text
stringlengths 49
9.95k
| label
int64 0
1
| label_text
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|
This is a comedy version of "Strangers on a Train". It works pretty well. I am a harsh grader, so the 3 rating reflects mostly on the characters and plot. The performances are extremely good, all of them. Of course, the two stars, DeVito and Crystal, shine most. Each performer acts well enough to play off of. The comedy works in a level just short of slapstick. DeVito characters work best when depraved. His character, portrayed as a writing hack, would probably be more real if he was published and lauded as much as most hacks are. His character would, in real life, have a great agent and multiple solicitations. The characters are one dimensional, which is okay in comedy. But Crystals's character is not written very well. His desire to kill the "moma" all of a sudden makes no sense at all. It looks like a pitiful attempt at humor. The pitiful attempts are not too often, and the movie flows fairly well.
| 0 |
negative
|
Okay, so it was never going to change the world, and it bombed at the box office, but Honky Tonk Freeway is one of those films I fell in love with as a child (the BBC showed it a few times during the 1980s and I happened to have a high quality VHS tape in the machine - lucky, that!) and watched endlessly. I watched the DVD last night and sadly, time has not been kind to this would-be blockbuster. Either that or I've just grown out of this kind of broad, dopey humour. Come on, when Schlesinger is so desperate for laughs he gives us close-ups of novelty underpants with 'amusing' slogans, what can you say about the cast or screenplay?<br /><br />Certainly, it's ambitious, interesting, unusual and sprawling, but it's never once laugh-out-loud funny. I'd describe it as a children's film with some 'adult' overtones - you can safely let your youngsters watch this, despite the 15 certificate. They won't get the drug references, so don't worry about it. I had a pleasant surprise when I realized I'd forgotten just how catchy both the title song and the song-writing truck driver's 'Everybody's Going Faster, Faster' song were, not to mention the town of Ticlaw's patriotic anthem. The whole cast give commendable performances, the photography is crisp and captures the mood of the various locations perfectly, and there's a real time capsule feeling about the fashions, the cars, the gadgets (especially the dashboard-mounted drum machine), the interiors and the pop-culture references - I was more than a little surprised to hear the nutty bum in the bank loudly telling everyone "I'm OJ Simpson!", particularly now Simpson's legal tangles have overshadowed his sporting achievements. The snag is, there's almost no plot to speak of, it's way too obvious to be witty and not funny enough to elicit many genuine laughs. I wish I'd left this one as a pleasant memory.
| 0 |
negative
|
First I am a teenager. OK, and I have to say this movie was pretty good. I think any kid ten and under will like it, but people my age an up might be a little, um, a, well, we'd describe the movie as LAME! But I liked it. It may be that I still act like a kid, or I visit a cattle farm every weekend, but this movie was cute. I did like how the actors were like kids, not little blonde cutesy pies, wearing three layers of clothes, a trendy hat, and about a thousand assecories (like most shows today, to name a few, Drake & Josh, Lizzie Mc Guire, well any kid show.) And the setting was perfect, but there was a flaw. The family was in debt, right? Why in the world did their internal house look like something out of a "western" versace store? That was one flaw.<br /><br />The cameos are great, there's about five hundred of them, and the only explainable one is Julia Roberts being the main little girl's aunt. How in the world did they get everyone else? This movie seemed to be on a tight type budget.<br /><br />I liked this movie, it was a fun one to watch, and I thought some parts were far fetched (Like a cow selling for $750,000? Ha! my butt a cow sells for that much!) But otherwise it was good, I liked it, and I could watch it again. But I'd never buy it, there's not even special features on the DVD! What's up with that? But do rent it, especially if you have little kids running around the house.
| 1 |
positive
|
STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning <br /><br />Old Detroit is back, with the giant Omni Consumer Corporation continuing to swallow everything in it's path as construction of the new Delta City continues and a new menace to contend with in the shape of Cain, a cruel drug lord with delusions of Christ-likeness, peddling a deadly new addictive on the streets called nuke. As he continues to struggle with the memories of his former life haunting him, the tin plated hero sets out to bring this villain down- only to wind up getting chopped into pieces of scrap metal. With Robocop out of action, a ruthless OCP business-woman proposes plans for her new android- a stomping, snarling beast of a machine that needs an equally nasty test subject to power it- which Cain fits perfectly. After a brief glitch in his system, Robo returns to bring justice to the streets and settle the score with Cain.<br /><br />The original Robocop is a film that always manages to astound you each time you watch it, no matter how many times you've seen it, one of those films that just can't be done again. That said, it's not surprising a sequel was made- it's even less surprising that that sequel really pales compared to the original. Empire Strikes Back director Irvin Kirschner has crafted an unpleasant, slightly incoherent and overlong film that can't capture the magic of the first film, no matter how hard it tries. And it certainly does that, the funny ads from the first film running none stop, the corporate satire aiming to be that bit sharper and the action roaring as fast and furious as before, but with blood/gore even meaner than the first film. The first film earned a name for some nasty, blood-soaked violence (including a man's genitals being blown off and a man being blasted to pieces) but while that was more memorable the violence/gore on display here is of a more sadistic and gratuitous nature, with a very unpleasant and mean-spirited tone to it.<br /><br />But overall, the film leaves you with a feeling of general apathy- why are you watching this when you could be watching the original again instead? **
| 0 |
negative
|
Being featured at the 2006 Cannes Film Festival and gaining quite some fame, this movie appears to be another modern and profound school drama. <br /><br />It's about a bunch of adolescents who get through a revealing and desperate day at school. Everything's circling around a suicide - shown at the very beginning to some extent - that happens at 2:37pm. The characters are somehow all connected with each other. What moves them is described via short interview sequences, strictly shot in b/w. The characters are well written, the acting is intriguing (especially Teresa Palmer as Melody and Frank Sweet as Marcus are discoveries).<br /><br />Let's stick to the movies' technique. That's what really impressed me. There rarely are cuts, most of the time the camera follows one of the protagonists like in Gus van Sants' Elephant. Some scenes are presented more often than once, but each time from a different point of view (here: character). This surely evokes a slowly developing, but grabbing atmosphere that drags you inside literally. The colours are vibrant, somehow unfitting considering the tough plot - but that's nothing less than a clever contrast, a disturbing 'everything's fine thing'. The use of lighting is adequate all the time, underlining the characters' actual mood. And finally, there are decent placements of music.<br /><br />2:37 somehow itches you from the very beginning. It does not compromise nor does it serve laughter. It rather strings together what psychologists would define as terror moments. This movie substantially focuses on emotional precipices. There ain't nobody who's not to handle some kind of neurosis, even the depicted minor parts (e.g. the teachers) seem to be in some state of disorder. And that is what keeps this movie from being really good. Its summing up of piercing tragedies is unrealistic to its very bones. There is no: friendship, love, smiling, truth, passion. There is: faking, humiliation, despair, sickness and beating up. It's like being hit in the face real hard all the time, but you are numb after the first hour. This flick keeps on hitting you, until it reveals something quite instructive in the end.<br /><br />For being sensitively and superbly acted: 9. For being technically innovative and original: 9. For being unidimensional: 3.<br /><br />Makes a solid 7 out of 10.
| 1 |
positive
|
The Lone Ranger & Tonto set out to bring to justice a band of hooded raiders who have killed three Indians for what appears at first to be no apparent reason..that is until the Lone Ranger discovers from a conversation with the Indian Chief Tomache that each man possessed a medallion. The five medallions given by Tomache to his friends as gifts we later learn when combined will provide the mastermind behind the hooded raiders with a map to a legendary lost city of gold. Can the Lone Ranger protect the remaining two individuals in possession of the medallions before the hooded raiders get their hands on it? Is there really a lost city of gold somewhere upon native land? <br /><br />Watching this, I kept knowing what was going to happen beforehand and everything seemed really familiar until eventually I realized I had seen this exact same movie when I was but a little kid..suddenly the memories flooded back and I remembered having quite a fun time as a child enjoying this one with a bunch of my friends. As an adult though, the plot is somewhat predictable but you know this, while not quite in the same league as the 1956 film, remains a lot of fun to watch. Clayton Moore is perfect as the Lone Ranger and Jay Silverwheels as Tonto steals a lot of this movie as he's probably in more action scenes than even the Lone Ranger. There's some very familiar faces on hand here including Douglas Kennedy as Ross Brady, headman of the Hooded Raiders gang, Charles Watts as a bigoted Sheriff, and Ralph Moody as a kindly Padre.
| 1 |
positive
|
This was another great episode from season 11 of South Park. <br /><br />Cartman fakes having Tourette syndrome in order to be able to say whatever he wants without getting in trouble. He is able to swear at the other kids at school. Kyle tells the Principal that Cartman is faking it. But, she doesn't believe it. Chris Hansen is planning on having Cartman to be on Dateline to talk about Tourette syndrome live and uncensored. But later on, Cartman starts to get so addicted to be able to say whatever he wants, that he later on starts to accidentally say embarrassing stuff. This was a funny episode about Cartman faking Tourette syndrome. I Recommend it to any South Park fan.
| 1 |
positive
|
For a brief moment. The opening scene with Traci Lords and the<br /><br />techno bar is incredible. I'd probably follow her to my ultimate death too! Best vampire movie of all time but with a twist. The fight scenes are awesome. Wesley Snipes displays an athleticism you dont get to see every day. And Stephen Dorff is impressive and very believable as an ambitious new recruit moving himself up the hierarchy by any means necessary. Great flick 9/10. Where's Blade II?
| 1 |
positive
|
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.
| 0 |
negative
|
Fans of the Pink Panther, Naked Gun, or Get Smart will certainly enjoy this farce that won one César and was nominated for four more.<br /><br />Jean Dujardin is Agent OSS 117, a man who wouldn't know a clue if it hit him upside the head. He is also a reflection of the colonialist attitude indicative of the West.<br /><br />All of the Russian spies, Nazis, and Muslim radicals around him are just as stupid, but there is Larmina (Bérénice Bejo) and the Princess (Aure Atika) to keep things interesting.<br /><br />OSS 117's uncanny ability to pick up languages, play musical instruments the first time he picks them up, and sing like a native are all more impressive than Bond's tricks, but he is still stupid.
| 1 |
positive
|
I attempted to watch this, and was highly disappointed. Don't expect intelligent and insightful humor ala Amy's brother David amidst this dreck... it is the polar opposite. But if you're into poop, fart and boner jokes, you'll be in seventh heaven. This is bathroom humor aimed, I assume, at those who've had several bongs, which can only explain why many ecstatic reviewers have heralded this crap as "the best television writing ever." I assume that those who hate such simpleton humor were unable to watch long enough to care to submit a review, but I am just sending out a warning shot to those unaware viewers who are looking for high-end comedy. The characters overact. The shock factor is set to 10. And the laughs are set to zero (unless, of course, you seek juvenile, low-brow humor.) <br /><br />I made it through 40 minutes, praying the whole time it would turn the corner toward worthwhile entertainment, but alas, it just got worse and worse. And beware of Amy's ever-present and hammy overbite expression - it will set your eyes rolling. It was nice to see cameos by recognizable comedic actors I enjoy, but I can only assume they agreed to participate as a favor to the Sedaris family.<br /><br />To those who loved it, I'm sorry... this is my opinion. It was so bad it inspired me to write my first review.
| 0 |
negative
|
I have read a couple of reviews of this film, which has recently been released on DVD by Eclectic. Apparently, the opening titles are letterboxed, but the remainder (most) is full-screen. The first release, in 1982 by Planet Video, is completely letterboxed. Though it was a primitive release, it did get the compositions right. Later releases had sharper and better picture quality, but they were fullscreen as the DVD is. Any release of this film should be letterboxed, as it adds significantly to the visual experience of the old Planet tape.
| 1 |
positive
|
...in a TV-movie 70's kind of way. It's one of those movies that show up in the wee hours, but rarely because more modern late-hour schlock movies bump it off. It has likeable performances by Graves and Wynn. Generally, it's just a harmless little piece of nothing that doesn't offend too badly. Nothing good, a lot that's mediocre.
| 0 |
negative
|
Kevin Spacey again picks a winner with K-PAX, an endearing movie that expresses profound revelations at human existence via the Prot character's naive, yet at the same time unquestionably wise, point of view.<br /><br />It's enjoyable trying to work out 'if he is or he isn't' as the plot expands and the Robert Porter character gets fleshed out. However some may find the ending a little unsatisfying but in reality it couldn't have been any other way.<br /><br />My few issues with the film revolve around the rather cartoony and over simplified portrayal of mental patients. I was surprised because the films plot shows a great deal of intelligence and I don't feel it would have lost anything by being more honest regarding how people with mental health problems behave.<br /><br />That said, I realise this was a movie and not a documentary and the film itself is exquisitly shot and the story unwraps at a pleasing rate. <br /><br />Bridges is great and Spacey delivers a languid and relaxed performance, more like a stand-up than an alien.<br /><br />A good film that will get you talking with your friends.
| 1 |
positive
|
The films of the Science Fiction Channel ( Sci-Fi Channel ) have become boringly predictable. The seem low on budget, originality, and plot.<br /><br />In this creation the government is out to get a bunch of telekinetics and recruits a poor soul by devious means to help. There is plenty of over worked recycled twists on evil government organization theme. black coats, shadows, short meaningless lines make these one dimensional cartoons.<br /><br />Daniel Dae Kim stands out as a good actor in a small role. He brings a bit of the style of his "Angel" character to the role. It is hard to miss the link that his "Crusade" character was a telepath and this is a film on telekinetics. Was this a Sci-Fi casting move to try and draw fans from the other show? Who knows. Thankfully he is a decent actor and a pleasure to watch.<br /><br />The movie is definitely low budget. It reflects The Sci-Fi Channels current model of Canadian location, few well known characters, few effects, and woefully terrible plot and character development. One would think they believe science fiction fans will view anything labeled "scifi."<br /><br />If you want a good telekinesis movie, check out "the Fury" ( 1978).
| 0 |
negative
|
Ed Wood is rolling over in his grave. He could have made a hundred cult classics for the price of this waste-hole. The worst script in memory (it makes "X-Men 3" sparkle like "Citizen Kane"); the most amateur directing; pre-K cinematography; the cheesiest "special effects" (I'm talking about "Friday The 13th" sequel territory); and throw in a pointless, revolting, deeply disturbed, maternity ward sequence. The lack of any talent or sensibility that put this garbage on-screen is astounding. That the "industry" might reward anyone involved in this celluloid cess-pool with future projects ought to be cause for serious alarm.
| 0 |
negative
|
Ok, where to start. I can't believe how many good reviews I read on here. I watched this (year 2004) and I had to fight to not push the stop button, I decided to continue just because of all the good reviews I read. After watching it I felt it was my duty to let the world know about this. First of all the movie seems like it is never going to begin, the plotline doesn't actually occur until about 30 minutes before the movie ends, leaving the viewer wondering, `when is this going to start' So don't ever call this a `revenge movie' because the revenge doesn't even start until over half the movie is already gone by. Furthermore, the movie tries to make you believe this is a post-apocalyptic Australia. I am sorry if showing dusty rural roads half the movie and a crooked letter on a sign didn't quite convince me of that, even for 1979 this was not science fiction. So anyways, add this on top of randomly placed homoerotic subtext and you have got yourself one crappy movie (I have nothing against gays, there was just no need for it). The only good part was the first chase scene, good directing considering it was 1979, and another good part is how he kills the last guy. So basically I recommend you watch the first 10 minutes and last 5 minutes and you will enjoy yourself much more than if you sat through all that stuff in the middle, which may lead you to gouge your own eyes out. Don't say I didn't warn you.
| 0 |
negative
|
I was fortunate enough to be an extra in this movie when I was about 13 during the roller rink scenes. My junior high school drama class was invited to participate. It was a fantastic experience.<br /><br />Gary Busey, Charles Martin Smith and Don Stroud played the music live, all day! As a musician, I can appreciate the tireless work and dedication these guys put in to their roles. They must have played those songs 20 times. It's very difficult to maintain consistency and energy under those conditions. This is visible during a cut to a close-up on "That'll Be the Day," but fortunately the unsuspecting public probably wouldn't have picked it up.<br /><br />Skating around all day, getting the day off from school and being transported back in time was a incredible thrill. I also had my first "date" on film. I had to walk a girl up to the ticket booth. Woo hoo! Even with an out-of-date haircut and hot lights melting the vaseline in my hair, it was still worth it. Fun stuff.<br /><br />The movie is top notch and is highly satisfying as a whole. Busey delivers his best role ever and the supporting cast is superb. I'm glad to have participated in a great film of the day. To think I could have been in Corvette Summer or something. Not.<br /><br />A funny ironic ending to this is that years later I was in a video store in Malibu looking at the movie the week it was released on video. Gary Busey walked in and stood right next to me. I showed him the cover and babbled on how great he was and how I was an extra and whatnot. Pretty weird, but very cool, for what it's worth.
| 1 |
positive
|
This movie reminded me of the live dramas of the 1950s- not like the recent "Failsafe", which seemed more of a stunt than anything else, but a TRUE moral drama that is both engaging and thought-provoking. Anne Heche is more than credible as the army officer having an affair with her superior, played by Sam Shepard, and Eric Stoltz is wonderful as her lawyer defending her against the military establishment. I found myself waiting for THEIR affair to begin, if only because they look so good together. This movie is apparently based on a true story, and it's a relief to be asked to think about real issues for a change. <br /><br />Directed by Christopher Menaul, who also did The Passion of Ayn Rand (with Stolz) and the Prime Suspect series, this is a movie with panache and style and is absolutely worth seeing.
| 1 |
positive
|
Frank Sinatra did so many excellent things in the world of entertainment that it's hard to single one out as the best. If I had to name the best thing he ever did, though, it would be his performance as Frankie Machine, the heroin- addicted musician and poker dealer who is saved, just barely, by the love of a good woman (played by an exceptionally babelicious Kim Novak). The "cold-turkey" scenes between Sinatra and Novak are terrifying and heartbreaking. The movie is very nearly perfect, in fact, from Saul Bass's title graphics to the ground-breaking jazz score by Elmer Bernstein. It might not be the sort of thing anyone thinks of in regard to the 1950s, but it's a must-see nevertheless.
| 1 |
positive
|
This is the "Battlefield Earth" of mini series. It has with a few exceptions, all the disastrous ingredients that doomed that movie and will follow it to the grave in the turkey cemetery. They are both adaptations of books with a endless amount of pages who has been turned to a complete mess by a script writer and a director (In this case they are the same person.) who clearly don't know what they are doing, they have both a messiah wannabe that don't really deliver, as a hero (Played in this case by a guy that looks like Mark Hamill but sadly the force is not with him.) and a bunch of stupid bad guys who likes to betray and mess up the life for each other, they are both containing scenes stolen from better productions and they are both cheap productions who tries to look expensive with some (often badly made) computer animation. The exceptions that actually makes the whole thing worse is the terrible work made by the lighting guy who don't even have the skills to turn on the light in his own living room, the camera work that for no reasons at all sometimes are in tilted "Battlefield Earth" mode but for the most of the time are flat as a pancake, the extremely cheap and to small desert set that only contents a pile of sand in the front of a backdrop painted as a desert, that turns very old very fast because it appears in almost every scene, and the bad idea by the costume designer to try to mimic "The fifth element"'s fashion madness with the addition of the silliest hats ever made. Silly moments to remember: 1. Every scene with the guild guys, who looks like MST3K's observer guys but with silly hats. 2. Irulan shows up at the party dressed in her butterfly dress (Why butterflys? -was the one with stuffed parrots in the cleaner?) with matching silly hat, together with a couple of guys with silly balloon hats. 3. Paul the stand-up comedian. 4. Baron Harkonnen in over acting overdrive, screaming "I,m alive". 5. Every Scene with the backdrop, because it newer fits the foreground 6. Every scene with the Fremen's fake religious cermonies, specially the "water of life" cermony. 7. The battle scenes where the same guys gets killed a couple times and the same things explodes over and over again. It is a lot more but it is a 1000 words limit on this so i better stop before i gets carried away.
| 0 |
negative
|
This obviously was a pretty low budget production, but the cast was pretty decent, the basic premise had promise, and something more could have been done with it, but the script wasn't that great- the plot is incoherent and seems almost random at times and the dialog is stilted and terrible.<br /><br />Basically, a girl's father gets whacked by fellow gangsters, and later she becomes a robber, and wants to avenge his death, and then it goes into a mob protection racket involving corrupt politicians.<br /><br />Alan Ladd gets top billing but he really plays a very minor role.<br /><br />I have to say I found it mildly entertaining in its archaic B-grade hokiness but it really is shoddy and pathetic.
| 0 |
negative
|
Oh dear! ohdear!ohdear!ohdear!<br /><br />I love science fiction but this... er... 'movie' just puts space flicks to shame. Every sci fi film I've seen over the last YEAR has been disappointing to some degree, and I'm now seriously reconsidering what genre of movies I actually like in future!! (Maybe I'll watch romance flicks from now on!) <br /><br />SPOILERS ALERT! (And thats not saying much!)<br /><br />This flick is so insipidly dumb it rivals Battlefield Earth and Baby Geniuses in sheer badness. The special effects are obviously fake, the Big Mac Truck looked stoopid with its roller coaster seat restraints, the killer robots looked like a more idiotic version of the Power Rangers, a huge fat guy is sucked out of a port hole window butt first and... Space Truck School??? WTF?<br /><br />Mr Hopper can do better than this. What really stunk were the two good-looking young things who accompany him and run around in nothing but their underpants (??) for an entire two thirds of the flick! The obligatory 'sex scene' (snicker!) between our young heroes was so poorly performed I nearly choked on my tonsils laughing at the TV screen.<br /><br />The only character worth mentioning is the pirate ship captain/cyborg/mad scientist. He oozed the word grotesque and was predictably sleazy, but I believe he could've been much more menacing. He does and says things which are quite funny (all the best scenes involve him!) so for the captain I give this movie an extra point.<br /><br />But this flick is so bad it'll make you want to hurl abuse at the TV or maybe throw your TV out the window! It may even kill off a few brain cells and put you into a catatonic state.<br /><br />CONCLUSION? I like the way the captain struggles to walk around on his peg leg when its obviously a fake peg leg!! I would've given it 0 out of 10, but since he cracks me up with his stoopid antics... this flick gets 1/10!
| 0 |
negative
|
The answer.....No, sadly not. Though miller and the sweep has to be hailed as a most whimsical cinematic treat.The drama, suspense,romance and the unidentified crowd at the end all add to the films complex storyline which must have been too much for the audiences of 1898. A enlightening experience, one for all the family!
| 1 |
positive
|
Reasonably effective horror/science-fiction a la "Alien" is fairly well done given its limited ambitions. Some nice special effects and well paced action sequences adequately patch the cracks in the rather tiresome dialogue. When a space craft crash lands on a remote planet the survivors soon become aware that a hideous terror awaits them in the dark of the upcoming total eclipse.
| 1 |
positive
|
It really is a great film (after being able to ignore Blake Edwards Pink Panther references which he appears to be obsessed with and are hugely unfunny). Julie is, as usual, wonderful - singing and acting brilliantly. I remember seeing it at the Odeon Cinema in the Haymarket, London on its release. However Julie's non-appearance at the UK premiere of STAR! was most unfortunate and (apparently!) due to filming the aerial shots for Darling Lili over Ireland. A reasonable excuse if she had appeared in any of these aerial shots but she did not. Two box office flops in a row ruined her film career for quite a few years. But Darling Lili,just like STAR!, deserves much more public appreciation.
| 1 |
positive
|
Not even Emeril Lagasse cooking can save this disjointed, overheaded idiotic nonsense, starring emeril lagasse as a TV chef from the food channel,who with help of the crew to try to make the show better, poor plot and stupid script throw this show down the drain, Robert Urich wasted in the poorly supporting role and sadly this was his last one ever(R.I.P.), <br /><br />This is the worst show of 2001 and it will be on the list of the worst shows of this decade.<br /><br />I Feel Very Sorry for Emeril Lagasse for making this sitcom, he even said himself it stunk.<br /><br />It's hard to believe that they are the same producers of designing women that did this mess.<br /><br />TV Review: 1 Star
| 0 |
negative
|
First, let me confess that I have not read this particular Balzac novel, so maybe I am directing my cavils unfairly at director and editor. Still my experience with Balzac in other stories is that he writes as a realist, not an obscurantist. This is most certainly a film worth one's while, but one is left sorely puzzled at the end. Was the Colonel a fraud, used by the lawyer for his own ends (or for whose beyond himself); or was the Colonel not a fraud, but used as aforesaid by the lawyer; or did the lawyer truly try to serve the honest Colonel? The director and/or the editor appear to me to have deliberately obscured these questions, which doesn't seem like Balzac, the realist. At the same time the film does an excellent job of delineating the characters, if not their motives, and the cast and production is superb. That opening battlefield scene is bound to haunt one's dreams. Still, one wonders at the all too common penchant among contemporary film makers to favor ambiguity above all else. Weren't the problems and motives of all these characters complicated enough for Yves Angelo?
| 1 |
positive
|
Not bad performances. Whoopi plays the wise/warm role quite well. Still, the storyline and situations can not be believed (forced PC stereotypes). At times it is good Jews and Blacks vs. the evil White Christians (ho-hum). A typical Hollywood fantasy. The film does have its moments, but it is not one that I would recommend to go out of your way to view.
| 0 |
negative
|
I should've realised it was a sign of things to come when the trailer for this film bored me.<br /><br />Having watched several "indie" films on the strength of the reviews on here, and subsequently finding that my view is completely opposite to those other reviewers, I began wondering if it's possible I am watching completely different films from these people, or are they perhaps friends/family etc of the film makers trying to 'big up' their work? Hmmm.<br /><br />Are you interested in seeing an amateur's homage to Pulp Fiction and 11:14, except done with worse actors, a silly score (undermines various scenes) and unbelievable jumps in logic? If not, then skip this film.<br /><br />Here is my open letter to two of the players in this film.<br /><br />Alfonso Morgan, please, please, please, stop trying to 'be' Samuel L Jackon a la Pulp Fiction. No-one can do what he does as well as he does.<br /><br />Director, please come up with something original. It does you a disservice to churn out this stuff pretending to be Quentin Tarantino.<br /><br />Simply dire, and I really cannot see how anyone could say this is a good film. It is a disgrace that people have somehow managed to put a score of 8.5 on this, the same as films like Pulp fiction or Goodfellas. It is no-where near these movies; a 4 or 5 would be a more reasonable average rating, I give it a 3.
| 0 |
negative
|
I`m in two minds about FOLLOWING , the film debut of Christopher Nolan . Part of me admires it for costing 6,000 dollars to make but part of me hates it for being too art house . In many ways it reminds me of the cult movie PI , a film I disliked , and I can`t get my head around the central plot of a man who wants to be writer following people around . Wouldn`t it be more logical for someone wanting to be a writer to sit in front of a keyboard and write ? <br /><br />Oh well I guess FOLLOWING gives indie film makers hope that just because they made a no budget movie costing $6,000 over two thousand IMDB members will vote for it and over five hundred members will comment on it , but you have to wonder if this movie would be so well regarded if it wasn`t made by the director of MEMENTO ?
| 0 |
negative
|
I'm sorry, but "Star Wars Episode 1" did not do any justice to Natalie Portman's talent (and undeniable cuteness). She was entirely underused as Queen Amidala, and when she was used, her makeup was frighteningly terrible. For "Anywhere But Here," she sheds her god-awful makeup and she acts normally. And not only can she act good, she looks good doing it. I'm a bit older than she (she's only 18), and I have little or no chance of meeting her, but hey, a guy is allowed to dream, right?<br /><br />Even though Susan Sarandon does take a good turn in this movie, the film belongs entirely to Portman. I've been a watcher of Portman's since "Beautiful Girls" (where she was younger, but just as cute). There's big things for her in the future - I can see it.
| 1 |
positive
|
Should we take the opening shot as a strange frame??? I guess we have to. Anyway two women are behind a closing umbrella, they walk upstairs to the talent agency and we go with them...and then they are never to be seen again. Okay, how come not INSIDE the place, at the piano, or even outside with the SOUND of the piano, then track inside and over, a la Hitchcock??? So I guess Clouzot is already telling us in a not very subliminal manner that we are following a segment of postwar society: especially how he then uses a Citizen Kane=like song cut up into about five pieces to show the lady singing traveling from the talent agency all the way to her first roses and applause of her Vaudeville debut.<br /><br />After that we are relentless observers of more or less small disgusting details of a defeated country getting off its war torn tattered knees. And nobody ever handled small disgust better than Clouzot. In fact, too bad he never tried Sartre's Nausea. Almost everything we see after the first few minutes makes us ever so slightly queasy. ....okay, okay I'm grossly overstating that, let's just settle for a general feel of a lot of the film. Look carefully, in fact, and you will even see one of the cops picking his nose. And in how many films has anyone ever done that. Then there is a very loud nose blowing bit in front of the photographer lesbian by the main cop, and notice that she does not, literally, blink an eye or raise an eyebrow.<br /><br />The point of all this is an almost feverish immersion in contiguity, seemingly, until you can smell practically every scene as well as see and feel it. <br /><br />As for the other aspects of the movie, others here have covered them in a lot more detail than I. But forget about the mystery here: this is the ultimate McGuffin. Clouzot is about as interested in the real killer as those two women coming in out of the rain in the first few seconds of the film and are never seen again. From beginning to end all he wanted to do was follow a bunch of people around, not even particularly interesting ones at that, and say, here look at this woman's twitch, that man's hitching of his pants in all their insignificance, years and years before Tina Turner was singing we don't need another hero. \<br /><br />Even the forced levity of the ending is bleakly done in a dilapidated part of Paris, and rather chilly bare walled apartment. With only the couples love for each other to see them through, as if to say there must be two or three million like you throughout the city, working your fingers off by the day for a little love at night.<br /><br />From this it was just a short step to Wages of Fear and the ultimate in despair. <br /><br />They don't even know how to make films like this anymore in the U.S. For that matter, they didn't even know how to very much in France then, much less now. The relentless detail of gesture makes even the neorealists of Italy look like bad psychologists. Which I guess makes Clouzot a kind of Rosselini on speed. <br /><br />Very enjoyable nonsense, this movie. The only flaw, seems to me, and as was pointed out by another viewer, the lead woman is somehow not quite right. Everybody else in the film is just about perfectly cast.
| 1 |
positive
|
Kevin Spacey is my favorite actor of all time, he is without a doubt on other's lists as well when it comes to great actors. He even pulled off a good Irish accent in Ordinary Decent Criminal as well. But Kevin Spacey, as a Mafia leader? Or even a burglar? I'm not so sure he could go that far. The movie to me just didn't make any sense and the some of the story just didn't feel solved to me.<br /><br />I know once again that IMDb is going to make me write ten more lines. But I'm not so sure on what I could say about this movie because I am still trying to figure it out. Silly, isn't it? But I'm pretty sure that more than a few of you IMDb users have been in the same predicament as I am in right now where you just want to say a line or two about a movie, but now you have to do ten lines? Wow, that should do it. :D <br /><br />3/10
| 0 |
negative
|
After reading previews for this movie I thought it would be a let down, however after I got my region 1 dvd ( the dvd was available before the film hit the uk cinemas) I was pleasantly surprised, strong performances from all cast members make this a very enjoyable movie. The fact that the script is quite weak means that you dont get bogged down in story and therefore the repeat viewing factor is greater. I recommend this movie to one and all<br /><br />
| 1 |
positive
|
During my trip in a youth leadership forum, I was channel surfing until I found "Tommy Boy" on TBS. Since I have never seen this film before, I wanted to check it out. My roommate, who have already seen this, told me, "This movie is a classic." After seeing the whole movie, I came to the conclusion that he was right.<br /><br />"Tommy Boy" is constantly funny from beginning to end, thanks to the comedic duo of Chris Farley and David Spade. Farley is a riot as the title character, a spastic doofus who just sails through life as if it wasn't important. His slacker-esqe ways soon come to a halt when his father (Brian Dennehy), a wealthy "Break Pads King", dies of a heart attack on his wedding day. This leads Tommy, with the help of his sarcastic childhood friend Richard (David Spade), to hit the road to sell enough break pads to save the company.<br /><br />The main reason "Tommy Boy" works are the funny performances from the lead cast. Farley is the funniest person in this movie, the second funniest person being Spade and the third being Rob Lowe as the film's villain who has bad luck. Another funny guy is Dan Aykroyd as Ray Zalinsky, a well-known auto parts extraordinare.<br /><br />Another reason the movie works is the large amount of jokes. Chris Farley has hilarious slapstick moments, and David Spade has funny snide comments and one-liners. The gags in the movie (some which involves a deer and a airplane bathroom) are laugh-out-loud funny, thanks to director Peter Segal (Naked Gun 33 1/3), writers Bonnie & Terry Turner<br /><br />(3rd Rock From the Sun, That 70s Show), and the cast.<br /><br />"Tommy Boy" is a really funny movie, although for some unknown reason most film critics (including Roger Ebert) find it horrible and unfunny. (I wonder when their sense of humor died.) I recommend "Tommy Boy" for those who are great fans of comedy. Thank you very much, roommate.
| 1 |
positive
|
First off I want to say that I lean liberal on the political scale and I found the movie offensive. I managed to watch the whole doggone disgrace of a film . This movie brings a low to original ideas. Yes it was original thus my 2 stars instead of 1. Are our film writers that uncreative that they can only come up with this?? Acting was horrible , and the characters were unlikeable for the most part. The lead lady in the story had no good qualities at all. They made her bf into some sort of a bad guy and I did not see that at all. Maybe I missed something , I do not know.He was the most down to earth, relevant character in the movie. I did not shell out any money for this garbage. I almost wish PETA would come to the rescue of this awful, offensive movie and form a protest. DISGUSTING thats all I have to say anymore !
| 0 |
negative
|
...and I'm so disappointed because I can't seem to buy the DVD or VHS of it anywhere.<br /><br />Its a kind of mix of, Uncle Buck and The Great Outdoors and Molly Ringwald is fabulous as the spoilt teenager. This was made when Molly was still a brunette, just before she hit the big time with Pretty In Pink.<br /><br />I'd definitely recommend it to anyone who likes a good clean family comedy, with an edge! <br /><br />If anyone has a copy of this, or knows where I can get one...please leave a message for me - it'll be much appreciated.
| 1 |
positive
|
This...thing. oh god this thing. i can't even call it a movie. a movie is something that does something. goes somewhere. has some semblance of a plot or SOMETHING. i don't know how i'm doing it. i really don't. first i say dark fields is the worst movie ever. and i thought it was. then pirates of ghost island proved me wrong. and now, third time in a row, another film goes above and beyond the call of duty to prove me wrong.<br /><br />(sighs) OK. Dark Harvest II: The Maize. lord this is awful. Let me break it down for you. Man senses daughters are in danger through some magical psychic powers he got from his Act II popcorn apparently and races to find them in a corn field. Of course this is the hugest cornfield in all of existence, being the size of the cornfields from Jeepers Creepers, Children of the Corn, and Signs combined. the main character, whose name is Shy (awesome name btw) then runs through a corn field....finds some ghost girls, talks to them, and...runs through a corn field. digs a while...and runs through a corn field. and the incredibly sad thing? i'm really not leaving anything out. That pretty much IS the entire movie. The only thing i may be leaving out is how he gets chased by two policemen who want to arrest him for... i don't know. pretending to be an actor. i didn't care by this point. He gets away and the police are -somethinged- by the killer offscreen. holy crap there's a killer? apparently yes there is as he's introduced nearly 4/5 into the movie. but wait! then he runs away for a while and there's, you guessed it, more running through the corn field and digging. Then there's the ending where he saves his daughters. huzzah.<br /><br />The biggest problem with this movie is, it's boring. it's INCREDIBLY, INHUMANLY, TREMENDOUSLY boring. I can't explain how atrociously dull this thing is. nothing happens, the characters are as appealing as a root canal, and it's just an hour and a half of NOTHING. the ONLY good thing that came out of this movie was that me and my friend may have found enlightenment due to the near nirvana state this movie put us into after the effects of the drugs in our brain had to kick into overdrive to keep us alive. During the ensuing insanity, i found hugging a wall much more enjoyable and my friend found a new passion for laughing hysterically while flopping all over the floor as if he having a seizure. This is the sort of insanity this movie brings. it's not just bad. it's bad for your health. The cover looks awesome with a picture of an AWESOME scarecrow killer that i would totally consider dressing up as for a horror con, but this was THE most misleading box ever. DON'T LET IT FOOL YOU TOO! do NOT watch this movie. watch a better corn movie. ANY movie about corn is better. just don't let it get you! don't! a 0 out of 10
| 0 |
negative
|
The 1978 adaptation had all the ingredients of a potentially wonderful film. It is based on an absolutely charming book by Charles Kingsley. It has a truly talented cast from the likes of James Mason, Bernard Cribbons and David Tomblinson, not to mention the vocal talents of David Jason and Jon Pertwee. There is also Lionel Jeffries, the director of wonderful classics such as The Railway Children and the Amazing Mr Blunden, and while the film is good on the most part, it was also a little disappointing. I had no problem with the performances, particularly those of Mason and Tomblinson as Grimes and Sir John Harriet respectively, and Tommy Pender and Samantha Gates are believable as Tom and Ellie. The voice cast is also commendable, especially Jon Pertwee, voicing charming characters in their own right. I also liked the incidental music it is so haunting and beautiful, and the script was fairly faithful and in general well-written, particularly at the beginning. The characters, especially the Water Babies are very charming, and the villains are sinister and funny at the same time, I loved the part when Tom and his friends help the Water Babies escape, seeing the shark chasing the electric eel with an axe was very funny. However, I will say the film does look dated, especially the animation sequences, the live action parts weren't so bad, if you forgive the rather dark camera-work. The character animation was rather flat, and the backgrounds sometimes were a little dull, though there were some nice moments, like the scene with the Krakon and of course the first meeting with the Water Babies. I also had mixed feelings about the songs, the Water Babies's song was beautiful, but I found the first song forgettable, when Tom ends up underwater. Hi-Cockallorum is an example of a song, that is like marmite, you either love it or hate it. I personally don't know what to make of this song, it was fun to listen to at first, but once it's in your head, it is perhaps annoying. As much as I like Lionel Jeffries and his films, his direction just lacked the wonder and the magic it usually does. All in all, certainly not a terrible film, but could have been better artistically. 7/10 Bethany Cox.
| 1 |
positive
|
saw this movie and totally loved it the characters are great . it is definitely my kind of movie you do not get bored in this movie i love independent films they are so much more rewarding. my husband and i really enjoyed Jay's style. if you are an open minded person who loves thought provoking films and loves conversation after it's over you will love this film. it is definitely thought provoking.the film definitely will step on some toes but who cares those people will probably not go to see this movie. it is amazing to see the characters evolve . Jay Floyd has really captured both sides of the table. Applause applause Jay i hope you are working on another movie.
| 1 |
positive
|
The story, as I understand, is "based on real events." That can be either good or bad, depending on what sort of license is taken with those real events and how they are rendered.<br /><br />In this case, the results are enough to gag a maggot. I wasn't expecting much going in -- anticipating a story of rich high-school kids taking an ocean cruise under a stern skipper. That is, what I figured was a coming-of-age movie along the lines of something about boot camp or basic training, the kind in which the drill sergeant says, "My duty is to snap you out of your winsome civilian ways." Well, it IS that, in a way. The kids start out as kids and end up as an organic group. But this is far hokier than any boot-camp movie I've ever seen, outside of a deliberate comedy. Who WROTE this thing? The air is filled with slogans that belong, not in high school, but in the third grade. The dialog offends the ear.<br /><br />Jeff Bridges usually does a better-than-average job but in this case his performance is mediocre. He brings nothing extra to the part, although given his lines, it's hard to know how he could do much with them. The rest of the cast is undistinguished and a few of the kids are painfully inadequate. There's a lot of tearing up, and considerable crying. The best scene involves a dolphin.<br /><br />The immature clichés continue to the very end. The Coast Guard is cast in the role of the hard-hearted court at the hearing that follows the disaster. The interrogator does nothing but hit Bridges over the head with his misinterpretations and misconstruction of events. "You let the crew drink alcohol, didn't you?" (A couple of harmless drinks.) "And you didn't punish them, though you punished them for killing a fish." (The dolphin business.) The technical details surrounding the sinking are left murky. What is a "white squall" anyway? And if it's as dangerous as Bridges claims, why weren't the whole crew alerted and wearing life vests? But why go on? If "The Albatross" were a Dreadnaught, it would still be torpedoed and sunk by the ludicrous comic-book script.
| 0 |
negative
|
One of Alfred Hitchcock's three greatest films, along with "Psycho" and "The 39 Steps", "Strangers On A Train" is as brilliantly out-of-control as a merry-go-round in Metcalf, and almost as deadly. It's the kind of film you have so much fun watching, you can't even feel properly guilty about it until you have time to catch your breath.<br /><br />Top amateur tennis contender Guy Haines (Farley Granger) meets a singularly weird, louche stranger named Bruno Anthony (Robert Walker) on a train. Thanks to the gossip pages, Bruno knows all about Guy's problems with his no-good wife Miriam, and rather gaily suggests they do each other a favor: Bruno will kill Miriam and Guy will kill Bruno's father, who wants to put Bruno in an institution. Guy laughs it off, but Bruno ain't kidding, as Guy finds out to his peril.<br /><br />It's a great premise for a murder story, and Hitchcock gives "Strangers On A Train" a run for all its worth, with the help of Walker in perhaps the greatest performance in any Hitchcock film, including Anthony Perkins in "Psycho". While Perkins makes his mark playing tetchily against the grain, Walker as Anthony is one perfectly at home either buttering up old ladies at a swank dinner party or strangling a young woman at an amusement park.<br /><br />What drives Bruno? Many commentators suggest his apparent homosexuality finds a match in pretty Guy. Yes, Bruno lights up the old gay-dar, but Guy seems happy enough on love's rebound with socialite Anne Morton (Ruth Roman). Bruno's interest for Guy could just as easily be envy, for someone making a mark in the world while he lives at home, letting Mommy file his nails.<br /><br />"Oh, I certainly admire people who do things," Bruno purrs, looking like a cat eyeing a mouse. "You know, it must be pretty exciting to be so important."<br /><br />Later on, Bruno calls himself a "bum", accurate enough except for our rooting interest in him, even as he wrecks Guy's life with his homicidal meddling. It's the ultimate perverse underdog's tale. There's a sense of integrity about Bruno, in his dogged dedication, which commands our respect and which Hitchcock plays to so brilliantly. When Bruno floats away from the scene of his big crime, am I the only sick person in this world who's actually happy for him? I think not, yet Hitchcock keeps the story on a right-enough path for us to realize how low we have fallen. We don't want Bruno to win, exactly, but we enjoy his élan as he tries.<br /><br />Everything else is so perfect, or at least close enough, to make every shot memorable. Hitchcock always managed at least 2-3 good setpiece sequences per movie; here you get a score of them at the amusement park alone. ("20 Big Shows" the neon side at the entrance says, and they aren't kidding.) Script, camera-work, a gripping tennis match, Ruth Roman's jaw-dropping figure, it's all too much greatness for one film to contain. Even Granger does his callow-youth thing here with more risible plausibility than Gregory Peck ever managed.<br /><br />You can call this a clinic in movie-making, but "clinic" sounds too dull. "Strangers On A Train" is good nasty fun, all the way through, leaving you with a nifty stinger at the tail as you realize you were rooting for the wrong stranger all along. Heck, I'll take that ride over again in a second!
| 1 |
positive
|
I was looking forward to watching this film and was therefore extremely disappointed when I found it to be complete and utter rubbish. Akerman's direction is both heavy handed and cliched (how much more cliched can you get than Paris at night?). The male cast seems to have been chosen entirely for their resemberlance to Egon Schiele's angst ridden self portraits. Yet the themes of jealousy and betrayal which should have been the primary focus of a film of this type are left virtually unexplored. What is left is a turgid melodrama which takes an age to get started and even longer to finish. The only advantage with this sort of film is that it makes you realise how good Goddard and Truffaut really are.
| 0 |
negative
|
Shahrukh Khan and Yash Chopra films have never disappointed. Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge is a romantic classic. Dil To Pagal Hai was fresh and perfect to watch. Mohabbatein remains as one of my favorite movies ever. And Veer-Zaara was magical. Darr, though not the best, is a romantic thriller that is different from the aforementioned movies, but definitely worth a watch. And SRK, who blew me away with an excellent performance in Baazigar, repeats a villain act. And this time he gets an experienced Juhi Chawla and Sunny Deol to support him.<br /><br />Before I comment on the acting, it is not just the acting, but the wonderful script that makes it worth a watch. It is the writing that compliments the great acting. The story is gripping, but the characterization is what stands out. The comedy track goes along well. But the movie has the tendency of shifting at romance too much. The viewer is bound to lose interest and you will make a couple of yawns. But the movie is still good.<br /><br />Shahrukh Khan is brilliant in his author backed role. Shahrukh Khan once again is sympathetic and cruel. You are bound to cry at the end. Juhi Chawla is decent. Her screams are bound to become annoying after a while. But in facial expression she is excellent. But her ending scene she is brilliant (though she was overshadowed by SRK). She has an author backed role that makes her very likable. Sunny Deol is adequate. His character was very likable, but too perfect. And it gets boring after a while. He does a good job though. Anupam Kher is really funny, but his role felt a little out of place. Tanvi Azmi supports well. <br /><br />The songs are enjoyable and come at the right time. Jadoo Teri Nazar (Magic At Your Sight) is my favorite song, and presentation is very 90's film like. Tu Mere Saamne (You are in Front of Me) and Likha Hai (Written Here) are nice love songs. Darwaza Band Kar Lo (Close the Door) is a decent love song also. The instrumental song is danced to perfection as well as the naughty wedding song Solah Button. The movie may not be perfect, but it is well worth your time especially if your favorite actor is in it.
| 1 |
positive
|
Great actors, good filming, a potentially interesting plot, and what should have been good dialog. Nothing else is good about this movie. Perhaps the writer or director thought they could make a thought provoking film out of annoying characters who are as deep as a cup of coffee. <br /><br />Within 10 minutes I disliked the portrayal of Kim by Caroleen Feeney so much that it became a distraction. While Kim is supposed to be an unsympathetic character, I am not sure I was supposed to want to commit acts of physical violence upon her. The first (of many) bizarre things that happen is that Wes (David Strathairn) goes from "I am missing $50.00" to "She stole 50$" in about 3 seconds. It was quite implausible, since she (Kim) never had access to his wallet nor was she a master pickpocket-- there simply was no rational reason to suspect her. Most people have lost/misplaced money and assume just that... we LOST it. Same goes for Kim later. All very unrealistic behavior in what is supposed to be (I think) a look at real people. The character of Kim was, at minimum, suffering from a BiPolar disorder. Wes had huge inadequacy issues, Nancy was just boring, and Matt was delusional (particularly about music). I actually turned this off about 2/3 of the way through. However, to write a valid comment, I forced myself to turn it back on hoping that something would come together in this movie. No, sorry, it was still bad. Make it a point to miss this one.
| 0 |
negative
|
I watched this movie by accident on TV and it was so unbelievably awful I could not switch it off. Every single piece of wit and intelligence has been removed from the Oscar Wilde story by the inept screenplay writer. It barely matters because the dire acting, clichéd camera-work and cloying music would have ruined anything resembling like a decent script anyway. The worst performance comes from Patrick Stewart who comes across as the most hammy, talentless, minor mock-Shakespearean nincompoop as the ghost. "Get thee out of here!" he screams at one stage while waving his arms like a pantomime villain. A truly terrible film and why wonders why Stewart, who can act when called upon to do so, has soiled his reputation by making worthless pieces of crap like this and the XMen.
| 0 |
negative
|
This movie is not for those expecting a martial-arts extravaganza. As for historical accuracy, I will leave that issue to those better informed on that subject. I thought the performances were wonderful. Gong Li never disappoints as the resourceful and (initially) loyal consort of the King of Qin. Fengyi Zhang showed a lot of flexibility portraying a ruler descending into madness. He chose the "Hannibal Lector" route, rather than resorting to ranting. For me, the best performance was from Zhiwen Wang as the supersmooth Marquis. The character came across as very oily, but in a subtle "Sir Humphrey Appleby" - Yes Minister kind of way.<br /><br />The cinematography is the standout feature of this film. The scene when the Marquis and his men stormed the palace was breathtaking. There are also a number of wonderful battle scenes. Therefore, this film is highly recommended on the big screen.
| 1 |
positive
|
This is by far the worst movie i have ever seen. Its been a few years since I saw it and nothing has come close since then and i doubt that there ever will be a movie produced that is as bad as this. It tries to make fun of a variety of different movies, for example 'Nell' (!) and instead of funny its just pathetic. Whatever you do, don't rent or by this garbage and if someone throws it at you....turn around and run the other way!!
| 0 |
negative
|
The One is a very aptly name show, mostly because it comes close to being the only network shows on in prime time that barely more than one person is watching.<br /><br />When I first heard of The One, I thought to myself "Weee!! Another sing-song show! We don't have enough of those!" and then proceeded to strap on my helmet and run about my home hitting my head on blunt objects and sharp corners. Because in all honesty, the constant, year round pain and suffering inflicted by having only one or two "talent" based reality shows running just isn't enough. We needed another one. And not just any one - "THE" One. The one with slightly less attractive contestants with slightly less talent. The one with slightly less of a point, though it's hard to imagine a scenario in which that's possible. The one with pointless footage of the contestants when they're not performing included. Because I care what Johnny Sings-a-lot does in his off hours! I really do! Now, you may be thinking "Hey! On the entire continent of North America less than 4 million people watched the first episode. Doesn't that mean this show sucks?" Well, to that I say less than 4 million people in North America have syphilis, so sometimes low numbers bring good news now don't they?. Think about it.<br /><br />In the end, The One may be horribly unoriginal, a show that even the airing network couldn't be bothered to promote because they too realize how absolutely worthless it is, but it's still not syphilis! Yay!
| 0 |
negative
|
Yes!!!! Fassbinder and Ballhaus are at the top of their game, back in 1973! It's about the same subject, but in my opinion it's a much better movie than THE MATRIX (1999), at least it was 200 times cheaper! Very nice camera work by Michael Ballhaus and the wonderful "Albatross" by Fleetwood Mac at the end. Fassbinder is creating a very moody tone for the whole film. It's a shame this movie was never released on DVD. But now after 37 Years they finally came to the conclusion, that this TV-Movie, is not only one of the best Fassbinder films (altough there are quiet a lot best Fassbinder films), it's a brilliant example for a science-fiction movie, done without much money. Buy it!! Watch it!!
| 1 |
positive
|
I can't believe I missed this one. Made in 1970 with a budget that would probably allow you to make one indifferent episode of a TV soap, this is 90 minutes of sustained, sharp as a knife film making. You will find the outline, plot etc elsewhere on this site.Consider though that the whole thing was shot using a single, hand- held,16mm camera... all the dialogue is improvised... none of the 'actors' had appeared in front of a camera before... It sounds like a recipe for disaster. Instead what we get is hippies v cops running around in the California desert in what evolves into a 'that's not fair.. i'm on that person's side'scenario. The only problem is, the director keeps making you shift your allegiance and at the end of 90 minutes we're still not sure who has one. Brilliant... Quite brilliant.
| 1 |
positive
|
Okay, you have:<br /><br />Penelope Keith as Miss Herringbone-Tweed, B.B.E. (Backbone of England.) She's killed off in the first scene - that's right, folks; this show has no backbone!<br /><br />Peter O'Toole as Ol' Colonel Cricket from The First War and now the emblazered Lord of the Manor.<br /><br />Joanna Lumley as the ensweatered Lady of the Manor, 20 years younger than the colonel and 20 years past her own prime but still glamourous (Brit spelling, not mine) enough to have a toy-boy on the side. It's alright, they have Col. Cricket's full knowledge and consent (they guy even comes 'round for Christmas!) Still, she's considerate of the colonel enough to have said toy-boy her own age (what a gal!)<br /><br />David McCallum as said toy-boy, equally as pointlessly glamourous as his squeeze. Pilcher couldn't come up with any cover for him within the story, so she gave him a hush-hush job at the Circus.<br /><br />and finally:<br /><br />Susan Hampshire as Miss Polonia Teacups, Venerable Headmistress of the Venerable Girls' Boarding-School, serving tea in her office with a dash of deep, poignant advice for life in the outside world just before graduation. Her best bit of advice: "I've only been to Nancherrow (the local Stately Home of England) once. I thought it was very beautiful but, somehow, not part of the real world." Well, we can't say they didn't warn us.<br /><br />Ah, Susan - time was, your character would have been running the whole show. They don't write 'em like that any more. Our loss, not yours.<br /><br />So - with a cast and setting like this, you have the re-makings of "Brideshead Revisited," right?<br /><br />Wrong! They took these 1-dimensional supporting roles because they paid so well. After all, acting is one of the oldest temp-jobs there is (YOU name another!)<br /><br />First warning sign: lots and lots of backlighting. They get around it by shooting outdoors - "hey, it's just the sunlight!"<br /><br />Second warning sign: Leading Lady cries a lot. When not crying, her eyes are moist. That's the law of romance novels: Leading Lady is "dewy-eyed."<br /><br />Henceforth, Leading Lady shall be known as L.L.<br /><br />Third warning sign: L.L. actually has stars in her eyes when she's in love. Still, I'll give Emily Mortimer an award just for having to act with that spotlight in her eyes (I wonder . did they use contacts?)<br /><br />And lastly, fourth warning sign: no on-screen female character is "Mrs." She's either "Miss" or "Lady."<br /><br />When all was said and done, I still couldn't tell you who was pursuing whom and why. I couldn't even tell you what was said and done.<br /><br />To sum up: they all live through World War II without anything happening to them at all.<br /><br />OK, at the end, L.L. finds she's lost her parents to the Japanese prison camps and baby sis comes home catatonic. Meanwhile (there's always a "meanwhile,") some young guy L.L. had a crush on (when, I don't know) comes home from some wartime tough spot and is found living on the street by Lady of the Manor (must be some street if SHE's going to find him there.) Both war casualties are whisked away to recover at Nancherrow (SOMEBODY has to be "whisked away" SOMEWHERE in these romance stories!)<br /><br />Great drama.
| 0 |
negative
|
Hollywood is one of the best and the beautiful things that had occurred in my life. I admire and am very much fascinated by the way Hollywood generates ideas and implement them. It makes me wonder about the scope of human brain. I saw Flatliners a long time back but the story, direction, cast and of all acting is still fresh in my mind. The story begins with our lead actor Sutherland saying during sunrise "what a beautiful day to die." For all of us, It's a story which shows emotions that are sometimes withheld in our mind during our entire life. Never able to understand few things in life. It shows us to get motivated and to improve our quality of life. Anyway I suggest it to all that watch it once.
| 1 |
positive
|
I couldn't even...I mean...look....okay...<br /><br />Wow.<br /><br />Not even a bunch of my drunk friends trying to make fun of the movie could enjoy themselves in the least bit.<br /><br />I can only think...how. How do independent film makers everywhere go years without getting noticed (or even their lives) and con-artists like the guy who made this get a DVD on a shelf? It seriously looks as if some guy with a home movie camera went out with some guys he met at Subway and made the worst thing he could think of.<br /><br />"Hey guys, give me some ideas. Start with a corn-field and work backwards." "Well, you've gotta have actors straight out of high school, and some broken corn stalks with shreds of clothing attached. And boobs." Thanks, guy, I'm sure that you and Windows Movie Maker will be side by side on your next anxiously awaited project.
| 0 |
negative
|
Virtual Sexuality proves that Britain can produce romantic comedies as vapid as those from America. The only differences are an ending that ties up the loose bits differently than an American film would and a cameo by Ram John Holder, which is always welcome. That's enough to make this a watcher on a cold winter's night.
| 0 |
negative
|
If you love Japanese monster movies, you'll love this action packed battle pitting an alien invader, intent upon conquering the Earth, and a "Giant Robot" with an armory of super weaponry. The alien, "Emporer Guillotine," from the planet Gargoyle, has a army of thugs called, (of course) "the gargoyle gang," as well as an endless supply of immense hostile creatures that are routinely loosed upon the Earth to smash buildings, make loud noises, panic the populace, etc. A little kid, named Johnny Sokko, has the Giant Robot at his beckon call, and sends the Robot, as needed, to beat up, and then blast these creatures. Johnny joins a group of "good spies" called Unicorn, and endeavors to help save the world.<br /><br />In spite of the campy nature, unintentionally humorous dialog, and the fact that the target audience was obviously children, this movie has non-stop action, colorful characters, decent special effects, and just happens to be downright fun to watch. Battle scenes are well executed, and frequent, as the storyline requires. The good guys and bad guys both made sure they had an inexhaustible supply of bombs, lasers, ammunition, and schemes to attack each other. In spite of the fact the movie was constructed from edited episodes of a TV series, the plot actually develops, and reaches an ultimate conclusion.<br /><br />The film has a positive outlook and appeals to everyone's (especially kids') desire to destroy evil in its many forms. Kids may be the target audience, but it's fun for everyone to laugh at its comical silliness; yet, at the same time, root for the good guys to prevail and "save the world." The acting is cheesy in places, but that is the charm: there are several lines of corny dialog (possibly translation errors or possibly intentional jokes by the movie makers), and you'll find yourself quoting these absurd lines later.<br /><br />Admittedly, this film is not high in production quality or budget. However, for what it is, campy sci-fi, it's enjoyable for some laughs. I recommend it to anyone with a sense of humor for that sort of thing.
| 1 |
positive
|
My family truly enjoyed this movie. As far as what this movie will do for Rugby in the USA...well I am sure that will be debatable. But as for me and others around me, I know that we were more curious about the sport after seeing the movie and I personally gained more respect for the game. You may wonder how this possible, especially since the movie does not dive in and explain Rugby. But the simple fact is it drew you into the players and emotion of the game and life. The film was inspirational as well as entertaining. It made us laugh and cry. The chemistry between Sean Astin, Big Budah and Sean Faris worked well. Some may think the movie is a little cliché, but I seriously wish Hollywood made more movies like this. I couldn't help drawing analogies of the game and life's struggles. At the end of it I found myself examining my own life to see what I needed to do better, in order to be the best person I could be. Honestly I was grateful this movie taught morals, values and teamwork, there is so much to the contrary. After watching this I really hope my kids are coached by someone who has a philosophy like Coach Gelwix.
| 1 |
positive
|
Completely worth checking out. Saw it on MLK's birthday 2006 and it hit me big time. Sometimes it feels like we're all in a trap and are doomed to repeat the past no matter how much we try to change. All we can do is to keep on going and speaking out. Just keep on going. Don't mean to be a downer because that's not the point but maybe we need to get down before we see how much we need to work on ourselves. What happens when we keep being told by the best people like MLK what needs to happen to pull us out of our "dead end road" but we don't listen. I know that some of us do listen but how do we get the rest of the world to see things as they really are? Just keep going, I guess. This movie got me thinking even more about all of this so I guess it has done what it set out to do. That's what I consider to be a good movie or play or book or poem or speech or anything: something that gets you thinking and keyed up to move in an active direction instead of sitting stuck and bored and hopeless.
| 1 |
positive
|
An unusual, revisionist western, well worth watching. Despite a slow start, the film builds with scarcely any dialogue and no subtitles an increasingly involving and intense, almost existential portrait of life in the harsh environment of the Western desert. The growth of the lead characters is worth waiting for, and the strong central cast bring a real sense of desperation to the struggle for ownership of the all-important horse. How interesting that this was made by a British director. I hope he's smiling now: I get the impression the film was largely ignored by contemporaries; but time works its usual alchemy, and hidden gold shines out as it inevitably must. One note jarred for me: the revisionism is only carried so far. Sam Waterston as an Indian? - granted he plays his part with real emotion and intensity, but really, couldn't one American Indian actor be found to do the job? But his scenes with Caroline Langrishe have an intimacy which contrasts nicely with the immense landscape around them.<br /><br />Forget big, bankrupt Hollywood versions of the past, men with big chins and swirling music; this one is all about a primeval struggle between protagonists who, stripped of all the trappings of 'ordinary' life, come to understand what is worth fighting for. Impressive.
| 1 |
positive
|
The story is shortly about the faith-lacking business man priest, Daniel Clemens (Christian Slater), who is looking closer on a case where another priest is suspected for murder. The priest denies he's guilty but at the same time he is not able to discuss the matter due to confidentiality. Enter Daniel Clemens who starts playing cop...<br /><br />While the plot isn't ridiculous, everything else is. Let's start with the visual side, the cinematography is dull, it looks more like a TV-series than a movie. The camera angles are boring, in fact, there's not a single memorable camera angle in the entire movie. There's no interesting closeups revealing details. And the scene transitions, well, there's not much to say about those, they aren't smooth at all, there seems to be no connection between the scenes than the actual plot. Okay, they did use a transition with music in between two scenes, but there are no interesting visual transitions in the entire movie, the times dissolve was used there was no visual connection between the scenes.<br /><br />The boring visual part could be forgiven if the film would offer anything else. Unfortunately the film only offers forced wooden acting and clumsy dialogue with no punch. On top of that the film suffers from audio problems, the sound volume is lowered several times in the movie as if the microphones would be too far.<br /><br />I didn't predict the solution of the film. It could be because the film never gave me the opportunity or it could be due to the presentation, which was so boring I never even tried to figure it out.<br /><br />Put two plus two together and it equals a B-movie where 'B' stands for boring.
| 0 |
negative
|
I guess Melville intended this movie to be the definition of the cool; it has the cool approach of the late '60s/ early '70s thrillersthe same discrete quirkiness. LE CERCLE ROUGE, a bitter and fatalist story, is also the playground of Delon, Bourvil, Volonté and Montand in defining roles.<br /><br />Bourvil is a cop who has in his flat three cats and a daily routine. Delon is a hoodlum. Montand is a sick, failed cop. Volonté plays an escaped suspect. LE CERCLE ROUGE is of course far above a heist movie; Melville uses his techniques long wordless detailed depictions of every step of the heist, etc.. Yet this particular action drama is far better than his other moviesand it's very unlikely them by being so much better. The look of LE CERCLE ROUGE is very peculiar to Melville, very Melvillian.<br /><br />Delon was sharp and cool; Bourvil brings his craft, and Montand makes maybe the finest role of this movie; his performance has an unexpected warmth .<br /><br />On the other hand, the characters are barely sketched, no more than strictly necessary, and are personae. Or masks; yet the portrayal is inspired, economic but suggestive.<br /><br />Another of the movies that prove Delon to be a good, a very good actor; and the fact that he's not a genius does not imply that he ought to be despised as a fourth rate actor. He's good, he can bear the proximity of a Bourvil and Montand.<br /><br />Only ten yrs. before LE CERCLE ROUGE, Melville was doing, towards the end of the '50s, a boring overlong insipid noir pastiche (starring himself)and after only a decade, here he is, in full form, with this quite amazing action drama. Stylistically, it's a success.<br /><br />Before seeing LE CERCLE ROUGE, I was not a Melvillian fan; now I guess I rather am one.<br /><br />LE CERCLE ROUGE is a dramanamely, an action drama, one of the most exigent genres. Melville scores.
| 1 |
positive
|
This tale of the upper-classes getting their come-uppance and wallowing in their high-class misery is like a contemporary Mid-Sommerish version of an old Joan Crawford movie in which she suffered in mink. Here, people behave in a frightfully civilized manner in the face of adversity. A well-heeled London solicitor, (Tom Wilkinson), discovers that not only is his wife having an affair with the local gentry but that she has also killed their housekeeper's husband in a hit-and-run accident. He throws up, but otherwise his stiff-upper-lip hardly quavers.<br /><br />Written and directed by Julian Fellowes, who won an Oscar for writing "Gosford Park", (this is his directorial debut), from a novel by Nigel Balchin, it's quite comical although I am not sure how much of the comedy is intended. It's like a throw-back to British films of the forties where characters all behaved like characters in books or plays rather than like people might in real life. However, it's not all bad. Wilkinson is terrific, even if you never believe in him as a person while Emily Watson, (the adulterous wife), and Rupert Everett, (the highly amoral high-class totty), are both very good at covering the cracks in the material. Tony Pierce-Roberts' cinematography ensures that no matter how hard it is on the ear it's always good on the eye.
| 0 |
negative
|
"The Aristocats" is classic Disney at it's best. It's not considered as the ultimate Disney classic along side the more well-known Disney-films, but it's a well-made and fun film that certainly deserves to be a Disney classic. "Aristocats" is certainly a sure kids-pleaser, cause it has all the components for a fun kids film. I'll liked it very much as a kid. I'm not sure if this film is a sure pleaser to the adults, who could watch Disney classics for the nostalgia sake, but I still enjoy this film as an young adult.<br /><br />Storywise, "Aristocats" may not be so complex or innovative, but it doesn't matter. This film was made on that period where the filmmakers followed the motto that the characters were the story and wise versa, which "Aristocats" certainly shows. The characters make the film; they're all likable, fun, have great lines and have a great interaction with each other. The voice actors are also a part for making the characters so compelling (Eva Gabor as Duchess, Phil Harris as Thomas O'Malley and etc). A misconception could have been the dogs Napoleon and Lafayette, since they're showstoppers and haven't so much to do with the actual story, but fortunately they're fun and amusing characters and the scenes with them are pure gold.<br /><br />"Aristocats" is both entertaining and cute, but it's also a very funny cartoon. The animation style and look fits perfectly for the film's French surroundings (especially the city of Paris looks greats). The character animation and design is great. And the songs are really catchy too. My favorite is "Scale and Arpeggios", but the title song is a cute song, along with "Thomas O'Malley Cat" and the memorable show-stopper "Everybody Want's To Be A Cat". And the score by George Burns is a perfect fit for the film funny and emotional situations.<br /><br />Overall, "Aristocats" is in my opinion the best Disney cartoon from the 70's and it's a film that deserves to both be seen and remembered. So what you're waiting for? Do your self a favor and share this Disney classic with your kids. It deserves to be in their memories.
| 1 |
positive
|
The movie starts good, it has a thing going for it. About 1/3 into the movie things go downhill. Carrey starts obsessing about the number 23 because he sees it everywhere. So what? Thats no reason to go nuts and start writing stuff all over your body and on walls.<br /><br />The acting by whoever is playing his son is bad. From the get-go, as soon as he hears of his fathers obsession, he jumps on the bandwagon and is hysterical about it. Totally unbelievable. I hope I never see this kid in another movie again.<br /><br />Its a waste of time watching this movie. Grab another. Boring piece of ... well. The number is killing him? Give me a break. I won't spoil the ending for you, but let's just say it is equally disappointing.<br /><br />3 / 10.
| 0 |
negative
|
Ok. I'll admit it. I'm a huge fan of b-movies. Back when Michelle Bauer, Linnea Quigley and Brinke Stevens ruled the roost. And back then, even the bad movies were still good. Unfortunately, this is a bad movie that is just plain bad. Even a small cameo by Brinke Stevens (reprising her role as Linda from "Slumber Party Massacre" 21 years earlier) doesn't help this one out. A group of cheerleaders take refuge in a fancy cabin after their van breaks down. A psycho stalks them one by one, catching them in various states of undress. Bad script, bad direction and horrible acting make this one plain bad! Skip this turkey and go rent "Slumber Party Massacre." 1/2*
| 0 |
negative
|
I have seen this play many times, from Olivier to Branagh, and this remains the one version that always stands out in my memory. Many actors have captured aspects of this character, but for me, it is always Derek Jacobi's performance they are compared to and all others just come up a bit short.
| 1 |
positive
|
By 1971 it was becoming more and more obvious that Hammer film studios were on the way out . HANDS OF THE RIPPER is a case in point where even the idea smacks of desperation - The spirit of Jack The Ripper posses his own daughter ! Yeah okay no one was expecting a documentary but this plot seems to be scraping the bottom of the barrel for stupid premise and you do find yourself questioning why on earth the producers brought Jack The Ripper into the story . Was this to give the movie a snappy title ? <br /><br />The production values are unimpressive and the cinematography gives the whole movie a cheap TVM feel but you know you're not going to be watching a classic Hammer horror as soon as the title starts because the music is laughably inappropriate . I think the composer was trying to make the theme tune haunting and touching but the music resembles something out of a soppy romantic movie . I will give the cast some credit as they do take their roles seriously in what's a far from serious movie <br /><br />I didn't enjoy this film much and it instantly reminded me of the Phantom Raspberry Blower Of London Town from The Two Ronnies which I'd been laughing at in the weeks before I saw this
| 0 |
negative
|
It's a shame that they didn't trust the original enough to build on it. <br /><br />But "RoboCop 2" takes the great ideas, imagination and characters of the original and replaces them with all the stereotypes that sequels have to offer.<br /><br />The beginning commercial was cute and so was the scene that follows (reminiscent of the beginning in "Guys and Dolls"!) but aside from a flash of thought here and there, this is one film that is a slow, dirty slog down into the middle of nowhere.<br /><br />Ideas are introduced then dropped, interesting characters from the original hardly get any screen time here, most of the new characters (Cain, Juliette Faxx) are so boring that they wouldn't hold up no matter what the movie, and then there's the tone.<br /><br />In the Blessed Original, Paul Verhoeven knew how to direct with the kind of attitude where if you cranked up the attitude and the sensibility of a good pulp comic, even the most repellent violence would be entertaining. Kershner (although he DID direct a "Star Wars" sequel) doesn't. And scene after scene either makes you cringe, look away or just tune it out altogether.<br /><br />And what's with RoboCop?? HE should be the main thing here, right? But there's whole scenes where he doesn't even show up, and what scenes he is in are so half-thought and shakily written that you don't know or care if he's part-human or part-cyborg - since he's all-boring.<br /><br />Never have I seen such a rapid fall from grace. Why does Hollywood make such bad sequels? On purpose? Why; did the film-makers have a bet going?<br /><br />Only one star for "RoboCop 2"; the FX are good but the story doesn't even try to match them.
| 0 |
negative
|
A great movie. The movie was even better then the commercials put on. And believe it or not it was very very inspirational. I really think anyone who walks out of the movie at the end will be inspired one way or another.<br /><br />It was kinda corny at the very beginning, but quickly picks up. I laughed. I laughed very hard on some parts. The acting is basically above average, nothing special, but better then average. I can safely say it was the second funniest movie to come out this summer (1st funniest being CLERKS II). So after all of that I give it a 7/10 (a high seven, but not quite an eight).
| 1 |
positive
|
Movies aren't always suppose to be about deep, provolking thoughts. Sometimes they're simply meant to be escapes from reality. Out To Sea fits the bill perfectly. <br /><br />A light hearted "golden years" romantic comedy, Out To Sea may not be big budget, you might be able to easily tell when they were acting in front of a green screen, but it's still very much a movie worth watching. A sweet movie that needs to be given a break. <br /><br />This is just good, light hearted fun. It's not meant to be a deep movie. It's something worth watching. If for nothing else, you must see it for Brent Spiner's humorously stiff and uptight rendition of Oye Como Va. Gil is a character you love to hate and Mr. Spiner pulls off the perfect evil comic foil to two beloved comedy movie gods.
| 1 |
positive
|
Star Trek V definitely earns the dubious distinction of being the weakest film in the Star Trek series. Despite the good acting efforts by the actors, it suffered from a general lack of funding from Paramount Pictures. Paramount Pictures was not enthusiastic about this film at its very onset.<br /><br />The movie begins with the Enterprise crew enjoying their extended shore leave as a reword for saving the Earth from total ecological disaster. Their shore leave is cut short when a disturbance occurs on Nimbus III, the Planet of Intergalactic Peace. Captain Kirk and the Enterprise arrive at Nimbus III only to have their ship hijacked by Sybok, Spock's half-brother. Sybok brainwashes the crew of the Enterprise and sets it on a suicide mission to rendezvous with "God" just past the Great Barrier at the center of our galaxy. Captain Kirk must then figure out a way to regain control of his ship and to fend off the Enterprise's Klignon pursuers.<br /><br />The only bright spot in the film is the acting and directing. William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, DeForest Kelley, Laurence Luckinbill, and the rest of the cast all give good performances. William Shatner also does a pretty good job directing this film.<br /><br />However, the film suffered from a general lack of enthusiasm and funding. First, the part of Sybok was initially offered to Sean Connery, but he refused. So, Laurence Luckinbill got the part. Second, many of the special effects were severely cut back ... reducing the movies entertaining potential. Third, the scene that depicts the arrival at the Great Barrier left much to be desired. Finally, the romance between Scotty and Uhura in this film did not make much sense at all ... considering that no such romance ever occurred prior to this point in the Star Trek universe and it was never explained how such a romance could suddenly materialize between Star Treks IV and V.<br /><br />Overall, this is a very weak film. You should probably just skip this film and move on to Star Trek VI. After all, the cast and crew made Star Trek VI partly to bail themselves out after their debacle with Star Trek V.
| 0 |
negative
|
First of I should point out that I used to love Winnie The Pooh as a child and I really enjoyed The Tigger Movie even though I am in my 20's.<br /><br />But this movie was so bad I was ashamed to have been a fan in my youth.<br /><br />OK, OK I know this is a movie for kids and isn't aimed at people like me anyway but this is my thoughts on the movie for other people of my age.<br /><br />The main downfall in this film is the heffalump itself, it has to be the most annoying character I have seen in a child's movie (possibly even more annoying then the young child in Monsters Inc). It has the most annoying voice and prattles around singing stupid things and making even more stupid comments, I know Pooh movies aren't exactly high brow but this was insulting to even a 2 year old's intelligence!<br /><br />Secondly - where was the story? Previous Pooh outings had a least a point to the story- yes I can see this was about accepting people who are different to you into your hearts - but really it ended and I felt like I had watched a 5 minute cartoon on kids TV.<br /><br />I don't have children of my own but when I do I fully intend to show them quality children's movies like The Tigger Movie, Toy Story and Finding Nemo (even though they are too childish for me these days I can see how they would be of great appeal to young children). Not so with this appalling attempt at a movie.<br /><br />Oh and one more thing - NOT ENOUGH Eeyore! He should have his own movie!
| 0 |
negative
|
It is hard to put the devastating beauty of Traffik to words, partly because I am still grasping to comprehend it myself, several hours after my second viewing. First, it must be said that Traffik contains some of the most incomparably and unforgettably haunting scenes I have seen in a film or television production. The acting is excellent, particularly that of Bill Paterson as a British minister grappling with his heroin-addicted daughter and an aid deal to Pakistan that hinges on drug issues. Another plot line describes these drug issues at a ground level in Pakistan, and revolves around a struggling opium poppy farmer and his interaction with a successful heroin smuggler. The third main storyline involves the prosecution of a Hamburg drug importer, and the conflicting efforts of his wife and two German detectives while he is under trial. It is a profound accomplishment that the interaction between these stories feels natural, transcending the forced plot entanglement often found in Hollywood movies. It is an even greater accomplishment that a work spread over three countries and half a dozen main characters can be so focused and enthralling, without having to oversimplify. It is devastating--bleak and brutal but never apathetic. In short, Traffik is a rare work of film that handles challenging subjects with unmatched compassion and clarity.
| 1 |
positive
|
Some movies you'll watch because they touch your soul or challenge you in ways that grow.<br /><br />Some you'll watch because you want to be exposed to adventure or shock outside your experience; these won't directly feed you, but they'll help you situate yourself in a larger world than you otherwise would have. And after all, the hard parts of life are in what you choose not to accept.<br /><br />And then there are movies that do neither of these things, that you will watch out of obligation, or because you have a need for historical context. These are pretty worthless experiences in terms of building a life.<br /><br />The problem is of course that often you don't know which of the three a film will be, going in. You might get some indication from people you trust, but because a life in film is so personal, you really won't know until you go on the blind date.<br /><br />For me, this was pretty worthless. Yes, yes, I know for many Bunuel is the epitome of the sublime and rich. And you should know (if you don't) that among my greatest film experiences are some very strange films, very strange indeed.<br /><br />It isn't that this isn't cinematic, or symbolically deep, or apolitically/politically friendly to the way I think. Its how it gets there that is off base. Its the deviance from real deviance that annoys me.<br /><br />Part of the problem is that this is successful alternative art, which means that it is successful commercial art. Which in turn means that it can be simply explained and the explanation is not only widely acceptable but simply coded in shorthand. Surely all this is true.<br /><br />When the term "surreal" is used, generally it is used incorrectly to denote any film image or world that differs from reality or seems strange. But when it is used correctly, meaning according to consensus theory, it always revolves around Bunuel, and in particular this film and the one he genuinely did with Dali. So because they invented surreal cinema, they define and control the term. That by itself chafes me, and I have my own alternative definition that doesn't come from their philosophy.<br /><br />Its because the philosophy is wholly contrary. It isn't a philosophy at all but a rejection of philosophy, an anti-order. Its packaged anarchy, carefully selecting the things that they use and the things they oppose without clearly differentiating them.<br /><br />So okay: against linearity, against narrative, against history, against religion (an easy one), against deliberate love. But for an illinear linear narrative, for establishing its own history (celebrated by countless film school professors; what else can they do?); for a sort of transcendent "accidental" love.<br /><br />It is its own enemy. If there were a Bunuel alive today as he sold his image, the first thing he would do is attack the church or the surreal.<br /><br />My regular readers know that in nearly all matters cinematic, I cleave to the Spanish and avoid the French. But in the matter of the surreal, I'd like to you consider the reverse: get your surrealism from Alfred Jarry, not Bunuel.<br /><br />Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.
| 0 |
negative
|
Adapting his own novel "Cabal" for the screen, author / screenwriter / director Clive Barker fashioned this marvelous story of outré horror and fantasy. Craig Sheffer plays Boone, a young man who becomes suspected of being a serial killer. The cops gun him down in front of Midian, on the surface a cemetery but which is actually a haven for monsters that have been shunned by society. When they lay claim to Boone and make him one of their own, this causes repercussions for everybody, including Boone's sweet girlfriend (the very cute Anne Bobby) and dubious psychiatrist (a most enjoyable David Cronenberg).<br /><br />"Nightbreed" displays the kind of wild and twisted imagination that I don't see in movies all that often. For one thing, Ralph McQuarrie, an old hand at conceptual art having worked on such films as the initial three "Star Wars" entries, helps Barker to create excellent visuals for "Nightbreed", starting right away with the opening credit sequence. The visual and makeup effects are elaborate, and production design and cinematography quite impressive. Barker and crew do a wonderful job at creating this whole other world with compelling characters. It's colorful and flamboyant entertainment and is a pleasure to take in. And of course there's the strong sense of social commentary regarding intolerance and bigotry, not to mention the heavy consequences that can result from a person's actions.<br /><br />Great supporting performances add to the fun. Cronenberg oozes lots of malevolent intent and is a real gas as the bad doctor, while Charles Haid is a fine love-to-hate-him type of antagonist, a rather nasty police captain. Doug "Pinhead" Bradley once again gets buried under heavy makeup as the weary Lylesberg, and is solid as a rock. Hugh Ross is great fun as Narcisse, as is Catherine Chevalier as Rachel (as an added bonus, she bares her breasts in one sequence). Simon Bamford, who played the "Butterball Cenobite" in the first two "Hellraiser" pictures, turns up here as well. There's even a cool cameo by 50's and 60's sci-fi star John Agar.<br /><br />Danny Elfman supplies another of his fantastic scores, and Barker leads us steadily through the intriguing story towards a terrific apocalyptic showdown.<br /><br />"Nightbreed" is an excellent genre film worth checking out for anybody who hasn't seen it. I give it a hearty recommendation.<br /><br />9/10
| 1 |
positive
|
Let's face it.<br /><br />This movie is incredibly cliché, as Korean romance dramas and movies go. First of all, there's a pair of long-lost siblings, one of which falls in love with the other. Second, there's a not-so-popular girl and two gorgeous, popular guys who fall for and fight over her. Third, one of the characters suffers from a tragic disease, which, eventually, takes his life.<br /><br />Still, I like this movie.<br /><br />Without the right actors, this movie would probably have disappointed fans of the novel. But because the actors fit the roles perfectly, the movie is engrossing--I honestly couldn't stop watching. Kang Dong Won, despite his pretty face, gives an awesome, heartrending performance, not to mention Lee Chung Ah and Jo Han Sun, plus all the supporting actors.<br /><br />I'd definitely recommend this movie to everyone.
| 1 |
positive
|
This is the question that astronauts Roy Thinnes and Ian Hendry ask themselves when they discover a parallel world of Earth always hidden on the far side of the sun in this 1969 cult science fiction melodrama, released here in America as JOURNEY TO THE FAR SIDE OF THE SUN. The plot of the film was devised by British writers Gerry and Sylvia Anderson, the creators of such TV shows as "UFO", "The Thunderbirds" and "Space 1999". It is exceedingly weird at times, betraying the influence of "The Twilight Zone" and even Stanley Kubrick's classic 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. The visual effects work of Derek Meddings, who would also later work on SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE, holds up surprisingly well under the last three decades of special effects advancements; and while they are not really on the same exalted level of the Kubrick film, they are very superb. If you don't anticipate a STAR WARS-type of a film and can overcome the occasionally trite dialogue, DOPPELGANGER is a good film; it was good enough for me to rank it a '7' and consider it an undiscovered sci-fi gem.
| 1 |
positive
|
Vincenzo Buonavolunta, a man that has spent years working at a steel mill, as a maintenance man, that the Italian owners are selling to the Chinese, comes at the end of the meeting where the purchase is being arranged because he wants to tell the new buyers of a flaw he has discovered and he thinks he has the solution. He doesn't exactly endear himself to the Italian old management, or to the new Chinese owners. He even fights with the translator about the exact term he wants to use in expressing his concern.<br /><br />The next thing we see is Vincenzo arriving in China trying to contact the new owners. To his amazement, there is someone new in charge, as Mr. Chong, the man he tried to warn in Italy, has been fired. His next quest is getting to the woman that was the translator, Liu Hua. He finds her working in a library, but she tells him, in no uncertain terms, she blames him for being fired from her position. Liu, who sees the desperation of Vincenzo, agrees to accompany him to find his steel mill plant. <br /><br />Thus Vincenzo and Liu begin a voyage through some of the bleak countryside that involves traveling by train, steamship, bus and truck, to remote parts of the giant country. Finding the correct factory proves to be elusive, at best, but Vincenzo discovers a life that is completely alien to him, as well as finding a kind soul who doesn't hesitate to help the Italian man, in spite of her initial distaste for him.<br /><br />Gianni Amelio's film is a sort of travelogue. He takes the viewer into unknown territory. Some comments compare Vincenzo to Marco Polo, the great Italian traveler, although the similarities are not quite tangible. The film keeps our attention in the early stages of the trip, but it starts getting somewhat less enjoyable as Vincenzo gets stranded after separating from Liu. Mr. Amelio is an interesting director, as he clearly demonstrates with this film for which he worked on the adaptation of Ermano Rea's novel, which we haven't read.<br /><br />Sergio Castellitto is the sole reason for watching the film. This versatile actor brings a lot to the movie, which, in a way, is a tour de force for him, as he is seen in almost every frame of the picture. The combination of Amelio and Castellitto proves to be a winning combination. Ling Tai, who is making her debut as Liu Hua, has some lovely moments and shows good chemistry with her co-star.<br /><br />Luca Bigazzi photographed the Chinese landscape in all its bleakness. We see a China that is not picture post card pretty. Mr. Bigazzi captures all the greyness, so typical of the areas where the film is set. Franco Piersanti's musical score serves the film well.
| 1 |
positive
|
The movie was certainly true to the real life story on which it was based. It was hard for me to find newspaper articles about the actual facts, but when I located them, I could see that truth, in this case, was stranger than fiction. Judith Light was frighteningly evil in her role as the mother in this movie, so much so that it was difficult to separate her from the role, the mark I think of an excellent performance. Rick Schroder was appropriately clueless as her son who also defended her in court, an example of how hard it can be in some circumstances for a child to accept the actions of a parent, no matter how criminal they may be. One can find fault with the movie, but not with its treatment of the reality on which it was based.
| 1 |
positive
|
I loved this movie! It was adorably touching and funny. Finally, here's a story about a group of people who meet some challenges, flounder a bit, and then decide to just be themselves and end up happy for; when was the last time you saw that in a film? Dealing with the fluidity of life, love, and sexuality, the characters are faced with real problems (albeit in often ridiculous situations like the men's group camping trip, and the explicit realatory liaisons) and manage to learn and grow without the movie getting preachy, darkly desperate, or too unrealistic. You'll love and care about the characters who, far from being hollow stereotypes, portray real people with just a touch of the truth behind their would-be labels.<br /><br />A good romcom for a Saturday afternoon, and the only movie I've ever seen where sexual fluidity ends happily, and no one is forced to be anything they don't want to be. Far better than Kissing Jessica Stein, a good choice if your tired of watching gay movies that have some painful lesson and bitter lesson. Or, maybe you just like a good British romp? James Purefoy looks dashing as always, and Tom Hollander is deliciously funny. So go forth, watch, enjoy; you won't regret it!
| 1 |
positive
|
If you'd like a great April Fool's joke, then please by all means show this film to someone. However, it is important that you in no way criticize the film but instead talk about what an artistic triumph it is and how "they just don't make great films like this any more". As your victim watches many disconnected and nonsensical scenes (such as a cute dog getting punted for no apparent reason, a cow standing on the bed, a woman licking a statue's feet or Jesus apparently raping a woman), make lots of comments using words like "brilliance", "juxtaposed" or "transcendent"--all the while acting as if the film actually makes perfect sense and isn't a complete waste of an hour of your life. Also be sure to keep a straight face and feign shock when (and if) they say that they either didn't understand it or thought it had all the artistry of a cow patty. Then, to further mess with them, show them all the comments on IMDb, as nearly all (except for a few trouble-makers like almagz and rooprect) talk glowingly about what genius and artistry this film is! By the time you are done with this little charade, they'll most likely think they are idiots and will make an appointment with a psychologist. <br /><br />This, to me, is the ONLY possible reason to watch this horrid mess of a film!!! That, or you could show it to the prisoners at Guantanamo in order to get them to talk!<br /><br />If you ask me, the famous painting of dogs playing poker or a velvet Elvis painting are superior artistically.
| 0 |
negative
|
Most films are crappy with high production values, this one is crappy without high production values. Which sets it aside from the large pool of horrible movies. As bad as this film was I need to give due respect to Kathryn Aselton who, I believe if given the proper script, could probably turn in a pretty good performance. She plays Emily the girlfriend to perennial doofus Josh, who often refers to her as "Dude" or "Man" in a non-ironical tone.<br /><br />But heres the thing, Emily is a semi-believable character which means Rhett will soon need to be added to the cast, to counteract this almost believable character with a guy even more preposterous than Josh. When we first meet Rhett we learn that he is "deep" because he is videotaping a lizard which is PROOF that he sees the world "uniquely!" Rhett then shows the tape to Emily and in one of Emily's few unbelievable moments she acts impressed by this amateur tape of a lizard, WOW i believe is how she responds once again with no irony of sarcasm even mildly implied.<br /><br />From the opening scene you are given warning that the camera work will be crappy, we open on a shaky close up of Josh as he attempts to win over the viewers by acting GOOFY! oh how care free this main protagonist is that he will act GOOFY! haha. This film could almost be a case study in just how BAD films can be (and for that matter just how FAR bad films can get in the festival circuit, I mean by comparison of most circuit crap this film probably did appear pretty awesome).<br /><br />I believe SXSW gave this film some minor award (oh south by southwest, why do you encourage them, its only cruel). But here is where I hand this film a compliment, it is the best of the mumblecore movement. Mind you all other mumblecore movies sucked beyond belief and generally included grotesque nudity and incomprehensibly bad acting, but still, its good to be the best of something.<br /><br />I haven't seen baghead yet, but it looks like maybe they have made a few strides forward, the preview at least made it appear tolerable, where as even the Puffy Chair preview couldn't really hide the fact that it was going to suck. I've gotten off topic here, anyways Rhett is most likely not portrayed by a professional actor at all, much like Josh most likely isn't an actual actor but rather the director (or brother of director, there's some mixed messages there). I think Rhett was somebodies buddy and they said hey why don't you play this guy named Rhett in the movie, the fact that Rhett is the name of the actor and character probably means the actor and character are the same, unless I am mistaken, which I am not.<br /><br />If Rhett shaved the raccoon off of his face you would probably say he was attractive. So anyways Rhett, Emily, and Josh team up to bring the Puffy Chair to Rhett and Josh's dad. Some stuff happens along the way, more bad acting, bad supporting actors, crappy camera work, an attempt at significance. This film wouldn't have been bad if it hadnt been so shamelessly pursuing profound self importance.<br /><br />The whole thing is amateurish, if you can view this movie without paying for it, like if its on TV or for rent at the library, then consider looking at it, just to see if you like this super cheap style of film-making. I like what the duplass' are doing the whole make a movie with nothing concept, but I wish they would make a movie that someone would want to see.
| 0 |
negative
|
A scientist (George Zucco) wants to create wolf men out of American soldiers to fight the Nazis, but is branded as mad. He uses a simpleton gardener (Glenn Strange) to experiment on by mixing his blood with the blood of a wolf. Strange, constantly embedding his dialogue with the tones of Lon Chaney Jr. in "Of Mice and Men", has no idea what's going on, only that he sleepwalks. The victims begin to pile up (including a little girl, which modern viewers might find rather disturbing, and two of Zucco's rivals). There is some good dialogue on how man should not mess with nature (still prevalent today) and play God. Zucco's motives may be honorable, but his methods are most questionable. And then there is his daughter, Anne Nagel, who is sympathetically nice to Strange, yet has no idea of her father's deeds. Johnny Downs is a reporter who gets on Zucco's bad side by questioning him, but wins Nagel's heart, thus creating the usual and always dull romantic subplot in classic horror films. At 77 minutes, this is about 15 minutes longer than usual for a horror film of the early 40's (particularly one out of PRC, who released this one), so the romantic story could have been trimmed for costs and to speed things up a bit. Zucco, fortunately, is never hammy; He left that to Bela Lugosi (who always hammed in a deliciously theatrical manner which endeared him to audiences) and England's Todd Slaughter. But try not to think of "Bride of the Monster's" laboratory while looking at the one Zucco works in, or some of Lugosi's dialogue in that now classic cult film. "Mad Monster" lacks a cult following more because it is not delightfully bad, just has dull pacing in more than a few spots. For PRC and Monogram lovers, I would recommend "The Corpse Vanishes" or "Fog Island" higher than this
| 0 |
negative
|
When the budget doesn't allow for a Cadillac or Packard or Lincoln or Imperial hearse we are talking cheep cheep. That's bird language for cheap cheap.<br /><br />What is in the hair of the forty year old teen boy? The guy who looks like a cement head who tries a couple of times to run over John Agar and provides the only scare in the movie by how close he comes. His hair looks like a shoe. A patent leather shoe. He is a shoe head.<br /><br />The nurse woman needs immediate emergency hair washing. She has lacquer in her blond locks that would ignite if the production company had been able to afford lights.<br /><br />The monster? The music was scarier. I would try to run from the music. The monster probably had better hair than the rest of the cast. Put some lipstick on that monster and you've got Divine's older sister.<br /><br />The camera work and editing and plot provided a buffer to prepare the audience for the bad music throughout.<br /><br />Hello Mr. Agar? We're thinking of doing a sequel to Night Fright and... Mr. Agar? Agar? Tom Willett
| 0 |
negative
|
" While sporadically engrossing (including a few effectively tender moments) and humorous, the sledgehammer-obvious satire 'Homecoming' hinges on comes off as forced and ultimately unfulfilling. With material like this, timing is everything (Michael Moore knew to release "Fahrenheit 9/11" before the 2004 elections), and the real tragedy of Dante's film is that it didn't come out 2 years ago, when its message would have carried an energy that would have energized the dissidents further. In 2006, mockery of the well-settled Bush Administration hardly seems as controversially compelling (or imperiled) as it did then."<br /><br />frankly anyone that could be convinced of anything by a ham fisted zombie flick has questionable intelligence. <br /><br />and if you didn't notice, michael moore didn't exactly help to defeat bush.<br /><br />there was nothing engrossing about this film. i just felt disgust at how blatant and frankly stupid the film was, it was painful to watch. if you are going to do something like this you need a bit of wit. sadly this has none. a poorly done satire actually has the opposite of its intended effect. as they say, with friends like these who needs enemies.
| 0 |
negative
|
Laura Fraser creates her ideal man on a virtual reality machine and he's suddenly brought to life, of course. Oh what jolly japes don't ensue in a Britcom flop so Day-Glo bright yet so dismal it manages to make the execrable 1980s American teen flick Weird Science look almost decent. The sex-obsessed script is by The Sun film critic Nick Fisher, a former teeny-mag 'agony uncle' who's obviously never watched an episode of Smack The Pony in his life; shame, because then he might at least have been in with a shout of writing female characters that were recognisably members of the human race. This knicker-twisting lot have all too clearly emerged from the virtual brain of someone who imagines they're amusing. Suddenly, the thought of new-wave Iranian cinema is somehow attractive.
| 0 |
negative
|
This thing, directed by french sensation Patrick Sebastien,is worst than all the turkeys that you may have seen. Forget Independence Day, Kazaam, The patriot, etc... you get the picture, this one's the pits. Sebastien is a TV celebrity in france, (if you need an equivalent, let's say he's Jerry Springer with an I.Q of 13), this is his first movie let's hope it's the last. I hope Troma or someone would distribute this film in the States, so that you guys out there can excperience the French stench at it's worst. Let's cut this short, this is the Masterpiece of S**t.
| 0 |
negative
|
This is a very mediocre Jackie Chan film and one of his absolute worst James Glickenhaus ruined it!. All the characters are decent i guess, but the story is so so, however Jackie Chan is still amazing in this even if he did look bored. Jackie and Danny Aiello had zero chemistry together, and it was very boring a lot of times, however the finale was above average and managed to be fairly entertaining, and had some good stunts!. I have not yet seen the Hong Kong version, however i'm sure it's better then this dud, plus the twist is very predictable!. It's really lifeless and bland, and i don't blame Jackie for not looking happy in this, and if he didn't star in this it would have been unbearable and completely unwatchable. The opening is supposed to be memorable, but it's nothing i haven't seen before and done better at that, and i thought the whole film was rather lazy and could have been an awesome film if Jackie had control of it!, plus i really didn't root for any of the characters. This is a very mediocre Jackie Chan film, and one of his absolute worst James Glickenhaus ruined it!, not recommended even for Die hard Jackie Chan fans. The Direction is terrible!. James Glickenhaus does a terrible job here, with extremely bland camera work, bad angles, and keeping the film boring for the most part throughout. The Acting is so so. Jackie Chan is AMAZING as always, however he is not his usual energetic self, and looks bored and Ps*ed off throughout the film, had zero chemistry with Danny Aiello, and i really don't blame him either! (Jackie Rules!!!!!). Danny Aiello is OK here, as Jackie's partner, but his character is a bit of an ass, and he had zero chemistry with Jackie, he did OK i guess. Roy Chiao is decent as the main villain, but was just going through the motions and wasn't all that menacing, he still is damn cool though. Rest of the cast are average at best. Overall Not worth your time or money. *1/2 out of 5
| 0 |
negative
|
When I was five years old, it was my favorite television show. I remembered it was on channel 11 at 2PM everyday. The show's premise was simple with Carole and Janis as the hostesses of this children's television show. They sang songs and read stories to us as children. It was done in a studio with only 54 episodes which was re-broadcasted over and over. I remember Sherlock, the puppet, in the tree. The show taught us how to count, add, subtract, and the alphabet. For thirty minutes a day now, I learned something new with Paula and Janis. I remember those days as pleasant memories and now I hope the children of today can learn to love simpler things like hearing stories, inexpensive props, riding the swings, and talking to puppets. The set was ideal and simple but it was Carole and Janis who made it worth while while. I miss my childhood and those days where the most important thing was watching the Magic Garden. Life seemed so much simpler and better. Now, I hope the kids today enjoy the show.
| 1 |
positive
|
Susie Q is an original and isn't like those other bad Disney film, ***spoiler*** a boy named Zach moves to a new town and has trouble at school, he is good basketball. a girl in the 1950's died with her boyfriend, when their car was crashed off a bridge. Susie (Amy Jo Johnson) from the power rangers - pink ranger- is helping Zach as a ghost to get a necklace along the way he must explain to his sister about her ghost, and finally getting this necklace, Susie returns to the bridge she died on and then she gets in the ghostly car of her boyfriend and they float up. later as he misses her he finds a girl who looks just like her. (do you believe in reincarnation?)Susie Q is a good movie to see now and then but they barely give because Disney needs to fill everything up with stupid movies and shows i give it a<br /><br />7/10
| 1 |
positive
|
imagination must of slipped Jim Wynorski mind when he wrote the script to this one. i don't mind when the animals scenes are almost identical but when the actors repeat lines from other movies is going a little too far. I did enjoy seeing Jay Richardson and Glori Ann Gilbert get eaten. Gloria brings nothing to a movie but her tits (my husbands sentiments). Jerri Manthey should of stayed on survival island her acting is stiff, unbelievable and she just a plain boor. liked the scene where the cobra comes out of the ocean eats the guy then for added flavor destroys the dingy. At least we know the next plot giant snake man slays komodo before becoming daddy to a nest of eggs. Jerri would be great as the mother cobra. sit back with a 6 pact or a couple of joints. it will ease the pain.
| 0 |
negative
|
The Merchant of Four Seasons is a film about a lack of love. The film starts off with the main character; Hans Epp, returning from a spell in the foreign legion. He returns to his mother, not to be told how much she loves him, or how much she's missed him; but to be told that he is worthless and, even worse, that she would have preferred the man he went with to have come back instead. It is the character's relation to women that makes this film so hateful; the fact that his wife is taller than him is symbolic of his relation to the other gender; he is consistently humiliated by them, and it is through his relations with them that his life isn't as great as it could have been. This is also shown clearly by the way he treats his wife after a drink. He lost his job as a policeman through lust for a woman, and even his wife; a woman that is supposed to love him, never really shows any affection for him. Even at the end, his wife is more bothered about what her and her daughter will do than the state of her husband.<br /><br />The Merchant of Four Seasons is a thoroughly unpleasant film. There isn't a scene in the movie where someone is happy, and not only that; but the movie seems deliriously blissful to wallow in the misery of it's central characters. The movie is certainly not recommended to anyone who is currently having a hard time, that's for sure. Despite all the misery, the film never steps out the bounds of reality; every event in this movie can - and most probably has - happened, and that only serves in making the movie more shocking. The film is, of course, helmed by Rainer Werner Fassbinder; the cult German director that committed suicide in 1982. This is only my second taste of the man's work, but through just two films, it is easy to get an idea of the type of art that he creates. Both films are downtrodden and gritty - yet realistic pieces of art. His characterization in this movie is subtle; we only ever get to know the characters through their plight's and not through their character. This is a very clever way of showing the audience that it is their surroundings that define the people in the film, not the people themselves - and as nearly everyone that sees the film knows what living in an urban society is like, it wont difficult for the majority of people to relate to. <br /><br />The Merchant of Four Seasons is not a film that is easily forgettable; the movie is high on substance and low on style, and that makes for a very memorable picture, and one that everyone who considers themselves to be a fan of cinema should experience. It is with that in my mind that I give this film my highest recommendations; it's not sweet and it's not pleasant, but you will not see a more realistic portrayal of depression, and this is most certainly a movie that will stay with you.
| 1 |
positive
|
when the gilmore girls started in Germany i did not want to watch them because for me it was just something which was not unique. it was a series and i even did not know someone in it. later on, i realized that edward hermann is part of the cast of overboard (a movie, i absolutely adore). i had to watch it once with a friend and never stopped since. it's just fun. you have the feeling that it is okay to have sex before being married and it's okay to be a coffee junkie and to eat unhealthy stuff all the time. i do not do these things all the time but when i do these things i feel a little bit like a gilmore girl. even my boyfriend started to watch them and that tells something. from season to season it got better with the scripts and the stories. they have a open mind and by being different from every other show, you want to be like them.
| 1 |
positive
|
Well, first off, the twins are exactly the same. there is no one is girly and one is tomboy (Ashley is taller than Mary-Kate though) and their boyfriends aren't even French, so that is bad because they are faking the accents. Lamo. It is also not that bad, not their best. I am A big Mary-Kate and Ashley fan, don't get me wrong. the storyline is OK and it is funny to watch. it is not the type of movie that you would watch over and over again. But hey, when they made this movie they were still new at the whole making their own movie thing. The girls also act like they are older then 13. but if you are a young viewer this is a good movie. Not so good if you are older than 13 unless you are a parent watching a movie with your kids. then it's OK. Good luck MK+A with your future movies!
| 0 |
negative
|
I must say I was surprised to find several positive comments to this turkey (in desperate need of a feather transplant)! I'm giving it a 1 because I think the idea of making a movie about the wild man of rock'n'roll - Jerry Lee Lewis, is honorable, but it's a shame to put out such trash and the "killer" does not deserve this! It's a good thing it came late in his career... they said Elvis practically ruined his career with the movies he put out through the sixties and this could have done the same for Jerry lee, had it come out some 15-20 years earlier! It's based on Myra Gail Lewis book and that's a shame to begin with. It's a bad and inaccurate story of her life together with Lewis and there is far better books about the Killer, that could have made a much better and more interesting script. Add to this a bunch of actors who doesn't know if they are participating in a drama, comedy or a little bit of both! The otherwise fine actor Dennis Quaid is putting on what must be one of the worst performances of an actor in many a moon! He is walking around in the picture, talking about his "god-given talent" and as a spectator, you wish he'd show some of it on the screen too! Silly gestures and funny faces and Jerry Lee must have felt betrayed when he saw what had become of him in this truly awful movie! The rest of the crew is almost as bad... save for Winona Ryder, who does her best with the crappy lines given to her. It's "Grease" all over again and whenever Jerry Lee take a ride around Memphis in his convertible, having the radio on in the car, the whole town is dancing to the music from it! Everybody in this movie are like cartoon figures of the real people involved... from the wild man himself to Sun Records Sam Philips! And it's a damn shame! A charismatic and interesting artist like Jerry Lee Lewis deserves better and I hope he took the 500.000 dollars he got from the deal and told the company to go f**k themselves... twice!
| 0 |
negative
|
This epic brings together a superbly-gifted cast and crew, a narrative depth superior to most novels, wonderful music, philosophy and a connection to LIFE that I find difficult to explain. To immerse oneself in Die Zweite Heimat is for me akin to a spiritual experience, similar to the awe one gets when looking at the stars in a clear night sky. The language, and use of both colour and monochrome segments adds to the dramatic impact. The film inspired me to go to Munich and visit some of the locations, including the Edgar Reitz office. From then on, I vowed to improve my German skills - after Die Zweite Heimat I feel almost German, as if I am in the head of the characters. I also try to match the piano playing of Henry Arnold (Hermann), but this is the one thing that will always elude me ! This drama is unparalleled and I have been fortunate to see it on BBC2 in the UK and SBS in Australia. The sequel, Heimat 3, is currently being filmed in Germany.
| 1 |
positive
|
I made it through half of this, but was not enough of a masochist to see it all. The first half of the film had next to no dialog ! Almost everything was voice over commentary to carry the story. The scriptwriter forgot that sometimes less is more and tried to explain several millennium of detailed history in the voice over. At the same time he forgot to do any character development. Most science fiction fans don't require huge amounts of character development, but it would be nice to know why the two main characters who survived the destruction of the space fleet together ended up fighting each other. <br /><br />There are some good things going on in the film. The soundtrack was well done. Some of the computer generated graphics are very good, but others were just mediocre.
| 0 |
negative
|
This movie is about a group of women (perhaps not of the highest repute) who are heading to a small fort to take over a recently departed uncles property where they plan to set up shop. Upon arrival in a nearby city they find no one will go there (even though its only 15 miles away), so they walk. When they get there they find there are no soldiers but a good amount of people who have taken over use of the fort and built up a small city nearby. They soon find that something isn't right here and Fort McMillan (Ft. Doom as the locals call it) is in some serious trouble. <br /><br />Rather than go into the plot line I will make some comments about things I noticed about the movie. First off the acting is very flat, only a few of the people seem to be real enough to believe in. My first though was poor acting, but at the end I watched some of the outtakes and these same people became alive. So my only thought left is this is how the director wanted it. On top of the bad acting I have a great problem where the people don't react right to a given set of circumstances. Take for example no one would take them to Ft McMillan for any price even though its only 15 miles away. Yet when we arrive at the Fort we find it is well maintained by a decent population of people, all of whom must get supplies from some one, not to mention mail etc. It is supposed to take place in 1867, yet we can see the railroad car has electric lights (they aren't on at least) and a locomotive engine that is at least 30 years later, not one of the general style of locomotives so popular at that time. There are also places where you can see paved blacktop, (and maybe a car at one point, didn't want to bother to go back and look) and other anachronistic items. If they had followed the rules of the "world" they made and let the actors be actors it might have gotten a 4 from me instead of the 2 I gave it, and they rewritten it about 4 more times it might have done even better.
| 0 |
negative
|
About the discussion on the South, the rednecks and the hillbillies... Well, I am from the South: Argentina, near the South Pole to be exact. Is this southern enough? Seriously, some stories are universal. We have never been to Greece, nor lived the classic period of Homer, but he speaks to us today. So does Shakespeare and Dante. And stories from far unknown places also reach us, when told with sensibility, intelligence, humor, just like "O Brother". Besides, we all (the rest of the world) have our own hillbillies too! And our own depression era (ever heard of Argentina during year 2001?), our politicians and racism, our gentle souls just like Delmar and Tommy... I simply loved this movie, folks. Despite the subtitles, despite being on the other side of the world. (And please forgive my errors in English, I tried my best)<br /><br />PS: I believe nobody quoted this favorite phrase: when Delmar asks George Nelson what does he do for a living, while handling him the machine gun...
| 1 |
positive
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.