label
int64 0
1
| text
stringlengths 52
9.42k
|
|---|---|
0 | Apparently there's a very good reason why I never heard about "Dr. Hackenstein" before me and a couple of mates accidentally stumbled upon it and stupidly decided to give it a chance. That reason is: it sucks! It's a very pointless, dull, imbecilic and totally unmemorable horror comedy/parody. Actually, to be honest, I'm not even sure if this was meant as a comedy because sometimes the script takes itself quite seriously and tries really hard to be a really ambitious and original late 80's horror effort. In the year 1909, at the dawn of a new era in medical science according to the opening sequences, Dr. Elliot Hackenstein needs exactly three women no more, no less to refurbish his beloved wife whom he accidentally killed. She's only just a living head left now, but the stupid body snatchers only provide male cadavers. So when Dr. Hackenstein yells out "I need three female bodies to bring back my wife", his words aren't even cold and there just miraculously appear three young females (and one really annoying nerdy kid) with car trouble show up at his doorstep. Why doesn't that ever happen to me? "I need a bunch of sexy voluptuous women to fill up my empty harem!!!"
See, nothing! Anyway, the good Doctor sees his wish fulfilled, but unfortunately for science that is he develops sympathy for one of the three girls. "Dr. Hackenstein" is a lame film that tries to cash in on the success of "Re-Animator" and even blatantly steal some of the comical aspects of that classic, like a severed head talking one-liners. It's easy to see why this film is never mentioned anywhere, as it doesn't appeal to fans of neither the horror nor the comedy genre. The funniest character is undoubtedly the loud-speaking female grave robber Ruby; depicted by the anti-cherubic Anne Ramsey. 80's horror buffs will certainly remember her from Wes Craven's "Deadly Friend", where she played the nasty old hag neighbor who gets decapitated by a basketball. "Dr. Hackenstein" supposedly takes place in the early 1900's, but there are hardly any attempts to re-create the atmosphere of that era (except maybe for some automobiles). Dr. Hackenstein's laboratory is a quite clichéd 80's set piece, with all sorts of smoky cauldrons and test tubes full of fluorescent colors. |
0 | I watched this movie and the original Carlitos Way back to back. The difference between the two is disgusting. Now i know that people are going to say that the prequel was made on a small budget but that never had anything to do with a bad script. Now maybe it's just me, but i always thought that a prequel was made to go set up the other movie, starring key characters and maybe filling in a bit about life that we didn't know. Rise to Power is just a movie that has Carlito's name. There should have been at least a few characters from the original movie, the ending makes no sense in relation to the original. In the end of this movie he retires with his sweet heart but how the hell do we get him coming out of prison in the next movie? And his woman isn't even the same woman that he talks about as his only love in the original. I would say the movie is mildly entertaining in its self, with a few decent bits but it pales when held up to it's big brother. Don't lay awake at night waiting to see this, watch the original one more time if you really need a hit. |
1 | I'll tell you a tale of the summer of 1994. A friend and I attended a Canada Day concert in Barrie, and it was a who's who of the top Canadian bands of the age. We got there about 4am, waited in line most of the morning, and when the doors opened at 9am, we were among the first inside the gates. We then waited and waited in the hot sun, slowly broiling but we didn't care, because the headliners were among our favourites. At one point, early in the afternoon, I sat down and dozed off with my back to the barrier. I was awakened to my shock and dismay by a shrieking girl wearing a Rheostatics t-shirt. This is the reason I have hated the Rheostatics to this day. There's nothing reasonable, nor taste-determined, nor really anything except their fandom. Snotty of me, isn't it? So, I, in my hatred of the band, have denied myself the delight that is Whale Music.<br /><br />Desmond Howl had it all. It's hard to say what he's lost, since he lives in a fantastic mansion wedged between the ocean and the mountains (the BC region where the movie was shot is breathtaking). The life most of us dream of is dismantled by dreams, phantoms, and his own past, until the day a teenaged criminal breaks in...and, trite as it sounds, breaks him out.<br /><br />Canadian cinema suffers from several problems. Generally, a lack of money, as well as an insufferable lack of asking for help (as if somehow the feature would cease to be Canadian) leads to lower production values than American or British films, and most people don't like to watch anything that sounds or looks like, well, not like an American film. Next, Canadian screenwriters often seem so caught up in being weird that they lose sight of how to tell a good story, and tell it well. Third, they seem to think that gratuitous nudity (often full-frontal) makes something artistic. I'm sure anyone who watches enough Canadian movies, especially late at night on the CBC, knows exactly what I'm talking about. It's almost like a "don't do this" handbook exists out there somewhere and Canadian film-makers threw it out a long time ago.<br /><br />In the 90s and 00s, however, some films (such as Bruce McDonald's work and the brilliant C.R.A.Z.Y.) have broken this mold, and managed to maintain what makes them Canadian, while holding onto watchable production values and great stories. Whale Music is such a film, on the surface. Deeper than just its Canadian-isms, it's a deeply moving story of a man who's lost his grip, through grief and excess, who is redeemed by music then by love. And that redeems even the Rheostatics. :) |
0 | There are similarities between Ray Lawrence's "Jindabyne" and his last movie "Lantana" a dead body and its repercussions for already dysfunctional lives. But whereas "Lantana" offered some hope and resolution, "Jindabyne" leaves everything unresolved in a bleak way that will leave most viewers unsatisfied, perhaps even cheated.<br /><br />The storyline - the aftermath of a fisherman's discovery of a corpse floating in a remote river - is based on a short story by Raymond Carver. It became an element in Robert Altman's classic 1993 ensemble "Short Cuts". Lawrence uses this theme for an exploration and exposition of relationships within a small Australian community under stress. The movie poses some moral questions "Would you let the discovery of a dead body ruin your good weekend?" and more poignantly for Australians "Would it make any difference if the dead person was an aboriginal?" The acting, especially by Gabriel Byrne and Laura Linney, is commendable. And there are elements of mysticism reinforced by haunting music, not unlike "Picnic at Hanging Rock".<br /><br />If all this sounds like the basis for a great movie - be prepared for a let down, the pace is very slow and the murder is shown near the beginning, thereby eliminating the element of mystery. And so we are left with these desolate lives and a blank finale. |
1 | Ashanti is a very 70s sort of film (1979, to be precise). It reminded me of The Wild Geese in a way (Richard Burton, Richard Harris and Roger Moore on a mission in Africa). It's a very good film too, and I enjoyed it a lot.<br /><br />David (Michael Caine) is a doctor working in Africa and is married to a beautiful Ashanti woman called Anansa (Beverley Johnson) who has trained in medicine in America and is also a doctor. While they're doctoring, one day she is snatched by slavers working for an Arabic slave trader called Suleiman (played perfectly by Peter Ustinov, of all people). The rest of the film is David trying to get her back.<br /><br />Michael Caine is a brilliant actor, of course, and plays a character who is very determined and prepared to do anything to get his wife back, but rather hopeless with a gun and action stuff. He's helped out first by a Englishman campaigning against the slave trade that no one acknowledges is going on (Rex Harrison!), then briefly by a helicopter pilot (William Holden), and then by an Arab called Malik (Kabir Bedi). Malik has a score to settle with Suleiman (he is very intense throughout, a very engaging character), and so rides off with David to find him and get Anansa back - this involves a wonderful scene in which David fails miserably to get on his camel.<br /><br />Then there's lots of adventure. There's also lots of morality-questioning. The progress of the story is a little predictable from this point, and there are a few liberties taken with plotting to move things along faster, but it's all pretty forgivable. The question is, will David get to Anansa before Peter Ustinov sells her on to Omar Sharif (yes, of course Omar Sharif is in it!)? |
1 | As a kid, I loved computer animation although it was EXTREMELY limited and the tools were almost nonexistent. This movie, as I sat in awe and watched the amazing images and almost-hypnotic music, shaped the desire in me to create moving things in the computer. This is a whole-package deal, between the music and the video, that really packs a one-two punch. If you know any child that wants to get involved in computer animation, this is a MUST HAVE. <br /><br />I still, almost 20 years later, rate this movie as one of my top 3 favorites. The originality, I think, is still unsurpassed by most of today's McMovies that Hollywood spits out. I am currently wanting to see if I can re-make it on my own; if imitation is the sincerest form of flattery then this movie deserves a TON of imitation =) |
0 | I'm somewhat of a fan of Lynche's work, so I was excited when I found this DVD. Unfortunately, I was very let down. It's a series of short cartoons which attempt to show a disturbing and disgusting sort of humor. The animation is very crude, no doubt done using Macromedia. Each cartoon has a big fat guy beating up his family and generally acting like a jerk to everyone he knows. <br /><br />For people who are not familiar with this vein of animation, they will probably be somewhat impressed by it. However, if you've spent much time on Newgrounds.com, like me, then these cartoons will be no different than any of the other stuff you've seen before. Many of the popular amateur artists on Newgrounds are doing much better work than what was shown on this DVD. If Lynch submitted this work to the website, then he would blend in perfectly with some of the better of Newgrounds artists. But, since I saw this on DVD, instead of on Newgrounds, I give it a 4/10, instead of a 7/10, as I would have otherwise. These cartoons are fit for the internet, but with a name like David Lynch on it, I expected better quality both in story and in animation. |
1 | *** Spoilers*<br /><br />My dad had taped this movie for me when I was 3. By age 5, I had watched it over 400 times. I just watched it and watched it. And I still do today! It has a grim storyline, a lamb's mother is killed by a wolf--a very emotional scene--and wants to become a wolf, like him. After years of training, the lamb is made into a really REALLY evil looking thing. He and the wolf travel to his old barn, but he cannot kill the lambs, no matter how much he wishes to. He ends up killing the wolf, but is no longer seen as a lamb by his former friends, and can't return to his previous way of life.<br /><br />The art is beautiful, the songs are..well, okay, and the voice acting is better than some things today.<br /><br />All in all, you just *have* to see this movie, it is a great masterpiece. Although, it's very hard to find today.<br /><br /> |
0 | Scotty (Grant Cramer, who would go on to star in the great B-movie "Killer Klowns from outer space") agrees to help three middle-aged guys learn how to 'dialog' the ladies in this bad '80's comedy. Not bad as in '80's lingo, which meant good. Bad as in bad. With no likable characters, including, but not limited to, a kid who's the freakiest looking guy since "Friday the 13th part 2"' a girl who leads men on and then goes into hissy fits when they want to touch her, and the token fat slob, because after all what would an '80's sex comedy be without a fat slob?? Well this one has two. This movie is pretty much the bottom of the barrel of '80's sex comedies. And then came the sequel thus deepening said proverbial barrel.<br /><br />My Grade:D- <br /><br />Eye Candy: too numerous to count, you even see the freaky looking kid imagined with boobs at on point, think "Bachlor Party" but not as funny, and VERY disturbing.<br /><br />Where I saw it: Comcast Moviepass |
0 | Ariauna Albright is a really good actress but why she participated in this lame written travesty is a mystery. What could have been entertaining winds up as classic boredom. The unique thing about Ariauna is that she can act as well as look real sexy as opposed to her partner Lilith Stabs who looks fine but it is obvious she spent the money for acting school at the spa or beautician. This was a production that cried out for some T & A & with a imaginative script writer could have achieved it in the flow of things. However Ariauna does what she can under the circumstances & to a extent salvages her reputation. The Tempe company should be aware that when you dress two attractive women in skimpy fetish cop uniforms the viewers will expect some fetish play & T & A. Nough said. |
0 | Fairly interesting exploitation flick in black and white written by David F. Friedman. The lead actress Stacey Walker is well-cast and strangely attractive. She resembles a deranged Renee Zellweger with a bad hair-do. This chick only made two of these films and then moved back to Texas. The music is terrible. One of her boyfriends is played by Sam Melville (from the TV show THE ROOKIES) using a different name.<br /><br />Best line in the film from Tony - "Are you putting me on, doll? None of my chicks put me on". Good B/W cinematography from Laslo Kovacs (EASY RIDER & TARGETS & many others). Good locales (cool swimming pool, also used in THE DEFILERS). Strange ending but fitting. A 4 out of 10. Best performance Stacey Walker. |
1 | Halloween is one of the best examples of independent film. It's very well made and has more psychological elements to it than you might realize at first glance. It is a simple movie told very well. The music is perfect and is one of the most haunting scores... If you haven't seen this movie yet, you must check it out. The cast is all terrific. I wish they had never made sequel after sequel. The first one was by far the best and should have ended like it did without having a sequel. It was fun to see Jamie Lee Curtis in the movie. She hasn't seemed to age (she's just as gorgeous today, without the hairdo and seventies clothes). The scenes through the mask are one of the scariest things ever! |
1 | At the height of the 'Celebrity Big Brother' racism row in 2007 ( involving Shilpa Shetty and the late Jade Goody ), I condemned on an internet forum those 'C.B.B.' fans who praised the show, after years of bashing 'racist' '70's sitcoms such as 'Curry & Chips' & 'Love Thy Neighbour'. I thought they were being hypocritical, and said so. 'It Ain't Half Hot Mum' was then thrown into the argument, with some pointing out it had starred an English actor blacked-up. Well, yes, but Michael Bates had lived in India as a boy, and spoke Urdu fluently. The show's detractors overlook the reality he brought to his performance as bearer 'Rangi Ram'. The noted Indian character actor, Renu Setna, said in a 1995 documentary 'Perry & Croft: The Sitcoms' that he was upset when he heard Bates had landed the role, but added: "No Indian actor could have played that role as well as Bates.". Indeed.<br /><br />'Mum' was Perry and Croft's companion show to 'Dad's Army'; also set in wartime, the sedate English town of Walmington-On-Sea had been replaced by the hot, steamy jungles of India, in particularly a place called Deolali, where an army concert party puts on shows for the troops, among them Bombadier Solomons ( George Layton, his first sitcom role since 'Doctor In Charge' ), camp Gunner 'Gloria' Beaumont ( Melvyn Hayes ), diminutive Gunner 'Lofty' Sugden, 'Lah de-dah' Gunner Graham ( John Clegg ), and Gunner Parkins ( the late Christopher Mitchell ). Presiding over this gang of misfits was the bellicose Sergeant-Major Williams ( the brilliant Windsor Davies ), who regarded them all as 'poofs'. His frustration at not being able to lead his men up the jungle to engage the enemy in combat made him bitter and bullying ( though he was nice to Parkins, whom he thought was his illegitimate son! ). Then there was ever-so English Colonel Reynolds ( Donald Hewlett ) and dimwitted Captain Ashwood ( Michael Knowles ). Rangi was like a wise old sage, beginning each show by talking to the camera and closing them by quoting obscure Hindu proverbs. He loved being bearer so much he came to regard himself as practically British. His friends were the tea-making Char Wallah ( the late Dino Shafeek, who went on to 'Mind Your Language' ) and the rope pulling Punka Wallah ( Babar Bhatti ). So real Indians featured in the show - another point its detractors ignore. Shafeek also provided what was described on the credits as 'vocal interruptions' ( similar to the '40's songs used as incidental music on 'Dad's Army' ). Each edition closed with him warbling 'Land Of Hope & Glory' only to be silenced by a 'Shut Up!' from Williams. The excellent opening theme was penned by Jimmy Perry and Derek Taverner.<br /><br />Though never quite equalling 'Dad's Army' in the public's affections, 'Mum' nevertheless was popular enough to run for a total of eight seasons. In 1975, Davies and Estelle topped the charts with a cover version of that old chestnut 'Whispering Grass'. They then recorded an entire album of old chestnuts, entitled ( what else? ) 'Sing Lofty!'.<br /><br />The show hit crisis point three years later when Bates died of cancer. Rather than recast the role of 'Rangi', the writers just let him be quietly forgotten. When George Layton left, the character of 'Gloria' took his place as 'Bombadier', providing another source of comedy.<br /><br />The last edition in 1981 saw the soldiers leave India by boat for Blighty, the Char Wallah watching them go with great sadness ( as did viewers ).<br /><br />Repeats have been few and far between ( mainly on U.K. Gold ) all because of its so-called 'dodgy' reputation. This is strange. For one thing, the show was not specifically about racism. If a white man blacked-up is so wrong, why does David Lean's 1984 film 'A Passage to India' still get shown on television? ( it featured Alec Guinness as an Indian, and won two Oscars! ). It was derived from Jimmy Perry's own experiences. Some characters were based on real people ( the Sergeant-Major really did refer to his men as 'poofs' ). I take the view that if you are going to put history on television, get it right. Sanitizing the past, no matter how unsavoury it might seem to modern audiences, is fundamentally dishonest. 'Mum' was both funny and truthful, and viewers saw this. Thank heavens for D.V.D.'s I say. Time to stop this review. As Williams would say: "I'll have no gossiping in this jungle!" |
0 | if.... is the cinematic equivalent of Sgt. Pepper's: Revered by baby boomers as the pinnacle of creation, and viewed as rather a silly bit of business by preceding and subsequent generations. Now that the children of the middle classes the world over are seemingly super human due to the internet, and view the prospect of boarding school as a wonderful opportunity thanks to the Harry Potter books/films, the relevance of if.... couldn't be further from modern concern. In fact, many scenes appear so alien and exaggerated as to hint at an inspiration for Pink Floyd's The Wall.<br /><br />One should never hold personal bias against a film while reviewing, and the cemented date of this film aside, there are a few flaws which others have overlooked. Lindsay Anderson was known to be a fan of Luis Buñuel, on top of generally being too smart for his own good. And despite a straightforward narrative through the first and second acts, the latter portion of the piece it taken hostage by cod Buñuel surrealism and strained attempts at symbolism. Anderson wasn't capable of this feat due to his over-intelligent cynicism, failing to see that Buñuel was jovial in his work. I have not found a critic whom champions the 'Chaplain in a drawer', and am almost certain it still gets sideways looks from those who adore this film. The ending is not so much a concise punch to the established class/values system, as a wet slap on a moving target.<br /><br />The British public school system was firmly for the middle classes (the upper crust being educated at home by private tutors). And the modus operandi of if.... was to check the boxes of public school life which Lindsay believed had been unexplored in film, thereby savaging middle class pretense. Homosexuality, generational cutlery, cold showers et al. In reality, such issues HAD been covered in many other great British films, if.... merely brought them to the fore. The Browning Version was a more oblique damning of such pomp, to name but one.<br /><br />if.... is oddly quaint, and simply can not be viewed with modern (especially American) eyes. Kudos to Anderson for avoiding Mick and Kieth in favour of African chant, and a few brownie points for the latent homoerotic overtones. Points deducted for pretension, establishing characters who disappear, and inciting a glib revolution which came to naught. |
0 | I'm a huge Randolph Scott fan, but this film is a dud. The whole thing has a canned, fake, soundstage feel to it, with truly awful rear-screen projection. It has a good plot idea that the screenwriter has successfully buried in a nitwit script, which makes it impossible for the audience to become immersed in the action and truly care about any of the characters. The directing is pedestrian, and only accentuates how bad the script is instead of helping to improve it. I've seen plenty of thoroughly enjoyable "soundstage productions" before, but this is not one of them. All it does is make you appreciate the gritty Scott/Boetticher films all the more.<br /><br />Randolph Scott is tanned, trim, and shines that million dollar smile throughout. He's always a pleasure...even in the worst of his films. Aside from Scott, the other main reason I wanted to see this movie was due to how much I enjoyed Ms. Wymore in Errol Flynn's movie, "Rocky Mountian". In "Man Behind the Gun", she is just as beautiful, and you can tell she's a good actress, but she was forced to say some pretty dumb lines, and the blocking she was given by the director was truly awful. I've only seen Phil Carey in "Operation Pacific", and he plays the exact same character here...an arrogant pain-in-the-butt you want to beat into unconsciousness. I guess it proves he's a good actor...he made me hate him. There are some lame attempts at comic relief that only detract from the film, in my opinion. Although there are many elements to knock, I must say that I found myself truly enjoying the two Spanish songs sung in the musical numbers...but that's not why we go to see Randolph Scott movies, right?<br /><br />There are definitely worse Scott films out there, and this one certainly isn't unbearable, but it also certainly couldn't be deemed anything beyond mediocre. |
1 | Believe it or not, Inspector Gadget's Last Case is what got me hooked on the whole Gadget thing.<br /><br />My name is Miriam and I am twelve years old, so obviously I wasn't around when Inspector Gadget was at the top of his career. Sure, I'd heard of him, but I didn't really know him.<br /><br />While reading, note that I NEVER SAW THE ORIGINAL SERIES (I would if it came on!). This is just about the only Gadget thing I've ever watched (even though I am now obsessed) and I will be focusing on what I liked about it since everyone else is so negative. For all you pessimists, I've got some cons down there, too. =P First off, for a childish sense of humor, you could deem this movie pretty funny. I thought it was, so sue me. I also thought the animation and character designs were good, and I'm also happy there was more Gadget in it, since he's my favorite character. (I do NOT like Penny.) Then there was Claw (his voice was awful, though) and the Madcat; I thought they were done fairly good too. Gadget's idiocy seemed pretty well in place, if not a bit exaggerated (i.e. sucking his hat-hand thing's thumb. Would make a good screen shot, though. =P) Oh, and I liked the song that ran in the credits. Yes, I am strange.<br /><br />And, like all movies, there are some negatives, too.<br /><br />Talking cars? What's up with that? You can tell this was aimed at younger boys. That wouldn't bother me quite so much if there wasn't the fact that the cars basically saved the day. I would have much preferred if Penny and Brain had taken their place. And, apparently, Gadget loved his car more than would be called natural. A bit weird, to say the least.<br /><br />Oh, and the Chief was downright mean to Gadget. I mean, sheesh, yeah, he wasn't always the most cheerful of people, but he didn't HATE Gadget, from what I've read. Like the Inspector, his personality was exaggerated.<br /><br />Well, that's pretty much all I have to say about this movie. I thought the animation made up for the car-centered plot and that it was overall pretty decent; more so than the live-action Gadget films (butchered, butchered, BUTCHERED!) at least. Maybe I'm just biased because this is what got me into Gadget in the first place, or maybe my mind is twisted, or maybe I'm just odd, but I really liked this movie, even if I'm the oldest it's recommended for. |
0 | I tried to watch this movie in a military camp during an overseas mission, and let me tell you, you'll watch anything under those circumstances. Not this piece of sh*t though.<br /><br />The first five minutes set the tone by weak porn-movie quality acting, weird out-of-the-blue plot twists and unbelievable situations and behavior. It gets worse after that. This movie does not have one single saving grace, and yet it is not bad in a way that would make it funny to watch. It's just horrible. I've seen quite many movies in my life and I'm not one of those snobby know-all critics, I mean I'll enjoy most movies to some extent even if they're bad. This one... man.<br /><br />Steer _well_ clear of this one, my friend. |
0 | The Derek's have over the 1980s produced a few decent bids to acquire the title "worst movie of all time", and this is probably their prime achievement in these stakes. In fact, this film can be regarded as belonging to the "so bad, it's good" category, right up there with the products of the likes of Edward Wood Jr. or Doris Wishman. This explains the IMDb voting pattern for this film with some people handing out top marks.<br /><br />Anthony Quinn made the odd dodgy film in his time, but this performance as a randy ghost is so incredibly bad, it has to be seen to be believed. |
0 | This is a film that had a lot to live down to . on the year of its release legendary film critic Barry Norman considered it the worst film of the year and I'd heard nothing but bad things about it especially a plot that was criticised for being too complicated <br /><br />To be honest the plot is something of a red herring and the film suffers even more when the word " plot " is used because as far as I can see there is no plot as such . There's something involving Russian gangsters , a character called Pete Thompson who's trying to get his wife Sarah pregnant , and an Irish bloke called Sean . How they all fit into something called a " plot " I'm not sure . It's difficult to explain the plots of Guy Ritchie films but if you watch any of his films I'm sure we can all agree that they all posses one no matter how complicated they may seem on first viewing . Likewise a James Bond film though the plots are stretched out with action scenes . You will have a serious problem believing RANCID ALUMINIUM has any type of central plot that can be cogently explained <br /><br />Taking a look at the cast list will ring enough warning bells as to what sort of film you'll be watching . Sadie Frost has appeared in some of the worst British films made in the last 15 years and she's doing nothing to become inconsistent . Steven Berkoff gives acting a bad name ( and he plays a character called Kant which sums up the wit of this movie ) while one of the supporting characters is played by a TV presenter presumably because no serious actress would be seen dead in this <br /><br />The only good thing I can say about this movie is that it's utterly forgettable . I saw it a few days ago and immediately after watching I was going to write a very long a critical review warning people what they are letting themselves in for by watching , but by now I've mainly forgotten why . But this doesn't alter the fact that I remember disliking this piece of crap immensely |
1 | This was a pretty decent movie. This movie is good to just sit down and watch and be entertained. Just a typical Hollywood film. This movie will never win an Oscar or anything and definitely doesn't deserve one, but I thought it was pretty good. It's kind of like the show 24 but set into movie format. If you like the whole we've got to stop the terrorist from killing the president kind of movie then you will enjoy this flick. I personally think that storyline has been done WAY too much, but The Sentinel does add a little twist with the mole in the Secret Service. All in all, this movie won't leave your jaw to the floor or change your life, but who says every single movie has to be like that to be good? |
0 | "Memoirs of a Geisha" is a visually stunning melodrama that seems more like a camp, drag queen satire than anything to do with real people.<br /><br />The first half of the film defensively keeps insisting that geishas are neither prostitutes nor concubines, that they are the embodiment of traditional Japanese beauty. But other than one breathtaking dance, the rest of the movie degenerates into "Pretty Baby" in Storyville territory, or at least Vashti and Esther in the Purim story, as all the women's efforts at art and artifice are about entertaining much, much older, drunken boorish men. Maybe it is Japanese culture that is being prostituted, and not just to the American louts after World War II.<br /><br />Perhaps it's the strain of speaking in English, but Ziyi Zhang shows barely little of the great flare she demonstrated in "House of Flying Daggers (Shi mian mai fu)" and "Hero (Ying xiong)." Michelle Yeoh occasionally gets to project a glimmer of her assured performance in "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (Wo hu cang long)." Only Li Gong shows any real life. Otherwise, I kept picturing Charles Ludlam in various roles, or even Cillian Murphy, as in kabuki theater, particularly as the plot dragged down in cat fight after cat fight.<br /><br />The supposed love story has zero chemistry, mostly due to the age differences, and I mostly felt sorry for Ken Watanabe and hoped his Hollywood pay check compensated for his loss of dignity as the mysterious "Chairman." I remember more emotion in "Portrait of Jennie" as the young girl is anxious to grow up into Jennifer Jones to please Joseph Cotton.<br /><br />We see brief glimpses of reality when the geishas pose with regular women as photographic attractions, and as an ageless Ziyi Zhang lives out the war years in a very colorful kimono dying operation. The finale has little sense of normality.<br /><br />The score includes many chopped up traditional melodies, with cello by Yo Yo Ma and violin by Yitzhack Pearlman instead of traditional instrumentation, that are beautiful to listen to in accompaniment to the lovely cinematography, as long as one completely ignores the plot and stiff acting.<br /><br />As my mind wandered, I wondered how the great Japanese directors of samurai movies would have dealt with this story, which probably would have been more formal, but a lot more emotional. |
1 | I saw this movie at the theaters when I was about 6 or 7 years old. I loved it then, and have recently come to own a VHS version. <br /><br />My 4 and 6 year old children love this movie and have been asking again and again to watch it. <br /><br />I have enjoyed watching it again too. Though I have to admit it is not as good on a little TV.<br /><br />I do not have older children so I do not know what they would think of it. <br /><br />The songs are very cute. My daughter keeps singing them over and over.<br /><br />Hope this helps. |
0 | This movie was promising: my favorite actor in a historical drama during the Independence war. It had memories from "Dances With Wolves" for the big prairies, Indians, military fights & from "Barry Lyndon" for the British & candles lights atmospheres...<br /><br />Unfortunately, the script is awful: the continuity of the story is lacking (cuts with "5 months later"; "3 years later") & the romance is so ridiculous that it's hard to believe in it: America is a big country but the characters kept bumping at each other; Above all, wait for the ending & you understand how to kill a story (imagine the same in "Titanic").<br /><br />Sometimes, a bad script is saved by a brilliant filmmaker. Unfortunately bis, Hudson is a poor one. He has already committed "Greystoke" and i find again the same flaws: no dynamic in scenes, in editing, in scoring: it is long, dull, flat....<br /><br />I knew that this movie was a disaster for Pacino's career: now i understand. Finally, this last movie for 2006 is in the vein of this year for me: A painful one... |
0 | Unashamedly ambitious sci-fi from Kerry Conran, for whom this is clearly a labour of love. Unfortunately it's just not that good. It all starts well enough - with an epic but restrained score, a mixture of Lucas and Hitchcock style editing and the glossy cinematography of a Spielberg. The movie also references many pulp sci-fi novels, serials and films as diverse as The Day The Earth Stood Still, Superman, Metropolis, Planet Of The Apes, The Iron Giant, Star Wars and The Spy Who Loved Me. The film however, fails to be as good as any one of those for several reasons: the main being that it's such a labour of love, so concerned with throwing everything at the screen and creating a brave new world, Conran actually forgets about making a movie. There is little to no tension, atmosphere or magic on offer here despite aerial battles, dinosaurs and race-against-time set-pieces. Even the noir elements fall flat. This is a broad way of looking at things though - those elements mainly fail because nothing feels at all real and is so obviously fake - the green-screen just looks like a video game half the time and it's obvious the actors have been pasted on afterwards. The actors don't get to do much either - Jude Law is wooden, Gwyneth Paltrow is annoying and stupid, Angelina Jolie is wasted - and it's all because of an awful script - the sort that has to explain nearly everything. It is a decent experience and some might get a nostalgia feel but ultimately this is a pointless step into the world of yesterday. Nice ending though. |
0 | My mother keeps a cassette of this film as a general threat to any film loving person who annoys her. Everything about it stinks.<br /><br />As such it is a true classic.<br /><br />Who gave it 10/10? Were you inadvertently watching a good film and accidentally voted for this one?<br /><br />Everyone involved in the movie making process should be forced to watch at least a small section of this film. It should be an indelible stain on the minds on all that hold film sacred and be revered as the tide mark of the cinematically dire. |
0 | I've seen about 820 movies released between 1931-39, and THE INFORMER is the worst major release I've seen from that time span. Awful, despicable, unpleasant, unhappy, unredeemable saga of a complete Loser. Watch a 1934 B Western instead. |
0 | Imagine pulling back the mask of a lethal assassin and finding Barbara Cartland there... that's what happens with this film.<br /><br />The opening showed promise, but soon it drops all pretenses of being a thriller (or even an imaginative love story) and the only reason they made this story becomes abundantly clear: to fill a gap in their female viewing market by creating yet another re-hash of 'mis-understood, brooding bad-boy' (Andrei) meets 'innocent, whimsical beauty' (Paula). <br /><br />Rather than waste any time in creating an original premise, the filmmakers went straight for the money-shot: the bad boy being tamed by said whimsical beauty. Thence follows a string of insincere and heavily-clichéd love scenes sprinkled with pseudo philosophical/poetic fluff. Andrei's admission of being (eponymously) a 'poet' is levered in to round out the perceived qualities a Byronic hero should have - but even when we're told in heavy, underlined writing who and what he is, it's still difficult to believe it - or care.<br /><br />For a Byronic hero/antihero to work, the story needs subtlety, style and innovation - all of which are utterly absent here. This is not a modern day Phantom of the Opera, it's just what happens when a weak and rather silly woman (with loose knicker elastic) dates a bad man, who, after meeting her, seems as dangerous as bunny slippers.<br /><br />The performances might have saved this film, had they been any good: the female lead is preoccupied with looking sexy and 'otherworldly', no matter how forced or ridiculous; and poor Dougray Scott appears to have been drugged as he shambles through his part. This is not his best work. The glimmers of interest were brought by Jürgen Prochnow as 'Vashon', and Andrew Lee Potts as the young photographer/brother. A better movie would have offed the sister and kept the brother instead. |
1 | When I first heard about the show, I heard a lot about it, and it was getting some good reviews. I watched the first episode of this "forensic fairy tale", as it so proclaims itself, and I really got hooked on it. I have loved it since. This show has a good sense of humour and it's fun to see a good show like this. The cast is excellent as their characters, and I wouldn't want to change them in any way.<br /><br />For those unfamiliar with this show, Pushing Daisies centers around a man named Ned (aka The Pie Maker, played by Lee Pace) who discovered a special gift when he was a boy: He could bring the dead back to life with the touch of a finger. He first did so with his dog, Digby. However, there is the catch: If he keeps a dead person alive for more than one minute, someone else dies. He learned this when he brought his mother back to life, and his childhood crush's father died in Ned's mother's place. The other catch is if he touches the person again, they're dead again, but this time for good. He learned this when his mother kissed him goodnight. His father took him to boarding school, and when he left, Ned never saw his father again.<br /><br />Almost 20 years later, Ned owns a pie bakery, cleverly titled "The Pie Hole." A co-worker of Ned's, Olive Snook (Kristin Chenoweth) has a crush on Ned, but Ned rejects her moves, trying not to get close to anyone, learning from past experiences. Private Investigator Emerson Cod (Chi McBride) discovered the gift that Ned has, and decides to make him a partner in solving murders. Ned touches the victim, asks who killed them, and when the minute is up, he touches them again, and they solve it. That's how they usually solve it. Throughout the episodes, the murders have very interesting plots and be what people least expect.<br /><br />One day, Ned discovers that his next murder to solve is his childhood sweetheart, Charlotte "Chuck" Charles (Anna Friel). He brings her back to life and decides to break the rules and keep her alive. In her place, the funeral director, who stole jewelery from the corpses, died. When Emerson finds out, and when Chuck wants to help with solving the murders, he doesn't agree a bit--for a while, we hear him call Chuck 'Dead girl'. This is all kept in secret from Olive, Chuck's aunts Vivian and Lily (Ellen Greene and Swoosie Kurtz, respectively), and everyone else for that matter, in case anyone recognized her from obituaries, the news, etc. Vivian and Lily, formerly synchronized swimmers, hadn't left the house in years. Emerson, Ned, and Chuck agree to work together. Ned and Chuck grow to love each other, though they can't touch each other ever again.<br /><br />This show is funny, has terrific characters, contains great plot twists, and will definitely get your spirits up. I hope it doesn't get cancelled at 13 episodes. |
0 | DOWN TO EARTH / (2001) * (out of four)<br /><br />By Blake French:<br /><br />"Down to Earth" is such a mislead and desperate comedy it makes sitting home on the couch watching a Chris Rock standup-comedy act on TV look like heaven. Speaking of heaven, the film is based on the 1978 movie "Heaven Can Wait." That was a good movie, and this is good-to demonstrate how a group of aspiring screenwriters can take decent material and turn it into garbage. Directors Chris and Paul Weitz miss nearly every target. From concept to storytelling, "Down to Earth" fails miserably; this is one incredibly bad production.<br /><br />Chris Rock is a lousy standup comedian, both in his role in this movie and in the real life. He plays Lance Barton, whose manager, (Frankie Faison) even feels sorry for him when he is booed off stage during amateur night at a local theatre. Soon after the script establishes his lack of talent, the character is killed by a speeding truck. Death, played by Eugene Levy, has made a mistake, taking Lance before his number was up. God's assistant (Chazz Palminteri) is very angry and decides to let Lance make up the remainder of his time on Earth, as long as he takes the only available body of a 60 year old white millionaire.<br /><br />The old man's name is Mr. Wellington, whose life has problems of its own. His wife (Jennifer Coolidge) is having an affair with his assistant (Greg Germann), who is robbing him of his money. But that's all right because Lance, inside Mr. Wellington, has fallen in love with a young black woman named Sontee (Regina King.) Meanwhile, there are plots to kill Wellington, Lance attempting to get a better body, and Sontee's confused feelings dealing with a hospital situation involving Mr. Wellington's finances.<br /><br />"Down to Earth" has some good ideas, but they are in a pointless and unconvincing love story filled with contrivances and recycled material. The biggest problem it runs into is how we perceive Lance as Mr. Wellington. Chris Rock is the actor with popularity and publicity, so he is not going to be absent from most of this movie; all of the characters see the new Lance as Mr. Wellington, but we see him as Chris Rock. This is convenient for the love story; we believe a young woman would fall for Lance, but in reality, he is actually an old, gray-haired geezer. That is not so convincing.<br /><br />The one-joke comic situation is supposed to be watching an old man doing funny things that are really done by a young black man. But what inspires laughter is when characters run into conflicts without their knowledge. Just look at "There's Something About Mary." In the funny scenes the characters are exposed to awkward experiences, and not at their will. Here, Lance knows he is in an old man's body, and does things old men would not normally do. If Lance did not know the body he was in then that may have had potential.<br /><br />Another problem with the concept: we never knew Mr. Wellington in the first place, so how can we compare Lance in his body when we do not know what he was like originally. To top everything off, Chris Rock needs to be the center of attention here, and makes the character too much like Rock. He recites simple standup routine jokes that are tedious and painful; his dialogue is so obvious, wooden and straightforward. I hated the film's sense of humor. There are so many unfunny jokes and horrible comic situations. It is like watching Chris Rock being Chris Rock, not a character in a movie.<br /><br />Let's emphasize the positives in "Down to Earth." Mark Addy does not do any worse here than he did in "The Flintstones in Viva Rock Vegas." Eugene Levy and Chazz Palmentari are well cast, but they are at the mercy of a scalped script. Those are all the good qualities I can mention at this time, and if you give me another week to recollect, it is not likely that I will come up with any more. |
1 | This is yet another gritty and compelling film directed by Sam Fuller in the early 1950s. This minimalist and fast-working director has something unusual for his earlier films--a cast with some stars. Richard Widmark, Jean Peters and Richard Kiley star in this film about a group of Communist agents who are trying to sneak secrets out of America--and they'll stop at nothing to succeed.<br /><br />The film starts with Peters on a subway car being watched by federal agents. They know she is a link in a long espionage chain. Unknown to everyone is the wild card in the equation--a small-time pickpocket (Widmark) is also on the train and he manages to steal the secrets that Peters is carrying. Widmark thinks it's just another purse he's ransacked--only later does he realize the seriousness of what he's stolen. Now it's Widmark on his own--with Commies and the FBI hot on his trail.<br /><br />Widmark and the rest are exceptional and the film is gripping from start to finish. Although she didn't get top billing, a special mention should be made of Thelma Ritter. This supporting actress had perhaps the performance of her lifetime as a stool pigeon. Seldom was she given this much of a chance to act and I was impressed by her ability to play a broken down and sad old lady.<br /><br />As far as the script and directing go, they are very good--but with one small exception. At first, I loved the way Widmark and Peters interacted. It's one of the few times on film you'll see a woman punched square in the mouth! Now THAT'S tough. Later, inexplicably, they become amazingly close--too close to be believable. Still, with so much great drama and such an effective Noir-like film, this can be overlooked. See this film. |
1 | This amazing documentary gives us a glimpse into the lives of the brave women in Cameroun's judicial system-- policewomen, lawyers and judges. Despite tremendous difficulties-- lack of means, the desperate poverty of the people, multiple languages and multiple legal precedents depending on the region of the country and the religious/ethnic background of the plaintiffs and defendants-- these brave, strong women are making a difference.<br /><br />This is a rare thing-- a truly inspiring movie that restores a little bit of faith in humankind. Despite the atrocities we see in the movie, justice does get served thanks to these passionate, hardworking women.<br /><br />I only hope this film gets a wide release in the United States. The more people who see this film, the better. |
1 | Reading a wide variety of "Scoop" reviews over the past few days, I walked into the theater prepared for a subpar outing from Woody. Happily, I couldn't have been more wrong. Granted, Woody the performer is slowing down a touch or two, but Woody the writer/director is in fine form - and found a credible way to integrate his 70-year old self into the story. Judging from the laughter and guffaws, the audience ate up Allen's one-liners and dialogue in a way that I haven't seen in several years. <br /><br />In a movie landscape dominated by software-approved story arcs, twentysomething tastes and assembly-line formula fare for kiddies, it's a source of both satisfaction and inspiration to see Allen pursuing his highly personal and still-rewarding path. |
1 | I have been a Star Trek fan for as long as I can remember. When they announced the planning and premiere of the fifth series I was very excited.<br /><br />The premiere of Enterprise was well worth the wait. It was well done with the perfect setting and a great acting job done by all the characters. The NX-01, Enterprise is the perfect vessel to show the beginnings of what many people have come to love.<br /><br />Scott Bakula was just superior as Captain Jonathan Archer. Jolene Blalock gave a commanding performance as Subcommander T'Pol. That it just two people of this wonderful new crew that is boldly going to take us into the great history of Starfleet.<br /><br />Enterprise looks like it's going to be a good series well worth watching, and I recommend that. Watch it. |
1 | Let's face it: the final season (#8) was one of the worst seasons in any show I've ever enjoyed (mostly, I've never found dry spells to last a whole season). But if you judge this show by the last season, of course it's going to come across as inferior. That is an entirely unfair assessment-- because "That '70s Show" was, in its day, a brilliant and hilarious sitcom about a bygone era and how the people who lived there weren't so different than we are here in modern times.<br /><br />All right... ignoring Season 8.<br /><br />Topher Grace stars as Eric Forman, a horny geek of a teenager with a perpetual love of Donna (Laura Prepon), the feminist girl next door. Playing their friends, Danny Masterson (Hyde), Mila Kunis (Jackie), Wilmer Valderrama (Fez) and even Ashton Kutcher (Kelso) give fantastic performances in (almost) every episode. The best one is probably Fez, a foreign exchange student who is as mentally promiscuous as they get. What country is he from? Try to figure it out! For another dimension of entertainment, Debra Jo Rupp and Kurtwood Smith are phenomenal as Eric's parents. Rupp, as Kitty, is both formidable and sweet, sort of like Mrs. Brady meets Marie Barone, while Smith's Red exists mainly to scare the pogees out of everyone. Don Stark and Tanya Roberts play very well opposite each other as Donna's parents, the chauvinistic but likable Bob and the airheaded Midge. Tommy Chong has occasional appearances as Leo, a stoner who acts as a father figure to Hyde.<br /><br />Apart from the anachronistic errors that pop up quite frequently and the over-the-top lessons that sometimes come (and that deplorable final season), "'70s" is a terrific show with amazing writing, spot-on direction, and a feel-good vibe pulsing through every episode. They're all alright. |
0 | Unfortunately this film, 54 was a pathetic attempt of the true story of 'Studio 54.' The only thing that was good about the picture was 'Mike Myers' who was a joy to watch. 'Neve Cambpell,' although her role was little was unfortunately bad. The bottom line is that this film lacked a good performance from the actors, except one and that the conversion of the true story was a desperate attempt for a good screenplay. |
1 | This movie kept me constantly entertained. In comparing this to Serial Mom, Mr. Waters has gone back to his grittier side. This is not nearly as polished.<br /><br />There is a dark side here. A message about how success and fame changes a person -- but more importantly how it changes the people around you.<br /><br />There is not a false moment in this film.<br /><br />The characters are somewhat cartoonish... but I want to believe that is what Mr. Waters is trying to achieve.<br /><br />It is fascinating to watch how Mr. Waters has evolved... This is truly his finest work. |
0 | I hate to be the one to rain on a parade (even a small one like this) but from the very first scene, you could tell this film was going to be absolute shite. Its a shame really, as I quite like Martin Freeman and Danny dyer. I was intrigued as to how they would mix in a film together, but to my dismay, they did not even have a scene together!! I think I need to repeat this - The two lead actors (who stand side by side on the advertisement posters and DVD covers) did not have one scene together!!!! They did not speak to each other and never appeared on screen at the same time. Just about sums up this poor excuse for a movie. False advertisement.<br /><br />The dialogue was painful, every single character in the movie was unrealistic, and un-human like. The scenarios were far fetched, the plot was crap, the jokes were thin, Freeman tried too hard to be funny (and played a poor mans Tim from The office), nobody was likable, and worst of all, some of the characters were so annoying that it almost drove me to switch off, as I couldn't bear to watch, or listen to them any longer.<br /><br />This low budget stinker was an epic fail. Even Danny Dyer couldn't inject some humour and charm into this, but bless, he tried. What a waste of time.<br /><br />How anybody could rate this movie as 'ten stars' is beyond me. Ten Stars? Seriously? Come on....I won't even give some of the greats ten stars, as ten stars implies that a movie was perfect. This film was far from perfect, almost the opposite, meaning that it was almost completely dire throughout.<br /><br />Watch it if you like, but if you've seen a lot of movies, and watched a lot of great movies, your review will probably similar to mine.<br /><br />1/10 |
0 | This film is exactly what you get when you really over stretch your abilities, it's like someone who has just passed there driving test and then pitting them in a formula 1 Grand Prix (not I might add, the US Grand Prix as everyone might pull out due to dodgy tyres and you might just win), that is how far short this film falls. Now don't take this the wrong way, I love B-Movies, around half my collection is made of B-Movies but I don't think there are enough letters in the alphabet to describe how bad this film is.<br /><br />First of the story (for a B-Movie) isn't that bad, it has potential there to make a B-Movie brand, were not talking Friday 13th potential, but potential none the less. But what really lets this film down is the acting, at not one second do I believe anything, it's like watching QVC except the presenters on QVC tend to have a heavier tan.<br /><br />In summary I'd like to say I've seen worse films, but I can't. |
1 | A blockbuster at the time of it's original release (it was the second-highest grossing film of 1976), the third screen version of A STAR IS BORN has always divided critics and fans alike. The film open to scathingly negative reviews, however, $5.6 million-budgeted picture went on to gross over $150 million at the box office and won an Academy Award and five Golden Globes. It's not without some irony that Streisand's most commercially successful film would also remain her most controversial. For every ten fans who state that STAR is Streisand's best film, there are always ten more who claim it is the weakest film in her filmography. Although both sides have some merit to support their claims, it should still be noted that the seventies take on A STAR IS BORN remains one of the most touching and highly entertaining showbiz dramas that Hollywood ever produced. For my money, it's the best version of the often-told tale.<br /><br />The film is solidly enjoyable and throughly absorbing. Changing the setting from the old Hollywood studio system to the competitive world of the music industry was actually a great idea, and the screenplay forges a realistic contrast between the characters' romance and their careers. This is the main area that the 1976 version of A STAR IS BORN actually surpasses it's classic predecessors. For example, the film is especially successful when depicting the clashing personal and professional difficulties during recording sessions and the never-ending phone calls that interrupt Kristofferson's songwriting attempts. This version of the story is also more believable in it's portrayal of the lead characters. For example, the female leads in the two previous versions were so virtuous and self-sacrificing that they came off as saints. On the other hand, Esther, the female lead in this version, is not only portrayed as being strong and passionate, but also flawed and conflicted. This makes her feel more "real" than the Janet Gaynor or Judy Garland characters felt in the previous films, and makes the story that much more effective.<br /><br />The performances are all on target, even if some of the supporting characters aren't fleshed out enough. If you're looking for an actress/singer who can walk the fine line between tough and vulnerable without making herself seem like a script contrivance, Streisand is definitely the girl you want. She's one of the few film stars who can make even the most banal dialogue seem fresh and natural, and, as usual, she manages to make a strong emotional connection with the viewer. Simply put, her Esther is a fully-realized, three-dimensional human being. Kris Kristofferson may not get much respect now for his laid-back characterization, however, he's always interesting watch and displays a magnetic charisma here that he seldom displayed elsewhere in his career. Kristofferson actually received rave reviews at the time from NEWSWEEK, TIME, and even the NEW YORKER's usually vicious Pauline Kael. Gary Busey and Paul Mazursky also give believable performances, but both have a fairly minimal amount of screen time.<br /><br />The film's soundtrack recording was also a massive success, hitting the #1 on Billboard's Hot 200 and selling over four million copies in the US alone. The Streisand-composed "Evergreen" (with lyrics from Paul Williams) is unarguably one of the most gorgeous songs in contemporary pop, brought to even-further life by an absolutely incomparable vocal performance from Streisand. The rest of the film's original songs (mostly composed by Williams and Rupert Holmes) are pretty good as well, and Streisand sounds fantastic - her live solo numbers remain in the memory long after the rest of the movie has faded. Streisand's vibrant performances bring "Woman In The Moon" and "With One More Look At You" to thrilling life, and make even sillier numbers like "Queen Bee" work far better than they have the right to. Kristofferson's solo numbers sound somewhat tuneless, however, that may have been intentional since he is playing a singer in decline.<br /><br />Though naturally dated in some respects (it definitely does reflect the decade in which it was made), the seventies take on A STAR IS BORN still holds up remarkably well. The film is well-mounted and slickly produced, the chemistry between the leads is extremely powerful and always feels genuine, and Streisand has two emotional scenes near the finale that are both aching effective. In conclusion, A STAR IS BORN is not only entertaining and moving, but it also transcends all criticism. |
1 | EUROPA (ZENTROPA) is a masterpiece that gives the viewer the excitement that must have come with the birth of the narrative film nearly a century ago. This film is truly unique, and a work of genius. The camerawork and the editing are brilliant, and combined with the narrative tropes of alienation used in the film, creates an eerie and unforgettable cinematic experience.<br /><br />The participation of Barbara Suwkowa and Eddie Constantine in the cast are two guilty pleasures that should be seen and enjoyed. Max Von Sydow provides his great voice as the narrator.<br /><br />A one of a kind movie! Four stars (highest rating). |
1 | Gosha's last great film of the 1960's. A resolute stylist with a great sense of purpose to his films, Gosha teamed up with Shintaro Katsu (of Zatoichi fame) to produce this scathing indictment of mindless nationalist loyalty. <br /><br />"Tenchu" (heavenly judgment) is the word that the loyalists to the emperor yell while assassinating enemies or "traitors" to the cause. Katsu plays up his character' simple minded allegiance to a manipulative politician all in the name of patriotic pride. Anybody who questions the politician is labeled a "traitor" and becomes an assassination target.<br /><br />One of the best photographed films ever, many shots are incredible compositions of form, color and light. The fight scenes are frequent and very bloody and brutal. The blood becomes a part of the color palette Gosha uses for his images. Gorgeous and disturbing. While the personal story is simple to follow, the historical background is complicated and while a basic history lesson for this time in Japan would be very helpful you can struggle through the film without it. The few drawbacks to the film are the music track, the length and Katsu's occasional scenery chewing. He has a drunken scene that's way over the top for a film but actually a very accurate depiction of a drunk.<br /><br />Downbeat but one of the great chambara films. |
0 | I read some gushing reviews here on IMDb and thought I would give this movie a look. Disappointed. On the plus side the male leads are good, and some interesting photography but as a whole this movie fails to convince. Seems to be full of its' own self indulgent importance in trying to say something meaningful but falls way short and all in all the picture is an unconvincing mess.<br /><br />It is one of those films classified as a film noir which can be defined as follows:<br /><br />"A film noir is marked by a mood of pessimism, fatalism, menace and cynical characters".<br /><br />Well that is the story here: 3 losers stumble upon each other with their collective problems that include mental illness, alcoholism, laziness, indebtedness etc and together they conspire to kidnap a child and outwit each other.<br /><br />Would have been a much better movie if the story was confined more to the kidnap instead of the character failings of the kidnappers. I thought the female lead was way out of her depth and came across as an amateur actress.<br /><br />Whilst some good moments, I finished up feeling I had wasted my time.<br /><br />4/10. |
0 | This was a disappointing film for me. It came to me via a boxed set entitled, "Classic Film Noir," which was a gift from someone who knows I typically enjoy films done in that style (I insist that noir is a style, not a genre). I do not think it is a noir film at all. There seems to be a tendency these days to label and market every black and white B movie made from 1947 to 1955 as noir, and the label does not always fit. There is a persecuted male protagonist, Ed Cullen (Lee J. Cobb), and most of the film's action takes place indoors. Those are just about the only noir elements that I could see. There is no pervasive paranoia, or any real reason why one should sympathize with Ed Cullen. Jane Wyatt was overdressed and unconvincing as a femme fatale. I do not want to spoil this film for potential viewers. However, I would be interested in hearing what other connoisseurs of film noir have to say about it. |
1 | Good luck finding this film to even watch - it's not yet released on tape or DVD. I saw on release in the early '70's, was lucky enough to catch it via American Cinematheque's preservation efforts, and it still has some tangible moments that stayed with me for thirty years.<br /><br />No reason to repeat rwint's accurate comments here. As a come-out Director soon after the soaring success of Five Easy Pieces, Jack N has been said to have managed the low budget effort as best as possible, and it certainly shows in the wandering and meandering that could have used some re-cutting. But it's also a memorable icon for it's time: the all very intense clashes of late 60's college sports, student movements, sexual revolution, and more. <br /><br />Why see this film? It was probably a ground breaker in some scenes: the frisky male bonding in the after-game showers; Karen Black's scene with Tepper in the car will catch you a little off guard - but it's the first use of a word I hadn't witnessed in film before; and the casual and unexpected use of nudity overall. There are probably others I'm omitting.<br /><br />Look for a nice surprise of a young Cindy Williams in one of her first films; a thin David Ogend Stiers; Mike Warren fresh out of his powder-blue UCLA uniform and readying for a dark-blue TV uniform; Robert Towne - Actor; and a whole lot of folks simply playing themselves.<br /><br />Now: any connection between Harry Gittes last name, Robert Towne, and a certain character in Chinatown and the Two Jakes?<br /><br />It gets a "7" based on Karen Black. You'll see why. |
1 | I stumbled on this series rather by accident. After half an episode, I was hooked. American Gothic was a dark, strange series with Gary Cole as the mysterious, probably evil Sheriff Buck who is trying to gain control of his illegitimate son Caleb, played by Lucas Black. I was impressed with Gary Cole's sinister sheriff and I was even more impressed with Lucas Black. Lucas Black's Caleb was able to stand up against Sheriff Buck, one of the most frightening characters ever created for a TV series. I have rarely seen a child actor with as much presence or talent as Lucas Black. If you were not lucky enough to see Lucas in American Gothic, see him in Slingblade.<br /><br />It was a remarkable show with many ambiguities and mysteries that were never explained during it's short run. |
1 | The Ruth Snyder - Judd Gray murder in 1927 inspired Ogden Nash to write a Broadway play called Machinal. More famously, it inspired James M. Cain to write two short novels which anyone who has actually reached the point where they are reading this review would be familiar with - Double Indemnity and The Postman Always Rings Twice. Both became film noir classics of the 1940's, Double Indemnity being arguably the most perfect noir ever made. Some of the real-life elements of the Snyder-Gray story were captured by Cain - the old age and indifference of Albert Gray, Ruth's high sex drive, Ruth and Judd's passionate affair and complicity in the murder and that famous double indemnity insurance clause. Missing elements included the fact that the actual setting was a very urban Manhattan - Albert Snyder being a respected newspaper editor. The numerous incompetent and failed attempts were also ignored in order to cut to the chase.<br /><br />Cain's Double Indemnity was filmed perfectly by Billy Wilder - let's ignore Stanwyck's ridiculous wig as one of those interesting accidents of film lore! The Postman Always Rings Twice, however, was filmed thrice and Ossessione, an Italian version and Luchino Visconti's first film, was the first of three versions. Before commenting on it, I'll recommend the Lana Turner - John Garfield version of 1946 in its entirety and five minutes of the 1981 Jack Nicholson - Jessica Lange version for the great sex scene on the dining table.<br /><br />Ossessione is not as noirish as The Postman Always Rings Twice. It has a strong neo-realist look which makes it a great movie, but a lot of the essential noir elements are missing. It does not have low-key lighting and unconventional camera angles. The dialog is not hard-boiled and instead the film concentrates more on characterization. This is the longest version of the story and goes deeply into characterization. Its also a lot more sexual than the Lana Turner version. We have a very obvious adulterous relationship and Giovanna is very obviously a nymphomaniac. A new character is introduced into the story - La Spagnola - with very obvious homosexual overtones. There is also a small, but very well-played role for a dancer who moonlights as a prostitute.<br /><br />This is a far greater study of the working class than of crime. The audience really gets the feeling of poverty and grime. The drifter is a complete tramp, the wife is no Lana Turner and may even have been a prostitute before marriage. Her husband is an obscene capitalist - obese, rude and arrogant. I think the casting was brilliant for this film. My only beef is with the overlong running time. Everything is drawn out too long and it would have been more effective if it had been more economical. Nevertheless, fans of noir and realism will definitely like Ossessione, as I did. |
0 | This movie was by far the worst movie that I have ever seen in my entire life. I'm not even kidding. It was poorly made and the actors couldn't act. It was a waste of my time and money. It looked like a movie that my friends and I could have put together on our own. The case the movie came in is definitely a disguise. Nothing in the movie looks like the zombie on the front of the case. It appears that the director or make-up artist has just put black eye liner under someones eyes an called them a zombie. The credits at the beginning of the movie take up almost 20 minutes of the movie. Which watching the credits was the best part of the movie. This was honestly an awful movie and I couldn't believe how badly it was put together. Scenes jumped from one thing to the other and sometimes u were like "whats going on?" The audio was awful and the action shots looked like a couple of teen's joking around making a fake fight scene.<br /><br />IF you are considering renting or buying this movie I would advise you to at least watch the trailer for it because it show's how awful it truly is. I wish i would have watched it before i rented it. |
1 | I used to watch this on either HBO or Showtime or Cinemax during the one summer in the mid 90's that my parents subscribed to those channels. I came across it several times in various parts and always found it dark, bizarre and fascinating. I was young then, in my early teens; and now years later after having discovered the great Arliss Howard and being blown away by "Big Bad Love" I bought the DVD of "Wilder Napalm" and re-watched it with my girlfriend for the first time in many years. I absolutely loved it! I was really impressed and affected by it. There are so many dynamic fluid complexities and cleverness within the camera movements and cinematography; all of which perfectly gel with the intelligent, intense and immediate chemistry between the three leads, their story, the music and all the other actors as well. It's truly "Cinematic". I love Arliss Howard's subtle intensity, ambivalent strength and hidden intelligence, I'm a big fan of anything he does; and his interplay with Debra Winger's manic glee (they are of course married) has that magic charming reality to it that goes past the camera. (I wonder if they watch this on wedding anniversaries?......."Big Bad Love" should be the next stop for anyone who has not seen it; it's brilliant.) And, Dennis Quaid in full clown make-up, sneakily introduced, angled, hidden and displayed by the shot selection and full bloomed delivery is of the kind of pure dark movie magic you don't see very often. Quaid has always had a sinister quality to him for me anyways, with that huge slit mouth span, hiding behind his flicker eyes lying in wait to unleash itself as either mischievous charm or diabolical weirdness (here as both). Both Howard and Quaid have the insane fire behind the eyes to pull off their wonderful intense internal gunslinger square-offs in darkly cool fashion. In fact the whole film has a darkly cool energy and hip intensity. It's really a fantastic film, put together by intelligence, imagination, agility and chemistry by all parties involved. I really cannot imagine how this got funded, and it looks pretty expensive to me, by such a conventional, imagination-less system, but I thank God films like this slip through the system every once in awhile. In a great way, with all of its day-glo bright carnival colors, hip intelligence, darkly warped truthful humor and enthralling chemistry it reminds me of one of my favorite films of all time: "Grosse Pointe Blank".......now that's a compliment in my book! |
0 | Having just watched this movie, I almost feel like having wasted 2 hours of my life, but I guess there is some good in everything:<br /><br />If I was to rate this as any other movie, it can only receive 1 or 2 tops, but if I grade it like a low budget ind. movie, it may get 3 or 4. That is a movie is supposed to be 'complete' and without too long passages of boredom or waste of time. This movie isn't. But I guess a lot of independent movies are about showing movie skills, and considering this, this movie has a few highlights. If I am to comment on what the directors should take with them to their next project, I guess the distorted sound effects had some quality. They also manage to build some characters, this however takes me to what they should leave out in their next project, because the character building takes too long, since it is mostly irrelevant for the movie plot. Neither should the long spaces of time dedicated to walking around be continued in the next project - whats the point? I guess this movie tries to be a little bit of everything (building characters, suspense and a plot), and ends up being nothing (not a lot)<br /><br />This movie tries too much and too hard, and I guess it should have been cut to a short film. I could easily manage to find one hour of walking around or pointless dialogue to cut from the movie.<br /><br />There is too much irrelevant things going on in this movie. The story should have been more streamlined. I know there is supposed to be some mystery in this movie, but a slight surprise to who the killer is, doesn't make a mystery. The story behind the "mystery" receives almost no attention during the film, which leaves the final "point" as a quick an unsatisfying wrap-up. <br /><br />Therefore I would like to say this movie was a nice try, but I cant. I hope the directors learn from their mistakes, and produce a better product next time.<br /><br />If you don't have an interest in bench learning from producing low budget movies, there is no need to watch this - not even too see why everyone thinks its bad.<br /><br />As others have stated I am pretty sure the many 10's given to this movie are from people somehow involved in the movie. This movie could not receive a "10" judging from any remotely objective standpoint. |
1 | In a series chock-full of brilliant episodes, this one stands out as one of my very favorites. It's not the most profound episode, there's no great meaning or message. But it's a lot of fun, and there are some fine performances.<br /><br />But what makes it really stand out for me is that it is, to my knowledge, the *only* Twilight Zone episode with a *double* snapper ending. The Zone is rightly famous for providing a big surprise at the end of a story. But this time, you get a surprise, and think that's that, but it turns out there's *another* surprise waiting. I just like that so much, that this is probably one of my two favorite episodes (the other being a deeper, more message-oriented one). |
0 | Happy Go Lovely is a waste of everybody's time and talent including the audience. The lightness of the old-hat mistaken identity and faux scandal plot lines is eminently forgivable. Very few people watched these movies for their plots. But, they usually had some interesting minor characters involved in subplots -- not here. They usually had interesting choreography and breathtaking dancing and catchy songs. Not Happy Go Lovely. And Vera-Ellen as the female lead played the whole movie as a second banana looking desperately for a star to play off it -- and instead she was called upon to carry the movie, and couldn't do it. The Scottish locale was wasted. Usually automatically ubiquitous droll Scottish whimsy is absent. The photography was pedestrian. The musical numbers were pedestrian. Cesar Romero gives his usual professional performance, chewing up the scenery since no one else was doing his part, in the type of producer role essayed frequently by Walter Abel and Adolph Menjou. David Niven is just fine, and no one could do David Niven like David Niven. At the end of the day, if you adore Niven as I do, it's reason enough to waste 90 minutes on Happy Go Lovely. If not, skip it. |
0 | Bruce Lee was a great martial artist, but this film still is probably one of the worst films ever made. It has Bruce Lee die as the result of falling off a helicopter after being hit by some kind of a ninja knife to the back of the neck but it doesn't explain how he came to be on a helicopter since the prior scene has him near but not on the helicopter which is already 200 feet in the air. It just gets downright absurd from then, like something out of a cheap comic book. Maybe the idea isn't so rotten but it isn't done with any degree of artistry from a film making point of view. There are dozens of such martial arts bombers out there, usually all made in Hong Kong. I think that Jean Claude van Dam improved the genre with adding plausible stories in his films and having film makers who know how to use the camera. Even Steven Seagal's films are way better than 90 percent of the martial arts junk movies made during the 1970s and early 1980s in Hong Kong. 'Game of Death II' falls into the category of junk cinema in my opinion, despite Bruce Lee being in it. |
1 | In his first go as a Hollywood director, Henry Brommell whips an enthralling yarn that is all of penetrating relatable marital issues with melancholic authenticity, and lacing such with an equally absorbing subplot of a father-son hit-man business. The film is directed astutely and consists of a wonderfully put together cast as well as a swift, family-conscious screenplay (also by Brommell) that brings life to an otherwise fatigued genre. As a bonus, 'Panic' delivers subtle, acerbic humoran unexpected, undeniably charming, and very welcome surprisethrough its bumbling, unsure-of-himself, low-key star, whose ever-cool state is enticing, especially given his line of work.<br /><br />The forever-great William H. Macy again captures our hearts as Alex, a unhappy, torn, middle-aged husband and father who finds solace in the most dubious of persons: a young, attractive, equally-messed-up 23-year-old named Sarah (Neve Campbell), whom he meets in the waiting-room at a psychologist's office, where he awaits the therapy of Dr. Josh Parks (John Ritter) to discuss his growing eagerness to quit the family business that his father (Donald Sutherland) built. Alex, whose lust to lead a new life is obstructed by the fear of disappointing his dictating father, strikes an unwise fancy for Sarah, which ultimately leads him to understand the essence and irrefutable responsibility of being a husband to his wife and, more importantly to him, a good father to his six-year-old son, Sammy (played enthusiastically by the endearing David Dorfman).<br /><br />Henry Brommell's brilliant 'Panic' is something of a rarity in Hollywood seldom seen (with the exception of 2002's 'Road to Perdition') since its conception in 2000it weaves two conflicting genres (organized-crime, family drama) into a fascinating, warm hunk of movie-viewing that is evenly strong in either directionand it's one that will maintain its exceptional, infrequent caliber and gleaming sincerity for ages to come. |
0 | Fiction film (it lists as based on a story though it does have a "documented by" credit) about a group of scientists going into the wilds of Canada to try and find a Bigfoot.(They want to capture one and then attach a tracking device). Its lots of scientific mumbo jumbo mixed in what is really a dull film of a bunch of people wandering around in the wilderness. There are some attempts at creating tension and scares, but to be perfectly honest there is nothing here worth seeing outside of some great looking shots of the wilds. This is a perfect definition of an exploitation film, it promises you so much, a look at Bigfoot, but in reality it delivers very little. Recommended for insomniacs only |
0 | I'd give this a negative rating if I could. I went into this movie not expecting much, but I had an open mind. The whole thing is stupid! The snakes are obviously fake and the first two things they bite are a boob and a guys johnson. Oh how original; if I were a 12 year old boy I might laugh at that. I have no idea how this movie became so popular. Seriously,the worst thing I've ever seen. I wasn't entertained, it wasn't funny,I wasn't even bored! I wasn't anything. It wasn't even so bad it was good, it's just bad. Ridiculous actually. Please do not waste your money on this movie. Don't even rent this movie. No clue how it's getting such a high rating. |
1 | Rohmer strays from his usual portraits of french middle class to tell this costume drama about the difficulties of an aristocrat lady during the french revolution. What's more attractive about "La Anglaise..." (apart from the story itself) is the fabulous aesthetics that Rohmer has achieved. The images have been digitally decorated too make them look like baroque pictures. In some moments you can't really say whether your watching a movie or a series of pictures in Louvre Musseum. Every shot is like a piece of art.<br /><br />*My rate: 7.5/10<br /><br />----------------<br /><br />-------------- -<br /><br />------------<br /><br />------------------- |
0 | I saw this movie in its own time period, when having a baby out of wedlock not only ruined your life, but stamped your child as a bastard. In these days of 'single mothers' that may seem very far-fetched, but it was very true. And I'm not crazy about laughing at someone who is stammering, either. Between these two problems I had difficulty finding this movie funny. At that time I didn't know who had directed it or what a marvelous reputation he had. I did know who Betty Hutton was, and she just made me nervous because she was so frenetic. I loved "Bringing Up Baby", but I find this movie just embarrassing. I'm sure the punch at some church functions probably was spiked, but I was the one needing a drink after watching this again. The idea the girl would have to be drunk in order to 'get married' and get pregnant just added to the misery. An entire town could turn on you under these circumstances, so the outcome of this movie is really the funny part. Of course, shoot me, I don't like "It's a Wonderful Life" either. |
1 | "Kalifornia" is a good Hollywoodish odyssey of suspense and terror which tells of two couples who drive cross-country to California to share the cost of gas: A pair of losers (Lewis & Pitt) and two wannabee artists, a photographer and a writer (Duchovny & Forbes). Pitt "nails" his character which is the focus of this somewhat predictable thriller. A good watch for those into psycho-killer flix. |
1 | Dana Andrews stands "Where the Sidewalk Ends" in this 1950 film that also stars Gene Tierney, Gary Merrill, Karl Malden and Neville Brand. Andrews plays New York City Detective Sgt. Mark Dixon, a cop with a bad temper who has gotten into trouble in the past for beating suspects. When a man is murdered at a gambling club owned by a mobster, Scalise (Merrill), Dixon and his partner go to investigate. Scalise blames the murder on Ken Paine (Stevens), who has now left the club after fighting not only with his wife, Morgan (Tierney) but the victim. Dixon thinks the victim won a lot of money and was killed as a result by the mobster's men. He goes to see Paine and, not realizing he has a plate in his head from the war, knocks him to the floor and inadvertently kills him. Now he must cover up the murder. As a further complication, he falls for Morgan; her father (Ken Tully), who went to Paine's apartment after he saw that Paine had hit his daughter, is arrested for the crime.<br /><br />This is a really terrific, gritty noir with some good performances. The ruggedly handsome and weathered Andrews is convincing as a tough yet nervous detective who has to stay one step ahead of his colleagues. The movie reunites him with his fabulous "Laura" costar, Gene Tierney, and she looks lovely as a model with bad taste in men who apparently is used to being roughed up. Little does she know, she's got another one on her hands. Ken Tully does a terrific job as her father, who protests his innocence despite some damning evidence. Karl Malden is very tough as Dixon's boss.<br /><br />My only problem with this well-directed, fast-moving and absorbing film is the ending. Pure Hollywood and, putting myself in Tierney's place, I doubt I would react the same way. A minor criticism for a film written by Ben Hecht and directed by Otto Preminger. I didn't find it as awe-inspiring as "Laura," but few things in this world are. If you like film noir, this is a must-see. |
1 | I could not agree less with the rating that was given to this movie, and I believe this is a sample of how short minded most of spectators are all over the world. Really... Are you forgetting that Cinema used to be a kind of art before some tycoons tried to make it only entertainment? This movie is not entertainment, at least not that easy entertainment you get on movies like Titanic or Gladiator. It has style, it is different, it is shocking... That's why most of you have hated it so much: because it does not try to be pleasing to you. It's just a story, a very weird one I admit, but after all, only a weird story. It is not a great story, not even a great cinema work, but I believe it is worth a 7-stars rating only for the courage of both author and director to shot a story that is not made to please the audience, thus selling billions of copies and making the big studios even richer. This movie is, for me, European-artistic-like movie made in the US, and everyone involved in the making of it deserves respect. Be it for the courage, or be it for the unique sense of humor. |
1 | After reading the book, I happened across this DVD at Wal-Mart for 3 bucks and thought, sure, what the hell... I got the DVD and watched it last night. When I started watching it, I checked the run time and it was about 90 minutes. I thought, OK cool... It seemed to run rather slowly, knowing the story and how much of it there was. By the time I got to the actual killings, I was like, "how much time does this have left?" Checked. "One minute?! What the hell?!" I felt incredibly cheated, thinking that the movie only progressed through a third of the overall story.<br /><br />But then, I happily noticed that the DVD's scene selection menu included a part 1 AND a part 2. I still had another hour and a half to go! I then sat very happily and enjoyed the second half of the movie, even more so than the first.<br /><br />I admit that I have not seen the 1967 original film (despite my sincerest desire to), I have however read the novel and felt that this was a fairly descent film, for a two-part TV miniseries, that is. I think the casting of the role of Perry was completely wrong and a few minor inconsistencies jumped out at me, but still very well done. The first half drags on a bit, while the second half is much more gripping. I think they should have proportioned the movie more like Capote did his book: 1/3 before the murders, 1/3 after, and 1/3 after the killers are arrested. Instead, the film makes it more 1/2 before the murders, 1/4 after, and 1/4 after the killers are arrested. Again, this makes the second half more exciting, but at the same time, less compelling while making the first half drag on and on...<br /><br />Now I look back and realize I have just made the same mistake about making things drag on and on, so I will shut the hell up. Go watch the movie and make up your own damn mind! <br /><br />Nick Houston |
1 | We watched this in my Women's Health Issues class to point out how women are treated inferior to men in many societies, and I absolutely loved this movie. I plan on trying to get a copy of it myself to watch. The story is very touching and I would recommend it to anyone. I am a fan of different cultures and this movie was just what I needed. This is a movie for the whole family despite its rating. This is a movie I will show to my children. The professor of our class meant for the movie to primarily be a too to educate about women, but this movie was more than that. It is one of those movies that will forever stick out in my mind and will be a favorite. |
1 | This film has, over the past ten years, become one of my favorite pseudo noir experiences. The three storyline threads given us by Kazan each have their unique and separate pleasures. The domestic chitchat between Bel Geddes and Widmark, the movement between rooms, the small gestures such as the phone book Barbara places on the chair under her son so he can reach the table, those small intimate exchanges between husband and wife, all are well crafted and natural. More than anything else, I love their porch, that second living room where it is clear they spend much of their summer time. The second thread is the professional relationship between many in the film but especially between Widmark and Douglas' characters. It may not be totally original and does get a bit blustery but all in all, it comes across as real, respectful and efficient. The third thread,the grungy tale of Blackie and his tattered little gang, gets us closest to a dark and frightening noir world.Palance's Blackie is as cold as a block of ice. This self-proclaimed business man, this self made man clearly has a complexity we only briefly tap in to. For me, this film continues to be a completely satisfying experience. |
0 | This is one very confusing movie. The film is very hard to follow and the plot just didn't seem to make any sense. The Fury of the Wolfman was made in Spain and I think that when any film is dubbed from one language to another, it doesn't translate exactly as it was first meant. Maybe this is part of the problem but I doubt if it can account for all the problems with this film. The dubbing is pretty bad and the voices don't match the characters very well. The scenes are choppy, there is an array of strange and irrelevant characters that do little more than confuse the viewer even more. What I did like about this film was the look of the wolfman himself and the scenes where he attacks. Now if they could have put it all together and had it make some sense, they might have had something. Don't waste your time on this one. |
1 | One of Disney's best films that I can enjoy watching often. you may easily guess the outcome, but who cares? its just plain fun escape for 1 hour forty-two minutes. and after all wasn't movies meant to get away from reality for just a short time anyway? The cast sparkles with delight. -magictrain |
1 | Cat Soup at first seems to be a very random animated film. The best way I've been able to explain it is that it's quite acidic. Though it's not totally random. The story is about Nyatta, a young cat boy and his sister Nyaako. Nyaako is very ill and dies, however, Nyatta sees her soul being taken away by death and is able to retrieve half of it. The story is about their quest to bring Nyaako fully back to life.<br /><br />Though a lot of the content in this movie seems completely random, it is not. Most of it is symbolism for life, death and rebirth. You can also see references from other tales, such as Hansel and Gretal. This strangely cute short film has an interesting story, packed with a deeper meaning than what you see on the surface of the screen. |
1 | Homeward Bound is a beautiful film. Y'know the part where Shadow falls down the ditch... thingy, I *cried*, considering I was only six, I cried! it takes a lot to make me cry! The dogs and the cat are excellently trained. A nice family movie, *not* for completely hardened non-fluffy people or animal-haters but could for soft-as-crap a.k.a. people like me.<br /><br />A good film overall, 10/10! |
1 | Superb. I had initially thought that given Amrita Pritam's communist leanings and Dr Dwivedi's nationalist leanings film will be more frank than novel but when I read the novel I was surprised to find that it was reverse.<br /><br />Kudos to marita Pritam for not being pseudo-sec and to Dr Dwivedi to be objective. This movie touches a sensitive topic in a sensitive way. Casualty of any war are women as some poet said and this movie personifies it. It is also a sad commentary on Hindu psyche as they can't stand up against kidnappers of their girls or the Hindu Brother who can only burn the fields of his tormentor. On the other hand it also shows economic angles behind partition or in fact why girls were kidnapped in the first place. I think kidnappers thought that by kidnapping girls they Will become legal owners of the houses and thus new govt. will not be able to ask them to return the houses. This apart one has to salute the courage of characters of Puro and her Bhabhi they are two simple village girls unmindful of outside world and risk everytihng by trying to come back after being dishonored . Because there are many documented cases when such women were not accepted by their families in India.<br /><br />No wonder that it required a woman to understand the pains of other women. |
0 | Firstly, this is a very dated film, non-focused in its exposition of the left wing political revolution. Honestly, when someone says that the only way to be truly revolutionary is to cease to be intellectual ( which in itself is quite nonsensical, since the answer was arrived at by precisely being intellectual) it reduces me to despair; as if we all should return to being apes in the name of equality - it is simply ridiculous. Our intellectuality is only one of many human qualities, but this does not mean we should not educate ourselves to the highest possible degree. But no doubt this non-educational message ties in with Godard's use of rock music; hence The Rolling Stones.<br /><br />The song 'Sympathy for the Devil', whose creation we witness, and from which the film takes its name, is in fact nothing special. The chord sequence, which is not especially original, was used to much better effect in Led Zeppelin's 'Thankyou'(Led Zeppelin II). Apart form that, 'Sir' Mick Jagger declaims in his usually nebulous manner (rather like Bob Dylan)- notice how the first melodic phrase is unimaginatively repeated over again to form the verse.<br /><br />Besides the fact that the Black Panthers depicted in this film, don't seem to know what they are fighting for, the most interesting scenes involve the equation of fascism with pornography; a message that in fact undermines the sexual 'liberation' of the 1960s and today ( indeed, a message that would belie the behaviour of The Rolling Stones around the time the film was made).<br /><br />No wonder, the DVD came free with The Sunday Times! For a truly profound historical exposition of left-wing sympathy, listen to Luigi Nono's masterpiece, 'Al Gran Sole carico'd'amore'. |
1 | JUST CAUSE is a flawed but decent film held together by strong performances and some creative (though exceedingly predictable) writing. Sean Connery is an anti-death penalty crusader brought in to save a seemingly innocent young black man (Blair Underwood) from the ultimate penalty. To set things right, Connery ventures to the scene of the crime, where he must contend not only with the passage of time, but a meddling sheriff (Laurence Fishbourne). Twists and turns and role reversals abound -- some surprising, some not -- as the aging crusader attempts to unravel the mystery. The climactic ending is a bit ludicrous, but JUST CAUSE is worth a look on a slow night. |
1 | When I took my seat in the cinema I was in a cool mood and didn't plan on changing it. But this movie is a dramatic powerhouse. I was all in sweat and needed a shower afterward. So what have we? Theoretically a coming of age story of a teenage Turkish girl living in Copenhagen, Denmark. It came to my mind soon that the plot seemed pretty much completely borrowed from "Bend it like Beckham", where we had an Indian girl playing football and spoiling the wedding of her sister. Here we have it transferred to a Turkish girl spoiling her brother's wedding by doing Kung Fu. And we have a love story and a competition of course, too. After I accepted this, this really turned out to be a gripping, emotional drama and it shows off some beautiful Kung Fu (I'm not an expert, though). The lead actress Semra Turan is not only Denmark's female champion but she also delivers an excellent performance, so that it appears to be safe to assume that we have quite some autobiographic impressions here taking into account that this is her first movie and that she has no education as an actress. Rest of the supporting cast is okay, camera good, Kung Fu intense. Sidenotes: - The male Turkish audience showed respect so that they must have done something right. - The audience burst into cheers when our heroine finally fought back and attacked the boys who were gravely beating up her brother in revenge. - Xian Gao, a Chinese cinematic Kung Fu instructor/actor (Hidden Tiger, Crouching Dragon) played the lead role's master<br /><br />If you get the chance to see this in cinema do it, you'll probably have a good and intense experience and I don't know if this works on small screen as well |
0 | I don't remember a movie where I have cared less about where the characters have come from, what happens to them or where they are going. I realize that Hollywood's greatest pastime is navel-gazing, but these people are either too despicable or too boring to take up time with. For what it's worth, though, the discussion that followed the showing, under the auspices of the Key Sunday Cinema series, did make allowance that possibly the three women did show some redeeming characteristics. I disagree. |
1 | Finally I got to see the infamous "Ice Age". Apart from maybe not being as dead funny as I'd hoped for after seeing the brilliant teaser there is not a bad word I can say about it. Sure, it's not as glamorous as a Disney production(besides, it is Fox's 1st attempt at a full length CG movie) but it's got immense heart and on some occasions(like the look in Manfred's eyes after we see the sad glimpse of his past) I found myself on the verge of tears. But when they reunited the baby with its father I just couldn't hold them in anymore. A movie that has no trouble walking on the thin line of sappy and cliché and manages to bring more than the best out of it; the end result being one of the most touching animated creations I have ever seen. Great funny looking characters that quickly grow on you(and great voice talents as well) and many funny memorable scenes, especially from Scrat's behalf make the movie more than enough reason to give it a go. Plus the Dodo scene, which is my personal favorite funny scene of 2002.<br /><br />I honestly don't get it, but for some reason it really looks like CG animation will be taking the upper hand in the future. But if it just means that there will be more movies like this one (and who can forget Pixar's creations) then I don't really mind, at least for now. 9/10 |
1 | The Dentist was made on the time when almost every profession had it's psycho. We had mad police officers, ambulance men, secretery's and that was just for starters. The Dentist came suprisingly late because going to dentist is usually everyman's nightmare.<br /><br />The plot is twisted. Super clean dentist Doctor Feinstone lives perfect life in his great "white house", he has beautiful blond wife and great place to work as a dentist. Dark clouds are coming to his horizon in the form of nasty IRS guy (Terminator's Earl Boen), dirty pool cleaner "cleaning" his wife and suddenly everyone's teeth seems to have gone through dark filter. He goes nutso and starts to take care of people teeth in the nasty way. And you don't want to come to his path.<br /><br />Crew were professional. Producer/director Brian Yuzna had produced stylish horror movies like Re-Animator and From Beyond. He directed the sequel to Re-Animator and his first movie Society was nice spinoff from John Carpenter's They Live. Film's producer Pierre David is known from movies like Scanners. Cast was great. Corbin Bernsen really suprised me. I knew him from LA Law and Major League, but I could newer dream him as a psycho dentist. He was actually great in his role and he was kind of sad person. Linda Hoffman was beutiful and dumb as Feinstones wife. Micahel Stadvec did not have much line's, but after I saw him with ladies of the neighbourhood I knew my future profession. Ken Foree (Dawn of the Dead, From Beyond) was nice sight as cop on the case. Virginya Keehne was the innocent teen who is about to be next client to Feinstone.<br /><br />Final warning: If you're like me and have problem with dentist's then maybe you should skip this one. But if you want to try than you should prepare yourself with dark humor and lots nasty drillings. |
1 | Finally was there released a good Modesty Blaise movie, which not only tells a story, but actually tells the "real" story. I admit that it is a bad movie if you expect an action thriller, but if you stop in your track and remove all your expectations. Then you will notice that it is a story that comes very close to the original made by Peter O'Donnell. You have a cover story just to tell about how Modesty became the magnificent person which she is. It is not a movie to attract new fans, but a movie to tell the real tale. Some things could have been better, but when you cannot forget the awful movie from '66 then is this a magnificent movie. So are you a fan then sit down relax and just enjoy that the real story is there with a cover story just to make Modesty tell her story. |
1 | Yesterday I watched this movie for the third time. It was recommended to me by a fried several weeks ago. I never watched or even noticed it before, because it falls (so typically) in the category "Swedish Movie" and those who rose up (like me) with Hollywood productions tend to be sceptical of any foreign movies. Hell what a paradigm shift! The film touches me, because it just keeps up my hope, that mankind can change to a better way. The Swedish village is just a pattern for all areas on earth where people live together - controlled by religion, misunderstandings, lack of courage, predictions, disguised brutality, but also the ability to have fun, to meet, to sing... It takes a trigger from outside to rip off the masks of everyone (who keeps one) and to let them feel that we all are just human beings with the desire to live our own lives. I can never stop to see stories like this, because, that keeps up my hope as described above. The five minutes containing the story of Gabriella's song including her performance is one of my movie-highlights ever! Thank you Kay Pollak just for these 5 minutes, which made me happy! |
0 | Kind of hard to believe that the movie from this book could succeed in topping its awfulness! The plot is so contrived and unbelievable. . . starting with laying a ton of guilt on a small child to spare her pain! Then we have the collusive behavior of at least six and maybe more people(including clergy) involved in what is a crime everywhere. Next we have a wife who seemingly in the length of a ferry ride goes from being comparatively happy to very shortly kicking over the traces. A very unpleasant and coo coo mother, aided, abetted and supported by a politically correct group of friends! Moving the setting from an island off the coast of South Carolina, did not help the story although it may have helped the film makers budget. The very beautiful buildings supposedly housing the monastery did not seem to logically suit an island small enough to need golf carts and such a small ferry service. Kim Basinger whom I do really like is painfully thin in this movie and her hairdo certainly belongs in another decade. Also there is simply no chemistry at all between her and either of the male leads. I thoroughly disliked the book from which this was taken but did read it all. The movie I kept surfing back and forth to, had to leave whenever that saccharine music got too much. Unless you like an unbelievable story, wooden acting, a contorted mixture of religious/mythological/allegory my advice is to skip this one. Oh and maybe a small carping criticism, but wouldn't a caring father have a life jacket on a small child on a small boat? The best part of this movie is the scenery |
1 | this was one of the funniest and informative shows that I have ever seen. This is a MUST see for anyone over the age of 16. this show had me and my 2 boys laughing out loud from the beginning. I don't know if everything on the show was true but the way it was presented left little doubt that Mr Wuhl was not only very knowledgeable but he also had a blast presenting this information to the very lucky college kids who were in attendance. If Mr Wuhl ever decides to do this format again they will have to rent a building the size of the Georgia Dome to hold all the people who will want to see it. I agree with the idea of making this a HBO series. It would have an amazing following |
0 | Watching this movie was the biggest waste of time and 2 bucks for rental in my life. If nothing catastrophic happens before I die, this will be the biggest regret of my life. Who ever even thought about this movie, or financed deserves a kick between the legs, because that's where they were thinking when they made this movie. It's about an overweight guy who is a hopeless romantic, and writes pretentious drivel that tries to pass off as poetry. He joins his amorous friend in a trip to the coast. Where they meet girls and such. Only the fat guy doesn't get a girl. Skin flicks don't annoy me, I take 'em for face value. But this movie tries to be more than a skin flick. It's about Fat guy looking for love in some girl, but then meets another bikini silicone girl that enjoys his poetry. He finds his talent for volleyball which gets money for his family and impresses the ladies, only he has his lady anyways. The dialogue is super-horrible for even a C movie. It supports a ton of black stereotypes, no character development, it's a glorified porno movie, without any porn in it. Never ever watch this movie. |
1 | The hip hop rendition of a mos def performance (according to the film's musical credits)...it is an incredible piece of savage consciousness that slams the violence in your heart with each "snap" if anyone can tell me someplace this song, "Live Wire Snap" by Mos Def from "The Ground Truth", an undeniable duty to see as the Americans who might not support the mission but embrace each soul caught inside this savage miscalculation of purpose...they take on the haunting as so many of us can sit back and be angry...<br /><br />"Live Wire Snap" by Mos Def, where can it be found<br /><br />desperate to find it :<br /><br />medically unable to serve |
0 | I watched this movie last night and was a bit disappointed. A lot of the "time facts" were off. At the beginning of the movie, the grandfather made a comment to this grandson and his friends about how they felt when 9-11 hit. This movie was supposed to be taking place in 1994. Also, one of the grandsons friends was wearing an Eagles Donovan McNabb jersey. He hadn't even been drafted as of yet. The story line was good but the facts and actuality of the time frame was so far off base that it made the movie seem cheesy. My boyfriend is an avid reader of WWII books and memorabilia. I rented this movie hoping that it would be good. The acting was so-so. The dog was cute. But the way that this movie was carried out made me glad that I only paid 4 dollars to rent it as opposed to the 50 it would have taken me to watch it in a theater. I hope that who ever reads this understands that I mean no discontent to those who fought the war but the facts and time frame should have been a little more closely monitored. |
0 | The point of Wolfe's original novel -- indeed the point of the whole story -- is that things take place because of a carefully calculated sense of expediency. The goal is survival within a particular kind of life style. The novel is full of malice. The only relationship that rings emotionally true is that between Sherman and his daughter, Campbell, and that's only touched upon. That aside, everyone is out for what he can get in the way of publicity, power, money or self aggrandizement.<br /><br />Wolfe was criticized for hitting every character and every social segment of New York City over the head. His response was a denial. After all, he lived in New York himself and belonged to a neighborhood improvement committee and other admirable organizations, exactly the qualifications one would want on his resume in order to deny that he disliked New Yorkers. (Wolfe has a PhD in American Studies from Yale and is no dummy.) Those supposed weaknesses are what made the novel memorable. Nobody was any good. And Sherman McCoy wound up broke, a professional protester for social justice. The movie throws all of that away and imposes a moral frame on the story that simply doesn't fit. Wolfe did his homework. The novel was rooted in reality. Every event was not only possible but thoroughly believable. Wolfe might have made a great cultural anthropologist -- he knows how to get inside a system and record its details.<br /><br />Yes, any of us might have found ourselves, as Sherman and his mistress do, stuck in the South Bronx, threatened by a couple of black kids, and making a getaway after bumping into one of them. That scene is transferred neatly from print to celluloid. <br /><br />But after that scene the movie seems not to trust its audience and at times become frantic in its attempt to spell out its message, however nebulous the message is. <br /><br />Sherman might accidentally hit some kid and be arrested for it as he is in the novel, but he would not immediately upon his release from jail go back to his phenomenally expensive condo, take out a shotgun, and start shooting into the ceiling with it, as he does in the movee. In what's supposed to be a funny scene, ceiling plaster falls all over the party guests and they scurry away, shrieking. It simply would not have happened. The movie has left the novel's unspeakably detailed reality in the dust. Wolfe's sensibility, the work he put into capturing the real, has been lost. What we get instead is a noisy, fantastic, and silly scene that doesn't do anything except wake the audience up. Similar empty scenes follow, screaming out for Wolfe's verisimilitude.<br /><br />The movie also fails because it thrusts a lot of sin and redemption into an entertaining story of moral nihilism. Here we see "Don Juan in Hell" at the opera. We get lectures on redemption from a poet with AIDs. We see a lot of guilt in Sherman. A black judge who preaches from the bench and gives one of those final speeches about how we all have to start behaving nicely again. A reporter who feels sorry for Sherman after turning him into a sacrificial lamb. And a happy ending in which Sherman gets off by breaking the law with an idiotic grin. The scene sits on the movie like a jester's cap on a circus elephant's head. <br /><br />The movie not only makes points that are already trite and unoriginal, it overstates them, as if the audience were incapable of absorbing any subtleties.<br /><br />It's not the acting or the direction that's poor. The film's not bad in those respects. And the photography is pretty good too, including two rather spectacular shots -- the gargoyles of the Chrysler building and the landing of the Concorde. It's the script that is thoroughly botched.<br /><br />The first half of the movie, roughly, is okay in conception and execution. It keeps some of the little details from the novel. Sherman and Judy's dog is named Marshall. Who the hell would name a dog Marshall? It loses its focus almost completely in the second half and on the whole is barely worth watching.<br /><br />Wolfe's cynical redneck right-wingism may be offensive to a lot of people, but he's got the cojones to lay his percepts out. Alas the writers and producers did not have the courage to pick them up and thus blew the chance to make a fascinating study of New Yorkers. |
0 | This is not an entirely bad movie. The plot (new house built next door seems to be haunted) is not bad, the mood is creepy enough, and the acting is okay. The big problem I had is that, being familiar with Lara Flynn Boyle (from Twin Peaks and other shows), I couldn't get over how different she looks with her apparently new, big lips. I kept staring at them. They look so out of place on her face! They make her look completely different (and not better).<br /><br />Mark-Paul Gosselaar, the actor who plays Kim the architect who designs and pours his heart and soul into the house, does a fine job. And Lara (as Col) is also quite good (but those lips!) as the owner of the house next door. Her husband, Walker (Colin Ferguson) is appropriately wooden. The various characters who live in the house were also fine. I particularly liked Pie (Charlotte Sullivan) and her husband, Buddy (Stephen Amell), the first people to move into the house. The attempt to involve us in the overall neighborhood vibe fails, unfortunately, as the other neighbors are not particularly likable.<br /><br />For some reason the director was unable to make the "haunted" house particularly ominous. Other movies (such as Amityville Horror, The Legend of Hell House) manage to achieve that spooky feel, but it just doesn't happen here. The closest is when Col paints a depiction of the house.<br /><br />Another thing that didn't work for me is the plot twist that occurs with Kim, the architect. Initially, he appears to be a victim of the house like the others (it has sucked him dry of inspiration), but later he seems to have joined forces with it in evil.<br /><br />Overall, not a bad movie for horror fans if you can take your eyes off those big lips! |
1 | I don't know why people always want deeper meaning in movies or else consider them worthless.<br /><br />What about just being entertained? Something at which Morgan Freeman excels. He gets a chance to show off a bit. Paz Vega, his co-star, gets a career boost and Brad Silberling gets a name to draw people into watching his movie.<br /><br />I thought it was a good movie. Some humor, some pathos, some bittersweetness but nothing over the top. I got an especial kick out of Jim Parsons as the receptionist at a construction company. When he looks at Freeman adoringly and says, "You make me want to be a woman." He's just hilarious. The fight scene between Ms. Vega her ex-husband and his girlfriend is wonderful too.<br /><br />In short, it's a cute, charming film that will make you smile. You could do much, much worse. |
1 | I would give this show a ten out of ten if it was not for the fart jokes. You people are so damn sensitive it is inane! So quick to point out the "racism" of the show and the jokes, yet are also so quick to say ridiculously sexist, pig-headed crap like "well, duh, some of these other shows do these jokes so much better because at least they have hot women." So disgusting. Abortion jokes are great because, really, who takes abortion seriously anyways? At least I'm not a*bore*son. I hear that Reba McEntire and Sarah Silverman are teaming up to do a movie about sisters taking a road trip together. Talk about a movie of the year! |
0 | Generally I don't do minus's and if this site could i would give this movie -3 out of 10 meaning I really hated this movie. I thought Uwe Boll's alone in the dark was the worst i've seen yet but at least i gave it a 2.5 out of 10 in my opinion(Stephen Dorff shooting at nothing made me laugh so i boosted the ratings a bit). Hell if it was if compared to bloodrayne, Bloodrayne would win a Oscar for best movie if they were competing.<br /><br />Now to the plot, this movie is about the BTK killer which is fine but they've could have done better. The start looked OK but that's it I had to fast forward most of it because the death's where boring. I like killer movies and even if they suck they could still get some cool deaths. I'm not a fancy movie expert but believe me he would have shot himself if did see this. Sorry for rambling but there's nothing good to say about it, because it looks like someone took a camcorder and film this.. this.. thing of disaster. Uwe Boll your movies are no longer on my list of worst movies ever this took the cake.<br /><br />Well sorry i couldn't explain the plot(if there was one) but that was the best i could. Now if you don't mind i'm going to crawl into a corner and move back and forth and reminding me of how bad this movie scared me for life.... OK not for life |
1 | Although Kurt Russell was and is probably the closest person to look like Elvis in show-business, so many things were false in this film. First of all, the makers claimed Elvis opened his famous live shows in '69 after a 9 year hault for films by wearing a white jump-suit made in 1972. Also they claimed he sang 'burning love' which he first sung in 1972 and 'the wonder of you' which he first recorded in 1970. They also claim that he got his first guitar for christmas when all Elvis fans know he got it for his birthday. I know all movies based on past have something false but these things are so obvious to people who like Elvis. |
1 | It is noteworthy that mine is only the third review of this film, whereas `Patton- Lust for Glory', producer Frank McCarthy's earlier biography of a controversial American general from the Second World War, has to date attracted nearly a hundred comments. Like a previous reviewer, I am intrigued by why one film should have received so much more attention than the other.<br /><br />One difference between the two films is that `Patton' is more focused, concentrating on a relatively short period at and immediately after the end of the Second World War, whereas `MacArthur' covers not only this war but also its subject's role in the Korean war, as well as his period as American governor of occupied Japan during the interlude.<br /><br />The main difference, however, lies in the way the two leaders are played. Gregory Peck dominates this film even more than George C. Scott dominated `Patton'. Whereas Scott had another major star, Karl Malden, playing opposite him as General Bradley, none of the other actors in `MacArthur' are household names, at least for their film work. Scott, of course, portrayed Patton as aggressive and fiery-tempered, a man who at times was at war with the rest of the human race, not just with the enemy. I suspect that in real life General MacArthur was as volcanic an individual as Patton, but that is not how he appears in this film. Peck's MacArthur is of a more reflective, thoughtful bent, comparable to the liberal intellectuals he played in some of his other films. At times, he even seems to be a man of the political left. Much of his speech on the occasion of the Japanese surrender in 1945 could have been written by a paid-up member of CND, and his policies for reforming Japanese society during the American occupation have a semi-socialist air to them. In an attempt to show something of MacArthur's gift for inspiring leadership, Peck makes him a fine speaker, but his speeches always seem to owe more to the studied tricks of the practised rhetorician than to any fire in the heart. It is as if Atticus Finch from `To Kill a Mockingbird' had put on a general's uniform.<br /><br />Whereas Scott attempted a `warts and all' portrait of Patton, the criticism has been made that `MacArthur' attempts to gloss over some of its subject's less attractive qualities. I think that this criticism is a fair one, particularly as far as the Korean War is concerned. The film gives the impression that MacArthur was a brilliant general who dared stand up to interfering, militarily ignorant politicians who did not know how to fight the war and was sacked for his pains when victory was within his grasp. Many historians, of course, feel that Truman was forced to sack MacArthur because the latter's conduct was becoming a risk to world peace, and had no choice but to accept a stalemate because Stalin would not have allowed his Chinese allies to be humiliated. Even during the Korean scenes, Peck's MacArthur comes across as more idealistic than his real-life original probably was; we see little of his rashness and naivety about political matters. (Truman 's remark `he knows as much about politics as a pig knows about Sunday' was said about Eisenhower, but it could equally well have been applied to MacArthur's approach to international diplomacy). Perhaps the film's attempt to paint out some of MacArthur's warts reflects the period in which it was made. The late seventies, after the twin traumas of Vietnam and Watergate, was a difficult time for America, and a public looking for reassurance might have welcomed a reassuringly heroic depiction of a military figure from the previous generation. Another criticism I would make of the film is that it falls between two stools. If it was intended to be a full biography of MacArthur, something should have been shown of his early life, which is not covered at all. (The first we see of the general is when he is leading the American resistance to the Japanese invasion of the Philippines). One theme that runs throughout the film is the influence of General MacArthur's father, himself a military hero. I would have liked to see what sort of man Arthur MacArthur was, and just why his son considered him to be such a hero and role model. Another interesting way of making the film would have been to concentrate on Korea and on MacArthur's clash with Truman, with equal prominence given to the two men and with actors of similar stature playing them. The way in which the film actually was made seemed to me to be less interesting than either of these alternative approaches.<br /><br />It would be wrong, however, to give the impression that I disliked the film altogether. Although I may not have agreed with Peck's interpretation of the main role, there is no denying that he played it with his normal professionalism and seriousness. The film as a whole is a good example of a solid, workmanlike biopic, thoughtful and informative. It is a good film, but one that could have been a better one. 7/10.<br /><br />On a pedantic note, the map which MacArthur is shown using during the Korean War shows the DMZ, the boundary between the two Korean states that did not come into existence until after the war. (The pre-war boundary was the 38th parallel). Also, I think that MacArthur was referring to the `tocsin' of war. War may be toxic, but it is difficult to listen with thirsty ear for a toxin. |
1 | First time of seeing Buster Keaton's first feature film and I have to admit I liked it a lot and only wish I'd stumbled across it years ago. The Rohauer blurb at the start warns that the Three Ages single nitrate print was rediscovered and salvaged in 1954 just in time before combustion, and many frames that seemed hopelessly glued together were separated. So, it's rocky viewing in places, but I've seen and survived much worse.<br /><br />It would have been OK as the 3 short films but as a take on Intolerance it's inventive and funny from the start to the finish: In the Stone Age with baddie Wallace Beery riding an elephant and goodie Buster riding a pet brontosaurus; In the Roman Age Buster riding a chariot with wheel locks and adapted for sledging, No Parking signs in Latin; In this technological Age of Speed Need and Greed his car beautifully falls to bits at the first hump. Both him and Beery are after the Girl through the ages, a never ending tussle. Favourite bit: As the caveman he gets knocked backward over a cliff edge but still blows a kiss to the camera - an amazing second or two!<br /><br />Great stuff, reaffirming my love of silent film comedy. |
0 | The only previous Gordon film I had watched was the kiddie adventure THE MAGIC SWORD (1962), though I followed this soon after with EMPIRE OF THE ANTS (1977); he seems to be best remembered, however, for his sci-fi work of the 1950s.<br /><br />Anyway, I happened upon this one in a DVD rental shop: hadn't I noticed Orson Welles' unmistakable figure on the sleeve, I probably wouldn't even have bothered with it – since I know the film under its original title, NECROMANCY! I'd seen a still from it on an old horror tome of my father's: the actor's presence in a film about diabolism seemed like a great idea which couldn't possibly miss, but the end result – particularly in this bastardized edition – is a disaster! I honestly felt sorry for Welles who looks bored and, rather than in his deep and commanding voice, he mutters the inane demonic invocations almost in whispers!! <br /><br />The plot is, basically, yet another retread of ROSEMARY'S BABY (1968): a couple is invited to a remote community under false pretenses and soon discover themselves to be surrounded by diabolists. The girl, played by Pamela Franklin, ostensibly has supernatural powers (passed on from her mother, who appears intermittently throughout to warn her – though, as delivered in an intense manner through clenched teeth, the latter's speeches end up being largely incoherent and the fount of immense hilarity every time she appears!) and is expected to revive Welles' deceased young son from the dead!! For what it's worth, Franklin – a genre regular, right down from her debut performance in THE INNOCENTS (1961) – isn't bad in her role (which requires some nudity and experiences several semi-eerie hallucinations during the course of the film); hubby Michael Ontkean, however, isn't up to the challenge of his John Cassavetes-like character. Some of the other girls look good as well – notably Lee Purcell, whose belated decision to help Franklin in escaping from town eventually proves her undoing.<br /><br />Events come to a head in an incredibly muddled climax, which sees the Satanists ultimately turning on Franklin and have her take the revived boy's place in the coffin (that's gratitude for you!). While the added scenes do stick out (the hilarious opening ceremony and other would-be erotic embellishments), the overall quality of the film would have still been poor without them; then again, this particular version is further sunk by the tacked-on electronic score – which is wholly inappropriate, and cheesy in the extreme! |
0 | it is of course very nice to see improvements on Turkish movie industry, however, i would have expected something more creative from Togan Gokbakar. starting from the script, which i believe it was not a wise written one as some may think. especially the cheesiness of the dialogs, which were putting the audience in a position that, as if they were not smart enough to understand the situations, which, most of the times makes the movie unbearable. it also has an obvious ending; you can easily guess the murderer from the beginning. the weakest part of the scenario is that the impossibility of seriously mentally ill patients to act like normal people, like professionals right away!!!did they ever search for the possibility of patients who are on heavy medicals, to act like professionals and use all the medical terms that even normal people cannot use?????!!!!!!also in the scene where staff was searching for the most dangerous patient, with out any weapon to protect themselves was another weird point of the film. and that scene was so suitable for "Dikkat Sahan Cikabilir" title!! those are not the only weak parts of the movie. there were also a lot of preciosities in the film. the depiction of the most dangerous patient was an exact copy from Hannibal, also appearance of Togan in the very end is obviously the worst mistake that he could have done in his first movie! the fuss about the greatness of the movie and the interviews that actor's gave just made people to be curious and force them to see it. Gen is a total disappointment. i would have wonder, if Sahan was not this famous, would Togan be able to shoot this movie, with this much of budget amount?? i hope Togan would realize that it is not fashionable to play in a role as a director as he said in an interview. it was Hitchcock who did it wisely and Night Shyamalan continued it successfully! he should be aware of the fact that he is not Hitchcock nor Shyamalan yet!!!!hoping him to be more careful and creative next time in this big industry! |
1 | I want Céline and Jessie go further in their relationship, I want to tell them that they were made for each other, that in a lot of moment in the film we want they to die for each other. Their story is what we ever wanted and probably most of us never reached. This is about love but not stupid things like in "notting hills" or those kind of movie. This is life and i did believe in them, i did believe they were falling... This was so clever and touching. I have just finished to view it a minute ago and i m still there... I want to go to Vienna. I want to see them as soon as possible again.<br /><br />I have to say i was now becoming misanthropist and felt like if love was just a fake, a concept, but with this movie i realized that maybe somewhere, somehow and some when, something could really happen.<br /><br />I'm french and didn't know very well July Delpy despite Kieslowski "three colors : white"... Now i have to see her other works because she looks like an angel and got a perfect acting.<br /><br />i saw "before sunset" (the sequel in Paris) a few days before i saw "before sunrise" and their is no matter. They are both masterpieces. proof that you don't need to impress the eyes with technology to get pure feelings. I'm sorry for my English which i m trying to best.<br /><br />Franck in France |
0 | When I first saw a small scene of it in some announcements, I thought the show would be entertaining to watch. The little robot guy does look kinda cute. The style of animation does look sort of familiar to some classic shows. Before the show aired, I studied it through some sources. There, I did became slightly dismayed. The three children (Tommy, Gus and Lola) are voiced appropriately but Robotboy is an exception. It would have been a lot nicer if he were to be portrayed by a young lad. One good example is Robot Jones, a robot character from "Whatever Happened To Robot Jones?" The show isn't bad really. But the way Robotboy is inappropriately portrayed is my only criticism. Thus, I don't watch it much. |
0 | Well, I hate hollywood, but love cinema so i have to watch these cruddy movies in theaters. And, I was hoping Vanilla Sky would be good. i was hoping that they would either keep the original "Open Your Eyes" exactly the same, or they would make it their own. Well, it happened to be a little bit of both, and it sucked.<br /><br />It started out good. I love Radiohead. I wish there was more of that. But by the end we are listening to Good Vibrations by The Beach Boys. Talk about a wide range of suck between. They had one or two good songs in the club and maybe a couple others, but why oh why did they have to blare GV during the climax. It was more annoying than confusing or blatant. Especially when it has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PLOT. At least put some meaning behind the songs. Kid A = primary. Whatever.<br /><br />He also did a bang up job with the club scene. That was cool. Otherwise the movie was one big ball of arrogance. As if audiences would get the movie. The ones that would get it read subtitles, and the rest won't. Its as simple as that. The motivations got all screwed up. I didn't comprehend the Diaz motivations (hadn't they done the Chicken Soup night before?) and some of the others. And I hate Kurt Russell. Stay overboard. Tom Cruise can't act (especially in these types of movie [i.e. Eyes Wide Shut]). And the elevator. I get it. Anyways they tried improving the original with a crappy american rock soundtrack and crappy angles and good film print and glossy processing and it would have helped if crowe hadn't screwed it up.<br /><br />2/10 Major disappointment. |
0 | This apocalyptic zombie film tries to be vicious and shocking; but FEEDING THE MASSES comes off lame as some of the stiff-legged zombies stalking the streets. In Rhode Island, a zombie epidemic known as the Lazarus Virus is being played down by the government manipulated newspapers and television stations. A couple of brave, but dumb, souls at Channel 5 TV News feels its audience is being given false hope and no idea of the real danger at hand. An eager reporter(Racheal Morris)and her cameraman(William Garberina), with the aid of a military escort(Patrick Cohen), risk life and limb to present a 'live' broadcast to show the doom at hand. Do yourself a favor and don't watch. This thing is obviously very low budget and comes across with the feel of a high school play gone bad. Acting is atrocious and the flesh-hungry zombies are almost comical. Also appearing are: Michael Propster, William DeCoff and Brenda Hogan. FEEDING THE MASSES should be left to starve. |
0 | I have seen romantic comedies and this is one of the easiest/worst attempts at one. A lot of the scenes work in a plug-and-play manner inserted strictly to conform to the romantic-comedy genre. Usually this is okay because we're dealing with a genre, but the challenge generally resides in making it original, new and inventive. This movie fails to do so.<br /><br />There is no sense of who the characters really are, apart from Sylvie Moreau's (who is the real star of this movie, not Isabelle Blais). They fit into this one-dimensional cliché and they become nothing more than simple puppets serving the purpose of a very light narrative.<br /><br />The pacing of the movie can become annoying, rhythm lacks, and the editing is filled with unnecessary close-ups. I should also mention the overly stylized decors making some scenes devoid of any naturally, or rather, making the attempt at naturally seem too obvious. Of course, along with that, you have the right-on-cue sappy music which unfortunately often sounds mismatched.<br /><br />I can't believe that a movie who makes obvious Woody Allen allusions ends up being this deceptive. If you expect a good light-hearted romantic comedy, this is not it. Or rather, this a poor attempt at it. You will only leave the theater wondering why this film has been getting such praise when cinema is now more than 100 years old and there are far superior Quebecois directors making better flicks.<br /><br />Les Aimants is a good movie for what it is. But it's a bad one if you regard cinema as an art and directors as auteur's. |
0 | This is a film that makes you say 2 things... 1) I can do much better than this( acting,writing and directing) 2) this is so bad I must leave a review and warn others...<br /><br />Looks as if it was shot with my flip video. I have too believe my friend who told me to watch this has a vendetta against me. I have noticed that there are some positive posts for this home video; Must have been left by crew members or people with something to do with this film. One of the worst 3 movies I have ever seen. hopefully the writers and director leave the business. not even talented enough to do commercials!!!!! |
0 | Don't waste your time on this dreck. As portrayed, the characters have no redeeming values and watching them interact is sheer torture. "Gothic" was entertainment at least, this is crap. If you like watching pretentious and spoiled poets straining to outwit each other, this may be right up your alley. Lord Byron is portrayed as a complete jerk, and why the others would choose to spend more than five minutes with him is truly bewildering. Mary Shelly appears to be the only character with any spine whatsoever, but even she comes out of the whole ordeal without an ounce of respect. What a waste of time. See Gothic instead. I also remember seeing another superior movie based on the same subject matter, but didn't catch the title. I was hoping this was it, but no such luck. Not recommended. |
1 | I think that this movie is very neat. You eithier like Michael Jackson or you don't, but if you like him then you have to see this movie. I think that it is a very neat film with great song play and good imagination. Not to mention the film center piece Smooth Criminal which has some of the best dancing you will every see. |
0 | A terrible film which is supposed to be an independent one. It needed some dependence on something.<br /><br />This totally miserable film deals with the interactions among Irish people. Were they trying to imitate the wonderful film "Crash?" If so, this film crashed entirely.<br /><br />There is just too much going on here culminated by a little brat running around and throwing rocks into buses and cars which obviously cause mayhem.<br /><br />The film is just too choppy to work. One woman loses her husband after 14 years to another while her younger sister is ripped off by a suitor. This causes the former sister to become a bitter vetch and walk around in clothes not worth believing. The older sister also becomes embittered but soon finds romance.<br /><br />Then, we have 3 losers who purchase masks to rob a bank. Obviously, the robbery goes awry but there doesn't seem to be any punishment for the crooks. Perhaps, the punishment should have been on the writers for failure to create a cohesive film. |
Subsets and Splits