text
stringlengths 127
13.7k
| label
class label 2
classes |
|---|---|
Unbelievably awful film. I watched part of this on T.V. recently. My jaw dropped as I watched a horrendously conceived plot and listened to mind-numbing drivel. Not a single line from the master of one-liners could come close to producing anything resembling a chuckle. It was so bad it made me want to exhume Rodney Dangerfield's body, slap him around and scream, "How could you?" I know many films are done in haste, hoping to cash in on the popularity of a given actor or theme. But please, Hollywood, show a little respect for your audience. It's sad and scary that people were expected to pay to see such tripe. The bottom of the cesspool, even by Sunday afternoon television standards. | 0neg
|
"Someones at the Door". OHHH, How I miss this show so bad.. but we are lucky to now have "Invasion". Thank You, Shawn Cassidy. American Gothic, had it all.If I had to pick one thing that I liked best about the show, it has to be its "not predictable plot-lines". Favorite actor was Lucas Black.. I adore that southern accent. I bought the DVD asap, and my kids are fans too. There is some hot n steamy scenes. Some Devilish ones too. So, if kiddos will be watching you may want to edit(fastforward/skip). It has humour, on a Joss Wheedon level, which so many shows lack. Adult wit and adult situation, that are handled with finese. The DVD has some extras, but I wish it has many more. If you want to get thrilled and enjoy a great show, come watch "American Gothic"! | 1pos
|
Finally, after years of awaiting a new film to continue the sexual mayhem of "Basic Instinct", we have been given a great sequel that is packed with the right elements needed for a franchise such as this! I remember everything about the original, the steam, the romance, the sex, the interrogation, the music (by the master Jerry Goldsmith), and everything else from violence and murder, to intense confrontations of all kind! Make no mistake, "Basic Instinct" was a real winner for audiences everywhere. I can remember in 2001 when we were first given the news about such a sequel. Five years later, we have it. I never would have thought it to end up such as this. When it was declared a dropped project, time sure couldn't tell if it was ever a real possibility to begin with. Well, I guess we now know anything's possible in this case. Even if the original director, or writer are not present, all we need is the glamorous, always reliable Sharon Stone, and we have a done deal! Please, hear me out...<br /><br />When people say that this film is bad, I think it is only due to the fact that the style is extreme, and slightly dated. I use the word "dated" only because we have not seen a certain film of the like in many years, and audiences have become adapted to the pointless, boring storytelling seen in other movies that actually make money, and the only reason they make such big numbers is because those films are family friendly. Who needs hole some and clean? Of course it's a pleasant thing to have, but c'mon! Escapism is really seldom these days, and "Basic Instinct 2" gives us real fans what we've been expecting. This film is not an Academy Award winner, nor does it try to be. It simply delivers the die-hard fans what they have been expecting. It's a film for fun. Movies today seem to take themselves way too seriously, but this film is just loose and fun, not taking itself seriously, not too seriously anyway. That said, I shall evaluate the film.<br /><br />The film is a fast-paced film from the first second, as we see Cathernine Tremell in a car, speeding at 110 MPH-and enjoying lustful thrills doing so. Perhaps sex and driving does not mix, because our sexy novelist takes a bad turn and...well, she gets away unharmed, but her studly partner doesn't fare too well. Once again, Tremell is the primary suspect of the accident, and will be put under analyst's and psychiatrists. Dr. Michael Glass (Morrissey) is automatically drawn to to her from the first moment he meets her. Like another criminal investigator before him, he is entranced and seduced, slowly, and surely. His denial of it all begins to crumble around him as she weaves a spell only she has the power to do. Tramell is possibly more dangerous now, than she was before,but like the first one, we'll never really know, will we? Once the seduction is in motion, jealousy, rage, drugs, and a plateful of erotic scenery ensues!<br /><br />This film does not recycle the first one, but rather mentions the previous films incidents briefly from time to time. This is a good thing. It lets us as an audience know that the script has been written to bring the level up a notch or two. Sharon Stone dazzles us again, as though 14 years has not come to pass. Her second run of the deceitful novelist is right on the spot as earlier. Just awesome! David Morrissey is well cast, and manages pretty well. The fact that a non-popular star was chosen, makes his performance all the more enjoyable because we as an audience have no background on him, just what we see him perform. My final thought-8.5 to 9 out of 10. So it's not the first one, nor can it live up to the first ones prize winning place. It can, however, live up to the standards set by the first film, and it does folks! It does. | 1pos
|
FORBIDDEN PLANET is the best SF film from the golden age of SF cinema and what makes it a great film is its sense of wonder . As soon as the spaceship lands the audience - via the ships human crew - travels through an intelligent and sometimes terrifying adventure . We meet the unforgetable Robbie , the mysterious Dr Morbuis , his beautiful and innocent daughter Altair and we learn about the former inhabitants of the planet - The Krell who died out overnight . Or did they ? <br /><br />You can nitpick and say the planet is obviously filmed in a movie studio with painted backdrops but that adds to a sense of menace of claustraphobia I feel and Bebe and Louis Barron`s electronic music adds even more atmosphere <br /><br />I`m shocked this film isn`t in the top 250 IMDB films . | 1pos
|
I really liked this movie, and went back to see it two times more within a week.<br /><br />Ms. Detmers nailed the performance - she was like a hungry cat on the prowl, toying with her prey. She lashes out in rage and lust, taking a "too young" lover, and crashing hundreds of her terrorist fiancé's mother's pieces of fine china to the floor. <br /><br />The film was full of beautiful touches. The Maserati, the wonderful wardrobe, the flower boxes along the rooftops. I particularly enjoyed the ancient Greek class and the recitation of 'Antigone'.<br /><br />It had a feeling of 'Story of O' - that is, where people of means indulge in unrestrained sexual adventure. As she walks around the fantastic apartment in the buff, she is at ease - and why not, what is to restrain a "Devil in the Flesh"?<br /><br />The whole movie is a real treat! | 1pos
|
Excellent plot within a plot within a plot. Shame about two of my film heroes having a good snog. Must be my upbringing:)<br /><br />Very well acted by all. You never quite know who's going to out-do who. The last little twist at the end allows for all to get their just deserts.<br /><br />Recommend to all. A harmless, tongue in cheek thriller which if it has any faults is probably Michael Caine's over-use of the word "bloody", but that's his signature, isn't it.<br /><br />9/10 | 1pos
|
There is this private campground in Plymouth, Massachusetts, that's been around since 1959. My grandparents were among its founders, my parents had a site starting in 1965, and my two brothers have sites there now.<br /><br />(This doesn't have anything directly to do with the movie; bear with me.) <br /><br />I spent summers at Blueberry Hill from when I was five years old to when I was eighteen, and it is to people like me to whom this film speaks: the ones for whom a group camp in the woods was, as my fiancée tells of me, "the good and happy place." If you've never experienced the lifestyle, Indian Summer will probably be lost on you; don't bother. It's not quick-paced, it doesn't have rapid cuts, the plots aren't in the least bit convoluted, it has no explosions, such dramatic tension as exists is mild, there aren't any A-list actors, there are no rapid-fire quips just to show off how clever the scriptwriters are (other than, perhaps, Kimberley Williams' killer line about how her fiancé shouldn't "overwind his toys." That is not the least degree what this movie is about, any more than The Godfather is a slasher flick just because it has a lot of on screen gore.<br /><br />But Indian Summer is Godfather's polar opposite. If you have experienced the lifestyle, see this movie. Don't read any more, just do it.<br /><br />For me, this is a 9/10 film. | 1pos
|
I love this movie. My friend Marcus and I were browsing the local Hastings because we had an urge to rent something we had never seen before and stumbled across this fine film. We had no idea what it was going to be about, but it turned out spectacular. 2 thumbs up. I liked how the film was shot, and the actors were very funny. If you are are looking for a funny movie that also makes you think I highly suggest you quickly run to your local video store and find this movie. I would tell you some of my favorite parts but that might ruin the film for you so I won't. This movie is definitely on my top 10 list of good movies. Do you really think Nothing is bouncy? | 1pos
|
"Panic in the Streets" is a fairly unknown little movie from director Elia Kazan and was made before his classic masterpieces such as "A Streetcar Named Desire", "On the Waterfront" and "East of Eden". Kazan already won an Oscar in 1947, before this movie, so he was not a completely unknown at the time. Still "Panic in the Streets" is mostly a movie that passed under the radar.<br /><br />The great thing about this movie is the Oscar winning script. It has a very good concept and its excellent tense thriller material with a sniff of crime/film-noir elements. The dialog in this movie is also absolutely magnificent and gives the movie a feel of reality and credibility.<br /><br />The cast is fairly unknown (especially at the time it was released) but it still features Zero Mostel and Jack Palance in one of their first movie roles. Especially Palance impresses as the tough gangster boss, with a very powerful looking face.<br /><br />Still the movie drags a little at some points. The movie starts of very well but after the start the movie slows down and does not always makes the right decisions in terms of pace and the point of view the story is told from.<br /><br />Yet, "Panic in the Streets" remains a perfectly watchable movie, mainly due to its solid script and powerful dialog that makes the movie a believable one to watch. For fans of the thriller genre this is a great movie to watch.<br /><br />8/10 | 1pos
|
I saw the movie recently and really liked it. I surprised myself and cried. This movie is in the same niche genre as "Away from Her" - or even "The Bucket List" but handles the whole aging theme with incredible authenticity. It's really really tough to have the main character as unlikable as Hagar. The director does a masterful job with the challenge. Hagar's hard to understand. Her world has hard edges and she isn't a warm endearing woman at all.<br /><br />The first scene gets this across without any compromise. Hagar (Ellen Burnstyn) is being taken to a nursing home by her son and daughter-in-law. She figures it out en-route and freaks out. Her edges are really hard. She is mean. She is belittling and selfish. She is a stone. I didn't like her - not even a little bit.<br /><br />Throughout the course of the movie, we get insight. We find out why she doesn't like petunias, why she favors one son over the other, how her losses have formed her character... I started to see the angel... and I started to like her. I especially liked her when she poured out her secrets to the boy in the shack. Ellen Burnstyn, you are a brilliant actor. Kudos. Kudos. Kudos. What a scene!<br /><br />This isn't a "feel good" movie, but it is certainly a movie that brings the viewer to empathy. I understand more clearly that hard edges in a person's life are there to protect, they are there for a reason...<br /><br />Hagar isn't my mother - she isn't even my mother-in-law or neighbor... but parts of her are present in many women (and men) in my life. Those parts somehow make more sense to me now that I've watched The Stone Angel. | 1pos
|
I had the misfortune to sit through the full 102 minutes of what, in my opinion, is this shockingly bad film. It fails on pretty much all levels; the cast is awful, the acting - ham at best and the plot lacks any depth, leaving me feeling violently apathetic as to the outcome of any of the convoluted story lines.<br /><br />Plan B has none of the charm this genre has the scope to convey and I found myself physically cringing at the various points where the script makes its regular misjudged meanderings anywhere towards the region of comedy.<br /><br />A bona fide saccharine coated turd of a movie. | 0neg
|
One of the finest pieces of television drama of the last decade. Throughout the five hours, ones perceptions and sympathies are constantly challenged as it explores many facets of modern day British society. David Morrisey is, as usual, brilliant. At first coming across as a heavy handed copper in conflict with the heroine, but then proving to be intelligent and caring, as he works with her in uncovering the truth. I have never seen Surrane Jones before. I believe she comes from the world of television soaps. Her performance was magnificent, as she maintains her humour and composure whilst trying to balance the demands of the case and the stress of caring for her mother. I could go on and talk about every member of the cast who contributes to this magnificent drama, but their efforts would mean little without such an absorbing script that constantly challenges your assumptions about any of the characters. It is programmes like this that restore one's faith in television drama, whilst at the same time making it almost impossible to settle for most of the garbage that is increasingly filling the airwaves. | 1pos
|
There has been a political documentary, of recent vintage, called Why We Fight, which tries to examine the infamous Military Industrial Complex and its grip on this nation. It is considered both polemical and incisive in making its case against both that complex and the war fiasco we are currently involved in in Iraq. Yet, a far more famous series of films, with the same name, was made during World War Two, by Hollywood director Frank Capra. Although considered documentaries, and having won Oscars in that category, this series of seven films is really and truly mere agitprop, more in the vein of Leni Reifenstal's Triumph Of The Will, scenes of which Capra recycles for his own purposes. That said, that fact does not mean it does not have vital information that subsequent generations of World War Two documentaries (such as the BBC's lauded The World At War) lacked, nor does that mean that its value as a primary source is any the less valuable. They are skillfully made, and after recently purchasing some used DVDs at a discount store, I found myself with the opportunity to select a free DVD with my purchase. I chose Goodtimes DVD's four DVD collection of the series.<br /><br />Rarely has something free been so worth invaluable. While there are no extras on the DVDs, and the sound quality of the prints varies, these films provide insight into the minds of Americans two thirds of a century ago, when racism was overt (as in many of the classic Warner Brothers pro-war cartoons of the era), and there was nothing wrong with blatant distortion of facts. The seven films, produced between 1942 and 1945, are Prelude To War, The Nazis Strike, Divide And Conquer, The Battle Of Britain, The Battle Of Russia, The Battle Of China, and War Comes To America.<br /><br />Overall, the film series is well worth watching, not only for the obvious reasons, but for the subtle things it reveals, such as the use of the plural for terms like X millions when referring to dollars, rather than the modern singular, or the most overused graphic in the whole series- a Japanese sword piercing the center of Manchuria. Yet, it also shows the complexities of trying to apply past standards to current wars. The lesson of World War One (avoid foreign entanglements) was not applicable to World War Two, whose own lesson (act early against dictatorships) has not been applicable in the three major wars America has fought since: Korea, Vietnam, nor Iraq. The fact that much of this series teeters on the uncertainties of the times it was made in only underscores its historic value in today's information-clogged times. It may not help you sort out the truth from the lies and propaganda of today, but at least you'll realize you are not the first to be in such a tenuous position, nor will you be the last. | 1pos
|
This is a great "small" film. I say "small" because it doesn't have a hundred guns firing or a dozen explosions, as in a John Woo film. Great performances by Roy Scheider and the three "bad guys". John Frankenheimer seems to have more luck with small productions these days. The film is very easy to watch, the story is more of a yarn than a washing machine--instead of everything going around and around, it seems as though things just get worse as the plot thickens. Wonderful ending, very positive. I never read the Elmore Leonard book, but it can't be much different from the film because it FEELS like I'm watching an Elmore Leonard movie. | 1pos
|
This film started out very promising with the story about a director who loses his sight and a blind woman who is bound to help him. However, somewhere in the middle it seemed like the script writers didn't know where to go from there.<br /><br />One unbelievable event followed the next (Russia must be very small because they are all bumping into each other all the time), the motivation of the female lead character comprehensible (why does she still follow him after they got off the ship? Why doesn't she try to borrow a mobile phone on the ship to call somebody?), the side stories were completely ridiculous (was the story with the mother and the boyfriend supposed to be funny? And what was the story with the younger sister about?). Still with all this seeming arbitrariness of the plot, the movie managed to be completely predictable.<br /><br />The saddest thing about it is that there was a lot of potential. As I said, the idea of the film was good, the visuals and the score were very beautiful and the actors of the main characters were good, too. So this could have been a really good film... but it wasn't. | 0neg
|
This almost unknown gem was based on a French farce--which shows, and I mean that as a compliment. <br /><br />Caroline (Lee) is being courted by a wealthy Argentinian (Roland), who asks her father for her hand in marriage. But Caroline is already married to Anthony (Colman), who has just arrived by plane and launches immediately into an audience-directed reminiscence about the last time Caroline decided she was in love with someone else: a dilettante-ish sculptor (Gardiner). The film plays out the story of Anthony's strategy in uncoupling Caroline from her sculptor, and how that experience aids him with her Argentinian.<br /><br />It is perfectly cast: Ronald Colman is at his most sophisticated and charming, Reginald Gardiner is at his most priggish, Gilbert Roland is at his most exotic, and Anna Lee is just deliciously whimsical. The film is wonderfully directed by Lewis Milestone (who also produced); the whole production feels like a labor of love. There are wonderful touches, such as Colman breaking frame and addressing the camera, and exceptional use of a sliding bar-cabinet door. It is a sin that it hasn't been released on DVD--this is the kind of film that can singlehandedly awaken interest in classic film. | 1pos
|
Usually I don't really like Emma Roberts so much, but after watching Nancy Drew it kind of changed my mind. The actors in the movies made the whole thing exciting and funny. Most of the time when you watch a mystery movie you can solve it before the middle of the show, but in this movie it's like you are actually there. The clues have to all fit together until you can finally understand the whole crime. I am still amazed how she found it out. The whole movie was really clever and the people who watched it with me loved the movie too. The clothes were my favorite part of the movie, it was so cute. I don't think there will be another movie like this until the sequel comes out. I give it a nine because the popular girls didn't really seem to have the part just right, but they still make me laugh. It was a really great movie and a great mystery. I definitely recommend watching it. | 1pos
|
This movie re-wrote film history in every way. No one cares what anyone thinks about this movie, because it transcends criticism. Every flaw in the movie is easily overcome by the many amazing things the movie has going for it. It is an extremely beautiful movie, and I doubt many of us will see anything like it again. I've seen it more times than I care to count, and I still become transfixed every time, with a feeling which is hard to describe. One for the ages. | 1pos
|
The last reviewer was very generous. I quiet like the first movie, but can't say I enjoy this one very much. The beginning is bearable, but it goes downhill pretty quickly. I just don't see Jon Bon Jovi as a "bad-ass vampire hunter" and the vampire princess is neither sexy nor scary. A lot of the scenes just do not make sense. I mean any normal person would suspect something is up when a strange woman suddenly appearing out of nowhere to seduce you, let alone an experienced hunter. Why Una is able to communicate with Jovi? Nothing was ever explain in this movie, you wouldn't mind if it was entertaining, but that was too much to ask. This has to be one of worst vampire movie I have seen. | 0neg
|
Dominion tank police is an exercise in contradictive film making. The storyline across the 4 parts blends mindless action, slap-stick humor, touching humanity and thought provoking philosophical questions. It's hard to believe that there was only one director, as the style changes from episode to episode. A must-see movie for anyone who likes anime. | 1pos
|
I would like to say that curiosity got the best of me. If only I saw a trailer, I'd be able to tell you the whole plot of the movie; I could have saved myself the most pointless one hour and forty minutes in my entire life, and about twenty dollars. This movie was a disaster waiting to happen, and it is an embarrassment to Hollywood.<br /><br />The movie displays a vivid ignorance of reality. For example, this kid's remote control race car goes all over the neighborhood, and even enters this house. It's even covered with clothes. Is it not rational to believe that a remote can no longer transmit a signal under those circumstances? Hollywood obviously did not believe so. Common logic and any concept of electronics dictates the opposite; I doubt the race car could even have reached the street, let alone a house across the street. Another unrealistic trait is the lack of intelligence the criminals possess. Why is it in all these movies, these criminals are rocket scientists until they encounter an eight-year old? The kid is meant to be the most intelligent person in the movie instead of professional terrorists? Please, there's more reality in The Matrix. Also, the leader puts down his real pistol and "accidentally" picks up a plastic pistol; apparently, he could not tell the difference. Even with a glove on, one should be able to do that. Just because they look the same does not mean anything; there is other senses then sight. The traps are unrealistic as well; if any one of them actually worked, the criminals would be dead. But, Hollywood intends for us to "laugh" at the "funny" results of the traps. I did not laugh; I sighed and rolled my eyes.<br /><br />But, I recommend this movie to anyone who thinks they have seen a really bad movie; the movie they saw will seem like Citizen Kane compared to this one. Otherwise, skip this one for the sake of your pride. Home Alone 3 also raises a question. We all know Alex D. Linz stars in the movie, but did he write it as well? | 0neg
|
I am shocked. Shocked and dismayed that the 428 of you IMDB users who voted before me have not given this film a rating of higher than 7. 7?!?? - that's a C!. If I could give FOBH a 20, I'd gladly do it. This film ranks high atop the pantheon of modern comedy, alongside Half Baked and Mallrats, as one of the most hilarious films of all time. If you know _anything_ about rap music - YOU MUST SEE THIS!! If you know nothing about rap music - learn something!, and then see this! Comparisons to 'Spinal Tap' fail to appreciate the inspired genius of this unique film. If you liked Bob Roberts, you'll love this. Watch it and vote it a 10! | 1pos
|
I get teased all the time by family and friends for my tears over movies, and they were not disappointed when I watched this one. I cried numerous times but believe me it was not over sappiness. I ached for the family and I ached for this man as he tried to redeem himself the only way he knew how. Denzel was fabulous as always, and so was Chris Walkin. Mickey Rourke, I did not even recognized though; the years have not been kind to him. My husband is not one to re-watch movies unless they are historically accurate war movies(snore!!!!) He has watched this movie 5 times now and I am going to have to get the DVD to watch it again because he has worn out the tape and it jumped the whole time I was watching. | 1pos
|
I like Fulci films, i really do and not in some boring ironic way either but i recognise that they appear hopelessly inept and garbled to lots of people.<br /><br />Conquest is where Fulci tries his hand at the epic fantasy genre and doesn't really succeed. Structurally, it's like most Fulci films you've seen. Some stuff happens, some more stuff happens and occasionally one scene might be tangentially related to another. Really it's like Conan with no sets, no script, no real actors (yes, Arnold Scharzenfartz is hardly an actor either), no budget, stupid looking dog soldiers and a bunch of gore.<br /><br />This one was a hard one to get through and i could've lived without the inch of vaseline smeared on the camera to give it that Hair Metal music video look. | 0neg
|
This is the worst movie I have seen since "I Know Who Killed Me" with Lindsey Lohan. <br /><br />After watching this movie I can assure you that nothing but frustration and disappointment await you should you choose to go see this. Hey, Tim Burton, I used to be a big fan of yours... did you even screen this movie? I mean seriously, what the f%#k?<br /><br />Without giving anything away, here is the story in a vague nutshell... Nine wakes up, he does stuff, his actions and decisions are irrelevant... and the movie ends. Oh wait... here comes a spoiler...<br /><br />Spoiler alert! Spoiler alert! At the end of the movie.... it rains. I think a part of my soul died while watching this movie. | 0neg
|
A friend lent me this DVD, which he got from the director at a festival, I think. I went in warned that some of the technical aspects of the movie were a bit shaky and that the writing was good but not great. So maybe that colored my judgment but I have to admit that I liked this movie.<br /><br />The standouts where the actors. Youssef Kerkor was really good as Ernie, the main character, kind of pathetic in a likable way. Adam Jones (who also directed) and Justin Lane were excellent as the roommates who drive Ernie mad. The Bill character (Justin Lane), who spends a lot of the film dressed like a panda, was by far my favorite; he seemed the least one-dimensional, and reminded me of an old college roommate so much I called the guy after watching the DVD. Really kind of lovable, and very funny. Some of the other acting was good, some was so-so, but none of it was bad. I also really liked the vigilante duo. Ridiculous and funny.<br /><br />I'm giving this one high marks, even though it has some issues, because you can tell when you watch it that these people cared, and decided to make their movie their way. Well done to Adam Jones and crew. | 1pos
|
Who says zombies can't be converted into useful members of the community? Certainly not the makers of "Fido," who take us to a never-never-land version of the 1950's where the undead have been turned into butlers and servants for the burgeoning middle class. Timmy Robinson is the all-American boy who becomes emotionally attached to the family's new full-time domestic - a recently resurrected zombie whom Timmy has affectionately dubbed Fido. All of this has been made possible by Zomcom, a big-brother-type organization that has found a way to render the zombies (who were originally brought to "life" by radiation from outer space) manageable and docile - at least most of the time.<br /><br />This twisted, modern-day spin on the TV series "Lassie" - it might easily have been entitled "A Boy and His Zombie" - takes slyly satirical swipes at such pre-'60s concerns as obsessive social conformity (here keeping-up-with-the-Joneses means having more zombie servants than the folks next door), the sterility of suburban life, the corporate control of civic affairs, small town corruption and nuclear family values - all played out in a beautifully designed setting of parti-colored houses and immaculately manicured lawns. The movie doesn't hit the audience over the head with its message nor does it engage in endless hyperbole to generate laughs. Instead, this is a low-keyed, subtle little satire that elicits appreciative chuckles rather than full-bellied guffaws. Much of the humor derives from the incongruity between the placidness of the setting and the cavalier attitude towards death demonstrated by the fine citizens of the community (Life Magazine has been replaced with a periodical entitled Death Magazine). Despite some playfully graphic violence, the movie stays true to the spirit of innocence we generally associate with both the 1950's itself and the cheesy, low-budget horror movies that were so much a part of the pop culture scene of that decade.<br /><br />K'Sun Ray, Carrie-Ann Moss and Dylan Baker are amiable and appealing as the wide-eyed Timmy and his Cleaver-esquire parents (with slightly sinister undertones), while Billy Connolly accomplishes the well nigh impossible task of bringing a great deal of humanity and depth to the role of a resurrected corpse.<br /><br />This is what "Lassie" might have been had Timmy's best friend been afflicted rabies. | 1pos
|
The actors did a really good job playing their roles--particularly the mom. However, as the movie progressed I found I was watching it more for their acting and not because I cared in the least for the people. And, at times, I felt irritated by the irresponsible and hands-off approach to parenting displayed again and again. The daughter is a 17 year-old shallow skank whose main ambition in life is bedding famous men and becoming a dancing nyphette (complete with lots of "booty shaking"). The son is a guy with low self-esteem that seems very desperate for a relationship and friends--so much that he throws a drug party late in the film. The husband and wife are both bored, but rather than put energy into their stale relationship would rather seek out new partners (though the wife picks poorly, as the man she "throws herself at" happens to be gay---OOPS!). I just felt that ALL the characters needed to grow up and had a hard time caring for such shallow jerks. I think the author's attempt was to demonstrate the utter banality and hollowness of the capitalist system. However, given that these characters are NOT typical of the average western family, it seems disingenuous. | 0neg
|
Wow. Rarely have I felt the need to comment on movies lately, but this one especially is begging for a beatdown. Let's start at the beginning. First, writer-director Susan Montford puts Kim Basinger in the tired old victim role, complete with the requisite abusive husband and dull suburban existence. Let it be said right now that almost all content in this dull movie is completely hackneyed and trite. Montford's pathetic attempt at symbolism involving the Christmas tree with no star is laughable.<br /><br />When She Goes Out for some Christmas wrapping paper one dark and ominous night, Della is furious that somebody double-parked their car on the busiest shopping night of the year. She decides to do something about it, so she leaves a nasty note on the car's windshield. The next fifteen minutes of the movie are devoted to Della walking around aimlessly in the shopping mall. When she finally gets to her car, the thugs confront her about the note, a cop is killed, and she runs, and they catch up to her, and she gets away, and they chase her some more, and on and on. Everything is completely predictable and uninvolving. The thugs are not scary or menacing at all, and they all get picked off one by one in all the usual ways.<br /><br />This is one of those movies in which all the action depends on the characters being as stupid as you can imagine. Why the bad guys don't just kill her instead of waiting for her to hit them with a tire iron is beyond me. And once, just once, in a film like this, does the leader of the pack have to die last? What does it matter that they are all picked off one by one when they are all equally inept? Much of the movie simply consists of Lukas Haas running around in the woods screaming "Della!!!" And the inclusion of Joy Division on the soundtrack of this wretched film is insulting.<br /><br />The part that really made me run for my computer keypad was when Della, exhausted and hurt, cries out to the heavens, "Where are you, God?" Where, indeed, was god when this movie was being made? I give it a 2 only because of competent cinematography and lighting, and it's not as bad as 'BTK Killer,' the ultimate marker for judging any terrible film. Cheers! | 0neg
|
one of the funnest mario's i've ever played. the levels are creative, there are fluid controls, and good graphics for its time. there's also a multitude of crazy bosses and enemies to fight. Sometimes the levels get frustrating, and if you leave out some of the hard levels and still, need to get more accomplished to fight a boss, it can be annoying. another complaint is the camera angle; though it works fairly well most of the time, it can be a pain in certain situations. if your a big time mario fan; this ones for you. even if your not a huge fan of him, i'd still recommend this one. its a big game, and getting what you need can take a while, but it's very satisfying. good for playing in short bursts of time. it will almost certainly hold your interest; it sure does hold mine! | 1pos
|
I don't know why some guys from US, Georgia or even from Bulgaria have the courage to express feelings about something they don't understand at all. For those who did not watch this movie - watch it. Don't expect too much or don't put some frameworks just because this is Kosturica. Watch the movie without prejudice, try to understand the whole humor inside - people of Serbia DID actually getting married while Bil Clinton bomb their villages, gypsies in all Balkans are ALWAYS try to f*ck you up in any way they can, LOVE is always unexpected, pure and colorful, and Balkans are extremely creative. For those who claims this is a bad movie I can see only that the American's sh*t (like Meet Dave, Get Smart etc) are much much worse than a pure, frank Balkan humoristic love story movie as Promise me. The comment should be useful and on second place should represent the personal view of the writer. I think the movie is great and people watch it must give their respects to the director and story told inside. It is simple, but true. It is brutal, but gentle and makes you laugh to dead. | 1pos
|
This movie is so aggrivating. The main character looks like he's 35 and I've seen scrawny beanpoles with more balls than this guy. The plot twists are so predictable its not even worth watching for the humor factor.<br /><br />Also some of the worst dialogue I've heard in 3 years, "lets go find a small animal to torture".<br /><br />Ugh.....I can't even continue, don't watch this pile of garbage, it was made in 8 days.<br /><br />The one highlight is the drunk dude calling the main character a faggot for drawing pictures.<br /><br />2 out of 10, unwatchable | 0neg
|
IF ANYONE IS INTERESTED IN OBTAINING A COPY OF THIS FILM PLEASE READ THE BOTTOM OF THIS DESCRIPTION: First telecast by CBS on November 30, 2003, the made-for-TV Finding John Christmas is a sequel to the previous year's A Town Without Christmas, with Peter Falk reprising his role as versatile guardian angel Max. Valerie Bertinelli plays Kathleen McAllister, a divorced small-town nurse whose depression... over the fact that the hospital ER she maintains may be forced to shut down because of a $100,000 debt is briefly lifted when she spots a newspaper picture taken by photojournalist Noah Greeley (David Cubitt). The picture shows an act of bravery performed by Noah's firefighter brother Hank (William Russ), who mysteriously left town 25 years ago and hasn't been seen since. Hank would like to quietly slip back into town without explanation or fanfare, but this proves impossible when Noah's newspaper posts a $50,000 reward to identify Hank, known only to the public as "John Christmas." And there's something, very, very curious about that photo: It also shows a Santa Claus suit seemingly floating in midair without an occupant. That elusive "Santa" is of course the angelic Max, who pops up now and again throughout the story in a variety of guises to solve problems, dispense advice, tie up loose plot strands--and even share a musical duet with Kathleen's talented daughter Socorro (Jennifer Pisana).<br /><br />INTERESTED IN HAVING A COPY: WRITE TO ME HERE: [email protected] | 1pos
|
<br /><br />It's a generic coming-of-age story -- think "The Member of the Wedding," "Summer of '42," "A Summer Place," even "Little Women" -- and there are moments where Mulligan might have omitted the soupy music, not used slow-motion, or played down the golden-lit prettiness of the setting. Otherwise, it's done with rare emotional perfect-pitch. Nothing's forced, every line has feeling, and the pacing is just right. Even the below-A-list casting helps: Bigger movie stars with more recognizable personalities might have overwhelmed the material. In particular, Witherspoon is excellent: Her line readings are fresh and original, and her body language is just right for a gawky, hoydenish 14-year-old on the eve of womanhood. Waterston is also very fine, even if he has to spend much of the movie climbing in and out of the family truck.<br /><br />One senses that the film's makers were aware of its unpromising commercial prospects -- no big stars, no big car crashes, no special effects -- and consciously decided to make the best possible movie, box office be damned. It's intimate and honest, and it sticks to the ribs. If you find yourself misting up at the end, you don't have to feel you've been duped. | 1pos
|
The prerequisite for making such a film is a complete ignorance of Nietzche's work and personality, psychoanalytical techniques and Vienna's history. Take a well-know genius you have not read, describe him as demented, include crazy physicians to cure him, a couple of somewhat good looking women, have his role played by an actor with an enormous mustache, have every character speak with the strongest accent, show ridiculous dreams, include another prestigious figure who has nothing to do with the first one (Freud), mention a few words used in the genius' works, overdo everything you can, particularly music, and you are done. Audience, please stay away. | 0neg
|
This film was an interesting take by Hollywood on the novel by of the same name by Pearl S. Buck. While some today might think it is rife with racial stereotypes, for the time the very idea of Chinese protagonists was progressive in and of itself. I found that the white actors playing Chinese was not as bad as I expected, that it wasn't the Asian equivalent of blackface. Back then there were not really any Asian actors in America (not even George Takei was acting) and Rainer did a good job with her part. It wasn't the greatest performance I have ever seen but for old-school pre-method acting it was nice. The locust scene was very well shot and contained convincing special effects.<br /><br />I wonder that the timing of the release during the Great Depression sort of turns this film into an allegory. Especially the political upheaval bewildering the peasant farmers and how them seem to be left behind by all of it.<br /><br />The film had some parallels to the John Ford style, but I think the Eastern influence affected it as well. If this had been an western family, the locusts would have won at the end, punishing the farmer for his pride, lust, and gluttony. However here he learns his lesson, then wins. | 1pos
|
A few years ago I added a comment to the IMDB on "The Real McCoys" TV series. I said then and repeat now it was a charming, funny, and entertaining show, well-acted with wonderful characterizations.<br /><br />I recently saw on DVD four old episodes PLUS the Reunion of 2000 with Richard Crenna, Kathy Nolan, and Tony Martinez. As another writer here mentioned, it is curious that Lydia Reed (Hassie) and Michael Winkelman (Little Luke) weren't refered to, but perhaps they can be tracked down via SAG or AFTRA.<br /><br />The reunion show was well done and gave us many unknown insights into the show. One piece of inside information we did NOT get was whether or not Kathy Nolan regretted quitting the show in an unpleasant contract dispute, which left Luke a "widow" in it's last year, which wasn't very good. Nolan went on to do a bomb of a comedy called "Broadside", about women nurses in the Pacific in WW II. Get it? BROADside? No, not funny.<br /><br />Unlike the sleazy, salacious, and violent TRASH on TV now that is so undermining our values, "The Real McCoys" entertained with decent values and fine human beings. And I thank all involved, including the creator, Irving Pinkus, for having brought it to my family. We never missed it. | 1pos
|
Back in 74 Eric Monte made the classic T.V show Good Times. JJ has always been my favorite and I love watching the Reruns on T.V Land. Jimmie Walker always seemed to be the star and not Esther Rolle. John Amos most of the time felt a little jealous of Jimmie Walker's popularity winning millions of fans time to sit and watch Good Times. The show would have been dead if JJ would't have been there to save it with his always Kool Aid attitude. Drinking KOOL AID was like his favorite thing on the show. I was 3 when it came out and 8 when it ended. Instead of 1974-1979 it should have went longer like in the 1980's when I was just growing up. | 1pos
|
I MAY have seen an episode or 2 when the show originally aired but when I watched 1 episode on netflix I was also hooked. I watched the whole series in like 2 days. :) I really liked Gary Cole's character. First he's thoroughly reprehensible then you start liking the character ("These things have a thousand uses")! His folksy Andy Griffith meets Charles Manson meets Satan is great. Charming, charismatic, smarmy, and uh kind of dangerous and by "kind of" I mean "really". I wanna be like HIM when I grow up. Lucas Black is great too. The accents are great too. Anyway, I thought this was one of the best TV shows ever and you owe it to yourself to see it. | 1pos
|
The boys are working outside a recording studio when they hear "the voice of an angel." That would be Miss Van Doren, auditioning and going under the name of Miss Andrews because her father doesn't approve of her being a "radio singer". However, she hopes a certain big-wig, Mrs. Bixby, a friend of her dad's will hire her, and then he will have to give his approval.<br /><br />She leaves but within minutes the boys are running amok in the studio causing havoc and having other musicians out to kill them after they ruin the recording session. Finally things calm down. "Whew, we eluded them," says Moe. "Yeah, we got away, too," answers Curly.<br /><br />The boys then fool around in the studio, put on Miss Van Doren's record and Curly gets dressed in women's clothes and pretends he's singing. Mrs. Bixby walks in, is impressed and hires "Seniorita Cucacha" on the spot! For an extra $500, she's asked to come and sing at their high-society party that night. The rest, as they say,is history as Curly pretends to be an opera singer with some funny results. Oh, by the way, he accompanied by "Senior Mucho" and "Senior Gusto."<br /><br />What happens at the party is simply that the truth wins out, but not before a few slapstick antics take place. In all, a pretty good episode. I enjoyed it but wouldn't rate it as anything special. | 1pos
|
...this verson doesn't mangle the Bard that badly. It's still a horrible minimalist production, Hamlet's Dutch uncle is inexplicably dubbed by a Spaniard (whether it's Ricardo Montalban or not is subject to debate), and Maximilian Schell overacts like never before. Most of the dialogue makes it through unscathed, and the fact that the MST3K version feels obliged to point out repeatedly that the speeches are long *duh* doesn't strike me as incredibly humorous. Mostly it's just bad acting, though. | 0neg
|
Jim Carrey is one of the funniest and most gifted comedians in film today. With his hyperactive spontaneity and his rubber face he can just go crazy, and we love him for it. He has the ability to make mediocre comedies (ala Ace Ventura), and turn them into decent comedic outings. Or, in the case of 'Liar Liar', make them some of the most hilarious contemporary comedies around. Carrey has also proven himself capable of tackling dramas. He was excellent in both 'Man on the Moon' and 'The Truman Show.' The guy is remarkable.<br /><br />Then comes 'Bruce Almighty,' an ideal vehicle for Carrey, and a premise that should have worked; Carrey, after complaining about God and how his life stinks, is enabled with God's powers. However, the script is pure recycled garbage. Now, no matter how bad a script is, Carrey's improvisation alone sometimes makes an unfunny scene funny. The problem is that there are very few opportunities for Carrey to be unleashed because so much of the comedy relies on silly special effects, only some of which are amusing. Carrey is rarely able to improvise because he has to work around the special effects. The writers apparently thought that all these special effects and superpower sequences were funny, because the rest of the movie is simply filler giving Carrey nothing else to work with besides a whiny character who is absolutely humorless. He seems more like a 5-year yearning for our attention, wanting the viewer to find what he is doing funny, when it's really just annoying.<br /><br />I have always enjoyed Jennifer Aniston on 'Friends' and she was superb in last year's 'The Good Girl.' She too has a gift for comedy, but with the script as linear as it is, she is simply given the part of the bitter girlfriend. She comes across as nagging, grumpy, and there is no chemistry between the two stars.<br /><br />'Bruce Almighty' should have been a comedy that works. But it doesn't even have the guts to tackle the subject matter that it's making fun of; religion. A few minor giggles (his internet is Yehweh), but instead it's just turned into a comedic superpower comedy. Not to mention that it's tone shifts from silly to heavy-handed, and even black comedy at times. The movie fails on nearly every level. That's not to see it is entirely devoid of laughs, but it's close. Any movie that feels the need to incorporate scenes of a dog peeing to get it's laughs has problems. But hey, if you find pee jokes funny, go for it.<br /><br /> | 0neg
|
And that goes especially for lawyers & cops. Puerto Rico,which boasts of a small,but potent film production firm,brings this multi layered tale of corruption,due to the on going drug cartel that starts in South America,makes a pit stop on the island commonwealth,and then northbound into North America. Steven Bauer,the most recognizable face on screen here,leads a cast of top notch actors,in a story of "can you spot the only respectable face in the crowd?". Ricardo Mendez Matta moves up from directing mainly action adventure fare for American television,in a screenplay written by Matta,along with Poli Marichal. The rest of the cast (Elpidia Carrillo,Magda Rivera,Jose Herredia,Luz Maria Randon,to mention a few)turn in oh so fine roles,in a film that will keep you wondering "is there any respectable characters here?". Spoken in Spanish with English subtitles. Rated 'R' by the MPAA,this film contains outbursts of vulgar language,brief flashes of nudity,adult content & violence,some of which is quite lurid. | 1pos
|
In some ways, The Wrath of Kriemhild surpasses Siegfried's Death, but it also loses some of that film's greatness. The plot of this one is more cohesive than the first, which is quite amazing. The second half of the actual poem is a lot sloppier and a lot harder to tread through, until, that is, you get to the climactic battle scenes; only the Iliad's are better. Lang and Harbou embellished the Huns. The poet-compiler of the Nibelungenlied didn't know a Hun from his right ball, and as a result they are, more or less, the same as the Burgundians in custom. For example, although the poet clearly describes Etzel as a heathen (which is Kriemhild's main concern as Rudiger tries to persuade her to marry him), when she gets to Hunland, the first thing she does is go to mass. The Huns here are clearly heathens; they're almost like caveman. The depiction of them is hilarious, especially Verbal, the jester, who has two marvelous scenes. Etzel's character has been given more weight. He is much more formidable. All he does is bemoan his fate in the original poem. Lang and Harbou are masterful at building suspense, especially at the banquet scene, which is intercut with Verbal's second performance to an amazing effect. However, as is the nature of this half of the poem, the film's amazing technical accomplishments are missing in this one, for the most part, except for a dazzling sequence where Etzel's hall burns down with the Nibelungs inside. The one thing I do have to object to is the way Harbou changes the ending. SPOILERS: in the poem, after Hildebrand captures Hagen and Gunther, they are imprisoned. Kriemhild visits Hagen in his cell and demands that he reveal where he has hidden the horde. He refuses and she herself decapitates her brother. When Hagen still refuses, she decapitates him. Hildebrand (or possibly Dietrich) is so disgusted that a woman would presume to murder a great warrior that he, in turn, decapitates her, calling her a "Devil Woman". Etzel, who is much weaker in the poem than he is here, says something silly like: "Ah me!" I can understand why they would want to keep a unity of time and place as Hildebrand brings them from the castle; to retain the prison settings of the two deaths would make the film very anticlimactic. I also understand why they didn't have Hildebrand kill Kriemhild: his character is much reduced here; his name is only mentioned once. But, to have Kriemhild kill herself, adopting Brynhild's death from the Icelandic sources, is just catering to the audience instead of challenging them. The point of the poem is that Kriemhild's wrath goes far beyond it should into the realm of pure evil. Here, we simply have her die for her lost love. It's not as interesting. | 1pos
|
I was mad anyone made this movie. I was even more angry I lost valuable minutes of my life sitting still to watch this. I could have had a wax job and been more entertained. At least Cherri makes me laugh before it hurts. I was a bit confused at first but then I caught on and realized what was going on. By this time the film was half way through, and Yes I am a procrastinator but I always want to see things through until the end. So I stuck it out I watched it all. Not only are the actors not as attractive as in Cruel Intentions, they just aren't convincing. I've seen my nephew cry for attention more convincingly than the supposed lust portrayed on screen in this movie. If you like bad movies with bad acting watch this. | 0neg
|
This movie is terrible. TERRIBLE. One of the worst movies ever. I cannot even imagine Gigli being worse that this. Previews made us say "NO", but then looking for something amid the dreck out there right now, we decided to go ahead and give it a shot.<br /><br />STUPID US.<br /><br />Affleck is NOT an actor. He's an image and can look good with explosions, but not even the kind Bruce Willis got in "Die Hard". If he stripped his shirt and ran around fighting bad guys, it would be a comedy.<br /><br />The best part was Catherine O'Hara -- she's always good. Gandolfini flops again (if it weren't for The Sopranos, he'd be washed up) like he did in "The Mexican".<br /><br />Affleck hogs every scene and as others have said -- no character has any motivation whatsoever for their actions. <br /><br />AVOID THIS MOVIE AT ALL COSTS. | 0neg
|
In the 1930s studios would use short films like this one sort of as testing grounds for new actors, given their relative ease of production in comparison with full length feature films, so it's interesting that this one should star Shirley Temple, who had long since established herself as The Most Famous Child Star of All Time. Then again, she probably wasn't the one being tested, I would imagine that would have been Frank Coghlan Jr., who played Shirley's brother Sonny in the movie and delivered a comparatively less impressive performance. Then again, a 9-year-old Shirley Temple was probably not an easy act to accompany.<br /><br />The film opens with an unimpressive sight gag involving a leaky ceiling, which I suppose was designed to have Shirley Temple give a scornful look at the ceiling, illustrate the working class status of the family in the movie, and provide a clean transition into the next scene, which features Shirley gleefully stomping in the rain.<br /><br />It's Sonny'y birthday, and his father makes occasional and horrendously botched efforts to hide the fact that he wants to give Sonny a dog that he really wants for himself, but Sonny is afraid of dogs because he was bitten by one once and has been creeped out ever since. It's curious that, when his father insists on getting a dog, Sonny decides to run away from home rather than have a dog in the house, and as he is running away with no destination in sight, it's also curious that the movie illustrates what seems to be an indifference to homeless people that surpasses even the astounding indifference that exists today.<br /><br />Sonny passes a man cooking bacon in an iron skillet at the side of the train tracks (right after a train flew by which, given how close to the tracks he was, you would think would have blown the guy right off the tracks, but no matter). After Sonny gives up on sharing breakfast due to the sour stare that his gleeful smile receives from the guy, he continues on and the homeless guy disappears from the movie. It's interesting to consider what a longer film would have done, because this one leaves this poor guy as a loose end.<br /><br />Not that that matters, Sonny soon hears a dog whining underneath a trestle as he passes over it, and jumps down to find a dog covered in burrs. It might seem trite that he immediately takes the dog up and adopts it since he just left home because of his fear of dogs, but it seemed to me that he just needed to be reminded not of his power over dogs, but of their lack of power over him. As soon as he saw a dog in need he overcame his fear.<br /><br />Hey, if that's all it takes, all I have to do is find a helpless spider and I'm set! <br /><br />It's a very convenient movie in which everything works out exactly as it is supposed to, but it's cute enough and enjoyable enough (and short enough, as it were) to still be a fun movie. We already don't expect an epic plot in a 19-minute film, but Pardon My Pups still packs in a substantial amount of story and character development in its short running time. And it also features a fight scene at the end of the movie that must have made Charlie Chaplin proud. I am hardly an expert of Shirley Temple's films, but it's not hard to see how she became The Most Famous Child Star of All Time. | 1pos
|
This had to be one of the worst movies I've ever seen and I'm 64 years old and a football fan. I went expecting to see a football movie. About 10 minutes into it, I began to wonder exactly how such a bad movie (particularly the acting) could have gotten into a theater. About half way through, I whispered to my husband that it was awful and he explained to me the facts behind the movie. Although I was a little offended (and can see how some could be VERY offended if they were not Christian) at being preached to in a movie theater, it wasn't that big a deal. It was, however, a big deal to be subjected to such predictability and unrealistic behavior and, above all, the quality of the acting. It is an appropriate movie for a church outing but to be shown in a church auditorium and not in a theater. Do I go to church? Yes. Do I want to go to church when I attend a movie? No. Would I recommend this movie? Absolutely not!!! | 0neg
|
I enjoyed this movie. Haven't seen Andy Griffith in ages and felt he fit this role perfectly. I've associated him with comedy but am pleased to see that he's versatile.<br /><br />I wasn't troubled that Dotty's "anxiety disorder" may not have been verbatim from a psychiatric textbook. There are zillions of whatever-phobias and neuroses, and these can take on a broad variety of quantitative and qualitative forms. She is clearly a sensitive with extra-sensory powers as was understood by the local Indians but not by any Anglos. It is not surprising that this character is vulnerable and nominally eccentric.<br /><br />Although this is taken to be a light "family movie", it is actually more sophisticated than it seems. Also, Hiram's twist at the end came as a pleasant surprise to me and tied all the preceding action together in a bundle. It's fun to contemplate the possibility of such spiritual guidance. | 1pos
|
Back in the day if Marion Davies had had her druthers and didn't just listen to William Randolph Hearst, she'd have done more films like Show People and been a lot happier. In fact when you see her get her first big break in two reel comedy, she'd have loved to have done that in her career instead of such epics like When Knighthood Was In Flower and Janice Meredith. <br /><br />What you're seeing by all accounts in Show People is the real Davies, a gifted comedienne, a superb mimic and a generous good hearted person. She could really identify with the character of Peggy Pepper aka Patricia Prepoire, she put up with her share of pretense in her Hollywood stardom.<br /><br />If the plot of Show People was set in the legitimate stage you would call it a backstage story. I guess it being one of the first movies about the movies you could call it a behind the camera story. Marion is eager young hopeful who arrives in Hollywood like so many others, looking for that big break. She wants to drama, but her introduction to the movies is as the foil for the burlesque comics. She gets her share of pie and seltzer in the face, but learns her trade. And also wins the heart of young comic actor William Haines.<br /><br />She does get her first big break, but it doesn't come for Haines as well and Marion does get to do legitimate drama with actor Paul Ralli, playing Andre Telfair, a pretend no account Count of Avignon. Somebody here was taking a shot at actor Lou Tellegen, lover and husband of Sarah Bernhardt and Geraldine Farrar and others and to hear tell of it, one of the most despised people in cinema.<br /><br />Show People was one of the first films to have the unbilled cameo appearances of stars as themselves. You will get to see folks like Charlie Chaplin, Douglas Fairbanks, William S. Hart, Mae Murray, John Gilbert, Eleanor Boardman etc., just being themselves in and around the film colony. That in itself makes Show People a film worth saving.<br /><br />Show People also made good use of standard Tin Pan Alley songs like, Ain't We Got Fun, I'm Sitting On Top Of The World, You'd Be Surprised, California, Here I Come. As the film came out on the cusp of sound being introduced, a song called Crossroads was introduced in it. It's not a bad number, but no credit is given to the boy and girl singing it in the soundtrack. I guess since they're not seen, it was felt no billing was necessary. Still I'd like to know and I'm sure you would to if you are fortunate enough to see Show People.<br /><br />It's easy to see why Marion Davies liked this film so much and considered it a personal favorite. She looks so at home in this film and her real life lack of pretense shines through in her performance which makes it a real treat for the audience. | 1pos
|
I still haven't gotten to see all of this; it's running on cable right now, and I seem to keep coming in on the middle of it. My main reason for being interested in it is that I'm a Bill Paxton fan; he's a pretty good actor, and has turned in consistently good work over the course of his career.<br /><br />The other thing is that, while never really a fan of the old series, I kinda liked Thunderbirds for the ships and effect work. Derek Meddings was quite possibly the best in the business during the sixties and seventies, and his designs for the International Rescue craft are wonderful. The current team has done a fine job of translating his work to the big screen.<br /><br />BUT...<br /><br />This is one lame story. The kids are asked to drive it, and while they do an okay job, it's hard to suspend your disbelief, especially when you have Brains' eight-year-old son flying T2, an enormous multi-ton transport with all the aerodynamics of a Buick. Everywhere you look, you see a Ford logo. Product placement is way over the top here, and it's annoying. Ben Kingsley does an good job as The Hood, but he can only do so much with a one-dimensional role. If you can accept the film on its very slim merits, Thunderbirds is a fun, enjoyable ride. Just don't look too closely at the machinery that drives it.<br /><br />ADDENDUM: I finally got to see all of this, and it's worse than I thought. The acting is fairly uniformly poor, and while the effects are fairly good, the story on multiple viewings has gotten cheesier. The overdone product placement for Ford is annoying, and the kids as central characters grate on my remaining nerves. As with The Avengers, if you ignore the source material, it's bearable. But not very. Watch the original show, and you'll see what I mean.<br /><br />And a word of advice to Jon Frakes. Take a refresher course at the Director's Guild. You can do better than this, old friend.<br /><br />Another footnote...<br /><br />I saw this again. Last night. On Telemundo. Dubbed in Spanish, with cheesy comedy sound effects. And yes, I came in roughly in the middle, with Ben, Ron and Sophia in their fight scene on Tracy Island. <br /><br />I didn't think it was possible for an already lame movie to be worse, but it was. It was embarrassingly bad. <br /><br />If this had been done straight, no kids-to-the-rescue, no tongue-in-cheek jokes, it might have worked. As it is, it's just another beloved childhood joy that's been ruined. | 0neg
|
yeah, it's a bit of a silly film, so if you are looking for an oscar performance, forget this one......but, if you love John Candy's humor, this is a must-see. We lost John Candy before he made enough of his great brand of comedy, and he is only better in one movie: Planes, Trains, & Automobiles (with Steve Martin). Excellent supporting performance by Eugene Levy, perhaps his best work ever as the hot-headed Sal DiPasquale. Also good acting by Richard Libertini, Alley Mills & Pat Hingle. You must see this obscure and out-of-print film if you are a John Candy or Eugene Levy fan. | 1pos
|
A number of factors make it easy for me to state that I still think this is the most important science fiction film ever made, despite some of the acting, outdated dialogue etc.<br /><br />First, there is the scale of imagination in describing the Krell, a humanoid race native to the planet, now all dead, who were 1 million years more advanced than Earth humans(us), and their technology, particularly the 8,000 cubic mile machine.<br /><br />Second, there is the music and sound effects, which are inseparable from each other. It creates an eerie, unearthly feeling, unlike "2001", which had traditional classical music.<br /><br />Third, its "monster" is not only the most powerful and deadly ever envisioned, it's also based on real science and doesn't break the laws of physics and biology.<br /><br />Finally, and most importantly, Forbidden Planet is the only movie ever made that attempts and, more incredibly, succeeds in making an honest, intelligent and mercilessly logical statement on the limits or ceiling of human (or any other biological entity's) development, no matter how long we survive as a species.<br /><br />In other words, it predicts our inevitable destiny. | 1pos
|
The Secret of Kells is a film I've been waiting for for years after seeing some early footage at the Cartoon Saloon in Kilkenny. I'm here to tell you now it's been worth the wait. The cartoons are heavily stylised but not annoyingly so as I'd feared. The whole film is a thing of beauty and great imagination, I particularly love the animated illuminated book where the little figures come to life on the page. The characterisation is superb, I love Brendan Gleeson's voice as the stern Abbot and I especially liked the voice of the sprite Aisling. The forest is a triumph, such a beautiful place. The story is well realised, a mix of fact and fantasy. and really draws the viewer in to cheer on Brendan in his quest for the perfect materials for the Book. I'm a lover of calligraphy and illumination anyway so the subject is close to my heart, but all the people I know who've seen this and are not fans of the craft agree that it's a lovely little film. I will definitely buy the DVD when it's released, and would like to say, well done Cartoon Saloon and all the people involved in this mammoth project. May there be many more. :) Coming back in here to say that I bought several copies of the DVD as soon as I could and gave them out at Christmas, everyone loves it! And I wish them all the luck in the world at the Oscars, such a joy to see this nominated. | 1pos
|
Like one of the previous commenters said, this had the foundations of a great movie but something happened on the way to delivery. Such a waste because Collette's performance was eerie and Williams was believable. I just kept waiting for it to get better. I don't think it was bad editing or needed another director, it could have just been the film. It came across as a Canadian movie, something like the first few seasons of X-Files. Not cheap, just hokey. Also, it needed a little more suspense. Something that makes you jump off your seat. The movie reached that moment then faded away; kind of like a false climax. I can see how being too suspenseful would have taken away from the "reality" of the story but I thought that part was reached when Gabriel was in the hospital looking for the boy. This movie needs to have a Director's cut that tries to fix these problems. | 1pos
|
I've come to realise from watching Euro horror, especially films made by cult luminary Jess Franco, that you can't expect a plot that makes much sense. However, Franco has gone overboard with this film; and despite a surreal atmosphere, and the film's reputation as one of the director's best - Succubus is unfortunately is a truly awful film. I've got to admit that I saw the American cut version, which runs at about 76 minutes; but unless it was just the logic that was cut, I'm sure the longer European version is just as boring. The plot has something to do with a woman marauding around; practicing S&M and talking rubbish, and it's all really boring. There's no gore and the sex is dull, and most of the runtime is taken up by boring dialogue and despite the fact that this is a short film; I had difficulty making it all the way to the end. I have to say that the locations look good and Franco has done a good job of using his surreal atmosphere; but the positive elements end there. Jess Franco is definitely a talented director that has made some classic trash films - but this looks like it was one he made for the money, and overall I recommend skipping it and seeing some of the director's more interesting works. | 0neg
|
It was easy for Sir Richard Attenborough to make Gandhi (1982)he was merely narrating a story of a great individual who walked on this planet not so long ago. Comparatively, it must have been a lot tougher for director Feroz Abbas Khan making his debut as a filmmaker to make Gandhi my father, pitting a shriveled anti-hero against an international hero, both of whom were historically real individuals, and ironically father and son. The events in the film are mostly real. Mahatma Gandhi lived as shown in the film, setting high moral standards for the world to follow. Yet these very standards overshadowed the aspirations of his eldest son Harilal to be a lawyer of repute like his father, to complete his education and get a job in India and thus provide income for his nuclear family.<br /><br />The film does not debunk Gandhi and his ideals. For Gandhi, his mission was larger than his family's aspirations. He loved his family and cared for them, though his thoughts for their appeasement were blinkered by his ideal of caring for the masses. He stood for equality and dignity among all persons and in his view to give special undue advantages to his own son overlooking other deserving persons went against the basis of what he preached. The film looks at an unusual case of parentingwhere an idealist parent places receding goalposts for a less-than-brilliant offspring. <br /><br />The film presents an unusual scenario that happened. A son marries his childhood sweetheart, upsetting his father. The father upsets his son's educational aspirations at several key junctures. The fragile link between a devoted son and a father breaks, as the son wants to stand on his own feet and care for his nuclear family. While the father gradually becomes the father of a nation, the son stumbles in valiant quest for identity and survival. His marriage breaks and seeks solace in religion, buffeting between Islam and Hinduism. Through all his tribulations his link to his mother remains, until she chides him for being drunk.<br /><br />Feroz Khan is essentially a director of plays making his foray into cinema. He wrote and directed the play Mahatma vs. Gandhi that had considerable impact on the Indian theater community. The play and the consequent film were based on two biographies, one by Chandulal Dalal and another by Nilamben Parekh, The success of the staged play was an evident reason for the commercial Bollywood actor Anil Kapoor to produce this noteworthy film. Every time a good director of plays attempts to direct cinema there is an evidence of a lack of confidence with the medium. Peter Brook is a great director of plays, but less competent as a film director. The opening shots of Khan's film promises great cinemaa derelict Harilal Gandhi is brought to Sion Hospital, Bombay (Mumbai) barely mumbling that his father is Bapu (the popular name of Mahatma Gandhi), father to an entire nation. The hospital authorities do not recognize him to be Mahatma Gandhi's eldest son, dying in poverty and loneliness. Apart from the dramatic opening, the film unfortunately merely presents a great story and some superb exterior shots of father and son meditating in silhouette. For an Indian film it does present some high production qualities that go hand in hand with a lack of interest for details (the clothes of most Indians in the film seem dust-free and freshly laundered, modern hairstyles of actors, and even Shefali Shetty playing Mohandas Gandhi's wife a century ago with plucked eyebrows), the bane of Indian cinema. Since Feroz Khan is a theater personality, he has invested much more effort in working with the actors in developing the characters rather than on cinematic details, somewhat like Sir Attenborough another person who is also a product of theater (Royal Academy of Dramatic Arts).<br /><br />Knowing quite well that to criticize Gandhi in any manner was asking for trouble, even when there was no direct criticism in the film, producer Anil Kapoor took a remarkable decision of not putting up posters of the film at accessible heights in India, fearing that some one could tear the poster or disrespect it intentionally or unintentionally. <br /><br />With all its mix of greatness and faults, Gandhi, my father throws several questions at the viewer. Is a mother-son bonding stronger than a father-son bonding in parenting? Is one's immediate family less important than humanity at large? Does one seek refuge in religion and alcohol only when worldly troubles are encountered? In this film, Harilal buffeted by adversities runs from one religion to another, while his father quotes scriptures "Forgive them for they know not what they do" when beaten and thrown on the ground by a South African policeman, convinced of the value of religion and convincing others as well.<br /><br />The film won the Best actress award at the Tokyo International Film Festival for Shefali Shetty (Shah) and an Indian award from critics. Feroze Khan and Anil Kapoor have handled a sensitive subject very well and elicited above-average performances from the ensemble of actors. I do hope the international success of the film paves the way for some able director to film another brilliant Indian play Girish Karnad's Tughlaq some day meeting international quality standards. | 1pos
|
Anyone who has said that it's better than Hostel is talking complete crap, believe me I'm not a fan of Hostel but this is just ridiculous. This is just another shot on camcorder, straight to DVD, low on ideas waste of your time, I can't believe how many of these films there are and I'm yet to see a decent one. In the 80's video nasties, gore and horror movies were made with no budget but a great story and a load of new ideas and most importantly the heart and soul of the director who had something to say. Now they just seem to be pumped out in an attempt to trick people browsing in Blockbuster to rent a copy, until people stop doing this then I guess these films will keep appearing. This film is so low on ideas it's just amazing how it ever got made, the acting is also terrible, the location completely unconvincing and the soundtrack is so annoying it beggars belief. This waste of time has absolutely nothing going for it, unless you're on a quest to compile a list of the worst movies of all time. My best/worst part of the film is when a female character is pointing a gun at someone and threatening to shoot them if they don't back off, you can see that she isn't even covering the trigger with her finger just holding the grip. An absolute joke. | 0neg
|
While the story is sweet, and the dancing and singing in the main part of the film are a joy, the uniqueness of the film (and what makes it a masterpiece) is the dream sequence. It features the combination of the highest form of truly American music (Gershwin), the engaging beauty of French impressionistic art, Kelly's enthralling choreography (including his rapturous "pas de deux d'amour", really a separate genre), with the most magnificent palette of color ever devised for the set. Matching the surging music and the visual explosion with those dances was a true work of a creative genius and a great artist. | 1pos
|
Crude, some times crass - to me that's the summation of Madhur Bhandarkar's latest work - Page 3. He has no point of view - just shallow, funny digs at stereotypes. What is the movie about?? Is it about reporting a clan of people (so called Page 3 types) who are so busy socializing and progressing their profiles in life - that they have no time for anything else. And you are either in it or out of it. Is it that there is no press at all to report everyday incidents. Madhur Bhandarkar forgets that there is a main newspaper and Page 3 is just a supplement; perhaps an entertainer for checking out who's who and what's what. Don't mix the two. And then there is power play - that would happen in every walk of life. So what have you told at the end of it all - nothing - just a few crude jokes strung together in an otherwise direction less movie. | 0neg
|
Almost every plot detail in this movie is illogical and implausible. It carries no semblance of a genuine human story, dead and dull. It is a parody of Hollywood, with trumpet musical bits that remind you of a Denzel Washington movie, wobbly camera shots and focusing, racist stereotypes, absolutely unnecessary and comical shots and gestures of famous people in clothing catalogue poses. It is made to cater for the multitude of zombies whose meaning in life derives from watching celebrity names. The only good thing in the movie is the end credits and funky song that accompanies it. I feel like an idiot for watching this, save yourself. | 0neg
|
Just get it. The DVD is cheap and easy to come by, the length is now standard and you've gone long enough without it. (When home video started, there were at LEAST three versions with parts missing..) Everything you've read is true. There is no defending it, and no living without it. The color is lush and wonderful to look at, and the production values are pretty good for a Saturday afternoon kiddie epic. But no question..the whole Santa Vs. Satan angle is so jaw dropping STRANGE it made the movie a hit at the time and a cult fave once home video really got underway. How good/bad/strange/ is it? I only saw the TRAILER as a kid,and remembered IT for nearly 30 years..including Murray's over the top voice over..I told my older sister, and she called me a liar and could not believe it was POSSIBLE for ANYONE to make a movie where Santa vs.Satan.. Add to it stuff like Santa asking for the Virgin Mary's blessing before setting off on Christmas eve, kids wanting to capture him and make him their SLAVE..and an international kiddie sweat shop..and it probably comes close to a lot of nightmares kids had in the 60's.. Like others here, I watch the thing every holiday season now. (My version of choice is The Mystery Science Theatre 3000 edition). But any old way you choose it, the movie is a demented masterpiece and a total must (along with Brianiac, by the way..).It never fails to make me laugh. Better, I think, then SANTA CLAUS CONQUERS THE MARTIANS. Parts of it can still make you cringe or just creep you out.(How many parents do YOU know go out for cocktails on Christmas Eve? "If you get bored, just go downstairs and play the piano." DANG..) Freaky, boring, disturbing, funny, childish, strange..hey, what more can you want? | 1pos
|
I saw this jolly little film at age 10/11 in 1979 when it was broadcast on CBS. I didn't know it had been in a theater at all. To rate it from a kids point of view I'd give it 4 out of 5 stars,because being a young boy at the time,it seemed a little "girlish".<br /><br />The climactic scene where Gazooks tickles the daylights out of everyone was a bit disturbing at the time but you outgrow that sort of thing. <br /><br />When I re-discovered it a Blockbuster Video in 1995,I had to revisit it! I still liked it despite the fact that it looked a bit "old". I don't know where the other reviewer on here got the idea that it wasn't on VHS.<br /><br />It's out there. Might even be on DVD by now,at least I hope it is. I want to share it with my kids someday! 10 stars on here,it's still a great kids film. (end)<br /><br />09/08/2009 : Finally found a VHS copy!! Woo-hoo! | 1pos
|
A previous reviewer said the movie is not all that bad. What?!?!?! The movie glorifies child molestation. Oh, but Sylvia Kristel was naked in it, so let's give it 5 out of 10 stars. Why not a full 10? Because the filmography was "agonizing," the child's looks of shock were "unrealistic," and the fat friend was "irritating." Nowhere in the review does the reviewer express any outrage that an American movie in 1981 featured scenes of a child having sex with a grown woman. I happened to catch this steaming loaf of a movie while staying at a hotel that had Showtime. To me, even if the fat friend had acted up a storm and was a deserving of an Oscar, I would still have to give the movie only 1 star. That TV's Howard Hessman starred in the movie at the same time as he was appearing in WKRP is particularly ridiculous. But don't take my word for it! | 0neg
|
I fell in love with Emily Watson in Breaking the Waves, then grew even more fascinated by her range and adeptness in Hilary and Jackie. Now comes this stunning portrayal of a rich girl who spurns breeding and convention in favor of mothering the tortured soul of the child of a man clearly in need of mothering. Her eyes are the mirror to his soul --and what gentle and beautiful eyes they are.<br /><br />Those who take things literally will find Marleen Gorris' poetic and allegorical direction quite frustrating. Romantics who are willing to go with the amazing kinetic energy is this filmed allegorical poem will be well rewarded. | 1pos
|
warning:It contains spoilers. If a movie starts with a sex scene then it's a bad movie. (see for example 300). This one confirms the above lemma. The second scene constitutes the spinning center of all the action. The fact that we know the end makes the movie boring. Even more, other plots are revealed as the story goes back and forth several times. And this made more frustrated. To compensate the consequent lack of suspense, we learn more and more about how unbalanced are the characters. And oh yes, they have lots to show. Andy (P.Hoffman), for example, is a drug addict, more?, he is cheating his wife, more?, he plans to rob his father, more?, his wife is cheating with his brother, more?, he doesn't regret his complicity to his mother's death, more?, he is a serial killer, more? etc etc it's not enough space to write here... I wonder how could he have a top job. And why his wife didn't leave him before. On the other hand I enjoy much the performances of the actor Hoffman.<br /><br />Even here PSH saves what is left from my 7$ spent for this absurdity. Why absurdity? Because it doesn't have sense, why should I care for the despicable characters? Another broken lemma is that a movie should have a sympathetic( at least pleasant) character. <br /><br />Also it's a lot of sentimentality, for example we are supposed to care for the sufferance of the widowed father without knowing anything about the parents'lives before the crime. | 0neg
|
The only reason I DVRd this movie was because 1. I live in Cleveland and Shaq plays basketball for us now and 2. I've always heard how awful it was. The movie did not disappoint. The best parts were Shaq's outfits. The worst parts were, well, just about everything else. My 12 year old son and I just squirmed and couldn't look at the screen when Shaq started rapping and we kept wondering why Max didn't wish for Kazzam to fix that front tooth of his! But for all it's terribleness we just couldn't stop watching it, the story sucked you in, like a black hole or quicksand or a tar pit, it was hypnotic. But it was worth it for the laughs and just to say that we actually watched "Kazzam". | 0neg
|
Excellent movie, a realistic picture of contemporary Finland, touching and profound. One of the best Finnish films ever made. Captures marvelously the everyday life in a Central Finland small town, people's desires and weaknesses, joys and sorrows. The bright early fall sunshine creates a cool atmosphere to this lucid examination of people in a welfare society. Lampela is indeed one of the most promising Finnish filmmakers. He shows that it is possible to make gripping movies without machine guns and bloodshed. His next film Eila is also worth seeing although the story of cleaning women fighting for their jobs is not quite as universally appealing as the destinies in Joki. | 1pos
|
Many people here say that this show is for kids only. Hm, when I was a kid (approximately 7-9 years old) I watched this show first. It was disgusting for me. I talked with other kids about this and, sure, other shows and know what? This was the measure of disguise, whenever we wanted to emphasize something's silliness (either on TV or anything else) we said "Uh, just like Power Rangers" and laughed. <br /><br />And before visiting this site I could not imagine that there actually are fans of MMPR. It was so strange for me that I decided to watch it again and try to understand why people like it. I did not enjoy that viewing. But it dawned upon me: maybe I have not enough imagination? It may be. However this argument is not sufficient for me to rate it more than 1 star. | 0neg
|
(I'll indicate in this review the point where spoilers begin.) My dissatisfaction is split: 30% tone-deafness, 70% lackluster writing.<br /><br />The 30%: I agree with the first commenter's synopsis about the lack of diversity in the characters and scope of the stories. I was surprised how, this film, at best, woefully shortchanges the real NYC by presenting a collection of people and relationships so narrow as to come across as if it's inhabited only by the cast of Gossip Girl (this is coming from someone who likes Gossip Girl). A few minority characters are written into the stories, but they are included by obligation, while we can see the gears under the film so clearly, striving to "be diverse" but falling ever-so-short.<br /><br />The 70% is why everything falls short. All characters, white plus a few token minorities, are one-dimensional, cardboard cutouts of people concepts. Worse, their interactions with each other are scripted in such a way that for each vignette in the film the audience is treated to what I'd say is a "gag": we get a basic conceit, then some punchline intended to be a clever twist. But even if we suspended cynicism for a moment to say, "Okay, that was a surprise"...the stories are still not that interesting, because they, too, are shallow. When you fashion stories so that their existence hinges solely on the unexpectedness of the ending, you're writing jokes.<br /><br />Spoilers below...<br /><br />The movie primarily tries to tell romantic stories. That's fine. But romance is amazing, deep, sometimes complex. These "romantic" stories each feature a girl and a boy who at some point share the same location and get to look at each other. Words exchange, thoughts are projected through voice-over, but they too only manage to communicate to the audience merely that one person is attracted to another.<br /><br />Meaning, there is no seduction (in the broad sense), no tension, and neither confrontation nor communion between the wills of two different people trying to reconcile their existence to accommodate the Other. The only story involving a superficial "seduction" is told just so the audience ends up being surprised that the guy (Ethan Hawke) gets outwitted by the girl he's hitting on, who unexpectedly turns out to be a hooker. Sure, his words when trying to pick her up are interesting to hear and we are amused as we'd be if we were next to them, but there is nothing of substance to this story outside of "A then B". So it unfolds, if something like a postcard could "unfold", with all the other tales as well: A then B--That's It, the only point being that these happen to occur "on set" in Manhattan. By the way, the only Brooklyn we see is the Coney Island sketch; the only Queens is the flickering of a train ride taken by a character traveling to the West Village.<br /><br />It's easy to pick at movies that play into all the common stereotypes of race, gender, sexual orientation, and so on. _New York, I Love You_, however, deserves to be held to stricter scrutiny because of its title. We expect to see the real New York, and real New Yorkers, but instead we have paraded before us the selected slice of a demographic, its characters flown in from The O.C., plus a few others to make it SEEM as if we are paying attention to diversity. But when we look closer at who those characters are, the whole sham becomes an affront to the very notion of diversity and the ethnicities and cultures the movie shamefully fails to represent.<br /><br />For example, the story with the Latino man with the little white girl in the park, who gets mistaken by two ladies as her manny (male nanny) when in fact he's the father. Notwithstanding the last scene of this part was unnecessary from a dramatic-construction point of view (it would have been far more interesting to end it when the mother and boyfriend/stepfather are strutting the girl away), it is frankly a bit disgusting that the scene where we learn for sure that the girl's father is Latino ALSO must inform us that he is a sexually desirable dancer. What, the dad can't be just some guy from South America? Now that he's obviously hot, is the audience better prepared to accept that he had a kid with a middle-to-upper-class white woman? Are we that naive as to require such? As if a Mexican construction worker would obviously be too unpalatable.<br /><br />It's not my place to dictate where the movie should have gone. But in every conceivable set-up and plot twist, the direction taken screams status quo, appeals to safety. All these stories could have been made more interesting, even if we were forced to keep the single-dimensionality of the characters inhabiting them, at the very least by not choosing from standard and obvious stereotypes. Asian girl living in Chinatown being leered at by a scraggly old white guy? How 'bout an Asian cougar pursuing a white college kid instead. Again, I'm not saying the entire conceit has to be changed. It's just that every. damn. story premise. is so hackneyed--and thus they fail to convey anything about why one might love New York, outside the trite. The real way to have improved the film would be to have written a script worth reading.<br /><br />I will concede the pleasantness of the soundtrack, the good pacing of the movie (even if what was being paced was, well, dredge), and the general feel of many of the scenes. The movie was just fine to sit through, and I wouldn't dissuade anyone from doing so. However, it is telling that the most significant homage paid to non-superficiality is when the old opera singer says (paraphrased) "That's what I love about New York: everyone's from a different place." Well, you wouldn't know it from watching this one. | 0neg
|
I appreciated the photography, the textures, the colours and often, unlike one comment, the lighting. What was lacking for me was a coherent storyline.I found it often disjointed, badly edited and at times difficult to follow. My version was 110 minutes, IMDb shows one at 125m. Possibly the cuts and subtitles didn't help. I applaud any films that escape from the Hollywood mould but this left me disappointed. Miss Gillain was luminous and the performances were all fine, I just wanted a little more dialogue. If anyone would like to see another film that has some affinity with this one, try 'Hideous Kinky'with Kate Winslet. | 1pos
|
A Disney movie that dares to do something different should at least be awarded for effort. "Holes" doesn't make the same mistakes as one would expect from a Disney movie about troubled teenagers put in a camp. For the first time events are not explained in details. The flashback scenes really do serve a purpose and present several mature topics that may surprise the viewer. I must admit that at first I was a bit put off by the seriousness of the movie. But soon I realized that we had to endure those moments to see the beauty of the story. Besides the story this movie also does a good job of questioning some methods that are used in correctional facilities. (One example where Caveman is forbidden to teach Zero to read because they have to dig holes in order to build character,like learning to read won't contribute to that). "Holes" is a movie that is smart and beautiful. A must watch! | 1pos
|
Ah, a Kelly/Sinatra sailor-suit musical. So familiar, right? Yes, but this isn't the one you usually hear about. On The Town's that-a-way. But if you stick around, you might learn something. Okay, probably not. Anyway, Anchors Aweigh tells the story of two sailors on a three- or four-day leave. Joe is the "Sea Wolf" and Clarence, the bookish type, begs Joe to get him a "dame". Now, after they're picked up by the coppers they get little Donald home. That's where they meet Susie, that temptress, that jezebel. Just kidding! Clarence falls in love with her. At least he thinks he does. Is he right? Or is he a moron? Or is he just misguided by society? Find out all this and more when you watch {trumpet fanfare} ANCHORS AWEIGH!<br /><br />P.S. If you want to see Kathryn Grayson be anything but sickeningly sweet, try Kiss Me Kate (1953). | 1pos
|
had some lovely poetic bits but is really just an artsy-fartsy toss-together with no direction or resolution. how do these people get through film school? who gives them money to make this crap? could have been so much more, fine lead actor, and i always like Fairuza Balk, but come on, the alt-rock metaphor of just staring vacantly unable to find anything compelling is just so tired, and it sure doesn't make for good films. the director needs to go away and live life for a good long while and not come back to the camera until they really have something to say. this is like the throw-spaghetti-at-the-wall school of art-making, just juxtapose a bunch of earnest imagery and hope hope hope like hell that poetry emerges. that can work, if the director actually has any kind of vision, or has a brain that knows when it's in the presence of potential, but here it's just space filler, of no consequence. i felt the lazy ending coming moments before it hit, and was yelling "you lazy bastard" at the screen when the credits popped up. | 0neg
|
Just another film that exploits gratuitous frontal male nudity; awful acting, plus, the lovemaking scenes are the most un-sexy I've ever seen (and this is not about me not linking the idea of two young men making love, since I'm gay).<br /><br />Again, as in Mil nubes de paz, Julian Hernandez directed an incredibly pretentious film with a story that makes enough argument for a short film of about five minutes but manages to make a 2 hour film with it... And this time, there isn't even the issue of racism and commodification in the Mexican gay community to talk about! God gracious have mercy on us! | 0neg
|
Return to Cabin by the Lake just.... was lacking. It must have had a very low budget because a fair amount of the movie must have been filmed with a regular video camera. So, within the same scene - you'll have some movie-quality camera shots AND simple video camera shots. It makes for a very odd blend! I think they should have found SOME way to not do the "home video" type effect! <br /><br />I think it's worthwhile to see it IF you have seen the original CBTL because then you can compare and see the differences. But if you haven't seen the original CBTL.... you'll never want to see it if you see this one first! It will probably seem way too cheesy and turn you off from even caring about the original one. | 0neg
|
Where to begin. This movie started out as something that seemed like a rip-off of "Darkness Falls". An old , disfigured woman living in the woods, giving kids presents for their teeth. Sound familiar? Then it changes. In "Darkness Falls", the tooth fairy only killed you if you saw her. The tooth fairy in this movie killed you no matter what. Why did they need the rocker, his hippie girlfriend or the Bubbas and their sister? I think the movie would've been fine without them. It seems like the producers sat around and decided that they needed to put extra people in the movie just so the tooth fairy would have people to kill. Although, it's nice to see a pretty blonde girl not being portrayed as a bubble-head for a change. Okay to rent, but I wouldn't suggest buying it. | 0neg
|
For months preceding the release of this movie you saw it advertised in all sorts of print media, so I patiently waited for its video release to see what all the hype was about. After it was over I had to apologize to my roommate for occupying the VCR for the last hour and a half to watch such a horrible movie. It essentially fails because it is a character based movie about unredeemable characters. With the possible exception of Amanda Peet (whose only redeemable quality is that she is Amanda Peet) you cannot stand any of them. The film relies on its dialogue which is sophomoric, moronic, and crude. The only slightly amusing character is Eric, whose portrayal of the sole married member of a group of friends is dead on. The final twist, designed to make you laugh at the three main characters, only instead inspires the same kind of resentment towards Peet. All in all, only rent if you are desperate or possess a dark sense of humor. | 0neg
|
Finally a thriller which omits the car chases, explosions and other eye catching effects. The movie combines a simple plot (assasination of a french president) with an excellent background. It takes a look behind mans behavior with authorities, and explains why we would obey almost every order (even murder) which would be given to us.<br /><br />Furthermore it shows us how secret services can manipulate the run of history and how hardly they can be controlled. The best thing on this movie is, that there is no classic "Hollywood end" which can easily be predicted. | 1pos
|
Somehow, this movie manages to be invigorating, bittersweet, and heartwarming at the same time. Stars like Tony Shalhoub (from Providence) bring the tale to life. The story itself is inspiring. We see a desperate, up-and-down life through the most innocent eyes imaginable: a bird's.<br /><br />Paulie begins his life as a baby parrot given to a little girl (played by Hallie Eisenberg, also known as the Pepsi girl) with a speech impediment. While she learns to speak correctly, so does Paulie. However, unlike most birds, he can speak and understand everything being said. The military father doesn't like the bird, so he is sent to a pawn shop and bought by an aging artist, Ivy. She teaches him manners, etc., while traveling across the country to find Paulie's owner. The movie continues with several twists of fate, until Paulie ends up at a laboratory where he is eventually hidden away in a basement, and found by a Russian custodian, who is touched by the bird's story. the plot is in keeping with the simple, metaphorical theme that language is a gift, and a curse. I would like to say that the soundtrack is astounding. A beautiful mixture of flute, digital base, and horns enhance the movie to the point of pure ecstasy. The sweeping camera angles and breathtaking scenery beautify the story even more. And, as a final remark, the puppetry is entirely believable. (Unlike in star wars, where Yoda resembles a Muppet) This film is one of my favorite movies, with the added remark that my wonderful parakeet of four years died recently. Overall, I give this movie **** out of four stars, two thumbs up, and a big hug. | 1pos
|
No Strings Attached is one of Carlos Mencia's best performances to date. Mencia is known for poking and making fun of racial issues. However, he does more than that in this stand-up performance, which took place in San Francisco. In general, Mencia's material does not only make you laugh but it also makes you think about what is really wrong with society today.<br /><br />In this hour long performance, Mencia talks about such things as illegal immigration, what women really mean when they ask for equality in the workplace, terrorism, his opinion of Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ and an argument that he got into with a woman regarding whether or not he is affected by Jesus, and how society should treat those that are physically or mentally handicapped. Mencia even discusses whether or one should have the right to speak out and tell a joke.<br /><br />Carlos Mencia is not afraid to offend, which at many times gets him trouble with his critics. For example, he does go somewhat far (and he admits it) with a joke regarding Pope John Paul II and what he is most likely doing in heaven right now. <br /><br />Mencia's main message in all of his performances is that we all have have a voice and that we should use that voice to speak what we feel and not be afraid to offend. He reminds us that we have a right to free speech and that we must use this right as Americans.<br /><br />If you enjoy this performance, I definitely recommend watching Mind of Mencia, his show on Comedy Central. | 1pos
|
I agree with many of the negative reviews posted here, for reasons I will go into later on. But this miniseries is powerful and convincing because the talented cast really captures the dark truth of Hitler's world.<br /><br />Peter Stormare is perfect as Ernst Rohm, the brutal Brownshirt leader. Each scene he has with Hitler is explosive! Hitler is so evil he dominates everyone but the thuggish, primitive Rohm -- and he clearly digs Rohm for just that reason. The interplay between Stormare and Carlisle illuminates the way Hitler relished Rohm's brutality, but later sacrificed him for political reasons.<br /><br />Jena Malone turns in a heartrending performance as Geli Raubal, Hitler's doomed niece and the victim of his unspeakable perversions. Without revealing any of the sexual filth directly, Jena Malone plays out all the horror of the slow extinction of a young girl's spirit. She uses her eyes and voice to suggest all the horror that will be visited on millions in the years to come. And she's brilliant! Zoe Telford very nearly matches Jena Malone with her portrayal of Eva Braun. Eva is clearly sick, cruel and heartless -- but at the same time almost pitiably dependent on her Adolph's twisted tenderness. The aborted lovemaking scene between them (hinting at the spine tingling truth of Hitler's enormous self-loathing) is both chilling and erotic.<br /><br />Liev Schrieber gives a deliciously weasel-like performance as Putzi Hanfstaengel, the spineless man-about-town who is seduced by Hitler's promises of wealth and power. While a brute like Rohm simply loves the idea of crushing skulls under his boots, Schrieber's character is one of many Germans who abhors Nazi violence but can't resist the quick and easy route to money and power. His weak-willed fawning over Hitler soon loses him the respect of his wife, played with style and sensuality by the stunning and regal Julianna Margulies. They provide a true portrait of marriage and betrayal.<br /><br />These performances carry the mini series along, easily overcoming occasional weaknesses in the script. There is one exception. Regrettably, Matthew Modine's acting chops just aren't up to snuff. His noble lunk-haid journalist ruins every scene he has -- the viewer can hardly wait for Rohm's brown-shirts to stomp that smug, righteous look off his ignorant, corn-pone low-rent Hollywood golden boy face. But the story still works.<br /><br />Now in regard to the factual inaccuracies of the script -- Hitler's perversions and cruelty are rendered in a vibrant, compelling drama. But the battlefield record of Corporal Hitler is badly distorted. As if afraid the audience can't handle the idea of evil and courage in the same person, the writers make Hitler look like a whining coward who "begged" for an Iron Cross. As if anyone in the Kaiser's Army could get a medal just by whining about it! The movie makes it look as if Hitler were a coward in the trenches, when he was a fearless soldier. They also suggest his comrades despised him, when in reality he was widely admired by officers and enlisted men alike. The depressing thing is that the mini-series succeeds so well in representing Hitler as a monster in honest ways -- but they just couldn't resist the cheap shot.<br /><br />All in all, however, Hitler: RISE OF EVIL is a soaring success highlighted by powerful performances. | 1pos
|
Evening is the beautiful story of the flawed love of a mother. The movie split in time, is magically shot, amazingly acted and has a touching script. Vanessa Redgrave plays Anne Grant Lord, a woman sun-setting out of life. Lying in her bed, her mind remembering and misfiring, she recalls her first mistake. Claire Danes plays the young Anne, giving a youthful vitality to dying bed ridden woman. Daughters Nina (Toni Collette) and Constance (Natasha Richardson) try to decipher the real story from the disheartening dementia. Her first mistake revolves around Harris Arden (Patrick Wilson); the man her best friend Lila (Mamie Gummer) deeply loved. The daughters must come to terms with their mother's past, and their futures. The cast is glowing in Evening. The collective acting energy of this movie could have powered the equipment for the production of this entire film. I am so glad to see Claire Danes working again, especially in this role. She is so young, and alive, fully living the joys, mistakes and heartbreak of young Anne's first mistake. This is a true feat when you realize she is playing a woman, dying in bed. When her life overwhelms her, you can feel her desire to crack and her hopeless hope that she won't. Some of her facial expressions grinded on me a little, but over all her performance was so radiant, I was left with that only as a side note. Toni Collette continues to prove that you can be a powerful actress without being a super model. She plays the black sheep of the family; a little lost. Nina finds a great deal of strength in her mother's mistake. Collette delicately avoids creating a cruel character who revels in the mistakes of her mother, instead choosing the wiser path of learning from her mother's mistakes. There is a great deal of infighting between Nina and her sister Constance. Their fights remind me of ones I have with my sister all the time. Mamie Gummer, who plays Anne's youthful best friend, is wonderful. Her character is stuck between her heart and her status in society. Even when she is crying and her heart is breaking, she is incredibly regal and charming. I can't wait to see her act in something else in the future. Vanessa Redgrave's performance is very hard for me to describe. Her talent at making her mental status ambiguous without being wacko or even especially tragic is why it is so powerful. The audience does not know if she is making up the story because she is slipping away or if these events truly happened. Physically and emotionally speaking, Redgrave is acting in a box. Not much physical space and limited emotional range might have been a stunner to a lesser actress but she makes the limitations work for her. I was constantly amazed. The movie is definitely woman-focused but the men in the movie are not just accessories. Patrick Wilson is mesmerizing as Harris. It is no wonder that everyone in the movie is in love with him, I sure was. Buddy Wittenborn is Lila's brother, spiraling out of control. Hugh Dancy spirals Buddy out of control without sending his acting down the drain. Glen Close has my favorite scene in the movie. It reminded me of the famous scene from Monster's Ball. It is terrible and jaw dropping grief. I was utterly stunned. The one acting disappointment was Natasha Richardson. While her fight scenes were memorable, most of her acting reeks of melodrama. It would have suited her to take an acting bath before we had to breathe her stink. It's a good thing she wasn't in charge of the visuals. The visuals of the movie are sparkling. Cinematographer Gyula Pados couldn't make a film richer in color, light so perfectly matched to mood and emotion. The visual concepts of the flash back sequences are powerful and resonating. There were many scenes that could have been stopped, printed, mounted and sold as art. I admit it, I cried. Evening is a powerful movie. Evening is defiantly a chick flick but a really great chick flick. If you want to impress a woman with a movie choice, pick Evening. | 1pos
|
Some bad reviews here for this and I understand why but treat it as a low budget serial killer film and you might get more from it than most.<br /><br />I thought that this worked in a way because afterwards I felt dirty and wanted to take a long shower so that is some degree of success isn't it?<br /><br />I would say there is just the right level of sleaze here to get under your skin although the acting is maybe a bit too uneven. David Hess is only in this brielfy so don not get your hopes up to much if you like Last House.<br /><br />Other than that - worth a look. | 1pos
|
This movie has no plot and no focus. Yes, it's supposed to be a slap-stick, stupid comedy, but the screen-writers have no idea what the movie was about. Even the title doesn't go along with the movie. It should have been called "Cool Ethan" or "Cheaters Never Win" or something like that. The characters are not developed and no one cares what happens to them! The girl roommate character (from That 70's Show) was the only person worth watching. She was hilarious and stole every scene she was in. The others need to make sure that their own college diplomas are in the works since they'll need a career other than acting. | 0neg
|
I watch lots of scary movies (or at least they try to be) and this has to be the worst if not 2nd worst movie I have ever had to make myself try to sit through. I never knew the depths of Masacism until I rented this piece of moldy cheese covered in a used latex contraceptive. I am a fan of Julian Sans, but this is worse than I would hope for him.<br /><br />On the other hand the story was promising and I was intrigued...for the first minute and a half while the credits rolled and I had yet to see what pain looked like first hand. Perhaps there are some viewers out there that enjoyed this and can point me in the right direction, but then again I know of those viewers who understand if not commemorate me, especially when we had to turn the video off, and that simply is NOT done with our watching (we had to make one exception obviously). <br /><br />If it were up for a remake, I'd give it a chance so long as they had at most 1% of the original incorporated into it. That's all. | 0neg
|
Interesting how much more realistic Brosnan's performance is to that of the original James Bond novels when compared to the bond films. He's neurotic, paranoid, an alcoholic and a womanizer to boot. This is perfect break for him, even so much as to make fun of the bond icon. "I'm a mess, a parody of myself" he says. It doesn't get any better than that. I just finished reading Dr.No and this is very much how Ian Fleming had portrayed James Bond. Personally I never liked Brosnan as Bond because he fit the icon too closely. There was nothing for him to personalize the character with, as compared to Roger Moore or Sean Connery. Its great to see Brosnan play a character both grounded in reality and flamboyantly off the wall. A shallow character trying to come to an understanding on deeper emotional and psychological issues to which he has no background dealing with. It's an impressive portrayal, and having Greg Kinear to ground him, is just poetic. This movie reminds me a little bit of dynamics established between the main characters in "My Blue Heaven", but more genuine in their coping mechanisms. | 1pos
|
Princess Tam Tam is without the trappings of racism, in the way we think of racism in the United States, but there are more subtle (to the American viewer) assertions about ethnic identity during the time. Pay attention to Alwina's (Baker) placement within shots, how she is addressed by the other characters, the settings around her that all depict her as a "savage" African, and ask yourself if Alwina has any shred of agency throughout the film. I don't want to ruin anything but at the end pay very careful attention, the dichotomy between "Eastern" and "Western" culture is to say the least offensive, such diction is thankfully disavowed these days. The French have a checkered past as an imperial force throughout the areas depicted (see Chris Marker's Les Statues Meurent Aussi- 1953), and pay attention to the places the European travelers visit while they are in Africa, and what does that reflect about their attitudes towards the "other". I give this film a 7 because I am a sucker for Baker, much of what she did in her professional career, like Princes Tam Tam, that is regressive is certainly overshadowed by her efforts towards integration, her work as a freaking spy (I am gushing, sorry.) However the film for me is captivating because of her performance, besides that it is a telling relic of bygone mentalities. | 1pos
|
It's always difficult to put a stamp on any film as being 'the best,' whether of all time, a certain genre, or what have you, but I believe a strong argument could be made that in fact, Laputa is the greatest animated film ever made. It is in my mind the masterwork of Hayao Miyazaki, the most talented of Japan's animated directors, and it best captures his strengths as a director, storyteller, and designer, as well as encapsulating all of his favorite underlying themes. The version I'm reviewing is the 2003 American dub (I know, sacrilege for a hard-core anime fan to not watch it in its native language); there is at least one other English language dub out there, I have it on VHS (I have no idea from what source), and that version is the single best dub I have ever encountered of any film. But I thought it better to concentrate on the version people can actually find.<br /><br />Laputa tells the story of a boy named Pazu (voiced by James Van Der Beek here), who's growing up in a mining town when one day a young girl named Sheeta (Anna Paquin) literally drops from the sky. It seems she is being pursued by a sinister government agent, Colonel Muska (Mark Hamill), who is more interested in the magical crystal that hangs around her neck. To keep things lively, there's also a wickedly funny pirate gang after the crystal, led by the aging but still boisterous Dola (Cloris Leachman). The plot revolves around the crystal's ability to reveal the location of the fabled flying city of Laputa, a potential treasure trove of scientific knowledge and hidden treasure. It's all very much in keeping with a fairy-tale setting, but Miyazaki knows exactly how far to take the story, and the plot is peppered with 'gosh-wow' moments and threaded with his customary morality and warnings about abusing the power of nature.<br /><br />The design work on Laputa, nearly twenty years later, is still revolutionary. Flying machines of all sorts abound, utterly impossible but so meticulously designed that you instantly accept them without blinking. The world is set somewhere around the start of the twentieth century, with telegraphs and ancient motorcars alongside those wonderful impossible flying machines. But it is the city itself that is sheer brilliance in execution; Laputa is both the Garden of Eden and the Fire of Heaven itself, and in that juxtaposition lies its appeal, its power, and its danger.<br /><br />Besides being a thoughtfully designed and beautifully rendered film, Laputa is blessed with a wonderful sense of cinematography. From sweeping flying shots to high speed chases on tiny one-man flyers to ships submerging into the clouds as if they were water, Laputa displays a scope that most films even with the magic of CGI can only daydream about. Though we only see a small fraction of this world, its simple elegance extends beyond the borders of the frame and we have no trouble believing in it. The film also contains one of my favorite, if not the most exciting, action sequences ever: a guardian robot that fell to Earth is accidentally reactivated and wreaks havoc on the fortress it is kept in, all the while trying to protect Sheeta (who was the one who woke it up). Meanwhile, Pazu and the pirates swoop in on their little flying machines to snatch her, literally, from the jaws of destruction. From the horrific sight of the robot incinerating the countryside to the exhilarating last-second rescue, the entire sequence is a masterpiece of timing and camera angles and knowing exactly how far to take the audience.<br /><br />It helps that Laputa has an amazing score. Composer Joe Hisaishi captures the wondrous beauty of this world, the dewy innocence, the exciting action, and the creepy otherworldliness of the flying city and its bizarre robot guardians. Though he re-recorded it for this DVD release (which IMO is not an improvement over his original score), adding pieces here and there, the score matches the visuals perfectly, a rare total union of sound and vision.<br /><br />This isn't a bad dub. I'm inordinately fond of the older English dub, and this one over-explains things just a tad in spots, but I was almost shocked how closely these voices matched those (and those matched the Japanese pretty well). Dola in particular is hard to get right, but Leachman is spot on as the fiery old pirate woman (her sons aren't quite as good as the original). Paquin does a good job as Sheeta, and Mark Hamill, while I knew it was him early, is more than talented enough to do Muska (I liked the other English dub of Muska a little more, but Hamill's good). Much of the film rests on Pazu's shoulders, and Van Der Beek is wonderful. Listening to him made me think this crew must have had access to the other English dub, because VDB matches up very closely with the original Pazu. Although again watching a dub is grounds for excommunication among the otaku faithful, as much as I love this film, I don't think you're sacrificing a great deal simply watching this particular Anglicized version. John Lassiter of Pixar introduces it up front, and my suspicion is that he, like so many others, simply love this film so much that they tried very hard to ensure its high quality.<br /><br />Miyazaki has had success in America in recent years with Spirited Away and Mononoke (one of his few films I didn't care for), but to me Laputa is still his crowning achievement. Anyone familiar with his later work will almost certainly enjoy this earlier work, and again, this film is a master at the top of his form hitting on every cylinder. I'd pay big money to be able to see this on a large screen; while that will probably never happen, it's good to know that at least this classic has been preserved on DVD. | 1pos
|
The magnetism radiated from Elvira, drawing her legions of devoted admirers, has a primordial quality. With her lengthy, well-toned figure, large-bust, innocuously mischievous attitude and grab-bag lexicon of me-generation valley slang, the character of Elvira has a universal and timeless appeal. As an aspiring folklorist and an individual deeply interested in the structure of storytelling, it is evident that the Elvira persona has certain archetypal elements that help to make the character more than the sum of her corny one-liners and large chest. As initiated from the manner in which the children of the town react to her, she represents the deep adolescent fantasy for an experienced woman whom can connect to them of their level: a strange mixture of one-dimensional romantic yearning, boyish sexual craving and the desire for non-threateningly lighthearted fun. She symbolizes an undeveloped ideal of womanhood perfected for the boys and a source of strength for the girls of the town. The other adults have trouble with her for the same reasons. In the end, however, her film cannot move pass its more campy ingredients. The end result is that while Elvira is infinitely interesting, her film is limited by how weak a showcase it is for her talents. Nearly everything is tailored to an adolescent mindset and although it is a straightforward comedy, only those who can still process information with the mind of a young person will be able to enjoy the nonsense. Fortunately, I have such ability and found the film to be a delightful charmer.<br /><br />Best Quote: Bob Redding: How's your head? Elvira: I haven't had any complaints. | 1pos
|
I thought before starting with these movie that it might be a good one, but when i started with it i found it really awful. They said movie is being made in Afghanistan but i think 95% of the movie is shot in India. you can see Indian made cars. you can see lars drinking bisleri(an Indian water brand), Hindi written on the road, you can also see temples in Afghanistan *hahah* its really funny and many more stuff which proves its not shot in Afghanistan. I think one should not waste his/her time watching this movie.. pure time waste.. i would recommend to do something else instead of watching this movie or may be might heart is better idea but don't watch this waste of time | 0neg
|
I'm afraid that you'll find that the huge majority of people who rate this movie as a 10 are highly Christian. I am not. If you are looking for a Christian movie, I recommend this film. If you are looking for a good general movie, I'm afraid you'll need to go elsewhere.<br /><br />I was annoyed by the characters, and their illogical behaviour. The premise of the movie is that the teaching of morality without teaching that it was Jesus who is the basis of morality is itself wrong. One scene shows the main character telling a boy that it is wrong to steal, and then the character goes on to say that it was Jesus who taught us this. I find that offensive: are we to believe that "thou shalt not steal" came from Jesus? I suppose he wrote the Ten Commandments? And stealing was acceptable before that? I rented the movie from Netflix. I should have realized the nature of the movie from the comments. Oh well. | 0neg
|
Sweet romantic drama/comedy about Stewart and Sullavan writing love letters to each other without either one knowing who the other is. Naturally, they work together and can't stand each other. You can guess the rest. It's beautifully acted by the entire cast (especially Sullavan, Stewart and Frank Morgan), has a witty, intelligent script and looks absolutely stunning. It takes place in Budapest and was shot in Hollywood, but I found myself believing I was seeing Budapest! Everything looks so perfect and dream-like. A one of a kind film. Don't miss it! | 1pos
|
"Jake Speed" is a fine movie with a wonderful message. It has its flaws of course. At times it's a little slow. It introduces its villain too far into the story. It's action is paced at the rate of a snail's heartbeat. It has a Z-grade cast (Although I've always admired the work of Karen Kopins, who has the straight-laced good looks of Sandra Bullock).<br /><br />But with all this going against it, "Jake Speed" really is inspiring, thanks to a charming script by Wayne Crawford(who plays the title role) and Andrew Lane.<br /><br />Why do I find it so inspiring? Because it says to me "Hey, why not try to be a good person."<br /><br />The story is essentially a "stranger in a strange land" premise, that is good-and-heroic Jake Speed is placed in the real world where bad things happen to good people. Jake is more than a Boy Scout. He's more than a knight in shining armor. Jake Speed is the patron saint of optimism in a dirty, mean and evil world.<br /><br />It's because of this that "Jake Speed" really needed to be a hit. It has a great message that should have gotten out to Hollywood and then to the rest of the world.<br /><br />Imagine a movie industry that really pushed itself to portray good and decent people. I'm not saying that we should be watching the Waltons in every theater at the cineplex, but that it would be nice if more movies such as "Jake Speed" would get a chance. ("Due South," a TV show about a Canadian Mountie, is a good comparison of what can be done to brighten up American entertainment.)<br /><br />Sure, "Jake Speed" has violence, blood and guns, but the overall message is that if you try hard enough to be a good person, you'll beat the forces of evil every time. 10/14/99 | 1pos
|
I only today, picked this up at the 99 cents only store today, and I still think I got ripped off. "Dream to Believe" is a pretty boring and unrealistic gymnastics drama and $1 is just too freakin' expensive for this. This film is probably only notable for 2 things: 1. It has a young Keanu Reeves. And 2. It's directed by Paul Lynch, the man who also did Promo Night. Now onto the movie. <br /><br />It's about a girl named Robin (Played by Olivia D'Abo) who is badly injured from a car accident that also cost her father's life. So the accident prevents her from competing in gymnastic tournaments, she is often picked on during her classes and eventually she meets some wild kid named Tommy (Played by Keanu.) Robin, when not in training, works part-time, along with her mother and stepsister, at a Laundromat owned by her abusive stepfather. Eventually she is chosen to compete. <br /><br />Overall, Keanu alone and some catchy 80s tunes are what prevent me from giving this 1 star, and it's also not one of the worst movies ever, but still far from good. The DVD itself is not getting any medals either as it appears to be sourced from an old VHS and towards the end, the sound goes out of sync and when the end credits are almost over, it fades to black, even though sound can still be heard. So this can probably be passed as a bootleg. The DVD artwork makes no sense either as it has what appears to be recent photos of Keanu and Olivia and the background has nothing to do with the movie, as it's also not in the movie itself, so the cover's obviously photoshopped. In any case, avoid at all costs, unless you're a Keanu fanatic. I probably won't be hanging to it any longer. I'm probably gonna give it to The Cinema Snob, who's a great YT critic btw. Hey, if any of you have any crappy movies that they no longer want in their sight, feel free to donate to him to keep his show running. | 0neg
|
i wasn't a fan of seeing this movie at all, but when my gf called me and said she had a free advanced screening pass i tagged along only for the sake of seeing eva longoria and laughing at jason biggs antics.<br /><br />overall it was actually better then i expected but not by much. this was like a hybrid of how to lose a guy in 10 days and just like heaven. a typical romantic comedy with its moments i guess. the movie was quite short though (around 85 min.) but it was enough to tell the whole story, build some character development and have a decent happy ending. the whole idea of a ghost haunting its former husband was a interesting plot to follow. eva did a good job of keeping up the sarcasm and paul rudd and the rest of the supporting cast (especially jason biggs) kept the laughs coming at a smooth pace.<br /><br />overall i liked the movie only because it had a good amount of laughs to keep me going otherwise i would have given this movie a lower rating. hey its a chick flick and i'm reviewing this movie from a guy's persepctive alright, it would be more of a fair fight if females reviewied this movie and gave there thoughts about it. | 1pos
|
This is the worst brain damaged, ultra cheap, super stupid, silly, pointless piece of trash I've ever seen, an unbelievable garbage of instant cult status among fans of the bizarre. If you think that Ed Wood's "Plan 9" is bad, well... let me tell you, looks like "Citizen Kane" compared to that one. ¿Special effects?...again, "Plan 9" is "Star Wars". ¿Acting?...Thor Johnson is Al Pacino... so it's beyond bad, really. But if you are looking for that kind of incredible movies, it's for you! I'm a fan of American International for so many glorious horror movies, the Price-Corman-Poe saga and some great blaxploitation stuff, but with "Star Creatures" they descend right down to the Z level. Of course, my 1 out of 10 works in reverse if you like to watch bad movies for fun (the guy playing an Indian chief is great) so have fun and enjoy... if you can. | 0neg
|
One could wish that an idea as good as the "invisible man" would work better and be more carefully handled in the age of fantastic special effects, but this is not the case. The story, the characters and, finally the entire last 20 minutes of the film are about as fresh as a mad-scientist flick from the early 50's. There are some great moments, mostly due to the amazing special effects and to the very idea of an invisible man stalking the streets. But alas, soon we're back in the cramped confinement of the underground lab, which means that the rest of the film is not only predictable, but schematic.<br /><br />There has been a great many remakes of old films or TV shows over the past 10 years, and some of them have their charms. But it's becoming clearer and clearer for each film that the idea of putting ol' classics under the noses of eager madmen like Verhoeven (who does have his moments) is a very bad one. It is obvious that the money is the key issue here: the time and energy put into the script is nowhere near enough, and as a result, "Hollow Man" is seriously undermined with clichés, sappy characters, predictability and lack of any depth whatsoever.<br /><br />However, the one thing that actually impressed me, beside the special effects, was the swearing. When making this kind of film, modern producers are very keen on allowing kids to see them. Therefore, the language (and, sometimes, the violence and sex) is very toned down. When the whole world blows up, the good guys go "Oh darn!" and "Oh my God". "Hollow Man" gratefully discards that kind of hypocrisy and the characters are at liberty to say what comes most natural to them. I'm not saying that the most natural response to something gone wrong is to swear - but it makes it more believable if SOMEONE actually swears. I think we can thank Verhoeven for that. | 0neg
|
The '60s is an occasionally entertaining film, most of this entertainment is from laughing at the film. It is extremely uneven, and includes many annoying elements. Take for instance the switch between black & white, and color. If done right, this could of been fairly effective, but because it was done poorly , it turned into a nuisance and only detracted from the already bad experience; much of the film had an odd feel to it. The acting wasn't extremely bad for a made for TV flick, but then again it was downright embarrassing at other times. Many of the events were not coherent, and ending up being confusing. How did this family somehow end up being at many of the big events during the 1960's? The ending was much too sappy for my tastes; because it was hollywoodized, everything had to turn out right in the end. I would advise you to not waste your time on The '60s and do something else with your time. I'm glad I watched this in class, and not on my own time. I think I can safely say that the best part of the movie was the inclusion of Bob Dylan's music. Those are just my rambling thoughts on the flick. I hope you take my advice, and stay away from this. | 0neg
|
I'm not sure if this is some kind of masterpiece or just sleazy fluff elevated by the performances and visuals. Whatever the case, I'm sure I loved it. From the wonderfully twisted, lurid, intertwining stories, to the deliciously sinister performances from Robert Stack and Dorothy Malone, to the vivid, gaudy colour with which it's all captured, this is high-class trash and it's great fun. Not to mention the amusingly sly and thinly veiled sexual subtexts which permeate the entire film, always threatening to escape from the image into the dialogue but never doing so. I'd be lying if I said that the film's sheer entertainment value didn't contribute to my love for it, but there's some sort of bizarre artistry behind the unintentional (or was it?) comedy and I really, really dug that. I could really get into this melodrama stuff. | 1pos
|