text
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| label
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
Terrible movie. Nuff Said.<br /><br />These Lines are Just Filler. The movie was bad. Why I have to expand on that I don't know. This is already a waste of my time. I just wanted to warn others. Avoid this movie. The acting sucks and the writing is just moronic. Bad in every way. The only nice thing about the movie are Deniz Akkaya's breasts. Even that was ruined though by a terrible and unneeded rape scene. The movie is a poorly contrived and totally unbelievable piece of garbage.<br /><br />OK now I am just going to rag on IMDb for this stupid rule of 10 lines of text minimum. First I waste my time watching this offal. Then feeling compelled to warn others I create an account with IMDb only to discover that I have to write a friggen essay on the film just to express how bad I think it is. Totally unnecessary. | neg |
I had known Brad Linaweaver at Florida State U in the early 70's when he was an inspiring, inventive writer who I thought was headed for greater glory.<br /><br />And that is why I rented this video. Well, well, well, the time has not been kind to Mr Linaweaver. I suppose the pressures of making a living makes higher aspirations expendable. Another flower whose bloom has come and gone un-noticed in the summer breeze. Amen. There is nothing more to say. And nothing more to add. A sad epitaph to a once blossoming career as stated above. But it is the price one pays for chasing shadows without a firm foundation or goals for oneself in life. Because this movie has no goal, no purpose, and I kept telling myself, what happened to Brad's creativity, his once shining genius? Gone, gone, years of neglect has deteriorated his once shining mind. | neg |
No matter what other people have said you can't review this movie without comparing it to the original, if it existed on it's own it would be a 2-3 out of 5 film but it is a remake of a 4-5 out of 5 film and so has standards to live up to and we need to see if it reached those standards. If the film was a re-working or, as in Planet of the Apes, a re-imagining of the original you would be able to look at the film in it's own right, only referencing the original. Imagine it this way, if someone took the model in the 'Mona Lisa', posed her in a different way, and painted her you could only compare the framing,concept etc to the original but if someone just repainted her in the position of the original you would have to compare it totally.<br /><br />That said this film doesn't just fail to be as good as the original it fails spectacularly, like it or not the original was one of the best movies ever made, the shower scene will never be forgotten, the remake was meant to be a celebration of Hitchcock but ended up actually degrading him and his master work.<br /><br />The degrading aspects of this picture were Vince Vaughn and Anne Heche. It's nothing to do with wether they acted better or not it's that the relationship between Norman and Marion in the original was really quite innocent, Norman didn't really understand sex, he had hardly any contact with the outside world and when he meets beautiful Marion and watches her change you feel that he is partly doing it from fascination as he doesn't really understand sex and his attraction to her,this makes Norman sympathetic and almost an anti-hero, you are on his side because he doesn't fully understand the world and is constantly fighting with himself and his 'Mother'. In the remake that whole dynamic is gone, I must admit to Janet Leigh not being my type but she is very attractive and you can see that, Anne Heche is really unattractive and so Norman finding 'her' Marion attractive is unbelievable if you add that to Vince Vaughn's Norman masturbating whilst looking at her and you get a Norman that is just waiting for a chance to jack off at any naked woman no matter what she looks like, who you feel absolutely no sympathy for, they further destroy Norman's innocent nature by putting the porno mags in his room. It destroys a character that we have come to like and feel sorry for, it's like re-making 'It's a wonderful life' and having the main character a pimp, totally degrading.<br /><br />The only other character that I had problems with was Rita Wilson as Caroline, Marion's workmate. In the original when Pat Hitchcock says the line 'he must have noticed my wedding ring' it elicits a response of laughter as she is absolutely kidding herself, when Rita says it it just seems plausible as there really isn't any other reason why any man would flirt with Anne Heche over her.<br /><br />I'll admit that I am very biased, the original 'Psycho' is my favorite film of all time, had the film been a reworking, with a different angle, then you could have turned these characters on their heads and it would have been perfectly acceptable.<br /><br />Hitch famously thaught the film would be too gory in colour and made it in black and white to lessen it. This also made the film more atmospheric and frightening in it's own way and it gave it a beauty that could never be captured in colour and it is a sad statement about how movies are de-sensetising the public that people have said how the shower scene was more frightening in colour. (n.b before people think 'he can't spell' remember I'm from England and we spell it colour)<br /><br />A remake should be just that, re made, this is a forgery, a complete copy and a very bad one at that. I could go on comparing but there is no point, almost everything is superior in the original. The only one thing that is better is the performance of Viggo Mortensen as Sam Loomis, John Gavin was very flat in the original (Hitch called him 'The Stiff' behind his back) and Mortensen gives a more believable if less likeable performance. William H. Macy and Julianne Moore are the only other actors that hold up to the originals.<br /><br />Overall a movie that should be labeled 'Expensive Embarrassing Failed Experiment. Only view if comparing to original or if original is unknown to you. But view original too' The movie would have got a 3 out of 5 if it were original or a reworking but as it is 0.5 out of 5 (for Macy, Moore and Mortensen) | neg |
If you find the hopelessly amateurish acting, the uninteresting story, the fake blood and all the mindless shooting bearable, then you may actually have a fairly good time watching this trashy, low-rent exploitation film. You might also want to check out a pretty good catfighting sequence that's offered, although it's not good enough to make the rest of the movie worth sitting through. (**) | neg |
I was half-dozing as I watched a late night selection of short films--but sat bolt upright from the first frames of "I Shout Love" and could not take my eyes away for its full, brief, perfect length. With incredibly assured pacing and performances, this film maintains its funny/sad/insightful tone throughout. The credits at the end went by so quickly and in such small type, I had to go online to find out the person responsible for this master work. What a pleasing surprise to see the name of Sarah Polley, a major actress who is too seldom seen.<br /><br />Kristen Thomsen (Tessa) and Matthew Ferguson (Bobby) turn in rich, touching performances as a couple in the throes of breaking up. As they work through a reprise of Tessa's favorite moments from their time together, both actors reveal dimensions of their characters and their relationship in ways that bring nothing but honor to their talents--and to the director/writer's skills. The film creates a moving narrative with laugh-out-loud moments and caught-breath sorrow.<br /><br />"I Shout Love" is unquestionably one of the greatest and most memorable short films I ever expect to see. It has wit, heart and stunning originality. It matters. | pos |
Just above the box i am typing in now, i was required to pick a number between 1 and 10, and rate this feature film. Unfortunately there is no option for a number less than zero, and i have to put something. If i had my choice i would just put nothing, no number, because there exist no digits that express the worthlessness of this movie.<br /><br />If you do decide to watch this film even after reading all of these horrible reviews, make sure there are no sharp or blunt objects in the area, this will help prevent you from trying to kill yourself in the middle of the film.<br /><br />I don't know how this film was released to the public, it should be locked up and guarded 24/7 somewhere in Fort Knox. I am angry that this film was even available for me to watch. I feel cheated by humanity, i had no idea humans could be this cruel. Stalin, Saddam and Hitler got nothing on this douche bag Cowell.<br /><br />Do not be fooled by the movie's cover. 1) There are no scarecrows, no one knows why there is a legit looking scarecrow on the front. 2)None of the characters on the back of case are even in the stinking movie! 3) The tag line says something about "new moon, more victims", there were no frigging victims no one even died. We don't know if the dam cop died, and i'm assuming the killer didn't die because it sounded like he was being hit over the head with a frigging whiffle ball bat.<br /><br />Do yourself a favor and stay away from this movie, it wasted about 4 hours of my life. That's right four, it took an hour for me to watch it (i fast forwarded thru the 4 minute zooming scenes that reveal nothing in the plot), i stared at the television for about an hour after it was over, contemplating my life and the direction it was heading after watching this crap, and then i began to cry for the next two hours because i know someone out there will unfortunately see this movie and there is nothing i can do to stop it. | neg |
Possibly John Cassavetes best film to date, and definitely his funniest. Seymour Cassel plays the young Moskowitz smitten with real-life wife of Cassavetes, Gena Rowlands, excellent as usual. A must see gem of a film, if you can locate it. | pos |
DD films were damn corny, damn stupid and had a plot which seemed wafer thin but those days they was a plot at least<br /><br />This film isn't just a comedy but a mix of melodrama, romance everything<br /><br />Every drama scene is blown out of proportion<br /><br />The comedy is funny but corny too Yet the film keeps you entertained, those days Govinda films were loud, crass yet they had some funny moments people enjoyed<br /><br />David Dhawan does a okay job Music is okay<br /><br />Govinda acts well in comedy and drama Karisma is decent in parts and annoys in parts Kader is as usual Gulshan, Prem Chopra are typecast Shakti is hilarious | neg |
The cast for this production of Rigoletto is excellent. Edita Gruberova sings Gilda magnificently and passionately. Luciano Pavarotti also sings splendidly. Vergara is a fine Maddalena; Fedora Barbieri is a famous older singer who sings the maid, Giovanna. Weikl sings Marullo; Wixell sings both Rigoletto and Monterone. As Rigoletto, Wixell is probably the most convincing acting singer in this hard-to-beat ensemble of great singers. Kathleen Kuhlmann in the Contessa. All principals are well-known and world-renowned.<br /><br />This is an exciting Rigoletto visually as well as musically.<br /><br />I have it on both laser disc and DVD. You should have it too! | pos |
Oh My Gosh!!!! This was the first movie Broken Lizard made as a group (although it just recently came to video), and I have never been more disappointed in my entire life!!! I tell you what, if I had seen this movie before I saw Super Troopers (which by the way, is a kick A$$ movie!!!), I never ever would have watched it!! I had read several reviews online, as well as on the cover of the DVD, that raved it as being,"Broken Lizard's funniest movie ever!" Now if they were referring to Super Troopers as being their funniest movie ever, I would agree nonstop, but not this one. Talk about dry. It took the movie a good 45 minutes to even get going, and by then, I was so out of the mood to watch it, that it wasn't even worth it. Maybe you gotta be high for it to really be funny? I dunno. I love these guys, I really do, but that movie is by far the worst one they've made. Club Dread was a pretty good movie, but this one, just wow. I'd highly recommend Super Troopers if you want a good laugh, but if you want more of a romance, drama, with a few funny spots, I'd say go with Puddle Cruiser. Just my opinion though, everyone is entitled to their own! :) | neg |
The only part lacking in this movie is Shue's part as the daughter wanting to follow in her "aunt's" footsteps as a daytime soap star. Otherwise it would be a perfect 10.<br /><br />It seems that every actor enjoyed their parts and overacting to fulfill their own enjoyment as well as the script - I have to wonder if a little ad lib'ing wasn't taking place in parts. It was well cast and there are some classic lines that will stick with you.<br /><br />It's a fantastic movie everyone should see at least once. I'd recommend not drinking anything that would sting coming out your nose.<br /><br />You'll definitely want to watch the last scene closely, 'Nurse Nan' has a little secret she'd rather not have shared with you.<br /><br />If you love daytime soaps or despise them, this move pokes fun in all the right places. | pos |
Ohhh man! Now this is what I'm talking about! As far as bad/cheesy horror flicks go this movie was truly in a class of its own. A real gem!<br /><br />First off, the film wasn't originally in English. That's okay because the voice dubbing was truly exceptional! Here is my favorite excerpt from the dialog (and there is plenty more where this came from)
"I'm feeling a little better. I'm just thirsty
FOR YOUR BLOOD!"<br /><br />And what drama! Here is a play by play recap of the interaction between the military and scientists
<br /><br />Scene 1
Scientist: "You can't do that
It'll be a disaster!" -- Military Officer: "That's just science fiction" (he then proceeds to cause a complete disaster just like the scientist predicted).<br /><br />Scene 2
Scientist: "If you do that many people will die!!!" -- Military Officer: "you don't know what you're talking about." (he does it and many people die).<br /><br />Scene 3
Scientist: "Don't do that
It'll kill everyone!" -- Military Officer: "That's nonsense" (he then proceeds to kill everyone)<br /><br />Scene 4, 5, 6, 7
(you get the idea).<br /><br />If that wasn't enough
there were a few scenes that really stood out as instant classics! In one scene, the military has literally 10 guys pointing guns at two unarmed men. The leader yells, "Go get 'em!" and all 10 army guys, one at a time, drop their guns and fist fight the two adversaries! Instant classic!<br /><br />And don't worry. No attention to detail was left out! This movie even had a hip/upbeat '80's keyboard/synth soundtrack to set the mood!<br /><br />And trust me
I realize this review might contain some spoilers, but there are so many goodies in this epic I really only scratched the surface. A movie of this caliber only comes out once a decade! A true movie watching experience! A masterpiece! Wow! | neg |
The plot: Four people are caught in an elevator. One is a business man, the annoying kind who is aggressive and complains about everything and everyone and is a walking-talking sample of distilled stress and hostility. Then there's his colleague, a woman who is much more pleasant in her character. A teenage rebel who just broke into a coke machine and by his mere presence drives the businessman mad, and an older guy who just stole 100,000DM make up the rest of the cast...<br /><br />The movie is all about how they cope with their problem, as time goes on and on without any success in reaching the outside world, as the lights go out, and as the cables begin to snap one after the other....<br /><br />And yet, it isn't too exciting. The characters are stereotypes. The story is stupid and unlikely (how could so many things go so wrong in just one elevator?). You don't like the characters very much, you just hate one of them. And all the twists and turns in the plot are not contributing to the excitement, they are just stupid excuses for filling yet another few minutes with dialogue as the screenwriters keep running out of inspiration and ink on a full-length movie set in an elevator.<br /><br />Let's just hope "Phone Booth" will be a better effort... | neg |
This could be the most underrated movie of its genre. I don't remember seeing any advertisements or commercials for this one which could be the reason why it didn't do so well at the box office. However, Frailty is an excellent and a truly original horror movie. I rank it within the top 10 most favorite horror movies on my list.<br /><br />Movie begins with snapshots of photos and news articles telling us about a killer who calls himself "God's hand". And then a man walks into a police station and tells the chief officer that he knows the killer is his brother. Two of them leave together to go to a location where victims are buried which might help solve the case. During that trip, the man begins telling the story of his brother and we go back in time when the events began. Fenton and Adam are two young brothers living with their strict and religious father who, one day, claims that he has received a divine message from God asking him to kill the demons that appear to be regular human beings. He receives from God a list of names of demons to be destroyed and asks his sons to help him carry out this divine mission.<br /><br />This is an absolutely horrifying and suspenseful film that will keep you at the edge of your seat. The tension runs high, innocent people (or demons?) get killed and religious experiences are questioned. It has not one but few very intelligent twists at the end. If you like this genre, I highly recommend Frailty for you. I own the DVD and it is one of my all time favorite horror-thrillers. | pos |
The role of economics in the industrialized North American market must have always been theorized in the homelands of the engines creation. Persons and industrialist such as Mercedes Benz and the Bavarian Motor Works (BMW) surely realized the opportunity of the North Ameircan market with the purchase of fuel and number of automobiles purchased per household. This type of economic phenomena sparked the concept of Speed Racer.<br /><br />After the new constitution of Japan the industrialization of the isolated island nation of Japan must seek opportunity once again via economic partnerships with its global neighbors. This also helped spark the economic opportunities in the European and North American market if not the global market.<br /><br />Speed is a young avid driver who without knowing any better is driven by his demanding father Pops Racer who has challenged himself his whole life to make a better machine better at winning races. It was in fact Pops Racer who drove his first son Rex Racer to the brink of destruction with his strategy of how to best use the technology he developed. As a mature Racer, Rex, finally realizes his own inherent values and becomes independent but still feels obligated to his younger bother Speed.<br /><br />The exact relationship of Rex Racer to persons such as the Inspector are never really clear, but put into dramatization. Rex is eventually accused of being a type of agent for a country or organization due to his ability to be in places at times when there is no other explanation to how he would have known Speed was in trouble. Or the fact that the situations involved some types of illegal activity were his secretive knowledge is leveraged against an evil plot. This brings a level of cloak and dagger romance to Speed Racer.<br /><br />The mixture of Speeds innocence with Trixy, Sprital, and Chim Chim brings a level of comic human nature. This concept is a good form of rhetoric to balance the themes and plots as they are played out from episode to episode. So, instead of a dry detective story the thrill of international race car driving, romance of cloak and dagger, and comedy of human nature is put into one story, Speed Racer. | pos |
"Come Undone" appears to elicit a lot of opinions among the contributors to this forum. Granted, it's a film that promises a take on gay life, as most viewers expect and somehow, it gets away from that promise into an introspective view at a young man's soul. The film has a way of staying with us even when it has ended. It is a character study about how a young man gets involved into a love affair with someone so much different than him that, in the end, will leave Mathieu confused, hurt and depressed when things don't go according to what he hoped the relationship would be.<br /><br />If you haven't seen the film, perhaps you would like to stop reading.<br /><br />Sebastien Lifshitz, the director of the film, has told his story from Mathieu's viewpoint. Most viewers appear to be disoriented by the different times within the film, but there are hints that are not obvious, as one can see, in retrospect. The story is told in flashbacks that might add to the way some people will view the film. This is a story about the doomed the love Mathieu felt for Cedric and the ultimate breakdown of their life together.<br /><br />First of all, Cedric, the handsome young local, pursues Mathieu until he succeeds in convincing him he likes him. Mathieu feels the attraction for Cedric too. We realize how different both young men are by the way Cedric tells Mathieu's family how he feels school is not for him. On the other hand, Mathieu, who wants to be an architect, finds beauty in the abandoned place where Cedric has taken him. We watch as Mathieu, reading from the guide book, wants Cedric's attention.<br /><br />When Mathieu comes out to his mother, she wisely tells him about the importance of continuing his career. She also points out about what future both of them would have together, which proves to be true. Mathieu appears to have learned his lesson, the hard way. He goes on to an uncertain life with Cedric and attempts to take his own life. We watch him in the hospital speaking to a psychiatrist that has treated his wounded soul.<br /><br />The ending might be confusing for most viewers, but there is a moment in the film when Mathieu goes to work in a bar where we see him washing glasses and looking intently to Pierre, the young man who frequents the bar. That is why when Mathieu goes looking for Pierre at his house, appears to be hard to imagine. Yet, we have seen the way Mathieu is obviously interested in Pierre. The last scene at the beach, when Pierre and Mathieu are seen strolling in the sand, has a hopeful sign that things will be better between them as they watch a young boy, apparently lost, but then realizing the father is nearby.<br /><br />Jeremie Elkaim makes Mathieu one of the most complex characters in recent films. This is a young man who is hard to understand on a simple level. Mathieu has suffered a lot, first with the separation of his parents, then with his depressed mother and with losing Cedric. Stephan Rideau, who has been seen on other important French films, is equally good, as the shallow Cedric.<br /><br />While "Come Undone" will divide opinions, the film deserves a viewing because of the complexity and the care Sebastien Lifshitz gives to the story. | pos |
"Spaced Invaders" is one of the funniest movies, I´ve ever seen. I don´t understand, why this movie didn´t get better critics, it´s funny, harmless and sweet. I first watched it, when I was 11, and I really fell in love with it... 2 days later, I got it on VHS :-P Till today, I´ve shown it to many friends, and they all liked it, but nobody knew the movie before. I think, that´s the problem, nearly nobody knows it, so nearly nobody can like it... This movie never got a real chance, that´s sad, "SI" has really the potential of a comedy like "Monsters Inc." or "Spaceballs". Ok, enough displeasure - What I really wanted to say, is that, if you ever want to laugh your head off, watch it! Even if you don´t get mad about it, it´s worth watching! --> Prepare to laugh, earth scum! | pos |
This true story of Carlson's Raiders is more of a Army training film than anything else.Obviously thrown together quickly on a miniscule budget about the only thing it has to recommend it is an early performance by Robert Mitchum,who's the only decent actor in the cast,and actual footage of the wreckage at Pearl Harbor which gets your blood boiling,as it was obviously intended to do. | neg |
This is an example of why the majority of action films are the same. Generic and boring, there's really nothing worth watching here. A complete waste of the then barely-tapped talents of Ice-T and Ice Cube, who've each proven many times over that they are capable of acting, and acting well. Don't bother with this one, go see New Jack City, Ricochet or watch New York Undercover for Ice-T, or Boyz n the Hood, Higher Learning or Friday for Ice Cube and see the real deal. Ice-T's horribly cliched dialogue alone makes this film grate at the teeth, and I'm still wondering what the heck Bill Paxton was doing in this film? And why the heck does he always play the exact same character? From Aliens onward, every film I've seen with Bill Paxton has him playing the exact same irritating character, and at least in Aliens his character died, which made it somewhat gratifying...<br /><br />Overall, this is second-rate action trash. There are countless better films to see, and if you really want to see this one, watch Judgement Night, which is practically a carbon copy but has better acting and a better script. The only thing that made this at all worth watching was a decent hand on the camera - the cinematography was almost refreshing, which comes close to making up for the horrible film itself - but not quite. 4/10. | neg |
The cat and mouse are involved in the usual chases when Jerry dives into a bottle of invisible ink and discovers that it makes him vanish. Instead of seizing the opportunity to go spy on a girl mouse changing room or something, he uses his new-found invisibility to torment Tom. And it's pretty funny and quite inventive despite being a somewhat one-joke cartoon. And the action never leaves the interior of the house, which is usually the trait of below average T&J shorts. Still worth a 7/10.<br /><br />However, I'm not sure how an invisible mouse can cast a shadow on the wall, it defies physics and the very nature of being invisible itself. | pos |
Apart from the usual stereotypes of the thirties, Eugene Pallette as the gruff police detective, Jack La Rue as the "swarthy" Italian and of course, James Lee as "The Chinese Cook", this film is THE great mystery of a murder in a locked room. For an early 1930's film, this step by step "peeling of the veneer of the mystery" is similar to the COLUMBO series, except in this film, you don't have the advantage of knowing who the killer was in advance. | pos |
I would have liked to put 0.5 but unfortunately I can't. Who can write so bad scripts (I saw the movie five seconds and knew the "bad boy" would be Sutherland - needed to pay his taxes, when you see how good he was in Redford's movie, "Ordinary People" and others ! -).<br /><br />Though I don't like it, but I had no choice, I saw the movie in French, but I know that hearing the real voices of Sheen, Sutherland and Hamilton would have not change things, except maybe making it more pitiful.<br /><br />What makes me sick is that people earn their living making this bad stuff (I forgot to speak about Mr Waterson, far away from the Woody Allen's movies he once used to play in).<br /><br />We had another movie on another French channel : a silly James Bond with Brosnan (I am not talking about the real Bonds with Connery(please it's the end of holidays, wake up !). | neg |
I have seen "Miracles Still Happen" now at least four times. I never tire of this fantastic movie. From the very beginning, it holds a person's interest. As the movie progresses and the plane crashes the story becomes very intense as we watch this young girl trying to survive alone and frightened in the Amazon, following a plane crash in which she was the only survivor. Losing her mother in this plane crash as well makes this movie even more dramatic as we see the perils this young girl had to endure during her ten days in the Amazon. To think this really did happen is just unreal and to think that anyone could actualy survive this is unspeakable as we see the wild animals, snakes and other reptiles, the enormous forests and wildlife as well as countless insects. As the movie progresses we see the many dangers this girl has to face as she tries to follow the river in hopes of it leading her to a town. Remembering what her father told her about how a stream will always lead to a river and then into an even larger river and this means it will eventually lead to a community, this young girl keep track of the tiny stream which eventually lead into a huge river all throughout the movie. At times having to swim in dangerous waters, alone, frightened, injured, she always managed to keep going. Towards the end of this movie it was obvious she would not have been able to continue much longer as she had not eaten in ten days and only had water to drink and was very sick and tired from her perils. Eventually as she sees a canoe, she realizes there has to be a village and men find her and they take care of her and then take her to a hospital where her father comes to see her, after fearing she was dead along with the many other passengers. Such a dramatic movie and so heartwarming to see her father's face when he sees his daughter is actually still alive after all this time in the Amazon! Movies like this aren't made much those days. I will still see it again and I know I will never tire of it! To think this girl was the only one single survivor of this airplane is just unspeakable! Also the fact she only maintained a few very slight injuries was even more remarkable, whereas everyone else on this airplane perished in the horrific crash into the wilds of the Amazon. A brilliant movie, superbly acted out indeed and one I will treasure forever and love to continue watching! Strongly recommended by me for sure! | pos |
Of all the seasons and episodes of THE TWILIGHT ZONE, after seeing all the great, mind boggling, thought provoking stories, this one stands on top. That's right. This story, this one entitled THE HUNT tops the large number of the finest scripts in Television History.<br /><br />True, there are no interplanetary space flights, no inexplicable cracks in time. There is no living nightmare, no sudden changes of setting. There is seemingly nothing out of the ordinary for our protagonist to deal with.<br /><br />The main character, played by veteran character actor Arthur Hunnicut, sets out from his cabin in the hills, accompanied by his faithful hound, to hunt raccoon. Because the raccoon is a predominantly nocturnal animal hunt is by moonlight.<br /><br />The man and dog soon encounter a large raccoon, who hops on the dog's back and attempts to drown the hound in a pond. The man jumps in to help his dog. There is a sort of almost black-out, after which the pair are seen on the shore, in a lying, almost sleep like position.<br /><br />Calling his dog by name, (Rip, I think) the old man sets off to return home. When he arrives, he finds the wife weeping and unresponsive to his conversation. He also observes visitors coming and going to his house, paying respects and giving words to console his wife.<br /><br />Still seeming puzzled at the strange reception and goings on around the Home Cabin, the Man and Rip take off on a long walk down the road, where He remarks out loud that he did not remember such a long fence in these parts. He eventually comes upon a rather large fellow, dressed in garb similar to his-overalls, hat, work shirt. They are at a gate, which leads to an area where a lot of smoke is freely rising up. The Gate Keeper is overly eager in his persuasive pitch in trying to get the man to enter. Rip sounds displeasure. The Gate Man tells the Old Man that he may enter, but the dog would have to remain outside, offering to watch the animal for him. The man will have none of it and the two continue on their way down the path.<br /><br />After a little more hiking they come upon a second gated entrance where the Gate Keeper recognizes the man and welcomes him. When the Old Man reports what has happened down the road, telling him of how the guy at the other gate tried to separate the Man and dog, and added, "With no dogs allowed, that must be a Hell of a place!" The 2nd Gate Keeper stated that he was right! "That's exactly what it is!" <br /><br />Our family had lost our 1st Dog, Lady-a mixed Lab, in October of 1981. About 6 months later, as good fortune would have it, the Wife(Deanna) and myself along with our 2 daughters (Jennifer 9 and Michelle 6) viewed this episode on TV, WGN TV, Channel 9 Chicago. Well, it all made perfect sense to us at that time.<br /><br />We're certain that anyone who has had that relationship with a family dog, would agree. The episode still brings a condition of watery eyes to this now 60 year old writer. | pos |
I saw the movie in original Italian. It must be said that the acting and interpretation is most heavily polluted by the TV-generated trend to speak in a severely muffled voice, not moving lips, straining tones, as emerged in the "That's real life"-productions and "Let's-raise-our audience-with-a-few-tears"-screen-playwriting. The late Massimo Girotti towers upon the other characters for intensity, clarity of expression and intellectual honesty. The movie has some good hints, but (as in another comment before mine) it lacks a focal point and dribbles away in many plot-lets of lesser and lesser relevance, another trend dragged in from the TV productions, well known to Italians. A few drops in style could be spared to the public, such as the patisserie drag (Charm and aesthetics of cooking plus sensual payload of sweets, see Chocolat, Babette's lunch, Vatel etc.) Hammam and the Fairies are definitely more truthful, seems that Ozpetek has learned the tune of Italy in the early 2000s and is humming along... I'll give him a last chance though... | neg |
Gung Ho was a good idea, however it is to much to ask Americans viewers to understand the dynamics of American jobs and foreign competition.In this movie the main character Hunt Stevenson(Michael Keaton) goes to Japan and convinces a Japanese auto company to come to America and help his dying Pennslyvania town. Two things come at you.First why would a Japanese company come to America to make cars when they do so ,and so well at that? Secondly can anyone understand that American companies of all types go to third world nations to have their products made to escape American labor costs? It makes the film's premise then that the Number one maker of cars in the world would go to one of its' top competitors(aside from Germany)and put a plant there as unrealistic. Keaton was still in his comedy mode by this time. But he gives a credible performance all the same as he could prove that he could go from comedy to drama in a matter of seconds and still not embarrass himself but Director Ron Howard can't keep this from becoming a TV movie which it ends up being anyway because they have to give the unlikely story a happy ending the politics and problems of Japanese and American relations not withstanding. Gung Ho has a Happy Days and Laverne and Shirley feel to it as the producers of both TV shows made the film and then made the TV version of this movie as well which gives the film its' lightweight feel.The Japanese manager gets to love his American workers and feels he and other Japanese people can learnfrom Americans.His No.2 man Saito who supposedly doesn't like Americans all that much doesn't think so.I would have prefered all the Japanese characters been like Saito than the soft goofball characters they made the Japanese out to be.It would have made the film more interesting. | neg |
When I think about this movie, all the adjectives that come to mind somehow relate to the physical appreciation of the world. Texture, smell, color, that's how I think this movie should be judged in terms of. See the rich golden tones surrounding the young concubine asleep by the fireplace, or the sweltering turkish bath, and let it flood your senses with impressions of spice, coarse cloth, smooth skin, scented oils, flickering flames, satin rustle. Don't just watch and listen, be absorbed, let the droning voice of the storyteller mesmerize you. | pos |
The film begins with a 30 minute explanation about the war, the human cyborgs, battles, history, and then dumps 2 actors into a gravel pit. They run around this gravel pit/desert area for about an hour shooting at each other. That's it. Must have cost about £10.00 to make, with change. Avoid.<br /><br />Marks out of ten: Acting -9 Sets 1 Costumes -9 Direction -50 Production 1 Titled intro 4<br /><br />I think to improve this film would be to: Lose the commentary. (Let the watcher decide what's going on). Remove some of the awful CGI. Add some techno rave music to it. They might just rescue it....... | neg |
Robert Wagner is the evil boss of Digicron, a telecommunications company with a virus that kills people.<br /><br />'so you're saying that the software virus has become a real virus that can kill people - that may be medically possible but not possible from my system' <br /><br />'i'm having to write some new virus software of my own to trap it - it may take some time'<br /><br />'but it's not going after software, it's killing people'<br /><br />watch out for the 'i'm into virology' love moment and perhaps first ever film plot to feature death by braille keyboard | neg |
And a rather Unexpected plot line too-for the era: there is Plague in the City of New Orleans-and only Richard Widmark can stop it! Elia Kazan's trademark subjects: waterfronts, working men, crowds, fugitives, blue collar folk, violence on a backstreet-are all showcased here.<br /><br />Jack Palance is quite effective as the ice-cold mobster out for a big score, Zero Mostel as Dom Delouise somewhat miscast but certainly watchable as his go-fer. I enjoyed Barbara Bel Geddes as the stalwart, cool wife-I thought she and Widmark were a believable couple.<br /><br />He himself always reminds me somewhat of Sinatra-in the face and in the intense quiet manner-and that is meant as a compliment if anything. I'd never even heard of this movie, and yes, you have to admire Widmark's performance. I also enjoyed Paul Douglas-he seemed to play this role many times, they make an unlikely but effective team.<br /><br />The plague itself is a McGuffin-and you gotta know it's not exactly done the way it would have been in Real Life-rather small-scale at the least no?-but I found it carried the plot along nicely.<br /><br />Check this out. It's good. *** outta **** | pos |
I just saw this movie for the second time. I first saw it back in the mid-90's as a Vanguard Video selection. It has retained it power.<br /><br />It is interesting from several aspects. One is that it is based on a true story. Two is it is a launching pad for two interesting actors: Keanu Reeves and Crispin Glover. And three, it has Dennis Hopper in one of his better social misfit/psychotic character roles.<br /><br />The movie is also a study in the way people act in different settings. You have characters in one-on-one, family, peer group, school, general society settings, etc. The story does well in demonstrating how a person will act in each setting.<br /><br />I wish I could find the details of the actual murder to compare to the movie. I saw a short bit that indicated it occurred in California and that several schoolmates were taken to view the corpse. <br /><br />This is a good choice for a rainy night video rental. Be prepared to feel unsettled at the end. | pos |
Kenneth Branagh attempts to turn William Shakspeare's obscure, rarely-produced comedy into a 1930s-era musical, with the result being both bad Shakespeare and bad musical comedy as the actors are rarely adept at one or the other of the two styles and in some cases flounder badly in both. Particularly painful is Nathan Lane, who seems to be under the impression that he is absolutely hysterical as Costard but is badly mistaken, and Alicia Silverstone who handles the Shakespearean language with all the authority of a teenaged Valley Girl who is reading the script aloud in her middle school English class.<br /><br />The musical numbers are staged with the expertise of a high school production of "Dames at Sea," leaving the cast looking awkward and amateurish while singing and dancing, with the lone exception being Adrian Lester who proves himself a splendid song and dance man. The only other saving grace of the film are Natascha McElhone and Emily Mortimer's contribution as eye candy, but they have given far better performances than in this film and you'd be wise to check out some of the other titles in their filmographies and gives this witless mess a pass. | neg |
Rosie wasted a lot of TV time talking about the Tainos as if they were super influential in the dynamics of the modern day Puerto Rican. They were not. The truth is that the Africans and the Spanish were and she knows it. What kills me is that she is standing on the screen looking like some average light skin black chick ( with an obvious black daddy, cousins and auntie)pretending to truly acknowledge the real essence of what makes them the modern day Puerto Ricans,but barely mentioned how Africans influenced the way their Spanish is spoken, the food and music. She is so typical and I lost a lot of respect for her and will not support anything else she does. Also, since she wants to dance around her African-ness then she need not take more roles associated with blackness (i.e. Lackawanna Blues). We can find a prideful Black Latina next time (thank you Zoe Saldana,Gina Torres, Gina Ravera and Melissa DeSousa).<br /><br />To the Puerto Rican on here that said they are African and not "black"....thank you. We "blacks" certainly do not have anything in common with "you" so there is no love lost. But, since you are probably in the States and have benefited from the Civil Rights movement we would like for you refuse any decent human treatment you received courtesy of the blood ,sweat and tears from the backs of the "blacks" you share nothing with.<br /><br />If I am correct Puerto Ricans have a terrible image in the media, but we blacks do not spend our time trying to disrespect you because we know that the media loves to exploits the low points and behaviors of all minorities to maintain mindless generalizations. However, you evidently have fed into the hype that one you are somehow white or superior...you are not. Also, you somehow feel compelled to believe that black culture is BET...again you are incorrect and need to take a vacation out of the hood. Try visiting Atlanta, Ga., Houston, Texas, Charlotte, N.C. Trust me none of those blacks want to claim your "culture" either. | neg |
The old axiom that bored people are boring people is well demonstrated in "Women in Love." The script, taken from D. H. Lawrence's novel, contains an endless flow of concepts that are, at best, sophomoric.<br /><br />What a pity so much effort went into so vacuous an exercise; what an empty array of characters given such attention. In spite of high production values, this film comes across as tedious as its personnel.<br /><br />A revisit in 2001 merely confirms a 1969 impression of juvenille minds in adult bodies, dawdling nowhere, and fumbling every step of the way. | neg |
Jeez, only in the 70's... Antonio Margheriti brings us this quirky hybrid of spaghetti western and kung fu flick evolving around a treasure-hunt. The spices of this trashy co-production between Shaw Brothers and an Italian one-off company include humorous storytelling, off-the-wall happenings and some very tame T&A. Extra campy moments are being served by Lee Van Cleef's obnoxious wig, leather-clad bible-thumping psycho gunman Yancey Hobbitt (loveably hammed up by Julian Ugarte, the man who should've done way more obscure European genre productions than he did), wanna-be-witty dialogue, hilarious background music and completely laughable sound effects accompanying various little events (especially every jump made by Lo Lieh).<br /><br />While this little piece of action falls fare and square into the Turkey Territory, it's great to see Van Cleef and Lo Lieh on the same screen, and you can't deny the charisma of this duo. Don't expect too much, and you'll get plenty out of it.<br /><br />This is my truth. What is yours? | neg |
The female hot numbers on this show are breathtaking. They can also talk like there's no tomorrow. Otherwise, this show would go into the toilet quickly. How much money do they make on all the people who text in, with that hope to be called back to win, $100.oo, or whatever. Boy, now that's a scam!!! Can I buy stocks in this money maker??? Let's face it, with the technology of now, thousands of people could be calling every minute. And, with ten thousand channels and nothing worth a crap on, thousands of people watch this show. "Oh, I know this answer!", is probably a super common line among the listeners. With these super hotties constantly saying the 'lounge' needs callers, I think it's a bunch of B.S. Frequently, someone who does get through, sounds amazed that they're actually talking to the host. Many of them sound depressed and worn out by probably waiting so long and trying so many times to get on and score some pocket change. Wow, the producers must be just raking it in. No wonder there are so few commercials. Commercials are only on to give time for more (primarily losers) to text in and wait, and hope, and dream, and fantasize about--- what? --- winning enough money for a tank of gas and a dinner at Mc..something? I only watch it now & then on my brothers TV, because he likes to watch it when he's on the computer. I'll sit there for 15 to 20 minutes and look at Mel (one of the tastiest looking women on TV) and laugh at the scam that's in front of me. Then, I have to leave; even if I don't! People who have an active life, can only take this show in extreme moderation. Mel, get yourself into the movies, or TV sitcoms, or something. Many of us are infatuated with you! Even with the super cu-ties, I'm amazed this show is still on! | neg |
Wonderfully put together..I wish there was a follow up to this documentary to follow up with the lives of some and celebrate the lives of others lost...there should be a part two..a real one. It was great..the film wasn't long enough..I would like to know why the creator of the film did not follow up!! this is so important to the community period..well if your are reading this please consider doing another documentary of this sort...I am really tired of hearing from naive writers how AIDS and Men go together when they don't; actually its the hetero's that we need to look into..this film didn't even bother to mention HIV or AIDS and I was so glad for that..I really appreciated the break downs and definitions too. Thank you s much for allowing this film to exist. | pos |
Within the first 17 minutes of director Bradford May's "Darkman III: Die Darkman Die", we have already been subjected to a silly recap and accompanying voice-over on the first two films, hilarious over-acting, about three minutes of footage simply ripped from the second film and re-edited slightly to seem like new footage, and a lengthy advertisement the scarred and tormented title character watches about Universal Theme Parks- Universal being the company that distributed this film. Yes, "Darkman III: Die Darkman Die" is quite the handful when it comes to cheap cash-ins on the success of a previous film.<br /><br />This time around, the disfigured anti-hero Peyton Westlake (aka, "Darkman"; portrayed by "Mummy" actor Arnold Vosloo) locks horns with evil crime-lord and lousy husband Peter Rooker (played in a brilliantly over-the-top performance by Jeff Fahey), and over the course of the 87 minute film grows to develop an affection for Rooker's wife and daughter, once again learning to care for another person.<br /><br />Blah. Blah. Blah.<br /><br />This film is basically just a silly way for the studio to make some more money off of Sam Raimi's original film, which I consider to be a great action-suspense film.<br /><br />Oh yeah, and there are also a number of silly sub-plots, including a villainess who supposedly was one of the original doctors to save Darkman following his scarring, and her seducing our hero into thinking she is an ally before revealing her nefarious plot to help Rooker create more super-human powered thugs like Darkman. Apparently, she can't just do the same procedure on the thugs that she performed on Darkman. Why? I can't really explain it, because the movie certainly doesn't.<br /><br />There's also an assassination sub-plot involving a District Attourney who is threatening to bring down Rooker's organization, and some other very silly things going on.<br /><br />But it doesn't really add up. This film feels like two or three episodes of a television show edited together more than an actual film. The direction alternates between pretty good and downright sloppy (a scene where Darkman rides his train-like vehicle and dodges a rocket-launcher is just plain silly), and the editing is a mixed-bag. The film just moves too quickly for anyone to really care what's going on. And without spoiling it, the final 15 minutes of this movie, and indeed, the entire series is just kinda... I dunno... Another 15 minutes of mixed-bag footage.<br /><br />In fact, commenting on the editing, one of my favorite things in this film is watching for footage re-used from the previous films, and then looking for footage within this film that is repeated multiple times. Yes, it's that cheap. It's one thing to do a re-cap at the beginning of the film, and maybe repeat a shot or two, but in the sheer volume they do it (minutes of footage repeated from previous films), it's just sloppy and amateurish.<br /><br />Also, I have to say that Darkman's psychedelic montage freak-outs are a bit overdone in this film. They are so stylized and overdone that they do work, but only in light doses and in proper context, as Raimi did in the original film. Here, there are at least four or five, and they feel very abrupt and out-of-place.<br /><br />That being said, the film is not without some good points. A few action scenes are well-done. The cliché story of Darkman yearning for a real life works suitably for a direct-to-DVD feature. Some of the acting is nice, particularly from Rooker's wife, portrayed by the beautiful Roxann Dawson. Also, while no Danny Elfman, composer Randy Miller composes some nice music that builds off of Elfman's original themes.<br /><br />But overall, the film is too quick, cheap and silly to be taken seriously. Arnold Vosloo seems alternatively bored and exuberant from scene to scene, and Fahey, while a joy to watch as an over-the-top villain, just doesn't quite fit in with the series.<br /><br />Like "Darkman II", I would recommend this to fans of the original, who will surely get a laugh. Otherwise, you need not apply. A four out of ten. | neg |
And I mean ultra light. This film features four giant stars, about three and a half jokes and nothing beyond that.<br /><br />There really isn't too much to say about this stinker, other than that although it has a couple of really good bits, most of it isn't very funny. Nor does it work at all as a romance. How about as a romantic comedy? Not on your life. Most of the dialogue is way too flat to be sophisticated, much less amusing.<br /><br />What's really ashame is the premise is not bad at all. This movie could have been so much more, especially with all the recent focus on some of the bogus ways in which films are promoted, complete with phony quotes from critics. The film uncovers the un-mined territory of the press junket -- those all expense paid trips for journalists who almost always write nice reviews. But instead of exploring what should have been a motherlode of jokes, it devotes all of about three minutes to this territory and moves on in pursuit of the film's lame romance.<br /><br />The same with Catherine Zeta-Jones' character -- the whinny, self centered movie star. Zeta-Jones does a good job with what she's given, but she's given practically nothing. It's all homogenized junk that looks very pale in comparison with some of the things we've heard about stars over the years.<br /><br />In the end, it is hard to understand what made Zeta-Jones, Julia Roberts, John Cusack and Billy Crystal sign aboard this doomed ship, which sinks like a rerun of "The Love Boat." In fact, as the old joke goes, they should have forgotten the script and filmed the deal. It would probably make a better story. So, go ahead and tell us, filmmakers, what do you have on these stars that got them to appear in this? | neg |
Scary, but mostly in the sense that will it be over before I turn 70. I saw this as a late night re-run in about 1976 and thought it would never end. Like crackers, it's better than nothing (but just).<br /><br />Ray Milland is a little scary because he looks as if he's been stuffed by a taxidermist. Yvette Mimeux looks as if she's smoked up all the Beautiful Downtown Burbank Brown. <br /><br />It's a sort of Roy Rogers version of Rosemary's Baby. This is one turkey that should never have been made. If you have insomnia and it's 1:30 on Saturday morning and there's nothing on but replays of the 1972 Roller Derby Chamionship, then I guess it beats that. But God help you if this is your only choice for entertainment. | neg |
I wouldn't call it awful, but nothing at all shines in this movie, and it is encumbered with some seriously unbelievable basic plot development. It starts out well, but once the main hit is done, it devolves into a long subplot around a young girl which is not compelling, and some action scenes which are theatre of the absurd unrealistic. For example there is a prolonged shootout at the airport in which the lighting is all stroboscopic. No explanation for that. How credible is it that a airport storage area is going to have lights that flash on and off confusingly, and just enough to let Snipes do his incredible escape schtick? This is one of far too few action scenes punctuated by pointlessly drawn out set ups that just fails to draw one into suspending belief.<br /><br />In addition, the whole premise seems to be that the United States CIA team can shoot the place up but get away with it by saying "national security" to the Brits. This gimmick relies on a stereotype that is to far afield from reality to be satisfying.<br /><br />There are a lot better action movies out there. Better formulated, better executed. This one is entertaining at times but there is just not enough meat on the bone and after a while it becomes downright boring -- something that should never happen in a good action movie. | neg |
Come on Tina Fey you can do better then this. As soon as the movie started i knew how it would end. Sure it was funny at times. Even laugh out loud funny. But there isn't enough laughs to save this movie. I don't recommend buying this. At the most i recommend renting it but thats all. Baby Mama has some funny scenes but is predictable and fails to have the heartwarming ending it strives for.<br /><br />Tina Fey and Amy Poalher made a good team. Mean Girls is one of my favorite movies. Tina Fey and Amy Poalher both did great in that and they do good in this. But this isn't there best. Baby Mama had a great supporting cast. Dane Cook, Sigourney Weaver and Steve Martin add to the casts greatness.<br /><br />Another pregnancy movie has hit the cinema world. After the great Knocked Up and Juno, Baby Mama looks very average when compared. Knocked Up and Juno are Hilarious, Heartwarming and have endings that leave you with a smile on your face. Baby Mama's ending was unfunny and dull.<br /><br />Baby Mama wasn't the best comedy of the year and it doesn't try to be. I recommend it but don't expect it to be totally hilarious. Expect a average comedy that doesn't give the big emotional ending it tries to have. I give Baby Mama.....<br /><br />4/10 | neg |
Probably the most whimsical installment of the first season, 'Shore Leave' has its ups and downs; some parts drag on too long and others are unambitiously cut short, but one can't deny they threw in everything but the proverbial kitchen sink to make this an entertaining episode. Kirk and crew seem to have found the perfect planet for shore leave after an extended tour of duty has left everyone on board in need of rest, relaxation and so on. It appears for all intents and purposes to be an uninhabited Earth, with beautiful scenery and an ideal climate. The first indication that things might go just a little awry is when McCoy, leading an advance team, spots Alice (from Wonderland) following a large white rabbit wearing a vest. Kirk beams down and finds the others reporting similarly bizarre happenings and encounters. The one thing they all have in common is that each crew member was thinking about the person/place/thing they discovered right before they discovered it. This doesn't immediately sink in with Kirk or anyone else. More strangeness ensues, including sightings of Don Juan, a Siberian tiger, a WW2 fighter plane, etc; Kirk meets up with Ruth, a gorgeous old girlfriend (of course) and a bully from his Academy days, Finnegan. The chase/fight scene with Finnegan goes on too long but at the same time, McCoy is run through with a lance by a knight on horseback and apparently killed. Finally, an elderly man appears and explains what has been happening. The planet is a futuristic 'amusement park' where visitors have only to imagine something to have it appear. Nothing is permanent; McCoy isn't really dead. Once this is explained, Kirk decides to order shore leave for everyone after all. Despite the 'it was all a dream' sort of ending, 'Shore Leave' holds up as another first-rate episode of Star Trek's first season. | pos |
dark angel rocks! the best show i have seen in ages damn those people who took it off! me and my friends have gatherings to watch every DA episode! takes like 4 days but it is worth it! it finished before it finished what it wanted to say and that annoys the hell out of me! | pos |
The small California town of Diablo is plagued with mysterious deaths after sheriff Robert Lopez unearths an ancient box.Legend has it that the box holds the sixteenth-century Mexican demon named Azar.FBI agent Gil Vega is sent to investigate the murders and joins forces with the sheriff's daughters,Dominique and Mary to fight with evil and bloodthirsty demon."The Legend of Diablo" is an absolute garbage.The film lacks scares and gore,the acting is amateurish and the direction is bad.The animation is the only one aspect of the film I enjoyed.I'm a big fan of indie horror flicks,for example I loved "Torched","Live Feed","Bone Sickness" or "Neighborhood Watch",unfortunately "The Legend of Diablo" is a huge misfire.Definitely one to avoid. | neg |
Oldboy is set in Korea & starts as a drunken Dae-su Oh (Min-Sik Choi) is bailed out of the police station by his friend only to be abducted, Dae-su wakes up & finds himself in a small room which he will be imprisoned in for the next fifteen years. Dae-su is fed & looked after by his unknown captors but is never allowed out of the room, Dae-su begins to train himself to avenge himself after he gets out which he intends to do by scrapping away the cement from the brickwork with a chopstick. However before Dae-su finishes he is gassed & rendered unconscious, when he wakes up Dae-su finds himself free on the roof of a tall building dressed & all moneyed up. Dae-su instantly sets about trying to find out who imprisoned him, after meeting the pretty Mido (Hye-jeong Kang) the two fall in love & together with her help Dae-su finally finds what he is looking for but the truth comes at a price...<br /><br />This South Korean production was co-written & directed by Chan-wook Park & has gotten any number of glowing reviews (the sort that distributors can pick quotes out & plaster them on the video box) & even won the Grand Prize of the Jury at Cannes while it was also nominated for the Golden Palm so surely Oldboy is a true classic? Well not for me it isn't since as I can't understand why it's so liked & I would go as far as to say I pretty much hated it apart from one or two isolated moments. For a start I couldn't get into the story at all, I just didn't like it as I thought it was slow & boring & while many out there would have you believe Oldboy has the bestest most shocking twist ever I thought it was rather plain & not very well executed either. The ending in which Dae-su goes to the New Zealand Alps to be hypnotised feels tagged on as well almost as if the makers wanted some sort of happy ending. At almost two hours I almost fell asleep I was so bored, the violence is tame & it's the thought of what's happening that I would imagine most people have a problem with rather than what is actually shown. In fact Oldboy has a very low body count of about seven & one mild sex scene, it's really not that graphic or memorable. I didn't warm to any of the character's & while I accept Oldboy has an alright concept & premise it fails to deliver & it's one film that I will never understand why so many people seem to like.<br /><br />Based on a Japanese Manga of the same name Oldboy the film looks alright, there's one or two nice visual moments here although while everyone raves about the hallway fight that takes place in one continuous shot I was pretty unimpressed & thought the fight choreography was quite dull. The actual on-screen gore violence amounts to very little, Dae-su eats a live Octopus which is apparently quite normal in Korea anyway, there are some fight scenes, a severed hand, someones teeth are pulled out & there's a bit of blood at the end.<br /><br />The budget was supposedly around the $4,000,000 mark which is actually a fair bit, filmed in South Korea & New Zealand. The acting looks alright but it's hard to tell when actors are speaking a different language.<br /><br />Oldboy is a film that I found an absolute chore to sit through, I don't mind subtitled films or foreign films or paying attention to the plot as I followed the thing perfectly but I just didn't like any of it & it's as simple & straightforward as that. Apparently the second in director Choi-wook Park's revenge trilogy which also includes Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance (2002) & Lady Vengeance (2005). | neg |
I read somewhere that when Kay Francis refused to take a cut in pay, Warner Bros. retaliated by casting her in inferior projects for the remainder of her contract.<br /><br />She decided to take the money. But her career suffered accordingly.<br /><br />That might explain what she was doing in "Comet Over Broadway." (Though it doesn't explain why Donald Crisp and Ian Hunter are in it, too.) "Ludicrous" is the word that others have used for the plot of this film, and that's right on target. The murder trial. Her seedy vaudeville career. Her success in London. Her final scene with her daughter. No part logically leads to the next part.<br /><br />Also, the sets and costumes looked like B-movie stuff. And her hair! Turner is showing lots and lots of her movies this month. Watch any OTHER one and you'll be doing yourself a favor. | neg |
This has to be the greatest practical joke ever. I'm amazed that all the other actors kept a straight face. I might be wrong but the impression I get from this movie was that they duped Frank Stallone and Joe Estevez into acting in this movie that has a budget of just under $40, depending on how much those nerf bats and spray painted catcher's equipment cost, create the most incoherent movie ever created, and sit back and laugh at the fact that Joe Estevez and Frank Stallone weren't in on the joke. <br /><br />If by some chance they weren't kidding and they legitimately tried to make a real movie then I feel sorry for everyone involved in the creation. I've had quite a love affair with cheesy movies, but this movie is so bad I can hardly watch it. They repeat pointless "special effects" so many times that it's obvious they were just trying to cover up the fact that they only shot 30 minutes of footage. If I were forced to watch this movie on repeat I would bludgeon myself unconscious with my own hands after about one and a half times through. No offense to the great Frank Stallone, but I would rather watch Sylvester teach a fingerpainting class for 10 hours than watch that movie ever again. | neg |
My son was 7 years old when he saw this movie, he is now on a Russian Fishing vessel and said that the movie he was most impressed with and that has lingered in his mind all of these 39 years is the movie of The Legend of the Boy and the Eagle. He has asked if it were possible for me to get this for him. I am sure that a lot of things go through his head as he has only 3 hours of daylight and he has been on this ship for 3 months and will have 3 more months before his contract expires. Since we have Indian blood he connects to this movie. On January 27th he will turn 47 years old and I would like to be able to obtain this movie for him. He lives in Thailand and has been a commercial fisherman for the past 17 years and as we all know this is one of the most dangerous jobs. Can you help me obtain this movie? Thanking you in advance, Dolly Crout-Soto, Deerfield Beach, FL | pos |
Two sailors are on leave--ladies man Joseph Brady (Gene Kelly) and shy innocent Clarence Doolittle (Frank Sinatra). They meet beautiful Susan Abbott (Kathryn Grayson) and both fall in love with her. There's more but you've probably guessed it.<br /><br />The story (even for a 1940s musical) is ridiculous and everything is so nice and wholesome--gets annoying pretty quick. Also this movie is far too long. It's 140 minutes and that's way too much for such a silly story. There are also some boring numbers by Jose Iturbi and his orchestra. Still this is worth catching.<br /><br />When Kelly is dancing or Sinatra or Grayson are singing this becomes magical. None of the songs are particularly memorable but Sinatra had such a beautiful voice you won't care. It's shot in rich Technicolor with all the gloss MGM had. The acting is OK--Kelly is fine (although seeing him as a ladies man is pushing it) and Sinatra is just great (although seeing HIM as a shy guy was pushing it too!). Grayson is given nothing to do but she's incredibly beautiful to look at. Some shots of her literally took my breath away! There are plenty of highlights here: Sinatra and Kelly's big dancing and singing number; Sinatra singing anything; Grayson's two songs and the justly famous animated sequence in which Kelly dances with Jerry--an animated mouse! Tom does a funny cameo too. Also there's little Dean Stockwell who steals every scene he's in.<br /><br />So it's too long and the plot just doesn't hold up but it's still worth catching. This was a huge hit in its day. | pos |
Harvey Keitel gives a typically top-rate performance in one of his first-ever lead roles as brash, ambitious, uncompromising young staff producer Coleman Buckmaster, a real talented hot shot with a discerning "golden ear" and the son of a famous jazz pianist to boot. Coleman's eager to cut some tracks with the smokin' R&B outfit the Group (none other than Earth, Wind & Fire in their awesomely funky prime), but his rigidly commercial greedhead label A-Chord Records run by uptight, mob-connected middle-of-the-road square Jerry (a properly unhip Ed Nelson) wants him to record a hit single for the hideously insipid Carpenters-like pop pap trio the Pages, an allegedly squeaky clean bunch which includes smarmy pedophile step-dad Franklin (a perfectly vile Bert Parks), bitchy, neurotic daughter Velour (a fine, flighty turn by perky, comely brunette Cynthia Bostwick), and hedonistic smack addict son Gary (former 50's juvenile sitcom staple Jimmy Boyd). The extremely naive and idealistic Coleman must learn pronto how the music business truly works and play the lowdown dirty game as best he can or else he'll lose both the Group and his credibility.<br /><br />Adopting an acrid, incisive, corrosively harsh and unsparingly biased script from syndicated columnist and rock journalist Robert Lipsyte, director Sig Shore (who's most famous for producing "Superfly") shows a decidedly cynical and unflattering depiction of the various bribes, pay-offs, broken promises, back-stabbings, duplicities and double-dealings which are an unpleasant, yet intrinsic part of the largely corrupt rock music business, with particularly thoughtful thematic asides concerning Art vs. Commerce, fighting to retain one's artistic integrity, and the then recent push to homogenize rock into bland, useless, creatively stagnant mainstream respectability. Moreover, this gritty, downbeat gem offers a rare fascinating, minutely detailed and wholly believable backstage glimpse at the recording process as recording booth console cowboy Coleman struggles gamely in his own words to "make chicken salad out of chicken s**t." Appearing in nifty bits are disc jockey and legendary "fifth Beatle" Murray the K as leering, lecherous DJ Big John Little (Velour bites his hand after Big John paws her thigh during a live on-air interview!), New York soul DJ and host of NBC's "Friday Night Videos" Frankie Crocker as his own jazzy'n'jivin' self, R&B singer-songwriter Doris Troy (she penned the lovely "Just One Look") as a church pianist, and tubby, bald-pated 70's blaxploitation favorite Charles MacGregor as a priest at a wedding. The rather poor sound and Allan Metzger's sloppy cinematography inadvertently add to the film's overall ragged, rough-around-the-edges documentary-style authenticity. Although technically a bit lacking, this movie overall still rates as one of the great, most bitterly pessimistic unsung behind-the-scenes rocksploitation gems from the 70's. | pos |
I love bad movies: Showgirls, Plan 9 from Outerspace, so on. And this movie fits right in. Don't believe anyone who tells you this is good film. It's downright awful. Tim Curry's accent moves from German to Portuguese to Hungarian. There's a person in a gorilla suit who is supposed to be able to communicate using a glove that interprets the ape's sign language. There is a scene with a killer hippo that moves around a river like a Great White Shark. There are people hopping up and down Mt. Kilimanjaro as if there were escalators installed on it. This thing is laughably ridiculous. So ridiculous I was rolling on the floor. It is totally implausible. I loved every minute of it. | neg |
This movie appears to have been an on the job training exercise for the Coppola family. It doesn't seem to know whether to be an "A" or a "B" western. I mean, the hero is called Hopalong Cassidy for God's sake. William Boyd must be spinning in his grave.<br /><br />All the "B" western cliches are here. The two-gun pearly toothed hero in the white hat with the trusty steed ("C'mon Thunder"), the all-in-black bearded villain, the heroine in distress, the rancher in trouble, the cowardly sheriff, over the top bad guys etc.<br /><br />The acting, with few exceptions, is strictly from the Yakima Canutt School of Acting. Chris Lybbert (who?) as the hero and Louis Schweibert (who?) as the villain look like they would have been more at home in a 30's Poverty Row quickie. The addition to the cast of veteran performers Martin Sheen, Robert Carradine, Clu Gulager and Will Hutchins helps a little, but they are not given enough to do to salvage this one.<br /><br />What was the point of the Martin Sheen/Robert Carradine framing sequences? Are we to believe that the Sheen character was a ghost? What was the purpose of the black gloves? It just didn't make sense.<br /><br />Being a great lover of westerns from all genres, I tried hard to find some redeeming qualities in this film. The cinematography was quite good and the settings looked very authentic. Aside from the hero and main villain, the other characters looked authentic.<br /><br />If the producers were going to resurrect the Hopalong Cassidy character, they might have given some thought to portraying him as he was originally written - a grizzled foul-mouthed ranch hand with a chip on his shoulder, the kind of part Lee Marvin would have excelled in.<br /><br />What else can I say but..on Thunder, on big fellow. | neg |
Tom Hanks like you've never seen him before. Hanks plays Michael Sullivan, "The Angel of Death". He is a hitman for his surrogate father John Rooney(Paul Newman)an elderly Irish mob boss. Sullivan's young son(Tyler Hoechlin)witnesses what his father does for a living and both are soon on the road for seven weeks robbing banks to avenge the murder of Sullivan's wife and other son. Enter Jude Law as a reporter/photographer willing to kill Sullivan himself for the chance to add to his collection of photos of dead mobsters. Filmed beautifully catching the drama of life in the 30's. Sometimes the pace bogs down, but then a burst of graphic violence sustains the story. Director Sam Mendes directs this powerful drama about loyalty, responsibility, betrayal and the bonding of a secretive man and his young son. Other notable cast members are: Dylan Baker, Stanley Tucci, Daniel Craig and Jennifer Jason Leigh. Hanks again proves to be excellent in a very memorable movie. Make room for some Oscars! | pos |
You don't have to be a Notre Dame football fan to enjoy this, because I am not....but, as a football fan in general, this was fun to watch. It almost makes me a Fighting Irish devotee. If you can't get caught up in the emotion in this film, gridiron fan or not, you better check your pulse because this is an emotional film with some very touching scenes.<br /><br />As a sports fan, I loved watching the classic footage of early college games. They had some pretty wild plays back then with a lot of laterals. They interspersed that footage with Pat O'Brien shown as head coach Knute Rockne on the sidelines and some of the players, such as George Gipp (Ronald Reagan). <br /><br />Reagan gets pretty good billing in this film but his part really isn't that large. O'Brien is the only actor with a large role in here. The rest - all playing nice characters - include Gale Page as Rockne's wife "Bonnie;" Donald Crisp, as the Notre Dame's "Father John Callahan;" Albert Bassermann as chemistry professor "Father Nieuwland" and Reagan, as Gipp, perhaps Notre Dame's most talented and famous player ever.<br /><br />What this film does nicely is balance the personal story with the football. Neither angle is overdone. The characters in here all people you can root for, as there are no villains. On my last look, it was interesting to discover Johnny Sheffield - Tarzan's son - playing Rockne at the age of seven and to see George Reeves, TV's Superman, as one of the players. <br /><br />There have been very few football movies made in Hollywood, for some reason, and precious few good ones. This is one of them. | pos |
My first review of 2010 is "Into The Blue 2: The Reef". The story is about two divers played by Chris Carmack and Laura Vandervoort who love to explore hidden treasures at a bottom of a local reef. One day after a day of exploring they are approached by a couple played by David Anders and Marsha Thomason. They tell the young divers that they want to hire them to explore the reef and find a rare artifact about Columbus' hidden treasure that is reported at the bottom of the reef.<br /><br />Next day the four dive to the bottom of the reef and of coarse after a whole day of diving they find nothing. A few more days past and the two hired divers found out that they a part of a major deadly plot in which they can't escape otherwise they will be killed. They were hired to find two big containers. One contains a nuclear reactor and the other contains a core.<br /><br />The movie also has a back story about another person (brother of the lead character) trying to patch things up with his girlfriend, I reckon this part of the story was a waste of time, this also includes a very steamy sex scene between the couple which to me is a complete waste and wasn't needed to be shown.<br /><br />However apart from that, this movie does have some good underwater photography and the colors blend in well which is why it receives 4 stars. Into The Blue 2 is a sequel only by name. None of the original actors or characters return, it has a dumb plot, stupid characters and a boring climax. | neg |
Intruder in the Dust (1949) Dir: Clarence Brown <br /><br />Production: MGM<br /><br />Excellent 'Southern Gothic' tale, adapted from the Faulkner novel, about a black man, accused of the murder of a white man, who asks a young white boy he has befriended to help him prove his innocence. Lucas Beauchamp (Juano Hernandez) is something of an anomaly in this small town. He's a black man who owns the land he lives on and doesn't think much of the diseased social order that mostly keeps the peace here and in many similar small towns. So when Lucas is found holding a gun over the dead body of Vinson Gowrie, shot in the back no less, young Chick Mallison (Claude Jarman) (who Lucas once saved after Chick fell through the ice while hunting on his land) fears that the town finally has the chance to "make Lucas a n*****." Arrested, and with a very real chance of being lynched before the night is through, Lucas reaches out to Chick for help, as the only person he knows "not cluttered with notions". Chick asks his Uncle John, a lawyer, to defend Lucas and while the man is initially bothered by his own notions he agrees and they race against the gathering mob to save Lucas' life.<br /><br />The film has an uncommon frankness for its time and is mostly free of moralizing. The lawyer character has a tendency to speak incredibly self-aware dialogue that sounds mostly like something from the printed page, but it has minimal impact on the tone. That's a credit to the rich characterization of everyone else. Juano Hernandez, who had mostly appeared in Oscar Micheaux films, is superb as the proud Lucas. Porter Hall as the murdered man's father, in maybe the best role I've ever seen him in, and Elizabeth Patterson as a plucky old lady sympathetic to Lucas' case, standout in support roles. The setting is perfectly realized. It is actually filmed in Oxford, Mississippi, Faulkner's hometown. Brown also uses the crowd in an effective way, it's always an anonymous mob against a single person (like Lucas when he's arrested or John when he's going up to his office), that is very threatening. Or the grotesquerie of the whole town gathering at the jailhouse to witness the lynching like it was a parade. Of note is an absolutely riveting scene when Chick and his friend Aleck go evidence gathering in a cemetery. Robert Surtees (THE BAD AND THE BEAUTIFUL, THIRTY SECONDS OVER TOKYO, BEN-HUR) shot the picture. <br /><br />*** 1/2 out of 4 | pos |
This is another of the many B minus movies tagged as film noir in the hope of generating some interest in something that is devoid of it. All aspects of the film - script, acting, direction - are mediocre. The acting by the three leads is wooden. I guess John Dall was expected to go places in the movie business but then someone realised he had little talent and therefore ended up doing TV work. Lee J Cobb who is usually terrific cannot rise above the poor script and poor direction. Jane Wyatt is supposed to be a femme fatale but comes nowhere near convincing the viewers. The movie does have two of the strangest looking cars that I have ever seen, the one in which John Dall goes after Lee J Cobb is particularly strange. The DVD transfer is typical Alpha. | neg |
This is the second Eytan Fox film I have seen. The fantastic actor, Lior Ashkenazi, who starred in Walk on Water, has a minor role in this film also.<br /><br />But the real stars are the young Israelis who live together in a tiny apartment - Noam (Ohad Knoller), Lulu (Daniela Virtzer), and Yelli (Alon Friedman); and the Palestinian that joins them off and on - Ashraf (Yousef 'Joe' Sweid). There is sort of a Friends/Sex in the City thing going on (mostly gay), and they all just want the war to end so they can go on with their lives in peace.<br /><br />But, that's the rub. No matter how many posters you put up or how many raves for peace you have, the war is not going to end. Many have tried over the years to bring the two sides to the table, but they just want to keep it going for whatever reason. There are many on the Israeli side, both there and here in the US, who just want it all and will not consider peace. There are many on the Palestinian side who apparently would be out of a job should peace ever come. It is in no one's interest to end this war, and the children suffer.<br /><br />This is always on your mind as you watch this funny and engaging film. It won't go away. You know something tragic is going to happen and, of course, it does. With the feelings on both sides running strong, and revenge as the motivator, tragedy always happens, and that is what makes this an adult version of Friends/Sex in the City. There is no superficiality. It is real life, and it was a beautiful thing to see. | pos |
This TV production of 1970 starring Susannah York and George C. Scott is another proof of how difficult it is to adopt "Jane Eyre" to the screen, and how much can go wrong in doing so. It is true that the movie suffered in the transfer to DVD - some scenes which were complete in the original were shortened and so badly edited that there are striking continuity gaps and that even one crucial scene between Jane and Rochester starts in the middle of a sentence! But even if the editing were better, the film would not be. The script is bad, the portrayal of the characters is untrue to the novel and nearly all actors are miscast. As a consequence one does not have the feeling of watching an adaptation of Charlotte Brontë's novel at all. The problem is not only that a number of scenes are shortened or left out - this is the case with all the short adaptations - but that the remaining scenes do no at all capture the tone, the spirit, the atmosphere and the concept of the novel.<br /><br />This Jane Eyre for example completely leaves out Gateshead and begins with Jane's arrival at Lowood. While this is perfectly all right, since some scenes must by necessity be left out, it is not understandable that, instead of using the time gained (so to speak) and thoroughly portraying Jane's friendship with Helen, the influence Helen has for Jane's development, the lecture in Christian stoicism that she teaches her, the film nearly exclusively concentrates on the physical ill-treatment of Helen, which is driven to absurd extremes in this adaptation. What Helen has to suffer is bad enough as described in the novel, but here Miss Scatchard is portrayed as a kind of sadistic prison ward, who deliberately wants to drive Helen to a premature death. And this is about all which happens at Lowood. If you compare that to the deep impact the years spent in Lowood have on Jane in the novel, one can only state with regret that the movie does not even touch the surface of that particular episode in Jane's life. And this is the problem throughout this adaptation: It rushes from scene to scene, very often without transition, and nowhere comes even near the essence of the novel. The dialogues are an odd mixture of made-up lines and lines from the novel, very clumsily patched together, and the scenes between Jane and Rochester are so shortened that both share only 5 minutes together on screen before they fall in love, and the little conversation they have contains nothing of the brilliance, the intensity and also the humour of the conversations between Rochester and Jane in the novel. But the scriptwriter not only did Brontë's language injustice but in addition managed to ruin her moral set-up with just one sentence. When Rochester and Jane go to see Rochester's wife after the would-be wedding, Rochester says: "Yet I once loved her (his wife) as I love you now." The whole moral concept of the novel depends on the fact that Rochester is indeed an innocent victim of an amoral scheme and was trapped into marrying a mad woman whom he never loved, and that his effort to seek a true life partner is, if not sanctified by God's and man's law, yet understandable and forgivable! But this one sentence completely undermines Brontë's whole carefully constructed moral concept and turns Rochester into a dirty old man who wants a new young wife because his old one is of no use to him any longer.<br /><br />From the errors regarding the script to the errors regarding the casting: Now I am by no means one of those who insist on physical resemblance between an actor and the literary figure he portrays, but by no stretch of imagination is it possible to picture lovely, blonde, blue-eyed and full-mouthed Susannah York as the novel's plain heroine. In addition, Ms York was in her thirties when the film was shot and looks it. Played by her, the novel's shy, reserved and inexperienced young Jane becomes a perfectly poised, graceful and mature woman, completely sure of herself and her deserts. I do not say that Susannah York does not play well and convincingly but the woman she portrays is not Brontë's Jane Eyre. To cast George C. Scott as Rochester must have been motivated by the desire to have a Rochester who looked old enough to make the 18 years difference in age between Jane and Rochester plausible. Scott looks as if he were around 50 but acts in various scenes as if he were 70.<br /><br />To compliment the "maturity" of the leading actors all passion, desire and despair seems to have been deliberately wrung out of the script. The scene between Jane and Rochester after the wedding, the emotional climax of the novel, has become a calm, rational conversation between two middle-aged persons, at the end of which Rochester falls asleep. When Jane returns to him in the last scene, he is just as mildly pleased as a grandfather who has just been paid a visit in his old people's home by his favourite granddaughter. The only character who displays an appropriate amount of emotion is St. John, of all people. Ian Bannen plays him so passionately and his eager plea for Jane's love is so touching that one gets the impression that Bannen was modelling his St. John on the Rochester of the novel. But good though Bannen is, his St. John is just as far from the novel as York's Jane and Scott's Rochester. The only redeeming features of this very disappointing "Jane Eyre" are the locations and the score, and I would only recommend this production to those who want to watch and compare every single adaptation of "Jane Eyre". | neg |
Forget depth of meaning, leave your logic at the door, and have a great time with this maniacally funny, totally absurdist, ultra-campy live-action "cartoon". MYSTERY MEN is a send-up of every superhero flick you've ever seen, but its unlikely super-wannabes are so interesting, varied, and well-cast that they are memorable characters in their own right. Dark humor, downright silliness, bona fide action, and even a touching moment or two, combine to make this comic fantasy about lovable losers a true winner. The comedic talents of the actors playing the Mystery Men -- including one Mystery Woman -- are a perfect foil for Wes Studi as what can only be described as a bargain-basement Yoda, and Geoffrey Rush as one of the most off-the-wall (and bizarrely charming) villains ever to walk off the pages of a Dark Horse comic book and onto the big screen. Get ready to laugh, cheer, and say "huh?" more than once.... enjoy! | pos |
All the comments so far about this movie are negative but I have to say I found "The Net" engaging. Few movies can keep me on the edge of my seat but this one did. Another plus for it is that most action/suspense films are full of language but this one had little profanity. I found it an enjoyable movie to watch. I am slightly biased though, being a big Sandra Bullock fan. *wink* | pos |
I went into this movie expecting it to be really god-awful. And it was. I really felt sorry for the star-studded cast- Kathy Bates was a wonderful actress... before she made this movie- Vince Vaughn and Paul Giamatti were disappointing as usual but Miranda Richardson couldn't put in one of the fabulous performances I know and love her for. Fred's dad, played by Trevor Peacock (of Vicar of Dibley fame, amongst others), had about one line.<br /><br />The plot was predictable and all over the place, and the humour was... lacking. (However, there was one part of the movie where Santa enters the house of a Jewish family... that made me laugh just because their expressions were classic) Don't see this movie unless your only other alternative is having a head-on collision with a train (actually- maybe the train would be better...) | neg |
I work at a nuclear power plant, so I am getting a kick out of these replies.<br /><br />Seriously, I do. Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palisades_Nuclear_Generating_Station and you can see where I work.<br /><br />I could not think of a safer industry to work in. We are required by procedures to report events as minor as paper cuts. Any issue identified as being a potential concern with respect to nuclear, radiological, or industrial safety is immediately reported in the corrective action process.<br /><br />Bottom line is that nuclear plants in the US operate with safety in the front of their mind. | pos |
Why does C Thomas Howell do these movies? Cruise (Howell's one time co-star) does a huge blockbuster of WOTW and Howell follows with this lame effort.<br /><br />Where do I start here? Production Values - I'll start with the good stuff. The look and feel of some of the scenes in this movie are not too bad to be honest. The set-ups are okay in spots and the direction not too bad.<br /><br />Script - Terrible. A series of clunky scenes that could have been put in any order you like permeate throughout the movie. The amount of times the scene faded to black and reemerged a second later in the same room was uncountable. Very poor storyline (but so was the Cruise WOTW) takes some blame but an abysmal screenplay kills it off.<br /><br />Special FX - Okay, I don't want to be too harsh here as I imagine the budget was smaller than Cruise's lunch bill - but in the overall context of the film the effects are badly done. Some shots are quite impressive - mainly far off destruction shots of bridges, Washington, liner. But in the main the "alien" machines and tentacles themselves are dreadful. Also the camera quality is fuzzy on some shots and cuts away entirely on others.<br /><br />Acting - I'm a fan of Howell but as he has reduced himself to acting in these low-budget flicks - he has succumbed to the "over-acting" bug a long time ago. Look at his performance in The Hitcher and compare it to this movie. There is no comparison. He overdoes his facial expressions, his flailing arms and legs (where did he get that running style???) and for a final coup-de-gras look at the scene where he loses the photo of his family. Hysterical. But after saying all that - he is still the best actor on show here. Busey is embarrassing to look at and Peter Green (Zed is truly dead now baby) mumbles incoherently through his one and only scene. I honestly could not understand one word he said - I even went so far as trying to enable the subtitles on that scene - but the DVD did not have subtitles. This seems to be a real keep-it-in-the-family affair too as Howell's son, the director's wife and the line producer all make it into the film. None of them are good.<br /><br />Direction - not bad but not good either.<br /><br />Score - Dismal.<br /><br />Overall, a lame duck effort that will do nothing for Howell in his attempt to make it back to the big time. He should take a look at Rourke and try to figure out how he made in back to the A list but if he keeps doing stuff like this, he won't have a career soon enough.<br /><br />3/10. | neg |
I love this movie, first and foremost because of Mark Wahlberg is in it and secondly because the end justifies the means. There is something about this film that sucks you in and allows you to feel all of the emotions the characters are feeling. Jen Aniston is great as the girlfriend in this movie. It takes a look at the Rockstar lifestyle that so many hardcore rockers lived back in the day (perhaps these days they have gotten just abit smarter). It takes through a rainbow of emotions and has a lot of subtle facets to allow the light through. Like a diamond, this movie shines. You won't waste your popcorn on this one. Semi-chick flick but my husband enjoyed it too. There's some laughs thrown in too. | pos |
I am really surprised that this film only has a rating of 6.4 as of the time I did this review. While not exactly a great film, I do think it's one of the best films Dietrich did and it's a shame it isn't more highly regarded. I think a lot of the reason I liked the film so much is that the usual silly Dietrich persona as the "über-vamp" isn't present and her role required her to actually act. I just hate seeing film after film after film in the early days of her career where she seemed more like a caricature or cliché than a real woman. I don't necessarily blame Dietrich for the silly vampish films she made in the 1930s--audiences loved them and they did make her famous. But here, she showed she really could act. After all, just looking at her in films like MOROCCO, BLONDE VENUS and THE BLUE ANGEL, who would have guessed that she was well-cast to play a Gypsy! I was quite prepared to hate the film because of this casting decision, but it worked--she was pretty believable and a lot of fun to watch as well! The film is, essentially, a vehicle just for Ray Milland and Marlene Dietrich--the other supporting characters are very much secondary to the movie. Milland is a wanted spy in pre-WWII Germany and in his efforts to escape, he stumbles upon a rather frisky lone Gypsy (Dietrich) who instantly takes him to be a fulfillment of prophecy--in other words, her new lover! Milland is quite stuffy but reluctantly agrees to travel in her wagon--even putting on body paint and piercing his ears to make him look like a Gypsy (hence the title to the movie). Over time, he slowly starts to realize that underneath her very uncouth exterior is quite a woman and romance slowly blossoms.<br /><br />The film in a word is "charming". A nice romance with a good dose of comedy and fun--just the sort of picture you wish Hollywood still made. Also, please note the performance of Murvyn Vye as "Zoltan". He was very magnetic in the short time he was on film and I just loved his deep and beautiful voice.<br /><br />Finally, a sad note to consider. While the film is set in Germany, no mention is made of the upcoming Gypsy Holocaust. During the war, throughout German territory, the Nazis exterminated a huge percentage of Gypsies and so the final nice ending to the film is a tad far-fetched. | pos |
at first i thought it was bad because i had great expectations for this movie, but after giving some thought it IS that bad. i was almost caught up in hk's promotion of bad stars in bad movies. hk's new generation of actors and actresses not to mention bad script writers are bringing the industry down. at the moment im still trying to figure out how it gross so high. normally you cant lose in a movie with donnie yen and ekin (forget jackie, he's past his peak). but then i shouldve figure it out when twins was on the cover. it is cheesy, campy, very corny, i try to laugh from some of the jokes, but not only is the effect very minimal but the jokes are very recycled and not funny. im sorry i bought the movie. the only reason why some people think it is so good is because they are brainwashed into the hype that the twins are cute, and everybody likes them, and that everything they make is good and funny. and that if you like twins, then you are up to date...<br /><br />sigh... i miss the good hk movie days when jet li and stephen chow movies dominated the box office...<br /><br />movies from mainland china are much better than this, and they are shot for lower budgets. | neg |
Earnest effort which achieves some success to adapt the classic Odyssey story to a '30's nostalgia period piece. The adventurers this time are escaped convicts, wandering about the Depression afflicted South bungling their way into trouble.<br /><br />The greatest strength of the film is the wonderful music soundtrack, effectively evoking not only the era that this is set in, but the spiritual references that run rampant in the film. Besides its value to the tone of the movie, the music is just plain fun to listen to.<br /><br />What cripples the film is that the characters really aren't that likable. In a comedy, you need that element in order to have fun along with them in their misadventures. Instead, we have a bunch of selfish, arrogant, soulless, mean spirited nobodies who really have no positive points at all. They're not imposing enough to make you hate them either, so it's hard to relate to them at all. They're offered up as clowns, but like people who put clown makeup on and march in parades, they just aren't funny.<br /><br />Like the story that inspired it, the movie takes these guys on an "odyssey," encountering a variety of symbolic (some even mystical) characters. Everybody is stamped with offensive stereotypes, the operative word being "stupid." People are mocked right and left, and consequently, no one is left being particularly interesting or appealing. The movie doesn't like its own characters, and it doesn't let you like them, either.<br /><br />Riverside baptisms, beautiful sirens, stolen cars, fistfights, radio preachers, people being whipped with sticks; all are thrown at you in disjointed fashion. Some evoke a few laughs, others confuse or bore you. I did laugh when a nerdy guy beat the snot out of an especially obnoxious lead character. But there were a lot more pointlessly gratuitous scenes; an example: some '30's Dillinger-type guy strafes cows with a tommy-gun. Comedy? Symbolism? No; just mindless violence, which detracts from the intellectual nature of the original source material this story draws upon.<br /><br />Other adaptations of the Odyssey are much better. Unless you're a George Clooney fan, rent something else. But buy the soundtrack CD; the music is great. | neg |
A patchwork about 911. The 11 stories from 11 directors from 11 countries are sometimes humoristic, sometimes boring (the first one, for example), sometimes used to say to Americans "we have had more deaths than you, and you supported the murderers", sometimes really weird (but highly symbolic and interesting). I really loved the Claude Lelouch (personal live of a couple in New-York, showing that our day-to-day "problems" are unimportant), Shoei Imamura (bizarre, strongly anti-wars in general), and Idrissa Ouedraogo (funny, typical African optimism despite terrible day to day misery), and Youssef Chahine (an Egyptian intellectual, pro-peace, having moral difficulties to accept the U.S. policy towards Arab countries) I am really pleased to see that many Americans liked this movie. It shows that we (or they ? I am still Belgian, but living in Texas for 12 years) are still interested by other cultures, and able to question past and present actions of our government, like we should in a democracy. | pos |
I saw the second part of this beautiful period piece set on a ship sometime in the 19th century. Golding's book must be responsible for some of the superb dialogue but everything else was good too! I especially liked the way they created the period and feeling of being on the ship so well. For me this had a feeling of completeness about it which I know I won't be able to convey in words... Perhaps it was the way they mixed in technical and historical details about sailing in the eighteen hundreds to the story without messing it up. Benedict Cumberbatch was excellent, as was the rest of the cast. It's not often a mini-series sends me to the "zone", but this one did. | pos |
To be fair they did as well as they could with a budget of five shillings and sixpence, but the dialogue was more cheesy than 9lbs of emmental and the CGI was a little old hat now. maybe if some of the actors were not so perfectly chiselled out of granite it would have made the film a little better too.. To say this was awful is to do this film a mis-service, if you want to see something that is totally execrable, you gotta sit and waste a couple of hours of your life watching 'sickle', that is soo mind numbingly awful, its actually good,(several large alcoholic beverages are deriguer though. Any road up, I enjoyed this film and its gotta be worth a look if you have not seen it yet, just don't expect anything along the lines of 'jurassic park,the lost world' or 'apocalypto'. | neg |
It's just breathtaking in it's awfulness-- you really must see it!<br /><br />Depending on your perspective, Dylan Walsh is either the savior or the problem here: since he's the only one on screen that can actually get his lines out with something akin to natural cadences and inflection, he either ruins the movie by pointing up everyone else's flaws, or he saves it by providing some context for their awfulness.<br /><br />I'm inclined to the later view-- thanks to him, it works as high comedy. He's the 7 footer in a game of dwarf basketball, his skill set just doesn't apply in this context, and his discombobulation is delicious.<br /><br />The real treat though is Ms. Eastwood, whose inability to speak in plain English is so pervasive I actually googled her, expecting to learn that she was a Russian beauty who pronounced her lines phonetically, with no understanding of their meaning. But no: she's just a talent free American who will leave you laughing with every line she drops. Whether she knew what the lines meant must remain an open question. | neg |
Although I brought this film by accident (I thought it was the original Halloween(stupid eh!)) I was surprised by how good it was, many sequels just continue the events of the previous films, this however tried and succeeded in explaining the events of the prequels, why does Michael Myers kill people and how come he seems to have supernatural abilities. I thought this was a top horror film full of action, suspense and surprises, I'm very glad I brought it. I've given it 9 out of 10. | pos |
A tale of a young boy, Dexter (Joseph Mazzello) with AIDS who befriends a rough and tumble boy (played by Brad Renfro) his exact opposite, The Cure is sad, if a bit too soapy, pull at your emotions "message" movie with it's heart in the right place. For that fact alone, it's a recommended view. The highlight might be just watching them finding friendship and hanging out with each other when no one else accepts them. <br /><br />However since the real story centers on the boy's AIDS - things take off when one day at the local supermarket, Dexter's eye catches a checkout tabloid magazine that states a New Orleans doctor has discovered the cure. Both of them, obviously a tad naive, make it a plan to set out for New Orleans in whichever means possible. Which kinda pulled me two ways. It's a mite heart warming and I hate to nit-pick, but I found the plot wanders in a melodramatic, predictable sense and the proceedings have a coat of gloss over them like only movies can do. I couldn't escape the tugging notion I was watching a road trip movie about self discovery, sickness and growing up. For instance, I know they're young, but I found it a real task to belief in the things these boys do. Like boiling tree leaves and drinking the hot 'tea' or eating an experimental diet of chocolate bars because they believe it will combat the ravaging disease. To say nothing of them making a cross-country voyage as they do with no legal or downright scary repercussions. Still misgivings aside, those movie conventions you come to expect, it's a story worth seeing particularly with family. | pos |
I always found Betsy Drake rather creepy, and this movie reinforces that. As another review said, this is a stalker movie that isn't very funny. I watched it because it has CG in it, but he hardly gets any screen time. It's no "North by Northwest"... | neg |
While i was the video store i was browsing through the one dollar rentals and came upon this little gem. I don't know what it was about it but i just had a gut instic about it and wow was i ever right.<br /><br />The story centers around two girls who have just survived a school shooting. One of the girls is Alicia a teenage reble who is the only witness for the full attack and another is Deanna another survivor who survived a bullet to the head by some miracle. Thrown together by fate, they slowly begin a painful and beautiful display of healing and moving on.<br /><br />I just hate it when amazing movies fall through the cracks. Because wow what a performance by Busy Phillips and Erkia Christensen not to mention the rest of the cast! My only complaint is that the DVD was sorely lacking in special features. Oh and some of the jump cuts in the movie were kind of jarring. But all in all a excellent movie. | pos |
Excellent story with supperb acting by all of the cast. The warmth and insight into who Joad represents moved off of the screen and into the heart of this viewer. The frustration's and tenacity of Mother Madalyn in her quest to do HIS work till her last breath was also done with excellance by Barbara Hershey. The intertwining of the personalities of Joad and Mother Madalyn grew throughout the story line with a breath taking crescendo in the final scene. | pos |
I loved this movie. To be very fair, the movie starts off very slowly, with none of the characters being terribly sympathetic. It continues in this way for a good half of the film.<br /><br />But, if you're patient, you'll be greatly rewarded. What the first half of the movie lacks in character development and/or sympathy is adequately compensated for in the second half. It's a bit like riding a roller coaster - a slow, uphill climb to strat off with, and then speed, twists and turns, and a few surprises.<br /><br />As usual, Meryl Streep is wonderful. She is the finest actress of our time. William Hurt is good, if a bit wooden in spots. Renee Zellweger does a very good job, showing that her performance in Jerry McGuire wasn't a fluke. | pos |
OK, this movie was cool. I don't think it was the best movie ever made but it sure was fun. My brother and I still act out scenes once in a while, and will occasionally yank the movie out of the cupboard, blow off the dust and pop it in. Enjoyable all the way until the end, but a great concept. This is a movie that one has to just forget criticism all together and just enjoy. Judgment is victory for Robot Jox. | pos |
I think this is the best Norwegian movie I've ever seen. It's about 40-year old Andreas who gets hit by a subway-train, and suddenly finds himself in a strange city, however, everything here has been made ready for him. He has got a job, a house and clothes. At first, this city seems perfect, no death, no pain and no problems. Everywhere there are men in gray suits who cleans up and fixes everything that doesn't fit into their definition of perfect. However Andreas can't really seem to fit in and starts to long back to his old world, and tries with all means to get back. <br /><br />The thing that impresses my the most in this movie is how they way of making the city seem so surrealistic, even though I have seen a lot of these places in real life they seem so distant. Another thing that contributes greatly to the is the performance from the actors. Trond Fausa Aurvaag is just the perfect guy to play the confused and bothersome Andreas. And all the other characters are also doing a great job by playing apathetic (sounds like a hard job, doesn't it?). The strong difference between Andreas and the others leads to very amusing situations as well. <br /><br />All in all, this is a fabulous movie. The plot may be a little confusing, but the movie has such a great atmosphere I would recommend that everyone should go see it. <br /><br />And I wouldn't recommend listening to "ccscd212", as it seems he has seen too many commercial American movies and seems to have became too used to just getting served the moral on a silver plate. The way I see it there is not much in this film that tries to tell us about suicide being right or wrong. I consider it more of a warning of a direction our society seems to be taking. But sure, everyone can see a film in their own way. | pos |
How can they from Joe Don Baker (as Bufford Pusser in the first sequel) to Bo Svenson (as Bufford Pusser in the second sequel).Why did they do that for.Just Because Bo Svenon look more a like to Bufford Pusser they still should'nt of changed it because the first sequel it was Joe Don Baker as Bufford Pusser and that one of the thing i wanted to see in the second sequel.<br /><br />I would've given this movie a 7 out of 10 and i would've given it a 1 out of 10 if the story did'nt have anything to do with Bufford Pusser's life but it did and that why i had given this movie a 3 out 10.<br /><br />I strongly suggest that anyone who is planning on watching this cheese i suggest don't and watch the first sequel instead. | neg |
I think this was a HORRIBLE mistake on Disney's part. First off, Kuzco does NOT need to pass "emperor school" to become emperor! That's never happened before. Secondly, the new voices don't sound like the originals at all. Very poor redo. And while I adored the movie The Emperor's New Groove, the New School is just stupid. Like all the jokes are the same, and many are from the movie. The plot gets redundant, always Yzma (is that how you spell it?) trying to become empress, Kuzco stopping her, etc. Or Kuzco learning to become a better person. I think Kuzco gets annoying with his constant complaints and questions. He is a spoiled brat and it bothers me. I do not think this is worth five minutes of your time, much less a half hour. | neg |
The box at my video store is why I rented this one. It looked cool from the guys face axed in half so of course I had to give it a try. I was pleasantly surprised when I actually watched it being an "Evil Dead" fan. The Swedish makers must of been fans as well as they included lots of references in this masterpiece. A criminal tries to break into the house Evil Ed was editing the movies that ultimately drive him insane in and says "groovy" as he looks at his weapon quite like Bruce Campbell does when he finishes his chainsaw hand in Evil Dead 2. There is also many posters of that movie scattered around the house and office in the movie. They don't just spoof Evil Dead, as there is a Gremlin style puppet monster that cusses at Ed in his refrigerator. My personal favorite is when he chases his wife around the house and says "I'm coming to get you Barbra" which in case you did'nt know is Barbra's brothers main line in "Night of the Living Dead". This movie pretty much has it all good plot, cool characters, funny stuff (Gremlin puppet),scary stuff (demon doctor), excellent effects (exploding head) and a fair amount of female nudity. I only gave it a 9 because its kind of slow before Ed goes insane but its well worth the wait. So if you liked "Evil Dead 2" or any of the other movies I mentioned above you gotta rent and watch it with a freind, and when your done try "Brain Dead" because I hear it is similiar to this masterpiece. <br /><br /> | pos |
Natile Portman and Susan Sarandon play off of each other like a symphony in this coming of age story about a young girl, who is sentenced to life as the daughter of one of the nuttest women you will ever encounter. Sarandon has this ability, call it talent if you will, to play some of the most off-beat characters and bring their humanity to forefront of any film she makes. As the mother of this obviously brilliant and muture beyond her years young girl, Sarandon alternates between being the mom and being the child with the ease of a ballet dancer. More importantly she does it with strength and flare without stomping all over Portman's portrayal of the daughter. The question is always asked when we deconstruct the film plot, who changes? This film is certainly about the daughter, but if you look close at the dreams and sacrifices that Mom makes you come to understand that she changes in step with her daughter. I am willing to bet this makes all of us in the audience change also. The hallmark of fine drama | pos |
As was mentioned before in other comments, the major problem of NVA is that it cannot decide what it wants to be, slapstick of the cheapest kind or an honest parody of the East German Army. There are a couple of moments which are quite moving, for example when one of the recruits returns from the army prison in Schwedt with a completely broken personality. But in the end, Leander Haußmann goes for the infantile humour. No wonder the film flopped at the German box office as it's historically untruthful to the real situation in those training camps and led by an actor who is unfortunately incapable of giving a nuanced performance.<br /><br />However, there is the camera work of Frank Griebe who - as always - does a wonderful job. If it wasn't for his beautiful images I would have rated the film far worse. | neg |
15 PARK AVENUE is the address "Mithi/Mithali" (Konkona) is in search for from the movies beginning. "Prof.Anu" (Shabhana Azmi)is Mithi's extremely caring and loving half sister from Mithi's mom's earlier marriage. The movie revolves around these characters and looks into the life of a schizophrenic patient (Mithi). The director tries to explain to the viewer the imaginary world of Mithi, through her continuous blabbering to Anu and others. <br /><br />Konkona deserves not one but thousands of awards (which I am sure, she will be getting)for this rendition of Mithi in this movie. You can see the look of a patient written on her face, by the drooping lips and sleepy eyes, from the first scene itself. Rahul Bose has done a good job, but has been reduced to one half of the movie in spite of his importance in their life.<br /><br />Watch out for the intense relationships shown between the characters of the movie, Mithi & Anu, Anu & Anu's Mom and between Anu & Sanjiv (Kanwaljit Singh). Shabhana Azmi, as usual has done a riveting performance to be remembered as the sister, who sacrificed her life for Mithi.<br /><br />The movie might not be your usual Hindi potboiler, but can certainly make people look at the schizophrenic patients in a different light altogether.<br /><br />As usual, Aparna Sen brings the movie to a different ending rather than any clichéd ones, we might think off. Hats off to her, for this great movie!!! | pos |
UK newspaper reviews seem to have concentrated on the fact that the reviewers tend to know Toby Young, the journalist on whose real-life experiences this movie is based. The key word here is "based". How To Lose Friends is a fictitious romcom.<br /><br />Sidney Young joins a prestigious gossip magazine in New York, where he proceeds to make gaffe after gaffe before finally Getting It Right and Making It. This involves him selling out, and the movie has some serious points to make about journalistic integrity. However, they are not overdone: the main substance remains a comedy which centres around Sidney's misadventures. The script has its cake and eats it in that Sidney is a stupid, well-meaning buffoon at the same time as being a smart, moderately obnoxious skilled writer. This contradiction is never that much of an issue, because Simon Pegg (as Sidney) projects likability too well.<br /><br />Jeff Bridges underplays Sidney's editor a little too effectively, and Kirsten Dunst is rather anonymous as the conflicted eventual object of Sidney's affections And, with regard to Megan Fox (who plays an airhead bimbo starlet), I can say only this: just say the word, Miss Fox, and I will leave my wife, sell all my belongings, and buy myself a plane ticket in order to take my place at your side as your consort. Of course, given that I'm a fat 56-year-old English accountant, you might not find my offer too enticing, but it's there on the table anyway. Given how short her career has been so far, one might think it is a little too soon for Megan Fox to take on a role which mercilessly lampoons the sort of actress she might be thought to become: however, she does it sweetly, with some skill, and extremely sexily. This girl will go far.<br /><br />There is stalwart support from a variety of seasoned performers - Miriam Margolyes and Bill Paterson from the UK, Gillian Anderson and Danny Huston from the US.<br /><br />There are several laugh-out-loud moments, and I smiled most of the way through. As ever, the F-word makes appearances when it really doesn't need to, although at least a couple of these are very funny. | pos |
Nickelodeon has gone down the toilet. They have kids saying things like "Oh my God!" and "We're screwed"<br /><br />This show promotes hate for people who aren't good looking, or aren't in the in crowd. It say that sexual promiscuity is alright, by having girls slobbering over shirtless boys. Not to mention the overweight boy who takes off his shirt. The main characters basically shun anyone out of the ordinary. Carly's friend Sam, who may be a lesbian, beats the snot out of anybody that crosses her path, which says it's alright to be a b**ch. This show has so much negativity in it that nobody should watch it! I give it a 0 out of 10!!! | neg |
I was expecting a movie similar to Deuce Bigalow, which I enjoyed. However, this dud seemed to last forever. It's one of those flicks which enjoys the sad placement of PG-13 while not being kid appropriate. The jokes aren't just low-brow or f**t jokes, they're crude, lewd, and many acts cross the boundaries to not only bad taste but beyond legal and moral decency. Many scenes appear to have been chopped to get the PG-13 rating...too bad...it might have made a bigger splash as an R-rated film if the funny was left in. (Overstatement? Probably.) I do not recommend this movie. It is a full-on waste of time...and I'm a movie lover and ready to give just about anything a shot. At 45 minutes in, the movie felt like it should be winding down...and boy were we ready for it to. The ending is quaint but doesn't salvage the rest of this quagmire/tourist trap of a rental. 1/2 star (glad I saw it as a freebie...would have been sickened to pay hard-earned greenbacks for this tripe) | neg |
For most younger viewers out there, they probably have no idea who Buster Keaton was. So, because of this, they probably won't feel nearly as sad when watching this film as I did. I happen to be a silent comedy freak--having see just about every Keaton film still in existence. My being a huge fan made this film very painful from start to finish. This is because during his silent days, Keaton was a very vibrant and creative comedian. He was amazing in his physicality and his films were almost never dull. However, in a move that movie historians still are baffled by, at the end of the silent era, Keaton gave up his independence and became a stock MGM actor. Instead of being a great creative force, MGM now saw Keaton solely as an actor--and they wrote scripts for him that had no respect for what made him great. At first, these films with MGM were not that bad (such as THE CAMERAMAN) but with talkies, the studio really blew it--putting him in several films with Jimmy Durante. Durante's humor was based on his gift for gab and was abrasive. Keaton, in contrast, was quiet and based on action. Two more unlike and incompatible actors would have been hard to find. As a result of this deadly combination, Keaton made some truly dreadful films.<br /><br />Now this isn't to say that SPEAK EASILY is a terrible film. No, instead it's just more of a time-passer and an amazingly unfunny one at that. In fact, if you go into the movie assuming it's a comedy, it will probably make the film harder to enjoy. Instead, it's sort of like a drama with a few comedic elements. It is NOT a film that will produce belly laughs--especially for Keaton fans.<br /><br />The film begins in an odd setting. Keaton is cast as a college professor whose entire life is teaching. He knows nothing of the world and has his nose stuck in his books. In a bizarre move, Keaton's servant tricks him into believing Keaton has received $750,000 from a dead relative--hoping that this would spur Keaton to get out and enjoy life. This is amazingly contrived but somehow it manages to work. Not terribly well, but it works.<br /><br />Keaton immediately leaves school and goes on a journey to New York to have some fun. On the way there, he meets up with an incredibly untalented theater troop. Because he knows nothing of the world, he doesn't seem to realize they stink. And, because he thinks he's rich, Keaton decides to take them all to New York to perform on Broadway. However, just before the show opens, his friends find out that Keaton is NOT rich. So, they decide not to tell Keaton and try to keep him away from process servers that want to close the show. They assume that if the show is a hit, then they can pay off the debts and everyone will be happy. However, they forget that the show itself stinks. What are they to do? And, will Keaton get the nice girl, get roped by a gold digger (Thelma Todd) or be flat broke and alone? If you care, see the film.<br /><br />As for Keaton, he has few stunts in the film, though there are some dandy ones near the end. Instead, Keaton just kind of walks through the part in a very subdued manner. There's really little to love about this film or hate. It's just blah....when it SHOULD have been a heck of a lot better. | neg |
What were they thinking at "Cannes"? One of the most irritating, films of all time. Every detail of this film, no matter how meaningless was shown. If I had to watch her put on those boots one more time I think I would have shouted. If the point of this film was to show how pathetic a life Rosetta had, then it was covered within the first fifteen minutes of the movie and then the credits should have been running. But no, we had to see countless redundant scenes over and over. The whole thing was filled with un-likeable and unsympathetic characters. They deserved the misery that was Rosetta. And to think I passed up "Tumbleweeds" to see this over-hyped film of boredom. It was like watching grass grow, only that is more exciting. | neg |
The story is derived from "King Lear"; the setting is a farm in Iowa. Here's a test for this kind of thing: if you find yourself asking, "Why did so-and-so do such-and-such," and the answer is, "because that's what happened in 'King Lear'," you know that the film has failed. Well, that IS what happens here. The father figure in this story isn't living his own life, he's mimicking a fictional one. But there's more wrong with the film than this.<br /><br />Jocelyn Moorhouse is ambitious - far more ambitious than I think she realises. She's trying to take the King Lear story and completely change the setting. This is a task in itself. The likeliest result is that the transplanted story will die, and nobody will quite be able to work out why (although there are enough successful transplants, like "West Side Story", to make it worth trying). But she's ALSO attempting a revisionist retelling. In the version of "King Lear" she wishes to create, Reagan and Goneril command our sympathy, and Cordelia is a villain. This is a task in itself, too.<br /><br />Succeeding at either task is hard; succeeding at both at once is impossible. In fact, succeeding at one while so much as attempting the other, is impossible. If we are to look on the very same events from a different moral perspective then the events must BE the very same events - which means there can be no tampering with setting. If the story is to be transplanted, alive, into a different setting, its moral heart must keep beating the whole while - which means there can be no tampering with ethical perspective. Moorhouse was bound to fail in not just one but in both of her endeavours. And so she did. ...Naturally, it's possible to attempt both tasks, fail at both tasks, yet by some fluke hit upon a work of art that's good for independent reasons. I mention this because I haven't read Jane Smiley's novel, which, for all I know, IS good for independent reasons. But the film isn't. If there was nothing else wrong with it, there would still be no getting around the fact that it's just so thoroughly, excruciatingly DULL. The very fields of corn are even more boring than they would be in real life - which needn't be the case, since off the top of my head I can think of four films ("The Wizard of Oz", "North by Northwest", "The Straight Story", "Kikujiro") in which the cornfields aren't boring at all. | neg |
If anyone at National Lampoon is reading this PLEASE STOP THE CRAP YOUR PULLING OUT OF YOUR BUM, really now! Why the hell are you doing movies like these? They're not funny and watching it for the sexual content is a complete waste of time, really. It is such a horrible movie you may want to shoot yourself while your watching it. I am serious here, guys, it makes Harol and Kumar go to blah blah blah look like an actual good movie (and we all know that H&K is one of the worst movies ever made) It really sucks, it REALLY does. How bad it is? Well, even losers that actually like National Lampoon shall hate this movie...they'll want to murder the director, I swear to God. I hate you, National Lampoon, die already. Die. | neg |
Another exquisite taste of what a superhero movie should be after Batman:Dead End that just helps stimulate our taste buds and leave us wanting more! This is what a real superhero movie should look like and feel like! Even tough this is a fanfilm of sorts. The attention to detail, character and action is undeniably real. Although this is a limited resources production, it puts to shame big budgeted, star-casted, hyped productions "other" superhero related movies. Here the main and supporting characters act and look like they are real life people. Finally, a Superman that actually looks "super" and looks like the real thing! Batman the way it should be, without the flashy rubber-casted , ripped body armor to hide scrawny physiques for over paid actors that don't deliver. I just wish that some sensible Warner Bros. exec gives the OK to produce a full length adaptation of this jewel. I don't care if it goes to theaters or straight to DVD, I would never get tired of watching it. Just the plot itself is worth my hard earned dough for this. Hope the "bigwigs" at Marvel & DC productions take a look and see what a real well produced superhero movie should look. No more "Batman & Robin" fiasco, or Hulk, Daredevil, etc. Learn from these small time directors and learn that there shouldn't be any reason to "reinvent" the hero for the movie, just to have it "bomb" in theaters. Mr. Collora...We need more directors like you!! | pos |
I found this gem in a rack the local video rental store had of tapes which are exchanged among various rental outlets. 'The Man who Skied Down Everest'. Hmm... never heard about it. The box reads of some Japanese fellow who always wanted to ski down Everest and actually did it. Sounds interesting. I rented it. As expected it was documentary style. The first part can be summarized so: "I always wanted to ski down mount Everest". This is followed by some footage of preparation for the event. LOTS of preparation footage. OK, I suppose it takes a lot of preparation. Then we are treated to a protracted piece on the skier, Yuichiro Miura's philosophy on life etc. More filler follows and I begin to wonder where the skiing fits in to this show. More preparation is shown and they begin to make the trip to the mountain. More philosophy is shown. At last they arrive at the mountain and maybe perhaps he will get around to skiing down the friggin' thing. Lots of climbing footage later there is a description of the parachute device intended to slow Miuras' speed on the steep slope. Finally he straps on the skis and gets ready to go.<br /><br />He's off... He skis about twenty feet and his skis shoot out from under him, he deploys the parachute and tumbles in an inglorious bundle for some distance down the mountain and that's that. End of story. What the heck was that?<br /><br />OK I can buy that he always wanted to ski down Everest, made extensive preparations and actually tried it with camera crew in tow. It didn't work and he ended up tumbling down and almost killing himself, so what egregious hubris would inspire the man to release a film of it and call it skiing down Everest? Perhaps the title,"The Man Who's Feet Shot Out From Under Him and He Slid On His Ass Down Everest" was just too long for the tape box. | neg |
If we consider three films with a similar subject, which are this one, which was made in 1930, 'The Covered Wagon', made in 1923 and 'Wagon Master' made in 1950, the distance between 'The Big Trail' and 'The Covered Wagon' is only 7 years whereas the distance between 'The Big Trail' and 'Wagon Master' is 20 years. This is amazing because it shows how much movies evolved in those 7 years, and how in the next 20 years the changes were slow to come. 'The Big Trail is technically close to 'Wagon Master', but ages apart from 'The Covered Wagon'. The story is about the pioneers going from the Missouri to the west in Oregon. Tyrone Power Sr. is the man leading the caravan, he is a rough and mean guy. John Wayne is the good guy and the film makes too much of a point of his good looks, not giving him a chance to be the Wayne that we are used to. Marguerite Churchill is such a proud lady that you wonder why Wayne just does not forget her. Raoul Walsh was a master at showing caravans and cattle moving through the west, he directed 'The Tall Men' in 1955, which has a lot in common with 'The Big Trail'. | pos |
King of Masks (Bian Lian in China) is a shockingly beautiful and profoundly touching film. Winner of 16 awards from around the world, this film based on a true story centers on Wang Bianlian, a street performer in 1930s China who is growing older but has no heir to pass on his art of face-change opera. He has a unique talent of quickly changing masks in performance, and no one knows how he does it. He has a longing desire to have a grandson, as his art is a family heirloom that can only be passed on to a male heir. We then go to the streets, and see that people are selling their children because they can't afford to take care of them: some are even begging to take their daughters for free, because daughters are not worth much in this society. Wang Bianlian's story goes on from there.<br /><br />The film was so astonishingly good, the acting was amazing, and the issues were so weighty and well-addressed. There is the gender inequality and the depressing fact that in this time and place, no one wants a little girl. Also interesting to note is that the famed opera actor who always plays a woman and is known as the Living Bodhisattva is a man who dresses as a woman, and while he is famous and well-respected, he regards himself as something low, a half woman. As we go further into the film, the face the issues of human slave trade and its demand and thus the lack of a possible solution for it, the brutality and corruption of the military and police, and the helplessness and lack of power any individual can face due to unfortunate events or even good intentions.<br /><br />This is definitely one of the best movies I have ever seen in my life, and Xu Zhu, the actor who plays Wang Bianlian, presents yet another beautiful performance. | pos |
It's hard to know what was going through Per Kristensen and Morten Lindberg's heads when they wrote "Gayniggers from Outer Space" - the movie is billed as a comedy, yet there are no real jokes beside the crude character names (Capt. B. Dick, Sgt. Shaved Balls). The rest of the movie is a (presumably) unintentionally funny affair with ridiculously unsynchronised voice-overs (with the 'actors' basically reading their lines with no hint of feeling), 'futuristic' computer displays filled with spelling mistakes, and a plot that makes almost no sense.<br /><br />Even though 65% of viewers have given this movie a perfect 10 out of 10, this is the complete opposite of what a good film is. It may be ENTERTAINING to watch with some friends, but this film only deserves about a '2' out of ten...slightly higher than the lower possible rating only because of the sheer fact that the writers somehow managed to get some black guys to star in this movie. | neg |
When I was in school I made a film about a couple roaming around in the trees and talking, and I realized halfway through editing that this was not just a failing aesthetic strategy but a cliché of Canadian cinema: sodden lyricism married to vacant, metaphor-burdened stabs at social commentary. But whatever my own film's failings I feel much better after seeing this...this...thing. For one thing, mine ran 20 minutes, not 85, and had more content at that: every pointless bit of business here is fawned over for four, five, six relentless minutes. The male lead is just incredible, a brow-beating, loudmouthed creep given to outbursts of drama-class improv in between philosophical insights culled from the U of T pub, and he is given lots and lots of space to make us hate him. Admittedly if he weren't such an a**hole then the third act would make even less sense, as a couple snarky dudes show up to provide distant and thoroughly unhelpful echoes of 'exploitation' values; but it doesn't make it any easier to watch the caged creep whimper "please" in closeup until the magazine runs out. I take back what I said about AUTUMN BORN, which at least had the courage of its own misbegotten lechery: this cinematic crater is and will remain the very worst Canadian movie of all time. At least, I really really hope so. | neg |