert DeNiro as a gay pirate. On that note, DeNiro's performance is spot-on... it's not the excessive lisp that most actors use to portray gay people, but a surprisingly effective one from someone used to being seen as a rough-and-gruff typecast character (thus the ongoing joke surrounding his character matching DeNiro's own opening up into alternate forms of acting). DeNiro hasn't been so unique to his own image since Brazil, and that's saying something.<br /><br />Stardust is the type of movie, perhaps, that will subsist on children's and fantasy-lover's shelves for a long time. I can't say it offers anything new, but it's not really there to. It's actually those most familiar with it's tropes that will enjoy it the most.<br /><br />--PolarisDiB | pos |
Hearkening back to those "Good Old Days" of 1971, we can vividly recall when we were treated with a whole Season of Charles Chaplin at the Cinema. That's what the promotional guy called it when we saw him on somebody's old talk show. (We can't recall just whose it was; either MERV GRIFFIN or WOODY WOODBURY, one or the other!) The guest talked about Sir Charles' career and how his films had been out of circulation ever since the 1952 exclusion of the former "Little Tramp' from Los Estados Unidos on the grounds of his being an "undesirable Alien". (No Schultz, he's NOT from another Planet!) <br /><br />CHARLIE had been deemed to be a 'subversive' due to his interest and open inquiry into various Political and Economic Systems. Everything from the Anarchist movement from the '20s (and before), the Technocracy craze to Socialism in its various forms were fair game for discussion at Chaplin's Hollywood parties; which of course meant the inclusion of the Soviet style, which we commonly call Communism.<br /><br />COMPOUNDING Mr. Chaplin's predicament was both confounded by one little detail. He had never become an American Citizen.<br /><br />ANYHOW, enough of this background already! <br /><br />SUFFICE it to say that he had become 'Persona Non Gratis' in the United States of America. .It was high time to get the old films out of the mothballs and back out to the Movie Houses. It'd sure be a great gesture by us easily forgiving and quickly forgetting Americanos.<br /><br />IT would be a fine gesture to the great film making artist; besides, the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts & Sciences was planning to honor Chaplin with a special tribute at the 1972 Oscar Show. This would surely be a tearful yet joyous packaging of pathos a plenty for having America invite Charlie back and have him come and receive a special Academy Lifetime Achievement Award in front of a World-wide Television Audience numbering in the Millions. <br /><br />BESIDES, that would be a natural for promoting the Chaplin Season at the Theatre! (Remember, the Little Tramp was as astute as a Bu$ine$$ Man as he was as a Film Maker!) THE program consisted of showings of MODERN TIMES, CITY LIGHTS, THE GREAT DICTATOR, MONSEUR VERDOUX, A KING IN NEW YORK and finally THE CHAPLIN REVUE. We remember being very excited in the anticipation of the multi date film fest.<br /><br />IN our fair city of Chicago, it was booked for the Carnegie Theatre on Rush Street. The festivities lead off with MODERN TIMES and all of the others would be shown one at a time, each staying for whatever period was necessary in order to satisfy the public's desire to view each picture. As we recall, the very last on the schedule was THE CHAPLIN REVUE.<br /><br />IN RETROSPECT, we look back and wish that they had begun the run with REVUE; as there were undoubtedly legions of moviegoers (much like ourselves) who knew very little about his accomplishments in motion pictures, except for those Keystone, Essanay and Mutual Silent Shorts that were being shown as regular feature on so, so many Kiddy Shows all over the country. Oh well, once again, no one consulted me!<br /><br />CONCENTRATING on today's honored guest film, THE CHAPLIN REVUE, we found that it was actually three separate pictures; carefully bound together by the use of narration by Chaplin (Himself), some lively Themes and Incidental Music (once again written by Chaplin) and some happy talk and serious narration (Ditto, by Chaplin.) He opens up the proceedings by making use of some home movie-type of film depicting the construction of the Chaplin Studio in Hollywood, as well as some film taken of some rehearsal time, showing Director Chaplin demonstrating just what he wants to a group of actors.<br /><br />THIS segment was well done and well received by the audience. Both the building humor and the rehearsal were amplified by making them seem accelerated. (The rehearsal naturally, the building by use of speeding up the camera's photographic process. The old trick makes it appear that the buildings were almost building themselves.<br /><br />THIS amalgam of shorts incorporated three of Chaplin's short comedies from his stint with First National Pictures.; roughly that being 1917 to 1923. The choice was well thought out and gave us a wide variety of subject matter and mood.<br /><br />FIRST up was SHOULDER ARMS (Charles Chaplin Productions/First National Pictures, 1918). As the title suggests, it is a tale of World War I. Released in October of 1918 with about a month to go before the Armistice Day of November 11, it was a comedy of comical Army gags and a romance between Private Chaplin and a French Girl (Miss Edna Purviance). The levity is fast, physical and in the grand old tradition of ridiculing the Enemy, the German Army.<br /><br />DISPLAYING an excellent example of the old adage about Children and Dogs bringing folks together, the next film A DOG'S LIFE (Chaplin Productions/First National, 1918) traces the parallel lives of Chaplin's Tramp and a newly adopted stray, Scraps. The movie story involves families, two of them. One Homo Sapiens, one Canine and both supplying us with some big surprises.<br /><br />AS the finale, we have THE PILGRIM (Chaplin/First National, 1923) was a good choice to have as the finale. It was bright, light and tight. It was an excursion into the area of the Western Spoof, Comedies of such type having been done since by every comedian and team. The "Pilgrim" in the story is not of your standard Thanksgiving Variety; but rather a "dude" or "Tenderfoot", who has ventured out West. The Tramp is not only that guy; but his character is an escaped Convict who is mistakenly thought to be the new Clergyman of a Western town's Church!<br /><br />OUR Rating (that is Schultz and Me) is ****. (That's Four Derbies)<br /><br />POODLE SCHNITZ!! | pos |
The director seems like a good, solid man. His parents struggle with the same issues we all cope with. They strayed from each other. They loved each other. They misunderstood each other. And the poor audience has to sit through ninety minutes of what is possibly the trials and tribulations of one of the most boring families ever to come out of Long Island.<br /><br />There are few interesting choices in this documentary--the music is banal, the filming uninspired, and the story is the same story that has played out on every Birch Street in every town in America. I don't mean to sound too harsh--seldom has a sweeter, more well-intentioned documentary been made. The director is the kind of man with whom you'd want to be friends. You just wish he had struggled as much presenting the material as his parents did keeping their marriage alive. | neg |
Renowned cinematographer Freddie Francis (Glory, The Elephant Man) directs this pretty bad horror/drama film. 19th Century England has a different view of how the practice of medicine should be handled than Dr. Thomas Rock, the law stating that only the bodies of hung criminals can be studied and experimented on. But the stockpile of these bodies is a small one, and Rock needs more - and he prefers them fresher. Being a maverick within his circle, he begins to pay people to find bodies for him to study and test on. Desperate sleazebags Robert Fallon and Timothy Broom get wind of this job opportunity and begin to murder people and sell these bodies to Rock. Naturally, this kind of action has even worse consequences than practicing on the dead bodies of non-criminals, and leads to trouble for everyone. While the overall story sounds intriguing on paper, almost everything about The Doctor And The Devils is laughably bad.<br /><br />After the first fifteen minutes of the film you are already beginning to question your decision of sitting down to watch the film. The entire look of the film is just ugly. Seeing as how the film takes place in the slums of England during the 19th Century, the filmmakers were probably going for an "ugly" look, but they don't do it in an artful way. Everything from the sets to the cinematography just look cheap, feeble, and disgusting. Also, just about everything scene is filled with something that you simply cannot take seriously, and most of the time this has to do with someone (both in the small and large roles) doing something that looks or sounds completely ridiculous. Francis sure didn't help out his actors much.<br /><br />Jonathan Pryce and Stephen Rea play the twisted buddies of the film, Fallon and Broom respectively, and are very bombastic but very bad. Their characters are by nature crazy, but Pryce and Rea overact the parts to death. They especially have trouble keeping the same accent from shot to shot - Pryce in particular goes from Cockney to Irish to Long John Silver to some kind of lagoon creature and so on and so forth. It's also a humor riot to see Twiggy in this film at all, let alone playing an in-demand street whore, since she can't act to save her life (though her song during the final credits isn't so funny). Boy she sure came a long way: from "flower power" to "I'll take mee clothes off for a shillin'!" As bad as those three actors are in this film, Julian Sands takes home the award for the worst performance of the film. He is just as lame as it gets, giving one laugh-out-loud attempt after another at portraying anger, love, happiness, anxiety - pick an emotion, any emotion! <br /><br />There's only one good thing about The Doctor And The Devils: Timothy Dalton's performance of Dr. Rock. Despite being surrounded by cinematic sewage, Dalton is quite excellent; giving an electric portrayal of an overly driven yet good natured man. Too bad the rest of the film could not have been as good as Mr. Dalton.... | neg |
The first "side-story" in the universal century Gundam universe presents a refreshing new look at the war between earth and the space colonies. The focus is no longer on a small group of individuals who would go on to play pivotal roles in the conflict, but on the everyday civilian population and how the war is seen through their eyes.<br /><br />The story does contain some Gundam staples, its premise being the attempts by a ZEON squad to capture an experimental Gundam, but it the execution of the plot that made this show so interesting to watch. This series focuses on the experiences of a young boy named Alfred and the relationship between his neighbor, Christina Mckenzie who is secretly a Federation pilot and a newbie Zeon pilot named Bernie Wiseman. Alfred develops a sort of "brotherly love" for Bernie while our young Zeon pilot also falls for Christina.<br /><br />"War in the Pocket" proves that you do not need a sweeping epic tale about special individuals to make for a good war story. There are no uber ace pilots or large scale fleet battles to be seen here. This short 6 episode OVA focuses a lot more on character emotional drama over other themes like politics or philosophy and i love how realistically portrayed the characters are. Alfred is your typical everyday kid who plays violent computer games and thinks the armed forces is cool. He is then given a crash course in the horrible realities of war. The unlikely friendship and bonding between Bernie and Christina, each not knowing the fact that they are soldiers on different sides of the war, is played very real without going overboard with the romance drama stuff. Same goes for the endearing relationship between Alfred and Bernie. That being said, i would not want to spoil much of the story here, but it makes it a whole lot more heart wrenching to watch the tragedies that unfold as the show moves along all the way to its emotionally devastating twist ending. <br /><br />Despite its lack of action, this show never falls into the category of "boring". The characters are just that engaging enough to carry the whole show. Not to worry as there are a number of mobile suit action scenes scattered here and there. Each are beautifully animated on a level that surpasses that of an OVA and are sure to satisfy the craving for some "mandatory" mobile suit battles in a Gundam series.<br /><br />Normally watching anime in Japanese or English, i would leave up to personal preference. But in this case, i strongly recommend the English voice track over the Japanese one. Not only do the characters, whom all except Alfred are caucasian, sound more believable in English but the performances of the English voice cast are on par and even surpass the Japanese one, instilling each character with such realistic emotions and intonations that they sound just the acting in some live action TV dramas.<br /><br />In short, this show does not try to impress the audience. What it does is conveys numerous heartwarming themes that hit closest to home especially the death of innocence on the battlefield and the horrors of war through the eyes of a child. A truly moving little story that deserves more credit than it is being given. | pos |
Uwe Boll slips back in his film-making skills once again to offer up a scifi horror tale of mercenaries and reporters taking on super soldiers on a remote island. An okay cast headed by the excellent Udo Keir is cast adrift by Boll who makes the worst of script that should have worked. The mad scientist being investigated by a reporter has been done to death but this script is amusing enough that the plot should have worked, additionally the effects and super soldier design with their dead lifeless eyes have some degree of creepiness, however Boll somehow manages to film everything in an off handed way. Its as if he couldn't be bothered to actually figure out what would work and instead rattled off stock camera placements and walked away. Additionally the assembly of scenes has no spark or life, I'm guessing that Boll only shot one or two takes and just used what he had. It really stinks. Clearly Boll is in one of his periodic retrograde films where anything he's ever learned about film gets flushed. The last film he made that was this bad was Seed a serial killer movie that is one of the worst films I've ever seen. This isn't that bad, but it is close simply because it should have been better. Then again Udo Keir is good enough that he does make watching his scenes worth the effort and make this a an almost so bad its good film. I'd take a pass unless it's late at night and you're catching it on cable. | neg |
This movie has all the ingredients of a great horror story and loses it in the last half. Few movies can actually give me chill bumps. This one did. Few horror movie give me a sense of dread. This one did. It kept me guessing. I cared about the story. I cared about the characters. The acting was decent. Unfortunately, about half way through the movie, the story just doesn't have many good directions it can go. It becomes evident that everything cool about the plot is going to self-destruct. It does. What builds in the first half as a great horror concept shifts away from horror and towards the absurd. A plausible fear turns into a series of implausible reactions from the characters. The story concludes with disappointment. While this movie seems complete, there is one loose end that could setup for a sequel. The movie isn't good enough for a sequel. This movie is worth seeing in the theater, just don't expect to be stunned. This is best suited as a movie to rent. It's probably not a movie you'd want to own. | neg |
Suffice it to say that this substandard B has nothing to save it - not an interesting plot or even one tolerably decent actor. Josh Leonard of Blair Witch fame does little to help matters. Do yourself a favor and leave this one on the shelf at your local video store. | neg |
This all looked quite promising. An up-and-coming Presidential adviser is framed for a series of murders, as he has been tipped off that a conspiracy is going on within the White House. It stars the excellent Donald Sutherland among several capable actors. Yet very few people have a good word to say about it.<br /><br />The whole thing really needed some depth. You can pick up the idea that the President is being too left-wing with his ideas, and some within the Government want him dead to stop those ideas being carried out. Conrad appears to simply want the country to be Governed his way, rather than the way of the elected leader.<br /><br />However, the action scenes had a few logic holes - the sewers and elevators already mentioned, and the rather haphazard assassination method - and Linda Hamilton's character is completely uninspired. Her 'the President's my Father' 'diversion' was ludicrous - that would make the President about 10 when that happened. Worse still was her predictable final scene with Bishop.<br /><br />They could have made a challenging, inventive political thriller, but either bottled it or failed. They could've gone to town on special effects, but the good ones were wasted. They could have achieved so much more in general. This was barely worth the £1 it cost me. | neg |
Star Trek Hidden Frontier will surprise you in many ways. First, it's a fan made series, available only on the web, and it features mainly friends & neighbors who have the computer programs and home video cameras and sewing machines to, as Mickey & Judy once put it, put on a show. It's definitely friends & neighbors to, you can tell. A lot of these people aren't the most beautiful looking folks you've ever seen, or the youngest, or the thinnest
some of them stumble through their lines like they're walking on marbles
some of them have thick accents, or simply don't seem to speak well in the first place, whick makes it virtually impossible to understand a single solitary word that they're saying. Still, you have to admit, for everything these friends & neighbors have put together, it's actually fun to watch. Yes, some of the dialogue is hokey. Yes, it's a little odd (though admittedly a little cool too) watching two Starfleet males kiss (although some of the kissing scenes seem to go on and on.) Yes, you cringe a bit when they clearly quote from ST:TOS, TNG, other shows and the movies, or when you hear the theme from Galaxy Quest played at the beginning and end of every show. Okay. We can get by that. Why? The graphics are first rate. Better than almost anything you've seen. And sometimes, a show or two really stands out story-wise
some of them are actually real tear-jerkers.<br /><br />Hidden Frontier is a total guilty pleasure in every sense of the word
but you have to give the people involved credit where credit is due. It takes a lot of effort to put on a production of this magnitude. People, sets, costumes, graphics
it's a huge effort on a lot of people's parts. We watch, we return, and we thank them. | pos |
This is a film that was very well done. I had heard mixed reviews while it was in production and have been waiting for its release! Cheers to the director and all the actors. The supporting cast gave Eva Mendez what she needed to take this to the top. As everyone else here states, the latter portion of the film is riveting. Katie Cassidy did an amazing job with her character, being she had not done a lot of work when this film was made. She has quite the career ahead of her. I was amazed at her performance. I completely enjoyed the film, questioned my values in life and priorities, and am a better person for it! A great message lies within the film. Release it so all can enjoy! | pos |
Yep, you read that right, kids. Michael Bay should've studied this film before making either of his over hyped, overlong, overly pointless "Transformers" movies. "Robot Jox" is better than both of them and it probably cost less than the "Transformers" crew spent on Megan Fox's personal trainer.<br /><br />Thankfully, this little robotic gem, initially known mainly for being the film that bankrupted Charles and Albert Band's Empire Pictures studio, seems to have developed a cult following over the years. I fondly remember watching it on VHS during its initial video release in the early 90s and though some of the Cold War-era politics/stereotypes were already out of date by that time (just the Bands' luck that Communism would fall while the film was sitting on a shelf waiting to be released, eh?), it's still a pretty damn cool little B-Movie. They really don't make'em like this anymore, or if they do, they go the Bay route and CGI things to unbearable proportions.<br /><br />For those who are unfamiliar, here's the Robo-scoop: We're somewhere in the future and after a nuclear holocaust, large scale "wars" have been outlawed. Disputes between nations are now settled mano-a-mano (or perhaps that should be machine-o-machine-o) by one representative from each side battling each other in giant sized Shogun Warrior style robots. Whichever 'bot walks away from the fight wins for "his" side. Gary Graham (who would later go on to play Detective Sykes in the "Alien Nation" TV series), plays "Achilles," the greatest Robot Jock in Marketplace (a.k.a. the good guys) history. Achilles has been undefeated in his previous nine Robot bouts (ten being the maximum number of battles before a "Jock" is retired) and at the beginning of the film he faces off against his counterpart from the "Confederation" (i.e. The Russkies!), the psychotic Alexander (who is the most over the top "evil Russian" stereotype bad guy since Dolph Lundgren's infamous turn as Ivan Drago in "Rocky IV"). The match is called a draw when Alexander violates the rules with an illegal Robot Move at the last minute and ends up not only embarrassing Achilles, but killing a whole bunch of spectators in the bargain. A rematch is scheduled to complete the bout, but Achilles simply wants to bow out, hang up his helmet and move on with his life. Rather than violate the Spoiler Rules by revealing much more, I will simply say that there are a great deal of twists and turns, behind the scenes skullduggery, and other difficulties for Achilles and his fellow "Jox" before the two robotic titans clash finally once again in the finale.<br /><br />I hope I'm not making this movie out to be some sort of masterpiece of science fiction, because it isn't. "Robot Jox" is just plain fun. I'll grant that it is a bit higher-concept than your average B-grade sci-fi movie, and though the budgetary constraints do occasionally make themselves known (especially in the scenes involving some painfully obvious green-screen trickery), it is still the best looking movie ever to come out of the Empire/Full Moon Pictures factory. The robot fight scenes are very well done using old school stop motion/model techniques, and the sets and costumes don't look half-assed in the slightest. Empire Pictures and director Stuart ("Re-Animator") Gordon were definitely shooting for the stars with this picture. Unfortunately it didn't quite pan out for them (or the studio) but at least we got one heckuva cool little movie out of the deal. Bottom line: if you want to be aurally and visually assaulted for 2+ hours, feel free to rent a "Transformers" movie. By the end you're likely to feel like you've spent all that time watching someone else play a video game. If you want to have a rock'em, sock'em robot good time, pick up Robot Jox instead. | pos |
I am finding that I get less and less excited about Disney's sequels to movies. Yes, I do understand that the budget for the direct to video movies are not the same, but these movies don't even try. Some examples are Hunchback II and Tarzan and Jane. If anyone has seen the previews for Stitch-The Movie, you will see my point. But I digress, this movie reaffirms my point. The animation is sloppy, the story lines resemble Saturday morning cartoons, and not all of the original voices are there. I was very disappointed not to hear Michael J. Fox's voice. It was so glaringly obvious that the person doing Milo's voice was trying to sound like Fox, but didn't come close to succeeding. <br /><br />If it says anything, my children ages 10 and 6 didn't even sit through the whole movie. | neg |
The club scenes in this film are extremely believable, Tim Curry is in his most venal mode, and there are enough drugs and violence here for two movies, maybe even three. What more do you require from an evening's entertainment? Pump up the volume. | pos |
This is one of the most boring horror films I have ever seen, as it's absolutely god awful, John Carradine has very limited screen time. All the characters are boring, and the story is terrible, plus I could see the two twists at the end coming miles away!. The great setting and the creepy house definitely would have helped if it wasn't so damn boring, and there isn't one character to root for either, plus I hope it makes it's way to the bottom 100, because it deserves to be there in my opinion. When John Carradine finally shows up at the end, it's a pretty good scene but it's already way too late, and the only other screen time he had was in flashbacks, plus the only really gory scene in the movie is when a character gets his face messed up by Bee's, as it was rather gory. I got this in a DVD Horror set called Back From The Grave and everyone really overacts in my opinion, plus it's lucky this was included in a set I bought otherwise I would have chucked this out the window!. This is one of the most boring Horror films I have ever seen, as It's absolutely god awful, John Carradine has very limited screen time, and I say avoid it like the plague!, you don't want to go through the torture. The Direction is absolutely terrible!. Carl Monson does an absolutely terrible! job here, making every thing look cheap, wasting his potential on making creepy atmosphere and just keeping the film at an incredibly dull pace. The Acting is just as bad. John Carradine is good in his scene, but other then that he's hardly in the film other then flashback scenes. (Carradine Ruled!!). Merry Anders overacts here terribly as Laura, as she didn't convince me at all. Ivy Bethune is OK, and somewhat creepy, but also overacted, she did have a creepy smile at the end though. Rest of the cast, I didn't pay enough attention too, as I had a lot of trouble getting through it, but they were all really bad. Overall please avoid this,It's not worth the agony!. BOMB out of 5 | neg |
This is a movie that is bad in every imaginable way. Sure we like to know what happened 12 years from the last movie, and it works on some level. But the new characters are just not interesting. Baby Melody is hideously horrible! Alas, while the logic that humans can't stay underwater forever is maintained, other basic physical logic are ignored. It's chilly if you don't have cold weather garments if you're in the Arctic. I don't know why most comments here Return of Jafar rates worse, I thought this one is more horrible. | neg |
It's not difficult, after watching this film, to see why post-silent Soviet cinema is held in such little critical esteem. Don't get me wrong. THE CRANES ARE FLYING is, for the first half at least, supremely entertaining, boasting a lightness of touch completely unexpected from its country of origin; a fresh, brisk, spacious technique that eventually irritates as much as it initially charms; two stunning subjective set-pieces; and a romantic verve that flirts with, but never quite topples into, Lelouch territory. It's just that , in its subsuming of vast social, national and world events to a love affair, it is essentially no different from a conventional Hollywood movie.<br /><br />Of course, in a Soviet Union that emphasised the state above all else, and in an era (World War Two) that suppressed individualism and liberty to uphold murderous symbolism, this foregrounding of two appealing young lovers is a relief. And the thematic similarities - all consuming love rent apart by war - with two of the most wonderful of all films (SEVENTH HEAVEN, LES PARAPLUIES DE CHERBOURG) also adds to its potential loveability.<br /><br />The story is simple enough. Boris, a young factory worker from a bright medical and artistic family, and Veronika, a student, conduct a breezy relationship at night, their only free time. Boris's cousin Mark, a composer, also has eyes on Veronika. When the Nazis invade Russia, Boris secretly volunteers, to the chagrin of his family and lover. He promises to write to Veronika, but never does, thinking maybe she hasn't bothered to see him off, or perhaps the mail is simply unreliable. Veronika's parents die during an air raid, and she moves in with Boris's family, helping out at the hospital where his father tends wounded soldiers.<br /><br />Distressed by Boris's silence, Veronika is also assailed by the attentions of Mark, who has gained exemption from military duty by bribing a local official. She is eventually worn down, and marries him, to the disapproval of her adopted family. Boris, meanwhile, is killed in action. Veronika, disgusted with herself and an adulterous Mark, refuses to believe this, and awaits his return, fostering a young orphan bearing his name.<br /><br />The title refers to the birds the couple see at the height of their love, symbolic perhaps of its transcendant, epiphanical power. But this is illusory - the cranes fly in a V formation, and this shape pervades the entire film, through the geometric shapes of buildings, interiors, exteriors, groupings of people, composition, camera angles, the heroine's name - or by editing in which feet walking southwest in one story are met by feet walking southeast in another. <br /><br />This serves to fatally trap the lovers who have no control over their destinies, and also suggest the Stalinist power that is never, specifically, mentioned in the film. Although the pair seem to be free in space, whether literally in an unpeopled environment, or privileged in generous close-ups, they are always ironised, minimised, torn apart - by circumstances, families, by crowds (see the brilliant, if obvious, sequences where Veronika is engulfed by tanks, or the pair fail to meet in a huge crowd), or simply by the film's structure, which is constantly distancing, through paralellism, their closeness. Although at the beginning, the lightness and brightness of style suggest a beautiful romantic idyll, it is constantly being broken by strange edits or camera angles of distracting snatches of music.<br /><br />What is most remarkable is how these blocks to romance are achieved by abstracting rather than emphasising historical forces. The whole film, but especially the war itself, is strangely unreal and dreamlike, we are never shown its harsh, brutal actuality, just its effects on the lovers. In fact, it is transformed into a majestic spectacle, devoid of nasty Germans. <br /><br />On the home front, the air raids create delicious effects of light and shade, or ruins of almost Gothic decadence. In the bunker, the threat to the Soviet empire is less important than Boris's perceived indifference. The empty, oneiric Moscow spaces the lovers initially, than Veronika with her mother, walk though are less actual locations than emotional spaces. <br /><br />When Mark tries to force himself on Veronika, the air raid is less a destructive reality than a symbolic release of sexual and emotional frustrations. This is a brilliant sequence, filmed with silent, Expressionistic terror, in which the screen seems to burst with hysteria and violence, all the more compelling for the earlier scenes' wistful gentleness.<br /><br />It's not much different at the front either, where fights over girls' honour are more urgent than tactics, Nazis or despair. The movement of Boris and his wounded comrade into a final space is a further abstracting of the experience of war, its setting in a forest giving it a sexual dynamic; and Boris' final, pre-death flashback is an extraordinary mixture of dream-wish fulfillment and heightened anxiety, in which what is wished for becomes menacing and grotesque.<br /><br />From this point on the film becomes a little less interesting, slightly more obvious. One more grasp for Expressionist overload - Veronika's attempted suicide and her rescuing the infant - is clumsily handled; and her sombre guilt casts a paralysing shadow over the whole film. The use of deep focus, at first ravishing, soon becomes wearing, devoid as it is of any of the moral force or meaning Welles brought to its use in CITIZEN KANE. After what seems a quietly sly critique of totalitarianism in favour of the individual is cruelly betrayed at the end, when individual suffering, as so often in Russian art, transmutes into symbolic (i.e. sexless, dehumanised) hope. A pity. | pos |
Being a huge fan of hip-hop and turntablism to begin with, I always knew I would like this film. However, I wasn't prepared for just how good the documentary actually is. It covers almost all the important aspects of the only element of hip-hop which has been there from the very start. The "story" begins in the early 70's, and follows the evolution of turntablism as an art from up until early 2000 (turntablism aficionados will point this out as significant).<br /><br />The editing is nigh on perfect throughout the film. Aside from the excellent visual "scratch" techniques which they used, the rapid cutting between interviews and the stock footage is excellent, giving the film pace when it is needed. The sound editing is also very good, with some nice sweeping sounds being used to help with transitions.<br /><br />The absence of a narrator was also welcome. We aren't taken by the hand through the story, and as a result the audience is able to make their own assumptions easier. Each DJ adds another side to the story, and it is so interesting to hear about the unknown stars of hip-hop, especially those who were there when hip-hop was being shunned left, right and centre by the music business.<br /><br />Although there are many excellent things about this film, I do have a few gripes. The biggest of these is the absence of several notable DJs, such as Ca$hMoney and Jazzy Jeff, and also DJs from outside America, such as Scratch Perverts and DJ Noise. However, if you watch the commentary on the DVD (something which I highly recommend), producer and director go in to great depth about how they regret not being able to feature them. The deleted scenes contain many interviews with Ca$hMoney, Jazzy Jeff and the Scratch Perverts.<br /><br />This is definitely the best documentary I've seen on hip-hop culture and music. It does stop short of showing the true potential of turntablism; for that I highly recommend checking out the DMC and ITF videos. However, that is a minor quibble. I highly recommend this movie, not least for the phat soundtrack, with excellent music throughout. (9/10) | pos |
Awesomely improbable and foolish potboiler that at least has some redeeming, crisp location photography, but it's too unbelievable to generate much in the way of tension. I was kinda hoping that Stanwyck wouldn't make it back in time because, really, she was saddled with the wet, in more ways than one, husband,and she had an idiot child as well..why NOT run off with Meeker? But the nagging question remains..what sort of wood was that pier support made of if a rotten piece of it pulled off didn't float? Stanwyck, always impeccably professional, does the best she could with the material but it's threadbare. | neg |
I watched this movie last night, i'm a huge fan of the book, and i was pretty happy with the version in which Winona Ryder and Susan Sarandon starred. But this one, it's just awful. Oh my God, i don't understand how they dared to ripped apart this classic story and made the characters totally different, starting with the switching of Beth being the younger sister, and making Amy the 3rd one. And Jo interpretation, terrible, Jo was a feminist, intelligent and kinda angry young lady, and the actress portraying Jo in this movie acts like a foolish and very annoying little girl. And what's with the Laurie going to war?. i'm OK with the fact that when a book is made into a movie there has to be some changes made, but not re-write the whole story. very very bad done. | neg |
LTL is the kind of formulaic, hopeless comedy to be enjoyed by the sort of sheep that stop and listen when they come across a band playing in a shopping mall.<br /><br />I remember Murray promoting LTL on Larry King's crappy CNN show, where he said something like "if this movie doesn't become a hit I'll stop making movies (or comedies)". He wasn't being nearly as jovial as one might think; he must have felt that LTL was a sure-fire hit and that its failure would mean his status as a star had markedly fallen - hence a sort-of ultimatum live-on-air to his fans to spend their hard-earned money on a dumb elephant comedy. (The comedy being dumb, not the elephant...) Or maybe he simply realized during the shooting (or when he saw the final cut) what a turkey this was, so he tried desperately to convince everyone how much optimism he had regarding LTL's quality. "Go see it, it really is good!" Actors are prostitutes inter-bred with car salesmen.<br /><br />LTL is the sort of lousy project that comes from the "Friends" school of comedy; their motto: "If you ever run out of ideas - or if you never had any in the first place - then stick an animal into the plot and that will at least inject an element of cuteness". Cuteness = a sad substitute for lack of funny gags. The other motto "Friends" had was: "always include pointless, dull sentimentality", which this movie so predictably ends with, when Murray rather pathetically says: "what they forgot to tell you is that you never forget an elephant". Maybe not an elephant, but I certainly managed to easily forget this turkey, which I saw many years ago. I was suddenly reminded of it when I saw a scene from it on TV today (hence this equally pointless review).<br /><br />Murray wastes his talent on this turkey (disguised as an elephant), but he isn't nearly as uninteresting/bad as McConaughey (or however that man's name is spelt); one would think that M.M. would have an easy time playing himself, i.e. a hick, but he is so painfully unfunny and unconvincing that I could barely stand to watch him make such a jackass out of himself. It was cringe-worthy. To round off this nonsense, we have that generation-X buffoon, Garofalo, in a rather useless role. Then again, everything about LTL is useless...<br /><br />After LTL, which bombed as far as I know, Murray went on to become more of a "serious actor". What is it with these comedians and their inferiority complex? Is it all just about getting awards, i.e. "recognition from their peers" (read: votes from their moron colleagues)? This piece of crap marked the end of a string of good and great movies Murray made in the early- and mid-90s, such as "Groundhog Day", "Quick Change", "Mad Dog & Glory", "Kingpin", "What about Bob?" and "Ed Wood". Recently we've had the immeasurable pleasure of seeing him in garbage/mediocrities such as "Hamlet", "Lost In Translation" (you just can't get away from these "ultra-talented Coppolas"), and "Broken Flowers". Compare those two batches.<br /><br />One guy described LTL "funny as heck". Now THAT'S the kind of audience this movie was hoping for... Shopping malls and trailer parks... | neg |
Sit in your basement with the light out for an hour and a half. That's about the same as watching this subterranean search for the Devil's door. An American researcher Owen(Vincent Gallo)travels to Moscow and gathers a rescue team to search for his friend Sergei(Rade Serbedzia), an archaeologist who has disappeared in the catacombs beneath Russia's capital city. They will be shocked to discover subterranean dwellers thriving in the dank and dark complex system of caves and tunnels. The searchers will come upon the gatekeeper of Hell, Andrey(Val Kilmer), and will strike a deal to continue their venture; only to succeed in being scared almost witless when realizing they are among walking dead. Also in the cast: Joaquin de Almedia, Oksana Akinshina, Sage Stallone, Joss Ackland and Julio Perillan. | neg |
Basically the first two Critters movie were already silly ones but in a good and entertaining way. This movie is way more of a B-movie, that is silly but for all of the wrong reasons.<br /><br />This is the first sequel that doesn't really follows the plot of the first two movies. Basically all of the characters are new and there are no bounty hunters this time (well, as good as none, since the bounty hunter in this movie shows up far too late) and the budget for this one obviously went down again. To save even more costs, the movie got shot back-to-back with part 4, which I imaging will be just as bad, since it directly follows this movie and got made by the same people involved as with this one.<br /><br />It's just a typical B-genre movie, that doesn't really have any originality in it or brings entertainment. It makes "Critters 3" a real redundant sequel, you can easily do without. Granted that things could had been way worse for this movie but it just ain't exactly a good one either. The movie just falls flat as a science-fiction/horror/comedy.<br /><br />Also kind of strange to notice how the Critters has suddenly changed in this one. They are about double their usual size this time, without giving an explanation for that and they are even more Gremlins like in this movie than was the case in the previous one.<br /><br />The movie is only made interesting because this was the feature film debut of Leonardo DiCaprio. He was about 17 in this movie and of course looking baby-faced like he still does now. I like watching this well known actors in their early roles. It's fun to see how they act and if their style has improved and changed over the years. Of course DiCaprio got only better but he already was kind of delivering his lines in the same way as he does these days.<br /><br />Really a too silly and lame movie.<br /><br />4/10 | neg |
Ignoring Rocky 3, this is easily Hulk Hogan's best film, and it still rates as one of the worst films ever. Hulk Hogan essentially plays Hulk Hogan, bringing his wrestling buddies in for a film, with all the cliches to go along with it - the crooked promoter, the unstoppable monster, the injured kid, the sexy woman and... "dookie". | neg |
I have seen most of the Tarzan episodes. Certainly the rated X with O'Keeffe & Bo Derek, which is totally deplorable.<br /><br />I have seen this version several times since it was originally shown.<br /><br />All the cast had memorable parts, great acting the Ape sequences.<br /><br />Last night I viewed same on Spanish station and other than some French dialog all in Spanish.<br /><br />As far as Hudson not wanting Andie's voice he did nothing until the very end. He viewed the dailies and could have hired a dialog coach.<br /><br />It seems silly that a story about apes and a man raised by them all speaking gibberish that Hudson attacked Andie.The story line in the movie was that she was an American cousin. The last time I checked Carolina was in the USA.<br /><br />She was beautiful in movie and her eyes, and gorgeous hair, alabaster skin mystified all us males. She did not have to resort to Bo's level.<br /><br />She has remained a LADY throughout the rest of her career and should look at this movie (half her life ago),as a starting point. Her performance, sincerity, made this movie enjoyable, believable that a half wild man could ascertain her inner beauty.<br /><br />Great sending point for Sir Richardson, he did steal the movie. | pos |
"Music and lyrics written and performed by Charlie Daniels"... 'nuff said. Just don't be expecting anything along the lines of "Devil Went Down To Georgia", ol' Charles sorta talk-sings through one song early in about the Whiskey Mountain (duh) and that's it for lyrics. Hey though, fans of arty rape scenes will get a kick out of the Polaroid montage (my second-hand copy is classified as a FAMILY film) and who doesn't love interminable scenes of rednecks gawking at purty wimmen? The box art made the movie look a hell of a lot weirder than it was, with the promise that "you can lose your life-- or your mind!", but mostly it's two couples trekking through the sticks and "acting" natural. Love that hermit. | neg |
If you're like me and you occasionally enjoy watching terrible movies (I guess it's kind of like slowing down at a car crash), you can't do better than this! The plot is inane, the special effects are hilarious and the acting is some of the worst you'll ever see! 4 THUMBS DOWN! WOOOHOOOOOOOO!!! Seriously, I have no idea how the director and the "actors" can sleep at night! It's painful, and yet hysterically funny, to watch and I highly recommend it for those who want to punish themselves for something. If you can watch this crap without wincing, you're a better man than I'll ever be! I wonder if the producer of this garbage had any idea what he was getting himself (and his money) into! | neg |
A great and truly independent film that hit most of my emotions and carried me into another world. Isn't this why we go to the movies? I was especially impressed with the editing and the music, the combination of which was very transportive. | pos |
This is one of those movies that's difficult to review without giving away the plot. Suffice to say there are weird things and unexpected twists going on, beyond the initial superficial "Tom Cruise screws around with multiple women" plot.<br /><br />The quality cast elevate this movie above the norm, and all the cast are well suited to their parts: Cruise as the irritatingly smug playboy who has it all - and then loses it all, Diaz as the attractive but slightly deranged jilted lover, Cruz as the exotic new girl on the scene and Russell as the fatherly psychologist. The story involves elements of romance, morality, murder-mystery, suspense and sci-fi and is generally an entertaining trip.<br /><br />I should add that the photography is also uniformly excellent and the insertion of various visual metaphors is beautiful once you realize what's going on.<br /><br />If you enjoy well-acted movies with twists and suspense, and are prepared to accept a slightly fantastic Philip K Dick style resolution, then this is a must-see. <br /><br />9/10 | pos |
In spite of sterling work by the supporting actors, and an intelligent script by Alan Plater, this film suffers from a fatal flaw - the lack of charm of the central character/actor. One of the characters describes Richard E Grant's character as "a whining little turd" and unfortunately this sums him up perfectly. There is nothing about him or his performance to make it credible that his girlfriend and upper-class publisher/friend would spend so much time and emotional effort on him. He is rude, arrogant, selfish, self-destructive and thoroughly annoying. The part called for an actor who can make you love him even when he is being a prate - a Ewan McGregor, for example.<br /><br />All of the witty satire on the class system etc was wasted, thanks to this irritating and thoroughly unlikeable performance. All I wanted to do was shake him and tell him to get over himself. | neg |
Oz was a fantastic show, as long as frequent male nudity doesn't turn you off. There was WAY too much frontal male nudity in this show, more than any other show you'd see on a porn channel. Minus that, it was the best show on TV, and a previous commenter said "better than Prime Suspect". Prime Suspect is Tom and Jerry vs The Simpsons. No contest. If you have DirecTv they are now re-running it from the start on Channel 101, they're at Episode #3 now. Highly recommended. The creator Tom Fontana also did Homicide, which was an AWESOME show. But why all the male nudity? We all know that stuff happens in prison, but did they really need to show it as often? That was the only thing that turned me off the show. If I want to see naked men, guys getting raped, I'll kill someone myself and witness first hand. Otherwise I like my TV shows free of black penises every Five minutes. | pos |
In War, Inc we find the logical extension of the current outsourcing of all war-related activities we are currently doing in Afghanistan and Iraq. If you are familiar with the antics of Halliburton, Kellogg, Brown & Root and Blackwater overseas you are already halfway home to fully appreciating the satire of Cusack's latest piece. Cusack plays a corporate hit-man named Brand Hauser who finds himself in Turiquistan organizing a trade show in the newly liberated country as his cover while waiting to get access to his latest target. While there he finds himself intrigued by the anti-establishment reporter played by Marisa Tomei and pursued by the over-sexualized pop star played by Hilary Duff. We are introduced to Hauser's past, which includes a tragedy that has haunted him ever since and the corporate assistant named Marsha Dillon who actually is running the entire operation for him (and played hilariously by Joan Cusack). While some moments are played suitably over the top, they aren't always the moments you expect and the little touches often catch you by surprise. All the principals turn in solid performances. Duff's accent comes and goes but otherwise she does a very nice job and goes a long way to dispel her Disney image. Tomei is funny but understated while the Cusack's own nearly every scene they are in. To be fair, they are given good material. The writers turn in a good script with enough twists and turns and visual gags to keep you giggling throughout all the way to the predictable conclusion. In fact, the predictability of the end is the only thing that keeps me from rating it higher as the story twists and turns it's way to the expected conclusion.<br /><br />If you like your comedy broad and physical, there is probably not enough here to keep you interested the entire movie. On the other hand, if you like sly comedy and broad satire, this is for you. | pos |
...the world may never know. (The film that did take the "best animated short" Oscar that year, "Anna and Bella", is very good, but it's no "Big Snit". Both are available on Expanded Entertainment's "World's Greatest Animation" compilation, in case you'd like to compare.)<br /><br />"Snit" and its director, Richard Condie, have attracted so much attention that there's little for me to add. I'd like to note, however, that the film contains one of my very favorite single "shots" in an animated short, the one where the man opens the door to let the cat out. I don't want to give away the actual events depicted here, but the first time I saw the shot I was whipsawed from one mood to another, then seconds later to still another. That shot has never failed to affect me that way since. For this shot, and for the way Condie builds up to that set of moments, "The Big Snit" deserves the tag of "masterpiece". | pos |
He only gets third billing (behind Arthur Treacher & Virginia Field), but this was effectively David Niven's first starring role and he's charmingly silly as P. G. Wodehouse's dunderheaded Bertie Wooster, master (in name only) to Jeeves, that most unflappable of valets. As an adaptation, it's more like a watered-down THE 39 STEPS than a true Wodehousian outing. And that's too bad since the interplay between Treacher & Niven isn't too far off the mark. Alas, the 'B' movie mystery tropes & forced comedy grow wearisome even at a brief 57 minutes. Next year's follow-up (STEP LIVELY, JEEVES) was even more off the mark, with no Bertie in sight and Jeeves (of all people!) forced to play the goof. | neg |
<br /><br />This movie (not a film -- clearly recorded on a cheap cam-corder) may be one of the greatest cinematic stink-bombs in history. Beware: the packaging advertises the flick as an erotic exploration of sex-addiction. The film is not an exploration of anything, and it is no more erotic than staring at one's own warts. The script is pointless and meandering, with all plot elements serving as segways between supposed sex scenes. However, even the sex scenes are lame lame lame. Except for the first, they are around three seconds long (then again, maybe my version was cut) and comically overwrought.<br /><br />If you are looking for a decent film, you don't want this. If you are looking for a titillating sex-flick, you don't want this. Whatever your life's goals, desires, or perspectives, you do not want to watch this movie. How they got Rosanna Arquette, Natashia Kinski, and Ed Begly to act in this stink bomb is puzzling in the extreme. | neg |
Viewed this the other night on cable on-demand and thought, "this is the type of movie that might have starred Alec Guiness and Glynis Johns if it had been made in the late 50's". A farce in the English tradition. Alfred Molina and Brenda Blethyn are very sweet and sincere in their portrayals. Naomi Watts simply sizzles in a ditzy Jayne Mansfield-ish (if she could have acted) way. Rest of the cast have some great turns and bits. The Welsh landscape is delightful. An absurd premise, indeed and not at all believable, but that doesn't get in the way of enjoyment. Not a GREAT movie, mind you, but a truly fun watch. And Walken is at his wacky best. A joy to behold! | pos |
This is an enjoyable project, that is not a film as the title suggests. Good performance by Nadia Dajani who re-enacts the role of Grace. I follows the re-enactment of what happens to Mike and Grace in New York City. She leaves, but he wants to get in contact with her. This project is his way of trying to getting in touch with her.<br /><br />I saw it on IFC. I have heard that it will be released on DVD as well. I do like this trend of more independent projects. This is an example of a good project.<br /><br />I hope that he finds her.<br /><br />Take a look and be entertained.<br /><br />KirbyEF | pos |
This is an absolutely incredible film. It shows South African racism from the perspective of the victims, and provokes a feeling of anti-racism in everyone who sees it. It is the best historic film I have ever seen. | pos |
Despite its many faults, Hallmark's 1995 version of Gulliver's Travels is still the finest adaptation of Jonathan Swift's satirical classic - largely because it not only includes ALL of Gulliver's many travels but also includes the satire that's often overlooked. Unfortunately the twin problems of the book's highly episodic structure and a television budget (even a fairly lavish one) remain. The book is a somewhat rambling collection of traveller's tales moving simply from one surreal landscape to another, but Simon Moore's adaptation tries to impose some order on the chaos by providing a parallel plot that sees Gulliver returned to England clearly deeply traumatised and trying to prove his way out of the insane asylum where the rival for his wife's affections has had him committed. The England scenes at once mirror and comment on the travels, elements of which occasionally spill over into the real world. The trouble is that for the first hour or so it acts more as a distraction, constantly pulling you away from the story just as it starts to get interesting. The Lilliput scenes suffer worse here, with the feeling that the home scenes are too often designed to save them from filming the more expensive setpieces - this has to be the only version where we don't see Gulliver pulling the Blefescu fleet behind him.<br /><br />Yet once Gulliver makes his escape, the tone becomes more consistent as he finds his situation reversed and himself the pet of the giants of the Utopians of Brobdingnag, a guest of the wise men of the floating island of Laputa who are so engrossed in science that they have no common sense left, the guest/prisoner of a historian who leans history directly from the source, offered immortality with all it's terrible consequences before finally finding a world he wants to belong if only he can convince the sublime talking horses the Houynhnhms that he's not an uncivilized Yahoo, each new destination convincing him of what an absurd and petty species humanity is. For the most part it's a darker set of Travels than expected, with only Gulliver's curiosity and commonsense and disappointment keeping it from plunging into irretrievable bleakness - and even this is offset by the scenes in the asylum where it becomes more obvious that even if he is telling the truth it may well have driven him genuinely insane. It's in these latter scenes that Ted Danson's Gulliver really shines, never more so than in an extraordinary speech where he turns his trial into a disappointed judgment on the whole human race.<br /><br />Being made for television, the Yahoos are rather less literally scatological here than on the page, but for the most part this is a more adult treatment than you might expect with no real dumbing down. The star cast is certainly impressive, and for the most part well-used (if somewhat briefly in a few cases) - Mary Steenburgen, James Fox, Peter O'Toole, Edward Woodward, Omar Sharif, Shashi Kapoor, Edward Fox, Ned Beatty, Alfre Woodard, Kristin Scott Thomas and Isabelle Huppert among them. It's hard to imagine the upcoming Jack Black version even coming close to being a fraction as impressive as this. | pos |
HOUSE CALLS was an amusing 1978 comedy about a widowed doctor (Walter Matthau) who now wants to play the field but can't help but be drawn to a patient of his (Glenda Jackson) who refuses to be just another notch on his bedpost. Matthau likes the woman but does not really want to make the commitment that she insists upon so he agrees to date her exclusively for two weeks and then make a decision as to whether or not he wants to commit; however, other complications make it difficult for Matthau to make a decision when the two weeks are up, even though he is clearly in love with the woman. Matthau and Jackson have surprisingly effective chemistry as a screen couple and are given strong support from Richard Benjamin, Candice Azzara, Dick O'Neill, and especially Art Carney as the inept and senile Chief of Staff at the hospital where Matthau is employed. Matthau even has a brief scene with his real-life son, Charlie, who appears as Jackson's son. This engaging comedy still holds up pretty well after all these years. If you've never seen it, it's worth the rental. | pos |
Mickey Rourke hunts Diane Lane in Elmore Leonard's Killshot It is not like Mickey Rourke ever really disappeared. He has had a steady string of appearances before he burst back on the scene. He was memorable in: Domino, Sin City, Man on Fire, Once Upon a Time in Mexico, and Get Carter. But in his powerful dramatic performance in The Wrestler (2008), we see a full blown presentation of the character only hinted at in Get Carter. Whenever we get to know him, Rourke remains a cool, but sleazy, muscle bound slim ball.<br /><br />This is an Elmore Leonard story, and production. Leonard wrote such notable movies as taunt western thriller 3:10 to Yuma, Be Cool, Jackie Brown, Get Shorty, 52 Pick-Up, and Joe Kidd. This means that we get tough guys, some good, some not so good.<br /><br />It also means we get tight, realistic plots with characters doing what is best for them in each situation, weaving complications into violent conclusions. Killshot is no different. Tough, slim ball killer Rourke stalks unhappily married witness Lane. Think History of Violence meets No Country for Old Men. It is not as intense, bloody or gory as those two, but it is almost as good. If you like those two, including David Croneberg's equally wonderful Eastern Promises, you will like Killshot also.<br /><br />Director John Madden has not done a lot of movies. His last few were enjoyable, if not successful: Proof, Captain Corelli's Mandolin and Shakespeare in Love.<br /><br />Diana Lane hasn't had a powerful movie role since she and Richard Gere gave incredible performances in Unfaithful. Lately she is charming and appealing in romantic stories such as Nights in Rodanthe, Must Love Dogs, and Under the Tuscan Sun. Here she is right on mark, balancing her sexy appeal with reserved tension.<br /><br />This is a small part for Rosario Dawson. Yet Dawson does a good job with it. You see a lot more of Lane, including an underwear scene to rival Sigourney Weaver in Aliens and Nicole Kidman in Eyes Wide Shut.<br /><br />While you are in the crime drama section, also pick up Kiss, Kiss, Bang, Bang, and Gone Baby Gone, and Before the Devil Knows Your Dead. The last has wonderful performances by Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Ethan Hawke, Marisa Tomei and Albert Finney.<br /><br />Killshot flopped at the box office. More is our luck. It is certainly worth a 3-4 dollar rental, if you like this genre. 6/20/2009 | neg |
As soon as I knew Keira Knighteley being in this flick, I said "I have to watch this movie". She's the undisputed main character, Domino, a bounty hunter. Her "job", as the "no action" scenes would teach us, reflects her rebel, violent attitude to life. I have to admit that it's the very first time that I watch an action movie whose most important scenes are the one in which the guns are far away from characters' hands. So, this stomped me a bit. Anyway, for all the John Woo's fans, there are helicopters falling down, explosions, gunfire as if it would rain, and a lovely Keira that shoots with two machine guns, one per hand. The cast is absolutely brilliant. Going beyond Keira, which in this movie is a real tomboy, pretty much different from the lovely action figure we're used to see, Mickey Rourke is back, with his usual slap-throwing face and his potent body. Christopher Walken makes his job pretty well, as a reality show producer.<br /><br />Let's go to the contents: this movie has a journalistic shape. The talk show scene is "disgustingly" real. Anyone that watched that load of . . . you-know-what, can tell that this is the air that you breath in those situations. As well as the producer, when Domino's mom says that the reality that should show Domino's life is "trash; no offense", he answers "I don't take it like an offense". This movie portrays a difficult life. Domino, coming from a world that didn't want her, Ed (Mickey Rourke), a bounty hunter "not so bounty", Choco (the third guy of the band), which family is (using Ed's words), "the correctional institutes he's been", and Alf, the driver/bomber coming from Afghanistan during the Russian occupation. This bunch of people represents in some way the humankind born "without the shirt"; unlucky, violent, and with nothing to lose, excepts their (as they would consider) miserable lives. The intro of the movie says that it is "inspired by true story . . . more or less", so I couldn't possibly tell you how much of this stuff is true. Anyway, going beyond explosions and dozens of weapons (which could have been "added" to make the film easier to see, and be classified as an action movie), the characters' story is too realistic to be "edulcorated". <br /><br />The interaction between the characters is various, well studied, and definitely not boring. What hasn't convinced me so much is the role of the psychiatrist (Lucy Liu, sober as never in her acting career). It represents only the reason by which Domino starts telling her story (and that's a story). Probably, the only "con", in a movie with a lot of "pros". <br /><br />All in all: This isn't "SWAT". The characters are crafted; they have an identity, a shape. They have a name and a surname (not just "Gamble" and "Street"). It's the case to say, it's the biography of a girl whose life went as fast as a bullet. | pos |
Arguebly Al Pacino's best role. He plays Tony Montana, A small time hood from Cuba turned into a rich and powerful crime lord in Miami, and he does it with the only two things he's got in this world, his balls and his word, and he doesn't break'em for nobody. Starts as doing jobs for a big time Cuban dealer, Frank Lopez (Robert Loggia) and quickly goes up the ladder of the organization along with his long time friend Manny (Steven Bauer). Soon he has an eye for the boss's sexy wife Elvira (Michelle Pfeiffer). After Frank sees a threat from Tony to his position, he attempts to assassin Tony but with no luck. Tony is upset and nothing can stop him now. the film has a great supporting cast among them is F. Murray Abraham as a jumpy gangster, another familiar face is Harris Yulin as a crooked cop trying to shake down Tony, Marry Elizabeth Mastrantonio as Tony's young sister. Credits to the Ecxellent screenplay by Oliver Stone. This film is one of Brian DePalma's Brightest points in his long ups and downs career, you can see this guy is very talented. The movie has a magnificent look to it. Also pay attention for two memorable scenes: The one at the fancy restaurant ("Say goodnight to the bad guy"). the other is the final shootout where Tony shows that he still knows how to kick ass and kills about 20 assassins that invaded to his house. this is certainly one of the most impressive endings to a movie I have ever seen. For fans of Al Pacino and crime movies it's a must-see. For the rest of you it's highly recommended. 10/10 | pos |
If this film strikes you (as it did us and, apparently, others departing the theater) as disappointingly thin, it may be because the subject herself is mildly disappointing. The film faithfully presents us Bettie Page as she probably was: a playful almost-innocent from the rural South whose career as "the pinup queen of the universe" was for her just goofy, natural fun. Her eventual moral qualms, religious conversion and sudden departure from nude and bondage modeling are biographically accurate, yet hard to understand given how untroubled she seemed by her livelihood.<br /><br />There are many reasons to see this film even so, not least of which are the amazing b&w noir cinematography of W. Mott Hopfel III (complete with old fashioned wipes and dissolves), the 1950's-faithful acting of the cast under the direction of Mary Harron, pitch-perfect performances by some of our most underrated supporting actors (including Chris Bauer, Lili Taylor, Sarah Paulson, Austin Pendleton, Dallas Roberts and Victor Slezak), not to mention the Oscar-worthy and technically difficult lead performance of Gretchen Mol.<br /><br />Ms. Mol does several scenes fully naked and most others in amazing period lingerie and "specialty" costumes (gloriously assembled by costume designer John A. Dunn), yet she astonishingly maintains Bettie Page's unstudied pleasure in her lush body. To watch Ms. Mol as Ms. Page, an aspiring actress, progressing through degrees of progressively less "bad" auditions and student acting scenes is to see a truly fine actress in complete control of her craft.<br /><br />The script does effectively bring us into 1950's America, where childhood sexual abuse, lawless abduction and rape, and the legal suppression of brands of pornography which today seem laughably tame, is a reality. 50's New York is evoked with seamlessly-inter cut news reel footage. 50's Miami comes alive in super-saturated, 16mm-style color. The real Bettie Page seems to scamper, smile and pose before us, and yet the effect is curiously lightweight, barely lewd and not at all dangerous.<br /><br />How odd that bondage's greatest icon should be so lacking in venom, and that this technically excellent biopic should have so little sting. | pos |
This film with fine production values features secrets and how friends use each other. Henry May Long is a very well-acted, dimly lit, depressing turn-of-the-century period piece about a friendship between a fatally ill man and a melancholy, indebted junkie. Talky drawing room dramas are not my cup of tea, and all the crying wears thin. Recommended if you like independent, slyly intellectual, slow-paced Merchant Ivory-type features. <br /><br />I suspected that the main characters were in love, but their connection was so intimated, it didn't really have the emotional impact of 'Brokeback Mountain.' It features some good writing with a scene discussing how to disappear in life, but it is truly a dark and depressing film. | neg |
I wouldn't normally write a comment on-line, but this is the worst movie I've ever seen. Not only that it's filmed just like a soap series ("The young and the restless" is really filmed by professionals compared to this), but it also has awful cuts. It has no action. It is full of useless garbage.<br /><br />Here's an example: a guy wants to kill the main character as he got fired because of him. So (after loads of crap) here they are: the guy puts a knife at his throat and says something like "You're dead now". Then the main character says: "If you kill me you're dead. I've told the police you're threatening me". So the (killer) guy goes like (just about to cry): "Oh no... the cops are following me!?!! Oh... my God".<br /><br />Remember: this is just an example. I really cannot believe this movie actually exists. So: IF you want to see the WORST movie ever... go ahead, I recommend it :) | neg |
A very suspenseful giallo from the director of "L'Anticristo"(1974),this one begins with a brilliantly-handled sequence involving a priest,a little girl,and a broken doll.However the main story is about maniac(David Warbeck)marrying a traumatized cripple to kill her for her money.The plot,whilst not original,is really suspenseful,the acting is good and there are several skillful and gory murders.The score by Francesco de Massi is quite effective,some of which can also be heard in Lucio Fulci's "The New York Ripper"(1982).Highly recommended for fans of Italian cinema! | pos |
So lame it isn't even funny. A zombie infection overtakes a small college campus and a government squad of secret operatives back up a couple of scientists sent to find the origin of the outbreak. Collecting zombie DNA damn sure is not easy. Once bitten you're one of "them". The entire university has been completely infected by the run amok undead.<br /><br />This sequel does not even redeem the awful original HOUSE OF THE DEAD(2003). Senseless entertainment is accomplished though. A few glimpses of female nakedness added to a gaggle of gore and exploding heads should keep any zombie freak happy. Credited cast members: Emmanuelle Vaugier, Victoria Pratt, Ed Quinn, Sid Haig and Nadine Velazquez. The "F" word holds together an unimaginative script. | neg |
Let me start off by saying that after watching this episode for the first time on DVD at 10 o'clock P.M. one night, I could not fall asleep until about 3:00 A.M.<br /><br />This brief review may contain spoilers.<br /><br />I'm a long-time fan of The Sopranos and I can safely say this is the best episode I've seen. I'm not saying everyone should feel this way, but I do. This episode is identical to the weekend I spent with my family, watching over my own father, comatose in the ICU before he passed.<br /><br />The episode begins with Tony in an alternate reality: he is a salesman who's identity has been mistaken for that of a man named Kevin Finnerty.<br /><br />By the time ten minutes had gone by, I knew either Tony was dreaming, or I was watching some other show. It wasn't like the normal Sopranos and I loved it.<br /><br />Option 1 is confirmed when Anthony (or "Kevin") looks into the sky at a "helicopter spotlight" and we see prodding through it, a doctor with a flashlight. We see this only for a moment and the sequence plays out until we go back to real life in a situation similar to the one I just stated.<br /><br />Tony has come out of the coma for only a moment. His boys take A.J. home and Carmella, overcome by stress, breaks down in the hallway: a signature moment in the episode.<br /><br />For the remainder of the episode, we cut in between the real world: the family dealing with the potential negative outcome of this coma, and Tony's alternate reality, which parallels what's going on both in his mind and in the real world around him.<br /><br />Then comes the stellar point in the episode: after A.J. finishes telling his mother he's flunked school, she walks in to see Meadow sitting at Anthony's side.<br /><br />She approaches Tony, and utters the best line of the episode: "Anthony, can you hear us?" In Tony's world, he enters a dark hotel room and turns on a light. He takes off his shoes and goes to the phone. He tries to dial, but he cannot--as if he were trying to say something back to Carmella, but couldn't physically bring himself to do so. Not yet.<br /><br />He sits down and looks out his window. A shimmering light that has reoccurred throughout the episode now seems to call to him from the other side of the city.<br /><br />"When It's Cold I'd Like To Die" by Moby marries perfectly with these last images and helps in creating an emotional roller-coaster of an episode.<br /><br />10 out of 10.<br /><br />P.S.: Watch the next episode. You find out what the light is. It's wonderful. | pos |
Luckily for Bill Murray this is such a light-weight project since he pretty much has to carry it. Meatballs is the story of low-rent Camp Northstar and how its counselors deal with the campers as well as one another. Then there is much made of their wealthy rivals from across the lake named Camp Mohawk which culminates in a two-day Olympiad competition. Above it all is Bill Murray clowning around and making a pretty memorable film debut.<br /><br />The film is sprinkled with medium-sized laughs, chuckles, and more than a few guffaws along the way. The biggest laughs come from the pranks played on the nerdy camp director. Three of them involve the counselors moving his bed outside in various locations while he's sleeping. Morty, or "Micky" as everyone calls him, wakes up along the side of a road, strung up in some trees several feet above the ground, and finally floating on a raft in the middle of the lake! There are also some funny moments involving the counselors hitting on one another, but this is a PG rated film with little in the way of raunchiness.<br /><br />The film takes a serious note involving a shy camper named Rudy who is played by Chris Makepeace. Of course it's up to Murray to teach the kid how to open up, and give him the confidence he needs to run a marathon during the Olympiad. The sentimentality of Rudy's situation seems tacked on to a great degree. Notice how when Murray first sees the kid sitting alone in the grass after getting off the bus he tells him, "you must be the short depressed kid we ordered." Makes you wonder if that line was really in the script or Murray was just ad-libbing while the cameras were rolling. In other words, Murray might as well have said to Makepeace, "you must be that actor we hired to play the stereotypical lonely kid you see in most summer camp films who doesn't fit in." But before it's all over, Murray's performance makes this plot device more than bearable. He really seems to have some good chemistry with Makepeace.<br /><br />The film culminates with the games between the two rival camps. Very little of the events we are shown are even slightly believable, but "it just doesn't matter". This is a pretty good film on many levels. Don't let the absurd 5.6 rating this film is currently getting scare you off. Murray will keep you laughing throughout. Just be warned..... avoid the sequels!!!! Especially the one with Corey Feldman!! 8 of 10 stars.<br /><br />The Hound. | pos |
I wish there was a category to place this in other than Horror. It simply isn't. Granted it has it's horrific moments, however I don't feel that makes it a horror film. I will give that this movie could have been better. A million little things could have been changed to make it better.<br /><br />That having been said I love this movie. I'm often sad that people misunderstand the whole point of it. It has always been clear to me that the point of this movie was to say... things aren't always what they seem. Sometimes 'evil', isn't. <br /><br />Barker was at a Con I went to and he did a little talk then watch the movie thing. It was very interesting. Many things he wished to put in the movie couldn't be, and a chunk was cut out of the movie that he believed to be long lost. This was a chunk that helped shed light on Boone and his Girlfriend, as well as some other details.<br /><br />I know some people are bothered by not having more information about all of the 'breed' in the background, however I always felt that gave the movie a more 'real' fleshed out feel. I have read the novella this was based off of as well as many of the comics. Because of this, the movie just always seemed like a staging ground for the whole story. A much more involved story that sadly has never has a chance to live. <br /><br />Despite all of the flaws this movie might have I believe it has a lot to offer. The 'monsters' are wonderful, very imaginative. While the acting is sometimes a bit stiff there are some very quotable lines. Whenever I watch it I find something new. Keep and eye on Boones chest toward the end. At one point Decker stabs him and shortly after Boone falls on a card table. He ends up with a card stuck to his chest. This card stays there for a while even after Lori pulls the knife out. It stays there until Boone casually removes it. I love that. That was a lovely little detail I thought.<br /><br />Basically what I want to say is that... if you are looking for a horror movie, don't watch this. If you believe that at times men can be more evil than anything we have ever dreamed up. This is the movie for you. This is a movie about how men destroy what they don't understand or fear. | pos |