text
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| label
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
The film gives a rather condensed version of what is contained in the book, which as far as I can tell by doing some research and investigative fact checking is largely a work of fiction. In reality, there are no ancient scrolls and if the author was hard pressed I'm sure he'd have to admit he's never laid eyes on any scrolls in ancient Aramaic found in Peru. These "valuable" texts written as usual by anonymous, were destroyed by the evil "truth haters" in the church and in the local government. That's rather strange, as all kinds of New Age crap comes out each year---hundreds of books, dozens of movies--and the Roman Catholic church doesn't seem to me to be hell bent on destroying the movement which it probably views as I do, a total crock of doody. I'm no fan of the church, mind you, but at least the ancient texts which they base their faith on are real.<br /><br />It's a typical pattern of scam artists and religious hucksters to claim to have seen or translated ancient documents which unfortunately got destroyed by "evil" men or in Joseph Smith's case, got taken back to Heaven once translated. Therefore, the actual texts cannot be found in any museums like the Smithsonian, nor the translations checked by specialists in ancient languages like Coptic or Aramaic. It's a scam. In one sense, I admire anybody smart enough to come up with a great idea and make millions off it, but I couldn't do it myself, as I've no desire to mislead the public with more New Agey hokum.<br /><br />Occasionally, a genuine ancient text does get found hidden away and lost for years. The Gospel of Judas, a Gnostic text, was discovered and after carbon dating and diligent study of the text, deemed authentic by experts. The Gospel of Judas was referenced as heretical around 300 C.E.. No church documents from that time mention any Celestine Prophecies as authentic, heretical or anything else.<br /><br />We are evolving towards something--that much is true---but the optimism in the Celestine Prophecy is based on nothing but fiction and lies, and a philosophy built on a foundation of lies, like a castle built on sand will collapse. The harsh, ugly, overpopulated, cruel world of Blade Runner is more likely what it'll be like over the Horizon, than some Utopian Hippie Commune where all is love and peace! I tell people the truth and they hate me, but tell them what they want to hear, even if pure piffle, and one can make millions. The Celestine Prophecy is what the world wants to hear. Too bad it is a castle built on sand. Don't get me wrong. I wish to God, the Celestine Vision was reality, only it's not. No ancient philosophy at any time expressed ideas given in the Insights with the modern concept of spiritual evolution going hand in hand with biological evolution. These New Agey ideas did not exist in the ancient world and did not exist until Darwininan Evolution became well-known. That means the ideas in the Celestine Prophecies cannot be older than the 1800s C.E, and do not go back to the early B.C.E period or near the time of Jesus of Nazareth. This type of claim by New Agers is not at all unusual. Wiccans claim their brand of magic and witchcraft -- the "old religion" goes back to the stone age, when in reality no Book of Shadows has ever been known to exist prior to Gerald Gardner who lived in the 1900s and was the buddy of Aleister Crowley.<br /><br />New Age gurus tell lies and claim their ideas are based on ancient teachings, when the ancients would thumb their noses at such absurdities that are preached by Gurus today. Why do they do what they do, perpetrate such fraud? Simple: there are millions of dollars to be made, and the modern Guru acquires power over his or her followers. They compete fiercely and have a strong hatred for their competition despite their claims of love for all things. Each New Age group bitter opposes the others. It's a struggle for your minds and your wallets.<br /><br />But learn one thing from me, that is actually similar to one of the insights, learn to follow your own instincts and look for guidance from within. That I can agree with wholeheartedly. | neg |
What a great movie!! It's a touching story about four high-school friends who grow up in the 1960s. Throughout the decade, the friends are somewhat separated, but they mnnage to see each other occasionally. There are many tragedies, but there are also a lot of happy moments that make you laugh and smile. It's a heart-filled tale of life, love and friendship. Definitely a must see for drama fans. | pos |
..IT'S THIS ONE! Very cool premise, right off the bat.<br /><br />Has an excellent first scene, gotta give credit where credit's due.<br /><br />Has solid characters and a decent enough script for a ghost story but here are the things that bothered me: Whenever the ghosts appeared, which I really liked by the way; how it was done, how it looked...the only thing was the ghost's relationship. Because of the way things went down in the first scene you'd think their dynamic would be different.<br /><br />Things slowed down a little too much in the middle I felt, and the crab/spider scene was just not good. BUT then the ending is actually very good! Sure, 'The Grudge' basically told the same story with a polished lens but no samurai's and that's what I liked about this movie comparatively.<br /><br />Please, someone one with a tempered style remake this movie.<br /><br />Fans of 'Silent Rage' would absolutely love this movie. | neg |
This wasn't all that great. Not terrible or hateful or anything, just forgettable.<br /><br />It had a sort of, um, hesitant, diluted air, like it never properly knew whether it wanted to go for laughs or for sweetness or for satire. So we were left with weak mix of the three. The actors seemed kinda lost.<br /><br />Also, the ideas were really tired and recycled, almost zombified themselves. How many more times do we have to be told the 50's in the States were infected with a banal sense of conformity? And that this was perpetuated by aggressive consumerism? And that emotional repression in men is a baaaaad thing? Old hat.<br /><br />Its biggest crime in my eyes though was just how detached from reality it was. I know it was a comedy and all, but - especially in a full movie where you must keep the interest of an audience for a prolonged period - you still need some sort of emotional anchor, some relatable guide through the story, to make it engaging. For the 'hero' kid to watch an old woman, two fellow school pupils and ultimately his father die painfully at the hands of zombies or whatever and for him to greet it all with a cheery smile and a shrug of the shoulders, then I just struggle to deal with that in any sort of positive way. The mum was the same. If you make your two main characters so inhuman on that level, then you risk losing me and that's what happened.<br /><br />Biggest positive I can offer is that I love the look of that sort of apple pie suburbia and this captured it well enough, it was a handsome film, especially some of those wide angled shots of the street and inside the Robinsons' house. Also, the opening newsreel was cute, in a been-done-before-but-still-funny sort of way.<br /><br />And I thought Billy Connolly was OK and that comes from someone who isn't a big fan of Billy Connolly: Movie Star. I just had this fear he was going to be hamming it up and trying to steal every scene, but he played it pretty low-key for him and probably came out the most sympathetic character in the whole film.<br /><br />All in all, not great though. | neg |
Recognizing the picture of the diner on the cover of the DVD made me realize that this was a local movie. The word Detroit in the title furthered my suspecions and I did some looking up of things and yes, a local movie it was.<br /><br />So I picked it up. Someone I knew actually knew some of the producers/director (dont remember which) and said the producers/directors got people to PAY to be in this movie.<br /><br />Brilliant! What a great idea. The movie makers get some capital to do the movie with, thanks to their cast and crew. Then the investors (cast, crew, others) get some of the profits, I'm imagining.<br /><br />Profits!<br /><br />Um anyways. This film totally underwhelmed me. The special effects were special as in special children who ride the small buses to school. The acting was very amusing, not intentionally however. There's a great line where a guy says "well? this bone aint gonna smoke itself!" as a pickup line. Unfortunately that is the only fun part of the whole film. The story? Well, I sort of followed it about 3/5 of the way in, then everything stopped making sense and as we were sitting there watching it, it suddenly ended. I mean as in,..no resolution of anything..like they ran out of time. "Sorry folks, out of time, goodnight!"<br /><br />We sat there baffled and booing, and threw in another film. Then about 20 minutes later a neighbor of mine showed up..with one of the guys from the movie! We threw it back in and he (the actor) gave us a running commentary, which was awesome because he totally ripped on the movie!<br /><br />What more could you ask for??<br /><br />The most absurd scene for me was a motorbike chase scene were it was so dark that it could have literally been a guy running past with a flashlight and not a motorbike at all. That and the jaw droppingly in your face sudden ending is enough to make you howl. In pain! The zombies looked less like zombies than my coworkers do. And I dont work at the morgue either.<br /><br />So, I recommend seeing this if you can get someone from the movie to come over and give you a running commentary as to all the things that went on behind the scenes and make sure this person hates the movie because that just adds to the fun.<br /><br />Otherwise, give this one a pass. Rent something like Feeders if you want a jaw droppingly bad in a funny way movie... | neg |
about a year and a half ago my dad told me about The French Doors. i thought it sounded interesting enough but i didn't try to find it anywhere. Then about a year ago i remembered that film and thought "hey why not" and tried finding it on the internet. eventually after about a week of looking i found it on atom films. i called my dad over to the computer and said to him" hey dad I've found that creepy film you told me about ages ago!" He smiled at me, turned round turned off the lights so it was pitch black apart from the computer screen and told me to watch it. I started off fine...Then when he started getting worried about whatever was there i found it very unnerving. at the end i pushed back my chair and stood up...it made me jump!:P if you haven't seen this film i highly recommend you do because it is well worth it. even after the fourth or fifth time its still unsettling.<br /><br />GREAT FILM! | pos |
As a Mystery Science Theatre 3000 fan, I can withstand ANY motion picture that can be foisted upon me, but there is absolutely no reason for this.<br /><br />Rated "Super Action" in the Blockbuster Video section and given the dreaded "Restricted Viewing Sticker" I'm assuming these are the only methods that film maker (HA!) Robert Napton could use to get at least 4.50 from one unsuspecting person.<br /><br />Shame on you Robert Napton! Shame on you for exploiting these poor Mexican actors who you probably promised hopes for making it big in American cinema. You are a disgrace!<br /><br />There isn't one moment in this movie that holds the slightest bit of action. Did you use snot on these people? Oh, look, they're having a rave in a field! Like all 6 of them. And isn't that an Asian guy in the background? Why is it always daytime? Why did it take 1/2 of the movie to show anything.. and more importantly why did we watch the other 1/2?<br /><br />PS: You owe me 4.50. | neg |
Winchester '73 is a great story, and that's what I like about it. It's not your everyday western--it uses a rifle, which passes hands from various characters--as a mechanism for telling the story about these people. Rock Hudson plays an indian chief, Jimmy Stewart plays a great leading man with heart and strength, and Shelly Winters plays a gal who has to cope with the realities of her husband and the wild west. It's important to note for those politically correct types--they kill a lot of indians in this movie without remorse. By today's standards, it's still pretty violent. But it's a great story and worth watching. Enjoy! | pos |
Lethargic direction ruins an otherwise compelling period story that stars the wondrous Zhang Ziyi, in an excellent role as a woman who joins an extremist group in 1928 China, just prior to the Japanese invasion of Manchuria, and reunites with a former lover who is now working for Japan. Every bit of drama and forward motion of the story is sucked dry by director Ye Lou's somnambulist directorial style. Characters stand still staring at each other for long minutes, saying nothing, hand-held cameras hold forever on faces showing interminable reactions way longer than they need to, edits repeat the same reaction is triple redundancy. We know nothing about the characters as the story begins and are given little new information as the story progresses, only silence and static shots of lovers who don't speak, who interaction through silent dances but share no apparent emotional intimacy. A very sleep inducing film. | neg |
I had high expectations of this movie (the title, translated, is "How We Get Rid of the Others"). After all, the concept is great: a near future in which the ruling elite has taken the consequence of the right-wing government's constant verbal and legislative persecution of so-called freeloaders and the left wing in general, and decided to just kill off everyone who cannot prove that they're contributing something to the establishment (the establishment being called "the common good", but actually meaning the interests of the ruling capitalist ideology).<br /><br />Very cool idea! Ideal for biting satire! Only, this movie completely blows its chance. The satire comes out only in a few scenes and performances of absurdity, but this satire is not sustained; it is neither sharp nor witty. And for an alleged comedy, the movie has nearly no funny scenes. The comedy, I assume, is supposed to be in the absurdity of the situations, but the situations are largely uncomfortable and over-serious, rather than evoking either laughter or thought.<br /><br />The script is rife with grave errors in disposition. The action should have focused on the political aspects and how wrong it would be to do such a thing, but instead oodles of time are spent on a young woman who was the one that wrote the new laws for fun, and who's trying to save everybody, by organizing a resistance that ships people to Africa. All this is beside the point! A movie like this should not pretend to be so serious! It's a satire! A political statement. But it doesn't even begin to actually address the problem it's supposed to be about. Maybe it was afraid of going too far? How cowardly. That's not art. It's not even real satire.<br /><br />Søren Pilmark, a very serious and by now one of Denmark's absolutely senior actors, was very good. He largely carried what little entertainment value the movie had. Everybody else: nothing special (well, perhaps except for Lene Poulsen, who did supply a convincing performance).<br /><br />In fact, a problem with most Danish movies is that the language never sounds natural. Neither the formulation nor the delivery. Why is it so difficult to make it sound right? Why must it be so stilted and artificial? I hope, when people look at these movies fifty years from now, they don't think that this was how people talked in general Danish society.<br /><br />3 out of 10. | neg |
I argued with myself whether to rent this or not. I'm always afraid of renting something I've never heard of (don't remember this being in theaters). Great cast...that's what tipped the scales. 30 minutes in, I almost stopped watching it. The first few minutes are fun to watch, but unbelievable. It only gets worse after that. The writers of this movie could do a little research on future projects if they want to make their movies even a little better. Or they could just try writing something just a little bit believable. I give it a 3....a 1 for the writing (only because there are words)and a 2 for being able to get so many good actors to agree to do this movie despite having to read the script. Oh my god this movie sucks. | neg |
I was a guest at the Sept. 30th screening of Eddie Monroe and was pleasantly surprised with the story, the great acting and the talented directing. I found it hard to believe that all this talent can be found in an independent film. Powerful performances by Vario, (Uncle Benny), Sara, (Jessica Tsunis), and Morris, (Eddie Monroe). The supporting cast was chock full of colorful and amusing characters. This film reminds me of one of those movies that you will look back on in 20 years and discover that it launched many actors into stardom. Much like "The Outsiders" where Tom Cruise, Emilio Estavez, Patrick Swazey, Ralph Macchio, and others can be found. Look out Hollywood, there are new stars out on the horizon and they can be discovered in a little Long Island, independent film called, "Eddie Monroe." Great job! | pos |
Wow...<br /><br />I picked this up at the local Wal-Mart after reading online that it had been released early. I've been following this online for some time, and just had to buy the film.<br /><br />Wow...<br /><br />I guess the thing that really struck me was the editing, or lack thereof. Time and again, characters (usually The Narrator and whoever he is with) are shown walking...and walking...and walking. I am not an editor, but I do know that you can cut between someone leaving point A to show them arriving at point B. There is no need to show almost the entire journey! Wow...<br /><br />I actually ended up feeling somewhat sorry for the actors involved in this. They seem to have been given no direction as to what to do during scenes other than to look scared or look happy, depending on what action was to be added at a later date.<br /><br />Wow...<br /><br />Why it was decided to do almost all the effects using CG is beyond me. Even ILM still employs miniatures sometimes. One of the most distracting uses of green screen in this film is the constant rushing about of (according to the end credits) the same group of people representing the citizenry of different towns and cities, including London. At times these folk are coming and going with no regard as to the angle of the shot or the distance they are from the camera. In one shot in London, there appear to be at least two men over six feet tall walking just behind the narrator's brother (played by star Anthony Piana without his distracting mustache). Not since GETTYSBURG have I seen such a fake piece of facial hair.<br /><br />Wow...<br /><br />Why Timothy Hines talked up this film the way he did is beyond me. It is a turkey, plain and simple. On the plus side (at least for me) it has provided some of the most genuine laugh-out-loud bits of hilarity I have seen in quite a while. | neg |
An American Werewolf in Paris wasn't really that good compared to the original.The original didn't use computer effects for the werewolf and they looked more realistic .The werewolf effects in this film looked too cartoonish.most of all,the movie did not have enough for me for a horror film to enjoy. | neg |
Another British cinema flag waver. Real garbage on offer here once again. I cannot understand (and I am British) why this over the top, patriotic nonsense was ever made. EIGHT years mark you, from when the second world war had actually ended! Other commenter's here have remarked on the editing and apparent seamless use of archive footage. This is extremely poorly observed. The archive footage is in abundance. Model aircraft swing from wires in the 'action scenes' like so many children's kites in the wind. The usual map room sequences tattoo the movie to make us supposedly drawn into the whole Malta event. Guinness must have his worst acting performance ever. The shocking back drop dog fight scenes are laughable. Hawkins bores us all to death in the map room area. Ealing made many great movies. This clearly is not one of them. They should have stayed away from such unconvincing rot! | neg |
Like some of the other reviewers have alluded to previously, I'd like to know what moron actually read the script and went', "Yea!!! This is it. This is the next film we are going to green light!!" And whoever that person is, should have his or her head examined for actual brain activity. Because whoever is responsible for actually dishing out money to have this made after reading the script, well, I'd love to give you my email address and maybe you'd like to just give away some more money. This film is atrocious in every way.<br /><br />The Wayans are funny, at least they can be. They have made some good films and had some incredibly funny performances along the way. But in here, not only does the premise defy all logic, not only is the acting terrible, not only is the entire movie offensive from start to finish, not only is the direction as amateurish as you can find, but they actually want you to pay to see this film. Maybe if it was free...naaah, it would still be a waste of time.<br /><br />Usually I'd be inclined to write some long winded, detailed review about why this film is so bad, but just suffice to say that let my brevity do the talking. This is the lowest common denominator film making and it is about as unfunny as a heart attack.<br /><br />0/10..makes my top ten list of worst films of all time! | neg |
I don't know why critics cal it bizarre and macabre. I really don't. Dark -yes, bizarre - no. It i s sad and with lots of emotions, specially with the Pinguin's story. They say it has elements of S&M but I really don't find anything of that sort except for Catwoman's whip.<br /><br />This movie is deeper than its genre and villains aren't just some crazy freaks dressed like on a masquerade. They have strong motives with strong feelings involved. Catwoman (a great performance by Michelle Pfeifer!) isn't just a sexy chick who likes steeling jewels - she's on her personal crusade and Pinguin... well, by the end of the movie you really feel sorry for him (strong performance by Danny DeVito). Again, I think Michael Keaton is the best Batman and he carries his costume well.<br /><br />You can totally see that it is a Tim Burton movie, because he has an unusual style and is a very talented guy. But also the music is fantastic and fits the emotions. | pos |
This rip off of the 1984 hit "Gremlins" is quite possibly the biggest train wreck of a movie ever made. Even for a 'B' grade movie, all other cheap horror movies on the same platform completely dwarf this movie in terms of plot, acting, and goodness.<br /><br />It begins with a random old security guard and the younger punky security guard whose name is of no importance. Why? Because a few minutes into the film he walks into the 'forbidden' safe, and is killed whilst living out his fantasy of being a rock star in a cheap pub.<br /><br />This is just an appetizer for the scat-filled main course. The main character, KEVIN, struggles various times to prove himself as more than a total pussy. Perhaps he succeeds within the film, but to the audience he proves himself as nothing more than a bad actor. Kevin gets himself a job with the old security guard, and is guided through his security shift in the (wait for it) abandoned studio lot. Yes why bother making a set when you can just use the studio itself. Back to the film. Kevin somehow opens the forbidden safe and releases the Hobgoblins. The Hobgoblins force people to live out their wildest fantasies and then kill them for some reason. They must be returned before sunrise or else...or else what? Exactly.<br /><br />Other characters include Kevin's 'macho' army friend NICK, Nick's 'woman' DAPHNE whose character has no more substance than a bitch-slut attitude and prostitute worthy outfits. There is Kevin's manipulative and 'reserved' girlfriend AMY, whose deepest desire is apparently to be a badly portrayed Cher look-alike with fishnet stockings with a pair of blue grandma underpants on top.. Don't ask me how that works. Quite possibly the most entertaining character of all is KYLE. How such groups of friends are made is up for question. Kyle is a perverted creep who can't go an hour without self-stimulating. His hobbies include calling up sex-chat lines from other people's houses and most likely sniffing underwear.<br /><br />The story unfolds as the heroes search for the Hobgoblins: knee-high creatures (aka. hand puppets) which, for some reason, attempt to travel no further than the borders of the local neighborhood. Each of the characters eventually lives out their wildest fantasy which never has anything to do with having millions of dollars... or the film having a big budget.<br /><br />WARNING SPOILERS AHEAD: The twist at the end of this movie will leave the watcher wondering "What?". The Hobgoblins are returned to the safe by...their own free will. Perhaps they lost patience waiting for sunrise to wreak havoc, or perhaps the story-writers got writer's cramp and decided not to worry about the ending. Upon returning to the safe, the old security guard reveals "What he learned in the military" and detonates explosives which destroys the safe, signaling the end of the evil Hobgoblins and the end of this roller coaster ride; better fitted to a ride on an escalator.<br /><br />The sheer badness of this film is enough to send someone to tears. If you plan to watch it, I recommend a few alcoholic drinks beforehand to take any serious consideration of the film out of mind. | neg |
It takes patience to get through David Lynch's eccentric, but-- for a change-- life-affirming chronicle of Alvin Straight's journey, but stick with it. Though it moves as slow as Straight's John Deere, when he meets the kind strangers along his pilgrimage we learn much about the isolation of aging, the painful regrets and secrets, and ultimately the power of family and reconciliation. Richard Farnsworth caps his career with the year's most genuine performance, sad and poetic, flinty and caring. And Sissy Spacek matches him as his "slow" daughter Rose who pines over her own private loss while caring for dad. Rarely has a modern film preached so positively about family. | pos |
Being the only movie I was able to see at this year's "Nordische Filmtage" at Lübeck, this year's festival will be remembered as a all-time low for me.<br /><br />This movie, which was announced as an erotic thriller, is nothing more than a sick piece of crap! Excuse the language, but there aren't any decent words to describe it.<br /><br />First of all, the actors are not the best. But even better actors would not have rescued the movie. E.g. the plot: after the first 15 minutes it was quite clear that John was sick, the neighbour girls were not real and that he killed his first girlfriend. The so called "sex-scene" was nothing else but disgusting (hitting each other until blood flows for me hasn't anything to do with sexuality), but unfortunately that were not the only disgusting images to be shown. Everything else was copied by other directors like e.g. Lynch, but of course without their geniality.<br /><br />So, to summarize the whole film and to save other viewers time and money: guy loses girlfriend, girlfriend turns back home, guy kills girlfriend and becomes mad afterwards, guy imagines hot, but crazy neighbour girls, guy has very disgusting sex with one of them (or so he thinks), in the end he realizes, he is crazy and his girlfriend and her new lover lay in his apartment all the time... bad story, bad actors, pictures, that make you want to vomit...<br /><br />1 out of 10 (1 point for the fact, that you realize how good you can understand Norwegian if you learned Swedish - at least one benefit of the evening - and you can't choose 0 points here). | neg |
This film is about a male escort getting involved in a murder investigation that happened in the circle of powerful men's wives.<br /><br />I thought "The Walker" would be thrilling and engaging, but I was so wrong. The pacing is painfully and excruciatingly slow, that even after 40 minutes of the film nothing happens much. Seriously, the first hour could be condensed into ten minutes. That's how slow it is.<br /><br />The fact that it lacks any thrills or action scenes aggravates the boredom. It's almost shocking that even argument scenes are so plain and devoid of emotion. Maybe it is because of the stiff upper lip of the higher social class? <br /><br />It's sad that "The Walker" becomes such a boring mess, despite such a strong cast. Blame it on the poor plot and even worse pacing. | neg |
One of the best western movies ever made. Unfortunately, it never got the recognition it deserved. The storyline, the action and the music was in my mind, one of the best. I give it a double A+. Randolph Scott gave a terrific performance along with the other members of the cast. The ending was one of the best of any western made. | pos |
Excellent film. I cried when she cried, I loved when they loved , I was frustrated when they were. This film touched my heart. It was a reality check for me since this is reality for me, a 19 year old soldier | pos |
Like CURSE OF THE KOMODO was for the creature feature genre, Jim Wynorski's CHEERLEADER MASSACRE is a straight-faced parody of slasher movies, such as SLUMBER PARTY MASSACRE. A psycho, who has escaped from his padded cell,(..he was sent to the loony bin thanks to killing eleven people)is working across the mountainous backwoods countryside of Bobcat County attacking anyone within his reach. A van load of cheerleaders, their teacher, two equipment hands, and the driver are on their way to a contest when their vehicle runs out of fuel while taking a supposed short-cut to avoid having to turn back. Luckily the group find a cabin up ahead, but fall prey to a killer who attacks each victim one by one. The psycho loose in the county couldn't have killed one girl because she was in the cheerleaders' locker room while he was elsewhere which means someone among their own is the culprit. Meanwhile the sheriff of the county and his deputy pursue the whereabouts of their psycho, while also trying to find the location of the missing cheerleader squad.<br /><br />Shot cheap on video, Wynorski does what he can with the limited budget having to find clever ways to assassinate characters off-screen without the luxury of properly effective special effects. In other words, lots of melons were stabbed, the sound effect used to let us know that certain victims whisked away into the darkness by a black gloved hand died savagely. Wynorski incorporates a scene from SLUMBER PARTY MASSACRE regarding Brinke Stevens' character Linda, her being pursued by a killer with a drill(..that killer and Linda both wound up dead, but I guess Wynorski wanted to connect his film to that one, albeit rather poorly)..still it was nice to see her, even if it was a glorified cameo. Tamie Sheffield, as Ms Hendricks the teacher of the students in trouble, has a long bathing scene in the shower soaping her naked body and fake breasts. The girls who make up the cheerleaders are a bit unconvincing, because their obviously in their twenties. Aging soft-core porn stars Samantha Philips(..as a police officer who is attacked by the psychopath she's searching for)and Nikki Fritz(..a hiker who is victimized while jogging across a dangerous bridge)surprisingly don't have to strip. Wynorski vets Bill Langlois Monroe(..as Sheriff Murdock) and Melissa Brasselle(..as a detective who assists Murdock on his case)contribute to the sub-plot of the search for John Colton's serial killer McPherson. Interesting enough, the McPherson story serves as a McGuffan as, in truth, the meat of the film is devoted to the cheerleading group and their perilous situation. I'm not sure if slasher fans will embrace this movie because it takes too long for the kills to flare up and when they eventually enter the picture, the violence isn't potent or shocking enough to satisfy. | neg |
Kevin Kline and Meg Ryan are among that class of actors which I am always interested in seeing, despite reviews. I have always found Ms. Ryan to be a charming and winsome actress in nearly all her roles, and Kevin Kline is almost always worth watching.<br /><br />I say "nearly" and "almost" in large part because of this movie.<br /><br />First off, Meg Ryan does not play a likeable character, she plays a weak-willed whiner who begins grating on your nerves shortly after the opening credits and doesn't give up until several days later. That said, Kevin Kline's character is even more annoying and less likeable. So, even if you normally like these two actors, I recommend your give this movie a pass. | neg |
I chose to watch this film because I am a Stephen Nichols fan. Unfortunately, I am unhappy with Mr. Nichols' choice to do this movie. The film was slow, badly acted, and included some very graphic sex scenes of Mr. Nichols' character with a very young woman. Watch at your own peril! | neg |
I really liked this movie. Number 5, the star robot of the movie gets hit by lightning and some thing happened to his circuits. He act and thinks more like a human.The robot repeats commercials he learns after watching TV. He then applies these sayings to his circumstances. Number 5 is quick witted and funny. The character imitates voices of stars, tries to dance like John Travolta in Staying Alive and a lot of other things. He has a saying for most of his circumstances that he memorized. The actions of the robots is really good. Number 5 wants to drive, cook and please Stefany with all the characteristics of a human. The way the robots move and line up is really hysterical.I am disappointed that the writers could not keep this clean for all viewers. This movie has a surpris ending something you would not expect. I hate movies that have swearing in them even though I like them I give them a lower rating. This movie had swearing words. Jesus Christ was used as swearing word which offends me it is used a least 3 times. G-d D-m, Bull sh_t etc. It could have been a wonderful movie with out all this offensive language. There is no sex in this film, some violence like robots blowing up cars and machines. | neg |
I was quite excited when I saw this film in competition at the Montreal Film Festival. Along with Elephant and a few others, I thought the issue of American gun violence/culture would be treated intelligently and in a fashion compelling for film-goers. The press-release promised (in not so many words) a `Red Violin' for the gun-violence crowd, something to make us ponder our NRA-shoot-em-up mindset in this country.<br /><br />After waiting until after 9:15 to be seated for a 9AM screening (what technical difficulties they would have encountered is beyond me), we were finally let into the venue to see the film on DV (where did the advertised 35MM print go?). I think I just answered my first question.<br /><br />The result is an abhorrent mess. We get the "gun", in a vignette with the most unrealistic "biker' I have ever seen (and I do know more than a few). The film then lapses into irrelevant "character development" only because the characters are either a. stereotyped, b. losers, c. stereotyped losers, and/or d. racial caricatures. It takes another 30 minutes to get to the plot movement, and once we are there, we wish for the inane conversations between the couples and/or the bikers and pawn brokers.<br /><br />The film finds it's conclusion, but not without leaving any cliché untried. I didn't care for the white-trash characters who came in contact with the gun, and the depiction of the minority characters should have the NAACP crying foul immediately. All these people WOULD chase after a gun, because they are at the bottom of the societal trash-heap, and would look for an opportunity wherever it was found. Placing the action a level up would have at least provided some soul-searching on the part of the characters.<br /><br />The biggest problem is the promise unfulfilled. The plot outline was great. In the hands of a P.T. Anderson or Gus Van Zandt, it could have been a powerful piece. But due either to bad screenplay, direction or both, the thing is an unmitigated mess that needs to be ignored at all costs.<br /><br />My bigger question is who at the MFF thought this was competition material. Better bury this on Showtime at 3AM.<br /><br />Art Blose | neg |
Yeah, the archetype of a simple but inspirational movie. The very end when the entire crowd in the stadium gets up and the people raise their hands gives me a chill whenever I see it. That's just brilliant. Joseph is wonderful as the lonely and sad kid who has so far been disappointed by anyone and anything in his life. The way he interacts with Danny Glover and tries to make him believe in the magic and the angels is funny and exhilarating. A very nice family movie with - I concede - a rather corny happy end. But hey, it doesn't really matter, the movie retains its basic quality by the good acting and the inspirational themes. | pos |
Normally I hate period films. Living in England is a nightmare at the moment if you have an allergy to period dramas - which I do. However this one is the best. It doesn't take itself seriously and Jonny Lee Miller and Robert Carlyle are great together, Liv Tyler's good as well although her English accent is dodgy!!<br /><br />The film has everything for someone who just wants to go the cinema to enjoy themselves. It has action, adventure, drama and comedy. I'm not sure how well the jokes will translate across the ocean but hopefully they will. It would be a shame for American audiences to miss out on this film. It shows that English film-makers can produce something that doesn't involve constant swearing and sex. Both do feature in this but in a balanced format. Iain Robertson's camp portrayal of the well to do gentleman is brilliant and the two brothers who are also part of the upper class set are hilarious!<br /><br />As the trailer for 'The Spy who Shagged Me' is pupported to say...."If you see one other film"....this Spring make it Plunkett and Macleane. It's got fun, action lurve and of course, Jonny Lee Miller with an English accent for a change! | pos |
In this 4th Child's Play film, Chucky gets lucky. It's very funny and there are some enjoyable parts. Very good direction. Not as bad as it could be. The best one in the series since the first. Three stars out of four. | pos |
Title: Zombie 3 (1988) <br /><br />Directors: Mostly Lucio Fulci, but also Claudio Fragasso and Bruno Mattei <br /><br />Cast: Ottaviano DellAcqua, Massimo Vani, Beatrice Ring, Deran Serafin <br /><br />Review: <br /><br />To review this flick and get some good background of it, I gotta start by the beginning. And the beginning of this is really George Romeros Dawn of the Dead. When Dawn came out in 79, Lucio Fulci decided to make an indirect sequel to it and call it Zombie 2. That film is the one we know as plain ole Zombie. You know the one in which the zombie fights with the shark! OK so, after that flick (named Zombie 2 in Italy) came out and made a huge chunk of cash, the Italians decided, heck. Lets make some more zombie flicks! These things are raking in the dough! So Zombie 3 was born. Confused yet? The story on this one is really just a rehash of stories we've seen in a lot of American zombie flicks that we have seen before this one, the best comparison that comes to mind is Return of the Living Dead. Lets see...there's the government making experiments with a certain toxic gas that will turn people into zombies. Canister gets released into the general population and shebang! We get loads of zombies yearning for human flesh. A bunch of people start running away from the zombies and end up in an old abandoned hotel. They gotta fight the zombies to survive.<br /><br />There was a lot of trouble during the filming of this movie. First and foremost, Lucio Fulci the beloved godfather of gore from Italy was sick. So he couldn't really finish this film the way that he wanted to. The film was then handed down to two lesser directors Bruno Mattei (Hell of the Living Dead) and Claudio Fragasso (Zombie 4). They did their best to spice up a film that was already not so good. You see Fulci himself didn't really have his heart and soul on this flick. He was disenchanted with it. He gave the flick over to the producers and basically said: "Do whatever the hell you want with it!" And god love them, they did.<br /><br />And that is why ladies and gents we have such a crappy zombie flick with the great Fulci credited as its "director". The main problem in my opinion is that its just such a pointless bore! There's no substance to it whatsoever! After the first few minutes in which some terrorists steal the toxic gas and accidentally release it, the rest of the flick is just a bunch of empty soulless characters with no personality whatsoever running from the zombies. Now in some cases this can prove to be fun, if #1 the zombie make up and zombie action is actually good and fun and #2 there's a lot of gore and guts involved.<br /><br />Here we get neither! Well there's some inspired moments in there, like for example when some eagles get infected by the gas and they start attacking people. That was cool. There's also a scene involving a flying zombie head (wich by the way defies all logic and explanation) and a scene with zombies coming out of the pool of the abandoned hotel and munching off a poor girls legs. But aside from that...the rest of the flick just falls flat on its ass.<br /><br />Endless upon endless scenes that don't do jack to move the already non existent plot along. That was my main gripe with this flick. The sets look unfinished and the art direction is practically non-existent. I hate it when everything looks so damn unfinished! I like my b-movies, but this one just really went even below that! Its closer to a z-level flick, if you ask me.<br /><br />The zombie make up? Pure crap. The zombies are all Asian actors (the movie was filmed in the Philippines) so you get a bunch of Asian looking zombies. But thats not a big problem since they movie was set in the phillipine islands anyway. Its the look of the zombies that really sucks! They all died with the same clothes on for some reason. And what passes for zombie make up here is a bunch of black make up (more like smudges) on their faces. One or two zombies had slightly more complex make up, but it still wasn't good enough to impress. Its just a bunch of goo pointlessly splattered on the actors faces. So not only is this flick slowly paced but the zombies look like crap. These are supposed to be dead folks! Anyhows, for those expecting the usual coolness in a Fulci flick don't come expecting it here cause this is mostly somebody else's flick. And those two involved (Mattei and Fragasso) didn't really put there heart and souls into it. In fact, when you see the extras on the DVD you will see that when Fragasso is asked about his recollections and his feelings on this here flick, he doesn't even take it to seriously. You can tell he is ashamed of it and in many occasions he says they "just had a job to do and they did it". And that my friends, is the last nail on this flick. There's no love, and no heart put into making this film. Therefore you get a half assed, crappy zombie flick.<br /><br />Only for completest or people who want to have or see every zombie flick ever made. Everybody else, don't even bother! Rating: 1 out of 5 | neg |
One of the most disturbing and tragic periods in American history began. The members of the Summer of Love culture, at the end of the seventies and onset of the 80's, were eventually tool old for love beads and all night parties and evolved back into mainstream life, whatever that meant. For those who could not out grow their youthful and sometimes irrational exuberance, their's was the culture of Wonderland. A love for drugs and a sense of entitlement coupled with a distaste for authority, values and "the establishment" is the world that the film captures. <br /><br />The sixties were a time of revolution and violent change that tore the American "house" apart. Once the battles were over, we all had to deal with the aftermath of the carnage. The characters in the Wonderland house are icons of the misfits of the Seventies; part biker, part hippie, part crook, all outcast. No ideology to express, just a sense of dissatisfaction with everything and allegiance to nothing. Ron, Billy and David fancy themselves as some sort of Robin Hoods with dope. They talk of love and behave violently; they take from the rich and sell to the misbegotten; they steal from everyone.<br /><br />Holmes and company are the end result of a strange collision of anti-matter like sex, and drugs and rock & roll, when the lab technicians get bored and move on. <br /><br />The film is skillfully directed and paced and captures the frenetic world of the drug fiends in their element. The fact that Holmes is a porn star is almost irrelevant. That story was told in "Boogie Nights". This is a story of a transitional and forgettable era. | pos |
The movie opens with beautiful landscape shots of the Northwest countryside. Fenceposts jutting out from soddy earth, a freight train crossing fields of hay in the distance, billows of clouds, small structures by the side of the road, a motel or a diner in the middle of nowhere. Over this plays a languid but mysterious Twin Peaks piano arrangement and it's all adequately moody and atmospheric in an American Gothic sort of way. Through this however director Jon Jost keeps interleaving awkward frames, blocks of letters, opening credits with annoying swooshing sounds, color frames that announce "BLUE", numbers that count towards the "12 Steps to a Conclusion" announced in the opening credits. It's obvious by the first couple of minutes that, though Jost is more than capable to capture landscape and ambiance, he doesn't care for it. He has neither the affection for Pacific Northwest open expanses that Terrence Malick does in Badlands and neither the time or inclination of Twin Peaks David Lynch to weave mystery and intrigue around a given location.<br /><br />The rest of the movie is more Jon Jost frustration with experimental tricks that serve their own purpose. The use of split screen is interesting, I like in particular how we get the first image of Ricky Lee split in two, one is recounting childhood memories that matter only to him, the other is cursing and banging his head against the wall, and over the course of the movie the second Ricky Lee prevails, the macho laid-back hipster with the shades who is hopelessly self-involved and stupid. On the other hand the stop motion animation and choice to play most of the movie in voice-over narration does not work. It does at times because Jost writes as good as he shoots static shots of the smalltown American Nowheresville but Beth Ann's monologues, delivered in the most flat nasal monotone imaginable, a voice that sounds like Stephen Hawking's computer speech program crossed with a horse whinnying, are so grating to the ear it kind of defeats the purpose of trying to pay attention.<br /><br />Each of the couple relate to us their past experiences, their small triumphs and follies and doubts and past relationships that went nowhere. They say very little to each other and what they say they say with blank faces. But they hump like rabbits. That seems to be their only channel of communication left open, perhaps the only one they can trust with any safety. Jost clearly picks his main characters in Frameup among the naive and delusional, those baited by an American Dream turned sour, but he doesn't place himself above them. He's not condescending or smug in his portrayal. They may be misguided but they are graced with moments of humanity, awkward though they may be. We're called to empathize and show affection rather than point and laugh. This is the most successful Frameup becomes; the movie's characters come alive even when their expressionless faces do not, even when Jost gets in their way with his stilted framing and obtrusive camera games.<br /><br />Then we go back to angry rants about the destructive effects of money played over an inserted shot of a dollar bill, we get a weird psychedelic sequence where Jost's camera glides under big leafy trees that soon turn beetroot red as Beth Ann repeatedly muses about the "redwood trees" in the voice-over, we even get a sudden about-turn towards plot and genre as the couple of Beth Ann and Ricky Lee, smalltown losers with nowhere to go and nothing to hold them back to their dead end lives, arrive in California and decide to rob a 7/11. The movie doesn't soar to an emotional crescendo in the aftermath of the botched 7/11 job such as one might expect from a 'couple-on-the-run' road movie, it slowly screeches to a halt and you look out the window to see it hasn't really got anyplace in particular. Parts of the ride have been hypnotic and parts almost touching and funny, but everything else has been mostly annoying. | neg |
Surely one of the mysteries of the modern world!! - this film is NOT considered to be within the top 100 films of all time????<br /><br />If you watched this film and thought it was anything other than wonderful please let me know how? - Al Pacino's performance is as good as it gets! | pos |
I gave this film 8 out of 10, reserving 10 for e.g Amadeus, and 9 for Slumdog Millionaire most recently. This film is close to Slumdog, but it is difficult to judge on such film without understanding Balkan life, mentality and a soul which Kusturica presents masterfully. To understand it you really need to be one of Balkan. This is an amazing movie, much better and more contemporary of his previous films, which are boring at this time, I think Kusturica is moving forward with this movie. I like humour (Balkan humour), photography is an art itself, each scene is artistic to the limit. Plot is probably a fairy tale , don't recall it now, but remember reading to my daughter-going-to sleep a similar story. | pos |
This is absolutely the best 80s cartoon ever, maybe the best cartoon of all time. It had everything action, adventure, thrill, and much more...<br /><br />I can't imagine how hard it was for Ruby-Spears company to make this great cartoon, there has been spent a lot of money for this masterpiece of work and it was worth it, for example just the beaming down scenes were hard because I wouldn't call the 1980s for a great technology year with computers like now in the world we live in so the beaming down scenes were excellent!<br /><br />The cartoons will never be the same as they were before, that is why I hope that they all will be released on DVD specially The Centurions as it's my favorite. I have the whole complete set of 65 episodes on DVD-r but it's not the same because if they were released on DVD the people in the world would be able to buy it and see the DVD's in almost every store which means a lot to the fans. My good friend Ted made this petition to either get the show back on TV or better on DVD, that is if we get many requests to get them back on DVD.<br /><br />So please help us by signing the petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/6600F/petition.html | pos |
Strained comedy, a sketch-like revue which was initially a vehicle to showcase one-time radio star Jack Pearl but is now best remembered as America's introduction to The Three Stooges. Actually, Larry, Curly and Moe are billed alongside comic Ted Healy as Ted Healy and his Three Stooges. Although the supporting cast features Jimmy Durante (who is completely wasted on dim material) and ZaSu Pitts, the only audience for the film these days are Stooges-addicts, and even they won't find much to applaud here. Incredibly loud and overbearing, it shows how far Hollywood had to go to reach a certain level of slapstick sophistication. *1/2 from **** | neg |
But it is kinda hilarious, at least if you grew up on Weird Al, like I did. It's a mockumentary about his life and career, beginning with superstardom and going back to trace the origins. It's uneven in places, but some of the segments are still very funny, particularly when he goes to Japan. Although it's not quite as emotionally textured as Lost in Translation, and he doesn't find love however fleeting, he does capture in a bottle the absolutely bizarre cultural melange that is Tokyo street life.<br /><br />Perhaps Weird Al isn't recognized as the insightful cultural commentator that he is; perhaps a rose by any other name would smell just as sweet. Still, this is a funny movie. | pos |
I recently picked up all three Robocop films in one box set, rather cheaply and the only reason I did this was for the special edition of the superb first one. I have seen Robocop 2 before but not for 17 years, the year it came out. I have never watched it since because I can still remember how disappointed I was when I discovered how appalling it really is. Its a complete mess really, it has all the signs of a troubled production with so many sub-plots going on at the same time. It has a very uneven tone also and it is also one of the nastiest films I have ever seen. I don't mind a little violence, the first one was incredibly violent but this one is just plain nasty. Also the SFX is terrible even for 1990, say hello to bad stop motion. Also having a drug dealing, cursing kid as a villain is just a little too much. Peter Weller at least had the common sense not to return for the next one. The only positive thing I can say for this film is it does have a couple of nice gags, like the thank you for not smoking one and the kiddie baseball team robbing an electrics store. To quote the kid who plays the villain "It sucks" | neg |
This movie goes beyond just being bad, it is definitively the worst movie I have ever seen in my entire life. Unless you yourself have a problem with necrophilia than you will not enjoy will not enjoy the scenes depicting it in this film, (if you can call it that). | neg |
This movie was one of the worst I have ever seen (not including anything by or with Pauly Shore). I couldn't believe that a film could actually be THIS bad!<br /><br />Coolio has to be the single worst actor (again, not including Pauly Shore) to ever "star" in a movie. The temptation to hit the STOP button during this movie was huge (in fact, if there was a THROW IN THE TRASH button on my VCR, I would have been inclined to press that).<br /><br />Do yourself a favor, and do something more interesting than watch this movie, like watching the grass grow, or watching golf on TV. | neg |
The making of The Thief Of Bagdad is quite a story unto itself, almost as wondrous as the tale told in this film. Alexander Korda nearly went broke making this film.<br /><br />According to the Citadel Film series Book about The Great British Films, adopted son of the United Kingdom Alexander Korda had conceived this film as early as 1933 and spent years of planning and preparation. But World War II unfortunately caught up with Korda and the mounting expenses of filming a grand spectacle.<br /><br />Budget costs happen in US films too, only Cecil B. DeMille always had a free hand at Paramount after 1932 when he returned there. But DeMille nor any of his American contemporaries had to worry about enemy bombs while shooting the film. Part of the way through the shoot, Korda transported the whole company to America and shot those sequences with Rex Ingram as the genie in our Grand Canyon. He certainly wasn't going to get scenery like that in the UK. Korda also finished the interiors in Hollywood, all in time for a release on Christmas Day 1940.<br /><br />The spectacle of the thing earned The Thief Of Bagdad four Academy Award nominations and three Oscars for best color cinematography, best art&set direction for a color film, and best special effects. Only Miklos Rosza's original musical score did not take home a prize in a nominated category. Korda must have been real happy about deciding to shoot in the Grand Canyon because it's impossible to get bad color pictures from that place.<br /><br />The special effects however do not overwhelm the simple story of good triumphing over evil. The good is the two young lovers John Justin and June Duprez and the evil is Conrad Veidt as the sorcerer who tries to steal both a kingdom and a heart, both belonging to Duprez. This was Veidt's career role until Casablanca where he played the Luftwaffe major Stroesser. <br /><br />Of course good gets a little help from an unlikely source. Beggar boy and thief Sabu who may very well have been one of the few who could call himself at the time an international movie star. Literally rising from poverty working as an elephant stable boy for the Maharajah of Mysore he was spotted by Alexander Korda who needed a native lead for one of his jungle features. Sabu captures all the innocence and mischievousness of youth as he fulfills the Arabian Nights fantasy of the boy who topples a tyrant. Not a bad message to be sending out in 1940 at that.<br /><br />The Thief Of Bagdad holds up remarkably well today. It's an eternal tale of love, romance, and adventure in any order you want to put it. | pos |
I must admit that I had my doubts about this movie before I was going to watch it. The main reason for that is because it was compared to a Hitchcock movie. I've seen several movies that were said to be inspired by Hitchcock or that could have been made by the 'Master of Suspense' himself, but so far I haven't seen any of these movie that would be able to stand the test of time. In my opinion Hitchcock has become a household name which is too easily used to promote some (cheap) thrillers, but on the other hand I must admit that I was intrigued by it because this is a European movie. Normally it's the big Hollywood studios who like to abuse Hitchcock's name if that can raise their income. But this movie was made in one of the most chauvinistic European countries ever and I'm sure that most French would rather drop dead than to admit that their movies have been inspired by an Englishman. That's why I decided to give this movie a try and I must say that I'm glad that I did.<br /><br />"Sur mes lèvres" or "Read my Lips" as it is called in English, tells the story of a young secretary named Carla. She is a hardworking and loyal employee, but has never been very appreciated by her colleagues. That has much to do with the fact that she suffers from a hearing deficiency, which has denied her to climb up on the hierarchical ladder of the company. But when she is allowed to hire a trainee that can work for her, all this is about to change. Paul Angeli is a 25 year old and completely unskilled ex-convict. The man is a thief, but Carla gives him a chance and covers for him when needed. She hopes to teach him what a regular life should look like, but at the same time he drags her with him in his old life...<br /><br />Since I still believe that the name Hitchcock is used too often to describe a very good thriller - which this movie definitely is - I will not make any comparisons between Hitchcock and Jacques Audiard's directing. Fact is that the man has done a really good job with this movie. I hadn't heard of him before, but it is true that he knows how to build up suspense and how to keep you interested from the beginning until the end. That also has a lot to do with the very fine and original story of course. I doubt if there is someone in Hollywood who has ever come up with the idea of using a handicapped woman in a powerful role, instead of making her the helpless subject of an abusive husband (you know, the typical TV-movie story).<br /><br />Also worth noticing is the acting in this movie. Vincent Cassel is quite famous, but Emmanuelle Devos was a complete mystery to me. There is absolutely nothing glamorous about their roles, but they both did an excellent job with their characters, making them feel very believable and realistic. Paul could have been the average tough guy right out of jail and Carla the typically helpless woman, but thanks to their performances, you really believe that these are two strong people who both have had some bad luck in life but who will make the best out of it together.<br /><br />All in all this is a powerful movie with a very fine script and some excellent acting. Despite the fact that I had my doubts about it, I've soon become one of its greatest admirers. I give this movie an 8/10. Don't hesitate to give it a try. | pos |
A film so insecure the creaters perhaps hoped to milk an original film noir classic title, "Farewell My Lovely", thinking the gullible would assume it a remake. The characters are so foul and unappealing that it deserved its cold reception when first released. Time only adds to it its absurdity. Having none of the guile, cinematography, desperation or despair of classic noir it relied instead on a convoluted and senseless crime plot that would have easily resulted in several arrests within hours. As if that weren't enough it threw in an utterly sexless attempt at erotica in which at least one of the participants hadn't bothered to bathe in several days. This only made this mess all the more painful to watch. Find a good classic forties or fifties film noir instead of wasting two hours on this failure. | neg |
This could have been interesting a Japan-set haunted house story from the viewpoint of a newly-installed American family but falls flat due to an over-simplified treatment and the unsuitability of both cast and director.<br /><br />The film suffers from the same problem I often encounter with the popular modern renaissance of such native fare, i.e. the fact that the spirits demonstrate themselves to be evil for no real reason other than that they're expected to! Besides, it doesn't deliver much in the scares department a giant crab attack is merely silly as, generally, the ghosts inhabit a specific character and cause him or her to act in a totally uncharacteristic way, such as Susan George seducing diplomat/friend-of-the-family Doug McClure and Edward Albert force-feeding his daughter a bowl of soup! <br /><br />At one point, an old monk turns up at the house to warn Albert of the danger if they remain there eventually, he's called upon to exorcise the premises. However, history is bound to repeat itself and tragedy is the only outcome of the tense situation duly created leading to a violent yet unintentionally funny climax in which Albert and McClure, possessed by the spirits of their Japanese predecessors, engage in an impromptu karate duel to the death! At the end of the day, this emerges an innocuous time-waster tolerable at just 88 minutes but, in no way, essential viewing. | neg |
"The Dresser" is a small but absolutely wonderful film, brilliantly acted by Albert Finney and Tom Courtenay. How in the world this tiny film attracted enough attention to garner five major Academy Award nominations back in 1983 is a mystery to me, but it's nice to know the Academy can be guilty of a display of good taste every once in a while (of course, they gave the award that year to "Terms of Endearment"-- after all, they don't want to be accused of showing TOO much taste).<br /><br />Albert Finney is a drunken Shakespearean actor in a production of "King Lear"; Tom Courtenay is the man who works double time behind the scenes to keep this actor in front of the footlights. It's both hilarious and piteous to see Courtenay's character showering Finney's with attention and affection, only to see his efforts utterly unappreciated and dismissed, even up to the very bitter end. Finney and Courtenay work wonders together, and though Finney gets the showiest moments (he does get to recite Shakespeare after all), Courtenay is the heart and soul of the film.<br /><br />Grade: A | pos |
First of all this movie starts out on a really dumb note: A 10-year-old girl, playing around in a moving vehicle, decides it would be funny to cover up her mom's eyes with her hands, and then causes a horrific accident which kills the mom....duh....I am sorry, there is positively no 10-year-old that dumb. The rest of the movie does not get much better. After the death of the mother by the apparent dumbest 10-year-old on the planet, the dad moves the family to Genova, Italy, where he is to teach at a local university, but here is the clincher: he does not speak a word of Italian! Then the little girl has "visions" of mommy (who she killed), and often subsequent night terrors which always, always end by the father holding and coddling her. Then we are forced to watch this family continually get lost and then found and then hug and then cry and lost and then found (followed by of course more hugging and crying) to the point that I was actually wishing for some sort of natural disaster to just wipe all of these vapid, ignorant people off the planet. Do not get me wrong, because I love indies, but an indie about dumb people (and I mean really dumb) is simply ridiculous and pointless. It is really a shame that this movie was based on such insipid characters wallowing in such retarded scenarios, because the locale was interesting. | neg |
For all of us American Deneuve fans, this little gem is a little tough to get ahold of. Fortunately, I found myself so wrapped up in the short bits that I saw previewed on youtube.com that I was willing to go to any lengths. I found it on ebay.com, ordered it directly from France, and changed my laptop so it would play Region 2 DVDs. Let me tell you that it was well worth it. Be warned - there are NO subtitles (unforunately, Pathe shouldn't have released this on DVD, Koch Lorber should've - they're good about the subtitles). I don't speak a word of French. I can utter a syllable here and there, order a drink and whatnot. That having been said, this film was a treat anyway. I couldn't fully appreciate the supposed "bawdy" humor or the witty dialogue. Watching Deneuve and her cohorts was enough for me. I understood what was going on without need of the dialogue. It really says something about a film when those who can't speak the language enjoy it. <br /><br />The cinematography is wonderful. London is adorable as the smitten son-on-law. Loved the lesbian Mom. And, of course, what can I possibly say about our dear Mademoiselle Deneuve. She is one of a kind. Those eyes, that smile. I could watch her films all day. She really goes beyond beauty. People always say she's gorgeous. Well, yes, she is. But she is also VERY talented. I believed her every second of the way. Her conversation about chocolate and vanilla with London is too sweet. Her character even gets arrested for smoking dope with some 15 year old in the street. NOT TO BE MISSED! Fly to France and buy this if you have to. Great. 10 | pos |
The problem with THE CONTRACTER is summed up by the opening scene . The CIA want an international terrorist dead so contact black ops assassin James Dial . The terrorist is appearing at the Old Bailey court in London which begs the question why do they want to bump off a terrorist if he's going to spend the rest of his life in jail ? He's going to be out of circulation either way . Didn't the CIA have a chance before he was arrested ? If by some chance he gets a not guilty verdict then kill him . There's no logical reason to kill someone who is going to spend life in a maximum security prison <br /><br />Since the premise sets up the story an audience might be choose to ignore the plot hole but the assination itself pours fuel upon the fire . Dial's colleague is killed by a police bullet and the taxi they're driving in crashes but Dial manages to escape . So the police were close enough to shoot someone but too far away to apprehend someone from a car crash ? The film of this type of plot connivance . Later Dial finds a police inspector pointing a gun at him saying " this airport is surrounded by armed coppers " yet Dial manages to escape very easily without explanation . The whole film cheats its audience by relying on things that are never explained . This includes an important supporting character called Emily Day . Why does she help Dial even though he's a wanted fugitive ? Your guess is as good as mine <br /><br />This is a fairly poor thriller and don't be taken in by the " big name " cast . Wesley Snipes used to qualify as a film star but killed his career by starring in more and more inconsequental films . Charles Dance also appeared in big budget Hollywood productions such as LAST ACTION HERO and ALIEN 3 but again he's someone best known for appearing in straight to DVD fare these days , and he's basically playing a cameo role anyway . The likes of Lena Headey may go on to become big players in cinema but they'l certainly fail to put THE CONTRACTER on their resume | neg |
I have just started watching this show. Its airing in Ireland at the moment on the Irish television station RTE1 at 12.30pm in the Afternoon (as of 26th July 2006).<br /><br />This program literally makes me laugh out aloud and I cannot boast that on most sitcom's (apart from UK's 'The Office' with Ricky Gervais in it).<br /><br />Todays episode of TKoQ (26 July 2006)was the one where Carrie starts a new job and invites her friends home and goes off to make some coffee and Doug wants Carrie to have no 'outside' friends so he lifts up his top and shows off his 'belly hair!' and licks plates when he goes out to dinner! But another funny episode was the other week when the old fella (carries Dad) won on the Bingo and that episode creased me up with laughter especially when they went out and got a replacement fridge and Carries father stood there looking at it and thought it was new.<br /><br />So I don't know how much longer this has got to run on Irish TV or at which stage (year recorded) we are at but I hope it don't end soon because I am really enjoying it.<br /><br />To sum up there is some great writing, some great characters and comedy acting (namely by Carrie, Doug and Carries father) some great punchlines and delivered well - a bit saucy and near the mark sometimes (send the kids out the room!) but i think this US Sitcom is a winner and very funny. | pos |
Intergalactic criminal Kol (Ross Hagen) has been sentenced to death and awaits execution on a spaceship designed for just such a purpose. But tonight there's going to be a jailbreak, and Kol flees on a conveniently-placed escape pod and flies towards Earth (which apparently is nearby). There he confronts a group of "teenagers" (who look thirty) and a game warden (John Phillip Law), who help protect him from his worst nightmare... the bounty hunter and executioner android (or more properly "gynoid") the Alienator.<br /><br />From the cover of the box, I was confident this was going to be an awful movie. But, as awful as it turned out to be, it was a ton of fun as well (probably at least partially because I was watching it with someone who happens to be intensely awesome). The director (Fred Olen Ray), who has specialized in making over one hundred low-grade films (most notably "Hollywood Chainsaw Hookers"), does what he does best and throws together a plot that only half makes sense and gives us rudimentary special effects. Bonus: P.J. Soles appears (as "Tara"), obviously at a low point in her career.<br /><br />Sure, there's plot holes. Why are there hillbilly rednecks in California (allegedly Los Angeles County if I understood the warden correctly). What's up with the space woman's tacky blouse? Why is there a subplot about the ship captain forcefully trying to win her heart when this story goes nowhere? What the heck is "Quadrant 5"? How does chicken wire create an electromagnetic field that will short-circuit an android, yet land mines do virtually nothing? Why does Kol look like a drunk, Native American football player with emphysema? And the Lund guy (Robert Clarke)... does his character even have a point? Does the game he plays with the captain have a point? Does this movie have a point? But the biggest mystery is the android (or gynoid) the Alienator, played by Teagan Clive. What is an "alienator"? Why does it look like Daryl Hannah from "Blade Runner", only much larger? Because, see, if something is a cyborg, it's part human. But if it's an android, it's all machine. This was an android, so there was no reason to make it look human. It could have looked like anything. Yet, the person who designed her made her the size of a linebacker, with David Bowie's hair and a leotard that shows me just a little too much. If you're going to make a female android, wouldn't the purpose be to have her be seductive and lure enemies in? Mission not accomplished. They say beauty comes in all shapes and sizes, but I think I found a huge exception.<br /><br />If "Mystery Science Theater 3000" were still around today, this film would be on a very short list of movies that need to get harangued.<br /><br />Beyond the butt-nasty Alienator (sorry, Teagan, female weight lifters are gross) the film is alright. Maybe there's not much of a story and maybe the characters aren't really very interesting. And maybe the scene with the deer is incredibly adorable for no particular reason -- what use does a killer robot have with a deer? But overall, I actually liked the movie. I won't be pimping it out to my friends or running out to my local video store to pick up the latest DVD copy (which I'm sure is just packed with amazing special features -- not). But I consider seeing this movie time well spent and look forward to similar adventures in the future. | neg |
It is a tricky thing to play a queen. On the one hand, the actress has to be majestic and imperious, and on the other, she has to show vulnerability in a tough situation as well as the gathering of the courage and resolution to overcome the odds, since almost all movies about queens have that basic plot line. <br /><br />Emily Blunt is quite radiant as Victoria, but it's not as full a performance as I'd like, no blame to her. I can't help but feel like this is a Mills & Boon novel adaptation compared to a darker, more dramatic movie about another young queen, Elizabeth. Hence Blunt doesn't get to run the gamut of queenly emotions, at least not to the full extent, since she's, y'know, the young Victoria. To see the old Victoria, check out Mrs Brown.<br /><br />Jean-Marc Vallee is an interesting choice of director for the movie. He last did C.R.A.Z.Y., which was excellent and propelled him to fame. It was quite a different movie but I remember it looking gorgeous and that's probably the main similarity between the two movies. But while Vallee wrote C.R.A.Z.Y., this one was by Julian Fellowes, and though I really enjoyed his Gosford Park, the story for this movie was much less interesting. I soon got lost with all the governmental politics. Maybe it was less engaging because there was no potential beheading of the monarchy. I'm just saying. | pos |
Forever Strong is a type of film we've seen many time before,just in different types of genres. However that being said,I really thought it was a great film,Sean Faris is showing the type of potential that usually lands actors into big time stardom. Apparently this film got a limited release as I wasn't even aware of it,but I saw it in the video store and decided to take a chance with it after I remember enjoying Sean's performance in Never Back Down. I ended up making a great decision,I'm not a fan of rugby what so ever,but the film really isn't fully about rugby,it's about making a stand in you're life,challenging yourself,reaching your goals,there is a whole lot more then the simple plot suggests. At 1st we don't give a damn about what happens to Rick,he's mouthy,full of himself,and completely arrogant,we feel he's completely sealed his fate as a trouble maker. Along the way we see the changes in his character,he starts to hang around with better people,he starts to better himself,we learn how much negative impact his father has had in his life,it's just a great swerve and the film did a great job of turning Rick from cocky prick to a good hearted person.<br /><br />The rugby action itself is not too bad at all,unlike the stuff I played and saw in high school,this was actually quite fun to watch and beautifully choreographed. A great young cast combined with some veteran experience helped this film immensely,it just did a fabulous job of avoiding in what could've been a run of the mill type of thing to a poignant and effective drama. I also liked the conflicting contrast between The Coach|Garry Cole| and Rick|Sean Faris|,it made for a very interesting storyline,and I loved seeing him help out Rick along the way it was emotional and heartwarming at the same time. This is a real hidden gem that i'm truly glad I discovered it made me think about my life and a lot of times I need something like that.<br /><br />The Performances. Sean Faris is outstanding as Rick Penning. He reminded me an awful lot of a young Tom Cruise cocky yet very charismatic and talented. It was a tough role to turn going from a mouthy teenager,to a good hearted young man,but Sean pulled it off with pure perfection. He clearly put his heart and soul into this film,so big kudos to Sean for putting so much effort into this great film. Gary Cole is excellent as the preachy yet likable coach who wants to help out the kids. I've always found him to be likable,he always has a sort of presence he carries to his films. Neal McDonough is fantastic as the selfish yet pressured father of Rick. For the majority of the movie,the script leads you to believe he's nothing more then a selfish bitter man who wants Rick to be exactly like him,but in the end you start to see the real him come out,I felt sorry for him a bit. Julie Warner is a good character actress and she plays the good hearted,yet clueless mother well. Penn Badgley is required to play a real jerk,and boy does he ever do that well. On numerous occasions I wanted to pop him one,so I must say it's a great performance. Arielle Kebbel is the love interest not much of a part,she did OK. Nathan West plays a somewhat mysterious character,he did quite well. Sean Astin is billed as a major player for the film,but he barely does anything,he did good with what he had to do.<br /><br />Bottom line-Forever Strong is a great feel good film,it will definitely make you stop and think about how your life was much better then you thought. Don't let this one slip you by,you won't regret it.<br /><br />8 1/2/10 | pos |
Yeah, there's a "sleeper" watching Sleeper Cell and it was me. After reading comparisons to "24" (like on the cover of the DVD), I expected a fast-paced action romp. But nope... this series just putts along. In my groggy half-awake state I would think, "He's gonna... " and, poof, it would happen... "Guess that van is gonna roll off the... " and there she goes.<br /><br />And so on.<br /><br />And why would Darwyn, in extra-deep cover, pursue a babe? Could it be, perhaps, to provide a little T&A? Hey, that works for me, hence four stars rather than three.<br /><br />This show is no "24". I've watched "24". Sleeper Cell, you're no "24". | neg |
Until I did a Web search on "What Alice Found", I didn't realize that the name of the film is embedded in the title of one of Lewis Carroll's books. The book's complete title is "Through the Looking-Glass (And What Alice Found There)".<br /><br />The Alice of the film comes from a background quite different from that of Lewis Carroll's Alice. Her fresh and assertive character, however, is similar. The movie Alice begins as a young woman in New Hampshire who steals money from her ass-patting boss and takes off for Miami, vaguely planning to study marine biology and play with dolphins. She encounters a middle-aged couple in a motor home (the husband's retired from the military) who rescue her from a strange man at a roadside stop and from her car's breakdown (perhaps caused by their mechanizations).<br /><br />As it turns out, the couple is heavily involved in truck stop prostitution and see sweet, young Alice as a promising recruit. The wife (played by Judith Ivey in a performance worthy of some big award) buys Alice sexy clothing and shows her how to apply hot makeup. Initially, Alice passively accepts her ministrations and, with the couple's instructions, does several tricks. The encounter shown in the most detail is quite different from most cinematic sex but may be typical of what most often happens in real life. The man is shy and deferential and apologizes for "finishing" too fast.<br /><br />What's wonderful about Alice (and different from her prototypes from Clarissa to Sister Carrie) is that she learns from her experiences and asserts herself. This is how things really are. Prostitution is everywhere. People are neither all good or all bad. Alice leaves the motor home with her well-earned money and a feeling of mutual respect. | pos |
Carnosaur 3 is bad... awfully bad. Bad to the point where it is funny. How matter how much I try to convince myself, I just can't believe anyone in this world could find this entertaining for serious reasons. I mean, come on, even the cover is bad! OK, the special effects are absolutely ridiculous. Those "Carnosaurs" are really ridiculous. A scientist tells the soldiers that they move incredibly fast, yet when you see them run, they run at the speed of... an actor in a rubber suit trying to run as much as he can. And the explosions are funny(there is no other word to describe it). At the beginning, a bullet hits a Jeep AFTER a guys says "What was that?"... And the other explosions are also laughable. But the worst thing is the screenplay and the so-called story. You don't expect a good story(or, I don't think anyone renting this movie expects a good movie) but at least the story has to try to make sense. I mean, how hard is it to make a story about dinosaurs killing people at least coherent. Incredibly hard if you look at this. Oh, and if you think that it's easy to makes believable commandos as your characters, tell it to the writers of this awful, awful piece of crap. I mean, what sick human being would make cheap jokes after one of his buddies is dead? And they do lots of it. And if you think that a movie about dinosaurs killing soldiers can only be at least action-packed, WAKE UP!!! This movie is incredibly dull. The carnosaurs(who invented this lame name anyway?) attack(in boring action sequences where you don't see much happening). The soldiers think of how to beat them(in incredibly funny scenes where they try real hard to be serious but can't seem to convince even just one second). So, then, they attack the carnosaurs, but their idea doesn't work(another laughable action sequence). Back to planning(with a few lame jokes thrown in) in another ridiculous scene. And this goes on, and on, and on. And let's not forget the acting which is about as convincing as the special effects... and the story... Oh OK, this movie simply sucks from A to Z.<br /><br /> | neg |
I was also on hand for the premiere in Toronto. This film was sort of a consolation when I thought I wouldn't be able to get in to see my first choice. Well, I was totally blown away. By the time I got to the theater I could remember little other than the basic plot of the movie (yes, I actually forgot who was even in it.) Terrific performances from the entire cast. Carrie-Anne Moss was great in a true departure from her days as Trinity. As for Billy Connolly, I think not since Chaplin has an actor played so brilliantly with no lines what-so-ever. The kids were also great. Definitely check this one out if you get the chance.<br /><br />And, by the way, I got to see my first choice anyway- and this was way better. | pos |
If, unlike some of the commenters here, you are not staging a class war and don't mind seeing the lives of other people who are fairly successful, extroverted, bohemian (gasp) and not being terribly English at a party and getting into all sorts of trouble as a result this is not a bad film, closer to Euro cinema rather than an imitation of the usual slick American crap... I believe the minimal sound design and cheap camera is a conscious decision rather than bad film making, I'd defend this, the film isn't any worse as a result, and it puts the spotlight on the cast, some of whom are really good (Kate Hardie- think that's her name, as the sarcastic drunk is spot-on) the one exception being David Baddiel, who should never be allowed to appear in serious stuff!! It's light, and we don't go for this kind of anatomising-of-relationship crap in this country, but if you don't have any real friends to go to a party with than you could do worse than to sit in and watch this. | pos |
It is finally coming out. The first season will be available March 2007. It is currently airing on ABC Family from 4-5 pm eastern time Monday through Friday. The last episode will air on December 19th at 4:30. I missed it the first 100 times around. I wish I could buy the whole series right now. Who does she pick? I have to write 10 lines in order to reply to the first comment. What am I going to say. La da da de de. La da da de de nope only up to 8 how do I get to 9 almost almost awww 9 now I need 10 - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, I missed counted this is only number 8. Punky Brewster is pretty awesome too. Almost to 10 almost awwwwww. | pos |
This is yet another pseudo-intellectual "let's make the Nazis look real bad" movie. The Nazis were pretty bad, no doubt - most of already know that. However, that does not necessarily make every movie on the theme good. A Discovery Channel presentation of "The Wannsee Conference" would have been much more interesting. <br /><br />"Conspiracy" falls on its ass between two categories: documentary and drama. It doesn't cut it as a documentary, the movie is too "staged" and the presentation too "common". It doesn't cut it as a drama, the characters are too shallow and conflicts too easily "solved".<br /><br />Another thing is the tagline: "One Of The Greatest Crimes Against Humanity Was Perpetrated In Just Over An Hour." As the movie shows the Wannsee Conference the meeting had nothing to do with reaching a consensus on the final solution. The decision on the solution had already been taken by the SS. The sole purpose of the meeting was to make all significant stakeholders commit themselves to an already established plan. There were no decisions or plans made at the Wannsee Conference. There was only threats and coercion (some needed less than others).<br /><br />Finally: One thing the movie does show (although in no exceptional manner) is, man has a tendency to turn to culture and aesthetics in an attempt to hide for himself the fact that he is committing appalling atrocities. This is seen in most powermongering "leaders" and politicians. | neg |
Being a science fiction fan from my early childhood (long time since) I always hated implausible plots. It's a pity that most authors of science fiction stories for children do not show this kind of respect for their audience. I always suspected them of thinking: "children are to dumb to realise, so we don't have to strive". The writer of "Science Fiction (2002)" is no exception. The story is about a boy who is instigated by his new friends to spy after his parents, because they think that the parents are aliens. As intriguing the idea sounded to me, as much was I bored by its realisation. It seemed to me that the filmmakers had exactly this one idea and tried to stretch it over the ninety minutes by dunking it into a dark, stylish and painstakingly slow atmosphere. The only thing that kept me in my seat was the question "how do they manage to get out of this implausible rubbish"? And then - bang - they did not even try. So if you are looking for good entertainment for both children and parents, go and watch "Klatretøsen (2002)" instead. | neg |
This should be a great film... Meryl Streep and Jack Nicholson co-starring as two newspaper writers. Mike Nichols directing. Uh uh. It's dull dull dull! Pointless and predictable! Slow and unfocused!<br /><br />It's a cookie cutter 'boy meets girl, boy marries girl, boy has affair, girl leaves boy' story. Now theres an original concept! After squirming through two hours (was it only two? It felt like six.)I wasn't sure whether it was a comedy, a romance, a tragedy or a soap opera. It was done in 1986. I'm sure all of us did things sixteen years ago that we rather would forget. I hope the damage to the reputations of Streep et al is beginning to heal and that the emulsion on the master is beginning to fade. It's not that it's such a bad picture. It's just that it's such an un-good one. | neg |
Now i have never ever seen a bad movie in all my years but what is with songs in the movie what physiological meaning does it have. WOW some demented Pokémon shows up and they multiply i can get a seizure from this. Animie is pointless the makers of it are pointless its a big marketing scheme look just cut down on songs and they will get a good rating i reckon that this movie would have been fine if they put out a message you must see all the Pokémon episodes to understand whats going on and it is not a film. It is just an animation it should be on video.<br /><br />Ps: i'll give it a 1 because i just got 5 bucks i could not give it a half because there's no halves. | neg |
Two page boys working at a radio network go from trying to solve murders to performing in black-face in between work shifts. Jack Moran and Sidney Miller star in this whodunnit from 1945. Lots of fast talking, everybody yells at everybody, and the two page boys call the police detective "Marty" (played by Ralph Sanford). It's a real "shortie" at 59 minutes, and it has the feel of being adapted from a play, since it mostly takes place in a radio station soundstage. We don't really care about any of the characters, which is probably why its hardly ever shown. No big deal. This was Phil Karlson's second film as director. We're not given any clues as to who might be knocking people off, so we just kind of follow the police detective and the page boys as they all try to solve the mystery first. I'll say no more so as not to give away any spoilers. | neg |
CQ was the worst film I saw this year. Nearly every film I choose to see in the theater is at least entertaining or has something to say. This film looked like like it was directed by a film student for his Intro. to Filmmaking class. His father makes great films. His sister made a good one. But brother Roman? NO! One critic had the audacity to compare this film to Godard's Le Mépris (Contempt). While Coppola, Jr. did take the same idea, a film about film, he tried too hard to make himself seem European, artsy, and witty, when it's all really just kitsch. The lead actor carries the same expression through the whole film, like he's either in awe or in shock of this film being made around him. Schwartzman somehow manages to pull off his role as a flamboyant director. Depardieu is alright. The one scene that has any real film spoof humor at all is, surprisingly, not the B-movie scenes, but rather one which takes place in Italy; a montage of shots of several various characters inside a very small car, driving around picking up and dropping off random people. This was the only thing that reminded me of the cinema I am guessing he was trying to spoof. Or rip-off. Or both. The documentary with the lead talking into the camera and filming various objects has been played out, the ending was tagged on for the sake of a "twist" or artistic value... I suppose the funniest thing about this film was the film itself, and not in the way it intended. No wonder this film was sent back after a festival screening to be re-edited or re-shot or whatever, which makes me curious as to just how bad it was before. I can't believe it could have been worse than this. If you want to see a good parody of film check out the Austin Powers films. Any of them. The opening to the third is more entertaining and more genius than this entire film. Lil' Romy, for the sake of cinema, PLEASE go back to directing your cousin's music videos. Leave The Godfathers to daddy. | neg |
Terrible...just terrible. Probably the worst film I have ever seen. And I did see some pretty bad pictures, throughout the years. The sound sucks so does the quality of the picture, the direction, the acting...etc, etc. The only good shoots( meaning funny, because they're so bad ) are the special effects. Overall there are about 5 minutes worth of laughs. The rest of the flick gives you brain damage. | neg |
Let me start by saying I have never reviewed a movie on IMDb before; however, I am in the video biz myself. And coming from that perceptive; I can say, without a shadow of a doubt that this film is what a short should be. It has a very good story and another thing I love-(an even better twist ending). Opening was very well done, I loved video chosen for it and how it was edited.<br /><br />I am not a fan of B&W but the way this film uses the effect it works. And with any film that is all that matters. The flow of the film works perfectly and editing was very well done. From a technical side of things (which is side I normally work on) everything is also very well done. There is no major tech. stuff to point out. Only minor one I have is that the end credits are a little bouncy. This is probably due to a rendering issue. Let me also say that I would have prefer to seen more of the love scene but I am guy (so you can chalk that up to a guy factor).<br /><br />So overall I rate it a 9/10. It is worth the watch if you fan of Indies and/or short films.<br /><br />ps. sorry for bad grammar or spelling. | pos |
Assy McGee is an out-of-control, hard-nosed detective based on the countless examples from late 20th century police dramas. The twist here is that Assy is literally a walking buttocks.<br /><br />The cheap, low-brow facade of the show belies its cleverness and hidden satire. That is not to say that Assy is devoid of fart jokes, just that the toilet humor is used sparingly enough to elicit consistent laughs, not groans and eye-rolls. The title sequence of the program demonstrates the clever, subtle humor used throughout. The sequence consists of panning photos of the city set to a jazzy 70s cop theme. In one photo, a police cruiser is shown and the "camera" zooms in on the front license plate holder, which is vacant. The meaningless zoom-in satirizes the production of the typical 70s-80s cop drama and, incidentally, makes me laugh every time.<br /><br />All the typical characters are included: the frustrated police chief who can't control Assy; the loyal, minority partner who acts as a foil to Assy's recklessness; the regular cops who detest Assy's means.... all are accounted for and all are hilarious satires of the typical police drama.<br /><br />The voice acting, primarily performed by Larry Murphy, is nothing less than spectacular. Assy's voice--breathy and gruff with a bit of a drunken slur--is so clever and unique that it ranks alongside all-time greats like Stewie Griffin (Family Guy) and Homer Simpson (Simpsons). Though the voice is slurred, the diction is somehow clear and easy to understand. This is a nice change from other Adult Swim program voices that often require closed captioning to understand.<br /><br />Besides the fantastic production and voice acting, the script is also hilarious. Assy's no- nonsense directness fuels most of the humor, particularly in his interactions with citizens outside the police force.<br /><br />If you have access to the Adult Swim comedies, Assy McGee is certainly worth the watching. Each episode clocks in at a mere 8-9 minutes, so you really have little to lose. | pos |
This is another Universal fun filled fright fest.Many people want to compare it to House Of Frankenstein.Even though it has similar cast and the same director it can stand on its own.(It does appear that Erle C Kenton directed most of the Universal horror films of the 40's).<br /><br />The plot recap:Baron Latos appears at the home of Dr Eidlemann seeking a "cure" for his vampirism.Larry Talbot (who somehow survived House OF Frankenstein) also shows up at the good doctors door seeking a cure for his affliction.After a failed suicide attempt Talbot and the doctor find the Frankenstein monster. To complicate matters just before he bites the dust, Dracula infects the good doctor with his blood.The doctor becomes a bloodthirsty maniac at certain times.Where this leads to is something you'll have to see for your self.<br /><br />Carradine actually gives a very good performance as Dracula. He isn't chewing up the scenery as he will in later roles. It is hard to repress giggles when he appears in a top hat though.The cape/cloak is traditional but the hat has to go. Where does the hat go when he changes into a bat...?<br /><br />Onslow Stevens gives an excellent portrayal of the doctor. He's torn between his basic kindness and the increasing blood lust he is now prone to. This is a very underrated performance.Chaney brings even more life to the Wolf Man in his 4th appearance in that role.<br /><br />The monster isn't given much to do this time.Just lay on the table until the end(some stock footage from the Ghost Of Frankenstein is used).At least in House Of Frankenstein he was up and around a bit.<br /><br />Yes this does stick to the basic Universal pattern complete with the angry village mob running amok with torches.But it isn't a bad way to spend an hour and ten minutes.It gets a low 8. | pos |
It's amazing that this no talent actor Chapa got all these well known stars to appear in this dismal, pathetic, cheesy and overlong film about a low life gangster who looks white but is half Mexican, much of the acting is bad and many of the well known stars in this trashy movie are given a script that seems made up by a 16 year old, i'm sure this movie is the career low point for actors such as Dunaway, Wagner, Keach, Tilly and Busey who i'm sure are very embarrassed that they ever appeared in this turkey of a film. I doubt many people have ever heard of Chapa and after this terrible movie i'm sure he will disappear into oblivion where he belongs. | neg |
I wanted to like this movie. I really, really did. I was so excited when I saw the preview, which scared the hell out of me. But when I saw the actual film, I was disappointed. The acting is stilted, and the attempts at comedy are woefully out of place and forced. And I'm sorry, but a boy being chased by a turd in a bedpan is not funny or scary, it's just stupid. I grew up on the Bell Witch legend, so I know quite a bit about it. A lot of facts in the movie are right on target, but this film should have been much better. The entire birthday party scene, for example, lasts about fifteen minutes, adds nothing to the plot or the story, and should have been left on the cutting room floor. A more heavy-handed editor might have been able to get a decent film out of this mess.<br /><br />Please understand, I'm not in any way, shape or form involved with the other Bell Witch movie, and I'm not trying to "attack" this IMDb listing. I'm just telling it like it is. | neg |
I didn't know what to make of this film. I guess that is what it was all about really. I have never seen a film like it and I doubt that I really ever will again. Glover puts together something that is unique to him. I think to appreciate it you have to read some of his poetry, maybe see one of his slide shows. I really like this guy, he is just so bizarre I can't help it. Note: I saw this film before it was through its final editing, so maybe what I have seen and what others have seen are different. I will know, I guess, if I choose to view the film again. I think I will have to be properly drug influenced... | pos |
No movie could ever do justice to Faulkner's command of the English language. but they did a pretty good job here. Lucas Beauchamp is exactly the way I pictured him in the book, as is Chick. What the movie couldn't really go into was how Beauchamp wasn't liked by the Negro people either, because he was equally as stubborn. Not that it is a bad thing, but from my take on the book that was his attitude toward the world (yet, I got the feeling it was white society's racism that started it and it spilled over into Negro society, until that became his attitude toward everyone).<br /><br />the best part of the movie is that you get to see Yoknapatawpha county (actually, Oxford, Mississippi) exactly as Faulkner wrote about it (the film was made when Faulkner was alive and writing). It doesn't look that much different today. Because of this alone, the movie is worth a watch considering it is filmed in Faulkner's backyard. A true must see for Faulkner fans. | pos |
I agree with what so many others have said about the shallow and offensive nature of this film's examination of racism. It is baffling to me that so many people seem to have been fooled by its pretentiousness. I want to comment on the Matt Dillon character as an example of what's most infuriating about this movie. Here we have a man who -- contrasted with the film's underlying message that "we're all a LITTLE racist" -- effectively rapes a woman in public, cruelly humiliating her husband and deliberately goading him to make a move that, as he well knows, will lead to his arrest or even death. He does all this after pulling the couple over without any legal cause but because, as we come to understand, they are black and wealthy and he is a hurt little boy who is now the police and can therefore do as he pleases. This behavior is not a LITTLE racist. This behavior is evil. It is disturbing to me that this extreme of racism is held up next to another character's behavior -- spouting her paranoid stereotypes about gang violence -- to illustrate that everybody's a LITTLE racist. Later, we're spoon-fed some tripe about Dillon's poor old dad and how black folks drove him into the poor house. Is this supposed to explain, or worse, excuse this behavior? And is Dillon's character meant to redeem himself by committing the utterly unmotivated and unbelievable, laughably coincidental act of saving the woman he sexually assaulted the very night before? Please. The fact that so many people seem to feel some kind of self-congratulatory admiration for this film makes me feel sad about the shallowness of our understanding of racism, and our apparent lack of commitment to condemning and ending it. | neg |
Rock Hudson's second venture in the science fiction genre after Seconds is Embryo a film that combines elements of the Bride of Frankenstein and Pygmalion in one rather weird film about for lack of a better word a test tube baby that grows up to be Barbara Carrera.<br /><br />Hudson is scientist experimenting in organic development and gets a chance to first experiment on his own Doberman pincher when it is accidentally hit by his car. <br /><br />Some pituitary secretions from the female dog are given to a prematurely born puppy and it grows remarkably into an adult. Exalted with his success, Hudson takes a fetus from a dead accident victim and gives it some of the same stuff.<br /><br />What he gets is Barbara Carrera. And she develops physically and intellectually at a prodigious rate. What she doesn't do is develop emotionally. Still Hudson passes her off as his new research assistant to friends and family like sister-in-law Diane Ladd, son John Elerick, and daughter-in-law Anne Schedeen. <br /><br />Embryo doesn't explore some of the real issues in this kind of science, it exploits them instead. The special effects as they are, are pretty second rate. Hudson looks like he lost interest in the project about halfway through the film.<br /><br />Now what would have really been interesting is if he had gotten boy child and it grew up to be a harlequin novel hero. Now that would have been something Rock Hudson could have sunk his teeth into. | neg |
Rowan Atkinson delivers an unforgettable performance as the clueless Mr. Bean who never goes far without his Teddy Bear. The appeal of Mr. Bean is largely his childish behavior and innocence. We don't know if he came from the sky or another planet. He is the kind of strange character that you can't make up quite easily. He is often alone and used to it. He has a hard time communicating through speech which might be why we only hear his grunts at times. There are other characters who speak to him and he responds. The character of Mr. Bean is a mystery and still is. He lives alone and does the unthinkable when he can do the sensible thing. Mr. Bean is rather an odd man out who does not mind it much. He rather live a simple life with his yellow car and teddy bear and hopes to get to work on time. | pos |
It's about time we see a movie that stays unbiased towards these old Indian traditions. At times it is clear how most of the 'doctors' are charlatans, even lying about how they don't charge their clients. While they are wearing their gold watches, the 'donation' box is mandatory. Notice that there are only a couple of people who get 'cured' while we see quite a few cases.<br /><br />Keep in mind while watching that ingesting mercury is not toxic and that the smallest Indian bank note is 5 rupee, while the average salary in India is 1,700 ru/month. | neg |
I've read the positive comments on this movie. I assume people who were in this movie must've come to this site to give it some good press because this was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I always watch the whole film despite the quality or lack there of which explains why I watched this whole movie, but I don't think I laughed even once during the duration of this film. The jokes were mostly very bad, but when the jokes had some promise, the delivery was off. If you liked it, maybe you should lay off the buds because you need to preserve the 5 or 6 brain cells you have left. This movie had a poor script, bad acting, poor directing, weak plot... nothing of virtue and was not entertaining. If you haven't seen this movie, don't. | neg |
I thought Godzilla 2000 was the worst movie ever until I saw this monstrosity. My friends and I went to our local blockbuster and spent about an hour and a half looking for a movie. We could not find one since we have seen almost every movie created. We decided to look in the low budget horror section. We looked for the most attractive cover featuring scantily clad women. We finally decided on Last Slumber Party, THE. Whoops, we made a mistake. It seems as though this movie was filmed with the cheapest camera that could be found in K-Mart. The actors were picked up at a Salvation Army, and as for Steven Tyler. We will just leave that to the imagination. The plot of this movie was ridiculous. SPOILER ALERT While watching the movie there is absolutely no closure at all. Then come to find out all the events were just a dream. This movie should also have been about 30 minutes. If all the camera zooms on still shots, and scans of walls were taken out, it would have been much shorter. All I can say is I'm glad there wasnt a sequel. | neg |
This movie has it all, action, fighting, dancing, bull riding, music, pretty girls. This movie is an authenic look at middle America. Believe me, I was there in 1980. Lots of oil money, lots of women, and lots of honky tonks. Too bad they are all gone now. The movie is essentially just another boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl back, but it is redeemed by the actors and the music. There is absolutely no movie with any better music that this movie, and that includes American Graffiti. It is a movie I watch over and over again and never get tired of it. Every time I watch it, I am young again, and it is time to go out honky tonking. The only reason I only gave it a 9 is because you cannot rate a movie zero, I do not feel you should rate one 10. | pos |
Like another reviewer, I really wanted to like this movie. I went with my father who was the biggest lover and booster of classical music but neither of us could stand this movie. I wouldn't even call it a movie. A better description might be a record of a few chamber concert pieces. As I recall, the camera never even moved. Rather, I just sat on a tripod for the entirety of each piece. The only attempts at dramatic effect were at the very end of each piece when the movie would cut to trees waving in the wind or little wavelets lapping at a beach. I'm sure the director would have preferred to have used footage of some really big crashing waves but the best he could find were a few inches high at some nearby lake, and again using a stationary camera. Truly pathetic. I can't imagine how anyone could justify rating this movie higher than a five. When we walked out, my father and I were completely mystified as to how it was possible to make such a bad movie. I don't know of of any good movies about Bach. The world really does need one, but just because it doesn't exist is not a reason to see this one. Someone will make one someday. Until then just keep rewatching _Amadeus_. | neg |
Redo the Oscars from 1992, and this film might get nominated, or even win. It was SO good at capturing its era and dual cultures that it belongs in American and Japanese time capsules. If you wanted to know what living here or there was like back then, this film will show you. As an American, you'll feel like you tagged along for an extended Japanese vacation, and by the end of the film, you'll be a die-hard Dragons fan, as you accept the injection of Japanese tradition and culture into their baseball, much as we have done with our culture in our own game.<br /><br />Jack Elliot (Tom Selleck) is a slumping, aging Detroit Tigers' slugger who is traded to the Dragons, perennial runners-up to the dynastic Yomuri Giants, Japan's answer to the Yankees. The Giants are admired for their success, yet that success also has everyone wanting to surpass them, something which is rarely done. The Dragons' manager recruits Jack as the final piece of the pennant-winning puzzle, and we're left with what could have been Gung Ho on a baseball field, but instead was much more.<br /><br />The casting was outstanding: Selleck proved that with a good script and a character that suits him, he can carry a film as well as he did his television show, and the Japanese cast was equally good, down to Mr. Takagi from Die Hard back as the image-conscious owner. The other actors, including the one who plays the love interest (also the manager's daughter), strong and independent yet simultaneously a believer in Japanese traditions, beyond what was forced on her. She is a proper and supportive girlfriend for Jack. Even her father never tells her not to see him, almost sympathizing with Jack for what he endures from her, and a bit relieved he at least knows the man she has chosen to love.<br /><br />The baseball scenes are great, bolstered immensely by a pre-fame Dennis Haysbert as another American ex-patriate and Jack's western mentor. The usual fish-out-of-water elements are there, and you can almost feel yourself stumbling right along with Jack to fit into a country that doesn't speak our language, and doesn't practice our ways, yet copies everything we do, including our national pastime. one of the funnier scenes occurs when Jack, clutching a magazine, informs his manager that he has learned of the tradition in Japan where you can get drunk and tell off your boss, and it can't be used against you, and exercises that right very humorously. The plots and subplots are tied up neatly at the end, but not too neatly, and nothing concludes unrealistically.<br /><br />To call this a comedy is misguided: it's a pure comedy-drama, or even a drama with good humor. The plot is too deep to dismiss it the way it was by critics as an actor out of his league trying to carry a lightweight film. The situations were amusing, but in their place against a far more serious, profound, and precisely detailed backdrop that results in one of the best films I've ever seen. The baseball cinematography rivals that of For Love Of The Game, for realism.<br /><br />Some say the film is about baseball, or about Japan, but more than anything it seems to be about the workplace, and how people arrive at work from totally different origins, with different agendas, and somehow have to put their differences aside for the good of the company, or the team.<br /><br />A truly great film that never should have had to apologize for itself the way it did when it was in theaters. | pos |
I'm a true fan of the original Cracker series, and own all of them on DVD. Cracker had a tendency to be over-the-top on occasion, but Robbie Coltrane and the other cast members, as well as the writers, always seemed to carry it off despite themselves. I count the original Cracker among the great Brit TV crime series of that time, and there's some stiff competition: Prime Suspect, Inspector Frost, Inspector Morse, Jeremy Brett's Sherlock Homes, and a host of others. Cracker, along with Prime Suspect, was on the top of my list.<br /><br />Which makes "A New Terror" all the more sad...<br /><br />Ultimately, this was a very pale imitation of Cracker's former glory. I forced myself to sit through the whole thing, convinced that it couldn't actually be this bad, and that some spark would eventually ignite. I was wrong, it was bad from beginning to end.<br /><br />A few criticisms: First, just to get any potential bias up-front right off: I was offended by the anti-American, anti-war screed that droned on and on throughout most of the show. The topper: the murder of two American's innocent of any crime and a British Junkie is, in Fitz's words, "understandable, but not justified". I thought "I waded through two hours of crap just to hear this disgusting bit of drivel?" So I had a negative reaction to the anti-war/American tone brought on by my beliefs... Beyond the politics, I had the distinct sense that this Cracker was merely a prop for the propaganda, and it actually helped to undermine an already terribly weak script.<br /><br />Second, just how much air-time did Robbie Coltrane get? Fitz was almost a bit player in this one, as if he was an afterthought plugged into some story originally written without any thought of Fitz's role. Coltrane could have carried the show on his own broad and still suitably flabby shoulders, but the writer was apparently thinking of other things, and missed the chance, and by a wide margin.<br /><br />Third: WHAT AN ABYSMAL SCRIPT! There was some sparkle, and a couple of bits of actual character development (Fitz's son ranting that Fitz couldn't stay at his house if he missed his plane to Australia, the Detective that liked to beat his poor-performers over the backs of their heads, and some of the old sparks between Fitz and his Missus) but not nearly enough to carry the tedious storyline. <br /><br />Fourth, where the hell was Panhallagan? Now that would have been interesting... It was Manchester after all, and 10 years on she'd be up in the ranks. Another wasted opportunity (or perhaps the actress wasn't interested?) <br /><br />Well, there's much more (that's bad) to say , but I'll close with a curiosity: at the end of the show (as it aired on BBCA), when the advertisement announced that the "Director's Cut" was available on BBC On-Demand, I thought AH-HA! The Director's cut, which, presumably, one has to pay for, might have all of the goodies I expected to see tonight but never did, like a coherent, interesting storyline. Unfortunately, after convincing myself to sit through the horrible free version of "A New Terror" with the hope of seeing something, anything, worth watching, only to be disappointed, I have no hope left to motivate me to actually pay for a second, potentially longer and more tedious version. Besides, it angered me to think that BBCA sliced and diced, and sacrificed show time to accommodate the endless (every ten minutes or so) stream of commercials, and then turned around and asked me to pay for what probably should have been version aired tonight.<br /><br />To close, I quote the first paragraph of Variety's review of "A New Terror": it really says it all: "Initial excitement about Robbie Coltrane reprising his role as the BBC's flawed, boozing, womanizing criminal psychologist is snowed under by the heavy-handed political statement writer Jimmy McGovern is determined to deliver within this revival vidpic. Jolting at first in its message -- namely, that Americans are a bunch of whiny namby-pambies who didn't care a whit about terrorism before it came crashing onto our doorstep -- McGovern's chest-clearing rant overwhelms the narrative and mutes the pleasure of seeing Fitz back on the case." | neg |
Seeing this movie always reminds me of what I remember summer being like, God! such a long time ago. The entire scene involving the "overnight", from the canoe procession to the end of the trip, is precious, and Tripper's story about the homicidal maniac is urban legend right out of my youth. A highly entertaining movie, made many times better by the awful sequels that followed. | pos |
Am I the only person who saw and remembers Amadeus. Every scene in "Copying" has its counterpart in the Milos Forman, Amadeus - from the galloping carriages accompanied by frenzied strings, to the entrance of Anna through the dark hallway preceded by the man with the key, to the very dialog of the conclusion with Anna at Beethoven's feet a la Salieri before the dying Mozart. Does no one else recall the dialog in that script: <br /><br />Salieri "Time?" , Mozart "Common time". ....."We begin with the strings..." and so it "copies".<br /><br />Remember Cynthia Nixon leaning against a door jamb, tears falling down her freckled face - same scene, just replace her with Beethoven's nephew. Even the scatological humor (fart jokes) are the same. We even have a cardinal followed around by a plate of sweet cookies which recalls Salieri in the banquet hall. Does no one else remember? !!!!<br /><br />And the scene where Anna cries to God "Why did you give me this gift?"... Salieri said the same thing!<br /><br />And beyond all that we have a juvenile script with an opening exposition that reads like the character identifications you'd find in a children's story. "I am Mr. Beethoven. I am the composer...."<br /><br />And what, after all, is the purpose of the bridge builder? Other than to juxtapose the technical against the artistic... a comparison that is not at all developed - probably because it has no meaning, especially when it comes to Beethove who was a master of the technical.<br /><br />There's only one great scene - the playing of the ninth. First, the music, which of itself takes you to tears. But then, there is the highly erotic interaction of Anna the copyist keeping time and Beethoven conducting which surpasses the most explicit sexual intimacy. So intense, it's almost embarrassing.<br /><br />But, please - the rest of the film - Where is the world's collective memory? You have seen this all before .... and better! | neg |
I'd been following this films progress for quite some time so perhaps expected a little too much. I consider both Gillian Anderson and Danny Dyer to be good at what they do and was interested to see what Dan Reed could come up with but unfortunately it just didn't work for me.<br /><br />The problem lies in the fact that the film doesn't really seem to understand which genre it's falling into and as such it fails to impress on drama, horror and thriller elements because rather than focusing on one of them and doing it well it's a bit of a jack of all trades and master of none.<br /><br />The premise (as with most revenge films) is simple, couple meet and go out, something bad happens and they get their revenge it's a simple formula and one that many directors have handled expertly over the years. Unfotunately in this case it's as if Dan Reed thought, "It'd be great to do one of those revenge films that goes a little deeper by showing a more human side to all the characters and delving into their mental state in more detail...." Wrong! There are also a few key elements missing, in this type of movie there's generally some kind of warning. A don't do this or this might happen element which adds to the tension but there's nothing of the sort here. It just simply happens, then nothing happens for an hour, then something interesting happens and then it ends.<br /><br />There's a lot of really stiff competition in this genre and hats of to Dan Reed for trying, I have no issue with his directing abilities but in term of writing... I'd say next time he should stick to the formula for the type of film he's making instead of trying to be too clever and he'll have a quality movie on his hands. | neg |
In many ways, the filmic career of independent film-making legend John Cassavetes is the polar opposite of someone like Alfred Hitchcock, the consummate studio director. Where Hitchcock infamously treated his actors as cattle, Cassavetes sought to work with them improvisationally. Where every element in a Hitchcock shot is composed immaculately, Cassavetes cared less for the way a scene was figuratively composed than in how it felt, or what it conveyed, emotionally. Hitchcock's tales were always plot-first narratives, with the human element put in the background. Cassavetes put the human experience forefront in every one of his films. If some things did not make much sense logically, so be it.<br /><br />One can see this even from his very first film, 1959's Shadows, filmed with a 16mm hand-held camera, on a shoe string budget of about $40,000, in Manhattan, with Cassavetes' acting workshop repertory company, and touted as an improvisatory film. The story is rather simple, as it follows the lives of three black sibling Manhattanites- Benny (Ben Carruthers)- a trumpeter and no account, Hugh (Hugh Hurd)- a washed up singer, and Lelia (Lelia Goldoni)- the younger sister of both. The film's three main arcs deal with Hugh's failures as a nightclub crooner, and his friendship with his manager Rupert (Rupert Crosse); Benny's perambulations in an about Manhattan with his two no account pals; and Lelia's lovelife- first with a white boy Tony (Anthony Ray), who does not realize light-skinned Lelia's race, even after bedding her; then with stiff and proper Davey (Davey Jones), who may be a misogynist.<br /><br />In the first arc, nothing much happens, except dark-skinned Hugh gets to pontificate on how degraded he feels to be singing in low class nightclubs, and opening shows for girly acts. He dreams of making it big in New York, or even Paris, but one can tell he is the type of man who will continue deluding himself of his meager skill, for the one time we actually get to hear him sing, he shows he's a marginal talent, at best. That Rupert keeps encouraging him gives us glimpses into how destructive friendships work. But, this is the least important of the three arcs
. While this film is better overall than, say, Martin Scorsese's first film, a decade later, Who's That Knocking At My Door?- another tale of failed romance and frustrated New Yorkers, it has none of the brilliant moments- acting-wise nor cinematographically- that that film has. It also is not naturalistic, for naturalism in art is a very difficult thing to achieve, especially in film, although the 1950s era Manhattan exteriors, at ground level, is a gem to relive. While Shadows may, indeed, be an important film in regards to the history of the independent film circuit, it certainly is nowhere near a great film. Parts of it are preachy, poorly acted, scenes end willy-nilly, almost like blackout sketches, and sometimes are cut off seemingly in the middle. All in all it's a very sloppy job- especially the atrocious jazz score that is often out of synch with the rest of the film, as Cassavetes proved that as a director, at least in his first film, he was a good actor. The only reason for anyone to see Shadows is because Cassavetes ultimately got better with later films, and this gives a clue as to his later working style.<br /><br />The National Film Registry has rightly declared this film worthy of preservation as 'culturally significant'. This is all in keeping with the credo of art Cassavetes long championed, as typified by this quote: 'I've never seen an exploding helicopter. I've never seen anybody go and blow somebody's head off. So why should I make films about them? But I have seen people destroy themselves in the smallest way. I've seen people withdraw. I've seen people hide behind political ideas, behind dope, behind the sexual revolution, behind fascism, behind hypocrisy, and I've myself done all these things. So I can understand them. What we are saying is so gentle. It's gentleness. We have problems, terrible problems, but our problems are human problems.' That this film is 'culturally significant' is true, but that truth is not synonymous with its being 'artistically significant'. It is in the difference between these two definitions where great art truly thrives. | pos |
"Silverlake Life" is a documentary and it was plain and straightforward. Actually, it was more like a home movie, and if you want dramatic illuminations, see something else. And it's by no means a tearjerker. But I mean that in positive ways. It shows two men who love each other and how being afflicted with AIDS is affecting the quality of their every-day lives. It's almost difficult for me to say whether this was a quality film or not, because it was so undressed that I had to look for other ways to respond. It's an admirable film, actually one of the most admirable, sincere documents I've ever seen. These two men have incredible integrity as their lives are reduced to the most basic parts. It makes Hollow-wood productions on AIDS seem hip and heartless. These men made this movie for themselves, which is one of the best reasons to create something. The scene where Tom sings "You are My Sunshine" to Mark and tells him goodbye is the real thing. | pos |
Dissapointing action movie with an interesting premise: a young Mafia would-to-be killer (Chandler) must demonstrate to his boss that he is a good man for the service so he goes to California to take some lessons with a very known professional killer (Beluschi). First and most important task: to kill a young woman (Lee) that is a completely strange for all of them. But is she a easy target? The movie goes on and on based upon this principal idea but the result is just bad routine; even the weird twist at the end does not save the movie. Good performance by Chandler. I give this a 4 (four). | neg |
If you consider yourself a horror movie fan, chances are you've seen Hideo Nakata's Ring and Dark Water. They're superb, and Ring's making its way smoothly into Hollywood (maybe Dark Water will be adapted soon too?). While Ring is almost 100% pure heart pounding and nerve breaking, a tale of two sister is both nerve breaking and mind twisting.<br /><br />Along with The Other I consider this Korean flick a brilliant and smart ending horror movie. The only flaw this movie has is some consider its first 20 minutes rather slow. It's actually typical with Korean and Japanese movies. I consider it carefully planned rather than slow, think of it as "calm moment before the storm". With thorough introduction of characters, imho viewer will get involved more intimately with the character, one of Korean and Japanese movies strongest point.<br /><br />Like Ring, a tale of two sister doesn't overdo ghastly appearance. Rather they let our mind do the intimidating job itself. That way it's scarrier and horrifyingly classy at the same time. I won't be surprised if Hollywood remakes this movie after bringing Ring and Grudge/Ju-On over(This flick is not that good by the way, I rate it 5.5). Don't miss it! | pos |
Here you see Mr. Eastwood in all of his glory (i.e., at the top of his form as an actor and at the height of his physical appeal), but the "ladies" depicted are hardly typical of the South, then or now. The young girls at the boarding school are incredibly naive, some showing signs of developing into really depraved women, and Geraldine Page, full-blown in her corruption, hardly represents the mean when it comes to head mistresses of girls schools, either then or now. (That is not to say that there isn't the occasional bad apple in any barrel.) Mr. Eastwood has said this is one of his own two favorite films.<br /><br />"The Beguiled" does have an original plot, a lot of attractive characters and many surprises in store for the viewer. It's thoroughly engrossing and entertaining but not really realistic. (I know, having grown up in the South and attended a girls' school and college. Moreover, I have been acquainted with innumerable girls who did the same, not to mention their laid-back teachers, or you might even say "repressed professors" who were a far cry from the headmistress depicted here.) She is downright comical in her depiction of a Southern gentle woman who is not quite what she seems.<br /><br />This movie was a little outrageous when it first appeared and still is, I think, but you won't be sorry you spent your time watching it. | pos |
I am an addict of the TV show, the live shows and everything they do. And this was the last piece of work they have done on TV/film as 'The League of Gentlemen'.<br /><br />If you love the series then you will absolutely love the film. It is a nice ending to their TV series. <br /><br />It is clever and funny.<br /><br />Although it does not focus on some of the most popular characters, it is still great to see all the characters together and with the writers. A must see for any League of Gentlemen fan.<br /><br />Watch it! | pos |
The movie was to be shown here in Bangkok with all the fanfare and even in the theater, it failed miserably.<br /><br />Apparently the story writer just don't hold water. Something was definitely missing. In my opinion people must have a reason why they watch it other than historical glimpse of the past. Accuracy of history is not what we look for in entertainment.<br /><br />The movie just lack any substance. The only way to do this movie right was somehow make changes where it stands as some kind of a legend instead of just a story. And a legend will have certain elements that tries to tell you something that people have forgotten through time, such as the meaning of sacrifice, nationalism, etc. It is called the central theme.<br /><br />The movie fails to answer, why would I watch it anyway?<br /><br />At least some strange legendary Flying Elephants, psychic king, or the eccentric king such as "The King and I" would have been lovely, something would have added greatly to the movies' appeal. I guess there was no appeal other than a plain vanilla movie. <br /><br />Once you got the appeal, then the story is the next thing we concentrate on. In marketing terms, we call it "must see". Upon hearing the title of the movie people would say, Oh, I must see it. Now where's the appeal in Kingmaker? Why not just redo the title and call it, "How NOT to be a King?" and make a black comedy of the old Siamese days, to the style of "Dr. Strangelove". That would have been much more interesting. Narrative-like experiences of the foibles of the King from first persons goofs off would have made the movie extremely funny. <br /><br />Most movies today have that "must see" appeal, such as Spiderman, Men X, these titles speak for themselves. If they don't have familiar characters, some other movies such as, The Island, had an appeal itself when the advertising asks "Do you still believe there is an Island?". <br /><br />Or for the movie, retitled "How NOT to be a King" might ask the question, "So do you still WANT to be a King?" <br /><br />Parhat | neg |
This movie is incomprehendably bad. It begins with several random explosions and then cuts to a sock puppet of a T-Rex that talks (!) to the audience. It goes back and forth between sock puppetry and animation throughout, probably because the film makers couldn't afford live actors. I'll spare you the long, tiresome, relentless plot that drags this pitiful film on for a brutal 85 minutes.<br /><br />One of my friends found this very rare video at a hobby shop somewhere that sells out of print b-movies, and he bought it for the sole purpose of making fun of it, but, as it turns out, our intervention was not neecessary. This film makes fun of itself better than we could.<br /><br />I thought that Ed Wood's "Plan 9 from Outer Space" was the cheesiest movie in existence, but leave it to Japanamation/Lego cars/Sock puppets to outdo him. If you see this movie anywhere, buy it without hesitation. It is very rare and worth many, many good laughs. | neg |
Wait... wait... wait... wait... wait... wait..... WHAT!? This movie is terrible, absolutely terrible. 1. The only reason Kiefer Sutherland is on the cover is to sell it to Kiefer fans, only to have their hearts broken. He kills one guy, gets shot, and dies before half the movie is over, not to mention he was only in the first 10 min and then disappeared until the point which he died...WHY put him on the cover if his character BLOWS. 2. Where are the EPIC battle scenes promised in the preview on the back cover? 3. It was way too confusing, i mean whats up with the girl? She had to narrate the movie to TRY to get our attention, she failed! 4. If Kiefer dies in a movie..... it fails. Now I am going to go watch 24..... THIS MOVIE FAILS! | neg |
I sat through almost one episode of this series and just couldn't take anymore. It felt as though I'd watched dozens of episodes already, and then it hit me.....There's nothing new here! I've heard that joke on Seinfeld, I saw someone fall like that on friends, an episode of Happy Days had almost the same storyline, ect. None of the actors are interesting here either! Some were good on other shows (not here), and others are new to a profession they should have never entered. Avoid this stinker! | neg |
I enjoyed the movie very much, emotionally, intellectually, and visually. It contains no violence or sex or drugs or special effects, and doesn't need them one bit, holding my attention the entire time with the visuals, story, and interspersed words of wisdom.<br /><br />However: [1] some of the foreign language accents made the dialog difficult to hear & understand; [2] there is unnecessary overuse of swearing (especially the F-word, which is the only reason this movie was rated R). [3] The movie is balanced with humor and emotion, but most of the emotion that holds you throughout the film, except the final resolution last minutes, is unpleasant due to the exaggerated long-lasting dysfunctional reaction of some of the characters to loss, living in the depths of bitterness and depression for too long. [4] I will not recommend this movie because of 5-seconds of background narration, which did not add one bit to the side-character it applied to, or the film -- it only turned me off to the movie and stuck in my brain through the whole movie and afterward: the main character's mother of German ancestry, when watching old WWII movies, "secretly roots for the Germans." There would be no "local color" or art if the Nazi's won the war. I don't know of any Germans today except radical skinheads who think the world would be a better place if the Nazi's won WWII. | neg |
I spotted this movie in the video store a few years ago and rented it. My husband and I enjoyed it so much we bought the VHS and have enjoyed it ever since.<br /><br />The plot has been well-discussed, so no need in going over it again. The point is this movie deserves repeated viewings. Americans, especially, aren't going to get all the jokes the first time around. I know I didn't.<br /><br />This movie is funny, touching, sad-- all at the same time. When Ray proposes the toast at his daughter's wedding, it's cringe-inducing. When Karen calls Tony "Brian" as he attempts to kiss her, it's heartbreaking. When Beano is finally cornered by the woman in black, it's too funny for words.<br /><br />And the music: it's as good as any movie soundtrack I've heard in years. I was dancing in the living room to "All Over the World." <br /><br />Every performance is absolutely perfect. Bill Nighy has been justly complimented for his portrayal of Ray, a man who has had one too many bad trips. Stephen Rea is perfect as Tony, the lovable keyboard player who has carried a torch for Karen all these years. He has an appealing hangdog look that makes women want to hug him. But all the actors are equally brilliant.<br /><br />Ignore any pans you read about this movie and see it. It's a gem. | pos |
The Jungle is more of an adventure than a science fiction movie. The only sci-fi part is the Woolly Mammoths living in the present day.<br /><br />Elephants are attacking villages in a part of India and these attacks are also killing people. An expedition is sent to investigate and one of the members of this, an American hunter blames these elephants are being frightened by Woolly Mammoths, which are suppose to be extinct. Nobody believes him at first, but they do when the Mammoths appear at the end. An earthquake finishes them off.<br /><br />The Jungle was shot on location in India and has a lot of nice scenery and some good Indian music, including some songs which keep the movie moving along nicely. The Mammoths are actually real elephants with fur coats and long tusks stuck on.<br /><br />The cast includes Rod Cameron, Cesar Romero (The Lost Continent) and Marie Windsor (Cat-Women of the Moon).<br /><br />The Jungle is worth seeing, just for the scenery and music. Very enjoyable.<br /><br />Rating: 3 stars out of 5. | pos |