text
stringlengths 127
13.7k
| label
class label 2
classes |
|---|---|
Lost is one of a kind...its so enchanting and full of suspense, thrill and emotions all at the same time.I have never seen any TV series like this before. It is full of jungle thrills and has a good screenplay. The actors have emoted life on an island in such a natural way that I feel lost in the island myself while watching it.It is an excellent piece of work narrated in a very intelligent form.The series is like a movie depicting the life of the survivors lost on a deserted island.I am tempted to watch one episode after the other and I highly recommend this series for all the TV show lovers.Watch it to see the magic of being lost in nowhere. | 1pos
|
Having read the comments on the site I feel compelled to write in for the first time. It seems this movie is like Marmite and has split the audience. I have to say that while I agree films don't have to make sense to be enjoyable (see MULHOLLAND DRIVE) they still have to engage you with the characters. Now while I was totally absorbed by the murderous lesbian affair in Lynch's opus, I have to say I couldn't give a turd about Mr Green or the other cardboard gangsters that inhabited this dayglo world. <br /><br />Also, while so many people seem to try and say you didn't enjoy because you didn't get it I would have to disagree - I didn't enjoy because I was bored. I wanted the film to end and constantly listening to those quotes over and over again did not help. Call it clever if you will - I think it's repetitious.<br /><br />However, my main reason for writing is to ask all the other reviewers a question - there were no end credits on the print of the film I saw. Just music over black. Did I watch a dud print or is this evidence of GR's pretentiousness? Or, did everyone involved in the movie watch the rough cut and have their name removed??? | 0neg
|
This must be one of the most overrated Spanish films in history. Its lack of subtlety and complexity and its total political correction make it really childish, with only good/bad characters. The world is just not like this, and good movies show complex characters with opposite impulses, dilemmas, etc. However, what I HATE most about this film is Bola's friend's father. The director tries to teach us a good lesson: tattoo artists with shaved heads are not always bad guys, in fact they can be better than the average looking dad (wow, this is like... philosophy, or something). Thank you, Achero. I'll propose you for the Nobel prize of literature. | 0neg
|
I watched this film few times and all i can say that this is low budget rubbish and that it does not have anything to do with a real history facts. Actors performances is very poor but it is result of limited acting possibilities. Anyone who watched this film now probably think of Hitler as some crazy skinny lunatic who running with a gun like some Chicago gangster. I can only to say that there is much better films about Hitler and Germany in those years and that Rise of evil is very much under average. I can recommend German film Downfall in which you can see brilliant performance of Switzerland actor Bruno Ganz in a roll of Adolf Hitler. | 0neg
|
Put aside a Dr. House repeat that I had missed, and a Desperate Housewives (new) to watch this one. I don't know exactly what plagued this movie. I never thought I'd say this, but I want my 15 minutes of fame back.<br /><br />Script, Direction, I can't say. I recognized the stable of actors (the usual suspects), but thought Herbert Marshall was a class addition and sat myself down for a good cheesy flick. Boy, was I wrong. Dullsville.<br /><br />My favorite parts: where the "office girl" makes with the 029 keypunch and puts the cards into a 087 sorter. LOL @ "the computer". I'd like someone identify the next device - a 477 ? It's before even this dinosaur's time.<br /><br />And we dinosaurs don't have that much time to waste. | 0neg
|
I've seen better production quality on YouTube! I pity the actors, as the writing was terrible and the direction shocking, not sure how they could get the lines out - I really doubt any actor would have been able to salvage this movie no matter how good they were. The characters were not developed at all, and there was no real cohesion in the plot which just seemed to go nowhere much. It's a shame really, as the premise for the movie was good and with better production quality, direction and script it could have been a decent movie. It certainly was not a comedy, unless you laugh out loud at the dubbing - which was amateurish, even the English actors sounded weird. | 0neg
|
I very nearly walked out, but I'd paid my money, and my nearly-as-disgusted friend wanted to hold out. After the endearing, wide-eyed innocence of "A New Hope" and the thrilling sophistication of "The Empire Strikes Back," I remember awaiting "Return of the Jedi" with almost aching anticipation. But from the opening scene of this insultingly commercial sewage, I was bitterly disappointed, and enraged at Lucas. He should have been ashamed of himself, but this abomination undeniably proves that he doesn't have subatomic particle of shame in his cold, greedy heart. Episode I would go on to reinforce this fact -- your honor, I call Jarjar Binks (but please issue barf bags to the members of the jury first).<br /><br />From the initial raising of the gate at Jabba's lair, this "film" was nothing more than a two-plus-hour commercial for as many licensable, profit-making action figures as Lucas could cram into it -- the pig-like guards, the hokey flesh-pigtailed flunky, that vile muppet-pet of Jabba's, the new and recycled cabaret figures, the monsters, etc., etc., ad vomitum. Then there were the detestably cute and marketable Ewoks. Pile on top of that all of the rebel alliance aliens. Fifteen seconds each on-screen (or less) and the kiddies just GOTTA have one for their collection. The blatant, exploitative financial baiting of children is nauseating.<br /><br />Lucas didn't even bother to come up with a new plot -- he just exhumed the Death Star from "A New Hope" and heaved in a boatload of cheap sentiment. What an appalling slap in the face to his fans. I can't shake the notion that Lucas took a perverse pleasure in inflicting this dreck on his fans: "I've got these lemmings hooked so bad that I can crank out the worst piece of stinking, putrid garbage that I could dream up, and they'll flock to the theaters to scarf it up. Plus, all the kiddies will whine and torture their parents until they buy the brats a complete collection of action figures of every single incidental undeveloped, cartoonish caricature that I stuffed in, and I get a cut from every single one. It'll make me even more obscenely rich."<br /><br />There may have been a paltry, partial handful of redeeming moments in this miserable rip-off. I seem to recall that Harrison Ford managed to just barely keep his nose above the surface of this cesspool. But whatever tiny few bright spots there may be are massively obliterated by the offensive commercialism that Lucas so avariciously embraced in this total, absolute sell-out to profit. | 0neg
|
There were some great moments of reality in there depicting modern day life (not only in Japan, but everywhere). It shows how stifling ones culture can be, and wanting to break out of the mold its created for you.<br /><br />The dancing was just a vehicle for saying "do what you love even if its against the norm". Rather Billy Elliot like I would say. I enjoyed that film as well. <br /><br />The humour was well timed, and the touching moments felt so real, you could feel the awkwardness between Sugiyama and his wife, the tantrums in the dance hall. I loved Aoki - him and that wig and his excessiveness on the dance floor made me simply howl!<br /><br />The actors all did a wonderful job, the story was well written. I watched it a second time and caught some little nuances that I missed on the first viewing. Good entertainment! | 1pos
|
Having looked at some of the other comments here, I have a main complaint with this presentation. <br /><br />The two primary characters are attractive in their own ways - the beautiful "victim," and the handsome, obviously extremely "off-center," blue-collar protagonist (if just short of "totally-deranged") - take turns beating the hell out of each other, sort of like a Caucasian Kabuki scenario.<br /><br />This is all right, and this is, of course, mainly a "turning-the-tables" story. However, my referenced complaint is that I believe the director got caught-up in his desire to display Farrah's well-known and obvious physical attributes. Beginning with her being enticingly clad in a thin robe, and with a number of scenes displaying more than needed for any dramatic effect - while immensely pleasing to the eyes, these distract from the poignancy level of the drama.<br /><br />Her roommates I'm certain give performances as written and directed - however, their respective skepticism and histrionic babbling and sobbing, don't ring true -- based upon Farrah's previous experience with this guy, the obvious evidence of his having come to their premises with only the worst of intentions, and that she would have absolutely no grounds to be exaggerating what has occurred.<br /><br />But this is a film and story, compelling as much in spite of, as because of, the director's work. | 1pos
|
A female country singer nicknamed "Big T"--seriously, that's what they call her--risks her budding musical career and her life by falling into the company of a sleazy drunkard (Busey) who wants to be her manager. His mother committed suicide, his father's an alcoholic as well, and he has a violent temper. You can imagine where that leads. In the meantime, there's music aplenty, as Parton, with her fluid vocal talents, belts out song after song (at least half a dozen of them about Texas). Steer clear of this mess and check her out in NINE TO FIVE or STEEL MAGNOLIAS instead. | 0neg
|
Nintendo!!! YOU #%$@ERS!!! How could you do this to me? I can't believe it...this movie is actually worse than the first one. I went to see this at the theatre with my brother because my mother forced me to tag along....oh God...where do I even begin? The plot SUCKED. The voice acting SUCKED. The animation SUCKED. The ending REALLY SUCKED. If you liked this movie, YOU SUCK TOO. And to Futuramafan1987, who said this was the greatest movie ever, you are a TOOL, PLAIN AND SIMPLE. This isn't a movie for anyone but crack-addled ten-year olds with Game Boys who think Pikachu is God. I'm still cry to this day thinking about that horrible turd of a movie....and then there was Pikachu's Adventure...don't even get me started on that horrible mess of a film. It is, in all truth, one of the most boring experiences of my entire life. Don't go watch this at any costs.<br /><br />Bottom Line: Go out, find every copy of this movie that you can, and burn it. Burn them all, and then proceed to rent a GOOD movie, like Aliens...or Bowling For Columbine...or even Back to the Future! | 0neg
|
I wouldn't go so far as to not recommend this movie, since the only problems I have with it are due to an overexposure to the plot devices used in the movie - the sort of things common to every kids movie ever made it seems. That doesn't make it bad, just not something I'd go far.<br /><br />It is a little saccharine, so I might say that for the most part anyone looking for something with a little more wit could be disappointed in an obviously for-kids movie like this.<br /><br />However, all of that goes out the window when that squirrel (the one in all the trailers) comes on-screen. His time is limited, but it seems apparent that the decision makers had the wisdom to tell these guys 'hey, could you stick in a little more squirrel?' every time it's getting intolerably dull. That doesn't save the movie, but you can leave saying 'at least there was one aspect where I couldn't stop laughing.'<br /><br />And of course, visually it won't disappoint, but that's almost a given with Pixar flicks. Of all of their stuff, I'd put this at the bottom...but that isn't in itself bad. | 1pos
|
For those of us that lived thru those weeks of filming in town and around the Valley - lest we not forget the tedious days of road closures and "film-making". As a reminder to those that live here - locales include Boulder Creek, Bonny Doon, Davenport, Big Basin. etc. The bank was the BC firehouse; chase scenes included Moon Drive off Hwy 236, Empire Grade Rd, and Hwy 1.<br /><br />Production: Jeffrey Jones was the most approachable, Matt Broderick was above us all - even back then. As far as the film goes - a joke of a script and even a bigger laugh regarding acting and plot - but who cares at this level. A nice time capsule for those that enjoy our coast and valley scenery.<br /><br />Additional notes; Joe's Bar (Jed's Tavern in the film), original name of the film was Welcome to Buzzsaw - the Old Erba's parking lot was the town square, the backyard shots were off of Grove Street in Boulder Creek; turn off the thinking cap and see a few actors in their early days. | 0neg
|
I remember first watching Sabrina when it came to TV in the UK on ITV1 when i was 13/14. I'm now 24 and still love it now as much as i did when i first watched it. I get a little stick from some of my friends for still watching a "kids show" but i don't care! lol Caroline Rhea as "Hilda" is my personal favourite character and Later on Morgan also became another of my favourite characters. I remember spending so much time watching various special events honouring Sabrina on the TV station Nickeleoden UK. I love Mellissa Joan-Hart, she was great in "Clarrissa Explains All" but so much better in this. I was gutted when they decided to finish it! I hope it will soon be released on DVD here in the UK - I'll be first in line! lol x | 1pos
|
Same old same old about Che. It completely ignored the really interesting facts of Che's true character. Sodeberg redid the same boring narrative of Che. The silly seductive tale of an Argentinean rich-boy who was so shocked by poverty he became a Robin Hood fighting alongside the poor, until eventually he was murdered by the CIA. Yeah, yeah, heard it all before, BORING AND UNTRUE!. The reality of Che Guevara is very different and far more explosive! The facts show that he was a totalitarian with a messiah streak, who openly wanted to impose Maoist tyranny on the world. He was so fanatical that at the hottest moment in the Cold War, he even begged the Soviet Union to nuke New York, Washington or Los Angeles and bring about the end of the world. CHe urged Khrushchev to launch a nuclear strike against US cities. For the rest of his life, he declared that if his finger had been on the button, he would have pushed it. When Khrushchev backed down and literally saved the world, Che was furious at the "betrayal". If Che's recommendations had been followed, you would not be reading this review now. How a homicidal maniac became a pop icon would have made a much more interesting film. Incredible that no filmmaker has been daring enough to show the real side of Che and his posthumous media transformation. THAT WOULD MAKE AN Oscar WINNING FILM! I thought making independent film meant taking REAL RISKS and being GROUNDBRAKING! They only stick to "safe counterculture themes", to wit, "Che cool", "Wall Street bad", "Republican= Nazi", "Bush ex Hitler", "NRA is worse than KGB", "Christians are fanatics and stupid", etc...ad nauseum. Oooh, how daring, how mind blowing. Tres anti-mainstream and edgy. I wish they would have some real cojones and tackle the Independent Film Oligarchy! That would be truly daring! | 0neg
|
This movie is one of the most awful movies ever made.How can Jon Bon Jovi play in a movie? He is a singer not an actor, What?Is he killing vampires with his guitar? And what about the dreadful plot? O my God this movie really sucks. In the end is the Queen of vampires played by the eternal vampire Arly Jover (Blade) surrounded by an army of vampires, but when the "fantastic" slayers arrive only 4 vampires are left!! What happened with the other 10-15 vampires? They run out in the sun??? And what about the "Grand Finally" when Bon Jovi blows her head with a shotgun??? That's really a "NOT" . In "Buffy the vampire Slayer" in 100 episodes not a single vampire is killed with A SHOTGUN??? This really is a lack of originality! | 0neg
|
"What the Bleep Do We Know!?" was one of the worst times I have spent at the movies. It was less of a movie and more of an after school special, but at the same time nothing special at all. The attempt at a narrative in which they grounded their ideas was absolutely pathetic, which almost anyone will tell you. Marlee Matlin in her underwear just shouldn't happen. I won't dwell on it. What I will reveal is a criticism that many are unable to formulate. This movie, while tedious, also suffered a tremendous flaw in reasoning. It was horribly contradictory because it took such a manipulative, become a creator of your life, manifestation of abundance, shoeless piece of propaganda. Interconnectivity is explained as a large party of our existence. However, the movie encourages that we control our surroundings with our minds. It completely neglects that there are other people with minds that could be controlling us, which seems to be more the case. Or at least the structures in which we exist greatly limit us. In this way, the movie was inappropriately solipsistic. Solipsism and interconnectivity just don't mix unless you're God almighty. If you are, you will be impressed (?!?) by all the neat things this movie will reveal that You can do. If not, you will be sorely disappointed, a moron, or perhaps both. Also, the title is so ridiculous, I have trouble warning people not to see the movie because I feel retarded mentioning it by name. Shame on everyone involved. | 0neg
|
This is a poor film by any standard. The story in Match Point had a certain intrigue, and the direction and writing a certain fascination (Woody Allen mixing his own culture with that of the classic English murder and exploring what can be done with it).<br /><br />Scoop, however has none of this. It is poorly written, the two leads are hopelessly wooden and the story itself has no interest at all. The genre that it spoofs requires at least some sort of subplot with witty explanations and tie-ups (why are tarot cards and keys kept under French horns in locked rooms?).<br /><br />Allen's delightful and witty versions of various Hollywood genres (Curse of the Jade Scorpion/Purple Rose of Cairo etc) have given us so much pleasure over the years. Even Hollywood Ending had a great central idea. Sadly his inspiration has deserted him this time. | 0neg
|
The name Uwe Boll is automatically linked to bad horror/cult cinema and every new movie he releases which is about two, three per year immediately always receives negative ratings and harsh criticism. You're actually almost tempted to think this is just a contemporary hype. You know, like it's popular to hate Uwe Boll whether you liked his movies or not. Let me just assure you that this is NOT the case. Uwe Boll is a terrible writer/director and quite frankly a menace to the entire film-making industry. "Seed" is another most unfortunate of proof that. In here, Boll tries so desperately hard to come across as controversial and shocking that he overlooks numerous other elements that any movie essentially needs to exist, like a plot, a narrative structure, character development, tension building
"Seed" is a hideous movie, full of gratuitous filth and incompetent padding footage. I once read that "Seed" was Uwe Boll's interpretation of the nowadays popular horror trend of Torture Porn flicks, but that's not even close. The film inarguably does borrow some influences from "Saw" and "Hostel", but basically it's just another umpteenth dull slasher with an indestructible killer and video game violence. <br /><br />The first 45 minutes of "Seed" are beyond boring and actually just confirm all the obvious things you already knew were going to happen. For you see, Boll was stupid enough to begin his film with a (hyper- fast) scrolling text explaining there's a federal US law claiming that death row prisoners have to be set free if three attempts to electrocute them fail. So you know this will happen later on, but still the first three quarters are wasted on catching a serial killer and bringing him to the electric chair. Seed is a mute serial killer who supposedly slaughtered 666 victims (exaggerate much?) who wears a bag over his head. He watches real-life animal cruelty footage (and thus WE watch real-life animal cruelty footage; thanks for that Mr. Boll) and videotapes people as the slowly decompose in their cellar (including a crying baby which is really sick and twisted). When he's finally captured, during the most amateurish and implausible police manhunt ever filmed, and put on death row, the film even becomes more retarded. After being buried alive because the electric chair couldn't fry him, Max Seed crawls back to the surface and goes on a brand new killing spree; this time mainly focusing on the people who arrested and executed him. <br /><br />The senseless plot twists and complete lack of story depth of this movie go way past being just bad; they're downright infuriating and insulting the intelligence level of the average horror movie fanatic. Multiple twists and sub plot in "Seed" are simply impossible to accept by the reasonable functioning human mind because they're just too dumb! Nobody believes that cops and prison staff members will just bury a mass murderer alive without shooting a few bullets through his head first. Nobody will accept that a fugitive convict cannot be found for another six months even though he went straight back to the exact same hideout place where they first caught him! "Seed" is full of retarded little things like these and the movie gets dumber with each minute that passes. Personally, I refuse to accept that the cast & crew members didn't notice this as well. It really makes you think that Uwe Boll simply neglects all advice and criticism, and just stubbornly shoots his movies the way he wants to. I imagine his yelling stuff like "shut up and do as you are told" to his actors whenever they remark that the scene they're shooting doesn't make a lick of sense. <br /><br />Just for the fun of upsetting people, there's a gigantically overlong sequence where Max Seed smashes an elderly lady to death with a hammer whilst she's tied up to a chair in the middle of her own living room. Instead of shocking, as Boll intended it to be, this sequence masterfully epitomizes how pathetic and wannabe controversial the whole film in fact is. "Seed" is horrendous, it's disgusting, it's pitiable, it's
Boll. | 0neg
|
The worst movie I have seen in quite a while. Interesting first half with some engaging, terse dialogue among dubious characters in a late-night bar. The movie then degenerates into a shapeless succession of scenes aiming for visual shock (read disgust) without any redeeming observations or lessons in humanity or anything else.<br /><br />I wanted to walk out, but the director was present at this showing and my politeness preventing me from showing him disrespect. Still, time is precious (as the director himself observed in his intro) and I really begrudge the time I wasted on the second half of this one.<br /><br />Saving graces were the three main characters in the first half of the movie, especially the female lead. | 0neg
|
So it starts with a beautiful old house in the country. You have a group of people who get asked to come to this house and (not surprisingly) the caretakers always lock the gates at night for no apparent reason. Anywhoo, the people laugh, joke etc. This Dr tells them a spooky story of this woman and some kids. They get scared, they start to feel stuff. Oh no, a girl see's s ghost. Some more talking then this huge ghost comes and etc etc. This girl finds out that this ghost killed little kids and that she must free their souls, yeah yeah, blah blah. She does but, oh no, she dies as she does. And goes to heaven whilst this evil ghost goes to hell. Two people survive and escape the house. The script is terrible because a guy gets his head chopped off and Elanor (the one who dies saving the kids) says "oh no". The acting is wooden, the effects are crap and the set is a couple off rooms used over and over again. Basically if you like laughing at badly made films watch it, but if your looking for a scare then definitely give this film a miss. I was extremely disappointed when I watched this. A very big let down. My sister (who gets sacred very easily) got bored in this film it is appalling. | 0neg
|
I couldn't believe this terrible movie was actually made at all. With the worst actors you could find, the worst script written (Mark Frost & Sollace Mitchell) and by far the worst waste of time in viewing. I won't belabor the story as it's really not worth it. But I will elaborate on some of the performances and definitely the story. As to the story, it is very hard to believe that this bitty crazy schemer could actually do what she did. That in reality the wife couldn't defend herself against a little bitty of a thing. That the husband could actually find the nut case attractive at all. That the defense attorney could break every court rule there was and keep on doing it after the judge ordered the blankety blank to shut up. And the final result of the film is an insult to justice, movie codes, and the male species. The theme of this mess is let women do as they wish, kill whom they want, defend the killer and get away with it, while the guy rots in jail the innocent victim. Hard to believe that Sollace Mitchell, the director and a man, would even want to make this dribble.<br /><br />As to the acting: Jordan Ladd, the killer, is awful. A loony toons, who does needlepoint during her murder trial (is this allowed in court?) She bored me to the hilt. One more look of her batting her eyes and indicating how innocent she was and I'd throw up. She's not even attractive enough for any guy to leave his wife. The husband, played on one level by Vincent Spano, just seems to look and act stupid most of the time. He was so predictable in his performance falling into the traps set for him by all the women surrounding him. The worst by far was Holland Taylor as the Defense Attourney. She over acted throughout the film and made a mockery of justice. If she would cross examine me anytime, I'd have told her to go take a hike. Everybody else in this sleazy film did their job as directed to do so.<br /><br />I wish I could give this film a zero rating. However we are forced to start with 1. Too bad. Let's not have anymore painful watching films like this. Lifetime can do better then this, I know it.<br /><br />This is a postscript: Made the mistake of turning this insipid movie on by mistake. As soon as I saw the bimbo Jordan Ladd I knew I'd seen it before and didn't like it or her. I not only turned the darn thing off but had to add my anger at people like Sollace Mitchell who wrote the screenplay but also directed this horrible flick. Doesen't anyone see that her/his message is that sickness pays. Being ill and going around killing people is okay with this director/writer. Totally making the male species idiots. Well, this male tells you to go stuff it somewhere painful. We're not all that stupid and will speak out to your so called movie, which in this person's mind deserves to be trashed.<br /><br />And again this loser is shown. Why???? Can't you read the comments on this stupid and despicable movie? Are we constantly subjected to see the bimbo Jordan Ladd again and again? Get her off TV, films and out of sight. She's just terrible in every sense of the word. Phew!!!! | 0neg
|
This is an excellent movie. It is about many things: the hunt for a serial killer, the bureacracy of Soviet Russia, the drive of one man, and the relationship between this man (the lead detective) and his superior.<br /><br />The thing that sticks with me the most is the relationship between Durokov (Rea) and Fetisov (Sutherland) (excuse bad spelling, please!). For some reason, it is moving to see their evolution from hostility and offense turning into respect and cameraderie and working together. One line in the movie sums it up for me: "He would say something witty, but he is overcome with emotion."<br /><br />Excellent acting by all of the cast, even the smallest parts were done with believability.<br /><br />This is not a fast-paced action thriller; in fact, it moves at times like a slow drama, but it is worth it. Very satisfying and not exploitative about the crimes at all.<br /><br /> | 1pos
|
When evaluating documentaries that focus a relatively small group of Ugly ultra right wing and conservative groups like this in the USA you must consider the following. The United States of America with its population of 270 million and its complex history as an aspiring democracy and its hopes and desires to uphold Human Rights that it has its failings and downside. It is of course expected that extreme right wing groups and ultra conservative groups exist in sizable numbers however relative to the size of its population they are very small and isolated . On a per capita basis Europe, Britain and even Australia have similar right wing groups in fact on a per-capta basis the actual size of Neo-Nazi groups in Australia is actually higher than in the United States of America. It is for the above reasons that it is unjustifiable to demean and vilify the American people and their level of debate in Educated American Society by very fraudulently and deceptively presenting this ultra-right wing bunch of psychopaths as being representative of American Society. By doing so Greenstreet, deliberately chose small and isolated groups at opposite ends of the spectrum to construct an image of America that is an outrageous and deliberate sensationalist lie. This film is clearly designed to inflame and pander to the views of people who harbor this subconscious and morbid hate the American people and way of life under the guise of spurist fashionable and cliché idealist left wing ideology. This film was made for profit not for furthering the truth about American Society and the Human condition. Greenstreet can make documentaries that focus on ultra right wing conspiracies, the Military Industrial complex but fail miserably to present an intelligent and balanced factual debate let alone alternative solutions to the failings of a vibrant democracy. Movie Show is exposed as Anti American by its support for this trash. SENSATIONALISM at its worst anti -USA garbage shameful. | 0neg
|
I saw this movie at the 18th Haifa film festival, and it is one of the best I've seen this year. Seeing it on a big screen (and I mean BIG, not one of those TV screens most cinemas have) with an excellent sound system always enhance the cinematic experience, as the movie takes over your eyes and ears and sucks you into the story, into the picture.<br /><br />The movie presents a set of characters, which are loosely inter-connected. Their stories cross at certain points, and the multiplicity of story lines reminded me very much of the great Robert Altman and his exquisite films. But the true hero of the movie is obviously the city of Madrid, which provides the backdrop for the entire movie. It houses the characters, contains the pavements and roads on which they walk, and sets the background atmosphere for all the events, all in beautifully filmed scenes.<br /><br />The movie returns again and again to certain themes (shoes, for instance), and in essence Salazar makes his metaphores more and more understandable to the viewer as the movie progresses. He combines the views of the city with the shots of the characters, and elegantly matches the feeling of the scene to the background. A set of talented actors helps him portrait a wide variety of characters. One excellent example is the scene in which Juaquin takes Anita across the street for the first time. It might not work on a small screen, but it gave me goose bumps easily on a big screen.<br /><br />The message of the movie is very positive, and accordingly the movie is light and funny at times. The music along the movie is usually pop, with a few instrumental pieces (I hope to put my hand on the soundtrack one day, although I seriously doubt I will).<br /><br />All together, I came out of this movie with a sensational feeling, and I'm not easily impressed (you'll have to take my word for it). For this and more I give this movie a solid 8/10. | 1pos
|
Robert Altman's downbeat, new-fangled western from Edmund Naughton's book "McCabe" was overlooked at the time of its release but in the past years has garnered a sterling critical following. Aside from a completely convincing boom-town scenario, the characters here don't merit much interest, and the picture looks (intentionally) brackish and unappealing. Bearded Warren Beatty plays a turn-of-the-century entrepreneur who settles in struggling community on the outskirts of nowhere and helps organize the first brothel; once the profits start coming in, Beatty is naturally menaced by city toughs who want part of the action. Altman creates a solemn, wintry atmosphere for the movie which gives the audience a certain sense of time and place, but the action in this sorry little town is limited--most of the story being made up of vignettes--and Altman's pacing is deliberately slow. There's hardly a statement being made (just the opposite, in fact) and the languid actors stare at each other without much on their minds. It's a self-defeating picture, and yet, in an Altman-quirky way, it wears defeat proudly. ** from **** | 0neg
|
This is probably the best documentary I have seen in a very long time. Jonny Kennedy was and is still is a tragically beautiful inspiration. Not only was he a survivor of one of the most painful diseases out there, but he used his beauty to show the world that there is life after death and never to give up reaching people and spreading his love. Watching minutes of his life long struggle was heart-wrenching. Listening to his smart ass remarks and seeing his adorable gestures was heartwarming. And seeing him smile was indescribable. I feel blessed to have been able to be touched by this tiny giant. Please, if you ever have a chance to watch this film - consider yourself lucky to have met Jonny Kennedy. | 1pos
|
PLAN B has the appearance of a quickly made, unedited, sloppy script for a movie with the attempt for an outing for the actors involved - an outing that should have been nixed from the start. It is just another Mafia-based 'comedy' that has nothing new and lowers the standard for those participating.<br /><br />Joe Maloni (Paul Sorvino) is the crime boss more concerned about clothing and appearances than about his business of control. His personal assistant Mario (Anthony DeSando) is dumber than dirt and his ignorance is supposed to be funny. Maloni has whacked one of his debtors (who just happens to be married to bookish Fran - Diane Keaton) and Maloni takes Fran on as his assistant to work off her dead husband's debt by being Maloni's 'hit man'. Fran is afraid of her own shadow and is unable to carry out Maloni's assignments, electing instead to transport her 'whackees' to Florida to hide at her brother James' house until she can figure out what to do next. This alternative to killing the three candidates is called Plan B, Plan A being to kill them! The ending is wholly predictable just as is every line assigned in the script to the characters.<br /><br />Diane Keaton has made a lot of fine films and is one of our most talented actresses and comediennes, but here she screams and rants and twitches her way through a ridiculous part that quickly becomes annoying to watch. Paul Sorvino is, well, the Paul Sorvino type cast from other mobster films. The supporting cast is likewise allowed to play to the balcony in the broadest slapstick, pratfall fashion imaginable. What is supposed to be a comedy ends up being just silly and overdone. Director Greg Yaitanes needs to go back to TV sitcoms: had this flimsy story been compressed into a half-hour gig it might have had a chance. Grady Harp | 0neg
|
I have no idea what people are complaining about. I saw this movie yesterday and I really liked it. Stone once again delivered a great character. She was just as good as she was in the first Basic Instinct. She still has those smart but tricky answers. Although Sharon may be 48 years old... she looks amazing! I don't care if she's as fake as a Barbie. She looks good and that's that. Basic Instinct 2 gives you everything you want from the first. Sex, violence, and a great ending that will leave you thinking and talking about it for hours! Half the people commenting on this movie haven't even saw it. So don't listen to them. | 1pos
|
There was a reasonably good looking girl starring the film(Zoe Mclellan) but even her looks couldn't stop me from voting it the lowest possible - one.<br /><br />The plot is bad and irrational.<br /><br />What more can I say. The movie sucks. | 0neg
|
When I go to see a movie about zombie's, I'm not expecting oscar calibre performances, or writing on the level of The Godfather, but I do expect the actors to at least not look like their straining to read their cue cards, and dialogue that doesn't sound like it was typed out 10 minutes before the actor reads it into the camera. This movie was just awful, I actually got up and left about 25 minutes in and went next door and watched Cold Creek Manor, that wasn't very good either, but it seemed like Citizen Kane compared to this pile of crap. On the plus side, the girls were very pretty, that's probably the only thing that kept me in my seat for longer than the first 5 minutes, in fact I left after the hottest one got killed, there wasn't anything to hold my interest after that. | 0neg
|
Alicianne (Laurel Barnett) becomes a live in babysitter for young Rosalie Nordon (Rosalione Cole) who has recently lost her mother. But Rosalie misses her dead mother a lot and continuously visits her grave (conveniently located in a cemetery right behind the house) late at night...where she also meets her "friends"...<br /><br />This starts off good with a truly eerie sequence in the cemetery...then falls apart. The story is thin and there is TONS of padding to make the film 85 minutes long. The acting is terrible across the board (with Cole easily being the worst). Badly directed with some of the WORST editing I've ever seen in a motion picture. Scenes (and sound) are just cut off with no rhyme or reason. Also the film has terrible (and obvious) post-production sound.<br /><br />As for blood and violence--forget it! There's very little and what there is looks incredibly fake. I've NEVER seen such fake-looking blood--looks like ketchup! Boring, pointless--a rightfully forgotten drive-in movie. You can skip this one. | 0neg
|
Jafar Panahi's comedy-drama "Offside" portrays some women trying to enter a Tehran sports arena from which women are banned. The official reason: lots of foul language, and the soccer players have their legs showing. But of course, it's really a case of sexism. So, most of the movie consists of mild comic relief as the women try to ask the men serious questions about why women are banned from the stadium, and one woman even comes up with her own scheme to defy the men.<br /><br />As I understand, all of Jafar Panahi's movies (this one included) are banned in Iran. The real tragedy is that the CIA's 1953 overthrow of the prime minister and subsequent backing of the brutal shah gave Ayatollah Khomeini an excuse to use his narrow interpretation of the Koran to establish a chauvinistic society, and that George W. Bush's current policy towards Iran gives Mahmoud Ahmadinejad an excuse to act the cowboy and tighten censorship.<br /><br />Above all, this is a neat look at people coming up with ways to challenge the system. Not a great movie, but worth seeing. Considering that all Jafar Panahi's movies are banned, I wonder how he's able to even make them. | 1pos
|
Yes, I loved this movie when I was a kid. When I was growing up I saw this movie so many times that my dad had to buy another VHS copy because the old copy had worn out.<br /><br />My family received a VHS copy of this movie when we purchased a new VHS system. At first, my mom wasn't sure that this was an appropriate movie for a 10 year old but because we had just bought a new VHS system she let me watch it.<br /><br />Like I said, this movie is every little boys dream
The movie contains a terrific setting, big muscled barbarians, beautiful topless women, big bad monsters and jokes you'll only get when you get older. So, a couple of days ago I inserted the video and watched the movie again after a long time. At first, I was bored, then started thinking about how much I loved this movie when I was kid, and continued watching. Yeah, the experience wasn't as great as I remembered
The acting is pretty bad, the storyline is pretty bad, the jokes weren't funny anymore, but the women were still pretty. Yes, I've grown up. Even though the movie experience has changed for me, I still think it's worth 7 stars. For the good old times you know
| 1pos
|
Geez! This is one of those movies that you think you previously reviewed but you didn't. I mean, you didn't give a crap about it but somehow it came to your mind.<br /><br />To be honest and brief; this is one of the worst, boring, and stupid slashers ever made. I can't say anything good about this piece of crap because there are barely decent sequences that could tell it's made by professional film makers.<br /><br />The death scenes are horrible, bloodless, stupid. The plot is somehow good taking in account that it copied "Popcorn" from 1991.<br /><br />To make things even worse, this isn't a movie so bad that it's good. It's just plain bad.<br /><br />Molly Ringwald tried to do her best but it wasn't enough. | 0neg
|
BSG is one of my all time favourite TV series. I was lucky enough to start watching it as the series came to it's final season. It was a marathon from start to finish for me and what an incredible ride it was! <br /><br />As soon as I noticed the pilot on Hulu I knew exactly what I was in for just by the title - Caprica! Although, some things don't add up when you compare both series it is still beautifully executed. There were no mention about the holobands in Battlestar Galactica or the mention of virtual worlds but maybe I haven't got far enough into the series for them to explain why.<br /><br />I recommend this show to anyone who loves the universe, technology, and alternate fantasies of our world. This show is very interesting and will have you wanting to watch more! | 1pos
|
Everyone knows about this ''Zero Day'' event. What I think this movie did that Elephant did not is that they made us see how these guys were. They showed their life for about a year. Throughout the movie we get to like them, to laugh with them even though we totally know what they're gonna do. And THAT gives me the chills. Cause I felt guilty to be cheered by their comments, and I just thought Cal was a sweet guy. Even though I KNEW what was gonna happen you know? Even at the end of the movie when they were about to commit suicide and just deciding if they did it on the count of 3 or 4 I thought this was funny but still I was horrified to see their heads blown off. Of course I was. I got to like them. They were wicked, maybe, but I felt like they were really normal guys, that they didn't really realize it. But I knew they were.<br /><br />That's, IMO, the main force of this movie. It makes us realize that our friends, or relatives, or anyone, can be planning something crazy, and that we won't even notice it. This movie, as good as it was, made me feel bad. And that's why I can't go to sleep right now. There's still this little feeling in my stomach. Butterflies. | 1pos
|
A friend of mine bought this film for £1, and even then it was grossly overpriced. Despite featuring big names such as Adam Sandler, Billy Bob Thornton and the incredibly talented Burt Young, this film was about as funny as taking a chisel and hammering it straight through your earhole. It uses tired, bottom of the barrel comedic techniques - consistently breaking the fourth wall as Sandler talks to the audience, and seemingly pointless montages of 'hot girls'.<br /><br />Adam Sandler plays a waiter on a cruise ship who wants to make it as a successful comedian in order to become successful with women. When the ship's resident comedian - the shamelessly named 'Dickie' due to his unfathomable success with the opposite gender - is presumed lost at sea, Sandler's character Shecker gets his big break. Dickie is not dead, he's rather locked in the bathroom, presumably sea sick.<br /><br />Perhaps from his mouth he just vomited the worst film of all time. | 0neg
|
I could not agree more with the quote "this is one of the best films ever made." If you think Vanilla Sky is simply a "re-make," you could not be more wrong. There is tremendous depth in this film: visually, musically, and emotionally.<br /><br />Visually, because the film is soft and delicate at times (early scenes with Sofia) and at other times powerful and intense (Times Square, post-climactic scenes).<br /><br />The music and sounds tie into this movie so perfectly. Without the music, the story is only half told. Nancy Wilson created an emotional, yet eclectic, score for the film which could not be more suitable for such a dream-like theme (although never released, I was able to get my hands on the original score for about $60. If you look hard, you may be able to find a copy yourself). Crowe's other musical selections, such as The Beach Boys, Josh Rouse, Spiritualized, Sigur Ros, the Monkees, etcetera etcetera, are also perfect fits for the film (Crowe has an ear for great music).<br /><br />More importantly, the emotional themes in this film (i.e. love, sadness, regret) are very powerful, and are amplified tenfold by the visual and musical experience, as well as the ingenious dialogue; I admit, the elevator scene brings tears to my eyes time and time again.<br /><br />The best part of this film however (as if it could get any better) is that it is so intelligently crafted such that each time you see the film, you will catch something new--so watch closely, and be prepared to think! Sure, a theme becomes obvious after the first or second watch, but there is always more to the story than you think.<br /><br />This is easily Cameron Crowe's best work, and altogether a work of brilliance. Much of my film-making and musical inspiration comes from this work alone. It has honestly touched my life, as true art has a tendency of doing. It continually surprises me that there are many people that cannot appreciate this film for what it is (I guess to understand true art is an art itself).<br /><br />Bottom line: Vanilla Sky is in a league of its own. | 1pos
|
The movie has several story lines that follow several different characters. The different story lines don't feel like one whole complete piece which makes this comedy a very incoherent one and gets even annoying to watch at times.<br /><br />It may sound weak and cliché but it's true; You're way better of watching the Crocodile Hunter series on the Discovery channel with Steve and Terri Irwin. It's more fun and even more hilarious than this movie is. I'm sure both cast and crew had lots of fun making this movie but the movie doesn't give us the viewers much pleasure. For a comedy it simply isn't funny enough and Steve and Terri Irwin just aren't good actors, not even when they play themselves! Their antics are simply not good enough to make an entire movie around and their scene's feel long, distracting and unnecessary and even annoying at times.<br /><br />The movie had quite some potential, I mean Steve Irwin is one character that in a strange way is both intriguing and hilarious to watch, so when I first heard that they were making a movie about 'the crocodile hunter' my first reaction was; brilliant! The movie however heavily suffers from its weak story and the incoherent story lines with uninteresting and unfunny characters. The movie does has a certain entertainment value, at least enough to make this movie watchable for at least once but still, I must certainly wouldn't recommend this movie.<br /><br />Watching this movie felt like a waste of time. Still this movie might be watchable just once, when it gets on TV, on a rainy afternoon. It does has some good moments but the story lines really completely ruin the movie and its potential.<br /><br />4/10 | 0neg
|
Tweaked a little bit, 'Nothing' could be a children's film. It's a very clever concept, touches upon some interesting metaphysical themes, and goes against pretty much every Hollywood convention you can think of...what goes against everything more than, literally, "nothing"? Nothing is the story of two friends who wish the world away when everything goes wrong with their lives. All that's left is what they don't hate, and a big empty white space. It's hard to focus a story on just two actors for the majority of your film, especially without any cuts to anything going on outside the plot. It focuses on pretty much one subject, but that's prime Vincenzo Natali territory. If you've seen 'Cube', you know already that he tends to like that type of situation. The "nothing" in this movie is apparently infinite space, but Natali somehow manages to make it somewhat claustrophobic, if only because there's literally nothing else, and nowhere else to go. The actors sell it, although you can tell these guys are friends anyway. Two actors from 'Cube' return here (Worth and Kazan), but are entirely different characters. They change throughout the story, and while they're not the strongest actors in the world, they're at least believable.<br /><br />The reason I say this could be a children's film under the right tweaks, is because aside from a few f-bombs and a somewhat unnecessary bloody dream sequence, the whimsical and often silly feel of this movie could very much be digested easily by kids. So I find it an odd choice that the writers decided to add some crass language and a small amount of gore, especially considering there isn't very much of it. This could've gotten a PG rating easily had they simply cut a few things out and changed a little dialogue. There is very little objectionable about this film, but just enough to keep parents from wanting their kids to see it. I only say that's a shame because not because I support censorship, but because that may have been the only thing preventing this movie from having wider exposure.<br /><br />At any rate, this is a reasonably entertaining film, albeit with a few dragged-out scenes. But for literally being about nothing, and focused entirely on two characters and their interactions with absolutely nothing, they do a surprisingly good job for an independent film. | 1pos
|
Ever notice how in his later movies Burt Reynolds' laugh sounds like screeching brakes?<br /><br />Must have been hanging out with Hal Needham too much.<br /><br />And from the looks of "Stroker Ace", WAY too much.<br /><br />Can you believe this was based on a book? Neither could I, but it was. And probably not a best-seller, I'll wager. <br /><br />Burt's another good-old-boy in the NASCAR circuit who hitches up with Beatty as a fried chicken magnate with designs on his team. Anderson provides what love interest there is and Nabors does his umpteenth Gomer Pyle impression as faithful mechanic/best friend Lugs. <br /><br />A lot of people here are friends of Burt's or Hal's. Others must have needed the work. And even real NASCAR drivers get in on the act, and look to have more talent than those with SAG cards. <br /><br />As far as laughs go, Bubba Smith (pre-"Police Academy") gets them as Beatty's chauffeur. And Petersen, in full Elvira mode, gets lots of appreciative leers as a lady who wants to get to know Lugs real well. REAL WELL.<br /><br />It's a shame that Burt threw away as much time and effort in a film like "Stroker Ace" where it didn't matter whether he bothered to act or not. They didn't bother to write a character for him, why bother to act?<br /><br />Two stars. Mostly for Petersen, and for the out-takes at the end. Now THEY'RE funny. | 0neg
|
"Hollywood Hotel" has relationships to many films like "Ella Cinders" and "Merton of the Movies" about someone winning a contest including a contract to make films in Hollywood, only to find the road to stardom either paved with pitfalls or non-existent. In fact, as I was watching it tonight, on Turner Classic Movies, I was considering whether or not the authors of the later musical classic "Singing In The Rain" may have taken some of their ideas from "Hollywood Hotel", most notably a temperamental leading lady star in a movie studio and a conclusion concerning one person singing a film score while another person got the credit by mouthing along on screen.<br /><br />"Hollywood Hotel" is a fascinating example of movie making in the 1930s. Among the supporting players is Louella Parsons, playing herself (and, despite some negative comments I've seen, she has a very ingratiating personality on screen and a natural command of her lines). She is not the only real person in the script. Make-up specialist Perc Westmore briefly appears as himself to try to make one character resemble another.<br /><br />This film also was one of the first in the career of young Mr. Ronald Reagan, playing a radio interviewer at a movie premiere. Reagan actually does quite nicely in his brief scenes - particularly when he realizes that nobody Dick Powell is about to take over the microphone when it should be used with more important people.<br /><br />Dick Powell has won a Hollywood contract in a contest, and is leaving his job as a saxophonist in Benny Goodman's band. The beginning of this film, by the way, is quite impressive, as the band drives in a parade of trucks to give a proper goodbye to Powell. They end up singing "Hooray For Hollywood". The interesting thing about this wonderful number is that a lyric has been left out on purpose. Throughout the Johnny Mercer lyrics are references to such Hollywood as Max Factor the make-up king, Rin tin tin, and even a hint of Tarzan. But the original song lyric referred to looking like Tyrone Power. Obviously Jack Warner and his brothers were not going to advertise the leading man of 20th Century Fox, and the name Donald Duck was substituted. In any event the number showed the singers and instrumentalists of Goodman's orchestra at their best. So did a later five minute section of the film, where the band is rehearsing.<br /><br />Powell leaves the band and his girl friend (Frances Langford) and goes to Hollywood, only to find he is a contract player (most likely for musicals involving saxophonists). He is met by Allen Joslyn, the publicist of the studio (the owner is Grant Mitchell). Joslyn is not a bad fellow, but he is busy and he tends to slough off people unless it is necessary to speak to them. He parks Powell at a room at the Hollywood Hotel, which is also where the studio's temperamental star (Lola Lane) lives with her father (Hugh Herbert), her sister (Mabel Todd), and her sensible if cynical assistant (Glenda Farrell). Lane is like Jean Hagen in "Singing In The Rain", except her speaking voice is good. Her version of "Dan Lockwood" is one "Alexander Dupre" (Alan Mowbray, scene stealing with ease several times). The only difference is that Mowbray is not a nice guy like Gene Kelly was, and Lane (when not wrapped up in her ego) is fully aware of it. Having a fit on being by-passed for an out-of-the ordinary role she wanted, she refuses to attend the premiere of her latest film. Joslyn finds a double for her (Lola's real life sister Rosemary Lane), and Rosemary is made up to play the star at the premiere and the follow-up party. But she attends with Powell (Joslyn wanting someone who doesn't know the real Lola). This leads to Powell knocking down Mowbray when the latter makes a pest of himself. But otherwise the evening is a success, and when the two are together they start finding each other attractive.<br /><br />The complications deal with Lola coming back and slapping Powell in the face, after Mowbray complains he was attacked by Powell ("and his gang of hoodlums"). Powell's contract is bought out. Working with photographer turned agent Ted Healey (actually not too bad in this film - he even tries to do a Jolson imitation at one point), the two try to find work, ending up as employees at a hamburger stand run by bad tempered Edgar Kennedy (the number of broken dishes and singing customers in the restaurant give Edgar plenty of time to do his slow burns with gusto). Eventually Powell gets a "break" by being hired to be Dupre's singing voice in a rip-off of "Gone With The Wind". This leads to the final section of the film, when Rosemary Lane, Herbert, and Healey help give Powell his chance to show it's his voice, not Mowbrays.<br /><br />It's quite a cute and appealing film even now. The worst aspects are due to it's time. Several jokes concerning African-Americans are no longer tolerable (while trying to photograph Powell as he arrives in Hollywood, Healey accidentally photographs a porter, and mentions to Joslyn to watch out, Powell photographs too darkly - get the point?). Also a bit with Curt Bois as a fashion designer for Lola Lane, who is (shall we say) too high strung is not very tolerable either. Herbert's "hoo-hoo"ing is a bit much (too much of the time) but it was really popular in 1937. And an incident where Healey nearly gets into a brawl at the premiere (this was one of his last films) reminds people of the tragic, still mysterious end of the comedian in December 1937. But most of the film is quite good, and won't disappoint the viewer in 2008. | 1pos
|
Three Russian aristocrats soak up the decadence of Monte Carlo, despite the fact they are down to their last franc. In order to support their lavish lifestyle, the three use the services of a counterfeiter, and use the notes at the casinos, hoping to exchange the bogus currency for a jackpot. Andrew Hughes, a US envoy, arrives at Monaco with his wife Helen, and the three decide to make pals with the visitors, hoping for financial assistance. One of the three Russians, Count Sergius Karamzin, plans to go further, with continuous advance towards Helen, while disappointing the Count's maid, who loves Sergius. Eventually, circumstances play their hand against the three aristocrats. Its obvious that Von Stroheim was trying to convey a message (with the foolishness of American women and the improper behaviors of the aristocrats), rather than tell a story, and the film really can bore modern audiences, like me, easily by doing that. Even the acting, which is great in later EvS like Greed and the Wedding March, is just run of the mill here. The film could have used improvements on various levels. Rating, 3. | 0neg
|
Wow! So much fun! Probably a bit much for normal American kids, and really it's a stretch to call this a kid's film, this movie reminded me a quite a bit of Time Bandits - very Terry Gilliam all the way through. While the overall narrative is pretty much straight forward, Miike still throws in A LOT of surreal and Bunuel-esquire moments. The whole first act violently juxtaposes from scene to scene the normal family life of the main kid/hero, with the spirit world and the evil than is ensuing therein. And while the ending does have a bit of an ambiguous aspect that are common of Miike's work, the layers of meaning and metaphor, particularly the anti-war / anti-revenge message of human folly, is pretty damn poignant. As manic and imaginatively fun as other great Miike films, only instead of over the top torture and gore, he gives us an endless amount of monsters and yokai from Japanese folk-lore creatively conceived via CG and puppetry wrapped into an imaginative multi-faceted adventure. F'n rad, and one of Miike's best! | 1pos
|
I have watched anime but I'm not a die hard fan; and I don't read manga. I say this because many of the reviewers who are waxing lyrical about this film seem to have that background. I have seen "St. John's Wort," and although it isn't a masterpiece by any stretch of the imagination, it made me pick up "Shinobi," especially since everyone seems to love it.<br /><br />Well, I watched it this afternoon, and fought very hard to keep watching. Yes, it's very beautiful - the slow motion water scenes, the autumn leaves on the trees, even the CGI eye flicker - majestic. I liked the hawk, the costumes, even some of the fight scenes, but overall this was dull as dirt.<br /><br />It seemed as if someone took "Romeo and Juliet" - the translation even mentions that they are star crossed lovers - and threw in some "X-Men" for good measure. Two of the characters split Wolverine's powers - the guy dressed in a bear costume had his claws and the grey-haired guy had his ability to heal himself. Then you have the girl who has a poison kiss - that's Poison Ivy (from Batman). Why do they give these women such dumb powers? Poison girl shows her leg then kisses you to death. Man, that's some great power for you. And the other girl, can create bugs from this yellow dust that she rubs on her hands. The other woman, one of the star crossed lovers, has the power of a hypnotic stare. Wow.<br /><br />I sort of made it to the end of the film, by fast forwarding it, and did see a bit more tragedy than I expected. Some people are comparing this to "House of Flying Daggers" and "Hero." Don't make that mistake. They may share similar endings, but that's where the similarities end. "Shinobi" is made by an amateur - the other films are made by an experienced filmmaker.<br /><br />I would say avoid this film unless you're 12 to 18 years old. | 0neg
|
If you like films about school bullies, brave children, hilarious toddlers and worm eating, then How to Eat Fried Worms will appeal to you.<br /><br />The film is about a boy named Billy, who when arriving on his first day at a new school, discovers that some of his classmates have played a prank on him by putting worms into his lunch. The school bully, Joe and his "team" of friends start teasing Billy and calling him "worm boy".<br /><br />Billy decides to play along by saying that "he eats worms all the time". Joe and his friends don't believe him but Billy assures them and bets Joe that he can eat ten worms in one day otherwise he will come to school with worms in his pants.<br /><br />The boys take Billy up on his bet, leaving the weak stomached child with a mission to gain respect from his classmates by eating worms cooked, fried, or alive.<br /><br />The film may sound gross but there are a lot of messages in it. For one, it portrays true friendship and how to accept people for who they are. It also shows you why some bullies resort to bullying other children.<br /><br />The film's protagonist, Billy is a strong minded and brave person who all of us can relate to. It is easy to empathize with him as we silently cheer for him to reach his goal, even though we might not always agree with what he's doing or the choices he makes.<br /><br />The children in the film are portrayed exactly how children are in real life and the film deserves a lot of credit for that. The child actors are the stars of this show, showing true emotion and feeling than most other children's movies portray.<br /><br />Some adults may not enjoy this film but kids will, perhaps even teenagers.<br /><br />There are hardly any other good movies on circuit at the moment, so if you're not in the mood to see snakes on a plane, try worms on a plate in How to Eat Fried Worms. It is a feel good fun film and not just Fear Factor for kids. | 1pos
|
If the answer to this question is yes, then you should enjoy this excellent movie. I've just seen it a couple of hours ago here in Paris (where the action of the movie takes place)and I can still feel the huge trauma I received in the back of my eyes...What a visual shock ! I've never seen such a beautiful black&white photo and such a drastic change in the way of doing animated movies. I strongly believe there will a before and after "Renaissance", similarly to what we saw with Pixar movies or the Akira and GhostInTheShell experiences. This is a real breakthrough in the small world of animated movies and I hope this french initiative (a small unknown french studio with a few young folks who had a dream named "Renaissance"...) will receive the success and recognition it deserves. Vive la France ! | 1pos
|
The story of the untouchable who acted like a great soldier, saving the lives of hundreds if not thousands, is told in the 1939 film "Gunga Din." Based loosely on the Rudyard Kipling poem, the film is brilliantly directed by George Stevens and stars Cary Grant, Douglas Fairbanks Jr. and Victor Mclagen. The title role is played by Sam Jaffe, well known in my era as Ben Casey's boss, Dr. Zorba, a name that became synonymous with big, out of control hair. Say "Dr. Zorba hair" to anyone of my generation, and they know what you're talking about.<br /><br />Set in India at the time of the British occupation, three soldiers - two romantic, dashing figures in Grant and Fairbanks, and McLagen as a big lug - are cut-ups - in reality, three overgrown boys. Gunga Din is the water carrier, treated somewhat meanly - verbally, anyway - by McChesney (McLaglen), but Cutter (Grant) is fond of him. When he catches Din (pronounced Deen) practicing being his soldier walk and salute as he apes the unit during their maneuvers, Cutter gives him a few pointers.<br /><br />The merry band of musketeers is going to break up when Ballantine (Fairbanks) announces he's about to be married to a lovely young woman (Joan Fontaine) and leaving the service. However, when Gunga Din and Cutter run across Thugees, a murderous cult led by a guru (Eduardo Cianelli), Gunga Din escapes to warn the unit, and Ballantine insists on re-enlisting to help save Cutter. It's a buddy movie after all.<br /><br />"Gunga Din" starts out lightheartedly, with slapstick and wonderful, broad comedy, particularly by Cary Grant, who is quite funny. Both he and Fairbanks are so handsome, it's hard to decide which one to look at first. Much of the film is made up of huge action sequences which are very exciting. In the last part, the story becomes very dramatic and culminates in a tense, thrilling battle.<br /><br />Grant has the showiest role, Fairbanks is the lovesick romantic, and McLaglen as McChesney, mostly due to his treatment of Gunga Din, is the most unlikeable character, although one detects his soft heart in his love for his elephant Annie. His softness comes through toward the end of the movie, particularly in the very touching, tear-jerking final scene.<br /><br />Always a gentle and likable actor, Sam Jaffe gives a beautiful performance as Gunga Din, a simple, brave man with a big smile, powerful imagination and lofty dreams. Without much dialogue, Jaffe conveys Gunga Din's soul magnificently.<br /><br />This is truly the ultimate adventure film, massive in scope, with good acting, rousing scenes, a wonderful musical score, and some beautiful cinematic images. Another one from that remarkable year, 1939. Highly recommended. | 1pos
|
Mislead by the terrible lie on the cover, "fun as American Pie", my girlfriend and I sat in front of the TV waiting for a comedy... and this is definitely not one. You probably won't laugh one time if you're not one of those Jackass-like ever-teeny minds. It's not even an erotic movie, which would at least been something, given that it's about sex...<br /><br />So, what is this? The erratic plot deals with a guy who wants to lose virginity (zero in originality, I remember "Losing it" for one) and his gang of friends. The rest of the characters (i.e. the girls) just come and go for no credible reason. Come on, there are even Dwarfs (so simple: "dwarves are fun ho ho"...) The acting is very TV-like (as is the video look throughout the movie) and definitely amateur in the case of most of the girls...<br /><br />Awful movie. Amateurish, badly produced, and over all NOT FUNNY. Kids and teens will love to watch it with friends because of the swearing and sex jokes. Other than that, don't even think of renting this movie. | 0neg
|
Director F.W. Murnau wisely stuck with the silent film medium he knew so well to cover this story of native islander life in the South Seas. The documentary style works very well for the first half of the movie. The landscapes are beautiful, and the daily life activities of the islanders are interesting to watch. The film loses momentum, though, when it begins to concentrate more on the narrative story of two doomed lovers. The storyline just never gets that interesting, despite being handled well by Murnau. Won an Academy Award for best cinematography, although the award probably should have been for best scenery. You can't really credit the DP for getting to shoot in such a beautiful location. | 0neg
|
It's boggles the mind how this movie was nominated for seven Oscars and won one. Not because it's abysmal or because given the collective credentials of the creative team behind it really ought to deserve them but because in every category it was nominated Prizzi's Honor disappoints. Some would argue that old Hollywood pioneer John Huston had lost it by this point in his career but I don't buy it. Only the previous year he signed the superb UNDER THE VOLCANO, a dark character study set in Mexico, that ranks among the finest he ever did. Prizzi's Honor on the other hand, a film loaded with star power, good intentions and a decent script, proves to be a major letdown.<br /><br />The overall tone and plot of a gangster falling in love with a female hit-man prefigures the quirky crimedies that caught Hollywood by storm in the early 90's but the script is too convoluted for its own sake, the motivations are off and on the whole the story seems unsure of what exactly it's trying to be: a romantic comedy, a crime drama, a gangster saga etc. Jack Nicholson (doing a Brooklyn accent that works perfectly for De Niro but sounds unconvincing coming from Jack) and Kathleen Turner in the leading roles seem to be in paycheck mode, just going through the motions almost sleepwalking their way through some parts. Anjelica Huston on the other hand fares better but her performance is sabotaged by her character's motivations: she starts out the victim of her bigot father's disdain, she proves to be supportive to her ex-husband, then becomes a vindictive bitch that wants his head on a plate.<br /><br />The colours of the movie have a washed-up quality like it was made in the early 70's and Huston's direction is as uninteresting as everything else. There's promise behind the story and perhaps in the hands of a director hungry to be recognized it could've been morphed to something better but what's left looks like a film nobody was really interested in making. | 0neg
|
On rare occasions a film comes along that has the power to expand the mind, warm the heart and touch the very soul. "LOU" is such a film. I got "LOU" from my wife who got it from a neighbor who is in the film business. She watched it for a second time with me. We were both enthralled. Her as if for the first time again.<br /><br />"LOU" is a magical piece designed to send you back to the moment at which all of your dramas started taking place. It does this while being relentlessly entertaining. Bret Carr's acting and pacing as a director do not let you look away from the screen. He crafts a character which disarms with a bugs bunny like, stuttering innocence, but warmly carried with such underplayed sincerity that you forget you're watching a movie. When the epiphany hits during the brilliant climax, I saw my wife in tears for the second time.<br /><br />As a life coach, I facilitate individual growth and transformation, and this film is a "must see" for life coaches and anyone seeking their own personal growth and transformation. It is a brilliant, creative masterpiece with the power to change lives! | 1pos
|
Ah, McBain
The character name is immortalized and forever ridiculed by "The Simpsons" but it will also always to me personally, at least remain the name and title of a tremendously entertaining and outrageously violent early 90's action flick; directed by the cool dude who brought us "The Exterminator" and starring two of the most ultimately badass B-movie heroes Christopher Walken and Michael Ironside (the latter with a cute little macho ponytail). I guess "McBain" will largely have to be labeled as a guilty pleasure, because there's no way I can convince anyone this is an intellectual motion picture. The film is unimaginably preposterous (most action heroes take on a small gangster posse
McBain takes on an entire country) and yet takes itself way too seriously. The script is a non-stop and incoherent spitfire of clichéd situations, nonsensical twists, compulsory sentimental interludes, grotesquely staged action sequences and utterly implausible character drawings. It's a totally delirious movie; I loved it. <br /><br />Vietnam POW McBain's life is saved by fellow soldier Roberto Santos on the very last day of the war. They each keep half a dollar note as a symbol that McBain is in Santos' debt. Eighteen years later, Santos is a spirited rebel leading the revolution against the corrupt president of his home country Columbia. Santos initial attempt to take over the power fails and he's publicly executed on El Presidente's balcony. His sister travels to New York with the dollar note and turns to McBain for financial assistance and manpower. McBain and his former Vietnam buddies, who all coincidentally happen to be fed up with the injustice in this world, charter themselves a miserable little plane and fly to Columbia to open a gigantic can of whoop-ass. <br /><br />Okay, let's not fool each other here. The fact you're reading a user- comment on "McBain" already indicates that you have some sort of interest for low-budget B-movie action. One of my fellow reviewers spent quite some time composing a list containing all the main stupidities and insensible moments of "McBain". This list is totally accurate and I can only concur with it. Heck, I could even add some more senseless sequences to that list (like the preposterous and needless heroic self- sacrifice of a soldier who doesn't even have any affinity with the goal of the mission and the rest of McBain's squad), but what's the point? You definitely know not to expect a 100% coherent and plausible masterpiece. We know from beforehand this will be a silly and exaggeratedly flamboyant movie, and it's maybe even the exact reason why we want to check it out! This is a terrifically outrageous and exciting movie about a bunch of former Vietnam buddies turning into mercenaries and declaring war against the corrupt Columbian president and the national drug cartel. Please don't expect another "Apocalypse Now". This particular motion picture relies on the ruff 'n tuff acting performances of the macho leads, a whole lot of explosions and gunfights and last but not least a fantastic soundtrack in which Joan Baez sings a cover of "Brothers in Arms". | 1pos
|
A complete waste of time<br /><br />Halla Bol is a complete waste of time. The script and dialogues are poorly written, the direction is lacklustre and the acting borders on hammy.This movie was clearly aiming for the Rang De Basanti crowd but it falls far short of the mark because it does not have even one of the elements that made RDB connect with its audience_great script, terrific acting, good direction and a powerful social message that was never preached but shown.<br /><br />Compared to that near-masterpiece, Halla Bol takes a step backwards by resorting to scenes such as the hero taking a leak on the villain's Persian rug and the hero's mentor staring down bullets in a truck no less! All of this might have been acceptable in the 80s when there was a downturn in movie quality and bad movies like DivyaShakti and Phool Aur Kaante became big hits, but movie-making has become_should have become_more subtle and thoughtful of late.<br /><br />Rajkumar Santoshi is a capable director and I appreciate that he wants to give a social message in every movie he makes but maybe he simply does not know how to do it! He resorts to sermonizing without a care as to the audience's intelligence in understanding what he is trying to say. Maybe he should just concentrate on entertainment and leave the social messages to the Rakeysh Mehras and Aamir Khans.<br /><br />Even if you don't agree with everything I say, you will agree that throughout the screening you will be thinking that Rang De Basanti was much much better and Mr.Santoshi should have left the industry-bashing to Om Shanti Om. Industry-bashing? That's right!!Santoshi has depicted the industry as a place of back-biting, bitching and the casting couch which the hero happily indulges in with a starlet curiously named Sania. There are some people who will think that these portions show the real face of the industry. Don't believe everything you see!<br /><br />All in all, raise your voice against movies like this and don't spend your hard-earned money on this bomb.<br /><br />* out of ****. | 0neg
|
I don't know much about film-making, but good movies have to tell some sort of a story...your characters have to start and complete their journey. In Last Exit to Brooklyn they may, but its not in any satisfying way, and I'm not meaning a happy ending, just ANY ending.<br /><br />Last Exit to Brooklyn, set in 1952 Brooklyn during a very brutal labor strike, sets a number of story threads in motion. Most involve some of the most unlikeable characters to ever walk across a movie screen. But Last Exit to Brooklyn fails to bring these stories to any conclusion...it leaves some of them dangling with no ending, or blasts off into some bizarre stratosphere for an "artistic" ending.<br /><br />Two cases in point, and they contain spoilers.<br /><br />A sad transvestite character (an important character in the film), is struck by a car and killed. And that's it for him in the movie....he's gone for good, erased from everyone's memory..no reactions from his friends, enemies, lovers....nothing.<br /><br />In another thread the stupid, clueless, and secretly gay strike leader, having been rejected by labor, his gay lover, and found out by the neighborhood thugs, gets stomped by the thugs. The closing scene to the beating shows the streets of Brooklyn, and the streetlights are very, very similar to those of Nazi death camps...and the scene drags on and on and on...and the camera pans down to the body of the labor leader, and he's been crucified.....ppppuuuulllleeeeeez. And of course that's it for him too....brain erasure.....gone.<br /><br />Bottom line....no matter what the reviewers originally said in 1989 about this film....this movie is a depressing piece of sludge. Avoid it. And if you don't be forewarned, it really deserves an NC-17 rating for massive amounts of physical, emotional and sexual brutality...don't even let the teenagers watch. | 0neg
|
I love this show. Now, I'm not a big fan of many science fiction shows, so if it bares any resemblance to them, I didn't notice. I like the storybook quality of the cinematography. I even like the love story, even though as I am enjoying it I wonder in the back of my mind how the heck that part of the story can truly develop seeing as Ned cannot touch Chuck or else... well, you know. I even like Chuck, I don't find her annoying at all, and I generally hate overly sweet, nice, perfect characters. I even like the narrator's voice, even if it bothers one of my family members and bares some resemblance to some Walgreens commercials. I could nitpick about all the other things about Ned's predicament and how the writers are going to address it in the future but I just rather watch and wait and see what tale the writers weave. | 1pos
|
This 1986 Italian-French remake of the 1946 film of the same name turns up the heat early, and doesn't let us come up for air. The story is about a high-school student (Federico Pitzalis) who can't keep his eyes off the mysteriously beautiful young woman (played by Dutch phenom Maruschka Detmers) who lives next door to the school. One day, he follows her, and his persistence pays off. There's only one problem: She's engaged to a sketchy character (Riccardo De Torrebruna) who may or may not have committed a heinous crime, and if he repents, will probably be let off with a slap on the wrist. Also, the young woman is a little "funny in the head", and this is corroborated when we discover she has been seeing the boy's father, who is a psychiatrist. Giulia's emotional instability is only equalled by her prodigious sexual desires. Hot, hot, hot, from the word go, with handsome leads and a bombshell performance from Detmers, who plays us like a yo-yo (as she does the boy) from scene to scene, with enough suspense to keep us guessing right up until--and even after--the end. Available in R and X (!) rated versions. | 1pos
|
Fragile Carne, just before his great period. Although it is sometimes hesitantly directed, and marred by longueurs, HOTEL DU NORD is full of the faded charm and beauty typical of French films of the late 1930s, as well as a relative lightness of touch unusual with this director. All of his great virtues are here: the cramped interiors broken up by gliding, complex, delicious camera movements; a melancholy deployment of light and shade; remarkable, wistful sets by Alexander Trauner, which are so evocative that they, as the title suggests, take on a shaping personality of their own; the quietly mournful music of Maurice Jaubert; a seemingly casual plot about romance, tragedy and fatalism that casts a noose over its characters; extraordinary performances by some of the greatest players of all time, in this case Louis Jouvet and Arletty.<br /><br />In fact, the film's biggest failing, and I find myself astonished (as someone who usually, didactically, minimises its importance) to admit it, is its script. It has plenty of wit and poignancy, but without the poetry and irony regular Carne collaborator Jacques Prevert brought to their best films, it cannot avoid slipping into cliche (even if it is only cliche in hindsight).<br /><br />Ostensibly set in the boarding house, the film sets up its opening idea of community with two interconnecting tales of doomed love, and emotional, metaphysical and actual isolation The doomed love scenario is the one that works least well. Annabella is very beautiful, but not very good at doing tragic, while Aumont's callowness, brilliantly appropriate though it may be, by its nature obtrudes any real, felt, romance. Maybe it's just me, but I find it hard to sympathise with a couple, so young, so attractive, who, after only a few months, are so racked with despair that they have to shoot each other. Their high-flown lines are rather embarrassing too. Of course, this affair is not meant to be plausible - they are symbolic of youth, hope and possibility being crushed in France, or maybe France itself, despairing, resigned, waiting for death. For symbols to be truly powerful, they must convince on a narrative level, which, I feel, they don't quite here.<br /><br />What saves this plot is its connection with the story of M. Edmond, a character linked to the great tradition of French gangsters. Although we only learn it gradually, he is a killer in hiding, living off the prostitute played by Arletty, having dobbed in his accomplices. In his previous 'role' - and the theatricality of his position is crucial - he had one set of traits; in hiding he has assumed their complete opposite. Living a rather aimless life, he is profoundly shaken by the lovers' pact, and becomes fatalistic, realising the folly of trying to cheat death.<br /><br />In this way - the admission that one is less a person than a collection of signs, and that death is an unavoidable reality the most powerful masculinity must succumb to - Edmond is like a romantic prototype of Melville's clinical killers. With one exception - he gives briefly into hope, a delusion which only strenghtens - if that's not too much of an unbearable irony - his fatal resolve.<br /><br />All this could have been trite if it wasn't for the truly amazing performance of Louis Jouvet. I had studied his theatrical work at college, but this was my first taste of his screen talents, and he reveals himself to be worthy of the greats - Grant, Mastroianni, Clift, Mason, Mitchum, Cotten - giving a quiet nobility to a role which is more of a conception (he, needless to say, is allegorical too) than an actual person. Edmond begins the film a minor supporting character, but emerges as a tragic hero of some force. Like all those major actors, Jouvet's brilliance lies in what he conceals.<br /><br />On a formal level, what amazes is Carne's grasping, ten years before its flourishing, of the techniques of the great Hollywood melodramas of Sirk, Ophuls, Ray and Minnelli. Although his theatricality lacks the fluidity and clear-eyed beauty of Sierck's contemporary German melodramas (check out the masterpieces ZU NEUEN UFERN and LA HABENERA), Carne's style truly fits his theme - that of entrapment, paralysis, resignation.<br /><br />The film's principle motif is that of water - the credits float and dissolve, the hotel stands by a waterway - but instead of Renoir's open river of possibility, we have a canal, stagnant and manmade, going nowhere. The film begins as it ends, and the setting never changes, except for one brief interlude from which both escapees are doomed to return. Characters can only escape through death - their entrapment is emphasised by the narrow rooms they occupy, the walls and frames that hold them captive, the windows that look out on an escape they can never achieve. Any hope at the end, therefore, is profoundly, if romantically, compromised. | 1pos
|
This one is a real bomb. We are supposed to believe that Merle Oberon is the sequestered daughter of an ambitious politician who must prove to the Tom DeLay of the 1930s that he is worth supporting as a presidential candidate. Poor Merle can't go anywhere, but is surrounded by politicians and their quacking, quaking wives and supported only by kindly uncle Harry Davenport. She joins her two maids on a blind date and Gary Cooper happens to show up. Some shots of rodeo might have enlivened things, a la "Misfits," but no such luck with this one. Gary later breaks in to a formal dinner, at which Merle is presiding, and, though invited to sit down and join the group, reads them a lecture on their snobbery. Where did this diffident cowboy's sudden eloquence come from? The most excruciating scene in the film is a phantom party that Gary holds in his unfinished house for his absent wife, Merle. Will it never end? One to avoid. | 0neg
|
Rajkumar Santoshi Without Any Doubt Has Directed The Greatest Movies And Biggest Box Office Hits Of Indian Cinema.<br /><br />This Movie Falls Short Of All Expectations As This Movie Stars Two Great Actors Mr. Amitabh Bachchan And Akshay Kumar And When You Have These Two Actors In The Same Movie You Have To Make A Magnum Opus.<br /><br />In The Later Part Of The Movie You Can Make Out That Amitabh Bachchan's Voice Has Been Dubbed By Some Other Person Which Was Due To His Illness.<br /><br />Still The Movie Did'nt Had Proper Character Development Plus Cinematography Was'nt Good Too And One Thing That Bollywood Should Learn Is That They Should Use Visual Effects Only When It Is Needed And When Applied Should Be Done With A High Budget.The Script Had So Many Flaws Which Gives The Viewer Excuses To Attend His Phone Calls Rather Than Watching The Movie.<br /><br />The New Comer Shakes The Leg Well But Could Not Act Well But Where The Movie Loses Big Time Is The Storyline Screenplay And Cinematography.<br /><br />A Talented Actor Like Bhoomika Chawla Has Been Wasted In The Movie As Well As Sushant Singh.<br /><br />But Every Director Once In A While In His Career Makes A Bad Film.<br /><br />So Watch It Only If You Are A Fan Of Multi-Starrer Flop Movies. | 0neg
|
Would that more romantic comedies were as deftly executed as this one? I never thought anything as mundane as the simple sale of a music box could leave me catching my breath with excitement. Margaret Sullavan makes a marvellous saleswoman, and she and James Stewart always brought out the best in each other. This movie sports what I think is Frank Morgan's most winning performance, and with "The Wizard of Oz" and "Tortilla Flat" under his belt, that is saying a lot. The way he finds a Christmas dinner partner left me giddy with joy. Director Ernst Lubitsch might have thought "Trouble In Paradise" his favorite, but this one he must surely consider a triumph. With some of the wittiest dialogue American movies of the 30's has to offer. | 1pos
|
Pokemon 3 is little more than three or four episodes of the TV series, strung together without the usual commercials. The story is typical of Pokemon (conflict, fighting, and a resolution where all are happy in the end), and there is nothing original or unusual in the animation. Some of the holes in the plot are filled in (over the closing credits!) without explanation, and everything is just a bit too sweet.<br /><br />Why see it on the big screen? The only reason is to be a part of your child's world. Both of my sons enjoy Pokemon, and by my showing an interest in what they like, we are closer. Seeing a film in a theatre is still different than seeing it on the tube, and my sons enjoy the full movie-going experience. I gave the movie a 4, mostly from my children's point of view.<br /><br /> | 0neg
|
There is an old saying that relates to the rousing new film by Joe Johnston that goes something like this: "The man who thinks he can and the man who thinks he can't are both right." That is a highly presumptuous statement referring to self motivating and belief in an individual, which, in this movie, stand true even after road blocks and family trouble stand in the way.<br /><br />"October Sky" is about a young man who believes in himself named Homer Hickam, growing up in a strict, traditional family in the 1950's. Homer loves in a small coal mining town where nearly every man grows up to be a miner. All of his friends, Quentin, Roy, and O'Dell all think that their life after high school will be like everyone else's. Homer is not exited about that future.<br /><br />One night, while everyone stares at the sky, a Russian space craft called Sputnik passes overhead. This is something new for Homer, and he finds it spectacular and overwhelming. From this point on, his look at life will never be the same.<br /><br />First, he tells everyone that he wants to work in the rocket scientist area for an occupation. Flabbergasted at what he says, his family passes that idea over their heads and continues with life as usual His friends, however, think that this idea may have some potential. After all, Quentin is a very smart individual when it comes to this kind of thing.<br /><br />When the four friends start to test model rockets, and blow a white picket fence to smithereens, then what seems to be a forest fire is scared by them, they're forced to end their progresses.<br /><br />The performances in this movie are absolutely riveting from start to finish. All of the actors give performances as if this is the real mumbo jumbo here. Standing out in all of the glory: Laura Dern as Miss Riley. This very well may be Academy award material if the judges can remember back to the beginning of the year when this film is released.<br /><br />The characters are also extremely well developed. Not only to the filmmakers give clear, apparent reason why Homer is interested in the subject, but they also explain to the audience how they are succeeding in their studding of rocketry. We clearly understand all of the characters' motives and beliefs, especially the father, who is bent over on everlasting tradition.<br /><br />The film, unfortunately, loses some of its momentum at mid-point because of a silly, recycled romantic sub-plot involving Homer's love interest and how his brother stole her from him. This type of this is becoming so awfully common in high-school movies, not that this film is aimed at high-schoolers. The actors stare at each other mindlessly, like the are in a trance. I put up with it without complaining in 1997's "Inventing the Abbots," but I have had just about enough this.<br /><br />But that is just a minor complaint. With an authentic looking time period, cinematography worth an Oscar and clips of the real life Homer and friends at the end, whom all hit it big with their dreams, especially Homer, this is the first great film of 1999.<br /><br /> | 1pos
|
This short was nominated for an Academy Award and I wish it had won! Basically a filmed jam session between some very talented musicians, including Lester Young and Joe Jones, the music is incredible! Hollywood quite often embraced Jazz (particularly animation, believe it or not) but this is a rare look on film at an improvisational jam. This has been added to the Film Preservation list and deservedly so. TCM runs this as filler periodically and runs it every March sometime for its' "31 Days of Oscar" tribute. From downtown at the buzzer, swish, nothing but net and the shot's so smooth, the net barely moved. Most solidly and highly recommended!!! | 1pos
|
Whilst reading through the comments left for this show, I couldn't help but notice that a large percentage of the reviewers had either not actually watched any episodes of the show either all the way through or of their own free will. The thing about Kerching! is that it's a children's show, FOR CHILDREN so obviously if your older it is going to seem cheesy, forced, and probably stupid. I even found one person saying the sets were stupid, but I remember as an eight year old wondering why Taj had ikea icecube moulds on his wall, and also wondering if my parents would let me stick some on mine (they didn't). Yeah, it can be annoying, the acting could be better and some of the characters do really weird things with their hair, but as a kids show, I rate it 10/10. Compared to the stuff they air in its place today, well, lets just say I wish it'd be re-aired. DVD release, anyone? | 1pos
|
I don't know where to begin, so I'll begin with a snippet from the back of the cover of this movie. "Alive combines the tension of Vincenzo Natali's Cube with Kitamura's own Versus." I have not seen Versus, so I can't comment on that, but I think Cube was an excellent movie which I recommend to everyone. However, in this case someone has clearly confused "tension" with "boredom".<br /><br />I'll just go ahead and spoil the entire plot, because besides being one holy Swiss cheese of a plot, it's also moldy cheese, and the movie is not worth spending any time on even if you don't know the plot beforehand, so it doesn't matter. If I have misunderstood the plot, don't hit me - it's probably because I had to struggle to keep my eyelids open.<br /><br />So the American military in Nevada once lost a UFO i the Nambi desert. This apparently makes sense because they're both deserts so surely they're practically the same place. Different continents or not. A monkey broke into the UFO and acquired an alien something which was passed on to a Japanese researcher who had to eat the monkey to survive in the desert. What ever. The alien thing is now passed on to anyone who's "bloodthirsty" enough to kill the current host. The Japanese military wants to use it for military stuff, so they decide to make it pass from the current host (the researcher's daughter) to some other dude. But instead of just picking someone out of the military, which is full of people who are bloodthirsty AND already on the military's side, they decide that it's probably a good idea to pick some criminal out of death row instead. Oh, and the reason they pick this particular criminal from death row is because he was the first person in history to not die from the non-lethal electric shock which is the standard execution method, because everyone dies from the placebo effect when they get electrocuted. I don't know if they do this so they can giggle in the staff room at how everyone dies even though it's not deadly, or if they just want to cut down the electricity bill.<br /><br />Then the movie turns into what The Matrix would have been if it had been really lame, and superfluous fighting bores us to tears for what feels like an hour. And oh wait, now they remember that they already had a dude who was infected with the alien thing, so the entire movie up to this point was actually a totally waste of time and also human lives. Then everyone dies. The end.<br /><br />The only one moment in the movie where I didn't want to go away and sleep or eat a sandwich instead, was when a dude was pinned to a wall by a pipe through his chest, and he's hanging around up there and another dude walks by. The dude hanging on the wall says "I'm in pain, shoot me". And the living dude looks at him, and it's not like he's a mean dude or anything, so he really looks sorrowful and doesn't want the guy on the wall to suffer. So he shoots him.<br /><br />(Rhetorical pause.)<br /><br />In the stomach. "Gee THANKS A FREAKIN' HEAP." | 0neg
|
Well, when before I saw this film I really wasn't sure whether it would be my cup of tea...how wrong I was! I thought that this was one of the best films I've watched for a very long time, a real family classic. The story of a young evacuee and his new 'foster' dad, this film ticks all the boxes. I've not read the book (maybe that's a good thing & meant I enjoyed the film more) but with regards to the story, I really can't think of any bad points, hence scoring it 10 out of 10 (and I hardly ever think anything warrants top marks!). By the time William proclaimed 'I CAN RIDE MY BIKE, DAD!' I was sobbing my heart out (anyone who's seen it will understand, I'm sure). Really heartwarming, and definitely recommended. | 1pos
|
This was one of the most boring "horror" movies that I have ever seen. A college kid has an epidemic of nightmares involving roaming spirits at Alcatraz. Trying to deliver a mix of "Nightmare on Elm Street" and standard vampire fare in the form of a bad 80s music video, this movie is jammed full of bad acting and an exhaustively slow moving story. Although, being such a bad, and often laughable movie (dig those mullets and the terrible dialog), it would be good material to spoof on for an episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000. Don't be fooled by the proud mention of the film being the 1987 winner of the Silver Scroll Award by the Academy of Sicence Fiction, Fanatasy, and Horror, or that Devo contributes to the soundtrack, or that Tony Basil has a part in the film. It is a giant disaster, though one with a small cult following (see the other IMDb comments for this film). | 0neg
|
The obvious parallels between Walt Disney's charming fantasy Bedknobs and Broomsticks and C.S. Lewis Chronicles of Narnia are pretty apparent. There are more coincidences here than comparing Bedknobs and Broomsticks than with Mary Poppins even though a lot of the same creative talent went into the two Disney films.<br /><br />Like The Chronicles of Narnia it involves some English children leaving London during the blitz and coming to live in the country. And those kids have to deal with a world of magic. But unlike C.S. Lewis the Rawlins kids have the magic invade their world and help defeat the people making a mess of it in the here and now. No retreating to a fantasy kingdom like the Pevensie kids.<br /><br />No heavy duty philosophy here from Walt Disney except maybe it's not a good thing to mess with witches even apprentice ones like Angela Lansbury who learn their magic from a charlatan like David Tomlinson. Ms. Lansbury didn't get to be one of the most bankable of performers for nothing. She carries her own brand of magic that even the special effects boys at Disney couldn't top. And they won an Oscar for the Magic Kingdom in that department for this film.<br /><br />Two performers made their farewell to films in Bedknobs and Broomsticks. Tessie O'Shea played her last role in this film, she graced many a film in the United Kingdom as one of their best loved music hall performers. And that grand character actor Reginald Owen as the retired general who leads the Old Home Guard in war and in song bids adieu to film audiences around the world.<br /><br />The team of Robert B. Sherman and Richard M. Sherman who wrote the score for Mary Poppins wrote a good and serviceable one here. The Age Of Not Believing was nominated for an Oscar, but lost to the Theme from Shaft. Personally though I do like David Tomlinson's tribute to that most colorful of London streets, Portabello Road.<br /><br />Bedknobs and Broomsticks is a fine fantasy film that still holds up well after almost 40 years. Imagine what it would be like with computer generated graphics. | 1pos
|
This one took me by surprise because i had often been disappointed by Adrian Pasdar in the past, but he caught the perfect balance in this performance, avoiding both farce and pathos while delivering humour and real emotions. The always-wonderful Julie Waters is terrific here, and anyone who has not yet scene her in 1983's Educating Rita should rent it immediately (marvelous film). The rest of the supporting characters are well-played as well, many marvelously eccentric without going over the top. This one is fun. | 1pos
|
I read a couple of good reviews on this board for "Mr. Scarface", but for anyone uninitiated in the genre of Italian gangster films like myself, the picture will probably make very little sense. Indeed, after the initial setup involving the ten million lira scam, the picture devolved into a fairly routine revenge flick with a minor twist in the identity of Rick's (Al Cliver) character. The whole gang war plot got muddied up for me with the inclusion of Vinchenzo Napoli (Vittorio Caprioli), but as most other viewers commented, he's about the only one who gave this picture any life with his often ineffective attempts at violence. I found it somewhat unbelievable that Manzari's goons who chased Tony through the streets didn't actually stroke out before Tony even laid a hand on them. For all of his buildup as the title character, Jack Palance was wasted rather unceremoniously in an anticlimactic near finale, making the U.S. working title, "Mr. Scarface", rather moot. I've seen enough spaghetti Westerns to know that they don't all work; I guess in this case, my first look at a spaghetti gangster flick didn't quite make it either. | 0neg
|
An old saying goes "If you think you have problems, visit a hospital." That has been updated in recent years to "If you think you have problems, watch a TV talk show...especially Jerry Springer's!" This movie is one of those that is so bad, it's good! That's why I gave it a seven-it's all right, but not great. It's a great way to waste 95 minutes, just as the daily talk show is advertised as "an hour of your life you'll never get back!" All the familiar themes are here...unfaithful husbands/boyfriends, the wildest audience on television, women flashing Jerry, etc. The shocker was watching Molly Hagan, who normally plays sweet characters ("Seinfeld" and "Herman's Head") playing a trailer-trash mom and Jaime Pressly ("My Name Is Earl") as her equally trashy daughter, performing sexual favors for virtually every man with whom they came in contact. The men (including the staff producer) were presented as quintessential lunkheads who deserved what they got. I don't want to spoil or reveal everything but the movie plays like the daily show. Here in Phoenix, it's shown back-to-back for two hours every morning and, after that, everything else seems to pale. Again, I give this movie a seven...it's good but not great. Jerry Springer is best taken in small one hour doses. | 1pos
|
There are several things wrong with this movie- Brenda Song's character being one of them. I do not believe that the girl is a lousy actor- I honestly don't. I believe she is given poor lines. She is just supposed to be, "that vain, rich girl", and while it is funny in the TV shows she plays in, it can't even get a dry laugh from me here.<br /><br />Either way, I really should have known what to expect when I sat down to watch this film.<br /><br />The movie was not that terrible...initially. Wendy's reaction to Shen was completely natural. I mean, how would you feel if a man, claiming to be a reincarnated monk, chased you around commanding you to wear a medallion and insisting that you were needed to fight "the great evil" and save the world? Which brings me to another point. I know this movie is entirely fiction, but it is still has a founding in Chinese culture. It seems like all of the "warriors" in Wendy's family line were women. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I doubt that the monks would've just been okay with that. Sure, maybe they could've worked it in somehow, but they offered no explanation whatsoever. By doing so, they just contributed to the many cheesy attempts at female empowerment made by Hollywood and the media.<br /><br />Nevermind that, however- let us continue.<br /><br />Wendy's character becomes more unbearable as the film go on. Yes, she is a teenager, and it is near homecoming- I mean, who wants to fight evil during homecoming? The problem is, when "the evil" starts to manifest himself, Wendy does not seem as freaked out as she should be. She is extremely careless- even for someone like her. She continues not to care about her training. I will use this conversation as an example, Shen: "If you do not win this battle, evil will take over, and everything good will be gone." Wendy: "Whoa, talk about pressure. Well...let's talk about something else." Yes, let's Wendy. Let's also go dancing when you should rightfully be training. Of course Shen lets her, but his character has an excuse. Better that he cooperate with her, than that he not, and she not train at all, and get them both killed.<br /><br />Oh, speaking of which. Shen also told Wendy that it was his destiny for him to die for her in battle, as he had for her great-grandmother (I am assuming that part).<br /><br />This makes Wendy's actions more unforgivable.<br /><br />As the script-writer would have it, Wendy's homecoming and this "great battle" are on exactly the same day. Do you know what Wendy does? Do you even have to guess? Yes, she does end up going to the battle, for when she tries to leave for homecoming, the monks, (who Shen had trapped in the body of her coach and teachers because she "felt weird fighting an old man") inform her that Shen has gone to battle alone, so she goes to save him.<br /><br />We initially see some half-decent fighting, that is actually entertaining. Until finally, the great evil comes out of Wendy's rival-for-homecoming's body, and creates the actual embodiment of himself out of the broken pieces of the bodies of his ancient warriors.<br /><br />Don't ask.<br /><br />Anyway, Wendy gets all "panicky." Then Shen goes and defends her from this guy- forgive me for forgetting his long Chinese name- and manages to get himself killed.<br /><br />Wendy catches Shen as he makes his long descent from being thrust uncomfortably high into the air.<br /><br />She screams title of said article out.<br /><br />Now...it was bad enough that Wendy became powerful far, far too fast. No, I will not let it be excused because it was her "destiny" and she had "the power within" her.<br /><br />Since when, though, did she learn healing? No, worst...since when could she resurrect people? So Shen is raised from the dead. Then, Wendy and he fight the guy.<br /><br />He loses way to easily. The worst part, is when they jump together, and kick him at the same time, and he is banished forever. Then the monks commend Wendy on her sacrifice.<br /><br />Two things, #1: Don't the script writer and director know a battle needs a little more "finesse" to it? #2: What sacrifice? The fact that she didn't go to homecoming? Because the girl did not break a sweat, or even bleed. I mean, come on now, this movie was TV PG, I wanted to see somebody get hurt.<br /><br />Ah-hem...moving on.<br /><br />I know it sounds like maybe I should have given the movie a one, based on my comments. Part of critique, you must know, though, is breaking a thing down. You don't necessarily try to look for the bad, but if it's there, you bring attention to it. This movie has a lot of bad, but something funny happens when you never really expect something to be all too great in the first place.<br /><br />So, I suppose it was all right. Not that me not saying it wasn't all right would've stopped anybody from watching it. | 0neg
|
Ivan (Valeri Nikolayev) is a bitter, cynical journalist who investigates the unexplained. He travels to this small town where it's said that a witch (Ita Ever) is terrorizing the community.<br /><br />His car stalls and he takes refuge in a small building, and meets a beautiful, mysterious girl. Suddenly she turns into a demon and he kills her, and the town is wondering who murdered this woman...who I guess was the witch but I am not entirely sure. Ivan is now being pursued by her spirit, or something, and he has to have faith, or something, to beat it.<br /><br />I really hate Christian films. They are usually filled with lame actors, stupid storyline and minimal effects. Not to mention that this isn't just a Christian film...but a foreign one as well. The voice-over actor for Ivan made the movie more comical than terrorizing, because it is so high pitched and whiny. You won't miss much by missing out on this film. | 0neg
|
Without a doubt one of the worst movies I've seen in recent years. The story focuses on four women driven to robbing banks who we are somehow supposed to sympathize with. It's tough to sympathize with characters who keep making such stupid decisions. Oh no, the cops are on to us, they know who we are, what do we do?...Let's rob one more bank then we're outta here! What!?! Every character is a stereotype and it's easy to tell who's gonna end up dead. | 0neg
|
You remember the Spice Girls movie and how bad it was (besides the songs), well their manager Simon Fuller (also this band's manager) makes the same error putting S Club (another of my favourite bands) in their own film. S Club: Tina Barrett, Jon Lee, Bradley Mcintosh, Jo O'Meara, Hannah Spearritt and Rachel Stevens (what happened to the seventh member, Paul Cattermole?) basically ask their boss for a break, they go on, and while there they see themselves on TV! Three of them swap, and vice versa, half discover they are clones made by a greedy scientist, and the other half just get themselves in trouble. Also starring Gareth Gates as a clone of himself. This film may have more of a plot than Spice Girls' film did, but besides the songs "Bring It All Back", "Don't Stop Movin'" and "Never Had A Dream Come True" this is no goo reason to see this film. Not too long after the band split for good. Adequate! | 0neg
|
The opening flourishes left me purring with delight at their inventiveness - the altered version of the Archers' logo, the introductory disclaimer, the way the camera pans over the cosmos. It's strange to think that `It's a Wonderful Life' came out in the same year. No great coincidence: the 1940s was awash with heaven-and-earth films; but the glowing cotton wool nebulas and cutesy angels of the competition look tattered, something best passed over in silence, when placed next to Alfred Junge's vision.<br /><br />It continues to look great all the way through, as more and more striking ideas are sprung upon us. I'm not a great fan of mixing colour with black and white in general. One of the two visual schemes almost always looks ugly when placed next to the other. Not so here. Powell dissolves colour into monochrome and monochrome into colour as if it's the most natural thing in the world, a mere change of palettes. Both the colour photography and the black and white could stand on their own.<br /><br />As for the story ... this may be Pressburger's best script, or at least it would have been had the conclusion been a more logical outcome of preceding events. Other than that it's tight, yet with more going on than I can possibly allude to here. Was the heavenly stuff real or imaginary? (Or both? Perhaps Carter dreamt up a fantasy that was, as it so happened, true.) Everyone says we're meant to neither ask nor answer this question, but I don't see why. I'm sure we ARE meant to ask the question. The film even gives us clues as to what the answer is - indeed, the problem is that there are too many clues and they seem at first to be pointing in different directions. The fact that other things ought to occupy our attention as well doesn't mean that this shouldn't occupy us as well. There is, as I've said before, a lot going on.<br /><br />Consider the scene in which Abraham Farlan (Heaven's prosecuting lawyer) plays a radio broadcast of a cricket match, and contemptuously says, `The voice of England, 1945.' Dr. Reeves (the defence) acknowledges the exhibit with a great deal of embarrassment, and then produces one of his own: a blues song from America, which Farlan listens to as though he's got a lemon in his mouth. Reeves looks smug.<br /><br />Snobbery? Well, I don't see why it's snobbish to condemn blues music - and that's not what Powell and Pressburger are doing, anyway. As the song is being played, we get a shot of the American soldiers listening to it: several of them nod their heads to the rhythm, perfectly at home. THEY don't find it incomprehensible. There's something valuable about the song and neither Reeves nor Farlan knows what it is. Reeves probably realises as much. All English audiences (and all Australian, Indian, etc. audiences as well) know without being told that there is something of value in the cricket broadcast, too; and that while Reeves understands THAT, he is unable to explain it to Farlan - hence the blues broadcast, which shows that people can understand each other without sharing an understanding of everything else. It's a clever scene.<br /><br />One last thing. I found David Niven a bit cold, without the charisma he would acquire later in his career; but even so, I don't think a film has grabbed my heart quite so quickly after the action began, as this one did. | 1pos
|
So don't even think about renting this from the shops, because this is one hell of a bad movie. You'd think that JJ Abrahams had written this movie. Basically, a rat is flushed down the toilet and somehow has to get back out. Fans of the completely terrible "Shrek" might enjoy, but "Wallace & Gromit" fans will probably turn away in disgust. Also, why didn't they do it in plasticine or clay? I mean, CGI animation?? For an AARDMAN movie??!! Obviously, Aardman lazed around while they let Dreamworks do the whole thing. Wrong, wrong, WRONG!!! Nearly every single character is awful, apart from that freaky frog guy, who is just right for a movie villain. But everything else about the movie is DULL, DULL, DULL!!! I almost fell asleep with boredom watching this movie. No, wait, actually, I DID fall asleep with boredom watching this movie. It's just terrible. But thankfully, it's not as bad as "Shrek." | 0neg
|
This movie is not in anyway funny, it tries to be funny with it's lame humor, which is so dry and boring that the movie is just 2 hours of torture. Throughout the whole movie i was thinking one thing, "when is this gonna end". One thing you have to hand to them, is that they do have a very few mildly funny moments, which is also why i gave it a whole 2 stars. It is unoriginal and uses up almost every old blonde joke in the book, even the ones that wasn't funny the first time. It basically is a movie to belittle blondes and to record the whole repetoir of blonde jokes.<br /><br />To sum it all up, this movie is blonde humor gone bad, it is not worth paying any amount of money to watch, it is just that bad. | 0neg
|
15 years ago, Power Rangers was one of the shows that swept the nations, especially that of the youth. When I was a 3-year-old kid living in the Philippines, I would watch this show every Friday on ABS-CBN (Channel 2 over there). When the movie came out in 1995, it was all shock and awe to me when I watched it with my dad and 2 uncles. My grandparents even sent me a "Balikbayan" box full of Power Rangers stuff (including the easy-to-build Megazord figure and the stuffed toys of the Rangers). I even played the video games, and loved only one of them ("MMPR: Fighting Edition"), which was REALLY sad. Anyway, it was the show that set a stepping stone on my interest on robot series (especially anime mech series like "Gundam") Now that I'm 18, I'd like to think this show is pretty cheesy to me now. To prove this, I took a trip down memory lane by buying a 2-set DVD collection with "MMPR: The Movie" and "Turbo: A Power Rangers Movie" and watched both of them. I was like, "Ugh. How awful. Just another junk in the attic for me." For all of you people of my generation, this is NOT a show that you'd want to watch over and over again. I'm not saying to leave it behind for the rest of your life, but occasionally is not a bad thing now, is it? Instead of "Power Rangers", I'd recommend something like "Mobile Fighter G Gundam" (HIGHLY RECOMMENDED), "Ninja Senshi Tobikage" (aka Ninja Robots), or even the ORIGINAL Sentai shows that were the basis of "Power Rangers." | 0neg
|
This has got to be the cheesiest, stupidest, most retarded monster film of all time. It's a complete joke that this even surfaced into theaters. This is sort of like watching the Loch Ness monster in rural America. This movie deserves to be thrown in a toilet and completely forgotten. John Carradine, shame on you. The people involved in this moronic pile of trash need to be lobotomized. Wait! Maybe I'm giving them too much credit. I'm sure they were lobotomized before the filming. How else can one explain the utter and sheer stupidity that this bucket of crap contains. Don't waste a minute of your life watching this. Don't even waste your time sending a review. | 0neg
|
I have seen virtually all of Cynthia Rothrock's films, and to me this is the funniest. It reminds me of early Jackie Chan movies. Admittedly, Ms Rothrock may not be the greatest actress, but she is very good to watch as both a martial artist and as a very cute young lady. This film, while probably not the best of all her films, was the most entertaining. | 1pos
|
Boy what a dud this mess was.But it only lasts an hour and I only paid a buck for it so I'll live....unlike the entire cast of this 1933 clunker who are all dust by now.<br /><br />So anyway a small village starts having bodies turning up that have been drained of all their blood.The local yokels start talking about vampires ,of course,and a little more loudly after each body is found.The town sheriff or constable or whatever he is,played by awesome actor Melvyn Douglas,tries to tell them otherwise.When he mentions the fact that the dead have one large hole on each side of the neck,instead of two holes close together, the locals simply then say it's a giant vampire bat.The constable insists that vampires do not exist and it must be a human culprit doing the killings.<br /><br />But Melvyn doesn't seem too bothered either way.He spends most of his time trying to get into the pantaloons of his sweetie,played by Faye Wray.Also in this mix is the town simpleton,played by Dwight Frye,who always seemed to have played the same role in every movie he did.He further freaks out the townspeople by catching bats and drinking his own blood.Lionel Atwill plays the town doctor who seemingly is trying to help the constable solve the crimes.And boy does he ever stink as an actor.Atwill is as close to cardboard in this role as he could get.And Lionel Barrymore is also in this thing....lots of big names to be such a pile of guano.<br /><br />Other than the terrible mis-title this movie has,the alternate name,"The Blood Sucker" is much better,this movie is also dull and plodding and just silly.<br /><br />For me the high point of the movie is watching Frye,he nails the freaky town weirdo but other than him this movie didn't offer much.And then when you find out the reason for the strange deaths and see the special effect thing that required all this blood you'll really be let down.<br /><br />Bela Lugosi did a lot of awful pictures but at least he was fun and interesting to watch.Think of this movie as a really bad Lugosi clunker WITHOUT Lugosi and you'll get a feel for how miserably bad this mess was.<br /><br />If you can't make a good 1930's horror film at least put Lugosi in it. | 0neg
|
Terrfic film with a slightyly slow start - give it a chance to start cooking. Story builds in interest and complexity. Characters and storyline subvert expectation and cliche at all the right moments. Superb New York City locations - gritty, real - are a fantastic antidote to the commercial imperatives of "Sex in the City" - in fact, the entire film is an antidote to the HBO/Hollywood notion of New York City , sex and relationships. It's a rare film that treats its characters so honestly and compassionately. LOVED IT! Great cast with notable performances by Steve Buscemi, Rosario Dawson, and her love interest (forgot his name!). | 1pos
|
Guys and Dolls is a unique play based on the characters. Sky Masterson<br /><br />(Marlon Brando) is a high-class gambler who takes up a bet with Nathan Detroit (Frank Sinatra) for one-thousand dollars. Nathan needs the money so he can<br /><br />run his usual crap game and make a fortune. The bet was that Sky wouldn't be able to take just any girl to Havana, Cuba and the "doll" he chose was Sarah<br /><br />Brown (Jean Simmons) who was in charge of a missionary. Sky finally bribes<br /><br />Sarah enough to go to Havana with him. They end up falling in love with each other, but later she accuses him of something he had no part in. Nathan ran a crap game in the missionary the night they were gone. Nathan's 14 year fiancé Adelaide (Vivian Blaine) disapproves of Nathan's gambling and tries to stop him from doing it. However, when the movie ends it all ends happy with a double<br /><br />wedding.<br /><br />The songs in this movie are just wonderful no matter who sings it. Marlon<br /><br />Brando has no singing voice at all and true they could have dubbed him but it didn't really matter. He did a wonderful acting job (obviously seeing as it's Brando) and played his character very well. I have seen a few movies with Jean Simmons and thought that this movie was her weakest one, she also couldn't<br /><br />sing at all. However, the singing is made up by Frank Sinatra, Vivien Blaine, and Stubby Kaye. Vivien Blaine and Stubby Kaye was also in the original<br /><br />Broadway production of Guys and Dolls. Vivien Blaine had a terrific voice and was the perfect Adelaide. If you like musical, and even if you don't, i advise you to watch this. | 1pos
|
When it comes to creating a universe George Lucas is the undisputed master and his final Star Wars film is very, very good (and more appropriately rated in comparison to the two previous films in the original saga). Having recently seen Revenge of the Sith really puts this movie in perspective. The final battle seems even more climactic knowing what Anakin Skywalker went through at the manipulative hands of the Emperor. It also makes the final battle between Luke and Vader more bitter considering the love he felt for Padmé and the love she felt for her children. Actually while the new films (especially Episode II) are inferior to the original films they are good for one reason only. They make the old films seem even better.<br /><br />Mark Hamill does an exceptional job in this movie. He really brings the changes Luke has gone through seem real. In all fairness I believe that he should have become a big actor based on these films because he really does a great job. Harrison Ford is still good. However, you can feel that he has done Raiders and Blade Runner in between the two final chapters of Star Wars because he seems to have grown quite a bit. He adds more comedy (obviously inspired from Raiders) to the character which works brilliantly. In short Han Solo is better than ever. Carrie Fisher was never really a good actress but she does a decent job and is certainly passable. Ian McDiarmid appears in this film and having seen Episode III I can safely say that he is one of the most accomplished villains ever. James Earl Jones still provides the voice for Vader and he is still very, very good.<br /><br />In terms of how the movie looks its pretty safe to say that the Star Wars universe looks better than in either of the previous (two) movies but this was always Lucas' forté so that is really to be expected. The final battle over Endor is very well made both in terms of the general effects and tension wise. It was also a nice touch that Lucas decided to have three battles take place at the same time as it added to the overall tension of the climax. <br /><br />The only thing I feel is dragging the movie down from an otherwise deserved 9 are the Ewoks. These little creatures are so annoying they almost ruin every scene they are in. Besides I find it to be a little to kiddy when a group of teddy bears with bows and arrows can defeat a squadron of Storm Troopers with laser guns and mighty machinery.<br /><br />All in all Return of the Jedi is a very good movie but the fact that Richard Marquand is a less accomplished director than Irvin Kershner does that the overall feel of the movie is less than brilliant. Also George Lucas' stupid decision to add the Ewoks to the universe does that the film falls short of brilliance.<br /><br />8/10 | 1pos
|
I like the cast pretty much however the story sort of unfolds rather slowly. Danny Glover does a good job making you wonder if he's the bad guy. Meanwhile, the other characters are just part of the story. Dennis Quaid didn't have as much room in the story as he could have had. I thought the first scene was a bit over the top grim compared to how the story unfolded. I'd watch it again though. I rated it a 5 (wish I could rate it a 5.5) | 0neg
|
In my humble opinion, this movie did not receive the recognition it deserved. Robert Redford lives near me here in Provo, Utah, at Sundance. I enjoy most of his work, and this was my favorite. I'm sorry that more people didn't appreciate it. My grandmother was an avid reader and read the book years before it came out on the big screen. She gave it to me to read after we had seen the movie together. The movie and book hit an emotional spot within my heart, and I was weepy for several days after seeing the movie. Sometimes love isn't enough to keep our loved ones from hurting themselves. We see this in our own family relationships, yet our love and our families and their stories endure throughout generations of time. The cinematography was perfect and breathtaking -- I was awed by its beauty and how well it brought to life the words of the author of the book, Norman Maclean, "But when I am alone in the half light of the canyon, all existence seems to fade to a being with my soul, and memories. And the sounds of the Big Black Foot River, and a four count rhythm, and the hope that a fish will rise. Eventually, all things merge into one, and a river runs through it. The river was cut by the world's great flood and runs over rocks from the basement of time. On some of the rocks are timeless raindrops. Under the rocks are the words, and some of the words are theirs. I am haunted by waters." These words, taken from the book and spoken at the end of the movie (by Robert Redford who is narrating as Norman Maclean), are basically scripture, in my opinion. Any possible flaws the movie may have are overshadowed by the beauty and grace of the story and the cinematography. It was beautiful! | 1pos
|
We all know a movie never does complete justice to the book, but this is exceptional. Important characters were cut out, Blanca and Alba were essentially mushed into the same character, most of the subplots and major elements of the main plot were eliminated. Clara's clairvoyance was extremely downplayed, making her seem like a much more shallow character than the one I got to know in the book. In the book we learn more about her powers and the important effects she had on so many people, which in turn was a key element in the life of the family. In the movie she was no more than some special lady. The relationship between Esteban and Pedro Tercero (Tercero-third-, by the way, is the son and thus comes after Segundo-second-) and its connections to that between Esteban and his grandson from Pancha García (not son, who he also did recognize) is chopped in half and its importance downplayed.<br /><br />One of the most fundamental things about the book that the film is all but stripped of: this is called "The House of the Spirits." Where is the house? The story of 3-4 generations of a family is supposed to revolve around the "big house on the corner," a line stated so many times in the novel. The house in fundamental to the story, but the movie unjustly relegates it to a mere backdrop.<br /><br />If I hadn't read the book before, I would have never guessed that such a sappy, shallow movie could be based on such a rich and entertaining novel. | 0neg
|
Just finished watching The Groove Tube which I first saw about 23 years ago when I was a teenager staying up way past my bedtime watching HBO with my brother and his best friend. We had also watched Animal House just before that so we saw two movies that starred an SNL alumna and had some naked breasts. Good thing our parents were asleep the whole time! Anyway, there were lots of weird and funny things in this movie that were eye-openers like the Brown 25 sequence of the Uranus Industries commercial ("with the taste of beef stew" says the announcer as what is apparently human excrement comes out of a white tube. Ewww!) or the face of the puppet talking about VD (a scrotum with a small penis with eyes glued on). Chevy Chase and Richard Belzer made their feature film debuts here. Chase is hilarious whether doing a Geritan spot with a woman stripping, having his hands have sex in a "Let Fingers Do It" commercial, or singing "Four Leaf Clover" with co-writer/director Ken Shapiro drumming his hands on his head. Belzer teams with Shapiro in "The Dealers" movie, and on "Channel One Evening News" with one wild bit having Belzer as a black prostitute trying tricks on reporter Ken who plays Lionel here. "Lionel, that sounds like a train that I'm going to ride like a Choo-Choo!" Other outrageous bits include "The Koko Show" with Shipiro as a kid clown show host who, after ordering the "people over ten" to leave the room, reads requests of his viewers like passages of "Fanny Hill"! Or how about the Olympics segment with a German couple making love being announced by two men (one of them Spanish) as they get explicit while "Please Stand By" keeps interrupting on the screen! Or the animated segment on "The Dealers" which depicts dancing toilets after Shapiro ingested some marijuana! Not everything's so dirty. Besides the "Four Leaf Clover" skit, at the end there's a highly amusing music segment with Ken lip-syncing his own recording of "Just You, Just Me" while dancing with suit and briefcase around the city with occasionally a cop (co-writer Lane Sarasohn) joining in. So, in summation this is one weirdly, funny movie that seemed to influence other like films (Tunnelvision, Kentucky Fried Movie) and possibly Saturday Night Live (which made Chevy that show's first star) and, despite some dated elements, can still amuse today. P.S. While I liked hearing Curtis Mayfield's "Move On Up" during the gorillas dancing/hitchhiking beginning sequence, I did wonder what the point was with the sequence of the hitchhiker and the woman who picked him up, having them running from the car, stripping on the run, and then having the naked man get caught by the cop who stopped on the road. Guess it's one of those '70s streaking things... | 1pos
|
This is a well-made documentary on the exciting world of Indy Car racing. The photography is simply outstanding. The scene were Mario Andretti drives the old racing roadster down the New England street lined with the ancient maples, leaves blown to the side by the speed of the car, is incredible. The film does lose some of its beauty on the small screen but if you like watching cars driven to their limit you should see this film. | 1pos
|
Yes, commitment. Let's say "Fever Pitch" might trick you into believing it's a baseball movie.<br /><br />But no, you don't have to be a baseball fan to actually enjoy this picture from the Farrelly Brothers. But of course, if you are one, you will enjoy it even more; with all the references (pretty accurate ones, I'd say) to the Boston Red Sox and its bittersweet history; from the Curse of the Bambino and everything attributed to it, including those two words you CANNOT pronounce in front of a Boston fan: Bill Buckner.<br /><br />Drew Barrymore and Jimmy Fallon portray two people who, usually might have second thoughts of going into a relationship: the successful workaholic who is also affluent meeting a school teacher? Thing is, Fallon's character wins Barrymore's heart by being funny, caring, sweet and downright perfect. But her friends ask her a logical question: if he's such a keeper, why is he still on the market? Enter the Boston Red Sox. He's been so committed to his team ever since his uncle passed his Sox season tickets to him; he has never missed a Red Sox home game at Fenway Park in a long while.<br /><br />And that delicate balance, how much is the workaholic willing to give up for his guy's obsession; and how much is that baseball-crazed teacher willing to compromise in order to keep the OTHER love of his life, is what this movie is all about.<br /><br />At first, you might think that the sports-obsession bits of the movie are exaggerated for comic relief. Well, I'm sad to admit, they are not. Myself, as a die-hard Houston Astros fan, can say they are all true. I would try at every way available to see every 'Stros game; listen to them on the radio or follow them on the Internet. I read the Chronicle's sports section every day. And yes, my room looks like The Shed, Minute Maid Park's gift shop; with a closet full of Astros gear, including 5 jerseys, 20 t-shirts and you know the rest. Fallon's character even has the Red Sox MBNA MasterCard.<br /><br />Fallon was credible enough as the fanatical Red Sox faithful, even though he could pull it off without becoming a cartoon (Thank God Adam Sandler wasn't in it); and the plot revolved around how this couple tried to manage with each other's passions.<br /><br />I'd say it'll be a classical romantic comedy. Not enough to be among the best movies in history; but certainly breaks a mold into the genre and is appealing enough for men and women alike. | 1pos
|
I have a nice collection on movies going, and this one was added to it. Number 274 to be exact. <br /><br />The title had me going at first. Splatter University. I thought this would be a great horror movie. Was I ever wrong. Don't get me wrong, this is not the worst movie I have ever seen, but it could have been a lot better. I love all movies, but this one was one that was more of a laugh then a scare. <br /><br />Poor audio quality, poor acting, and poor shot arrangements are some of the areas that could have been improved. 3 out of 10 stars.<br /><br />Movie is ideal for a good laugh. If your looking for one of those movies to make fun of, then this is one! | 0neg
|
Granted, I'm not the connoisseur d'horror my partner is, but a well put together, clever flick is worth the time. My quibbles, in brief:<br /><br />- Dialog often weak and at times unbelievable coming from the given character.<br /><br />- Unconvincing acting.<br /><br />- Storyline never really caught fire.<br /><br />The writers plucked choice bits from half a dozen mainstream films, tossed into a kettle, simmered not nearly enough and tried feeding us poor saps the resulting mess, al'dente.<br /><br />Long and short, while not absolutely terrible, it was definitely not worthy of absorbing one of my NetFlix rentals. | 0neg
|
Since I first saw this in the theater it has been my favorite. Since then I've seen it countless times and I never get tired of it. The setting has a lot to do with it (the Colorado I know would be jealous), but the storyline is original and I liked how it used small town mountain folk as the heroes. There has not been a movie I can compare this too. John Lithgow plays a smart villain, but I love how he is completely out of his element--he has to follow Tucker around and that's what keeps it interesting. This is an action movie at it's BEST. I don't think I'll see another that is so entertaining.<br /><br />You don't need 50,000 rounds fired to qualify as an action movie. It just has to keep you captivated, not shell-shocked. | 1pos
|
The Ramones, whom I consider the founders of modern punk rock, lend their then-unique sounds to a terrifically twisted movie about a rowdy rock fan (P.J. Soles) who faces off against a merciless, joyless principal (Mary Woronov) for the right to rock.<br /><br />Featuring a soundtrack brimming with incredible music, RRHS is fascinating in concept and execution. It's chock full of riotous sight gags (like the mouse experiment), teenage spirit (probably my all-time favorite film opening), and bizarre, off-the-wall moments (the straitjacket scenes). If you're looking for a movie that seems to be made of pure fun on a molecular level, look no further. But if you're looking for a nice, dignified, dramatic epic, maybe you should look a wee bit further.<br /><br />"Hi everybody, I'm Riff Randell, and this is Rock & Roll High School!" | 1pos
|
In an otherwise good review, loleralacartelort7890 says "The truth is that the Americans use a secret aluminum-anti-radiation-alloy. It is not that well-known. And the exact specifications are a secret. And why is it a secret: Well, why should they reveal it back then?? If they where in a space race with the Russians, then it would be VERY dumb to reveal that they had new technology that could shield crew against radiation." This is completely incorrect. There is (and was) no "secret" to radiation protection in Apollo. The design and construction of the Apollo Command Module has long been publicly available. It uses a lightweight "honeycomb" of aluminum and stainless steel. The entire outer surface (except the windows of course) is covered with a heat shield made of a phenolic resin, thicker on the bottom that faces forward during re-entry. These materials are actually *better* at stopping the kind of radiation we have in space (charged particles) than lead, which is better suited to stopping ionizing photons like X-rays and gamma rays.<br /><br />Space radiation is a definite problem for *long term* space flight because of the risk of big solar flares. But it simply wasn't a serious threat to the Apollo astronauts. The Command Module gave them pretty good protection during their brief (1/2 hour or so) passage through the Van Allen belts. They all carried dosimeters so we know exactly how much radiation they each received: no more than 1.5 rem, and usually much less. Of the 24 men who flew to the Moon (12 of whom landed), 18 are still alive. Only two have died from cancer: Alan Shepard (leukemia) and Jack Swigert (bone cancer). The rest died from heart attacks, pancreatitis (Roosa), and a motorcycle accident (Conrad). These are actually pretty good statistics for a group of men now in their late 70s (Shepard would be 86). | 0neg
|
I agree strongly with some of the other critics of this film. I found it incredibly silly (at best) and downright misleading, misinforming and harmful (at worst). Like others, I found this film to be an awful mix of "real" science and pseudoscientific, New Age propaganda. <br /><br />As a psychologist, I was especially offended by Candace Pert's contributions. True, I was not a fan of hers before this film, but her discourse on the "consciousness" of cells was one of the best examples of taking a term ("consciousness") that has a predictable meaning to most people and using it in such a distorted manner as to cause it to obscure rather than clarify. It is an old Orwellian mind-f**k that the master himself described so well in his superb essay "Politics and the English Language." To refer to "consciousness" in this manner--indeed, to refer to this film as "based in science" in general (which is its clear intent)--is to use language in the same manner employed by Stalin when he labeled his slave-states "democratic republics" and Hitler when he called his party a "socialist workers" movement.<br /><br />I don't claim to really understand quantum physics. I know enough about it to know that to really understand it would take considerable study. Ah, but we Americans do love "instant enlightenment," and that's what this mistake of a film tries to accomplish. If it ASKED questions, that would be one thing, but it clearly attempts to ask and ANSWER them, which no film could possibly do simply because we are far, far away from the answers (if they indeed exist).<br /><br />By the way, ethically this film needed a disclaimer about the association of several "expert commentators" with the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (and TM), not to mention J.Z. Knight, who often speaks in her "Ramtha" voice. (I'm always amazed at this channeled 10,000 year-old Atlantean superman's grasp of 21st century concepts and terminology. But then again, this film argues that the past, present and future are all one and the same, so if Ramtha existed in Atlantis 10,000 years ago, I suppose he could exist now and tomorrow. Only, then how come his financial advice has been so incredibly bad for his followers? Oh, I forgot, I'm the creator of "good" and "bad" advice, so it's all my fault, not Ramtha's.)<br /><br />What a mess. | 0neg
|
when i first heard about this movie i thought it would be like The Duchess(2008), but when i saw the first 30 minutes of The Young Victoria i knew this wouldn't just be a solid movie. Almost everything in this movie is great, the costumes are really amazing and the settings are also beautifully shot.<br /><br />The only thing that really let me down are the performances. Emily Blunt(The Devil Wears Prada) is the star of the film, bringing Victoria to life and with this movie she shows that she is a great actress and maybe picking a first Oscar nomination for her performance. Rupert Friend is almost bland as Prince Albert but he has great chemistry with Emily Blunt. Paul Bettany is also solid as Lord Melbourne although i expected more of him. Jim Broadbent and Miranda Richardson both have supporting roles but are forgettable.<br /><br />To me the film feels like unfinished. Maybe that the screenwriters changed too many things in the script, i don't know but that's how i feel about the movie.<br /><br />But overall it's a great movie about the early years of Victoria with a Great performance from Emily Blunt. | 1pos
|
Subsets and Splits