text
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| label
int64 0
1
|
|---|---|
Sure, it was cheesy and nonsensical and at times corny, but at least the filmmakers didn't try. While most TV movies border on the brink of mediocrity, this film actually has some redeeming qualities to it. The cinematography was pretty good for a TV film, and Viggo Mortensen displays shades of Aragorn in a film about a man who played by his own rules. Most of the flashback sequences were kind of cheesy, but the scene with the mountain lion was intense. I was kind of annoyed by Jason Priestly's role in the film as a rebellious shock-jock, but then again, it's a TV MOVIE! Despite all of the good things, the soundtrack was atrocious. However, it was nice to see Tucson, Arizona prominently featured in the film. | 1 |
This is quite possibly the worst sequel ever made. The script is unfunny and the acting stinks. The exact opposite of the original. | 0 |
Master cinéaste Alain Resnais likes to work with those actors who are a part of his family.In this film too we see Resnais' family members like Pierre Arditi, Sabine Azema, André Dussolier and Fanny Ardant dealing with serious themes like death,religion,suicide,love and their overall implications on our daily lives.The formal nature of relationship shared by these people is evident as even friends, they address each other using a formal you.In 1984,while making L'amour à mort,Resnais dealt with time,memory and space to unravel the mysteries of a fundamental question of human existence :Is love stronger than death ? It was 16 years ago in 1968 that Resnais made a somewhat similar film Je t'aime Je t'aime which was also about love and memories.Message of this film is loud and clear :true and deep love can even put science to shame as dead lovers regain their lost lives leaving doctors to care for their reputation.L'amour à mort is like a game which is not at all didactic.It is a film in which the musical score is in perfect tandem with its images.This is one of the reasons why this film can easily be grasped. | 1 |
I saw the last five or ten minutes of this film back in 1998 or 1999 one night when I was channel-surfing before going to bed, and really liked what I saw. Since then I've been on the lookout, scouring TV listings, flipping through DVD/VHS racks at stores, but didn't find a copy until recently when I found out some Internet stores sold it. Then, being a world-class procrastinator, I still didn't order it. Finally, I found a DVD copy in a Circuit City while visiting Portland, OR, a few weeks ago. Then it only took me about a month after returning home before sitting down and watching it.<br /><br />So, what do I think about the film? It's good. Not as good as I remembered and hoped for, but still well worth the $9.99 it cost me. After seeing the whole film for the first time I rate it as a 7/10, with potential to become an 8/10. I'll have to be less sleepy then, and have a better sound system to avoid rewinding to catch some dialogue. | 1 |
Dan Katzir has produced a wonderful film that takes us on a roller-coaster ride through a real romance set in the troubles surrounding modern Israel.<br /><br />For anyone who's ever been in love, the film brings back the uncertainties, the insecurities and heartache that make love so bitter-sweet. The atmosphere of fear and isolation that came with the difficult times in Israel at that time just serve to intensify the feeling. Instantly, you are drawn in to Dan's plight, and you can't fail to be deeply moved.<br /><br />You can't write drama and passion like this - the contrast between the realities of Dan's desperate, snatched relationship with Iris, and the realities of a state in turmoil make this eminently watchable. If you have an ounce of passion, and have ever been in love, see this film. | 1 |
Well, you know... Rutger Hauer and Robert Patrick both are really good actors. But WTF with this movie? The story was lame and the script was just terrible. The poor actors didn't have material to work with!<br /><br />The DVD cover invited you to a flight action flick. You would expect something like Top Gun... Huge disappointment! The flight action in this movie is so cheap that makes you puke. The aerial scenes are clearly taken from documentaries and some other footage sources, not made for this movie. And they didn't even care about the marks or the fighters models, taking for granted the audience will not notice it.<br /><br />As I said the story was lame. With a little effort from the writer and director it could have been very interesting. In short, it seems a B-movie made in the 70's.<br /><br />I feel very sorry for these actors who put their names here. They sure must be ashamed. | 0 |
Now after watching The Advent Children twice, the storyline isn't as shallow as majority has criticized it to be in my opinion. If you haven't played FFVII or disliked it for whatever reason, this movie is most likely not for you. Being familiar to the original story is a prerequisite to understanding AC fully, otherwise you will just see the greatest CG animation in your life so far.<br /><br />Without actually spoiling the storyline, I must admit that after seeing AC we have been putting pieces together with my friends relying on our knowledge of FFVII. Seeing it second time allowed to actually pay attention to the story more and most of the questions we may have had were answered. Some were not. AC is clearly for FFVII players/fans and doesn't honestly try to be anything else. There is little to none realism in it outside FFVII world which serves the purpose. Music is mostly reconstructed FFVII themes with a heavier touch (TBM team according to end credits) and works well with the eye candy without exceptions. I found the music enhancing the experience added to the visual fireworks in all situations.<br /><br />We all know you can't put a FFVII in 1.5 hours and keeping that in mind the storyline actually offered more to me than I expected. There are two issues at hand in FFVII : AC and both stories were wrapped up very smoothly between the action sequences. And trust me when I say there's a lot of it. Action that is.<br /><br />I'm changing my vote from 9 to 10 after watching it the second time because I had missed a few explanatory sequences I couldn't put together the first time that provided some answers. As a warning, it's going to be easy to disregard the story and concentrate on graphics, but try not to judge the Adevent Children because of that. If you don't let the story in, it's no wonder it seems sloppy.<br /><br />I'm not going to praise the graphics because I assume we all know they are awesome, which might be an understatement. Especially characters talk so much more with their facial expressions than ever before. I hope you pay attention to the storyline for it actually makes sense and works well with the whole. Get ready for the ride of your life, there are no breaks. | 1 |
The Gospel of Lou was a major disappointment for me. I had received an E-Mail from the theater showing it that it was a great and inspirational movie. It was neither great nor inspirational. The cinematography was pretty iffy with the whole movie. A lot the scenes were flash backs that were done in a way that couldn't tell at times what they were about. The voices were often distorted for no reason. Also many of the people in the movie were far fetched. The relationship he has with his ex & son is never made clear. Also the whole movie has most him one way, and then all of a sudden BAM, he is cured and inspiring people. The whole movie seems to show that boxing is one of the things that is bad in his life, making him live his life the way that he is living it, but when he changes, he doesn't leave boxing, he teaches others how to box. Thumbs Down. | 0 |
My entire family enjoyed this film, including 2 small children. Great values without sex, violence, drugs, nudity, or profanity. Also no zillion dollar special effects were added to try to misdirect viewers from a poorly written storyline. A simple little family fun movie. We especially like the songs in the movie. But we only got to hear a portion of the songs ... Mostly during the end credits... Would love to buy a sound track CD from this movie. This is my 4th Bill Hillman movie and they all have the same guidelines as mentioned above. With all the movies out there that you don't want your kids to watch, this Hillman fella has a no risk rating. We love his movies. | 1 |
The most intense and powerful film I have seen in years. There have been other films before that delved into the Vietnam Vet but nothing compared to this emotionally heartwrenching film, as a typical American suburban family, circa 1972, comes apart at the seams, revealing the scars that Vietnam has left on our all of our collective souls. The cast is A++++ fantastic with all four actors(with Kathy Bates a stand-out) giving riveting performances. What is wonderful about this film is that you take no sides, but understand all four characters and empathize with them, even though all four have divergent viewpoints and needs. There are scenes in here that are so powerful as family secrets and feelings are revealed(such as the confrontation between son and mother) that will have you emotionally drained and in tears of anguish. I actually cried in this film, something I rarely do. The shocking end is a stunner! A much overlooked film that should be seen. I rate this 1996 film a 10/10 a superlative piece. Highly recommended especially in this day and age with again, our country embroiled in a hideous war, our headlines shouting of atrocities and again, our young men and women returning with deep psychological scars, with their deep pain of deeds done in the line of honor. A must see film. | 1 |
A hint I think may be gathered by the various comments on this thread.<br /><br />I was quite amazed at the number of people who liked this film who want to make it "mandatory" or "compulsory".<br /><br />I think this gives us a little bit of insight into the reason this film and the issue underlying it is so polarizing.<br /><br />The Global Warming issue appeals a lot to people who want to force others to "do right". It appeals particularly to more "liberal" leaning people because it doesn't have to do with bedroom morality which is what usually gets conservatives who want to force you to "be good" going.<br /><br />And that's the problem with the film. Al Gore is a politician. And a very successful one at that. He just can't help himself from appealing to those people who want to force others to do as they would. The political appeal is just too great.<br /><br />And there we are left with a scientific issue that may be of huge importance, reduced to a political issue appealing to those in the body politic with a predilection to force other to "do right".<br /><br />Another interesting question is how did the Environmental movement get hijacked by such people? | 0 |
This must rate with the worst films I have ever seen. It just wasn't funny. My wife fell asleep. I suppose if you are the sort of person who goes all gooey eyed at the sight of a dog then it may do something for you. If you expect a comedy film to have some humour in it then you will be disappointed unless you find an English radio announcer saying the f word a lot hilarious. The strippers in the club kept their underwear on so there wasn't even a bit of nudity to relieve the boredom. What did happen in the strip club made no sense at all. There was a great deal of mumbling by the lead character with whom I developed no sympathy at all. Mena Suvari was hardly in the film, presumably just there to make people think it was a serious attempt at producing a film. The bad guys were unconvincing and carried as much menace as a dead sheep. | 0 |
In a movie that follows a struggling actor, played, evidently, by a struggling actor, this does no favours for Chris Klein. He struggles to bring anything memorable to the role and meanders on through the shallow script managing to display, what could only be described as, a bland leading man. The story exists, but that is all, and fails to show any basic start, middle and end and the viewer is left shrugging his shoulders feeling as though nothing in the past hour and three quarters has really happened.<br /><br />One bright light in the midst of this is Fred Durst, who manages to stand out above his seemingly averagely talented co-stars and does a semi-decent job of bringing the backward character of Legde to life. Whether Fred can re-create this when working with a higher calibre of cast remains to be seen but I'l be watching out for him in future. | 0 |
I viewed the original Outer Limits in real time, when first broadcast and have since viewed the entire original series again and again in re-runs and complete on DVD. I find the New Outer Limits WELL MORE than just a remake of old retread episodes, as some of the more adolescent commentators have suggested.<br /><br />With seven (7) years of programs versus just the two (2) years of the original series, the producers and writers have certainly added considerable new original stories and philosophical lines to a much longer running and very well produced (cable) TV series. Plots are intelligent, scientifically accurate projections of the unknown possibilities of the sometimes frightening and imminent future.<br /><br />While most producers and directors in Hollywood ignorantly view Sci-Fi as indistinguishable from Horror and Fantasy, this series returns to the origins of Science Fiction in the logical, moral and philosophical projections of current new technologies into their possibly fearful near term realizations. This series does this very well and remains unique in its avoidance of the "shoot-em-up" video game monster mentally of much of the current generation. It has brains, history, a message and good entertainment. It is an adult series without unbearable teenage know-it-all fantasies. Hurray!<br /><br />Now, if we can only get MGM to release the entire New Outer Limits series on DVD instead of just the six poor teaser discs and the 1st season now only available. | 1 |
Starring: Jim Carrey, Morgan Freeman, Jennifer Anniston I was really quite skeptical the first time I watched this movie. I mean, what a conceptual NIGHTMARE. Jim Carrey playing God? Nothing is sacred anymore.<br /><br />Well, this movie is hardly sacred, but it also is not sacrilegious, at least not to any great extent. Yes, Jim Carrey has the powers of God for a while, but he is not God. Confused? I'll give you the low down.<br /><br />Jim Carrey plays Bruce Nolan, a reporter who is down on his luck and feeling very unsuccessful with his life. He lives with his beautiful girlfriend, Grace (Anniston), and you can tell right off the bat that they love each other, but the relationship is on fairly shaky ground.<br /><br />Then Bruce gets a shot at anchorman, only to have it underhandedly stolen by Evan Baxter. Obviously not please, Bruce shares his thoughts with the world through the television in a way which is comical and definitely worthy of getting him fired.<br /><br />Much complaining and griping about God later, Bruce gets a page. After a while he gets tired of it calling, so he responds and goes to the Omni Presents building (heh). There he meets God (Freeman), who is the Boss, Electrician, and Janitor of the building. I found this highly amusing. God is the Boss, the Holy Spirit is the Electrician, and Jesus Christ is the Janitor. Think about it. Boss, obvious. Electrician, the guy who keeps everything running. Janitor, the guy who cleans up the mess that the world has left. BRILLIANT.<br /><br />Anyway, Bruce is a little skeptical about having actually met God, but when God gives Bruce his powers and gives him a shot at playing God, he starts to believe a bit. Wonder why. Enter the flagrant abuse of powers for personal gain and to abuse the enemies.<br /><br />Since this is Hollywood, Bruce obviously eventually smartens up, learns his lesson, and starts using his powers for the good of the world. In the end he cries out for God to take it away and prays that His will be done, not Bruce's.<br /><br />Since it is Jim Carrey, the movie is quite amusing, and there are definitely some highly entertaining moments in it. The movie is not perfect theology, but for Hollywood, it is definitely a good attempt. Many statements in the film can be quite thought provoking and even challenging, and I applaud Tom Shadyac for his effort in this movie.<br /><br />So, while far from perfect, definitely an amusing popcorn movie with a little bit of thought behind it.<br /><br />Bottom Line: 3.5 out of 4 (worth a view or two) | 1 |
The above profile was written by me when I used the nick of OldWereWolf56 which is still my email address. I still believe Andy Devine's character of Frisky is the best Twilight Zone's episodes ever and I watch this episode at least once a year as I consider Frisby to be a fortunate man as he has many friends who love him dearly. <br /><br />In case many of you are too young to remember, I'm 61, Andy Devine hosted a children's entertainment show in the 50's I believe called Andy's Gang. On it he had three assistants: a cat named Midnight who played the violin, a mouse named Squeaky who played an a hand organ and a devilish toad named Froggy who's could appear and disappear at will embarrassing many of Andy's funny guest stars like Billy Gilbert. | 1 |
To me, the final scene, in which Harris responds to the press corp, is worthy of viewing this intelligent and timeless slice of politics(especially the campaign phase). If only the "real-life" pols would respond in the intelligent, articulate manner as did Mr Harris,then the arrogant, self-serving members of the press would perhaps think twice before surfacing irrelevant, confrontational "garbage" that has absolutely nothing to do with a candidates abilities to effectively handle the challenges of the office for which he/she is pursuing. | 1 |
What is happening to ITV Drama. First, "Losing Gemma" quite simply the worst TV drama I have seen in years, and now "Perfect Parents" a complete shambles from start to finish. Whoever is responsible for commissioning this drivel should be receiving there P45 by special delivery.<br /><br />In most Drama/Thrillers, a requirement to suspend certain levels of belief is necessary so that the the plot line can develop, but "Perfect Parents" took this to a new level,I suspended so much belief by the end of this nonsense I felt I had been force fed on a lorry load of "Magic mushrooms", it was like the scriptwriters had decided to try and create a "Drama by numbers" involving some serious issues - Religion, Education,Greed,Fear,Murder,Paedophillia the only trouble was as The great Eric Morecambe once said when playing a piano, "I'm playing all the right Notes, just not necessarily in the correct order". For your next Script guys, I suggest you try reading a few more books on script development than "Script writing For Dummies".<br /><br />Due to the ridiculous Script and the utter lack of Tension in the Direction, the acting was suitably low key, not the fault of the actors as the cast was top notch. But I suggest that all of the actors involved in this sorry piece of drama should instruct their agents the next time the Postman attempts to deliver a script from ITV drama Department, make sure the letterbox is firmly nailed shut!! | 0 |
This film gives a look at the suffering a family experiences at the death of a child, and the healing that can finally come to them.<br /><br />The family learns of the death of their son on Christmas Eve, 1991, ruining the Christmas season for them. They do not celebrate it again for many years. There is an interesting comment by the daughter that will remind viewers to consider the needs of surviving children in such a situation.<br /><br />The Matthew character makes a reference to Jesus, but I suspect that other comments he makes come from non-Christian sources. I wonder if any other viewers would recognize those comments. If so, it would be an interesting addition to the data on this movie. | 0 |
Better than the typical made-for-tv movie, INVITATION TO HELL is blessed with excellent casting (Urich, Lucci, Cassidy, McCarthy, pre-Murphy Brown Joe Regalbuto, Soleil Moon-Frye) and a high concept update to the familiar Faustian plot. Urich is likable as always and Lucci is particularly fetching and devilishly over the top in the mother of all femme fatale roles. Kind of a hybrid version of STEPFORD WIVES and THEY LIVE, the movie commits early to its apocalyptic Miltonesque vision and horror fans will likely not have many complaints until the soppy, maudlin denoument. 7/10 | 1 |
My first Ichikawa in many years, and the first of his war films that I've seen, this was gripping and brutal from the very get-go. In the very first scene, nominal hero Tamura is told that he can't continue on with his unit, to which he has returned from the hospital. He apparently has TB but he is not sick enough for the hospital to take him given the quantity of war-wounded they have. But his old unit won't take him back either; his CO gives him a grenade, and tells him that if he feels truly hopeless to blow himself up
it's the honorable thing to do.<br /><br />The Phillipines, 1945, and the situation really does seem hopeless, for PFC Tamura and everyone else. Nobi is an odyssey through hell, or rather hells denuded forests, dead rocky plains, and the dead and dying Japanese soldiers hoping just for an end, through peace or death. Ichikawa's film is photographed in stunning B&W scope which serves to highlight both the desolation felt by Tamura and those he meets on his journey towards his doom, and to show how truly small and naked they all are amidst the immensity of the mountains and the forests
.this small affair of humans will end soon, the earth seems to be saying, but I will survive and barely notice it.<br /><br />Tamura travels back towards the hospital, but is (not surprisingly) rejected there, and spends the rest of the film trying to stay alive, stay human, and get out of danger. He doesn't manage to do very well on any account, slowly starving and eventually committing some fairly repellent acts. Eventually he hooks up with two other desperate men who have lost, or survived their units, and have resorted to cannibalism
and in his weakened state facing other armed men, finds that the only way to live is to break with everything that he believes in.<br /><br />Ichikawa's film is as brutal, uncompromising and intense as any war film I've seen. There are moments of humor and tenderness, but they are fleeting and don't stick in the memory such as the scene with the man on the mountaintop who practically begs Tamura to eat his flesh
the recurring black-comic bit with Tamura exchanging his ragged shoes for the better leathers of a fallen comrade
.the degradations that humans will endure to survive
.the truth that this is any war, all wars, all mankind as long as we continue thus. A masterpiece that I probably won't watch again for a long, long time. Watched via the beautiful Criterion Collection DVD. | 1 |
The Bothersome Man is one of the best foreign films I have ever seen. All the technical aspects are, in my opinion, perfect (lighting, acting, directing, pacing, etc). The STORY is breathtaking.<br /><br />Seemingly beyond death, our main character finds himself inhabiting a world without beauty, passion or anything remotely pleasing to the human senses. His work is cold and uninteresting; his relationships are numb and uninspiring, and when it all becomes too much, he seeks to end it in front of a train. But it doesn't end - he can not leave this strange world by suicide! Working his way back to a man who seemed to be feeling he same isolation and loneliness, our main character joins him in excavating a stone wall in hopes of revealing the source of a strange and wonderful smell and music. Just as they break through - and I will not reveal THAT much, it all comes to an end and the movie ends as oddly as it began.<br /><br />Suffice it to say you will either love this movie or hate it. I feel that it is like a magical poem - open to many different interpretations and all of them as valid as the next. If you enjoy new experiences in film and want to be taken away from Hollywood's crap-feast, try this movie!<br /><br />9/10 (and I don't rate easily!) because in spite of its darkness, this movie left me with a sense of something greater...something mysterious and beyond ourselves. Well done! | 1 |
Well, basically, the movie blows! It's Blair Witch meets Sean Penn's ill conceived fantasy about going to Iraq to show the world what the "War on Terror" is really about. The script sounds like it was written by 8th grader (no offense to 8th graders); the two main actors over-act the entire film; they used the wrong kind of camera and the wrong type of film(not that i know anything about those things--but it just didn't look like real documentaries I've watched), and worst of all Christian Johnson took a great idea and made it suck. It reminded me of the time I tried to draw a picture of my dog and ended up with a really bad stick figure looking thing that looked more like a giant turd. I'd rather watch the Blair Witch VIII, than sit through that again. | 0 |
OK, so I'm not usually one that runs out and rents foreign movies...especially foreign dark comedies. I think I can count on one hand the number of films that I found genuinely hilarious from beginning to end. This movie will be added to the short list. Even dark comedies right out of Hollywood sometimes turn me off because they require an incredibly dry sense of humor. But this one had my eyes welling up with tears. My sides hurt. I haven't laughed that hard in a long time. This movie was recommended by my mother and I don't think I would have even dreamed of watching it had she not raved about it. Don't be afraid of having to read during your movie - you'll miss out on a hilariously well-acted flick. | 1 |
I have been waiting for this movie a long time. Especially because Juhi Chawla is in this, she's a great actress.<br /><br />This movie contains six stories. It's a new concept flew over from Hollywood. So it's not a new item.<br /><br />1. Khamini (priyanka chopra) is a dancer. She wants to get famous and makes up a boyfriend to let news reporters be interested in her. But then Rahul (Salman Khan) appears and he claims to be her boyfriend.<br /><br />Priyanka Chopra is still not a good actress. When she yells, I get annoyed. Salman khan cannot play comic roles. But in his serious parts he is marvelous.<br /><br />2. Vinay (Anil Kapoor) is married to Seema (Juhi Chawla). He gets in a midlife crisis and gets attracted to a much younger woman, with forgetting what he really has in life; his wife and kids.<br /><br />Anil kapoor en Juhi are natural born actors / actresses. They are great. But this story is to thin for them.<br /><br />3. Shiven (Akshaye Khanna) is going to get married to Gia (Ayesha Takia), but he gets cold feet and blows the wedding off.<br /><br />4. Ashutosh (Joh Abraham) is married to Tehzeeb (Vidya Balan). She gets an accident and suffers a memory loss. Now she doesn't know that she loves her husband anymore.<br /><br />5. Raju (Govinda) is a cab driver. He meets Stephani (Shannon Esrechowitz) who is a white woman who is in love with an Indian male but he is about to get married with an Indian woman. Raju has to bring Staphani to that man, but falls in love with her.<br /><br />I never liked Govinda's movies. He is very annoying, not funny. But in this movie I liked him very much, like he has been growing up the last years.<br /><br />6. Oh yes! There is Sohail Khan! He plays Ram Dayal who is just married to Phoolwati (Isha Koppikar). He want to get some serious action with her, but every time her family comes in between.<br /><br />Sohail Khan is not a handsome actor, but he is funny! I like his movies.<br /><br />Now here's the problem. All these stories aren't interesting. To make one story from six not interesting stories does not make the whole movie interesting! Here and there the stories touch each other, but is not significant for the characters.<br /><br />My conclusion; Priyanka cannot act! Loose that woman in the bollywood industry. Sohail Khan should make more movies, this role for him was too small. Salman Khan cannot act comic roles, but real serious movies. That's written on his life as an actor. This movie sucks, and is a waste of a cast of good actors and actresses like Anil Kapoor, Juhi Chawla, Akshaya Khanna and John Abraham.<br /><br />It's just like you have the ability to make a movie with Amitabh Bachchan, and you only let him sing a lullaby. | 0 |
This movie is way too long. I lost interest about one hour into the story. Saratoga Trunk tells the story of Ingrid Bergman, who is an the child of a prominent New Orleans man and his mistress. After her mother dies in Paris, Bergman comes back to New Orleans to scandalize her father's "legitimate" family and to blackmail them. She meets Gary Cooper, who is likewise seeking revenge against the railroad tycoons who cheated his father out of his land in Texas. She draws him into her schemes, and the movie climaxes at a Saratoga resort. Long and boring, but worth watching if you are a Bergman or Cooper fan. The midget Cupidon provides the only bright spot in this meandering story. | 0 |
A woman (Sylvia Kristel) seduces a 15 year old boy (Eric Brown). They have sex...but it's all tied into some stupid plot or something.<br /><br />Easily one of the most disturbing sex comedies ever. Does anyone realize this movie is making light of child molestation? I suppose it's OK cause it's a teenage boy--if we had one with a man seducing a teenage girl there would (rightfully) be outrage. Sorry, but having it done to a boy doesn't excuse it. It's still sick. I realize Brown was of age (he was actually 18 when this was made) but he LOOKS 15. I just find it disturbing that some people find this OK.<br /><br />Plot aside the acting sucks (Kristel is beautiful--but can't act; Brown is easily one of the worst child actors I've ever seen) and the constant nudity gets boring and isn't even remotely erotic.<br /><br />I saw this drivel at a theatre back in 1981. I was 19 and with my 14 year old cousin (who could easily pass for 18). HE wanted to see it--I didn't but I decideD what the heck? We got in and I actually bought tickets for three teenage boys who were obviously underage. My cousin thought is was boring and the three other kids left halfway through! Let me make this clear--three TEENAGE BOYS left a movie with tons of female nudity! That should give you an idea of how bad this is. I'm surprised this was ever released. A 1 all the way. | 0 |
Disney's done it again. The company that made "Mr. Magoo" and "George of the Jungle" has made another movie that barely resembles the cartoon on which it is based, and keeps none of the spirit of the original.<br /><br />"Inspector Gadget" was one of my favorite cartoons when I was a young one, and for a movie of it to exist may have been a dream come true back then. Now that that movie does exist, I was severely disappointed, even outraged.<br /><br />First we have the characters.<br /><br />Gadget himself has the gadgets that made him such a fun character in the original cartoon (with well-done special effects accompanying them), and he even has some of the naivete of the original Gadget, but he is now more competent and is expected to solve the crime himself while Penny and Brain just watch.<br /><br />Penny has little to do; while she played a major role in the cartoon, discovering the crime and halting it, and occasionally getting captured by the MAD agents, now she is simply introduced and then forgotten, although she does at least sneak into Claw's base.<br /><br />Claw is the movie's version of Dr. Claw, who was a rather sinister, raspy-voiced man who wore metallic gloves and sat in his chair, his face hidden from view, as he stroked his cat and oversaw various crimes. Now he is simply a man with a claw for a hand, with no mystery behind the character.<br /><br />Brain and Mad Cat exist in the movie, but are rather insignificant to it.<br /><br />Even small parts of the cartoon aren't spared in this butchering. The famous expression "Wowsers!" was mysteriously changed to "Wowser", and Gadget's Gadgetmobile now looks different and talks.<br /><br />There is even product endorsements everywhere. Why is "Yahoo!" advertised on a sign? Why does the Gadgetmobile have buttons for M&M's or Skittles?<br /><br />Fans of the cartoon will hate it, others might will likely find the movie below par, and when all is said and done, this movie is another attempt to make some quick bucks off another old show. | 0 |
I saw this movie when I was about 8-years-old and I liked it but it wasn't until I watched it again at the age of 13 that I really understood it for what it is; a cartoon about a criminal dog with a real heart of gold "adopts" a little girl in order to exploit her for her talents to talk to animals. The dog star,Charlie B. Barkin, is murdered by his formal business partner, Carface, (who is absolutely diabolical by the way). His soul then goes to where else but Heaven only to find a golden watch that is really his life's time, which Charlie, being the sneaky but lovable cad that he is steals and rewinds, sending him back to Earth. Once back on Earth, Charlie goes about seeking revenge on the evil Carface. This is how he comes upon young Anne-Marie, the lonely little orphan that can talk to animals whom Charlie plans to scam for her talents in order to get back at his enemy Carface. But scoundrel Charlie actually comes to care for young Anne-Marie and his plans unfoil as he must make up his mind to do what is right after Anne-Marie discovers what her "best friend" Charlie has really been using her to make money for a new and better dog casino. Now he must rescue her from the dreaded Carface. I still love this movie even at the age of 22. The idea and plot really are quite different and original from that of many other animated films. I especially like the idea that a dog plays the role of the villain for once. Carface was even better than he was in the All Dogs go to Heaven sequel. In that picture he appeared quite dubious to his role of villain. | 1 |
If you have not heard of this film from Walt Disney Pictures, do not worry about it. It would be classed along the other films by Disney that are meant for educational purposes like "Family Planning".<br /><br />It was co-produced with Kotex to teach pre-teen girls about Menstruation, supposably. It only educates at a superficial level, so it does not go into heavy detail for the animated "Ram's Head"/ Reproductive System sequence.<br /><br />The film does show "The Wonderful World of Disney" elements like the turning of the page and the use of animation to tell the story.<br /><br />This film is impossible to find, so if you can find the film, best luck to you and enjoy. | 1 |
I'd have to agree with the previous reviewer: This film has awesome animation, but has problems throughout the rest of the movie.<br /><br />Plot holes are huge, dialog barely explains the concepts of the plot--the MAIN PLOT POINTS aren't even fully explained until the last five minutes of the film. The characters state the obvious, while failing to explain the more confusing points of the film. There are characters that pop up and have importance in the storyline that are never explained--most of them have names that are only mentioned *once*, and it is exceedingly confusing to a viewer.<br /><br />Don't waste your time with this movie. Unless you are in it for a good laugh and how DUMB it is. | 0 |
Second part (actually episode 4-8) of the hit Danish tv-series is slightly inferior to the first one, but has plenty of laughs and scares as well. This time, Udo Kier plays two parts, as the monster baby and his demon-like father. Other standout parts this time are Søren Pilmark´s Doctor Krogshoj, who must face the horrible revenge of Dr. Helmer, and once again, patient Mrs. Drusse tries to solve the mysteries, Miss Marple-style. Ends on a cliffhanger and following the deaths of lead actors Ernst Hugo Järegård (Dr. Helmer) and Kirsten Rolffes (Mrs. Drusse), you wonder how they´re ever going to be able making Part III, but I hope Von Trier will give it a shot. Sadly, Morten Rotne Leffers, the Down´s Syndrome dishwasher #2, died shortly after, as well. Look for Stellan Skarsgård in a cameo. *** | 1 |
This is the worst movie of ALL TIME! It's one of those that is so ridiculous and the acting so bad that you turn off the video 1/3 into it so that you can use your time for better purposes like cleaning the toilet. If you actually watch the whole thing, GOD help you. | 0 |
This movie was a rather odd viewing experience. The movie is obviously based on a play. Now I'm sure that everything in this movie works out just fine in a play but for in a movie it just doesn't feel terribly interesting enough to watch. The movie is way too 'stagey' and they didn't even bothered to change some of the dialog to make it more fitting for a movie. Instead what is presented now is an almost literally re-filming of a stage-play, with over-the-top characters and staged dialog. Because of all this the storyline really doesn't work out and the movie becomes an almost complete bore- and obsolete viewing experience.<br /><br />It takes a while before you figure out that this is a comedy you're watching. At first you think its a drama you're watching, with quirky characters in it but as the movie progresses you'll notice that the movie is more a tragicomedy, that leans really more toward the comedy genre, rather than the drama genre.<br /><br />The characters and dialog are really the things that make this movie a quirky and over-the-top one that at times really become unwatchable. Sure, the actors are great; Peter O'Toole and Susannah York, amongst others but they don't really uplift the movie to a level of 'watchable enough'.<br /><br />The story feels totally disorientated. Basicaly the story is about nothing and just mainly focuses on the brother/sister characters played by Peter O'Toole and Susannah York. But what exactly is the story even about? The movie feels like a pointless and obsolete one that has very little to offer. Like I said before; I'm sure the story is good and interesting to watch on stage but as a movie it really isn't fitting and simply doesn't work out.<br /><br />The editing is simply dreadful and times and it becomes even laughable bad in certain sequences. <br /><br />More was to expect from director J. Lee Thompson, who has obviously done far better movies than this rather failed, stage-play translated to screen, project.<br /><br />Really not worth your time.<br /><br />4/10 | 0 |
I am a Maharashtrian, a teenager living in the 21st century, and its obvious that I'm not much into even Bollywood, let alone Marathi movies. Yet, when I watched Shwaas, it left me with a unique feeling, one which only an extremely effective movie is capable of generating.<br /><br />It is a fact that, like most Indian movies, the movie has its true and complete effect only if viewed in its original language. A lot of the emotion and meaning of the movie is embedded in its Marathi dialogues, which, however hard one tries, can not be effectively translated into English.<br /><br />Shwaas explores, in intricate detail, the relationship between a grandparent and a child. And it does complete justice to this strong bond. Dialogues like "mazha parsha pan laakhat ek aahe"(My parsha is also one in a million) enhance the emotion. Anyone who has closely observed the grandparent - child relationship will be able to relate to the situation portrayed in the movie.<br /><br />Overall, it definitely worth watching. Its a movie that has left a profound effect on me. I will surely recommend it to anyone! | 1 |
If you described any of the scenes; nightmares of children murdering you in your sleep, your infant daughter talking to ghosts, searching for your lost child in an abandoned mine at night, so petrified with fear that you can't move even though the blood from a murder victim is dripping onto you from the floor above then I'd say you had a horror movie. But some how 'Wicked Little Things' just wasn't scary. I am a horror fan and I loved the location, the plot in principal and I liked the three leading ladies. I didn't want to see them come to harm, I wanted the 'bad guy' to get his just desserts, the rest of the cast are always simply cannon fodder so I was indifferent either way with them and it played out every cliché in the book - even down to the torch battery running out in the pitch dark just as you start to here whispering voices closing in on you.<br /><br />I would still recommend that you watch it, but unless you are new to horror movies or under 12 years, you will have seen it all before. | 0 |
I have heard about this novel a long time ago, many of my friends have recommend me to read it. I searched it in every place and finally found it. This is a book that every man should read, because it is genius and because of it's vision. I enjoyed every page.<br /><br />I knew about the movie and could not wait to see it. When I finally did I was very disappointed, many things that are in the book are not in the movie (I do not think that this is a spoiler) that just makes the movie not logical... Michael Radford might be a good director, but a bad writer. Especially as a book adopter. The movie is not dark at all, the writing is really bad, the only thing that is good, even great, is the acting. John Hurt is an amazing actor and the only face I myself could see as Winston Smith.<br /><br />What angers me the most are the people in IMDb that called this "The Best Adaptation Ever" without even reading the book! Or knowing anything about screen writing!<br /><br />You can only understand the brilliance of the story by reading the book, do not consider this as an alternative. As a fan of the book, I was very disappointed.<br /><br />The points I gave for this movie goes for the acting. | 0 |
Jack Higgins' straightforward thriller about a guilt-ridden IRA bomber forced into "one last job" (where have I heard that plot before?) gets a snarky treatment from cult director Mike Hodges. Mickey Rourke, with alarming red hair, confesses all to the priest (Bob Hoskins, of all people) who accidentally witnessed the shooting. The rules of the church keep Father Bob from talking, but then Rourke goes and falls in love with the priest's blind niece. They bond at the church organ. What? Really, that's the plot. Alan Bates is around as the top dog mobster who's calling the shots (literally) and he seems to be the only actor who's on to the jokey tone Hodges is aiming at. Bates is all set to do a sort of U.K. PRIZZI'S HONOR, but no one else, including an effortlessly charismatic Liam Neeson in a supporting role, has been informed. | 0 |
This is a multi-faceted, insightful and bold story about the people in the life of a schizophrenic patient, their (and our) perception and realities. Although the main theme revolves around a delusional young woman, the story delightfully flirts with physics, medicine, religion and even politics as it questions our perceptions about what is true and what is real. Konkona Sensharma beautifully conveys that the world Mithi is living in is as real to her as ours is to us. Within that world, she is logical and her thoughts are internally consistent, not the gibberish that they seem to us in our world.<br /><br />Here are a few outstanding scenes to look out for while watching the movie (don't worry, these are not spoilers). I absolutely loved the way Aparna Sen wove these commentaries into the story.<br /><br />- The references to quantum mechanics and relativity intermingled with the witch-doctor ("ojha" in Hindi) performing his religious rituals that he believes will drive away the "ghosts" sitting in Mithi's brain. <br /><br />- The doctor prescribing shock-treatment as a solution that is "believed" to work <br /><br />- Windows of perception - The scene about the review of Anu's book. <br /><br />- The allusion to illusion in a conversation about a director looking for "maya". <br /><br />- News footage of George Bush telling the whole world that there is "no doubt in his mind" that there are WMD in Iraq (now, that is not as much about Bush's perception, who I suspect knew the truth, as the gullible public's perception about WMD in Iraq.)<br /><br />- One of the best scenes in the movie is where Mithi tells Anu "Charu sent this man to beat me" and Anu dismisses it as a matter of course. Konkona did a fantastic job, bringing out the strange mix of muddled thoughts in a schizophrenic's brain when her world and the real world clash.<br /><br />Aparna Sen was bold, but not bold enough to pose one big question: Is nearly all of mankind delusional to believe in God? She could have inserted some scenes about "normal", "healthy" people praying to and sacrificing for a Being that no one has ever seen or heard from in all of human history (The ritual/exorcism scene doesn't go far enough). That would be the ultimate question: What is normal? Who's reality is right, the Believer's or the Atheist's?<br /><br />IMHO, this movie is a far more intricate exploration of the schizophrenic mind than "A Beautiful Mind". It looks at the minds of not just the sick person, but also the healthy, and does so from many different angles and illuminates our understanding of our own minds and our world. If the former got 4 Oscars, this deserves more - At least one each for story, screenplay, direction, Konkona, and Shabana Azmi. It was truly a treat to watch this movie and I'm glad I bought the DVD for my collection. <br /><br />This was a story very well-told indeed. | 1 |
Although not the best Anime I have ever seen but I enjoyed Lady Death.<br /><br />I have never read the comic book and just saw this at the video store and decided to give it a chance.<br /><br />The animation was OK, I got the sense of the 80's anime from it which is what set it off for me. Why everyone else hates that is beyond me.<br /><br />Character development was fine. I like how they brought the transition from Hope to Lady Death around. for you who don't like it, obviously wasn't paying attention. Lucifer tells you how it happens, and she used his words.<br /><br />Creamtor was a nice mentor/soldier for her. his dark bruiting style was perfect for this kind of movie.<br /><br />I think everyone here who has bashed this needs to take another look at it and reconsider. cause everything people have bashed this can be said about everyones favorite anime Vampire Hunter D | 1 |
"Nobi" or "Fires On the Plain" is a film that is so excellent on so many levels, that not enough good things can be said about it. My only regret is that I was not able to see this 1959 film sooner.<br /><br />Being something of a film purist, I tend to look at films for their artistic merits based upon dialog, acting, photography and even the efforts to remain true to the period in terms of costume. Ultimately, I want to know if the film is "truthful" enough in revealing the human condition to make me think without oppressing me with what the director wants me to think.<br /><br />"Fires on the Plain" is a great film because it crafts a portrait filled with realistic human reactions to the dying fires of a great historical catastrophe.<br /><br />Ichikawa's film is a condemnation of war on all levels -- as any good war film should be. War is horrifying, bloody, destructive. It is also murderous on the psyche. However, what is fundamental about "Fires on the Plain" is its unapologetic look at the Japanese soldiers. It shows them slowly collapsing under the weight of superior American firepower and their nation's inability to wage a war of its own making. A fatalistic code encouraging death before surrender is at the heart of this madness.<br /><br />I was astonished to see such an honest and brutally close look at the bitter fruits of Japan's military misadventure made just 14 years after the end of what the Japanese call the "Great Pacific War." Ichikawa, reveals what the Germans called the "war life," the plight of the common soldier.<br /><br />Ichikawa's film is interesting, since even today Japan is having a hard time fully coming to terms with its wartime fanaticism, its subjugation of conquered peoples, the racism of its war against the Chinese and war crimes which included cannibalism by soldiers and officers practiced not only against one another, but against Allied prisoners of war.<br /><br />Ichikawa produces a stark representation of the victimization of soldiers by a confluence of bad political decisions and cultural pressures.<br /><br />This stark examination is skillfully done by portraying the doomed soldiers as human beings who exhibit, at various times, fear, brilliantly laconic humor, dialog enriched by its sparseness, and a plot whose complexity is belied by the grim, wilderness setting.<br /><br />Ichikawa's portrait is a ragged and painful tapestry of defeated men. The tubercular Tamura, played as a woebegone and gentle soul by Eiji Funakoshi, is a good soldier who can't abandon his humanity, though he is as frightened and lost as his comrades. Before he departs for a hospital that will reject him as too healthy, Tamura is given a hand grenade by a superior who, recognizing the hopelessness of their situation, advises Tamura to kill himself.<br /><br />Why Tamura's hopelessly ill-supplied and militarily incapable unit was not ordered to surrender at the start of the film is telling. Ichikawa makes it plain that the war is over and everyone is merely waiting to die. As Tamura leaves his unit for his hopeless search for physical and spiritual salvation, he sees his comrades pointlessly digging an air raid shelter. They appear like corpses looking up from their own mass grave.<br /><br />We later watch as the overworked hospital's medical staff abandons the dying patients to an all-consuming American artillery barrage. The pathetic patients, who crawl from their huts in a vain attempt to survive, appear like pathetic, serpentine creatures dragging themselves from an omnipotent force. You know they won't survive.<br /><br />Ichikawa makes it plain that the only thing worse than a defeated army is one that has lost its honor by abandoning its humanity and its comrades. As Tamura staggers through the jungles of Leyte we encounter the noble, the dying and the exploitive. Cannibalism rears its ugly head as soldiers begin to eat one another rather than surrender to American "corned beef."<br /><br />When the men do talk of surrender, the propaganda of how Americans kills prisoners is countered by a worldly-wise soldier who reveals that the approaching Americans feed and care for prisoners of war because they, unlike the Japanese, respect brave soldiers who are forced to give up.<br /><br />It is the Japanese who intend to die fighting for the Emperor long after resistance has lost all meaning. Those willing to fight to the death will be killed. It is the calculus of war.<br /><br />After shooting a murderous and cannibalistic comrade, whom he earlier offered his own body to as food, the fatalistic Tamura's careless surrender also seems to be an intentional form of suicide. His death is a lonely image. Was Ichikawa trying to tell us of the internal conflict of the ordinary soldier who wants to live, but who is still trapped by his nation's suicidal cultural codes?<br /><br />If someone watches this film carefully, he or she will see that absolutism and fanaticism is the enemy. The Americans are portrayed as a technologically advanced people willing to employ that technology in the form of inexorable military power -- a lesson that transformed Japanese postwar society. Ichikawa's film isn't so shallow that it indicts America. Ichikawa indicts the sedimentary layers of Japan's destructive policies that created the war and then to continue it when all was lost.<br /><br />Ichikawa does not mention the nuclear weapons dropped upon Nagasaki and Hiroshima. He doesn't have to. The slow-motion destruction of the Imperial Japanese Army in the Philippines reveals the seeds of Japan's immolation. | 1 |
The Bloodsucker Leads the Dance - what a laughable title, it's so utterly misleading. It's not surprising that the film-makers try and mislead us though because this is one terrible movie.<br /><br />The story basically involves a murder mystery in a castle on a remote island.<br /><br />Very little happens in this film. And when something does wake the viewer from his stupor, it invariably is unintentional comedy in the form of atrocious dialogue delivered by a hopeless group of voice-artists. These guys are so bad they make the actors they deliver voices for appear like a group of remedial-level morons. It really is hard to determine how bad the acting is when you have dubbing this abysmal. But the voice-artists cannot be blamed for the script. It's a travesty. Unintentionally funny at best, pathetic at worst. The story in general is, to say the least, uneven. The women characters are particularly idiotic; the men are either creepy or tedious.<br /><br />The whole enterprise smacks of pure exploitation of the audience. It doesn't remotely deliver what it promises and even when the murders (finally) start happening, they all occur off screen. All we get is a few half-hearted severed head shots.<br /><br />A few people have said that this movie is a giallo. I cannot agree less with this opinion. Anyone who enjoys Italian thrillers should give this movie a wide berth as there is nothing remotely thrilling about it. It's basically a soft-core porn film with a horror angle. But it's not very erotic either.<br /><br />I can't recommend this to anyone. | 0 |
The oddly-named Vera-Ellen was to movie dancing what Sonja Henie was to movie ice-skating: blonde, girlish, always delightful to watch, but not an especially good actress and usually lumbered with weak material. When I watch Vera-Ellen's sexy apache dance with Gene Kelly in 'Words and Music', I can't help noticing that her blouse (yellow with narrow red horizontal stripes) seems to be made out of the South Vietnam flag. For some reason, the very American Vera-Ellen starred in *two* musicals (made several years apart) set in Edinburgh, a city not noted for its tap-dancers: 'Let's Be Happy' and 'Happy Go Lovely'.<br /><br />In the latter, Cesar Romero plays an American impresario who for some reason is staging a musical in Edinburgh. There's a vague attempt to link this show to the Edinburgh Festival, which is nonsense: the Festival is not a showcase for splashy leg-shows. We also see a couple of stock shots of the Royal Mile: apart from a few Highland accents, there's absolutely no attempt to convey Scottish atmosphere in this movie. The funniest gag occurs at the very beginning, when we learn that the title of Romero's show is 'Frolics to You': this is a cheeky pun that Britons will get and Yanks won't.<br /><br />Vera-Ellen is, as usual, cute and appealing and an impressive dancer, but the very few musical numbers in this movie are boring and bad. The plot -- mistaken identity between magnate David Niven and reporter Gordon Jackson -- is brainless, though no more so than the plots of several dozen Hollywood musicals. Romero is less annoying than usual here, probably because (for once) he isn't required to convince us that he's interested in bedding the heroine.<br /><br />The single biggest offence of this movie is its misuse of Bobby Howes. The father of Sally Ann Howes was a major star of West End stage musicals; his wistful rendition of "She's My Lovely" was a big hit in Britain in 1937. Here, he shows up in several scenes as Romero's dogsbody but never has a chance to participate in a musical number, nor even any real comedy. It's absolutely criminal that this movie -- with a title containing the word 'Lovely', sure to evoke Howes's greatest hit -- would cast a major British musical star but give him nothing to do!<br /><br />The delightful character actress Ambrosine Phillpotts (whom I worked with once) shines in one restaurant sequence, and there's a glimpse of the doomed beauty Kay Kendall. As Vera-Ellen's confidante, somebody named Diane Hart speaks in one of the most annoying voices I've ever heard: it sounds like an attempt to imitate Joan Greenwood and Glynis Johns both at the same go, but doesn't match either. Val Guest has a story credit, but this movie doesn't come up to the quality of his brilliant comedies. The colour photography is wretched, though I realise that postwar Britain could not afford Hollywood's process work. 'Happy Go Lovely' is at utmost best a pleasant time-waster, with 'waster' being the operative word. I'll rate this movie just 4 out of 10. | 0 |
Camera work - Why is the camera work in this movie so jumpy? This is annoying and distracting. Editing - the Flashes of the still pictures were way too short. Many of the other scenes were too short also. Just flashes. Sound - the background music was way too loud and covered up the voices. One should not have to rewind and replay to catch what was said. Doesn't anybody check these things and make them do it over again. Please reduce the volume of the background music in future. Is adjustment of the relative sound levels the job of the editor, Julia Wong? The plot had way too many loose ends. The basic story line had potential. I think the film needed more work. Was it rushed? Perhaps they ran out of money. Like a lot of movies, it started out great but just petered out toward the end. I really don't understand this, you know you have the story board before it goes into production so why doesn't all the loose ends get taken care of in the storyboard.<br /><br />Sorry to be so critical. | 0 |
Darr, although a copy of some Hollywood flick, is one of the best films I have seen. It is not only beautifully portrayed but also has great songs and beautiful scenery. Shahrukh is his usual self. His expressions and voice matches his character. I was pleasantly surprised by Sunny Deol's portrayal in the film. He is a bit romantic and lovable in the film, unlike his other characters in his other films.At times you feel like Justice hasn't been done to his character. Sunny was intended to be portrayed as the good guy in the film but ends up looking like the villain at the end. Juhi Chawla is beautiful and bubbly. She is her usual self. In short, A great love story with passion. | 1 |
As did others in this forum, when "Fobidden Planet" was offered in 1956, I rushed to see it. This story is an interesting phenomenon I suggest because young, old, male, female, sci-fi experts and people who find such fare 'way out" all can follow and enjoy this film's story and plot lines very well. This is the first movie set on a planet other than Earth in the 20th Century other than serials such as "Flash Gordon". Leslie Nielsen was vocally a bit weak for his role, at that time, but Walter Pigeon, Marvin Miller, Anne Francis, Richard Anderson, Earl Holliman and especially Warren Stevens all acquitted themselves very well. There are so many visual splendors in this one, it's hard to choose a favorite from the film's scenes. The approach to Altair-4, the starship itself, the landing on the planet's alien surface, the descent via extensor stairs, the first view of the landscape, the approach of the rocket-sled, Dr. Morbius's house seen from without and from within, the underground complex and its wonders, the setup of the weaponry, the battle with the monster, the final approach of the unseen destroyer,the escape from the doomed planet--all these scenes are etched into the viewer's mind because we discover them along with the participants. Veteran Cyril Hume's literate script was filmed intelligently by long-time director Fred McLeod Wilcox with clarity and imagination. it is a shock to realize there's no music at all; the film is carried by the words, the actors and the mystery-revelation storyline. It can be watched again and again with pleasure--I have been doing so for nearly fifty years. Until this famous and well-loved film was created, no film had tried to imagine a world beyond Earth; and for decades afterward, ships kept crashing back on the planet--as if the writers' imaginations were failing and causing the crashes. Still the best, many say. That says something negative about this nation's so-called intellectual leaders' imaginations--and something very positive indeed I suggest about those who made this gem. | 1 |
Just finished watching The Groove Tube which I first saw about 23 years ago when I was a teenager staying up way past my bedtime watching HBO with my brother and his best friend. We had also watched Animal House just before that so we saw two movies that starred an SNL alumna and had some naked breasts. Good thing our parents were asleep the whole time! Anyway, there were lots of weird and funny things in this movie that were eye-openers like the Brown 25 sequence of the Uranus Industries commercial ("with the taste of beef stew" says the announcer as what is apparently human excrement comes out of a white tube. Ewww!) or the face of the puppet talking about VD (a scrotum with a small penis with eyes glued on). Chevy Chase and Richard Belzer made their feature film debuts here. Chase is hilarious whether doing a Geritan spot with a woman stripping, having his hands have sex in a "Let Fingers Do It" commercial, or singing "Four Leaf Clover" with co-writer/director Ken Shapiro drumming his hands on his head. Belzer teams with Shapiro in "The Dealers" movie, and on "Channel One Evening News" with one wild bit having Belzer as a black prostitute trying tricks on reporter Ken who plays Lionel here. "Lionel, that sounds like a train that I'm going to ride like a Choo-Choo!" Other outrageous bits include "The Koko Show" with Shipiro as a kid clown show host who, after ordering the "people over ten" to leave the room, reads requests of his viewers like passages of "Fanny Hill"! Or how about the Olympics segment with a German couple making love being announced by two men (one of them Spanish) as they get explicit while "Please Stand By" keeps interrupting on the screen! Or the animated segment on "The Dealers" which depicts dancing toilets after Shapiro ingested some marijuana! Not everything's so dirty. Besides the "Four Leaf Clover" skit, at the end there's a highly amusing music segment with Ken lip-syncing his own recording of "Just You, Just Me" while dancing with suit and briefcase around the city with occasionally a cop (co-writer Lane Sarasohn) joining in. So, in summation this is one weirdly, funny movie that seemed to influence other like films (Tunnelvision, Kentucky Fried Movie) and possibly Saturday Night Live (which made Chevy that show's first star) and, despite some dated elements, can still amuse today. P.S. While I liked hearing Curtis Mayfield's "Move On Up" during the gorillas dancing/hitchhiking beginning sequence, I did wonder what the point was with the sequence of the hitchhiker and the woman who picked him up, having them running from the car, stripping on the run, and then having the naked man get caught by the cop who stopped on the road. Guess it's one of those '70s streaking things... | 1 |
When I remember seeing the previews for this movie and not really thinking much about it. It was almost one of those movies that when you see the preview, its stunning, and then when it comes out, you hear nothing and totally miss it, and your memory totally doesn't correct the mistake of missing it. Man On Fire was one of those movies. I was curious on a rental one time, and I decided to take it home with me, my precious Blockbuster rental in my hands. I watched it, and witnessed such a beautiful movie. It is like none other...drama and action combined to create something amazingly spectacular. The cinematography done by Tony Scott is extremely well done and unique, unlike another movie. The subtitles can explain something without even listening to the actual voices, and the music is very intriguing for the setting. I got into this movie, and ended up buying it as soon as I could scurry out of the household and head over to Best Buy. I've watched it several times now. Denzel Washington (Creasy) does an amazing job with becoming this lost-minded ex-special forces man with no reason to live. Dakota Fanning (Pita) puts life back into him with her undying love for him right from the start. They bond and become good friends, until she is kidnapped by notorious gangsters part of the brotherhood, La Hermandad. Creasy (Denzel) tells the mother of Dakota Fanning that he will hunt down the killers, fearing that Pita is dead. This is where Creasy really shows the person he can become. He uses his contacts from Pita's kidnapping and Creasy's hospitalization to find one of the men and he begins his pursuit. My favorite line of all, is in this movie, when Christopher Walken tells the AFI agent that "A man is a work of art, in anything that he does....cooking, whatever. Creasy's art is death...he's about to paint his masterpiece." He plays a very unique roll of Creasy's old partner and friend. After finally pursuing the brother of "The Voice," leader of La Hermandad. Creasy arranges a meeting to trade Pita for himself and The Voice's brother. In the end, Creasy dies from being shot earlier, and his wound getting infected and massive blood loss. It is a very sincere and sad ending, but a great one. I love this movie and recommend it to anyone that is looking for a memorable flick. The story is in depth, everything is explained from beginning to end, and nothing corny at all in any way or manner. | 1 |
Oftentimes, films of this nature come across as a mixed bag of great work along with slight drivel to fill the runtime. Whether it be the big name support or the project itself, Paris je t'aime never falls into this realm. I believe I can truly say that the movie as a whole is better than its parts. Between the wonderful transitions and the fantastic ending sequence, merging characters together in one last view of love in Paris, I think the film would have suffered if any cog was removed. True, there are definitely a few standouts that overshadow the rest, but in the end I have a lasting image, even if just a split second of each short vignette. Love takes many forms, and the talent here rises to the occasion, to surprise and move the audience through shear poetry and elegance of the emotion's many facets.<br /><br />Quartier des Enfants Rouges: Maggie Gyllenhaal surprises as a drug-addled actress shooting in Paris and meeting with her dealer. The reveal at its conclusion leaves you a bit off balance as the infatuation between the two changes hands.<br /><br />Quatier Latin: Ben Gazzara and Gena Rowlands (recreating a relationship from an old Cassavettes film?) bring some great sharp wit and sarcasm as they meet to discuss their impending divorce. What of their conversation is true and what is just to anger the other, it is all enjoyable, leaving a smile on your face.<br /><br />Quais de Seine: Director Gurinder Chadha gives us a touching portrait of love existing beyond religious and racial differences. It is a sweet little story of shy love between two people obviously feeling a connection, but unable to quite vocalize it.<br /><br />Tour Eiffel: I will admit to being disappointed that Sylvain Chomet did not get an animated sequence together, however, this live action tale of mimes falling in love at a Paris jail has the same quirky nature as his film Les Triplettes de Belleville.<br /><br />Tuileries: The Coen Brothers stick to their strange sense of humor and deliver some fine laughs. Steve Buscemi really shines and sells the performance without speaking a word. His facial reactions to the verbal abuse of a disgruntled Frenchman are priceless.<br /><br />Bastille: Here is a heartbreaking portrait of a couple about out of love only to have it come back in the face of tragedy. Sergio Castellitto and Miranda Richardson a moving as the couple dealing with trouble and finding how strong the bond of true love is.<br /><br />Pére-Lachaise: A surprisingly funny little tale from horror master Wes Craven. A little Oscar Wilde humor can add levity to any relationship.<br /><br />Parc Monceau: Alfonso Cuarón looks to be practicing the amazing long-takes he perfects in Children of Men with this tale of two people in love, walking down the street. As Nick Nolte and Ludivine Sagnier eventually come into close-up view, we also find the true context of their conversation of "forbidden love."<br /><br />Porte de Choisy: A very surreal look into the glamour of Paris. This is probably the most odd entry, but so intriguing that you can't look away from the craziness that ensues. Do not anger your Asian beautician, whatever you do.<br /><br />Pigalle: An interesting look at a relationship undergoing a role-play that seems to have been stagnant for years. A little variety from Bob Hoskins is necessary to fire kindled.<br /><br />Quartier de la Madeleine: Even vampires in Paris can find love amongst the feeding hours. I don't know whether to be happy for Elijah Wood as a result or not. Beautifully shot and muted to allow the vibrancy of the blood red, this short is strange, but then so is love.<br /><br />14th arrondissement: Leave it to Alexander Payne's odd sense of humor to really add some depth to this voice-over story told of an American in Paris to find what love is. Her harsh, uneducated French is a very stark contrast to the authentic accents we've been listening to until this pointjust off-kilter enough to be both funny and totally true to the story.<br /><br />Montmartre: An interesting introduction into the proceedings. Paris can be a city reviled for everyday activities like finding a parking spot, yet when love is discovered, it will take its prisoner anywhere to continue the journey.<br /><br />Loin du 16éme: Catalina Sandino Moreno brilliantly shows what love for a child is through her subtle performance as the tale is bookended by her singing to a young child, yet totally different each time.<br /><br />Place des Fetes: My favorite tale of the bunch. Seydou Boro and Aïssa Maïga are simply fantastic. The cyclical nature of the story and how fate brings the two characters together twice in order for Boro to finally ask her for coffee is tough to watch. Sometimes love at your final moment is enough to accept one's leaving of this earth.<br /><br />Place des Victoires: One of the best stories about a mother trying to cope with the death of her young son. Juliette Binoche is devastating as the mother, desperate for one last glimpse of her son, and Willem Dafoe is oddly perfect as the cowboy who allows her the chance.<br /><br />Faubourg Saint-Denis: Sometimes one needs to think he has lost love to accept that he has not been fully invested in the relationship. Melchior Beslon reminisces, trying to find where they went wrong through a series of sharp, quick cuts from his meeting Natalie Portman to eventually "seeing" how much he needs her.<br /><br />Le Marais: Leave it to Gus Van Sant to show us a story about the gap in communication and understanding as his films almost always deal with some form of alienation. His photographer from Elephant is an American working in Paris who is the catalyst for Gaspard Ulliel's artist ramblings of love and soul mates. Sometimes one doesn't need to know what is being said to understand what is going on in the pauses. | 1 |
Without reiterating what was said above about this movie, I would like to add that I was looking forward to watching this film...the cast/location and the work of the excellent director Michael Winterbottom etc...It had a vague shadow of 'Don't look Now' about the storyline from the beginning. A stay in different surroundings (Italy again) to dim the heartbreak of loss...or perhaps that's how I saw it? So consequently I sat there waiting for the story to unfold and put a spin on what we expect to happen to this family in a foreign European country....and I sat there and sat there....and guess what? nothing actually happens! and I mean nothing!! You are not even given the chance to get into the characters as they are so 1 dimensional and vacuous..You are led to believe from the pace of the movie that something was going to happen to turn the whole film on it's head...The eldest daughters flirtation with the local vespa boys, had great scope to take the movie in another direction, the youngest daughters visions of her dead mother ended up being a fruitless and pointless exercise, the fathers attempts at being seduced by one of his female students felt ridiculous given his age. It felt as if the script had a last recall made where they decided at the last minute to eradicated any guts to the story and went for paring it down to a bare minimum to no effect. When the credits started to roll (unexpectedly) you can't help but feel robbed of your time spent sat watching this pile of rubbish. | 0 |
I liked this comedy so much. Will Smith does not do anything slow. It is always right on target with the greatest scripts and comedy that keeps you laughing, and involved in the plot. You are watching a skilled comedian, who plays all his parts well. One fully believes he is who he is playing. I loved him and Tommy Lee Jones in the Men in Black. This comedy rates right up with that movie. The humor is fast moving, and Will Smith is as sure of himself as he was in Men in Black. Quick witted, and well skilled in the art of making others score each time, but doing it in a tasteful manner, and with finesse.<br /><br />Will Smith seems to have honed his comedy routine well. He was so darn funny. I loved the part where he had an allergic reaction to something he ate, and his face swelled up, and he looked more like Cassius Clay after a fight then he did himself. Then seeing him sipping on the benadryl bottle trying to bring his head back down to the right size. I laughed so hard. He knows how to make us all laugh. | 1 |
Having Just "Welcomed Home" my 23 YR old daughter from a year in Iraq, Camp Anaconda medical support unit, I felt compelled to get this DVD. I wanted to hear other returning vets feelings in order to attempt to better understand her mentality on arrival and not waiting until after something bad happened. Regardless on your take on the war and peace this movie serves as a great start for all Americans to begin the healing of our returning vets emotional void. The paramount statement of the entire movie is "Take Action" on the problem . Incredibly emotional movie. I would highly recommend this movie to the vet the vets entire mature family and ask that they follow through with a plan to listen comfort help the returning Gulf War Enduring Freedom vets.<br /><br />Fast forward nearly one year later & My daughter has seen this DVD. Took account of her emotions and actually has made a commitment to re-up for another 6 years. Her take on her time spent in the sand is that she did some good. Local Balad children got first rate medical treatment for various common ailments not ordinarily able to afford free with an escort and translator. Her look over her shoulder at her Iraq tour was . "We changed some hearts and minds back there" Great DVD you have to keep an open mind and see all sides | 1 |
In the hands of lesser actors than Claudette Colbert and Robert Ryan this film could have become silly and trite. But, with these two experienced thespians leading the way, I found "Silent Fury" to be a most exciting and pleasurable little mystery. When their wedding is interrupted by a stranger who claims that Colbert is already married, and that he was best man at that wedding, one can sense that there is some sort of plot against her at work. As Colbert, Ryan, and her attorney set out to disprove the strangers claim of a prior marriage, they are met at every turn by more evidence that seems to reinforce the claim that she is indeed already wed. Although it's not very difficult to figure out just who the main "baddie" is, it's still lots of fun as the intensity and pace of the story increases. All in all, a good, solid mystery film with fine performances by the two leading actors and a fine supporting cast which includes the often underrated Paul Kelly. | 1 |
I happened upon this film by accident, and really enjoyed. Timothy Busfield's character is without redeeming qualities, and at one point, Busfield and star Meloni ogle women as they pass by...Meloni's take on the parade is different from Busfield's. Janel Maloney is terrific...She looks very much like Tea Leone, but the major difference here is that Janel can actually ACT. Some very nice things in this film and well worth your attention when it's on cable. | 1 |
Deep Sea 3D is a stunning insight in to an underwater world only a few have had the opportunity to view first hand.<br /><br />From the opening sequence when a wave rushes towards the audience momentarily engulfing us in the ocean, the filmmakers make full use of the IMAX format. A jelly fish field appears to fill the whole theatre, a shark powers towards us, predators pounce from behind rocks and devour their prey. It is a beautifully captured under sea feast for the eyes.<br /><br />Our ears on the other hand, are not given the same treatment. The film is narrated by Hollywood stars Jonny Depp and Kate Winslet. Both sound so ridiculous it positively spoils the enjoyment of the visuals. Depp sounds slightly bored whilst Winslet sounds as if she is reading a bedtime story to the village idiot. I was shocked that an actress of her status could have pitched her performance so wrongly. The script is fairly silly and contains very little depth. The soundtrack is filled with strange, unrealistic sound effects which I assume are meant to be funny but in fact detract attention from the material which should have been allowed to speak for itself. <br /><br />Danny Elfman has provided an excellent score which gives plenty of impact to the ups and downs of life under the sea, when it is allowed to play out without the silly bubble sounds or crayfish footfalls which pepper film.<br /><br />The film is a technical marvel but with it's childish script, annoying narration and misplaced sound effects it cannot be taken seriously. | 0 |
While listening to an audio book, Cambpell Scott is the reader. I was so excited to hear his voice and that brought back my disappointment that "Six Degrees" was canceled. They never seem to keep the good shows on air long enough to capture an audience that can connect with the shows story. What a shame, and shame on th network for not giving this show a full seasons chance. This was an excellent show to watch with a great cast. The network gave "Men in Trees" a second chance witch is also a great show , but they took "Invasion" off and that also was something totally different to watch, not the same old-same old themes. Why can't the networks get it right. | 1 |
I had high hopes for this movie. The theater monologue is great and Nic Balthazar is a very interesting man, with a lot of experience and knowledge when it comes to movies. <br /><br />I am a fan of a lot of Belgian movies, but this movie is bad. It's completely unbelievable that actors who are 34 are suddenly playing the roles of teenagers. The "linguistic games" were hideous and over the top. Nothing about the film seemed real to me. The ending was way too deus ex machina for me.<br /><br />I am very disappointed and think I wasted an hour and a half of my life. | 0 |
As far as I know this was my first experience with Icelandic movies. It's such a relief to see something else than your regular Hollywood motion picture. Too bad that movies like this one have a small chance of succeeding in the big world. I can only hope that people watch this by accident, by recommendation or other...<br /><br />Because it's really worth while. I left the cinema feeling really sad. I couldn't get the tragic destiny's of the characters out of my head. And it impressed me even more when I thought of the complexity of the film. Not only was it a tragic story, it had excellent comic reliefs and a very good soundtrack.<br /><br />If you have the opportunity, watch it! It's really thought provoking and made me ponder a lot.<br /><br /> | 1 |
How viewers react to this new "adaption" of Shirley Jackson's book, which was promoted as NOT being a remake of the original 1963 movie (true enough), will be based, I suspect, on the following: those who were big fans of either the book or original movie are not going to think much of this one...and those who have never been exposed to either, and who are big fans of Hollywood's current trend towards "special effects" being the first and last word in how "good" a film is, are going to love it.<br /><br />Things I did not like about this adaption:<br /><br />1. It was NOT a true adaption of the book. From the articles I had read, this movie was supposed to cover other aspects in the book that the first one never got around to. And, that seemed reasonable, no film can cover a book word for word unless it is the length of THE STAND! (And not even then) But, there were things in this movie that were never by any means ever mentioned or even hinted at, in the movie. Reminded me of the way they decided to kill off the black man in the original movie version of THE SHINING. I didn't like that, either. What the movie's press release SHOULD have said is..."We got the basic, very basic, idea from Shirley Jackson's book, we kept the same names of the house and several (though not all) of the leading character's names, but then we decided to write our own story, and, what the heck, we watched THE CHANGELING and THE SHINING and GHOST first, and decided to throw in a bit of them, too."<br /><br />2. They completely lost the theme of a parapyschologist inviting carefully picked guest who had all had brushes with the paranormal in their pasts, to investigate a house that truly seemed to have been "born bad". No, instead, this "doctor" got everyone to the house under the false pretense of studying their "insomnia" (he really invited them there to scare them to death and then see how they reacted to their fear...like lab rats, who he mentioned never got told they are part of an experiment...nice guy). This doctor, who did not have the same name, by the way, was as different from the dedicated professional of the original movie as night from day.<br /><br />3. In direct contrast to the statement that was used to promote both movies "some houses are just born bad", this house was not born bad but rather became bad because of what happened there...and, this time around, Nel gets to unravel the mystery (shades of THE CHANGELING). The only problem was, the so-called mystery was so incoherently told that I'm sure it remained a mystery to most of the audience...but, then there was no mystery in the first place (not in the book), because the house was bad TO BEGIN WITH. It's first "victim" died before ever setting eyes on it.<br /><br />4. The way the character of Luke was portrayed was absolutely ridiculous. He was supposed to be a debonair playboy who was someday to inherit the house (and was a true skeptic of it's "history")...and in this one he was just a winey-voiced, bumbling nerd who couldn't sleep(insomnia remember) and was a compulsive liar.<br /><br />5. I was also annoyed with the way the movie jumped from almost trying to recreate original scenes word for word (the scene with Nel's sister's family, and Mrs. Dudley's little opening speech...) to going off into flights of fancy that made me think more of these other movies than THE HAUNTING. It's like it couldn't make up its mind what it wanted to do.<br /><br />6. I missed Nel's narrative through the whole movie. The original was so like a gothic novel in the way that the story was mostly told in the first person, through Nel's eyes, and we always were privy to her thoughts. That totally unique touch was completely lost in the new version. They also tried to make Nel much more of a heroine. The original Nel was not a bad person, but she was a bitter person (could she be otherwise after sacrificing 11 years of her life to a selfish old woman and a spiteful sister?) and she liked to moan, and she lost her temper... This one was almost too good to be true. This was never more apparent than in the climax of the movie where the writer's had obviously been watching GHOST one too many times.<br /><br />7. They changed the history of the house and it's occupents too much. There was no Abigail Crain (the daughter of Hugh whose legend loomed large in the original versions), there was no "companion", and there was no nursery. There was also no "Grace" (wife of the original doctor) and Hugh Crain's wives died in totally different ways. These changes, changed the story WAY too much. I don't know whether the producers of this movie should be glad Shirley Jackson no longer walks this earth or whether they should...BE SORRY (if ya get my drift!!! The hauntings she could envision are not something to be trifled with!!!).<br /><br />In conclusion, let me just leave you with some words from the original Luke (appropriate substitution of the word "house" for "movie"!): "This 'movie' should be burnt to the ground, and the ground sprinkled with salt!" My favorite movie of all time remains so. No competition from this one. | 0 |
I don't think I can add much more to what has already been said about this film. However, I can offer a small recollection from seeing ST-V in the theater. In the last (dreadful) scene, as the camera is pulling out from the camping shot and it seems likely that the credits will start rolling at any second, the audience seemed to rise in unison. Normally, for a movie like this, at least -some- die-hard fans stay to watch right up until the final disclaimer. As the people filed out, I remember hearing no laughing and cheerful banter, only low murmurs.<br /><br />I remember reading a movie review in the local paper in which the critic said that it was so bad that only Trek fans would like it. What an idiot. The fans were the ones most apt to tear it apart first!<br /><br />Favorite worst scene: Target shooting on a Voyager space probe, through a periscope no less! Space must be a much smaller frontier than we thought. | 0 |
very badly made film, the action/violence scenes are ridiculous.<br /><br />1 point for the presence of Burton and Mastroianni + 1 point for the real tragic event of the massacre of the innocent italians: 2/10. | 0 |
I waited quite awhile till I was able to watch this Lone Ranger movie. I finally got to see it on the Lone Star Channel today and was very disappointed in the whole movie. Clayton Moore and John Hart acted better Lone Rangers and Jay Silverheels as Tonto, than the two stars in this movie. Very poor acting was done by everyone in this movie. Even the plot was bad and far fetching. I believe the horse, portraying Silver was the best actor throughout this movie.I am glad I didn't go out and buy a copy of this movie when it first came out, as I feel it's a waste of good money. I am truly sorry the characters that Clayton Moore, John Hart and Jay Silverheels played, and brought to life on the silver screen, have been tarnished so badly. Unless in the future, they find actors worthy of portraying the characters in the same manner which Clayton, John and Jay did so well in the past, I'll not spend the money to buy the movie. I'll not watch this movie again.<br /><br />Wayne Davies | 0 |
This is without a doubt one of the best movies I have ever seen. The first time I saw it I was about 9 or 10 years old. I began looking sometime before the rape scene. And when I saw it I was really shocked thinking "What kinda sick movie is this?". Today I've seen it from the beginning and really understood how great this movie really is. It's exciting, frightening, shocking and in it's own unique way disturbing. But the best thing about it is the ending where the audience is shown that this experience will haunt the characters for the rest of their lifes. It'll torture their conscience and they will worry for the rest of their lifes about the bodies being found in that river. And there is nothing they can do about it, it's something they have to live with. This ending is one of the most unhappy endings in movie history and very smart, brilliant and horrifying<br /><br />And the acting is also great, especially Jon Voight and Burt Reynolds. Magnificent acting in this movie. All in all, John Boorman has created one of the best movies throughout movie history based on Dick Chaney's novel. A must see for all the movie lovers | 1 |
I watched this on a whim because it was available and I'd heard the Thumb movies were funny. This one was not. The majority of the jokes were based around "Geranium's" physique and, in turn, Kate Winslet's. I think it's really pathetic of the the "Thumbtanic" creators to stoop so low to make jabs at a respected actress just because she (heaven forbid) doesn't starve herself into the model of ideal modern beauty.<br /><br />My favorite part was the line that goes something like, "Hey, I have a great idea! Let's swim over to this makeshift raft that no one else seems to see!" Thirty seconds of amusement out of a 26 minute movie does not redeem its value. | 0 |
If this is what's best in the Finnish cinema at the moment, I'd say those big tax euros spent at supporting "culture" have gone to waste here in a horrible way. Paha maa is the worst kind of example of trying to make a Finnish "European film" for big audiences. I'm sure they wanted it to be all state-of-the-art, smart and touching at the same time. The result is crap.<br /><br />To make it short: - The story is pretentious, naïve and not credible. The same goes for the characters. I can imagine them brainstorming about making a film where "everything would, like, turn to ***t and people would be hurt and feel, you know, really bad inside, because Finnish people are so notoriously depressed, too, and their self-esteem is so bad", which brings us to the fact that...<br /><br />- The film is loaded with clichés, mostly about "the Finnish mentality". The way the it deals with people's problems and their causes could be straight out of a regular women's magazine or a cheap bull-psychology-self-help book. ("We feel so bad inside!") I'm sure they watched some Kaurismäki, too, to find out what it is about his films that people like, misunderstood him completely, and came up with a boring, depressing story about people going through all kinds of s**t for no other artistic purpose than perhaps social pornography. It's a crying shame they threw in Tolstoy here. It's just a sign of trying to be smart. And of not being.<br /><br />- I think the worst fault, however, is the complete lack of vision and depth. The film is highly unoriginal. It is also frustrating to watch endless sulking and suffering without any real revelation brought to it. I can go through this kind of mind**ck if the film is funny or ends up being an elaborate joke, or better yet, something sublime like in e.g. von Trier's Breaking the Waves. There was none these in Paha maa. Actually though, I did start laughing at some point because the turn of events was again just too predictable, over-the-top and incredible.<br /><br />Who does this crap? And who likes it? I hope they're pretending. | 0 |
Some of the reviewers here have foolishly judged this silent film by political-correctness standards of today. <br /><br />"Battle" was an excellent film for several reasons, correctly noted by more rational reviewers: Superb cast, lots of action, innovative editing and photography. <br /><br />Its stars were in effect the D.W. Griffith stock company and to this silent movie fan, that is inducement enough to watch it and to enjoy it. <br /><br />I saw it many years ago and just watched it again at YouTube; that was a very poor quality print, but coupled with my memory of a good print in a real theater, I can justifiably recommend this to reasonable people and film historians. | 1 |
This is based on Michael's life from 1983/4 till 2004. Flex Alexander did a good performance but looked nothing like Michael. I feel Michael was portrayed as a stupid person which I don't believe he was (even though he trusted the wrong people at times). I thought Flex Alexander looked Chinese when they made Michael look white. I think Latoya should of been portrayed in this, she was always pictured with her brother in the 80's. I never thought any of the supporting cast looked like their counterparts. There were some things that were inaccurate Lisa-Marie Presley's son looked about 4 in the wedding scene even though he was not yet 2 when Lisa and Michael got married. Also when Michael says to his mother Katherine he thinks he and Debbie should marry if she is carrying his child, it was Katherine's idea for the two to get married. | 0 |
This is probably one of the worst movies ever made. Bad acting, bad special effects, bad plot, bad everything. In the last 15 minutes a cat suited-cyborg is introduced which muddles everything. Malcom MacDowell must have needed to make a house payment because otherwise he would have had to sell himself on Hollywood Blvd to pay the bill. I just don"t know how you can go from Clockwork Orange to this crap and be able to look yourself in the mirror each morning. I could have done better special effects in my bathtub. There's no continuity. The editor must have been asleep or on drugs its so bad. Acting. Do they have to smoke to be bad.? The gun either shoots blue flames or bullets, make up your mind. The bad girl and the other girl in the movie look so much alike that it is confusing. Whay is it called 2013 Seadly Wake. It has nothing to do with the movie | 0 |
usually I support independent art and i try to be very comprehensive and tolerant...i tend to support everybody, because their efforts are worth...<br /><br />but this movie just moves away from all comprehension and tolerance limits!<br /><br />imagine the following situation:<br /><br />1. think about the REALLY WORST horror movie you have ever seen in your life so far.<br /><br />2. think about some great, attractive ART for that movie's DVD box...and a promising plot...<br /><br />3. voilà! you got ZOMBIE NATION.<br /><br />see it only if you really don't have anything else better to do. ANYTHING is better. | 0 |
BRIEF ENCOUNTER is a ghastly and pointless remake of the 1945 David Lean classic, which was based on Noel Coward's play "Still Life". A doctor removes a particle of grit from a woman's eye at a railway station, he is in a miserable relationship, she is happily married social worker of Italian ancestry. They meet by accident on another occasion, form an instant attraction and arrange to meet each other every Wednesday. The pair fall in love, but after spending a few afternoons together they realise that they have no realistic chance of happiness and agree to part. Coward's original one-act play concerned two ordinary people who fall in love. Sophia Loren and Richard Burton, two Super Stars and veterans of Hollywood Epics, are nobody's idea of 'ordinary people'. Loren in particular is miscast - Sophia Loren in full make-up, looking like a million dollars, working as a part-time voluntary social worker at a Citizen Advice Bureau just doesn't ring true. Burton, looking haggard, with dyed hair, too much make-up and wearing platform shoes, doesn't come across as your average General Practitioner. That said, you can't really blame them for having an affair after seeing their spouses. Burton is married to a literary critic who spends her evenings penning poisonous reviews and who treats her husband with total contempt. Loren's husband, Jack Hedley, potters around the house all day and is terminally boring: the most exciting thing he has ever done is nearly have an affair six years previous. Their final scene together will induce nausea, ("You've been a long, long way away", etc.). That great British jobbing actor, John LeMesurier, has a three minute cameo as Burton's friend, and appears to be slightly inebriated, speaking his lines in a barely audible voice. It's a sad and forgettable performance in a dismal, awful rehash of a cinema classic. Avoid at all costs. | 0 |
-Facts (I): "Mar Adentro" relates the well-known (at least in Spain) story of Ramón Sampedro, a Galician quadriplegic who killed himself (helped by some friends) after 28 years prostrated by his condition. Judges had denied several times his petitions of active euthanasia.<br /><br />-Facts (II): "Mar adentro" becomes THE MOVIE OF THE YEAR in Spain. Everyone talks about it: politicians, singers, ordinary people... Everyone likes it, even the critics' opinions are unanimous. The film wins a lot of prizes (Golden Globe, Oscar, Goya...) and annoys catholic community and life-lovers quadriplegics. A star is born.<br /><br />-Facts (III): The intensity and the quality of the actors in "Mar Adentro" are just amazing, and this makes mi wonder how come we have to watch the same bad young actors in the most of Spanish latest movies. I don't know if Javier Bardem is a great actor or a great imitator (there's quite a difference between one thing or the other); anyway, his job is just impressive, as well as Lola Dueñas', Belén Rueda's, or the job of all the guest starrings. This is (the actors selection) the strong point in Amenábar's movie.<br /><br />-Facts (IV): Alejandro Amenábar learned his lesson there at the Cinema School, there's no doubt about it: he's got a privileged brain. He takes good control of each and every one of the technical aspects, he knows what the audiences want, he knows how to touch the right chord, even if that turns him into such a demagogue (just like Spielberg is -one of Amenábar's idols-).<br /><br />-Facts (and V): If you criticize a movie such as "Mar Adentro" it will seem like you have any kind of trouble with the moral issue the story tells about. There's a trap in this kind of pictures: you have to differentiate between the movie itself and the moral concepts. If you don't like "Schindler's List" that does not mean that you agree with Hitler's philosophy (or do you?). So, for me, it is a good film and an extraordinary story (since it is a real story that makes it much more extraordinary). Grandiloquent, self-kind, and everything but neutral (no matter what Amenábar or Bardem have said about it: those characters that are not in favor of euthanasia come to no good at all!!). 50 % Hard / 50% way too sentimental.<br /><br />-Epilogue: "Mar Adentro" wouldn't be by no mean in my ranking of the best 50's Spanish movies of all time. Nobody has special merits in the story but Ramon Sampedro himself. He IS the movie. Now, Alejandro Amenábar is gonna become the more international Spanish director ever, maybe he'll go to live to Hollywood; but some of us would like to watch him filming a simple story, without bit final twists, without living dead nor dying alive... "The Others" is still his best movie.<br /><br />*My rate: 7/10 | 1 |
One thing i can say about this movie is well long, VERY LONG! I actually recently purchased this movie a couple of months ago seeing that there was a new version coming out. I was happy to find that it was made in 1978 because The 70's (even though i never lived in them) is actually one of my favourite decades, especially for the music! when i watched this movie the story was actually very good at the start but then after about 50 mins it started to get very boring and repetitive. i will admitt the animation did impress me! it was nothing i had ever seen before and was well pretty cool to see. but the movie honestly could of been a bit better, it could of had alot more talking and story to it than just 15 to 20 minute scenes that just had wierd fighting. then for the last 5 or 10 minutes the movie picked up and got good again but ended unexpectedly. in my opinion i thought it was EXTREMELY long. i know its 13 minutes over 2 hours and that is still long for a cartoon but since it was boring for most of the movie, it made it seem like it was 4 hours long!!!! but overall it is an okay film i guess and i will watch it again on one of those "nothing to do days". i will see the new one and i hope it is better! | 1 |
Now infamous Western that was (at its time) the biggest budgeted disaster in Hollywood history. I was "lucky" enough to see the full 220 minute version at a theatre in 1990. It was truly staggering how BAD the film was!<br /><br />They had a great cast, a story based on a true incident (a fight between foreigners and Americans in the 1800s), magnificent scenery...so what went wrong? Three words--director Michael Cimino. He was so full of himself after "The Deer Hunter" he went out and made this god awful Western. He's not totally to blame. His previous film "The Deer Hunter" was considered a masterpiece and United Artists gave him free reign to do anything. They let him all alone...and everything went wrong. The cost went barreling out of control and Cimino insisted on redoing sequences again and again until they were perfect.<br /><br />First off, the sound is horrible. Entire sequences go by and you can't make out a word the characters are saying. For instance, Jeff Bridges' character is introduced during a dance sequence, but I STILL have no idea who he was! The dialogue in his introductory scene is incomprehensible! That's the director's fault--he should have made sure the dialogue could be heard. Some scenes are shot with so much dust flying around you can barely make out what's going on. The story line doesn't make a whole lot of sense and Cimino took great liberties with the facts--in the real story only one person was killed--Cimino turns it into a massacre. There is some admittedly beautiful sequences here totally destroyed by lack of story and incomprehensible dialogue. Also the bad sound was not the fault of the theatre--all the prints sound that way.<br /><br />This garbage effectively closed down United Artists and was the end of Cimino's career. A textbook example of a director so full of himself he doesn't realize what he's doing. Jeff Bridges has said this is the worst movie he ever did. This is from a guy who made "Tron"! A definite must-miss.<br /><br />There is a pretty good book called "The Final Cut" which details the whole disaster. This gets a 1. I wish IMDb had negative numbers--this deserves it! | 0 |
Well...i was going to wait till this came out on video to see it, and i wish i had, I actually caught scary movie 2 on cable the other day, and it made me yearn for more of the same, what i got was AIRPLANE on CRACK... i mean if you like Airplane or any other Leslie nielsen vehicles, then you'll probably be in heaven, but if your used to the usually WAYANS COMEDY, then you will be dissapointed, there was alot more Eye candy in this one which will keep young hormone raged teenage boys happy, which is probably why it was a box office hit the first week it came out. I enjoyed scary movie 2 ten times more then this fodder, and part one 5 times as much. Odd that the better of the 3 is part 2, but then again i always liked Halloween 2 better then the original as well..maybe its just me. The funniest part of the movie has to be the way the Aliens Say Goodbye. But that wasnt worth the 11 dollars i spent to catch a matinee of this with my fiance. Save yourself cash and catch part 2 again on cable till this is released on Video tape, and then Rent it, dont buy it. | 0 |
Let me first state that I enjoy watching "bad" movies. It's funny how some of these films leave more of a lasting impression than the truly superb ones. This film is bad in a disturbingly malicious way. This vehicle for Sam Mraovich's delusional ego doesn't just border on talentless ineptitude, it has redefined the very meaning of the words. This should forever be the barometer for bad movies. Sort of the Mendoza line for film. Mr. Mraovich writes, directs, and stars as blunt object Arthur Sailes battling scorned wives and the Christian forces of evil as he and his partner Ben "dead behind the eyes" Sheets struggle for marital equality. As a libertarian I believe gays should have a right to get married. Ben & Arthur do more harm to that cause than an army of homophobes. The portrayal of all things Christian are so ugly and ham-fisted, trademark Mraovich, that you can't possibly take any of them seriously. Arthur's brother Victor, the bible toting Jesus freak, is so horribly over-the-top evil/effeminately gay that you have to wonder how he was cast in this role. That's because Sam "multitasking" Mraovich was also casting director. The worst of it all is Sam Mraovich himself. When you think leading man do the words pasty, balding, and chubby come to mind? Sam also delivers lines like domino's pizza, cold and usually wrong. The final tally: you suck at writing, directing, acting and casting. That's the Ed Wood quadruple crown. Congratulations you horrible little man. | 0 |
I own this movie. Not by choice, I do. I was really bored the other day and the box intrigued me. So i popped it in the old VCR and spent the next hour and a half of my life crying "why God why?". The story-line was not that bad, as an gamer I could appreciate bits of it. I think that maybe if you're into super geeky-cheese romantic scenes you'll enjoy this film. "I always thought of myself as a Vulcan you know like Dr.Spock...unable to love" There is very few good things to say about this film, truly it is awful. But if you're up to really badly made film this is the one for you!!! The real story's much more interesting though ;)<br /><br />If I had to sum up this film in one word it would be:<br /><br />LAME | 0 |
I think this show was right on the money for me. I watched it over the plane but there were parts in the movie that made me control myself from tearing all over the place. <br /><br />The chemistry between Richard gere and Diane lane was very believable (fantastic acting on both parts)! I loved how Diane lane's daughter acted in the show too. She displayed maturity and how she transformed throughout the show was easy to believe as what a teenager could possibly be like in real life. <br /><br />I loved this show from start to end. Definitely recommended for the romantic people out there! | 1 |
I thought this was movie was great, Richard Greico and Yasmine Bleeth have great chemistry in this movie. Yasmine Bleeth's character plays a women who has fallen head over heals in love with Richard Greico's character. They end up getting married and everything seems perfect except Yasmine Bleeth wants a baby more than anything, however she has a hard time trying to conceive. Richard Greico will do anything to make her happy, and will go to extreme measures to make her happy. I thought the acting was great in this movie, and it keeps you guessing. It shows how naive one can be when they have fallen in love. Yasmine Bleeth is a good actress in this, and I wonder why she never made it further in her career. Richard Greico is very impressive as the deceiving husband, and plays the evil part very well. I wonder why certain actors make it and certain ones don't. All and all a great movie that I would recommend. | 1 |
This was a pathetic movie. The Alien was decent, but the movie itself gave a new meaning to pitiful. The plot is something that's been done over and over again! However, this one does it the worst! The acting was c**p, the scenes were often too dark to get what was going on. No one developed any concern for the main character. The movie was far too slow paced, and the murder scenes that there were were foolishly crafted and ended up looking no more interesting than the rest of the movie. There are some movies which "suck" but can still be enjoyed because of there total outrageousness, but this doesn't even have that!! Whoever made this film thought that they could make something good and they failed miserably. There is nothing this movie has to offer except a headache. Avoid it! | 0 |
No ,I'm not kidding. If they ever propose a movie idea, they should be kicked out of the studio. I'm serious. Their movies are exactly the same in every one, and they only consist of traveling to foreign locations, having a problem which they easily resolve, hoping to be popular, and getting new boyfriends. Think about it. If you have ever seen a movie starring them with a different plot, contact me and tell me its name. These "movies" are poor excuses to be on TV and go to other countries. There is a reason that the movies never go to theaters. I'm sure that when they were really young and made some O.K. movies, some studio boss bought all their rights for 15 years, or something, so that now that they're, what, 17, they can make movies in other countries whenever they want using the studio's money. Let me advise you, STAY AWAY FROM MARY-KATE AND ASHLEY! IT'S FOR YOUR OWN GOOD! | 0 |
Well, I would consider Police Story as one of Jackie Chan's best film. The plot, the fighting scenes and the stunt works are excellent. In this film, Jackie himself acted as a police officer called Chan Ka Kui (Kevin Chan in some versions) who successfully arrested a crime lord. After the crime lord was released due to lack of evidence , he framed Chan for the killing of a police officer. Due to this, he became wanted by the police. Later on, Salina (Brigitte Lin), who was the secretary of the crime lord, went to a shopping mall and started to steal the evidence of the crime lord's crimes from his computer and preparing to pass them to Chan. However, the crime lord knew that Salina had downloaded his incriminating data and hired his henchmen to capture her. Later on, Chan appeared at the scenes and began to fight all of the henchmen, defeating them one by one. At the last scene, Chan was seen punching the crime lord. Lastly, this is the best action and comedy movie. Everyone should watch it. Highly recommended. | 1 |
This movie is by far the worst movie ever made. If you have to create a film costarring the guy who plays Lars in heavyweights than don't make the damn film. I have to say that I could watch Leprechaun in Space 6 times before I could watch the trailer for this POS of a movie. Adam sandler should be restricted from any movie after this disgrace. Watching this movie is like a mix of listening to Cher and willingly putting your dick in a blender. Anyone with half of a brain cell will realize that this movie is not worth a dime. If I had an extra dollar and had to spend it, I'd give it to the support Lorraina Bobbitt foundation before buying this movie. | 0 |
This movie is as unique as it is overlooked......A Different Story is just that, it shows how out of the need to survive or maintain, one can find the capacity to love if you have an open heart as well as an open mind. I first saw this on cable in the late 70's and it truly depicted the limitations of the gay community at the time. I believe this movie was ahead of its time in depicting a little slice of an obscure way of life. It is truly a classic in the sense that it was a precursor to what is now depicted as the extended family. This film should be available on DVD/VHS so that not only the extra ordinary performances of Meg Foster & Perry King can be acknowledged, but to show how far we have come & still have to go where relationships are concerned. | 1 |
Dear Readers,<br /><br />I've found in my studies of movies that whenever Michael Bay makes a movie, people pan it and hate it, yet they still go to see it and it makes somewhere around 100 million dollars. Why? Because Michael Bay is one of the top five directors of all time. Standing alongside Ridley Scott, Spielberg, Kubrick, and Miyazaki, Michael Bay has cemented himself as Hollywood's best action/adventure director. That point is proved with his most panned film, Armageddon.<br /><br />An Asteroid the size of Texas is hurtling towards the planet and the only way NASA can think to take it down is to land a team of men on the asteroid, drill to its core, and drop a nuclear warhead inside then blow up the asteroid. Only one person is qualified enough to do it: Bruce Willis. Willis portrays Harry Stamper, a grizzled hardened oil driller trying to keep what's left of his family together. Not helping that fact is his daughter, Grace (Liv Tyler), having an affair with his best driller, AJ (Ben Affleck). Hired by Dan Truman (Billy Bob Thornton), the head of NASA, Stamper and his team of roughneck drillers train to become astronauts and save the world.<br /><br />Armageddon is a two part movie. First there's the funny parts where we meet the gang and wackiness abounds. Then they get into space and all the comedy gets sucked out the window and is replaced by mind-blowing special effects, cool music, and great serious acting. Murphy's law goes insane in the second part, meaning that everything that can go wrong, does in fact go wrong, increasing the tension of the film to outstanding levels.<br /><br />With a cool cast and crew (Michael Bay as Director, Jerry Bruckheimer and Gale Anne Hurd as Producers, and J.J. Abrams as one of the scriptwriters.), tons of special effects, great humor, awesome music, plus an intro done by Mr. Ben-Hur himself, Charlton Heston, Armageddon rocks big time.<br /><br />Signed, The Constant DVD Collector, Matt Macleod<br /><br />Parental Warnings: This is not a film for kids. The F-bomb is used a few times and lots of other swear words are used as well, plus there's a Strip bar scene and the extremely intense second part might be too hard for a kid to handle. | 0 |
Not a bad movie but could have been done without the full frontal nudity of a 10 year old boy in one of the opening scenes. This movie has excellent dialog; which is certainly common among foreign films. Foreign actors still know how to act as opposed to American actors who let the CGI, stunts, and special effects do all the work for them. This film is just good old fashion acting. Gerarde DePardieux did an excellent job as always. The costumes and scenery are accurate with the time. My only complaint is that they should have dubbed the English words over the french instead of using subtitles; this could just be because I hate reading subtitles. | 1 |
I couldn't. I was bored, not just because the acting was terrible and the tragic story was simply a b-movie whose plot was all about the cannibalism, but the fact I was watching a subtitle foreign film, which doesn't bother me at all, but was STILL dubbed.<br /><br />The "special effects" were awful. As the back of the plane splits off, you can see the model is hollow as it "breaks away" in the phony snow. Most of the movie takes place on a sound stage that clearly is not real and almost looks like a play, as the "sounds" of snow blowing all over are heard but not actually scene.<br /><br />"But how what will they eat? They have no food" one military person (It's never clear what this guy does or why he's in charge) says, which I'm sure no one ever said in reality or even thought about food, since they were concerned if the people were alive, not how they'd eat. It was simply a stupid line written to point out that, yes, they will have to eat the dead bodies to survive.<br /><br />When they finally decide to eat the bodies, one man finds one shirtless body, who despite being in the snow for however long, is not remotely frozen, in fact, his flesh is very flexible and fresh. He cuts the fresh meat off his back, that again, is not frozen or even cold it appears, and this scene goes on for five minutes. That's where I had to stop. The remake "Alive" was a far superior film about trying to survive in a horrible situation that I'm sure the real survivors praised whereas I can't imagine any of them had anything nice to say about this version. It was simply about eating dead bodies and everything else was secondary. Avoid. | 0 |
This movie is just a lot of fun. I've seen it a couple of times, but it always has something funny that I remember. The "duckies and bunnies" car scene is one of my favorites, and I still quote Morone's versions of certain words!<br /><br />There are so many running jokes, that it's amazing. But I love Michael Keaton anyhow! | 1 |
A gritty look at New York City and dock workers. This is a classic film, realistic, brutal at times, always believable. It was originally shown LIVE on tv,also starring Sidney Poitier. John Cassavetes was a fantastic director and actor. | 1 |
The word Ghilli actually means a small sharp wooden game instrument that is used in a game called ghilli-danda (a precursor to Cricket) in India. The use of the word as nickname for the principal character is stylish, as it signifies one who is sharp, fast and can hurt badly when rubbed in the wrong way.<br /><br />Ghilli is one of the best movies for Vijay and in it is unrivaled in its pace and action. The movie never slacks for a moment, and keep you always with some exciting action. The movie is set in Madurai and Chennai and its story core is simple. A rich landlord tries to covet a beautiful girl in his town, and his unquestionable power and authority, prevents the girl from seeking a justice. The hero tries to rescue her and the majority of this movie portrays the week in which all this action happens.<br /><br />A very exciting movie and though the story is nothing new, the director and the actors receive praise for the full-paced action. | 1 |
I have used this movie in my college Ethics courses for over 10 years (also Woody Allen's "Crimes and Misdemeanors"--another terrific, multi-leveled ethical study). <br /><br />It's fiction. I don't focus too much on the unrealistic features of "Strangers" because all fictional films are obviously false on many levels. I love the film as gallows comedy, tautly told, with many ironic twists and visual pleasures--even if it's "unbelievable." The story is told so well that I don't even think of criticizing its plausibility (although I must confess that the tennis match seems the weakest part to me--too much Hollywood fluff and not enough real tennis competition).<br /><br />Some problems presented in the film that hold promise for realistic moral education and ethical discussion:<br /><br />1. Ethical Passivity: some weaknesses of the Guy character are intended by Hitchcock. A primary ethical insight of the film is the danger of inability to articulate one's moral positions. Guy is unable to effectively block Bruno's crazy proposals at the start. An interesting question is why and how does Guy behave so passively, ineffectively? A possible answer is his depression because of his intense and complicated divorce process. <br /><br />2. Miscommunication: Guy commits another failure at the start: on the train, to get away quickly, he agrees that Bruno's ideas are all good. But Guy's literal meaning is opposite to his inflected, sarcastic meaning. Bruno takes the literal meaning as an agreement for the criss-cross murders. Guy takes the sarcastic meaning as an escape from any murder agreement. To some extent, near the beginning, Bruno may be partially pretending that an agreement has been struck, to draw Guy further into a web of complicity. Bruno is manipulating Guy; Guy's linguistic ambiguity on the train gives Bruno a chance to put an ethical "stranglehold" on Guy. Bruno manipulating Guy may also take on other meanings . . . .<br /><br />3. Secrecy: Some have speculated about a sexual relationship between Guy and Bruno. It seems at first ridiculous, especially since Guy appears obviously heterosexual in his relationships with Miriam and Anne. However, remember that Guy is also ineffective with both women. Guy appears (stereotypically--it's 1951 remember) effeminate, especially in relationship to Bruno. Guy, the strong athlete, is weak on the inside. Bruno is also conflicted (playing "against himself"), appearing facially and physically strong at first but then displaying some "effeminate" traits (Bruno's fashion and footwork; his gushing emotionally to Guy in different situations; his receiving a manicure from his doting mother; Bruno kissing and desperately fondling his mother's hand; other more subtle gay stereotypes that hold cryptic meaning from Hitchcock's point of view). I wish I could hear Hitchcock clarify his intended meanings here.<br /><br />4. Dishonesty and Distrust: Guy makes some colossal blunders in hiding truths about Bruno from family and from police. Guy fails to fully comprehend that admitting fault quickly may be better than a cover-up or a delay in confession. Again Guy is driven by passivity, insecurity, fear--and perhaps a self-hate that is closer to Bruno's own self-loathing than we care to see or to admit. Both Guy and Bruno act out their own parables of impotence.<br /><br />5. Lack of Evidence: Guy feels a problem mustering the evidence to acquit himself. While quickly going to the police would solve a huge problem, Guy traps himself with his own doubts and insecurities: the absence of desired alibis; the inability of the alcoholic professor to testify on Guy's behalf; the obsessive need to appear politically pristine; and other personality factors that cause Guy to feel defenseless. He is as dysfunctional as Bruno--just not as dangerous (yet one could partially blame Guy for Miriam's murder).<br /><br />6. Disease and Mental Disorder: an interesting question is how legally responsible is Bruno for the murders? The more ethically incompetent Bruno is as a sick sociopath, the more guilty Guy may be as someone healthy who failed to stand up and morally act to prevent the crimes. Guy's failure is like a man who fails to call the police when a sick friend threatens suicide, and death ensues. One could argue that more than one crime is committed and that Guy is an emotionally hobbled accomplice.<br /><br />These and many other features of the film make "Strangers on a Train" a gem of a morality play, a diamond for philosophical and cinematic reflections. | 1 |
A beautiful, magical, thought-provoking and heart-warming story. Excellent direction, perfect cast, marvellous script, excellent score, beautifully lit...... need I say more?<br /><br />If you love films that not only make you think but also warm your heart (some that spring to mind are 'Contact', 'Field of Dreams' and 'Groundhog Day') then you're sure to love K-PAX.<br /><br />Most highly recommended. | 1 |
Despite some reviews being distinctly Luke-warm, I found the story totally engrossing and even if some critics have described the love story as 'Mills and Boon', so what? It is good to see a warm, touching story of real love in these cynical times. Many in the audience were sniffing and surreptitiously dabbing their eyes. You really believe that the young Victoria and Albert are passionately fond of each other, even though, for political reasons, it was an arranged marriage. I did feel though that Sir John Conroy, who was desperate to control the young Queen, is perhaps played too like a pantomime villain. As it is rumoured that he was in fact, the real father of Victoria (as a result of an affair with her mother The Duchess of Kent) it would have been interesting to explore this theory. Emily Blunt is totally convincing as the young Princess, trapped in the stifling palace with courtiers and politicians out to manipulate her. She brilliantly portrays the strength of character and determination that eventually made Victoria a great Queen of England, which prospered as never before, under her long reign. I believe word of mouth recommendations will ensure great success for this most enjoyable and wonderful looking movie. | 1 |
When i come on IMDb boards,I'm always fed up when i see a "the worst movie ever" post.After watching this *movie*,i think that i am soon going to create my own post!!<br /><br />The opening titles:great,some kind of lame zoom on a gas oven (yeah,focus on the fire=explosions=great action packed movie!!)<br /><br />The actors:I think that Ice T is a cool rapper,even a nice actor (sometimes, i insist,"sometimes") but the Steven seagal like policeman he plays is...beyond the words. The rest of the cast is...well i don't know where those actors were hired but jeez!!I bet my dog would have been a much better actor than them!!<br /><br />The plot:Hijacking.original isn't it??<br /><br />The action sequences:The first shot of the movie is an explosion.I told myself,well, cool!!At least there will be some nice pyrotechnics...I was dead wrong.The rest of the movie is mostly filled with low rent stock shots taken from the Air Force...<br /><br />The dialogs are hilarious,the music is pure crap,the end is happy( i mean i was happy at the end because the movie was over!!!)<br /><br />My cousin who was watching the movie was delighted( I'm 22, she's 42...well).I was on the verge of taking the movie and burn it.Maybe next time I'm gonna watch it...(who said never???) | 0 |
I saw this film at the Rotterdam Festival, as did presumably all the other voters. The Director was present and seemed to have worked very hard and be very committed to the project, which I think explains the above average reception and mark it got. It's most similar to a feature length episode of Aussie kids favourite "Round the Twist" but it takes itself too seriously to have even that redeeming feature. The movie in itself is maybe worth seeing if you're trying to do a cinematic world tour visiting all UN member states, as I can't think of another Fijian movie but overall it was generic, poorly acted (albeit by an amateur cast) and prey to the subaltern mentality. The moral of the story seemed to be that native islanders will try and screw each other over, but as long as there is an essentially decent white governor to step in, all problems can be solved (by leaving the island). | 0 |
Years ago, I didn't love and respect the films of Jimmy Cagney nearly as much as I do now. I noticed that many of Cagney's films done with Warner Brothers in the 1930s lacked realism and his acting style was far from subtle. However, the more I watched these films, the more I found I was hooked despite these aspects. In fact, I now kind of like and expect them! Fans of old time Hollywood films probably understand what I am saying--teens and other young whippersnappers don't! Well, when it comes to entertainment, THE MAYOR OF HELL never lets up from start to finish. While the idea of a shady character like Cagney played taking over running a reform school is ridiculous, and while all the changes he made also seemed far-fetched, it all somehow worked out and delivered solid entertainment.<br /><br />The gang of tough thugs were pre-Dead End Kids and instead of the likes of Leo Gorcey, Huntz Hall and Billy Hallop, similar roles are played here by Frankie Darrow and Farina. Yes, I did say "Farina". This Black actor was already famous for his roles in the Our Gang comedies and was, believe it or not, one of the highest paid child actors in Hollywood. All he needed to give up in return was be named an insipid name and act like a nice stereotypical "Negro". Here, he actually was pretty good and the usual Black stereotypes are a bit more subdued than usual. However, some will cringe at the very funny but horribly offensive court scene involving Farina and his dad, Fred 'Snowflake' Toones. With awful names like "Farina" and "Snowflake", don't say I didn't warn you.<br /><br />Apart from this small complaint and a plot that is tough to believe, the film is exceptional and fun. The kids do a great job, as does Cagney and Dudley Digges in a truly despicable but exciting role as the evil warden. Also, as an added plus, you get to see perennial Warner stock actor Allen Jenkins in his first role for the studio. | 1 |
My wife is a teacher and she is very familiar with the story, having read it to several of her classes. It never sounded all that interesting to me, though, and I bought the DVD figuring this would be a movie that wouldn't really be up my alley.<br /><br />The first half of the movie has a lot of set-up and I found myself thinking that I was right. It starts off a bit slow and I have to admit that I was a little bit bored - but curious enough to stay with it. Boy, am I glad I did because this ended up being a very satisfying and rewarding movie. I would most certainly watch this again!<br /><br />The casting was very good. Since I haven't read the book, I can't vouch for accuracy, but I have to say that Jon Voight was truly delightful. You liked the characters you were supposed to like, hated the ones you were supposed to hate, and laughed at the ones that were supposed to be funny.<br /><br />I can see how some folks might not like this movie. It is tedious at times, especially in the beginning. All the flashbacks can be distracting (though they are essential to the story). Once the story starts to come together at the end, though, I think you're paid back in spades for your patience. When all is said and done, I think this is a very good movie - 8/10.<br /><br /> | 1 |
This version is likely available at your local dollar store on DVD. The print is not great, nor is the sound, but if you have $1.00 and 90 or so minutes to spare, you'll get your money's worth (which is not saying an awful lot). Anna Neagle is extremely vapid as Nanette. Whatever her charms may have been back in the day, they are not evident in this film. A great number of fine character actors appear in this film (Helen Broderick, Zasu Pitts, Even Arden), but the material falls remarkably short of their talents. Still, it is interesting to see how such accomplished performers make the most of the weak writing. The musical numbers (there are really only two) are quite horrible. Clearly the studio did not feel compelled to cash in on the rich musicality of the original "No, No, Nanette". For what it's worth, the DVD can be had for $1.00. It's worth that much just to say you've seen it. | 0 |
For what it's worth, this is a fairly decent Road Runner cartoon, if a little short (just under 6 minutes). The gags are adequate at best, the animation is competent, and the new restored DVD master looks nice. However, that's where the qualities end. Allow me to provide a little backstory: in 1958, thanks to a labour dispute, WB got hold of a bunch of canned music that would be used in 6 of the year's cartoons.<br /><br />There is only one phrase to describe this short's music, and that is "it has the 4Kids sound". I use that phrase to describe music which has absolutely no correspondence to the on screen action, and feels like it was recorded by an orchestra consisting of members of a Sonic Youth cover band. The music in this short feels hopelessly tacked on and incredibly obnoxious, especially considering there are scenes in this short (namely the piano trap) that would have worked best with little or no music.<br /><br />I didn't think a WB cartoon would be ruined by awful music (even Lava's scores aren't this obnoxious), but considering the cartoon isn't that notable anyway, it becomes almost painful to watch with the music. It's kind of like how late 80's episodes of Doctor Who could be bad anyway, and yet be made unwatchable thanks to Keff McCulloch's unbelievably awful music (which sounded like he hit the demo button on all 5 of his Casio keyboards at the same time).<br /><br />I am going to have people call me crazy for this, but I'd easily watch one of Larriva's RR cartoons over this. At least the canned music was usually in sync with the action on those. | 0 |
There seems to be little in the way of middle ground where Watch On the Rhine is concerned. One either likes it very much, applauding its sincerity, its liberal point of view and fine acting, or else loathes its obvious propaganda, mediocre dialogue, cardboard characters and overall tendentiousness. I fall very much in the latter category, and found the film and play,--concerning the activities of European refugees in Washington during wartime--a crushing bore, worthwhile mostly for the acting, and even then only intermittently. That author Lillian Hellman was on the side of the angels is irrelevant. Her plays were written for people who shared her point of view, and she seldom explored ideas that weren't already held by the author and audience except to point out how dreadful the "other side" is. Even when I find myself in one hundred percent agreement with what she has to say,--as in Rhine--I still can't stand the way she says it. Her characters are unreal, and while her ear for dialogue shows a certain facility for the way people talk she possesses no real brilliance or originality. She really had nothing new to say. I thoroughly agree with the late Mary McCarthy's long overdue dismantling of Hellman reputation some years ago. For those who think the theatre is dead or in extremis and yearn for the good old days, I urge a peek at Watch On the Rhine, as bad in its way as Angels In America, which only goes to show that the theatre had one foot in the grave sixty years ago. | 0 |
My husband and I bought the Old School Sesame Street DVD's for our daughter and I have to say, I don't let her watch the new episodes on TV, because I find ALL of the characters annoying. Baby Bear AND Telly? OMgosh, How ANNOYING and useless blabber can someone think of for their 'skits'? Elmo? Give it a rest not every kid likes him, once again, annoying and doesn't teach my child ANYTHING. Mr. Noodle? what a reject. I think the one time I turned the 'new' show on for her, she and I were left dumber than before. The show has Definitely taken a wrong turn. I remember the Yip Yips, Kermit's Breaking News, 1-2 2 Little Dolls, Mumford the Magician, Bert and Ernie, Grover the Waiter, all the GREAT EDUCATIONAL skits of OLD SCHOOL S.S. Sesame Street has suffered a direct hit of boredom and dumbness since Jim Henson's passing in 1990. The show no longer has the educational, funny and interactive skits it used to. I find the new versions simply unbearably annoying and full of useless non-educational blabber. Way to go S.S. producers/writers you have yet another cartoony show for the parents to sit there non-creative, non-exercised kids in front of so they'll get out of their hair. Per Producers/Writers : I suggest you whip out the old muppets and start taping similar content to that of the first Sesame Street's. Lord knows I sure don't want my child talking like Baby Bear or Elmo. | 0 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.