text
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| label
int64 0
1
|
|---|---|
Back in 1997, do I remember that year: Clinton bans cloning research, the unfortunate death of Princess Diana, the Marlins won the world series and a woman gave birth to septuplets. This was also the big year in the release of Titanic, one of the biggest films of all time: a tale about the ship of dreams, about a boy and a girl who fall in love but are torn apart by their social class and at the height of their emotional commitment the ship meets with disaster. I don't think anybody could have expected Titanic to be as HUGE as it was, the movie was bigger than life and had millions of fans, 85% of them being teenage girls, I was 12 years old at the time, and of course saw the movie multiple times. It was the film that made me believe that the love that Jack and Rose shared was so real and beautiful. At the time I felt that Titanic could do no wrong, of course I grew up and didn't watch the film since I was 14, a couple years ago I saw the film on DVD for 5.99 and figured that it was a good price and to see what I thought about the movie now. Was it worth the hype? Was it really the best movie of all time? Was that Leonardo's real nose? OK, I know that's silly to say, but I did re-watch the film. Being completely honest here, Titanic is a great movie, best movie of all time, no, just depends on your idea of a good movie, but Titanic delivered in romance, humor, disaster, emotions and never let us go on this maiden voyage.<br /><br />The film starts with Brock Lovett and his team exploring the wreck of the RMS Titanic, searching for a necklace set with a valuable blue diamond called the Heart of the Ocean. Unsuccessful, they instead discover a drawing of a young woman reclining nude, wearing the Heart of the Ocean, dated the day the Titanic sank. 101-year-old Rose Dawson Calvert learns of the drawing, and contacts Lovett to inform him she is the woman in the drawing. She and her granddaughter Elizabeth "Lizzy" Calvert visit Lovett and his skeptical team on his salvage ship. When asked if she knew the whereabouts of the necklace, Rose Calvert recalls her memories aboard the Titanic, revealing for the first time that she was Rose DeWitt Bukater. In 1912, the upper-class 17-year-old Rose boards the ship with her fiancé, Cal Hockley and her mother, Ruth DeWitt Bukater, both of whom stress the importance of Rose's engagement to Cal since the marriage will mean the eradication of the Dewitt-Bukater debts: while they have the outward appearance of the upper-class, Rose and her mother are financially broke. Distraught and frustrated by her engagement to the controlling Cal and the pressure her mother is putting on her to go through with the marriage, Rose attempts suicide by jumping from the stern. Before she leaps, a drifter and artist named Jack Dawson intervenes. Jack and Rose strike up a tentative friendship as she thanks him for saving her life, and he shares stories of his adventures traveling and sketching; their bond deepens when they leave a stuffy first-class formal dinner of the rapport-building wealthy for a much livelier gathering of Irish dance, music and beer in third-class. But after Cal's servant informs him of Rose's whereabouts', Rose is forbidden from seeing Jack again. However, after witnessing a woman encouraging her seven-year-old daughter to behave like a "proper lady" at tea, Rose defies him and her mother, asking Jack to sketch her nude and wearing only the Heart of the Ocean, an engagement present from Cal. After a beautiful moment together in the very first backseat fun time, they go to the deck of the ship.<br /><br />They then witness the ship's fatal collision with an iceberg. After overhearing the ship's lookouts discussing how serious the collision is, Rose tells Jack they should warn her mother and Cal. Meanwhile, Cal discovers Rose's nude drawing and her taunting note in his safe, so he frames Jack for stealing the Heart of the Ocean by having Lovejoy plant it in Jack's pocket. Upon learning Cal intends to leave Jack to die below deck, Rose runs away from him and her mother to rescue him. Jack and Rose return to the top deck. Cal and Jack, though enemies, both want Rose safe, so they persuade her to board a lifeboat. But after realizing that she cannot leave Jack, Rose jumps back on the ship and reunites with Jack in the ship's first class staircase. Jack and Rose return to the top deck, the lifeboats have gone, and the ship finally goes down into the freezing Atlantic taking Jack and Rose down.<br /><br />So does Titanic live up to it's hype? I still say that this is a great movie to watch, I think that there were and still are quite a few haters that for some reason just want to trash the movie because it had won a ton of awards and everyone was in love with the movie. But it has great acting, amazing effects, a well-written story and still looks flawless. Love it or hate it, you have to admit this movie didn't get a lot of hype just because of Leo's baby face or Kate's amazing ability to cry on sight, this film is something special. It will always hold a special place in my heart, it has too seeing that I saw this film 8 times in the theater when it was released. But all that aside, I do recommend this movie, it's a great one and sure to go down in the classics one day.<br /><br />10/10 | 1 |
Well, here's another terrific example of awkward 70's film-making! The rudimentary premise of "What's the matter with Helen?" is quite shocking and disturbing, but it's presented in such a stylish and sophisticated fashion! In the hands of any other movie crew, this certainly would have become a nasty and gritty exploitation tale, but with director Curtis Harrington ("Whoever Slew Auntie Roo?") and scriptwriter Henry Farrell ("Hush
Hush
Sweet Charlotte") in charge, it became a beautiful and almost enchanting mixture of themes and genres. The basic plot of the film is definitely horrific, but there's a lot more to experience, like love stories, a swinging 1930's atmosphere and a whole lot of singing and tap-dancing! The setting is unquestionably what makes this movie so unique. We're literally catapulted back to the 1930's, with a sublime depiction of that era's music, religion, theatrical business and wardrobes. Following the long and exhausting trial that sentenced their sons to life-imprisonment for murder, Adelle (Debbie Reynolds) and Helen (Shelley Winters) flee to California and attempt to start a new life running a dance school for young talented girls. Particularly Adelle adapts herself perfectly to the new environment, as she falls in love with a local millionaire, but poor old Helen continues to sink in a downwards spiral of insanity and paranoia. She only listens to the ramblings of a radio-evangelist, fears that she will be punished for the crimes her son committed and slowly develops violent tendencies. The script, although not entirely without flaws, is well written and the film is adequately paced. There's never a dull moment in "What's the matter with Helen", although the singing, tap-dancing and tango sequences are quite extended and much unrelated to the actual plot. But the atmosphere is continuously ominous and the film definitely benefices from the terrific acting performance of Shelley Winters. She's downright scary as the unpredictable and introvert lady who's about to snap any second and, especially during the last ten minutes or so, she looks more petrifying than all the Freddy Kruegers, Jason Voorhees' and Michael Myers' combined! There are several terrific supportive characters who are, sadly, a little underdeveloped and robbed from their potential, like Michéal MacLiammóir as the cocky elocution teacher, Agnes Moorehead as the creepy priestess and Timothy Carey as the obtrusive visitor to the ladies' house. There are a couple of surprisingly gruesome scenes and moments of genuine shock to enjoy for the Grand Guignol fanatics among us, but particularly the set pieces and costume designs (even nominated for an Oscar!) are breathtaking. | 1 |
Be warned! <br /><br />This is crap that other crap won't even deign to be in company with because it's beneath them! Okay, got that out of the way, let me say something more substantive.<br /><br />I've seen Ashes of Time a very long time ago thinking it was a fresh take on the material which is based on a highly revered wuxia tome of a novel due to the emerging reputation of the director, Wong Kar Wai. Well, despite of all of that WKW hasn't succeeded at adapting the novel on screen according to a lot of wuxia fans; mostly it is just shots of dripping water, beads of sweats, legs of horses running, etc. I couldn't sit through most of the movie.<br /><br />Fast forward many years later when I wanted to give Mr. Wong's movies another shot after hearing many praises, especially from Cannes. I was intrigued by his latest, 2046. A friend told me to start w/ Chungking Express because it is his most accessible movies. So wrong! I was just p.o. that I got duped into wasting my time and money on this piece of pretentious nothingness. Some professional reviewers mentioned it as a meditation on alienation and loneliness in a modern big city, blah, blah, blah. It's all fine if the director has a point of view with something to say as to why these things happen and tell it. But no, he merely shows what is. Faye Wong's acting is very typical of Hong Kong's style: garbled enunciation, deer in the headlight wide eye expression, try to be cute and girlish kind of acting; the rest of the cast is equally uninspired.<br /><br />I think the word, Auteur, is a euphemism for a director who tries something new and different, which is to be applauded, but not one who hasn't yet mastered the art of cinematic story telling, which is what Mr. Wong is, for the last 17 years! | 0 |
The whole shorthand for supposedly being more aware in this weird time is that you are "Blue". The Blue State mentality. This is supposed to get us off the hook for what is/was happening during the last few years in our country (The USA). It doesn't get anyone off the hook but it makes us feel better, as though we aren't benefiting in any way from living here and getting all the good stuff that a US citizen gets just by being a US citizen. <br /><br />But I'm so sick of bitching about this. It doesn't do any good. I haven't taken much action lately and I wonder how many people have. Maybe I'm just down because my job was "outsourced" last month and now I'm looking for work in the shrinking tech support field where most of the jobs are quickly going to India and other places overseas. I'm thinking that soon it's not going to pay off to be a citizen here with the screwed up infrastructure and the shrinking job market and the obsession with war. These days it seems like anyone who speaks out gets jumped and questioned about there "patriotism". Anyway, back to this review: USA The Movie is an obscure DVD that makes me realize that some people have taken action, whether it's through politics, protesting or arts or media. The filmmaker is obviously passionate, knowledgeable, willing to go outside the norm, frustrated, unique, astute etc. <br /><br />I looked through the whole site that's linked to the DVD and got lost in all the articles, essays etc.that are there. The DVD does that too, has references to different times, views and historical points. Sometimes someone does something out there. | 1 |
this film was almost a great imaginative film. A mixture of shakespeare, pop, jazz, and faerie tales. This movie was an imaginative twist on the Cinderella theme. Featuring a strong cast, headed by the perfectly cast Kathleen Turner, this movie had everything going for it. Everything but production values. I almost never think that a movie needs special effects or big budgets, but with an over the top production like this, it came off with the same seedy quality as every other made for tv movie. Besides better cinematography, this film was almost perfect.<br /><br /> | 1 |
A very funny look at some of Australia's current affairs and political goings-on. The Chaser boys really seem to have fun with this show, and what I enjoy is that they all have their strengths; some are brilliant (Chas) at making complete idiots of themselves, whereas Julian can pull off the whole "I'm interviewing a famous politician and I'm about to suggest that he disguise himself as a pot of jam" type of humour.<br /><br />They have great segments in the show taking the mick out of all sorts of aspects of Australian culture such as our Current Affairs Shows, our Adverts and Early Morning TV programmes. Some material is a bit tired and predictable, but overall it's a lot of fun to watch, and will leave you with a smile on your face. | 1 |
Loved Joan. Great performance. What isn't she good in. I watched this film and then Jane Eyre right after... she just keeps getting better. My heart was racing. Great old movie drama. Just what i want from a classic movie. Facial expressions are worth the whole film. I'm glad i have it on video. Don't know what more you need in a film. Beautiful woman....wealth..... greed.....murder....detectives......a trial.....<br /><br />The costumes are very nice. Makes me wonder what the budget was for this movie? Wish they still made films like this. Whenever they try they just seem to make a cheesy movie. Films in black and white still hold a certain mystery. | 1 |
Ah, the spirit of '68. The streets of Paris were running wild with rebellion, the hippies were high on the spirit of love. How was Britain marking this age of radicalism and revolution? Erm, by the looks of it, dear Old Blighty was focusing on making films about boys in boarding schools. If... contains the evil establishment. It contains the uprising of the oppressed. What it lacks in contrast to the Parisien passion and the hippy headtripping is any sense of excitement, except in its all-out ammo-and-artillery fire ending.<br /><br />Lindsay Anderson's If... stars the ever-marvellous Malcolm McDowell as one of three private school pupils who decorate their dorm with photos of Lenin and other left-wing radicals. It's clearly an anti-establishment movie in its depiction of the evil upper-class oiks who rule the roost and the antiquated autocratic practices of the pish-posh public school standard. What makes If... unusual though is that for all its radical sympathies, it doesn't explicitly give us any sense of great tension between human decency and the despotic school system, instead it just kind of floats: lacking in plot and lacking in personality.<br /><br />Surrealist bits fade in and out occasionally and the film slips from black-and-white to colour again (is it due to the low budget or is it an arty expression?), but there is little of interest to speak of. All we get is the poignant denouement where the young rebels reach for their rifles and shoot down the shady overlords of the establishment. Hooray! A revolution! At last something that demands a second thought unlike the rest of this dull exercise in boarding school daydreaming.<br /><br />If... could have been a powerful political statement, but as it is it drifts and only gathers any sense of direct interest at the end. Instead of being a testament to the dissident zeitgeist of the late-Sixties, it only succeeds in being a dazed document of upper-class British education. Anarchy? Apathy more like, the only man many viewers will want to stick it to after watching If... will be Lindsay Anderson. | 0 |
HANDS OF THE RIPPER <br /><br />Aspect ratio: 1.85:1<br /><br />Sound format: Mono<br /><br />An Edwardian doctor (Eric Porter) uses newfangled Freudian analysis on a young girl (Angharad Rees) who turns out to be the daughter of Jack the Ripper, and just as deadly...<br /><br />Unlikely Hammer horror, in which a respectable society figure takes charge of a beautiful young waif without attracting so much as a whiff of scandal, even when she takes to murdering all and sundry with a variety of lethal implements (broken mirrors, hat-pins, etc.)! L.W. Davidson's screenplay wanders aimlessly from one murder to another, sacrificing the material's inherent subtext (Porter's obvious attraction to Rees) in favor of commercial melodrama, and the tone remains subdued throughout. Some of the gore scenes are surprisingly vivid, even for Hammer, and these were clipped from the original US release (despite an R rating from the MPAA), though the complete version is now available on home video. Porter and Rees give excellent performances, and the climax in St. Paul's cathedral is a definite highlight, but the rest of the film is strangely hollow and unaffecting. Directed by Peter Sasdy. | 0 |
George Sluizer of THE VANISHING fame ( He made both the haunting European original and the Hollywood remake ) directed CRIMETIME . He shouldn't really be blamed for this confused , poor movie because all the problems lie in Brendan Somers script . It's ill focused and lazily written . For instance the killer hangs around a nightclub waiting to pick up a victim , any victim and starts talking to a teenage girl . Cut to the next scene where she tells the villain " I've told you everything about myself , tell me about your life ? " Unfortunately the girl has told the baddie her life story off screen and is a terrible example of the screenwriter not being able to bring a character to life through dialogue . I know for a fact how bloody difficult this is but for a screenplay that is produced the writer should have tried harder <br /><br />It's difficult to explain the message of the film . At some points it feels like it's trying to be a British NATURAL BORN KILLERS satarising the media's voyeurism with crime ( Perhaps it even influenced the infamous video game MANHUNT ) but the script isn't witty enough to carry this off . When you've got a sex scene that doesn't progress the plot or characters or hint of subtext you know you've got a badly written screenplay and CRIMETIME is a badly written screenplay | 0 |
Chris Gerolmo took care not to simply give us a `Jack-the-stripper' type of list of murdered people: he delved into the psychological characterization with convincing results. Perhaps mostly due to Stephen Rea's excellent performance playing off against Donald Sutherland with good empathy by both. It was the playing of these two parts above all which made the film something more than just a morbid account of the history of the butcher of Rostov. Supporting actors, especially Max von Sydow, carried out their parts really well. Good directing. The photography was good too. Needless to say, the fact that the film was shot in Hungary was bound to produce a couple of aberrations, but, frankly, given the depth of the story-telling and interpretations, we can completely forget these little trivialia.<br /><br />For once, a made for TV film from HBO has come up trumps. Recommended, especially if you like to analyse characteriology and forget some of the morbid scenes which, I hasten to add, are never exaggerated. | 1 |
No message. No symbolism. No dark undercurrents.Just a wonderful melange of music, nostalgia and good fun put to-gether by people who obviously had a great time doing it. It's a refreshing antidote to some of the pretentious garbage being ground out by the studios. Of course ANYTHING with the incomparable Judi Dench is worth watching. And Cleo Laine's brilliant jazz singing is a bonus. This lady is in the same league as the late Ella. This goes on my movie shelf to be pulled out again anytime I feel the need for a warm experience and a hearty good natured chuckle. Just a wonderful film! | 1 |
STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning <br /><br />As a boy, Mark Goddard (C Thomas Howell) sat powerless as his family, including his hero cop father (Jeff Fahey), were brutally murdered by vicious criminals he'd tried to bring down. With an inner desire to punish wrong-doers festering in him as he grew up as a result of this, Mark employs tough means when bringing the suspects he's chasing down in and gets into a lot of trouble with his superiors because of this. But then he learns of 'Justice Incorporated', a secret group of men and women lead by a mysterious man (Ed Lauter) who serve to dish out punishment that fits the crime outside the law.But, then things get out of hand and getting out alive might be harder than he thought.<br /><br />The Sweeper gets into problems from the off-set, because we've seen this exact same plot done before (and better) in films like The Star Chamber with Michael Douglas and Magnum Force with Clint Eastwood. The title doesn't make any sense either. But we also have to contend with the movie's utter ludicrousness, including a scene where a daughter's headphone manages to drown out the sound of her family being slaughtered, a finale involving a chase with a bad guy that starts on the freeway and ends on a Wright Brothers plane, as well as some of the most ridiculous acting ever put on screen and a very clichéd, pretentious script. But there's some cool action sequences here and there and the movie's unintentional laughs factor certainly keeps it alive with a pulse. ** | 0 |
If your looking for a movie with fantastic music, nice cast and a storyline that is not to difficult to understand; FAME is for you.<br /><br />I have several scenes that i love in this movie; some make you laugh, others make you contemplative. The editing i think is wonderful, really fast and often funny. Shure, maybe there would have been some more potential in the whole thing, all the story's stay somehow on the surface; maybe a bit too many characters are involved.But I don't care, because the real stars are...<br /><br />...the musical scenes! One of my favorites: the hot-lunch-jam sequence. That piece is just so raw, funky and filmed in a special way (handcamera-style in "music-hell-breaking-loose"), its just electrifying! I miss this raw energy in todays music-clips; the only similar energy I found perhaps in Bette Midlers "the rose", all of the concert footage.Its about capturing something "wild" that is "realy" happening, and not doing it just perfect; take by take.<br /><br />So, FAME is a wonderful nostalgia-trip to when synthesizers where heavy and walk-mans not available.I recommend it once a year; sure not for everyone. | 1 |
I LOVE Jack's jokes like 'The cliché is...' or "Over the top cliché guy, black, oily skin, kinda spooky...". He is just hilarious! Daniel's starting to catch up on him to! Good thing Jack's not on the team anymore (in a way) or else it would have been sarcasm mania!!!!I just love all the plots (season 8, a little less, I have to admit), the characters are great, the actors are great, I'm starting to pick up facial expressions (and more) from Jack, Daniel and Teal'c...It just all theoretically possible and exciting...oops! Their I go again!!! Sorry, I'm also starting to pick up traits from Carter, and all of this is driving my parents NUTZ!!!!!!! Well, to conclude, I think it's good for another three seasons or so, especially if they keep on packing the episodes with all this humor, drama, action and so forth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! | 1 |
This movie was definitely on the boring side. The acting was decent and the film looks pretty nice, the soundtrack is definitely for fans of Kenny G and Michael Bolton. Speaking of the soundtrack, I found it very ironic that a film about telling the truth and not stealing decided to use a song in it's titles that was a BLATANT RIPOFF of Paul Simon's "You Can Call Me Al" - except that they don't acknowledge it at all. Isn't there something a little hypocritical there? The scene that the main kid was in where he was mimicking a game show host was my favorite. 10 lines? I have to write ten lines about this movie to be included? What a ripoff, I don't think it's too fair to FORCE people to write more than they would just to get it included! | 0 |
The Tattooed Stranger was another of those rare B-movies that BBC2 screened over Christmas/New Year 2005-2006. See also They Live By Night and The Brighton Strangler.<br /><br />In this one, a man walking his dog in Central Park comes across an abandoned car and discovers a dead woman inside. She was shot and police then try to identify her with only a tattoo as the main clue. After being identified, the murderer is discovered and is shot in the shootout at the end.<br /><br />Most of this movie was shot on location in and around New York, so we get to see some areas of the city we don't normally see, especially the back streets.<br /><br />Mostly unknowns are in the cast, with John Miles getting top billing.<br /><br />The Tattooed Stranger is worth seeking out. Excellent but rather obscure.<br /><br />Rating: 3 stars out of 5. | 1 |
Based on fact, this is the story of a teenager named Homer Hickam (Jake Gyllenhaal), growing up in a coal town in West Virginia where a boy's usual destiny was to "end up in the mines." But Homer had his eye on the sky and a love for flying rockets, to the dismay of his mine-foreman father, and the consternation of the townsfolk generally. A misfit for sure, he and three of his equally outcast buddies begin making rockets, which they fly from a patch of barren land eight miles out of town, so as to no longer terrorize the community with their oft-times errant rockets. Unfortunately, most of the town and especially Homer's father (Chris Cooper) thinks that they are wasting their time. However, the people become intrigued and soon start coming out in droves to watch the 'Rocketboys' send off their homemade missiles. Only one teacher (Laura Dern) in the high school understands their efforts and lets them know that they could become contenders in the national science fair with college scholarships being the prize. Now the gang must learn to perfect their craft and overcome the many problems facing them as they shoot for the stars. Director Joe Johnston has always been a famous name for his movies such as Jumanji & Jurassic Park 3 & "October Sky" surely stands above all of his other films. Without any doubts, "October Sky" is his best effort & obviously his best film. It's not only a true story filmed extremely well, but even as a movie, it has every single thing, which is required for a top level cinema. And along with Johnston's extra-ordinary direction, are some exceptional performances. Jake Gyllenhaal was around 19, when this movie was released & he gives a beautiful & natural performance. He is a perfect actor. Chris Cooper as his father, also gives a very fine performance. The same goes for Laura Dern & also she looks beautiful. Even the rest of the performances are extremely well. The background score was fine. Highly inspiring movie, which lifts up your spirit sky high. One of those movies which definitely inspires you for all of your life. An amazing inspiring movie along with loads of entertainment. Not to be missed. | 1 |
Ok, I first saw this movie like at 9:00 on Cinemax a few weeks ago and thought it would be award winning, boy was I 180d on that. This movie bit the big one. I mean, the mother of the monsters shows her true form only at the end of the movie. I'm going " That's it? Why doesn't she show it briefly a little bit more earlier in the movie." The plot being the mother and son feast on the blood of young women. Wouldn't it be better if they just went on, you know, a killing spree killing like a couple of young women each, then having the sheriff or a cop find out about and get into the old find a way to kill the monsters,save the young woman/women, and have 1 or 2 more people killed in the process? I think it would be a hell of a lot better that way. It also sucks because the son is the main character and he gets killed first. Why not get rid of the mother first? Plus, how does she have that strength at the end of the movie when she starts killing people? She said it herself she was too weak. What the heck was wrong with Stephen this time? I can never, ever dis the acting on any movie by any actor, after all, they try their best. If it weren't for good acting, I'd have given this movie a 1/10. 3/10. | 0 |
'Flight Of Fury' is a shockingly dire but worst of all boring Action Film - I don't expect a lot from a Seagal Film, all I expect is to be moderately entertained for 90 or so minutes with some mindless action -unfortunately this doesn't even achieve that low expectation, The action scenes are few and far between, the plot (which is totally irrelevant in these Films) is needlessly complicated and confusing with huge plot holes throughout, The acting is truly abysmal - bordering on embarrassing with Seagal and his whispering One expression performance being the best among the sorry lot of 3rd raters - I find it hard to believe that anything close to $12M was spent on this dire mess unless $11M of that 12 was Seagal's Salary - I somehow doubt it! The one moment of any interest to Straight guys or gay girls is that out of seemingly nowhere two hot chicks end up in a lesbian sex scene of sorts complete with huge baps on display other than that - It's mediocre stuff which is no different to many of the Michael Dudikoff B-Movies I've endured<br /><br />1/10 | 0 |
This movie surprised me! Not ever having heard of Hyde of Gackt I was not expecting much! The reason I wanted to watch this movie was because somebody mentioned that the movie contained some serious action scenes in John Woo style! Normally I am very careful when this is claimed! There is only one John Woo and til this day there hasn't been one director that comes close to his brilliance when it comes to action! The fact that "Moon Child" would feature a vampire convinced me even more! How can you go wrong with gun blazing vampires! Sounds promising and interesting! The first thing I noticed about this movie that the pace was considerably slow! It takes it's time to set the mood! This movie contains some nice Hong Kong style action scenes! But "Moon Child" isn't an action movie! It is a drama about friendship and loyalty! The focus is on the characters and their relation to each other! The pop singers Hyde and Gackt do a good job in acting and are very believable as friends! The only problem I had was with the plot! A couple of times the movie seems to skip a few years without explaining what happened and why they had to skip! Example:When one member of the gang dies (very dramatic moment) Alexander Wang sees Kei (Hyde) drinking blood of one of the attackers! Without warning and explanation the movie skips 9 nine years and most of the friends aren't together anymore! Also without a proper reason given Son (Alexander Wang) and Sho (Gackt) have to kill each other! I know that this is done to add some serious drama! Because of the actors it is very effective but sometimes it does feel forced! Apart from the flaws in plot this movie has an ambiance and slickness that makes it hard not to like this movie! It is hard to explain why this movie is wonderful! But it just is! The overall experience you get is heartwarming and sincere! | 1 |
When you think of brilliant Australian comedy you don't think of Skit shows (Although I'm quite partial to a bit of 80's and 90's Full Frontal) or even Sitcoms - you think of SATIRE! Something that we Australians really know how to do well. (Eg: Front Line, The Micallef Program) We know how to take the pi$$, and The Chaser's War on Everything, is a classic example of how to do it, and how to do it really well. <br /><br />I've been a huge fan of Chris Taylor and Craig Reucassel for a long time. I remember listening to them on Triple J's afternoon show. They were, and remain, two of the funniest comedians around.<br /><br />Although I was sad when they left Triple J, I was excited to find out what they were investing so much time in that made them have to leave. (They were doing CNNNN and Triple J at the same time, so I figured this was something much bigger) And what an amazingly HILARIOUS show Chaser is. Biting political and social satire at it's best.<br /><br />I'm also pleased to say that it has recently received a MUCH better time slot than Friday nights and has been moved to Wednesday nights right after Spicks and Specks. THANK YOU ABC!! Finally I don't have to tape it! :) | 1 |
I tried. I really did. I thought that maybe, if I gave Joao Pedro Rodrigues another chance, I could enjoy his movie. I know that after seeing O FANTASMA I felt ill and nearly disgusted to the core, but some of the reviews were quite good and in favor, so I was like, "What the hell. At least you didn't pay 10 dollars at the Quad. Give it a shot."<br /><br />Sometimes it's better to go to your dentist and ask for a root canal without any previous anesthetic to alleviate the horror of so much pain. I often wonder if it wouldn't be better to go back to my childhood and demand my former bullies to really let me have it. On other occasions, I often think that the world is really flat and that if I sail away far enough, I will not only get away from it all, but fall clear over, and that some evil, Lovecraftian thing will snatch me with its 9000 tentacles and squeeze the life -- and some french fries from 1995, still lingering inside my esophagus -- out of me.<br /><br />Is there a reason for Odete? I'd say not at all... just that maybe her Creator thought that writing a story centered on her madness (one that makes Alex Forrest look like Strawberry Shortcake) look not only creepy, but flat-out sick to the bone. She first of all decides to leave her present boyfriend (in shrieking hysterics) because she wants a child and he believes they're too young. She later crashes a funeral of a gay man, and -- get this -- in order to get closer to him, she feigns being pregnant while insinuating herself into the lives of the dead man's mother and lover in the sickest of ways. Oh, of course, she shrieks like a banshee and throws herself not one, but a good three times on his grave. And there's this ridiculous business that she progressively becomes "Pedro" which sums up some weak-as-bad-tea explanation that love knows no gender. Or something.<br /><br />I'd say she's as nuts as a can of cashews, unsalted. But then again, so's the director. And me, for taking a chance on this. At least the men look good. Other than that... not much else to see here. | 0 |
I downloaded this movie yesterday through an internet site the Quality was kinda good! I was watching the movie with high expectations (though i knew it was a flop), especially as the film has superstar Amitabh Bachchan playing the role of a villain.I though at least actors like him would have done some worth to their roles.But unfortunately Mr Bachchan failed to impress as villain this proved that nobody can compete AMJAD KHAN's magic Rgv's trial to re-kindle the past backfired royally! Sholay, the old one is a milestone in Indian cinema with an all-star cast, cult dialogue, stylish cinematography and a brilliant soundtrack which is still a hit with present generations too.A good actor like Ajay Devgan's TALENTS ARE wasted and his performance was average.Prashant Raj, a newcomer doesn't know what acting is . Nisha Kothari proved she is one of the worst actresses we have I don't know how she is still in RGV's crew Urmila & Abhishek seen in a song with no excitement and passion Mohanlal tried his best and Susmitha Sen's work was good i somehow liked her work in this movie It was a Total carnage of the original Sholay | 0 |
All of the X-Men movies were great. And I mean all of them, including the long hated X-Men 3. They had solid characters (Magneto and Xavier were the best ones, in my opinion), and a good story arch.<br /><br />I was all excited when I heard this movie was on production, and my expectations grew bigger and bigger until I saw the movie. I was so disappointed.<br /><br />Hugh Jackman is not a bad actor (his best movie is The Fountain, although you won't hear about this movie when they talk about the actor), and his acting is not what screws the movie up.<br /><br />The whole film is plagued with lots of meaningless characters that add nothing to the plot (like Blob or Gambit), which were tossed there to make fans believe that the film makers had read the original comics.<br /><br />I am a fan of XMen, I have read many, many of their stories and this movie respected none of them. None. Not even the continuity. It doesn't respect Weapon X project, or the relationship between Wolverine and Sabretooth, or Emma Frost, the motivations for wolverine are plain stupid and seen in millions of movies: Revenge for the death of a loved one.<br /><br />Oh. What I was expecting the whole darn movie was a Berseker moment for Wolverine similar to the one he has in X2 in the school when Stryker men come in and he alone decimates the enemy forces, but hey, this is Fox, this a family flick and you will not see explicit violence from the most violent and gruesome Marvel hero.<br /><br />Besides, I had a feeling of constant dejá vù with this movie because Wolverine's Origins are already explained in X2, we already know how he got his adamantium skeleton so it kind of does not make sense to make a movie of something we already know.<br /><br />I personally believe that wolverine is one of those few characters that does not need a solid back-story because mystery is the nature of the character. Do we really want to know how the Joker got his scars? | 0 |
In keeping with Disney's well-known practice of stealing.. I mean.. buying out known properties and bastardizing them, this live-action version of the venerable cartoon classic has got to be one of the worst re-makes in a year of bad re-makes. I grew up on the original cartoon TV series. Any episode of the original cartoon series will give you more laughs than this entire movie. Not present is Penny's cool computer book. Also not present is the gag with the self-destructing orders that always ends up detonating on the Chief. New are a smooth talking Gadget convertible (the original cartoon had a cooler vehicle that could turn into a van or a car) and an element of a typical, unrealistic Hollywood romance. Don't fill the coffers to pay for Disney executives and even their _ex_executives - don't see this movie.<br /><br /> | 0 |
Yes. It takes a Norwegian to ruin and slaughter two great books and a concept that would work well on film - this film truly is The Worst Swedish Film Of All Time. I hated it so badly that I even considered walking out on it, something I have never done. But it was so awful i was almost compelling. I just had to sit through to the end. Much like some early-80's Stallone action reel, this one REALLY takes Swedish action back to the stone-age. So full of logical errors and stupid mistakes it is almost amusing - but who could ever see anything good in the terrible acting, Mark Hamill's surviving a mine-field or the dumb-ass, useless and irrational action?<br /><br />Let me ask you: aren't we through with clocks ticking down to zero, the hero escaping in the nick of time and two friends become enemies reuniting by the end? STUPID!!!!<br /><br />And one more thing: the product placement in this film is unbelievable. While other countries have understood that it shouldn't be so OBVIOUS, the Swedish film industry apparently hasn't understood at all: just look at the credit card Hamilton uses to open a window? Or or or.... this film really makes me mad. | 0 |
"Shuttle" is/was more than a boring movie that had an interesting start, but after half an hour it ended in the worst imaginable way I ever could imagine. This movie has lost its story, if you can call it a story? ... after half an hour. All the next scenes are totally out of proportion. The driver is some kind of superman because he survives every attack with gun - knife etc.. even after stabbed in his leg he was able to put her in the box. But what a coincidence that there was a box in that garage. I really felt sick and misled when the movie ended. It could have been such a great one if the story was far more better. In my opinion even a kid would make a better story. And why shipping the girl with water and food. I quit with counting the plot holes about halfway through. And when the movie reached its almost admirably sick over-the-top final twist, I had completely given up (better say "throw-up). The worst thing about Shuttle is actually that it can not be even more worse that worse. Maybe writer/director Anderson will learn from this lesson and provide us with a decent thriller next time. Think the better he'll move to a different genre. I Keep my fingers crossed. But from now on I will read the comment on his future movies first before looking. A waste of time. | 0 |
After seeing "Driven" on a plane flight to America 3 years ago I truly believed I had seen the worst film ever created, and I could relax safe in the knowledge I would never have to suffer that much in front of a screen ever again. Unfortunately as I found out last night this was not the case. Revolver is so monstrously bad I am actually thinking about recommending friends to go and see it, just so I don't feel like I'm the only one stupid enough for being conned into watching this. Its really quite amazing how much this film falls completely on its face with the constant, and I mean CONSTANT voice overs of the main characters, with totally inane pretentious nonsense! I was actually getting angry in the cinema listening to Andre Benjamin's utterly relentless droning for what seemed like half the film, whilst all the time thinking - what would Turkish have done to this complete joke of gangster/con man, whatever he's supposed to be, when he made his "offer"? I'll tell you what. He would have told him to f**k off, blown his head away, and watch with utter disdain as his equally inept partner waddles away as fast as his chubby little legs would carry him. I mean what are we supposed to believe is going through Jake's head when they offer him their "solution" to his problem? They're con men, therefore they must obviously also have the skill to cure incurable blood diseases! I mean ffs. Doesn't he start to wonder why his symptoms aren't getting worse? Doesn't the penny drop on the third day what is happening instead of Richie subjecting the audience to a painfully patronising phone call from Avi to Jake to let him know he's been conned. <br /><br />Anyway, I can add a small positive note to the film by moving on to the dry humour if provides, thankfully of a similar standard to his previous films
. bulls**t! This film doesn't try anything as smart as redeeming itself through some well timed amusing lines, oh no. It somehow managed to be so disastrously unfunny I genuinely didn't hear so much as a titter from a completely packed cinema and anyone who knows the UGC in Sheffield knows how full a main screen can get, and not 1 person so much as smiled. Maybe he never wanted the film to be funny, and fair enough you can still make good gangster films without comedy, but what was he planning on hanging this film on may I ask? The unnecessarily baffling plot!?? I sincerely hope not!<br /><br />By far the most satisfying moment I went through last night was hearing the very loud sighing coming from ALL directions of the audience as everyone desperately prayed for the film to end. It was also really quite amusing watching just how fast patrons were fighting and dashing for the exits after they realised it was over, and they were free from their torment!<br /><br />I'll round this off (I've got to finish, writing this is making me angry again) by elaborating on the "end". I mean sh**t! The ending
.. no, sorry I can't, your just going to have to go and see it. It can't be put in words, it just can't, and after you've seen it you'll know why. Uuhhhhh shudders | 0 |
Red Eye is not the kind of movie that's going to win the Palme D'or, but Wes Craven has never been that kind of director, anyway, and his branding is a good indication of what a film-goer can expect.<br /><br />The fact that Red Eye is a tight little, undemanding package at 94 minutes is part of its charm and an indication of Craven's craft in producing lightweight, but generally enjoyable, box office fare. In fact, it's the perfect kind of movie to show as inflight entertainment, attention-holding without putting any intellectual or emotional challenges on the viewer.<br /><br />Overall there is a cheesy feeling to the plot, vague terrorist subplot motivation and the supporting characters, and the main section has a TV movie feel. However, there are definite elements of Hitchcockian suspense, and echoes of Schumacher's Phone Booth, which ultimately is a more sophisticated (and pretentious) play on the same idea of emotional crisis being played out suppressed in public.<br /><br />For a film that focuses mainly on two people sitting in airline seats, it lives or dies on the characters and script. Cillian's icy but eloquent Jackson Rippner and Rachel MacAdams resourceful Lisa are the main reasons the film gets carried off. Not only making the dialogue zing but also giving some sort of Adam's Rib type dimension to their battle of 'male logic' against feminine 'sensitivity'.<br /><br />In the final portion of the film Craven indulges himself a little Scream style as man-chases-girl-with-knife. The most surprising revelation here is what Brian Cox looks like after the 'Just for Men' treatment, his ubiqutous appearance in films as diverse as Super Troopers, The Ring and this making him the sexegenarian version of Jude Law.<br /><br />Short haul fun. | 1 |
An insane assault on viewers senses. This is a mish-mash of assorted Hindi and English movies - poorly done. The name carries over from a 70s' multi star cast, which the 2002 version also boasts of. The story is taken from the 70s' Sunil Dutt/Reena Roy starrer - "Nagin" and visual effects taken (a horrible attempt) from The Matrix, Terminator 2 and Mission Impossible II.<br /><br />Set in a college environment (Sunil Shetty, Akshaye Kumar, Manisha - college kids!!!???!!), Manisha Koirala is the victim, who mistakes a fatal assault on her by two students as a collective effort on the part of our heros. As it turns out Manisha is a Cobra (Nag) snake reborn as a girl in this life and her mate from the previous life, now a super powerful-all-and-any-shape-assuming (Ichadhari Nag) - Munish Kohli, is out looking for her in this life. Manisha appeals to him to avenge her violation and murder.<br /><br />So begins the mad killing spree, where the avenging lover starts singling each male of the group, with increasing powers and tricks with successive attempts. The effects are extremely cheap, with computer generated skeletons, morphing bodies and motorcycle stunts completing the farce.<br /><br />Carry over from Nagin includes Raj Babbar playing a catholic priest who provides temporary relief to our boys with a more "Religiously correct" multi-religion locket (the original Nagin only had an "Om") . Sunny Deol plays Manisha's love interest in her current life and the ultimate saviour against the all powerful Munish Kohli.<br /><br />Music and songs are below average.<br /><br />Avoid if you don't fancy cheap thrills. | 0 |
Galaxy Express 999 (Ginga tetsudô Three-Nine). Made in 1979. Directed by Rintaro. Based on the original work by Leiji Matsumoto.<br /><br />What little I know of the history of GALAXY EXPRESS 999, it was first published as a popular manga in 1970's and was created by Leiji Matsumoto. GE999 is set in the same Star Wars-type of space universe as Matsumoto's other famous space manga: CAPTAIN HARLOCK. In fact space pirate Harlock and other characters from that manga (including Queen Emeraldas and Tochirô Oyama) make appearances in GE999. GE999 was a success as a manga and was soon followed by also popular anime series which included over 100 episodes. It was aired in 1978. A year later came this anime film, which isn't a sequel to the series, but summaries the main points of the story in two hours long movie. <br /><br />The story is set in unidentified Star Wars-type of future where journeying to different planets has become a possibility. People of the future can have themselves mechanical bodies in which they can live hundreds of years, maybe even forever. The protagonist, Tetsurô Hoshino, is a young boy who witnesses how a cruel Count Mecha, whose entire body is made of mechanical parts, kills Tetsurô's mother. Tetsurô swears revenge and is convinced that he can only achieve it by having a mechanical body. To obtain it he must travel to a far-away planet with space train Galaxy Express 999. However, since Tetsurô comes from poverty, he has no money to obtain the expensive ticket. By a chance coincidence he meets a beautiful young woman, Maetel, who bears a resemblance to his dead mother. Maetel offers a ticket for Tetsurô on a condition that she accompanies him on his journey. And so the journey begins
<br /><br />I first saw this film last October, about six months from now, and again yesterday. I feel that I must first tell about the thing that bothered me the most in this film: it seems very rushed. Then again what can you expect from 2 hours long movie that tries to tell the main points of over 100 episodes long series? Whatever the case, the situations change with a fast speed and Tetsurô meets other important characters in the story mostly by pure chance. I feel makers should have either left something out or include extra 30 minutes. <br /><br />However, there's no arguing that GE999 has deserved its place as an anime classic. The animation itself, very faithful to the style of Matsumoto's manga, is detailed and beautiful to watch. Even after almost 30 years of its release the animation has not become "out of date" but puts many later anime films in shame. The music through out the film is enjoyable to listen even if somewhat "old" these day (it was the 70's after all). I have not heard any English dub of this film so I can only comment the Japanese audio which is good. Voice actors give life to their characters, most memorable ones being Masako Nozawa (mainly known as the voice of Goku through out the entire Dragon Ball saga) as the excited and young Tetsurô, and Masako Ikeda as the calm and mysterious Maetel. The supporting characters are not left in shadows, but also have a life of their own, most memorable to me being waitress Claire. <br /><br />The story itself is suitable for both those who are looking for an entertainment for couple of hours, as well as for those who try to find deeper messages. GE999 is an entertaining adventure film but can also be seen as Tetsurô's journey from boyhood to manhood. The whole film is told from his point of view, so we are forced to feel what he feels. I think many people can relate to Tetsurô, for despite the fantasy elements, he is a very realistic character: young, hot headed, awkward and naive. We follow him as he starts to see differences between humans and machines and come to conclusion whether he wants the mechanical body or not. Maetel on the other hand stays as a mystery in the film and even in the end, when she reveals who and what she really is, it doesn't much answer to anything. Maetel can be seen as a dream of a growing young man, always close but just out of reach. <br /><br />It's is the strange yet beautiful relationship between Tetsurô and Maetel that still awakes talking and questions, and fascinates after the decades. People have argued if their relationship is that of a two friends, of mother and son, or of two possible lovers (which wakes a lot of critique since Maetel's age is unknown and Tetsurô hasn't even reached his puberty yet). Without any means to sound deep, I think the best term to describe them is "soul mates". There is no question that the two feel devotion, caring and love for each others, yet it goes beyond that of friendship, family and lovers. I think that if their relationship would be stuffed in any of those categories, it would take something out of the whole film and of the characters. The ending scene, even if you already know what is going to happen, is still very touching and memorable.<br /><br />All in all, despite the rushing of plot and some corny scenes, GALAXY EXPRESS 999 holds its place as an anime classic amongst the films like Katsuhiro Otomo's AKIRA (1988) and Mamoru Oshii's GHOST IN THE SHELL (1995). The film is directed by Rintaro, who had previous experience of Leiji Matsumoto's works as he had worked in CAPTAIN HARLOCK series. Later Rinatro directed a wonderful looking METROPOLIS (2001) that also questions the difference between humans and machines. <br /><br />GALAXY EXPRESS 999 (1979) is a classic that should be seen at least once by every anime fan. | 1 |
This is a great movie. I love it more each time i watch. Most comedies can get pretty lame because you know all the gags, but mystery men has so much integrity in the writing and characterization that watching once again -- as Ben Stiller tears at the hood ornament of the limo, or Hank Azaria says good-bye to Louise Lasser, or Geoffrey Rush flashes his fuhrer choreography, or Tom Waits mumbles while he watches the news report, or Janeane Garofalo refuses a kiss from Paul Reubens -- is a pleasure. This is pitch perfect ensemble acting. The story develops directly and consistently, the action sequences are creative and not too dominant, all the set-ups payoff by the end. Seriously, if you've seen it and it's been a while, watch it again, and if you haven't then get started. You can't watch it again until you've seen it the first time. (Wes Studi, William H. Macy, the tryouts scene. Too much good stuff!) | 1 |
this was a personal favorite of mine when i was young, it had everything that was great with 90's kids movies... lovable dinosaurs, cute kids, an eccentric villain, and a few great songs (and not the typical little mermaid/beauty and the beast type songs, but ones that are atually entertaining)! i ran into this movie again recently and i still love it as much as ever! i recommend that everyone of every age should see this movie, and i definitely think that it should be introduced to the younger generations! sorry not the most informative, i'm in kinda a rush... just please, trust me. all who go against this movie are killing their inner child! | 1 |
What a GREAT British movie, a screaming good laugh and sexy Gary Stretch too, and oh, lots of bikes and lovely Welsh countryside.<br /><br />Members of our club the ARROWHEAD Bike and Trike Social Club appear in it as extras! Hooray!! <br /><br />There are some genuinely hilarious bits, good acting, a good idea.<br /><br />Met the director, Jon Ivay at a showing in Wareham, Dorset. A great man, down to earth and a good laugh. This film must be supported, as all great Brit movies should!<br /><br />So please go and see it if you can, they have a website with cinemas that are showing it , so find one near you!<br /><br />I can't wait to get the DVD. Some of our biker friends have seen the film two or three times already and can't get enough of it.<br /><br />Amanda | 1 |
**Might contain spoilers**<br /><br />Ok, lets conclude this movie in one word: bad. Two words? Really bad. Now why do I think that? Let me explain. <br /><br />Guttenberg leads a special-ops team consisting of four persons that get assigned to retake an lethal virus after some arms-dealer stole it from a lab. They do this by attacking the arm-dealers in mid-flight and somehow gets back the virus after some fighting. However, suspicions arise about Guttenberg because one of the terrorist knew his name. After debriefing the team-members get attacked by unknown persons and everyone starts to suspect everyone else is involved. After deciding they cant trust their bosses, they decide to, once again, steal the virus and try to lure out the possible attackers.<br /><br />In theory this is a plot that could have worked in a low-budget movie that just aims to be aired on TV. However, the plot is compromised and the movie ruined in several accounts. Firstly, the plot is totally predictable and it is not fun to know how the movie is going to end after three minutes. Second. The acting is really bad, or the actors are directed to act as dummys. There aren't many emotions, change of facial expressions at all etc. I was especially disappointed in Guttenberg that I believe can do so much more, but fails completely in an attempt to be a rough action-hero. In addition, though I am not by any means any expert on the subject, I totally believe I could assemble a better covert-ops team by picking up five strangers and train them for a week. This seems to be a theme in the movie to do things as stupid and unprofessionally as possible. This go for good guys, bad guys and bystanders as well. Then I sincerely doubt the scientific and technical consultants, if any, of the film. For example, I have poured liquid nitrogen over my hand and I didn't break instantly.<br /><br />Don't know how to conclude this really, but lets say that this movie has a predictable plot, bad acting and they seem to be amateurs in whatever the do. Sorry, can't be any nicer than that. Do not watch this movie, it is not even so bad it is funny. 2/10 | 0 |
I just can't believe that these games can get so much better, but they do. Unfortunately I had to rent a Dreamcast to play it, but even though I did beat it I can't wait to buy it for PS2. This is the only series of games that I must own all of them even if I have beaten them many times over. I hope they never stop making this type of game even if the series must come to an end.<br /><br /> | 1 |
i think it is great one of my favourite films as a kid and who said there songs were unforgettable they were mint i can still remember them now WORD FOR WORD the film remains a favourite with my family and my younger cousins are now addicted to it too they even know the songs this film is great and a enjoyable film for kids it has a moral lesson so don't say its not good because it shows how lying gets you nowhere ill leave with a parting comment: this film is amazing love me xxx P.s i would like the soundtrack but i cant and yes the animation is good the jokes are humorous and the action never stops.This film will go down in children's film history and in my opinion one of the only remaining safe films to show children. | 1 |
This movie is probably the worst I have seen. Bad acting, bad script, bad everything. Comparing it to mainly two other movies in the same genre and from approximately the same time is interesting. Both Cyborg (Van Damme, 1989) and Nemesis (Olivier Gruner, 1993) are much better and seems more robust in both story and directing and still it's Albert Pyun who has directed these two as well!<br /><br />The story is not original. The world has become a terrible place, possibly due to an environmental disaster or a nuclear war, and people live under medieval circumstances. A special breed of robots (cyborgs) live on human blood and there's the story... The cyborgs need to get a lot of humans to fulfill there "prophecy" and the humans need someone to stop them. One girl together with a robot (Kris Kristofferson) built by the creator of the cyborgs has been appointed by destiny to save mankind.<br /><br />In this movie the director tries some Hong-Kong stylish fighting scenes with the participants flying high and leaping far. The movie fails miserably in this attempt.<br /><br />I recommend this film with the only reason that most people will get a new "worst ever" movie to relate to. And to fans of the genre I recommend "Cyborg" since I think it's a very underestimated movie with quite a high entertaining factor. And if you can't stand Van Damme then check out "Nemesis".<br /><br />I rated this movie 1/10. | 0 |
Let this film serve as the death knell to the "big twist" films borne out of the 1990s. Known in some circles as The Kyser Soze Syndrome, this cinematic slight of hand has now been done to death by M. Night Shayamalan and even Ron Howard used a variation in A BEAUTIFUL MIND. However, in REVOLVER, director Guy Ritchie (known in some circles as "Mr. Madonna"), utilizes the Soze motif in a far more obsequious manner. <br /><br />Jason Statham (with a highly questionable head of hair) stars as Jack Green (known to all as "Mr. Green.") He may or may not also be criminal mastermind Mr. Gold. Or, perhaps Mr. Gold is an irritable spirit who can possess members of the underworld. I'm not quite certain, but I certainly don't care. REVOLVER is one of the most overwrought examples of cinematic excess I've had the displeasure to endure in quite a long time. Witness the fractured time structure, the painful jump cuts, the ceaseless inner-monologues, and the painfully pretentious animated sequence. This "everything and the kitchen sink" directing style makes Quentin Tarantino's oeuvre look sedate. The cinematic smoke and mirrors only lead me to believe that Ritchie was as bored telling this trite tale as I was watching it.<br /><br />The film is filled with moments of revelation that are supposedly shocking but they only come as news to Mr. Green. I wanted to like Green as I always enjoy Stratham as a character who is two steps ahead of everyone else. Here, though, he struggles along like a remedial reader in a University English Literature class. His lack of wit is only matched by the lack of restraint shown by his nemesis, Macha (Ray Liotta). Feasting on scenery like a starving man at a smorgasbord, Liotta spits, cries, and fumes through the film in an embarrassing display of overacting and leopard print speedos. <br /><br />There are no redeeming qualities to REVOLVER. It's yet another filmic faux pas from Ritchie and might even outdo his wretched remake of SWEPT AWAY as his worst film yet. | 0 |
for those of you who love lord of the rings and love special effects, watch this movie! this will be sure to keep you glued to the screen. you will probably even like it if you like watching people fight with magical stuff. | 1 |
I saw this film when it first came out, and didn't know what to expect exactly. What followed the Overture was one of the most pleasurable filmgoing experiences I have ever had. A lush score of songs and music by Britisher Leslie Bricusse (of Doctor Doolittle & Wilie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory fame as well as making his mark on the Broadway musical scene), and scored by the incomparable John Williams. There's not a bad song in the entire film. Plus some of the most exquisite cinematography, costume design and filming locations I have ever seen in one film. Not to mention the Academy Award nominated performance by Peter O'Toole, and the equally strong performance, in my opinion, by the wonderful Petula Clark. Now, given that Peter is not the same caliber a singer that Petula is, he still manages to sell his songs to the audience, and that, after all, is what it is all about. This is a faithful adaptation of the excellent book by James Hilton, and deserves to be treasured for generations to come. I recommend this film for family viewing, though most men will consider this a 'chick' flick. But if you like a truly great film musical, then this film is for you. But be warned that a standby box of Kleenex is just as important as popcorn for your viewing pleasure. | 1 |
Throughout the 1950s and into the 60s, 70s and even into the 80s, a slew of war films were produced in the former Yugoslavia, glorifying the heroism of the "Partisans" civilians who turned out to fight a guerrilla war against the invading German forces. Hajrudin Krvavac, who's generally only known in Eastern Europe, directed quite a few of these "partisan" stories; unfortunately, only a handful of them were ever exported to the rest of the Europe and the United States. "Battle of the Eagles" is a rare, low-budget look at the formation and exploits of the Partisan Air Force.<br /><br />Marshal Tito decrees that a Partisan Air Force must be formed to combat the German Luftwaffe in the skies over Yugoslavia. A group of former pilots join forces with two small biplanes and begin raiding enemy bases and convoys; over the course of several months, more pilots and planes join the ranks, eventually forming a formidable air force. Maybe it's history, or maybe it's fable whatever it is, it sure isn't convincing, but a cast of great actors sure try to make it work.<br /><br />The film opens strongly with a well-shot German air raid on defenseless partisans. The nuts and bolts of the plot come together almost immediately, and for a short while the audience is treated to a rather patriotic series of scenes. Then the action starts, and this title quickly becomes yet another low-budget, by-the-numbers adventure. All of the characters are familiar clichés: Major Dragan (played by a well-meaning Bekim Fehmiu) is our typical patriotic, heroic leading man. He blasts away at strafing planes with a machine-gun and even has an aerial duel with the villainous Klauberg (Radko Polic), a completely predictable and corny climax with an equally predictable outcome. The rest of the partisans are familiar: Ljubisa Samardzic ("The Battle of Neretva") is a Zare, a hotshot playboy; Bata Zivojinovic ("Hell River") is Voss, a veteran flyer who comes out of the woodwork now that his country needs him; and Rados Bajic ("The Day that Shook the World") is Dalibor, a young messenger boy who moves up through the ranks, eventually becoming a seasoned combat pilot. The characters and their stories are familiar to any war fan, and Krvavac doesn't try to build upon these stereotypes. The cast does a fair job, and despite the two-dimensional script, every player is engaging and fun to watch. Bajic, in particular, has some great moments when he's going to take his first flight as a gunner, and later, when he is forced to land a plane after the pilot is killed. The plot merely consists of a string of air raids against the Germans, and subsequent retaliatory acts.<br /><br />Krvavac handles the action sequences competently with a mix of actual footage and miniature effects. Unfortunately, the miniatures are so cheap and false-looking that the transitions between actual aerial photography and toy planes are jarring and laughable. Some of the strafing and bombing scenes look shockingly real, while dogfights involving scale models, complete with action figure pilots, are just plain pathetic. Sometimes smoke puffs from the "machine-guns" are so big that the smoke engulfs the entire model plane. Worse, the editors often superimpose shots of fighters over real footage. Although the aircraft are usually in proper perspective, they're surrounded by a distracting glow which hinders any attempt at realism. All of this action is set to an incredibly familiar and annoying score by Bojan Adamic.<br /><br />"Battle of the Eagles" also suffers from a very poorly edited English-language release. To begin with, 28 minutes of footage is missing cutting the film from 130 minutes to a mere 102. The missing segments were carelessly excised, and the cutting looks very sloppy. Music cues are abruptly cut off and scenes are abandoned before they are resolved. In the last third of the film, the story falls apart, and only some badly-needed action scenes can try to save it from total incomprehensibility. Then, there's the dubbing
all of the scenes revolving around the Partisans are dubbed in English (rather poorly, however), yet several lengthy scenes remain in German, without the benefit of subtitles. The film might have made much more sense had the German-language sequences been excised instead of crucial scenes revolving around the Partisans.<br /><br />On the plus side, Krvavac handles the outdoor footage quite well. There is never a moment where the audience feels like they're on a soundstage. In particular, the German Luftwaffe bases are expansive, complete with dozens of Messerschmitt fighter planes and extras costumed in leather flying jackets. The scenery is fresh and green, and Krvavac isn't afraid to shoot scenes with extremely wide angles or from far away simply to convey the scope of a battle or long trek. A German ambush of a partisan unit early on in the picture stands out, as does a sequence where Zare and Dalibor escape from an enemy base.<br /><br />As it exists on home video, "Battle of the Eagles" is just another of many stories about the Yugoslav Partisan movement. There is nothing to set it apart from the rest of the crop, and the terrible special effects and drastic editing put it a notch below acceptable. Try to avoid this one unless you can find a full-length copy. | 0 |
you must be seeing my comments over many films under Evren Buyruk ..I am off to make another comment over a movie that is not even worth a minute of talking though..This film is basically two hours of Dafoe's character drinking himself - nearly literally - to death. The only surprise in this film is that you didn't have enough clues or character knowledge to be surprised. It was just a grim, sad waste of time.<br /><br />Willem Dafoe is excellent actor. Peter Stormare is an excellent actor. But this film just sucked. Slow doesn't make the movie bad, it was just bad. The sketchy plot mixed with artistic ramblings of anamorphic detail aren't cohesively drawn together in a meaningful way for a plot except to highlight some gore which is illustrated from several perspectives, finally at the end. I really appreciate the artistic vision, but as entertainment, it put me to sleep. (Seriously, I fell asleep and had to re-watch the film - which was even more disappointing.) I generally don't like to make negative comments or reviews on the works of others, even when they suck, but this film warranted one. It's just too bad that these great actors were shamed with this end result. | 0 |
Ira Levin's Deathtrap is one of those mystery films in the tradition of Sleuth that would be very easy to spoil given any real examination of the plot of the film. Therefore I will be brief in saying it concerns a play, one man who is a famous mystery playwright, another man who is a promising writer, the playwright's wife who is much younger and sexier than the role should have been, and one German psychic along for the ride. Director Sidney Lumet, no stranger to film, is quite good for the most part in creating the tension the film needs to motor on. The dialog is quick, fresh, and witty. Michael Caine excels in roles like these. Christopher Reeve is serviceable and actually grows on you the more you see him act. Irene Worth stands out as the funny psychic. How about Dyan Cannon? Love how Lumet packaged her posterior in those real tight-fitting pants and had her wear possibly the snuggest tops around, but she is terribly miscast in this role - a role which should have been given to an older actress and one certainly less seductive. But why quibble with an obvious attempt to bribe its male viewers when nothing will change it now? Deathtrap is funny, sophisticated, witty, and classy. The mystery has some glaring flaws which do detract somewhat, and I was not wholly satisfied with the ending, but watching Caine and Reeve under Lumet's direction with Levin's elevated verbiage was enough to ensnare my interest and keep it captive the entire length of the film. | 1 |
I too saw this film at a film festival, but unlike the previous poster I found it both interesting and original. In a sea of terrible features, shorts are often twice as bad do to small budgets and poor acting, A.W.O.L however is a taut little thriller that hearkens back to "The Outer Limits." The performances are solid, not that one would expect otherwise from Morse or McGinley, and the directing is sharp and on the money. I personally find it difficult to reconcile the previous poster's comments with the film I saw. A.W.O.L is quite aptly written by Shane Black, who, as is usually the case, plays with the genre both paying homage to the stories pulp sensibilities, while simultaneously winking at the audience and never taking itself too seriously. All in all A.W.O.L proves to be an extremely well executed and fun film. | 1 |
It's not a big film. The acting is not amazing (some sub charterers are even played badly), The film is not beautiful in any sense. Nothing really inventive or new. If you like big films, this one is not for you. yet it has a big - REALLY BIG plus on the story. Larry's story works, because we know this story from our own lives. The girl we didn't ask to a date, the test we've failed, the friend we let down, are all in our history. This movie works, because it touch it, It's a great story because it's a small one. It's the life we all have, with regrets we all have, and yet the message hits: every life we could have lived would have had their downside. The first time I watched it, I was 15. It was shown in a party at my school. 16 years later, I keep reflecting on it every once in a while, and every time I see it, it puts a smile on my face. Watch it. It will do you good. You'll be happier with what you have. | 1 |
Parsifal (1982) Starring Michael Kutter, Armin Jordan, Robert Lloyd, Martin Sperr, Edith Clever, Aage Haugland and the voices of Reiner Goldberg, Yvonne Minton, Wolfgang Schone, Director Hans-Jurgen Syberberg.<br /><br />Straight out of the German school of film, the kind that favored tons of symbolism and Ingmar Bergmanesque surrealism, came this 1982 film of Wagner's final masterpiece- Parsifal, written to correspond with Good Friday/Easter and the consecration of the Bayreuth Opera House. This film follows the musical score and plot accurately but the manner in which it was filmed and performed is bold and avant-garde and no other Parsifal takes the crown in its bizarre cinematography. Syberberg is known for controversial films. Prior to this film he had released films about Hitler and Nazism, Richard Wagner and his personal Anti-Semitism and a documentary about Winifred Wagner, one of his grand-daughters. This film is possibly disturbing in many aspects. Parsifal (sung by Reiner Goldberg but acted by Michael Kutter) is a male throughout the first part of the film and then, after the enchantment of Kundry's kiss, is transformed into a female. This gender-bending element displays the feminine/masculine/ying-yang nature of the quest for the Holy Grail, which serves all mankind and redeems it through Christ's blood. In the pagan sorcerer Klingsor's fortress, there are photographs of such notoriously sinister figures as Hitler, Nietzche, Cosima Wagner and Wagner's mistress Matilde Wesendock. The Swaztika flag hangs outside the fortress. Parsifal journeys into the 19th and 20th century throughout the film. The tempting Flower Maidens are in the nude. Kundry is portrayed as a sort of beautiful but corrupt Mary Magdalene or Eve from Genesis (played by Edith Clever but beautifully sung by mezzo-soprano Yvonne Minton). Ultimately, this film is for fans of this type of bizarre Germanic/European symbolic metafiction and for intellectuals who appreciate the symbolism, the history and lovers of Wagner opera. Indeed, the singing is grand and compelling. Reiner Goldberg's Parsifal is a focused and intense voice but it lacks the depth and overall greatness of the greater Parsifals of the stage - James King, Wolfgang Windgassen, Rene Kollo and today's own Placido Domingo. Yvone Minton is a sensual-voiced, dramatic and exciting Kundry, delving into her tormented state perfectly. While the production is certainly unorthodox and as un-Wagnerian as it can possibly get (Wagner's concept was Christian ceremonial pomp with Grails, spears, castles, Knights and wounded kings, a dark sorcerer, darkness turning into light, etc typical Wagnerian themes)..it is still an enjoyable, art-house film. | 1 |
"A total waste of time" Just throw in a few explosions, non stop fighting, exotic cars a deranged millionaire, slow motion computer generated car crashes and last but not least a Hugh Hefner like character with wall to wall hot babes, and mix in a blender and you will have this sorry excuse for a movie. I really got a laugh out of the "Dr. Evil" like heavily fortified compound. The plot was somewhere between preposterous and non existent. How many millionaires are willing to make a 25 million dollar bet on a car race? Answer: 4 but, didn't they become millionaires through fiscal responsibility? This was written for pubescent males, it plays like a video game. I did enjoy the Gulfstream II landing in the desert though. | 0 |
Disney have done it again. Brilliant the way Timone and Pumbaa are brought back to life yet again to tell us how they came to meet and help Simba when he needed them. I love this film and watch it over and over again. It shows how Timone lived with his family and fellow meerkats before setting off to find his dream home and adventure. Then he meets Pumbaa and things do change. Together, they search for the home Timon wants and repeatedly fail, which is funny as Timone gets more and more crazy. Then Simba turns up and we see more of his childhood than we did in the previous 2 films. The rest, you already know. | 1 |
I enjoyed the first "Toxic Avenger," but the sequel just didn't work. There are some funny gags in the opening, involving members of the home for the blind, but past that point I was simply bored. The sequel is also filled with much quirky, low-brow humor. Only this time it's not funny! Much of the gags revolve around crusty Japanese stereotypes. Almost every Japanese character seems to be chopping fish. Does everyone in Japan chop fish? The Troma films are known for being more than a little irreverent, but if you're gonna use humor involving racial stereotypes, at least make it funny. I can't laugh if I'm handed the same crap I've seen a million times before! One thing I have to give credit for is the gratuitous nudity. There's even more gratuitous nudity than in the first. But altogether I was very disappointed, and the film ends with a tedious chase scene which had me huffing and puffing, dying for the movie to fade to black. At least there's one hilarious line from the film which had me bawling with laughter. After the villain says a line from Shakespeare to one of the local citizens, the citizen (an elderly woman) responds by saying, "F**k you--that's from David Mamet."<br /><br />My score: 3 (out of 10) | 0 |
This movie is a love story set in the backdrop of war. Everything about the movie was perfect. I just saw the movie yesterday and I want to get my own DVD asap and watch it many times over. The story ends as it started I was very happy that he came back and I was proud of her for becoming a doctor and fulfilling her father's dream. She honored her father, boyfriend-husband, and her lover. The character had many shades. Christian Bale is also an phenomenal actor. Some stories do have happy endings. Aside from the love story angle I thought about how a beautiful, serene and peaceful island had been affected by war and it made me realize the true devastation war can have on its people...government makes the decision whereas the people suffer. Her father was a very educated man and wanted more for his daughter while she had regular dreams. I loved the scene where she is complaining about not getting a dowry and I also loved the scene where both lived through the earthquake. They were survivors. | 1 |
Having spent the six years previous writing and producing, Luc Besson returns to the directors chair with Angel-A. I'm a huge fan of Léon, and quite liked the prospect of a black and white French film from the same chap.<br /><br />André is a liar and gambling addict, owing money to almost every loan shark in Paris. Unable to repay his debts, and fed up with being held over the edge of the Eiffel Tower, he decides to kill himself. He happens to do so at the same time as a mysterious woman, who he decides to save. Determined to thank him, she begins to help him fix his own life.<br /><br />The film starts with some laughs, which run well throughout. The visuals are quite nice and work well with the sights of Paris. But that is it. That's all the film has got going for it. And these mere two facets can do nothing to hold back the torrent of terrible film-making the movie unleashes. Though I can't hugely fault the main character (his inconsistencies are close though), the eponymous one is ghastly. A terrible screen presence and bitterly annoying. The plot is ridiculously inconsistent itself, and at times bizarrely silly, particularly the ending; an ending which completely bloodied the fledgling redemption engendered by the scenes immediately prior to it. Perhaps the most ridiculous scene I've had the ignominy of observing, it is stupid, indulgent, melodramatic, and considerably too awful to be "so bad it's funny". The overall premise of the film could conceivably have once held potential, but it is brutally massacred by the unendingly terrible implementation of its ideas. The film really was a task to watch, and one which had me screaming at the screen the whole way through.<br /><br />Massively and immeasurably flawed, Angel-A is just plain bad. Though its occasionally fun dialogue manages to draw out chortles at rare intervals, by the end it is clear that this film is nothing more than repugnant. | 0 |
I rented The Matrix Revisited with a friend of mine. We both loved The Matrix and we both love filmmaking so we wanted to see what was going on behind the scenes of The Matrix. It turns out that The Matrix Revisited tells you hardly anything about the art of filmmaking or even how The Matrix was made. It is basically a huge commercial for The Matrix, a movie that the target audience of The Matrix Revisited has already seen!<br /><br />If you really want to know about the process and the troubles and the stress and the detail that went into making of The Matrix, look no further than the bonus features on the original DVD of The Matrix. There are things they show in those documentaries that I had not even realized had to be done or was done. The Matrix was such a difficult and challenging film to make that it deserves more credit than a "documentary" that's about as informative and interesting as an MTV special. | 0 |
Along with the "Maratonci trce pocasni krug" from the same director, one of the masterpieces of ex-Yugoslavia comedies. If you want to understand Serbian mentality, you must see this movie. And if you want to see several of ex-Yugoslav great actors at the same time, this is a opportunity. | 1 |
I have read and enjoyed many of James Lee Burke's Robicheaux mysteries. When I read 'In The Electric Mist With The Confederate Dead' was being filmed and Tommy Lee Jones was playing the lead, I was thrilled. After watching it last night, I ending up turning it off with about twenty minutes left, not wanting to see any more people shot or beaten up. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind blood and gore-I love 'The Untouchables' and 'The Godfather Trilogy'. Perhaps it was just that I had previously seen 'Birth' and 'What Just Happened' before watching this. I know that Burke's books are violent, lyrical, and especially in the case of 'In The Electric Mist', can be like the Cajun swamps he writes about, full of things that are never fully explained. In a book, that's fine. In a film, that's confusing. Many of the previous reviewers are also ardent admirers of Dave Robicheaux, which makes it more understandable that they really liked the movie. Or they are admirers of Bernard Tavernier or both. Even as a fan of all the actors (and especially Vince), I felt it was such a waste of their talents overall-they gave good performances in a film that didn't hold together. Now, I say this, having only seen the USA DVD and hoping that Tavernier's cut will make a huge difference. On the plus side: The soundtrack was wonderful. The scenes at Robicheaux's place were perfect-just as I imagined the bait shop to look like. Mary Steenburgen was excellent as Bootsie, as was Walter Breaux as Batist. If you read the books, you know why Robicheaux is an even-tempered person in the beginning of the film, and then starts whacking people with various instruments. Overall, I wish that they had filmed more of the 'Electric Mist and the Confederate Dead' and left out large portions of Robicheaux's methods of interrogation, explaining Elrod's gifts and his bond to Dave, as well as Dave's to the General. Then I wouldn't be feeling today as I did last night when I turned it off, "What just happened?" | 0 |
An interesting concept vampirism having something to do with a virus.(but done several times by now) Overall the movie is too long and drags a bit. The editing could have been tighter. I am sorry to hear about the problem with the credits. Maybe the movie was rushed to market. The lighting was too dark in places. But the worst technical problem is the audio. The level was good enough to hear the dialog, but many of the interiors have a echo sound to them, which is very distracting. Either they were not careful in the recording, or the sound mixing could have been better. Also too much background noise got through. The should have gotten someone to do sound effects for the martial arts scenes. The tinny clank of swords hitting together was not the sound of an epic battle. Especially in the combat scenes the editing needed to be tighter.<br /><br />Also the acting was a bit flat. I am sorry, but when I see that the same person writes and stars in a movie, in my experience it is a red flag.<br /><br />But it was a good effort so I gave it a 4. | 0 |
The fact that someone actually spent money on such a bad script, is beyond me. This really must be one of the worst films, in addition to "Haunted Highway" I have ever seen. BAD actors, and a really bad story. There's no normal reactions to any event in this film, and even though it's Halloween , normal people would have bigger reactions when they're witnessing their father being killed, not to mention gutted, people with tape covering their airways, not being able to breathe (in a room with at least 50 people I might add) and some person dressed up as Satan dragging dead people out of his house, even an 8 year old would see the difference between a doll and a person. Not to mention the fact that no one could possibly be that naive and dumb to believe the reality of Satan and Jesus' appearances on the same day, like this kid does. When i was 8, I sure had more brains than that. <br /><br />But, the really stupid thing is that everyone else seems to be falling for this mute Satan look-alike as well, no questions asked. The question throughout the film is, is it really Satan, or is it some crazy person killing people off whenever he feels like it? Well, he's got human hands, arms, built and whatever, so I guess he's supposed to be in the movie as well, otherwise they did a lousy job concealing it. Then, with this person being human and all, he was able to kill an old lady, a man and his mistress, 5 (!!???) cops (all with guns and training i presume), and a few other people.....and obviously everyone was just standing there waiting for him, or what?<br /><br />The whole concept and way of telling the story is absolutely the worst thing I've seen, and I would never recommend anyone to waste 1 hour and 30 minutes of their lives to watch this total crap. | 0 |
I give this film 8/10 overall. Visually, a great deal of it is nothing short of stunning: an art director's dream mix of Hieryonomous Bosch, Salvador Dali, Frieda Kahlo and Georgia O'Keeffe--and a valid testament to the power of film as a serious art form. Beautiful use of color, form, imagery, environment--and fabulous set decoration, combine with state-of-the-art computer graphics. So, 10/10 for that! Wow!<br /><br />The plot line is, well, more predictable. You know they'll save the girl and get the killer in the end, but the story is still interesting and pacy enough to pull you in and keep you there. 6/10 for that.<br /><br />Squirm factor...I won't give this a rating, but the film certainly made me squirm, and I was watching it on video on a tv screen. It would, of course, have a great deal more impact on a big screen. Graphic violence of a twisted, erotic nature in a surreal landscape--even if beautiful--is highly unpredictable. The world inside the killer's head is not--thank goodness!--my world. Because I watched this film on video, I was able to replay a couple of sequences and found much to admire the second time around when I wasn't so nervous about where the scene might be going, and I suspect the whole film would be worth seeing a second time, just for the "visual art".<br /><br />General suggestion: don't take the kids or conservative grandparents to this one, but if you're keen on the visual look of films, like surrealist art, don't mind a bit of kinky gore, and just want to take a bit of a "mind trip", this one's a winner. Oh, and if you're keen on babes, Jennifer Lopez is pretty hot.<br /><br /> | 1 |
From producer/writer/Golden Globe nominated director James L. Brooks (Terms of Endearment, As Good as It Gets) this is a really good satirical comedy film showing behind the scenes in the life of a news reporter/anchor/journalist or producer might be like. Basically Jane Craig (Oscar and Golden Globe nominated Holly Hunter) falls for new reporter Tom Grunick (Oscar and Golden Globe nominated William Hurt), but correspondent Aaron Altman (Oscar nominated Albert Brooks) also has strong feelings for her. The network prepares for big changes, and sparks will fly with all members of the studio. Also starring Jack Nicholson as anchor Bill Rorich, Moonraker's Lois Chiles as Jennifer Mack, Mrs. Doubtfire's Robert Prosky as Ernie Merriman, School of Rock's Joan Cusack as Blair Litton, Peter Hackes as Paul Moore, Christian Clemenson as Bobby, Robert Katims as Martin Klein, Ed Wheeler as George Wein and Stephen Mendillo as Gerald Grunick. The comedy is subtle but strong, the romance has it's moments, and it is certainly a believable situation film. It was nominated the Oscars for Best Cinematography, Best Film Editing, Best Writing, Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen and Best Picture, and it was nominated the Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture - Comedy/Musical and Best Screenplay - Motion Picture. It was number 64 on 100 Years, 100 Laughs. Very good! | 1 |
I'm a great admirer of Lon Chaney, but the screen writing of this movie just did not work for me. The story jumps around oddly (I've since learned that the film is missing a section), and characters appear and disappear with irritating suddenness. Some of the intertitles are overly explanatory (e.g., "why, you're not a child anymore!"--cut back to picture for a long, slow beat--"you're a woman!" yes, we got it the first time) but there are a few talking sequences that beg for explanations that never appear. (Let's hear Luigi and his blond girlfriend's argument, please!) The plot, which involves incestuous desires (figuratively if not technically) was disturbing to the point that it was hard to watch. To the writer's credit, this issue was treated as a problem, and a May-December match is not portrayed as the right-and-good inevitability of some Mary Pickford films (e.g., "Daddy-Long-Legs"). Chaney gives a good performance, as usual, but I think he has been better-directed in the past--he overdid it a few times here, IMHO. I did enjoy the clown sequences, and was very impressed at the stunts. Loretta Young was charming, though astonishingly young. The film has its moments, but so far, it's my least-favorite Chaney picture. | 0 |
This is by far the worst Hemingway adaptation ever. Rock Hudson was badly miscast and entirely unbelievable as a hard-bitten soldier/adventurer drawn to war. Jennifer Jones was far too old for her part and Vittorio de Sica seemed to think he was acting in some other movie altogether. They tried to make a large-scale epic out of a low-key romantic novel and the result is terrible. As if that were not enough the whole thing is so slow, overlong and dated that it is practically unwatchable. Rock must have kicked himself for turning down "Sayonara" and "Ben Hur" in order to make this ghastly crap.<br /><br />0/10. To be avoided. | 0 |
Hold Your Man finds Jean Harlow, working class girl from Brooklyn falling for con man Clark Gable and getting in all kinds of trouble. The film starts out as his film, but by the time it's over the emphasis definitely switches to her character.<br /><br />The film opens with Gable pulling a street con game with partner, Garry Owen and the mark yelling for the cops. As he's being chased Gable ducks into Harlow's apartment and being he's such a charming fellow, she shields him.<br /><br />Before long she's involved with him and unfortunately with his rackets. Gable, Harlow, and Owen try pulling a badger game on a drunken Paul Hurst, but then Gable won't go through with it. Of course when Hurst realizes it was a con, he's still sore and gets belligerent and Gable has to punch him out. But then he winds up dead outside Harlow's apartment and that platinum blond hair makes her easy to identify. She goes up on an accomplice to manslaughter.<br /><br />The rest of the film is her's and her adjustment to prison life. Her interaction with the other female prisoners give her some very good scenes. I think some of the material was later used for the MGM classic Caged.<br /><br />Harlow also gets to do the title song and it's done as torch style ballad, very popular back in those days. She talk/sings it in the manner of Sophie Tucker and quite well. <br /><br />Gable is well cast as the con man who develops a conscience, a part he'd play often, most notably in my favorite Gable film, Honky Tonk.<br /><br />Still it's Harlow who gets to shine in this film. I think it's one of the best she did at MGM, her fans should not miss it. | 1 |
do not be suckered into renting this movie. It has nothing to do with an escape from death row, despite the (english) title. I can't think of a single good thing to say about the movie. Poor acting, poor editing, poor directing... laughable "plot", and the sound/music was so irritating, it's a wonder this movie doesn't come with a warning label. The only possible way to sit through this movie and enjoy it is for it's historical cheesiness quality. They just don't make films this bad anymore. | 0 |
Out of all the Bat-films, Batman Returns is my favorite. This beautiful, dark, and funny film is one of Tim Burton's best work. Although it is much violent and darker, this is the Batman that creator Bob Kane envisioned many years ago. Michael Keaton reprises his role as the avenger of Gotham City. This time he's up against two deadly foes, Danny Devito's Penguin and Michelle Pfeiffer's Catwoman. With a great cast and film score by Danny Elfman, the movie takes us on an adventure as Batman battles the evil forces that are trying to take over Gotham City. Christopher Walken makes a great appearance as Max Shrek, a shrewd businessman who has an evil scheme up his sleeve. But of course, Michelle Pfeiffer is the one that steals the show. With all of these components, you have a film that will blow you away. This is the reason why you go to the movies. It's got everything. It's really a shame that Tim Burton didn't get to direct the other sequels. If so I think the franchise would still be going strong today. Batman Returns is an awesome experience for fans that like cool movies. | 1 |
"Tumbling Doll of Flesh" by Tamakichi Anaru is a Japanese shocker about three thugs who sexually abuse,torture and dismember a young woman whilst filming their horrible actions.Typically twisted Japanese porno sickie that offers plenty of sadistic sexual violence and grisly gore.There is no plot to speak of,just plenty of hard core sex scenes(optically censored again)and lots of blood.The special effects are quite impressive-the dismemberment of Japanese porn actress is shown in unflinching detail.The tongue cutting scene really made me squirm.Her arm is also chopped off and her stomach is graphically sliced open and finally one of the sickos is having sex with her intestines."Psycho:The Snuff Reels" actually reminds me "Guinea Pig:Flowers of Flesh and Blood",but it's not as memorable.So if you're a fan of ultra-depraved Japanese sickies like "All Women Are Whores" or "Raping My Virgin Slave" give this one a look.8 out of 10. | 1 |
Well, I'm a huge fan and follower of Elizabeth Berkley. I bought this on DVD off of eBay for my boyfriends birthday. We sat down to watch it and it was so boring. I don't remember laughing once. It's only on for about an hour and half and it seemed to take forever to end. Elizabeth is great in this though. Maybe it's just because I'm a big Elizabeth Berkley fan though. If she wasn't in it I wouldn't have watched it but every time she came on my face lit up. Unfortunately even Elizabeth couldn't save this film. Just the overall story and awful comedy makes this a film you'd rather miss than waste an hour and a half of your life. It's a very forgetful film. | 0 |
That might be a bit harsh for me saying that, but sadly so far in his directing career its true. Just have a look at what he as done so far. They barely make it past the 3 star mark.<br /><br />Why did I watch this movie? 2 reasons. Lucy Lawless and Heroes star Greg Grunberg. Lucy was outstanding in this movie, her performance carries the whole movie. I do hope she gets a "blockbuster" and breaks into the bigger league of actors, she clearly has the skills. Greg was not so impressive, typical TV acting style.<br /><br />The movie is oddly categorized as a horror. The only "horror" is short flashbacks, and they last a max of 2-5 seconds with a little blood in them. I personally would call this more a "drama/thriller".<br /><br />But no matter how interesting the story actually is, bad directing, editing and acting (appart from Lucy) destroys it. You get no real connection to the actors, something which is very important in a story like this one. You just sit there watching feeling nothing. Its like watching a bad TV soap....actually I think the TV soap would be more interesting.<br /><br />My advice: Stay away from this movie...or better yet just stay away from anything Michael Hurst is involved with. | 0 |
Having decided some time ago to collect the films of Billy Bob Thornton (on the strength of class movies like "Sling Blade", "A Simple Plan" and "The Man Who Wasn't There" amongst others), it was inevitable that there would be the odd turkey in there. What I didn't realise however, was that there could be one THIS bad. I'll give you an idea how incredibly poor this film is - the funniest dialogue in it goes like this: "Knock Knock", "Who's there?", "The big stinking man", "The big stinking man who?", "The big stinking man - is YOU!". Yes folks, it really is that bad. Billy Bob is only in it for about two minutes (I guess he needed the work at that time in his career), and the rest of the movie is painful. For some reason though, although it's undeniably awful, I don't hate it. That's probably because I save my ire for any high budget, special effects laden junk like "The Fast and the Furious" and not a "no-budget" flick like this one. 2/10 at a push. | 0 |
If anyone is wondering why no one makes movies like they used to, with conversation, character and a simple theme of friendship struggling to evolve into something new, better and different, those folks need to take in this film and see top notch writing, directing, and acting that melds into a wonderful evening of observation on how things used to be in Italy and England. Other days, other times funneled into a terrific comedy of entertainment, made in 1992 with Alfred Molina, Joan Plowright, Polly Walker, Josie Lawrence, Jim Broadbent, Miranda Richardson, and Michael Kitchens in the major roles. Under the brush stroke direction of Mike Newell, these actors accomplish vividly memorable performances that are photographed with a sublimely subtle painter's eye. Reminiscent of the theatrical bedroom farce of the turn of the century, this film might be called a friendship farce that becomes a worthwhile experience in the growth of the romantic nature within each character, and the viewer, too. An artistic telegram on the importance of caring about those around us. | 1 |
I have just managed to get hold of the Celestial region 3 DVD of The Five Venoms and what a super job they have made of it. A fantastic digitally remastered transfer and a must have for any Kung Fu fan.<br /><br />The story is pretty straight forward, and has been mentioned already so I won't go into it again. Needless to say it's the fight scenes that many buy the movie for, and they do not disappoint. Only problem is they are a bit few and far between and seem over rehearsed. Bruce Lee could take these lot on and drink a cup of tea at the same time! All kicks and punches come with the all important "type writer" clicks and air "whooshes", which is a cool effect though quite amusing!<br /><br />I give this movie a B+. Good but not great. In a way I feel it could have been that bit better. Golden Swallow, by the same director a decade earlier, had as good a story and better action. | 1 |
Witchery, or Witchcraft as it's commonly known in Europe, beings with Jane Brooks (Linda Blair) waking up from a nightmare involving a witch. Jane's Mother & Father Rose (Annie Ross) & Freddie (Robert Champagne) are interested in buying an old deserted hotel on an island about 50 miles from Boston, renovating it & reopening it. Together with Jane & their young son Tommy (Michael Manchester) Rose & Freddie are planning to travel to the island with an architect named Linda Sullivan (Catherine Hickland) to check on the amount of work that needs doing, they also meet up with the estate agent Jerry Giordano (Rick Farnsworth) & hire a local fisherman named Sam (George Stevens) to take them to the island. Once there they enter the hotel & begin to inspect the property while back on the boat Sam is killed & the boat is let loose to sail off into the distance. They discover two unexpected guests in the shape of a photographer named Gary (David Hasselhoff) & his virgin fiancé Leslie (Leslie Cumming) who happens to be researching a book that she is writing about the gruesome legends & superstitions surrounding the infamous island & hotel. As the night draws on a raging storm outside isolates them from the mainland as a mysterious 'lady in black' (Hildegard Knef) keeps popping up as the ancient evil that resides in the hotel seeks fresh victims for demonic possession, human sacrifice & Satanic rites...<br /><br />The director of this American Italian co-produced film is somewhat shrouded in mystery as the IMDb lists Fabrizio Laurenti as Martin Newlin but there are rumours that Joe D'Amato did the honours, either way to be honest despite it's bad reputation I found Witchery quite entertaining in a so-bad-it's-good cheesy sort of way. The script credited to Harry Spalding & Daniele Stroppa on the IMDb again is confusing too as the actual credit on the film itself is Daniel Davis, anyway whoever wrote this thing did a decent job, please stop laughing. At heart it's a haunted house horror but adds some gory deaths & a surreal feeling to everything. The different sets of characters have reasonable motives & didn't get on my nerves as much as I'd thought they might, it's not plotted very well, it doesn't make a whole a lot of sense & the dialogue isn't exactly top drawer stuff but as a whole Witchery entertained me for it's 95 odd minute duration plain & simple. It's reasonably well paced, a little slow to get going maybe but there are plenty of surreal, bizarre goings-on & gruesome deaths to keep one amused. One part of Witchery which destroys some of it's credibility is this so-called storm, there is no storm in sight & the sea is probably calm enough to swim in, Witchery's supposed 'twist' ending didn't really work for me either & just check out the dumb expression on Cummings face on that final freeze-frame. The hotel provides for a good isolated location & adds a certain atmosphere to the film which has the distinctive indefinable 'horror' feel throughout, cheap horror at that. Technically Witchery is not too bad at all, it was obviously shot on location so it looks good throughout & while not exactly the pinnacle of film-making finesse it's overall production values are slightly better than expected. The violence & gore is of typical Euro explicitness, a woman has her lips sewn shut & hung inside a fireplace so she can't scream as the others light it, someone is crucified & then burned alive, impaled on a swordfish, someones veins expand & pop & a woman is raped by a man with no lips. Witchery was shot in English so there is no dubbing, as far as acting goes David Hasselhoff & Linda Blair in the same film what more can I say?! Yes ladies Hasselhoff does take his shirt off & for the lads Cummings takes hers off. Both Hasselhoff & Blair are a hoot to watch in this thing, however the little kid is very annoying & really can't act at all. I sure most sane film-goers will disagree with my opinions but I still stand by the fact that I liked it & would happily watch it again, Witchery is pretty good fun & definitely worth a watch if your into 'bad' films or your a horror fan in general. | 1 |
I imagine when Hitchcock scholars and experts find themselves together, the talk is not of the Master's great films like "North By Northwest" or "Strangers On A Train", but a lesser-known effort like this one from 1931, obscure and seriously flawed, which showcases the great director in fledgling form.<br /><br />Emily and Fred Hill (Joan Barry and Harry Kendall) are a middle-class London couple scrimping to stay ahead. He begrudges their lot; she accepts it. Change comes in the form of a letter from an uncle, saying he will set them up so they can enjoy a life of globetrotting luxury. They make plans for a world cruise. But their problems have only begun.<br /><br />Just ask Richard Hannay, Roger O. Thornhill, or Marion Crane. Well, Marion's indisposed at the moment, but you get the idea. Travel and Hitchcock go together like moths and candlelight, setting one up for a perilous journey at best. This is perhaps Hitchcock's earliest foray into this theme, and not his most successful or memorable. Hitchcock tries to mix comedy with another element, in this case domestic drama rather than suspense, but the two do not cohere, at least not here.<br /><br />The Hills are a dull, flat couple, with no chemistry or personality. When they find themselves at the Folies Bergère, in the form of cross-cutting with footage that looks ten years older than the rest of this film, they are abashed at the outfits of the female performers. "The curtain's gone up too soon!" gasps Emily. "They aren't dressed."<br /><br />When the Hills drift away from each other on an ocean cruise, it seems a mercy killing more than a tragic thing, even if the people they partner off with are drips, too. Emily's man, Gordon (Percy Marmont) carries around photographs of himself sitting next to empty chairs, which he suggests be filled by Emily. Fred's girl "the Princess" (Betty Amann) has Clara Bow's eyes and Wallace Beery's five o'clock shadow. There's also an obnoxious fellow passenger, a dowdy spinster whom Hitchcock always introduces with a cartoonish horn cue. Subtlety was still to come.<br /><br />Everything is shot in an abrupt manner, with confusing blocking and strained dialogue. Hitchcock tries for some early comedy with Fred and his umbrella that doesn't come off, and Kendall seems to aim for laughs while Berry plays for tears. When Fred and Emily break off, they are seen being jostled on a pair of wedged-together rickshaws, one of many clunky attempts at symbolism.<br /><br />Emily's the only vaguely sympathetic character, in part because she really cares about her husband and agonizes over her affair with Gordon, but mostly because she's among the first of Hitchcock's many magnetic blondes, her platinum ringlets whipping around her face like a Botticelli aboard the open deck of a Chinese junk near the film's conclusion.<br /><br />Matters conclude with a dangerous situation as set-piece for the protagonists to come to grips with, and presumably repair their relationship. Only they aren't active participants in the resolution, and except for the fate of a friendly cat, nothing about the ending resonates.<br /><br />At least you get some enjoyable views of London in the early 1930s, and a chance to see Hitchcock when he was still working for food. "Rich And Strange" is Hitchcock paying his dues, and learning his trade, one for scholars but not casual film goers. | 0 |
the only enjoyable thing about this highly mockable movie is playing "guess" that location. What Toronto landmark will stand in for what American/international location.<br /><br />who knew that the anti-christ would be russian? obviously he can't be american since we need the yanks to save the day - oh Buck... you'll tell us all the truth... you'll show us the light... and the way outta the building should those nasty anti-christers get their way.<br /><br />Five golden raspberries. Faith is not enough to hope they don't make another of this ilk! We don't gotta prayer. | 0 |
Crossfire remains one of the best Hollywood message movies because, unlike the admirably intentioned Gentleman's Agreement, which it beat to theatres by a few months, it chooses to send its message via the form an excellent noir thriller rather than have an outraged star constantly saying "It's because I'm Jewish, isn't it?" It's much easier to get the message that hate is like a loaded gun across when the dead bodies are actual rather than metaphorical. Somewhat shamefully, the brief featurette on the Warners' DVD doesn't mention that novelist Richard Brooks disowned the film over the shift from a homophobic murder to an anti-Semitic one, but it's interesting to note that while the victim is killed primarily because he is Jewish, there's little doubt in Sam Levene's performance that the character is in fact also gay not a mincing caricature, but there's definitely a two lost souls aspect to his scenes with George Cooper's confused soldier. There's not much of a mystery to who the murderer is: even though the killing is carried out in classic noir shadows, the body language of the killer is instantly recognisable, but then the film has its characters drift to the same conclusion before the halfway point: the tension comes from proving it and saving the fall guy.<br /><br />There's an element of Ealing Films to the gang of soldiers teaming together to get their buddy out of a fix (you could almost see that aspect as a blueprint for Hue and Cry), but the atmosphere is pure RKO noir. Set over one long sweltering night, the film has a great look filled with deep dark blacks and shadows born as much out of economy as style (it cut back on lighting time and allowed director Edward Dmytryk more time to work with the actors) and the excellent cast make the most of the fine script: a laid-back but quietly charismatic Robert Mitchum, Robert Young's Maigret-like detective, Gloria Grahame's tramp and the perpetually creepy Paul Kelly as her compulsive liar admirer, a guy who tries on stories the way other people try on ties. But the lasting impression is of Robert Ryan's excellent performance as a guy who could do with a good leaving alone as he does his best to help the wrongly accused man all the way to death row. A big surprise hit in 1946, as a reward, Dmytryk and producer Adrian Scott found themselves investigated by the HUAC, which itself had a notable tendency to target Jews. So much for crusading
| 1 |
I just rented this movie from the video store last night. It being new and not released long ago here, the rent was only overnight. Me, my little sis, and my older brother who usually hates watching these kind of movies sat down and watched. Once the movie started and after sitting there watching it for a while we were all laughing historically. Even my brother. This movie is hilarious, I actually laughed. No matter how funny some movies are... even if I think its funny I sometimes can't seem to laugh. But this movie... I laughed. My brother ended up thinking it was the best "that type of movie" he had seen. I ended up watching the movie again about 2 or 3 hours later. | 1 |
Well This was a complete waste of celluloid. The preview was promising but after watching the movie, it looked like the preview *was* the whole movie. No plot, no clear storyline, just some misplaced suspense. It looks like the director tried very hard to create an atmosphere of mystique and fear, but still there are gaps to be filled. Why the drugs? Why the number 11.11? (Btw. As Sarah enteres the library, the clock says 11.14) What's the connection to the murder on the parents? What's the role of this Rayden woman? Is she one of the children or not? Who are those children anyway. There is a lot of material lying around to create the ultimate cult movie like "the Omen" but the director just leaves them lying on the floor without digging into the story. Even "the Blairwitch project" was more scary than this one. All the gaps you hope to be filled like in "The Butterfly effect" stay open as the credits start rolling.. OK. Off to the next movie... | 0 |
"The Shooter" was a different type of film for Michael Dudikoff. Although normally associated with action flicks that incorporate martial arts, this film , because it was a western, enabled him to display that he is a far more capable actor than certain formula story lines have allowed.<br /><br />The major problem, of course, is that the film does not allow any solid character development. The fleshing in is really left to the viewer . We can only guess at the sadness that has made the Shooter, whose real name is Michael Atherton, the killer that he is- a killer, mind you, that a little town, terrorized by a local bully, welcomes as a hero who can release it from its misery. | 1 |
While not as bad as some movies (like the horrible "Atomic Twister"), "Meltdown" still relies upon common misconceptions and inaccuracies about the nuclear power industry to advance its plot. I am currently studying Nuclear Engineering in the pursuit of a Masters Degree, and it was easy to point out flaws that would be obvious to anyone involved with the industry.<br /><br />Riding the false fear that a Chernobyl style meltdown could happen in an American plant, the movie states that any meltdown (even partial, according to one of the guest commentators in the movie) would mean disaster for the area. In fact, a partial meltdown in an American plant, while destroying the core, would not pose any risk to the surrounding area. Three Mile Island experienced a partial meltdown and no radioactive material was released into the environment at all, thanks to the natural stability of the fuel and core design used in this country paired with substantial containment. <br /><br />The security steps shown in the movie were perhaps the part of the movie furthest from the truth. At any important strategic location -- be it power plant, chemical plant, military base, anything -- you will never see personnel responding to an alarm by milling around talking as if it were an unannounced drill. This is especially true at a nuclear plant, where, upon the sounding of the alarm, the reactors would be SCRAMed immediately, shutting them off. SCRAMing can be done with the push of a button in the control room (you do not need to put the core in "shutdown mode" like depicted in the movie), and the chemistry of nuclear fission prevents a core from being brought back up to power within about 9 hours of a SCRAM. So if this scenario played out in real life, the assailants would not be able to cause a significant meltdown. In theory, they could still cause a partial one due to residual heat if they exposed the core immediately, but that would be almost impossible given the numerous backup systems present in a plant -- there are many more than the single backup pumps they speak of in the movie.<br /><br />As for the spent fuel pools, it may be possible to turn the pools into a dirty bomb by blowing them up, but this is far more difficult than simply parking a truck full of explosives near the pools. The fuel is under (approximately) 18 feet of highly purified water. The water cannot become radioactive (no radioactive steam like they speak of in the movie). Particles dissolved in water can, but the water itself cannot; thus the reason for very thorough purification. So the only way to turn a fuel pool into a dirty bomb is to get the fuel out of the water. This is no easy task as water is very heavy, and the pools are below ground with very thick concrete walls. The explosives would have to be in the pool below the fuel (which is securely fastened). And there would have to be a heck of a lot of explosives, as water is *very* hard to move through an explosion. Even if this were to occur, spent fuel is not extremely radioactive, and the explosion would not cause nearly as high a death toll as mentioned in the movie, especially given the small amount of radioactive material that would be spread. <br /><br /> From a basic movie standpoint, I grew somewhat tired of the style used. The constant fading in and out, use of gritty black and white, and fast tracking and panning looked amateurish. The characters were one-dimensional, especially those in the US government. I have some problems with the twist thrown in the movie, but will not discuss it as it would be a major spoiler.<br /><br />Overall, 3/10 | 0 |
carrot top in a full length movie, enough said. only reason this doesn't get a one is through my personal voting system of only one 1 and one 10, and this is no extreme ops. horrible god awful. there are some movies that are so bad they are unintentionally funny, then there are movies that make you physically unwell and then there are those that lead to serious contemplation of suicide. burn all copies of the movie, shoot anyone who had non creative input on this movie, torture anyone with any creative input and as for the star, there are only so many things that can be said online, but he should be begging for the final ten seconds of existence with a severed head by the time the work is done. | 0 |
Man oh man! What a piece of crummy film-making! But this is a guilty pleasure from my childhood even though I hate to admit it. They showed this movie on my basic cable system all the time. Where I grew up in San Jose, California (right on the border of Cupertino) we had this thing called The G Channel on our cable system. And they basically showed the same one movie over and over and over again. Wanda Nevada was one of those movies. I fell in lust and love with the young Brooke Shields and loved her dopey adventures in the Grand Canyon in the 1940s. The script makes almost no sense, the direction is poor, the few highlights are that Henry Fonda makes an appearance, a lot of dialog that's so bad it's good and a nice Carole King song played over the end credits. Maybe you have to be stoned to truly enjoy this flick. And hey, everybody knows there ain't no gold in the Grand Canyon! | 0 |
A young woman leaves her provincial life for a new one in the city and there she meets another woman with whom she falls in love with. Their relationship turns physical quickly and they both believe that they are soul-mates, until one day, the provincial girl comes home to find a man in their bed. Her lover then reveals to her that their relationship was just an experiment and she really likes men. Um, kinda like the Anne Heche and Ellen Degeneres thing. So, anyway, the provincial girl, broken, torn and shattered by this discovery moves out and begins to discover what the real world is all about as she falls into the hands of all sort of vindictive and salacious people in 19th century England. | 1 |
All in all, an excellent movie from that time and source (coming from Warner Brothers as it was peaking in craftsmanship and style just before WWII), provided you don't take it at all seriously. The movie really makes no claim to being historically accurate, and is certainly no more or less accurate or believable than say, JFK. (This one may actually be more honest about it, though, as it essentially admits along the way that it's not to be taken as particularly fact-based, but more of a stylishly semi-heroic portrayal.) It's worth noting that audiences of the time were no more naive about the story than we are today; the NY Times review conceded that audiences would "dismiss factual inaccuracies sprinkled throughout the film," described the biographical account of Custer's life as "fanciful," and pointed out that the presentation of Custer's motivations regarding the final events were at odds with various historical accounts. They could have really gone overboard in building up Custer, one supposes, but they succeed admirably in depicting him as not necessarily the sharpest or most diligent guy around, but appropriately determined, principled and inspirational.<br /><br />Flynn and DeHavilland, doing their 8th movie together in 7 years (and their last), are so comfortable together, and play off each other so easily at this point, that it's not too difficult to overlook how thinly their courtship is written here. With a first-time pairing, it would be hard to imagine what could really draw Elizabeth to Custer, but these two make it work. The movie is also missing their director from their previous seven films together (the greatly underrated Michael Curtiz), but given that he had worked with them on the previous year's similar-themed Santa Fe Trail, it's understandable if he chose to opt out of this one. (They all started together with Captain Blood and The Charge of the Light Brigade - both terrific - so we can't really blame them if they started having a tough time keeping it all fresh.)<br /><br />Raoul Walsh, the director here, is certainly more comfortable with the action sequences - which are outstanding - and everything else outdoors. The interior scenes are a little more uneven, but the studio craftsmen succeed in compensating for that very well, as does Warner Bros' outstanding cast of "usual suspects" and new faces (Greenstreet, Gene Lockhart, Anthony Quinn, Arthur Kennedy, etc). I would have liked it better if Kennedy's character had been a bit less standard (I generally like his work), but here he seems to be hitting roughly the same notes in every scene; the part could have been better written - and I suppose they might have been unsure of what he could handle, as he'd only been in films for one year (Walsh probably took him for this after doing High Sierra together).<br /><br />Various highlights include the depiction (probably imagined) of the genesis of "Garryowen" as the cavalry theme. The last half hour is particularly outstanding, especially with the parting of the leads echoing the end of their screen partnership, followed by the final battle scenes. A thoroughly rousing adventure.<br /><br />8 of 10 | 1 |
There is one really good scene in Faat Kine. The title character gets in an argument with another woman and after being threatened, Faat Kine sprays her in the face. The scene works because the act is so unexpected, bizarre, and rather funny at the same time. In that one instance, writer/director Ousmane Sembene gives the audience a character that is easy to root for, an interesting film character that could be worth watching for two hours. In the scene, he presents a brave woman who is bold in her actions. For the rest of the movie, the only other thing he seems to present is conflicting tones. <br /><br />The tone is all over the place. It's true not all movies have to clearly fit within a specific genre, but I don't think Faat Kine fits into any genre. Supposedly, it's a drama, though there are moments of such broad comedy (the aforementioned spraying in the face) that it cannot be taken seriously. On the other hand, the film is certainly not a comedy with the abundant amount of serious topics Sembene has crammed into the picture. There is a way to successfully mix comedy and drama together. Unfortunately, Semebene doesn't find that balance. Instead, one scene after another just drift into each other without much rhyme or reason, leaving two different tones hanging in the wind. <br /><br />Faat Kine also has the problem of running two hours long with an extremely drawn out finale. The film ends with a big party where all the characters' conflicts are resolved, only they aren't resolved quickly. The scene lasts longer than any other scene, going on for probably twenty minutes. Because the rest of the scenes up until this point have been meandering, the finale is particularly hard to endure with repetition beginning early on in the scene, making for a frustrating viewing experience.<br /><br />Perhaps I am being too hard on Faat Kine. I am not the right audience for it. I felt nothing towards the characters and had no connection to any part of the story. There are people who will probably find something meaningful in the story and see strong characters. However, I was unable to do so and thus cannot recommend it. | 0 |
It's nice to see Julie Andrews trying a straight dramatic role here--something she hadn't done in awhile--but her character of Judith(wise they didn't try to pass her off as a 'Judy')has the old refined manners and tomboyish hairstyle of yore, and Andrews enacts 'grown-up' as any other actress would interpret frigid. It's a surprisingly bland drama set in Barbados involving Omar Sharif(not the liveliest leading man around--not even in 1974!)hoping to make Andrews a spy while also slowly leading her into the proverbial bedroom. Unmemorable outing does have some camp value: the James Bond-like credits at the beginning are a cheesy hoot. As for Julie: she's quiet and contemplative, but that doesn't do much for the audience, or for the film. Blake Edwards paces the freakin' thing like a funeral. * from **** | 0 |
some would argue this is better mainly because of the acting; but it is indeed far worse for reasons that outweigh the improvement.<br /><br />the source from which all the problems stem; the story. aside from one of them people being shot point blank, with a shotgun, in the chest and surviving for hours without medical attention, there is a bigger problem. Nic, the gangsta with the golden heart is willing to do anything for the friend he just met that day; and that includes asking an evil spirit for help. Ce-Ce, who comes out of nowhere with a past in voodoo, is willing to summon Killjoy, so long as Nic can "hook her up." the acting, while improved, is still horrid. these people couldn't convey emotion out of a paper bag. the script doesn't help them either. stupid lines, and i can only assume no direction from the director. this script was read like Shakespeare in high school with a teacher whipping them as they went.<br /><br />while this movie (if you can call it that at its 80 min. run time (thankfully)) is perhaps even funnier than the first because of all these things, it is definitely more painful to watch. 1/10. | 0 |
After clocking up five seasons on the small screen from 1976-79, 'George & Mildred' transferred themselves to the big screen in mid 1980. Instead of Johnnie Mortimer and Brian Cooke retaining their roles as writers, Dick Sharples was brought on board as the writer. Sadly, this film adaption just did not seem to hit the spot with the public. Shame. I liked it, better than the series itself in fact. It was a guilty pleasure.<br /><br />'Mildred Roper' (Yootha Joyce) is keen to ascertain whether or not her slovenly husband 'George' (Brian Murphy) has remembered their wedding anniversary. Obviously, he hasn't, but to try and convince his wife otherwise he books a table at the restaurant where he proposed marriage to Mildred several years ago.<br /><br />Upon arriving at the restaurant, they find out that the place has changed hands. Eventually seeing through George's lies, Mildred insists that they celebrate their anniversary at a swanky hotel. Upon arriving at the hotel, George is mistaken by crook 'Harry Pinto' (Stratford Johns) for a ruthless hit-man, who wants a rival to be exterminated!<br /><br />Not an outstanding comedy as such but a good natured piece of fun all the same. Plans to revive the series after the film's showing were sadly terminated when Yootha Joyce died on 24th August 1980 of alcohol poisoning.<br /><br />Funniest moment- George talking to his favourite garden gnome. His neighbour, Tristram creeps up behind him and says ''I think its time we had a chat''. George, thinking it has developed the power of speech, drops the gnome in shock!<br /><br />Merry Christmas to fellow IMDb users, in particular 'AdamFontaine', 'Cyril Blake' and 'TheLittleSongBird'. Have a good one! | 1 |
Here, on IMDb.com I read an opinion, that Grey Owl is best character of Pierce Brosnan ever performed. I do not know if he had better nor worse roles, I'm not his fan, but this one was really exceptional.<br /><br />The other thing - impressive hand of the movie director. I give my respect. The serenity, the beauty and spirit of wilderness was illustrated really exlusively, I never met such proximity it in any movie before.<br /><br />Another thing left in my mind after the film - this is the movie, closest to the original books, and atmosphere in it. <br /><br />And little bit more. I pay my respect to the original Grey Owl. | 1 |
German nut case Jörg Buttgereit apparently has fans - but I don't know why, and I'm Definitely not one of them! The only Buttgereit film I'd seen previously was Nekromantik and I hated every minute of it, but - shockingly - this film is worse! Der Todesking is pointless in the same way as Nekromantik, but it's a worse film because it's boring in a way that few movies have ever managed (it's not far off The Blair Witch Project, seriously). Some people say that this film is 'sick' and 'shocking', but it really isn't. The director may have been making a point about death, but only he knows what it is. How anyone could watch this film and be anything other than bored with it is completely beyond me. The film revolves around the theme of suicide, and follows the deaths of seven different people over the course of a week. Yes, that means we have a pointless and boring episode for Monday, a pointless and boring episode for Tuesday, a pointless and boring episode for Wednesday etc etc. This film manages to be even more boring than my average week! <br /><br />Der Todesking is apparently an 'art' film, although this would appear to be a reference to the way that not very much makes sense rather than a reference to the film bearing any resemblance to 'art'. Each segment of the film is meant to tell a separate story - but it doesn't! We just get a quick little sketch on suicide, and it only makes you wonder what the point is. The film feels like it should be deep, but there's a great big void where the intelligence should be and nothing there to fill it. Buttgereit uses a few evocative images; but I'm unlikely to remember any of them for more than a week or so because this film just isn't that memorable. There's a shot involving a decomposing man's body that features fairly often, but that gets old pretty quick and all you're left with is the rest of the film, which is unfortunate. If I were to struggle for good things to say about this crap, all I can think of is this; the title sounds cool. As I mentioned, Nekromantik is the only other film I've seen from this amateur director; I have copies of Schramm and Nekromantik 2, and now I'm really in no rush to watch either. Der Todesking is a dull film with no point and anyone that calls it 'art' is very much mistaken. Give it a miss. | 0 |
Totally forgettable movie but an unbelievable soundtrack: I'd give it (soundtrack)a 9 out of 10. I have the CD and the guitar work (Nils Lofgren) is superb! I saw the movie years ago and had to check IMDb to remember what it was about. I obsessed about getting the soundtrack and have since had to replace it. It ranges from blues/soul/ballad to a dose of gospel. All songs written, arranged, produced and performed by Nils Lofgren who is the "other" lead guitarist opposite Steve Van Zandt in the E Street Band. This dude can play! The vocals are handled by Nils (he can't sing very good-too raspy), Bonnie Sheridan (who is a great singer) and Tom Lepson. | 0 |
I live in Rome where the Turkish director of this film lives and works. From my Italian friends I have heard many good things about his films...so after seeing the preview I really wanted to see "Cuore Sacro". I am deeply disappointed, one of the most pompous, pseudo-religious, highly improbable and naive films. I love film but this one is really heavy and bad. The main character is really crazy, and should be locked up in a madhouse...made me sympathise with the negative character of an aunt, who runs a dirty-dealing company that only wants to make money...and I consider myself an anti-capitalist...that bad!!! | 0 |
Quite a heartwarming little film and not just for the kids. John Thaw is brilliant as always (without any hint of Inspector Morse about him). The boy playing William did a good job as well though I didn't find him convincing in every scene. I loved the whole feel of the small village and the slower pace of life in those times. I also felt the scenes in London where historically accurate, as far as I could tell.<br /><br />It strongly reminded me of a Scandinavian film I saw a couple of years ago called Mother of Mine. That film featured a boy being evacuated from Finland to Sweden during WW II. The wife of the family taking him in asked for a girl because (as it turns out)she lost her daughter. Getting a boy instead she completely ignores him. The fact that the boy speaks Finnish complicates matters even further. I highly recommend that film to anyone who enjoyed Goodnight Mr. Tom, it has the same feel to it. | 1 |
Well, Jesus of Montreal is basically an intelligent movie. The actors are indeed good and the technical side of the movie is okay. But, although I was very interested in the topic and like to think and discuss about religion (I am an atheist), it was hard to force myself to watch the movie to the bitter and in my opinion somehow unconsciously funny end. Why is this movie so incredibly boring? I don't know. It just is and so it is not recommendable. | 0 |
This is an extraordinary topical thriller. Fonda and Douglas are good, but Lemmon blows them away. He plays a man who must go against everything he thought was right. Bridges paces the film very well with a lot of tension. The last of the seventies expose films. | 1 |
This stuffy melodrama is quite easily the worst film starring Ingrid Bergman that I've seen. Even her luminous screen presence can't save this insufferably slow and meandering movie that's nearly impossible to sit through without fast-forwarding a lot of it.<br /><br />Only for die-hard Bergman fans; others are very likely to fall asleep. I suggest you to watch "For Whom the Bell Tolls" instead. | 0 |
Back in the day, I was one of the RN's in the Emergency Rooms, these skaters would occasionally land in. They were not treated well, and some of it was brought on by their asocial personalities- but we all knew they were a talented bunch of "wonderkids" even then. They deserved better care than they received, I'm afraid. They had "attitude" in spades.<br /><br />I'm so glad I caught this documentary on IFC tonight- it will be on again at 1 am and I'll be watching again!<br /><br />Little attention was given to them until the rich dying kid was able to talk his parents into draining the pool- and the film really highlights that as the taking off point....it was an amazing time, and deserved to be recorded. Stacy Peralta is due all the praise heaped on him, and long may those Z-Boys enjoy their memories and contribution to the real sport of skateboarding. As for the few "sour grape" reviews contained herein, there always were and there always will be "wannabees" and hangers-on who never do more than dream...the Z-boys lived it, breathed it, were it.<br /><br />Nice to see the vintage films and even the lone girl, "Peggy" who was so talked about as being the only female to win their respect.<br /><br />Thanks to IFC I get to really take the occasional drug-free head trip of my youth and relive the heart pounding excitement again. | 1 |
The movie uses random events of historical significance as its backdrop and willy-nilly criss-crosses the lives and time-lines of its 3 central characters. To what purpose, one may ask? The problem with this film is that the script becomes the 'story', not characters or their lives.<br /><br />It starts off with a bunch of rich, aimless college kids (and a couple of not-so-rich too) drawn into the Naxalite movement. Affair, rejection and separation follows. People go their own ways, seemingly. Only till the heroine forces herself upon them. Not once but twice. After a pause in the 'Movement', the next hurdle for these 3 is the Emergency imposed on the country by Indira Gandhi. Lots of political figures roam around for no obvious reason. The sub-plots are too contrived and don't add up to make a logical whole.<br /><br />The movie tries to impose a false pace but never reaches a true rhythm. Barely coherent at times, there is no maturation and growth whatsoever in the arcs of the 3 ex-college buddies. Even after they are presumably married, engaged, settled or whatever, they are ever too eager to just ditch it all and head off to a village to have sex with the ex-lover or ex-flame. What fertile imagination the screen-writer possesses. So many 4-letter words are used without any rhyme or reason that its downright abusive!!<br /><br />Chitrangda Singh has a horrible American accent that she doesn't try to hide. Its hideous hearing her mouth cliché-ridden dialog like 'Whats up? I didn't think you'd come' (this, after the hellish nightmare she's just been thru) or, in the beginning, 'I appreciate your concern but I can take care of myself'. Yikes. What kind of clown wrote the dialogs for this? She invites her friend in to have a cup of 'South Indian' (no less) coffee, wishes someone Good Morning and then is wished Good Night by someone else in the family. Now whats up with THAT?!?<br /><br />The countless uncredited villagers and tribals are the best actors. The editing is really erratic with too many cuts. Obviously trying hard to make a bold statement, Sudhir Misra screwed up big-time on this one. | 0 |
This TV-made thriller is all talk, little action. It works hard to set up its convoluted plot, yet the writing is so muddled the exposition is still cloudy at best. By the end, I knew no more about these characters than I did at the beginning. It has a quasi-"Ten Little Indians" scenario, but ditches it mid-way through in favor of spotlighting Sally Field and her uncovering of a killer. Field overacts here with a gracelessness I've seldom seen from her. The early introductions are good, but the writing quickly strays off-course and eventually goes over the top. Lots of hysteria, and constant thunder and lightning effects (which adds nothing). A curious failure from producers Aaron Spelling & Leonard Goldberg. With all this talent, couldn't they give us something more than a script full of red herrings and Sally Field hiding in a closet? | 0 |
Already his first claim, that desires are always artificial, is totally fallacious.<br /><br />When a Jehovah Witness reject gets his own documentary on movies or anything for that matter - it's time for anyone to get their own. Although far, far more intelligent than, say, Paris Hilton (I know, not too difficult) Zizek's mouth spews just as much baloney as hers, just a different kind. He combines the worst from both his professional worlds: psychoanalysis and philosophy. Both fields are notorious for conveniently offering the expert b*lls***osopher plenty of leeway to create unprovable theories, to rant without a beginning or end, and to connect concepts almost randomly, in the process misusing the English language by creating a semantic jumble only a mother can love. Example: there are three main Marx brothers hence what a "great" idea to connect them with three levels of human consciousness, the id, the ego and the super-ego. I'm kind of surprised he didn't play a clip from "Snowhite" and make an analogy between the seven dwarfs and the seven levels of Gahannah (Moslem hell). It's like the premise of Schumacher's "The Number 23": play with numbers long enough, and you can come up with any kind of cockamamie theory you want, even linking Ancient Greeks with Princess Di's death.<br /><br />However, there is an entertainment element to TPGTC: watching a raving lunatic sweat like a hog while uttering delusional chants masked as intellectual analysis can be quite a lot of fun. Why watch "Cuckoo's Nest" or any other madhouse drama when you can have Zizek for more than 2 hours? It's like watching an amusing train wreck. Admittedly, he is almost funny on one or two occasions.<br /><br />I have always been mystified by people who desperately try to elevate movie-making into an exalted intellectual social science. Giving idiotic movies like "Birds" this much thought, hence this much credit, probably has its fat creator laughing in his grave. The raw truth is that the vast majority of movies have zero intellectual value, and the few ones that do have some intelligence don't require a shrink-turned-philosopher to draw one a map to understand them unless one is a complete idiot. Zizek sees layers and layers of meaning in the most banal movies. Hallucinogenic drugs must be rather popular and cheap in Slovenia these days...<br /><br />When Zizek showed the bathtub hole in the "Psycho" shower scene, I thought he was going to say something about galactic black holes; how they drain the life out of stars just as the bathtub hole sucks in Janet Leigh's blood. Or perhaps he could have said how the hole represents Leigh's vagina, with the blood flowing into it instead of out (as in menstruation), this representing some kind of "clever (Zizekian) irony". Speaking of which, the real irony is that if Hitchcock had really put that much thought into every scene (and the script), his movies wouldn't have been the illogical, far-fetched crap that they often are. The point of these bathtub hole analogies was to show just how easy it is to improvise about "hidden, deep meanings". And when you add Zizek's fanciful terminology from philosophy and psychology, layering these terms on top of these analogies like wedding cake decorations, you get a rambling jumble that can instantly impress the uneducated - i.e. the easily impressionable and the gullible.<br /><br />Zizek utters a number of (unintentionally) funny things here, one of the most absurd ideas being when he associates Anthony Perkins's cleaning of the bloodied bathroom with "the satisfaction of work, of a job well done". Don't laugh... Neither Hitchcock nor the writer of "Psycho" could have ever even vaguely entertained this notion that Perkins might be enjoying a job well done - the cleaning of a blood-stained toilet - while they were conceiving/directing that scene. Talk about putting words into one's (dead) mouth, but in the context of misinterpreting what the director had to "say".<br /><br />I like Zizek's initial thoughts on Tarkovsky's terrific "Solaris", but then he has to ruin a rare good impression by dragging in "anti-feminism" and other nonsense into his theory.<br /><br />Zizek's attitude towards logic is that of a dog toward its plastic bone. "I just want to play with it all day!" Logic has its rules, and is not supposed to be raped - at least not publicly - by the likes of him. He seems to regard logic, proof, common-sense, and reason as enemies or mere throwaway toys; concepts to be either avoided, twisted to fit the end-goal, or simply annihilated. Zizek is the LSD-tripped hippie, and all his favorite movies are his own personal "2001"s.<br /><br />The fact that Zizek over-focuses on two of the most overrated directors - and ones whose films often LACK intelligence, if anything - such as Hitchcock and Lynch, only further diminishes his already low credibility. I was surprised De Palma didn't feature more prominently; that's another lame director who writes inept scripts. Zizek has a field day with Lynch's incomprehensible "Lost Highway". There are just as many interpretations of that movie as there are people who watched it.<br /><br />Zizek's comment that the viewer readily accepts von Trier's laughable, "ground-breaking" physical set-up in "Dogville" made me snicker. <br /><br />However, Zizek doesn't only make up stuff as he goes along, he also indulges heavily in the "bleedin' obvious". Like all "social scientists" (an oxymoron), he wraps his very trite "observations" into articulate (if full of spitting) and sometimes complex blankets of language. After all, sociology functions in precisely the same way: it makes us believe we are hearing something new when in fact it's what we already all know, but told in an eloquent way - which fools the more unobservant listener.<br /><br />I was half-expecting for men in white suits to suddenly appear out of nowhere and strap him up in a loonie-suit...<br /><br />Slavoj Zizek: soon as a stalker in a kid's park near you.<br /><br />http://rateyourmusic.com/list/Fedor8/150_worst_cases_of_nepotism/ | 0 |
"Girlfight" follows a project dwelling New York high school girl from a sense of futility into the world of amateur boxing where she finds self esteem, purpose, and much more. Although the film is not about boxing, boxing is all about the film. So much so you can almost smell the sweat. Technically and artistically a good shoot with an sense of honesty and reality about it, "Girlfight" is no chick flick and no "Rocky". It is, rather, a very human drama which even viewers who don't know boxing will be able to connect with. | 1 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.