text
stringlengths 98
6.42k
| label
class label 2
classes |
|---|---|
An elder Native-American man recounts his life for the young ones.<br /><br />Slow-moving and somewhat tedious drama-adventure film that seems to take forever to tell its story. After the first half-hour, you'll be looking at the clock, fidgeting on the couch, and wondering if there's anything good in the refrigerator.<br /><br />Trevor Howard plays the old chief ready to move on to the next life, but the Great Creator seems to have other plans for him before that event takes place. Movie has an attractive cast and the many subtitles are not too much of a hindrance in continuity, but the pacing is that of a snail which makes the 104-minute running time seem a lot longer.<br /><br />Film tries too hard to be 'beautiful', slowing things down even more. | 0neg
|
Why is this show so popular? It's beyond me why people like it. I think it's one of the worst sitcoms out there. <br /><br />Because it's so popular, I've tried more than once to watch it and I can't make it through an entire episode.<br /><br />For one thing, the acting is horrible. Everybody is overacting to the point where it's annoying to watch. They talk in unnatural voices, use unnatural tones, and have unnatural body language. I've seen better acting in a kindergarten school play.<br /><br />For another thing, it's NOT FUNNY. The plots are dull. They're not creative, intelligent, or FUNNY. Shouldn't a sitcom be funny?? Why am I not laughing?<br /><br />Lastly, what is seventies about this? It's about as authentic to the seventies as "Happy Days" was to the fifties.<br /><br />OH and what is up with Ashton Kutcher? Who cast this untalented dweeb? And now he's making movies?? Oh, save us all!<br /><br />If people think this is quality television, it worries me. | 0neg
|
I think INFOFREAKO summed this up quite superbly. Couldn't have said it better myself except to add a comment about the direction.<br /><br />I am by no means an expert on matters of direction/film making. However I've watched a lot of movies in my time, a large portion of which would be listed as non-mainstream/alternative whatever you should wish to call them.<br /><br />But never before have I witnessed so subtle a touch by a director. It's as if he isn't present. It's phenomenal. The way you're allowed to just *be* with the movie. To interact with it, by yourself, without being guided or steered anywhere. Nothing deliberate or obvious or....or.... it's very difficult to describe. It just felt like one was left alone in the environment of the movie to experience what was taking place, subjectively and without interference.<br /><br />The only director I can say who has anything similar in his prowess (that I am aware of) is Scorsese, with whom it turns out Cassavetes developed the idea for the story of the movie some time before making it.<br /><br />This is a work of genius in my opinion. Nothing else quite like it.<br /><br />Watch it.... you've nothing to lose and a *hell* of a lot to gain. | 1pos
|
I am a big Arnie fan, have been since I was old enough to operate a V.C.R and I will defend him as charismatic Actor who has been in some brilliant films. However this is not one. Arnold himself would agree. But as a young 22 year old Austrian Bodybuilder's first film it's not his fault at the time he couldn't even speak full English.<br /><br />As a comedy this film is hilarious I just played a little bit of the film for my friend and he fell to the ground laughing at the part where Arnie flys past the plane window. The editing is terrible sound keeps changing per frame (As a film student I would get failed for such sloppiness), the lines are cheesy but funny in an unintentional way and that bear fight.<br /><br />I guess the reason I find it so funny is it reminds me of the half assed films me and my friends have done bored when nobody can act and lines seem stupid.<br /><br />I urge you to watch this film at least once big Arn has come along way. | 1pos
|
This is one of the most amazing films you will ever see. It has some of the most marvelous directing and cinematography of action scenes ever recorded on film. Loren Avedon is simply matchless as a young humble American hero in his first movie. The story line is equally captivating and engrosses the viewer. The characters are straight out of a comic book with fantastic screen presence, dialogue and charisma that makes it impossible to take one's eyes of them.<br /><br />However where the film really succeeds, is in the technical aspect. The editing and pacing of the film is like none other. It is magnificently fused with a perfect film score that was works superbly and fuses so well with the film that it almost gives you goosebumps that something can be made so precisely and accurately to fit the emotions on the screen. Karate Tiger II proves that just because a movie is low budget, it doesn't mean that the people working on it aren't incredibly gifted and talented at their craft.<br /><br />As a regular avid film viewer, I feel very fortunate that I was able to view and experience this film. It is a sheer delight and should not be missed by anyone. One of the very best films out of the tens of thousands I've seen. | 1pos
|
I was also at that Century City screening last night, and I was probably one of the people who were saying they thought this movie was awesome. I enjoyed it immensely. It has been described as an action-adventure-romance-sci-fi pic and it truly is all of that.<br /><br />First of all, the cinematography was stunning. Tony Scott and his DOP, Paul Cameron, do fantastic work -- every shot is beautifully composed. And all the footage that involves a cast of thousands (meaning the crowd scenes) is masterful work.<br /><br />I don't know why I started with commenting on the photography (also the editing) of this movie. It's probably because that is what struck me from the very beginning, particularly when there is so much going on in the opening sequence. Yet you never get lost. Above all, the performances and story are great and really suck you in. Yes, this movie requires a fair bit of suspension of disbelief. I would go so far as to say the plot was far-fetched, but the heart of the story just takes you along for the ride.<br /><br />For the record, I felt Scott's most recent teaming with Denzel, Man on Fire, was one of the best movies of 2004. I don't think Deja Vu is as good as Man on Fire, but it's right up there as one of the most entertaining and thrilling movies I've seen this year.<br /><br />For sheer entertainment and an intriguing (though not flawless) plot, Bruckheimer, Scott and Co. sure have DELIVERED the goods.<br /><br />I recommend you see Deja Vu on the big screen with a big, loud audience for maximum enjoyment. Part of the appeal last night was exactly that; hearing the audience -- as one -- laugh, applaud and sigh along with this movie and getting swept up in that communal experience.<br /><br />post scriptum -- Any fans of Otto Preminger's wonderful 1994 classic Laura may be delighted by the echoes of that storyline in Deja Vu. | 1pos
|
I've seen Hotel Rwanda and now this film about the genocide of the early 90's in that country. Both films are very poignant. This movie is definitely more intimate as we are following a journalist through his view of that country's drama and, especially, his love towards a young black woman. I think that this movie complements nicely Hotel Rwanda with as powerful performances and story with a more day to day view of the very harsh reality of those times.<br /><br />Be aware that there are some disturbing scenes in this movie. In hoping that movies like this will help raise consciousness and help prevent other tragedies like that one. | 1pos
|
I expected the Prince of Egypt to be another 'run of the mill' cartoon which makes you say 'Wow, great animation!' but one which you basically forget about the next day. I was wrong.<br /><br />As a Christian, I fully expected the film to take the story of Moses and jazz it up out of all proportion, but I was pleasantly surprised to find that the story remained one of pretty much Biblical accuracy. Obviously some artistic license has to be taken to make the film more appealing to children and the non-Christian.<br /><br />Almost to take a swipe at Disney, the Prince of Egypt oozes fluid animation and the water effects especially are the best I've seen in a cartoon. If any producers are going to pull Disney from its perch, Dreamworks will definitely be the ones to do it. Rarely have I seen animation of this quality before.<br /><br />But the classy look of this film only hides its true nature as a Biblical story. The film delivers the story of Exodus admirably, with just enough humour and artistic license to keep the children interested. On a deeper, more spiritual level the film excels though. The story of Moses is not an easy one to come to grips with in the Bible and to see it brought to life on the big screen was a joy to behold. The burning bush scene was one of the most powerful, moving pieces of cinema I have experienced and the red sea scene was almost as powerful in it's own right. Obviously from a Christian viewpoint, this film couldn't have been made any better. To somebody else however, the Prince of Egypt also has so much to offer: Great animation, a cracking story and a good dose of humour. I highly recommend this film to anybody and everybody. | 1pos
|
OK, who the hell is this Scott Dupont guy? You either worked on the film or you are on crack. If somebody watches the film because of your great review, they should have the right to slice you with razor blades and pour alcohol all over you. This film was horrible, I can't think of a better way to describe it. It amazes me that this crap gets made in Hollywood, you would think there would be better projects out there. I am sure there are worse movies out there, but I pray I never see them. The only thing that stopped me from slicing my own wrists was the occasional laugh I had. Those laughs were me making fun of the horrible dialogue or the God awful script. I could go on and on about bad it was, but I think you all get the point. Don't ever watch this movie and if somebody suggests it, they either worked on it or are on crack, or both. So instead of spending that 5 dollar rental fee and watching the film, give yourself an enema it would be more enjoyable. | 0neg
|
I am just starting to familiarise myself with silent films. This comedy short was on the DVD I purchased, with "Mickey" .<br /><br />I love Harold Lloyd and Buster Keaton but I am unfamiliar with comedy from the very early years - apart from Charlie Chaplin and the zany chases from the Keystone Cops. This was quite amazing, almost a sophisticated comedy from Fatty Arbuckle. The subtleties of acting for this 1916 comedy were, I thought, quite advanced.<br /><br />Fatty plays a doctor, who along with his cute wife, Mabel Normand lives in a comfortable home. The whole look of the comedy was, I thought, very real (there were no obvious cheap sets - the house looked real, the roads looked real - nothing looked fake.)<br /><br />Things don't seem to be going too well between them at the start. Mabel seems loving but giddy and when a childhood friend comes for a visit, Mabel and he begin to flirt. Fatty becomes quite jealous and tears up a photo that Mabel had given Jack. They sit down to a lobster dinner, joking that it might give them nightmares.<br /><br />Meanwhile two thieves plan to rob the doctor's house. One, pretending to be lame asks to see the doctor, while the other does the thieving - but the doctor soon discovers the ruse and sends the "cripple" about his business. One of the thieves rings the doctor and gets him out of the house on a bogus house call.<br /><br />When Fatty is out the robber (Al St. John) hides under Mabel's bed. She goes to Jack for protection and there is an extremely funny sequence involving the robber jumping, running, swinging from the chandelier - doing anything he can to dodge the bullets from Jack's badly aimed gun. Fatty returns home to find Mabel and Jack (having sent the robbers fleeing from the house) holding hands and he believes that was why he was called from the house. More gun play ensues and the comedy turns quite black as Fatty decides the world would be a better place with Mabel and Jack not in it!!!<br /><br />I won't spoil the end but the whole comedy (apart from Al St. John's wonderful comedic acrobatics) is one of subtle acting and nuances from Arbuckle. It is a wonderful little film and I can recommend it. | 1pos
|
My pursuit of the best in noir continued with this classic from the height of the era, newly released in a beautiful DVD. Starts out with plenty of action and suspense as Mr. Big (Preston Foster) hires four ex-cons to help him in a big bank heist, while putting the frame-up on another ex-con, a deliveryman for the florist down the block from the bank. Foster and his crew dress in masks in fact, none of them except Foster know what any of the others looks like and drive a truck made up to look just like the florist's van, then split up and agree to meet at a to-be-specified-later date and split up the loot. Herein lies one of a few major flaws in the plot (why would any of the hoods believe Mr. Big and just accept that he's getting his share later, when none of them even knows who Mr. Big is or what he looks like?) but the film is told with such fluid pacing and style that one can forgive the holes. The twist that was the most interesting was that the floral delivery guy (John Payne) actually becomes the "hero" of the film as he becomes an amateur sleuth and hunts down the men who framed him, eventually winding up in a Mexican resort with the group and pretending to be one of them after witnessing the hood come to an unlucky end at the hands of Mexican police. For the most part this is a sunnier and funnier than usual noir, particularly light in tone when the action goes south of the border, and some of this is probably due to the simpler charms of Payne no Bogart or Mitchum though effective enough but also the screenplay which keeps the hoods and pretend-hood switching guns and one-upping each other often enough that it becomes more than a little comic. And the ending is fantastically blunt and dark on top of it all. One of the best noirs I've seen in a year of seeing many fine ones. | 1pos
|
In this genre of film, the flops far outweigh the quality movies. Usually, there is more camp and unnecessary nudity, stereotypes and sex scenes to fill the time. I'm not sure if this is suppose to be related to the audiences the films are produced for, because if so, they are undermining these moviegoers. Now about Save Me. I thoroughly enjoyed this film. I enjoyed the fact that its central theme was more about finding one's self than about depending on someone else. After all, the best relationship one has is with him/her self. I thought the performances were excellent. Judith Light did carry the movie with her incredibly realistic and heart-wrenching performance. However, I also believe that both Chad Allen and the actor that played Lester were great as well. Over the last little while, I have been catching up with Mr. Allen's work, both on and off-screen and he not only seems to be an impressive actor, but an amazing human being. Being a future filmmaker, I do hope to work with him one day. In retrospect, although the summary explains that it about a powerful love between two men at an ex-gay ministry, the title really exemplifies the message. One must find themselves before one can give him/her self in any relationship, be it gay or straight. We must all remember that love doesn't discriminate and that one must live life to its fullest and in a way that makes him/her happiest. They say it was a struggle to get this movie made and to advertise it. I believe it, but I am happy that they persevered and got it produced. It is a movie of fine quality and an important one for anyone to see. Yes it is a movie about sexuality and religion, but it's mostly about choices and healing. | 1pos
|
The Battle of the River Plate is an almost documentary like account of the battle of the German pocket battleship Graf Spee with three allied cruisers and what happened to her subsequently. Heading the small mini fleet was Captain Anthony Quayle and the German captain of the Graf Spee was played by Peter Finch.<br /><br />December of 1939 was the period known as the 'phony war'. Poland had been overrun by the Nazis and the British and French forces were on the continent safely behind the Maginot line or so they thought at the time. What action there was at this time was on the sea with various naval engagements here and there.<br /><br />The Graf Spee was doing one number on British commerce in the South Atlantic. It sank nine British merchant vessels, but her captain was no Nazi. He observed the rules of war strictly, picked up sailors from the sunken vessels and all reported good treatment at his hands. When he did reach Montevideo he let all the British sailors go. Sad to say this was not something repeated during World War II.<br /><br />In any event two British and one New Zealand cruiser, the Ajax, the Achilles and the Exeter took on the Graf Spee and fought it to a bloody standstill. The British were lucky to have facilities at the Falkland Islands for repair. But the Graf Spee headed for Montevideo which was neutral territory at the time.<br /><br />I'm not quite sure why they did not make for the friendlier shores of Buenos Aires on the River Plate. Even though Juan Peron had not taken charge in Argentina, it was still friendlier to the Germans than Uruguay was. Possibly Finch's character Lansdorff knew the history of Uruguay, a country founded as a neutral buffer state between Argentina and Brazil. In any event the Uruguayans operated correctly under the assumption that they would be at war sooner or later with the Germans as indeed were all the Latin American countries except Argentina after Pearl Harbor. The Graf Spee would have made quite the prize indeed.<br /><br />As German, British, and Uruguayan diplomats tried to negotiate, Finch took action and blew up the Graf Spee in the middle of the River Plate. The Nazi propaganda machine made him a martyr which in fact he was and the British public was given something to cheer about in those beginning days of World War II.<br /><br />Finch and Quayle give good performances as a pair of gallant adversaries and The Battle Of The River Plate is a fine war film from the United Kingdom in which even the enemy behaved gallantly. | 1pos
|
The Seeker is not only one of the worst films I have ever seen it is probably the worst movie of all time. PT Barnum said there is one fool born every minute so I ask why were they all involved in making this pile of utter crap? It doesn't matter if it had followed the book (it woefully doesn't) but it isn't a good movie in any respect at all. This was a money grabbing, farce of a movie, with terrible plotting, terrible casting and even worse directing.<br /><br />It insulted, the readers of the books, children's intelligences worldwide and the movie industry in general. I wouldn't trust the writer nor the director to sit the right way on a toilet.<br /><br />If you ever read Ian Fleming's work you'd know that the books and film stories are totally different but they manage to convey the ruthlessness, the style and epic quality of the books and add their own style of fun to generate the longest running successful sequels in history.<br /><br />With the care and attention to detail put into the filming of the Lord of the Rings I honestly thought we were past the limitations that dogged fantasy films in older days but Fox proved us wrong, I can only surmise, that the financial and marketing people don't read, watch good movies or even have decent IQ's.<br /><br />How is this for a financial idea: Susan Cooper wrote a 5 book masterpiece that works for kids and adults alike. If we cast it properly, plan out a set of films to bring the books that brought joy to millions out to billions we could if done properly be in the money for years to come and rule the Christmas films for the next 5 years. Hmm who do we get to produce it, screen-write it and direct it for us.<br /><br />I know, how about we get a successful producer, can we get the one who did that massively acclaimed hit "Legally Blonde 2", a screenwriter who can't write for children and a director who admits he doesn't like the fantasy genre.<br /><br />I'm trying to work out if movies qualify under the Sale of Goods Act here in Britain. Calling the film "The Dark is Rising" might just be considered as false advertising or at least an infringement of the trade descriptions act. I can then claim my money back and clear the way for everyone else to get theirs back too. | 0neg
|
Luster is a coming of age story about a group of 20 & 30 somethings in L.A. in the midst of an odyssey into their teens. And they are soooo cool & punk rock. They've got that really rebellious "I'm REAL punk rock & I'm not a poseur & you ARE & the rest of the world sux" thing from high school still going pretty strong.<br /><br />Everyone in LA is infatuated with the lead character Jackson, even the "guy next door" who stalks him at work. I'm not sure why, since I was eventually hoping someone would smack Jackson upside the head & shut him up.<br /><br />Amongst the film's problems are too many story lines & subplots fighting for attention, none of which seem to blend or create a sense of relevance to Jackson's life or a cohesive central theme. The worst of these is an S & M subplot that seems terribly contrived, misplaced, & rings totally false with the rest of the film's "realism."<br /><br />There are a couple of funny moments, like the photographer & the interaction with her "subject."<br /><br />And of course there are a couple of full frontals from a really good looking guy, which help this situation along slightly.<br /><br />But worse of all, I never felt for a minute why Jackson was lusting for these guys & guys were lusting for him. There's no sexual chemistry in this movie between anyone. NADA. Just a bunch of obnoxious & pretentious brats pretending to deal with "real life" & "art." Yuck.<br /><br />Plenty of better queer films out there.<br /><br />See it if you must. | 0neg
|
Directed by Rob Reiner (When Harry Met Sally), one of my favorite directors because he depicts sad realities in funny ways. He picks his own projects in a way that I always applaud him. This movie delineates very important differences between men and women, their feelings, and their behavior.<br /><br />The key reason of the low ratings, in my view, is because there is a generational conflict here. I have asked young married people how the was movie, and they said that they didn't like it. I talked to people in their forties, fifties, and they loved it. Their comment it usually is: "It is reality." The younger couples, the ones that are engaged, just don't get it yet. They are in a different stage in their lives. They have not been married 15 years like the couple in this movie was. What this movie proposed to do was to show what happens if people take each other for granted. They behave like Sally indicated in "When Harry Met Sally," words once said are out there and cannot be taken back. The movie concentrated on the conflicts that lead almost to the destruction of their marriage. To bring all those conflicts to light in a funny way took a lot of talent. That is why we need Rob Reiner. Bruce Willis (The Sixth Sense, Nobody's Fool), Ben Jordan, is trying very hard. Actually Bruce Willis surprised me with some of his roles as I have seen very few of his movies, not enjoying action movies. He is good! The reason I do not see much of his acting is because of the projects he picks. They seam too violent. Michelle Pfeiffer (One Fine Day) is good in the part of Katie Jordan. The story is told by Ben's perspective, she appears to be holding on to the things that don't matter more than he is. I recommend the movie, but if you are very young you will not understand it, even kids of divorced parents do not get it. I credit the low ratings to that. Some people just don't get the movie because they haven't been there in their relationships. I think it is very insightful into marriages in general. I can say that because I have been happily married for almost twenty-three years. Unfortunately there are tons of couples that live just like that.<br /><br />The question raised is "Can a marriage survive 15 years of marriage?" Yes it can, if Ben and Katie's did. They took each other for granted most of the time. My favorite quotes: Katie: "Austin has a turtle that snores." Ben: "No one designated you. You designated yourself." Katie:"You love who we were, you could not want what we become, somehow you get use to the disconnection." Favorite Scenes: When Katie finally recognized that friends are hard to find. This is a very good movie. <br /><br /> | 1pos
|
Terrible musical. Not one song is memorable and the performances are wooden. I vote to burn the negative! | 0neg
|
This movie defines 'Corny'. Continuity doesn't seem to be a strong point in the making of this film. Little quirks here and there such as: a woman walks in and catches 2 guys stealing a TV, she yells, they drop the TV, she runs, they disappear.... later, the broken TV vanishes too. Some of the 'emotional' reactions, as well as actions, by these actors is also over the top. You watch them do something, or react to something and you just have to sit in awe: There's just no way any sane person would do that, or waste THAT much time telling a story, or plain old goofing off, in an emergency. The musical score in coordination with some of the scenes is almost comical. And, finally, if you like 'in-the-nick-of-time' scenes, you'll be in heaven. | 0neg
|
<br /><br />I saw this film with my daughter (6 years old) and her friend (7), none of whom are Rugrats fans, mostly because they consider the Rugrat's humor to be too immature and inappropriate. My daughter and I did, however, mostly enjoy last year's The Wild Thornberrys Movie.<br /><br />The plot is a literal and figurative shipwreck. The Rugrats and their parents end up on an uninhabited island somewhere in the Pacific, on which the Thornberrys happen to be. Various groups and individuals splinter off in search of others. By the time Nigel Thornberry gets knocked on the head and reverts to the mental age of a 3 year-old, I had lost track of who was looking for whom and why. How a kid is supposed to follow all these machinations is beyond me.<br /><br />The sheer number of characters and the randomness with which they run into each other prevent any sort of character depth from being explored. For example, in The Wild Thornberrys Movie, considerable attention was given to Darwin the monkey, who is one of the more interesting characters in this entire assembly (Darwin is smart and makes very insightful observations of human behavior, but he can only communicate with one person, Eliza - to everyone else, he is a dumb monkey). However, here he has what could be characterized as a cameo appearance at best. So, unless you are already familiar with all the characters, and don't expect much in terms of character development, you'll be disappointed.<br /><br />I think there was a moral to the story (something about leadership and redemption), but I was nodding off by the end of the movie, having lost track of the plot. The audience I saw the film with was mostly subdued, with only a few audible laughs. My daughter and her friend said they liked the movie, but they like every movie I take them to, as long as I buy them popcorn. They did not talk about the movie at all the rest of the weekend. On the way home, we listened to the Lilo & Stitch soundtrack, which has much better songs than the few musical numbers in this movie.<br /><br />I'm not giving this movie the worst rating, because it might be enjoyable for a few Rugrat fans. And the Rugrats' potty humor is not as bad as it could have been, although there are diaper jokes, bird droppings, and Spike the dog raises his leg a few times. | 0neg
|
In viewing TBS's newest attempt at infusing their comedic stature into an original series, "10 Items or Less" shows that perhaps Mr. Turner should stick with acquiring sitcoms and cartoons as the foundation for the network's motto of being 'Very Funny'. That is if the sting of "Daisy Does America" hasn't worn off....<br /><br />"10 Items or Less" establishes all the same clichés of being a grocery clerk that any common customer could see while wrangling this menagerie of failed auditions for Mad TV under the frayed control of manager Leslie, who assumes ownership of the family store after his father dies in a supposedly comedic fashion (a heart attack that knocks over a display stand, with the nearby employee fixing the stand first before helping the fallen owner). While actually showing this act of apathetic drudgery might've seemed more funny, instead the story is relayed by Leslie himself with less than dramatic results.<br /><br />This is just one of the many examples of failed attempts at achieving a punchline, and instead resorting to a fast quip... just not fast enough. What remains is an almost painful experience for every actor present, shown in their faces in almost every scene yet simultaneously used as "the pain" of working in a grocery store to give them character. Irony.<br /><br />As with any new show, 5 episodes have already been printed. Hopefully "10 Items or Less" will remain 10 episodes or less.... | 0neg
|
A bullfighting story. Something about Tyrone Power becoming a champion bullfighter and having Linda Darnell as a girlfriend. To be totally honest I only made it through 1 hour of this. I had to turn it off--I kept falling asleep! The story is very dull and the pace of the film is leaden. Also I have no interest in bullfighting so that didn't help. Also I saw a print with horribly faded color--that was REALLY annoying! So, maybe it was that which got to me. Whatever.<br /><br />The two saving graces were Darnell and Power. She's just gorgeous and he is undoubtedly one of the best-looking men ever! Their scenes together did work and they were both very good actors. Still, it wasn't enough to save the film. If you like bullfighting you might get into this. Otherwise, stay away! | 0neg
|
I feel conflicted about this film - it is one of the most beautiful films I've seen, and provides insightful looks into a lost culture. There was an early scene of men in caps and moustaches sitting around a table, with a woman serving, and an accordion playing, that brought tears to my eyes, just because of the way it captured a way of life that must be incomprehensible to many today. It presents the lives of the characters as being inextricably bound up with the life of the village, another lost concept in today's world. Symbolism is always fun but it seemed a little dated. The fatal flaws of the movie to me were the lack of any compelling dramatic drive, and a total lack of humor. I never felt like I knew any of the characters beyond very basic universal things like grieving over the loss of a loved one, etc. The people were stick figures in the director's tableaux involving natural disasters, war, etc. The film was just one beautiful tragic scene after another, with no involving narrative thread and no humanity. As a result, it seemed very abstract, irrelevant to the lives of real people. In the end, I was too bored to finish watching it. | 0neg
|
I am so glad Zac was in 'The Suite life of Zack and Cody' because that is my favorite show and he is my favorite actor. It is a really funny episode and a funny show!! I love everything about the show and the characters. All of the performers are great. Keep on acting Zac, and I am so happy that nearly all of my favorite actors (including High School Musical characters) are in this show. Zac Efron is so 'hot' and I have an autographed picture of him! It is not a photo copy, and it came all the way from America to Australia and it nearly did not arrive in time for Christmas. Also, I got a High School Musical Mug with my name printed on it. (Scarlett 8) | 1pos
|
I would like it be stated first that I really hated the last two Texas Chainsaw movies. Those being the remake and Next Generation. This one however being a prequel to the remake had a raw intensity that I had not seen in years and I loved it. I still like the first three chainsaws better but this was a step up to the old days. R. Lee Ermy brought something new to his performance in this that I felt was vastly lacking in his first attempt and that was a caring of the series. It seemed like the role fit him more in this. Andrew Byrinasli or however you spell it, is cool now because he is the first person ever to play Leatherface twice now, go Andrew. Go see this movie it is cool. | 1pos
|
Beauty and the Beast is without a doubt one of Disney's finest classics. The first animated film to ever be nominated for best picture and after you see it, you could understand and agree with it's nomination. Beauty and the Beast is going to be one of those films that will always be remembered, I know that it's a movie that I will show my children one day. It has unbelievably terrific animation, a beautiful story, lovable characters, and is just over all a perfect movie. I really love this film so much, I don't think anyone couldn't fall in love with it.<br /><br />Bell is just a simple girl in her town in France, she reads books constantly and her father is an inventor. They are sort of the outcasts of their town due to their "oddness". But Bell is being pursued by the town hunk, Gueston, simply because she's the one girl he cannot have. One day when her father's inventions are about to be displayed at the fair, he gets lost in the woods and stumbles across a castle and is held prisoner. Bell goes after him and comes to the castle; it turns out that her father is being held by a beast who is cursed with this hideousness unless he finds a true love before a rose he has welts. Bell trades places with her father; the house also has living objects, a candle holder, a clock, a tea pot, all who are also cursed until the curse is broken. They look at Bell as the perfect opportunity for the beast to find a true love, but he must learn to be a gentleman, but Bell brings out the best in him and it turns out that this might be a happy ending after all.<br /><br />This was actually the first movie that I ever cried in, the ending was just so beautiful and heart felt, you'll have to see what I mean. The songs are just so lovely and perfect for the scenes that they are performed for. Beauty and the Beast, the song, was just one of the most touching songs ever. This films is a major recommendation for me, it's one of my favorite Disney films of all time, it's a timeless classic that is just perfect and reached a new level of great animation.<br /><br />10/10 | 1pos
|
This is a first class musical. Several of the songs have become standards and continue to turn up in Gershwin orchestral compilations and in the repertoires of top cabaret artists. Ira Gershwin's lyrics for this show were among his wittiest ever.<br /><br />Betty Grable and Dick Haymes are in great voice. separately and in duet.<br /><br />The scenes in the boarding house peopled by eccentrics were highly original and very funny.<br /><br />It is inconceivable that this film has not been released on VHS or DVD, and that there is no CD of the soundtrack.<br /><br />It is my hope that some connoisseur of show tunes in the music business, like Michael Feinstein, will press for its release in some form. | 1pos
|
This is a horrible apolitical McCarthy Era remake of "The Male Animal" starring Henry Fonda and Olivia DeHavilland. The original had Fonda as a professor standing up to regent Eugene Palette to read a letter by Sacco of Sacco and Vanzetti while simultaneously battling Jack Carson as the faded college football star for the affections of DeHavilland. This is mindless fluff. Reagan is to Fonda as an actor what Reagan was to Roosevelt as a President, a cheap imitation. The only interesting thing is that Dan Defore ("Hazel") is in both films. He is the half-witted football player suitor for the affections of DeHavilland's sister in the original, and the half-witted former football player suitor for Thaxter's affections in this film, reprising Jack Carson's role. | 0neg
|
From Hell wants to be everything. Sadly it is nothing, besides extreme violence. Seven had violence with style and for a reason. From Hell is like Dead Presidents (which is better, though it´s still pretty bad): graphic violence and that´s it. The direction is horrible and Graham shows us that she can´t act in a serious role. Meaningless and wannabe dark movie is what it is. | 0neg
|
Just dull dull dull dull dull. Oh -- and pointless. What "art" there is in this movie is limited to still compositions. A great work to demonstrate the importance of a cinematographic eye rather than a compositional one. Some pretty black and white pictures of fruit ripening on the vine and some waving wheat. A silly segment where a man discusses the fact that he's about to die, gets a little something to eat and says "ok I'm going to die now" and does. Other than that -- 70-odd minutes of obscure and ineffective propaganda in favor of tractors and collectivization. If Lenin had seen this movie he would have gone into investment banking, rather than waste more time espousing communism. Please don't waste your time on this. | 0neg
|
This multi-layered DVD version of "American Graffiti" is the best trip back to the summer of 1962 Hollywood ever had to offer! The eventful night when freshly graduated high school friends contemplated their futures while immersed in small town America's car-hops, drive-in movies & doo-wop music (the soundtrack is one of the best featured in ANY film!), is shown in "real time".<br /><br />Richard Dreyfuss is perfect as the smart kid, ready to drive off to college the next morning, but wondering if he's doing the right thing. Ron Howard and Cindy Williams get some practice for their soon to follow "Happy Days", while Charles Martin Smith and Candy Clark are wonderful as the goofus who wants to show a pretty girl a good time.<br /><br />Wolfman Jack plays himself (and cupid) when he plays a very special request going out from Richard Dreyfuss to his dream girl Suzanne Sommers. Look for a pre-teen McKenzie Phillips and a young Harrison Ford in minor roles. This film is a big winner in my book! | 1pos
|
To many people, musician Frank Zappa's counterculture rants were dangerous, to some sexually charged and stimulating, and still to others tired and boring. Somehow, he managed to cut a deal with United Artists and filmed what emerged as a free-form musical diatribe on drugs, sex, the gap between generations (musicians vs. the common businessman) and post-psychedelic expression. With MTV some 10 years off, this was the only way Zappa and his Mothers (of Invention) could bring their ideas together, but unfortunately it's too messy to involve anyone beyond Zappa's core audience. Ringo Starr, in Frank Zappa garb, has some curious speeches that attempt to clarify Zappa's concepts of society, and some of the rock music is indeed exciting, but Frank Z. is far too defensive to be much fun. Surely some of these directionless scenes are meant to be satiric, but his sense of humor is always undermined by a draggy, self-serious need to "teach us something". It's a post-"Laugh In" series of sketches which might've been personally felt out, but they fail to grab hold because, technically, they look terrible. Grungy, and undermined by druggy influences, the movie doesn't take shape. Besides, Bob Rafelson and the Monkees did this kind of thing first (and more slickly, to involve a wider audience) with "Head" in 1968. | 0neg
|
Perhaps the most negative thing I can say about the James Bond franchise is that it gave birth to a welter of cheap imitations . In the case of the Matt Helm series it was obviously a still birth <br /><br />THE AMBUSHERS is an awful movie not only because of its Bond wannabe format but because it`s woefully made . Check out the title sequence that insinuates there`s going to be hot killer bimbos in the movie . Actually there is but they only appear for one short scene to get Helm out of a tight spot then are completely forgotten about for the rest of the movie . There`s also other serious flaws to the script like the terrible lines that belong in a CARRY ON movie , lines like " When you said uncover the agent ... " and watch out for the obvious revealing mistakes like harnesses attached to the actors as they float in the air and the laughably bad back projection<br /><br />One final thing I couldn`t help noticing is that several of the cast seemed to have consumed a large amount of alcohol before filming . If this was the type of movie the cast were being offered at the time you can`t really blame them and I guess everyone involved had a great time , just a pity the audience didn`t | 0neg
|
Absolutely astonishing imagery and camera-work elevates this simplistic horror film to a level that doesn't even have a name. In all honesty, the story isn't that bad to begin with but it's just utterly put to shame by the sheer look of this film. I was expecting another thuggish Japanese horror/thriller, a la INUGAMI, but there was none of that here. Just an amazing experience especially for those who are intrigued by the power of the new wave digital cameras which have been slowly taking over more and more independent productions worldwide.<br /><br />There are a few scenes in the film with laughable CGI by North American standards, but to nitpick about something that is so boringly dispensed in North American films would be such a gratuitous waste of time. This wasn't some insane Hollywood blockbuster with the standard $70, 000, 000 USD budget, hence requiring 50 million dollars just for the effects budget!<br /><br />In the end this film totally delivers what is necessary for your enjoyment. An awesome story, genuinely creepy as hell moments, hot girls (BONUS!) and hands down, the best freakin' cinematography that I've seen since..., well, since Fight Club!<br /><br />This is it people, the future is looking VERY bright for digital films! | 1pos
|
This film can only be enjoyed by those people who can easily suspend their disbelief and without question lap up the talent-free films served up by Bollywood directors and actors. The likes of Shahrukh Khan and Kajol are worshipped by millions, yet I honestly cannot detect any signs of acting prowess or versatility.<br /><br />So the main family lives in a huge mansion, gets around by private helicopter and have a fleet of Jaguar convertibles and Ferarris at their disposal. Hmmm, I can really identify with these guys. Even though in the story, this mansion is supposed to be in India, it is clearly in the UK. Amitabh Bachchan's "Indian" office is clearly Canary Wharf in London! The helicopters in India have British registrations! I mean, the directors must assume all viewers are in a vegetative state not to notice! As usual, the acting, especially from Shahrukh Khan, is way over the top and unrealistic. The way that these people behave just seems so divorced from real life, you soon start wondering whether they are aliens from the planet Jupiter.<br /><br />I know that people argue that Bollywood films are a means of escapism for the many millions in India. But if other countries like China, Iran, South Korea and Argentina can make films that have a realistic message and which many more people can relate to, why cannot the Indian film industry? | 0neg
|
This movie is swimming in 1970's economy humor, there's never enough money for everything. Bills can't get paid, and a radio announcer says with relief in his voice that the cost of living went up ONLY 2%.<br /><br />The humor may date it for some and make it fly over people's heads that were too young to remember the economic malaise of the late 70's (I barely remember it, my being a kid back then).<br /><br />But if you get past that, what you have here is a smart and entertaining caper film where the people pulling the caper are all female. June Curtain, Jessica Lange and Susan Saint James make up the team that conspires to make a heist.<br /><br />Dabney Coleman proves he can actually play a sweet guy with his turn as a Police man which falls for Jane Curtain's character. Richard Benjimin has some great one-liners playing Jessica Lange's animal doctor husband. Garrett Morris has a great cameo.<br /><br />I saw this at the movies when it first came out and found it to be very funny and enjoyable. Years later I sought it out and found that it has been out of print on video for a number of years. Finally, I found a copy to rent. You should try to find a copy too. It's a fun film | 1pos
|
Impressive acting by the entire young bunch! Kudos to each one of them for uplifting the film to a classic height. Looking at their spontaneous acting, its hard to imagine a camera rolling before them. reminds me of those Latin American movies about life. awesome plot and superb direction from one of my favourite directors, Anjan Dutta. the humour is very Bong, very clever and superbly handled. never a moment felt dull or plastic. Reeks of immense homework on the psyche of the NRI Bongs out there.<br /><br />The film made me homesick for my beloved city. wish to go back. thank you for a great film, Mr Dutta. you made us prouder. | 1pos
|
John Cassavetes' films have never been known for having a clear resolution or for their tidy, organised stories, but 'The Killing of a Chinese Bookie' just ends up taking the p*ss.<br /><br />It tells the story of Cosmo Vitelli, an LA nightclub owner with a dangerous gambling addiction that gets him into trouble with local gangsters who give him another option after he can't pay the debt: kill a renowned Chinese accountant working for a powerful West-Coast crime syndicate.<br /><br />The decision apparently forces him to question himself as a man, but really just makes him sweat every decision out and shout at everyone.<br /><br />To say the film is unbearable would be unfair. From it's appealing opening scenes, one might expect something of 'Mean Streets'' calibre (Cassavetes came up with the idea with the help of Scorsese, it turns out). However, after the actual killing of the Chinese bookie, the film spirals into a cinematic oblivion of unexplained escapes and inconclusive endings.<br /><br />Cassavetes seems to have wasted his many fine talents as the godfather of American indie cinema and ruin what could have been a very good film. Shame. | 0neg
|
I have seen this movie twice now, and I'm wondering what is up with that large orange block in the first story? Is there something real going on here? The movie as a whole seemed like a cross between American Rose and Six Feet Under. Selma Blair seems to have an affinity with quirky indie type films. The moment when Vi walks into the restroom to freshen up, and discovers the dozens of photographs of other girls, some who i believe are in Vi's class, who ended up in the same predicament was a nice touch to a kind of dry film. Teacher/Student fantasies happen in real life every day. Who hasn't wondered about sex with a teacher, it goes as far back as grade school. | 1pos
|
I don't really have anything new to say about this film.... all the other negative reviews say the same as I thought during watching it; I just felt it has far too many positive reviews, and that just isn't right. I really can't remember the last time I saw such an infuriatingly stupid, bad film. The only reason I came across this film was because it was likened to "haunting in Connecticut" (which I found to be a relatively entertaining no-brainer)here on IMDb! I am in no rush to check out any of the director's other masterpieces. This was SO unrealistic. If it would have gone for a magic realism approach from a director like Julio Madem or Kim Ki Duk, or a surreal approach from someone like David Lynch, then maybe, just maybe it could have got away with the unacceptable events taking place in this film. I mean, come on. Setting up theatre IN THE HOUSE (!), performing some serious kind of operation there(there would be some serious scarring and everything), and then just putting her back to bed and leaving? Apparently she was all better though. And leaving the schizophrenic son to hide out in his room, after nearly poisoning his mother to death... no one, not even his father, seem to check up on him, or even know exactly where he had got to. Then both incidents involving the knife... Jesus! As already mentioned, Julian Donkeyboy, Memento and The Machinist have all dealt with mental illness, disorientation and guilt in much better ways. They should not even be a comparison. And then there was the film making itself. The terrible house music, speeding up of cameras (to depict the characters "crazy" outlook on things), the dream sequences ("scared scarred"!),and dialogue from earlier in the film overlapping inside someone's head with extra reverb all just stank of mid-nineties college movie to me. The whole thing left me seething. Hence the review. I never normally write them, I tend to hate critics cause they don't usually get where the creator is coming from, and they don't create themselves, they just complain about how they could never do it better themselves. I am certainly no film maker, but I think even I could have done a better job of this one, which would include re plotting, re writing, re scripting, and re shooting. And being a musician I'd redo all the music. The score was actually OK though (just not the boom boom stuff), and the acting was all fine, sometimes quite impressive. I was pleased to see Trigger from only fools and horses pop up. But had this film contained Johnny Depp, Robert Deniro and Mickey Rourke (as the mother), it would have played no better than it would with Keanu Reeves, George Bush and Gerry Halliwell under this director and writer. Sorry mate. Try harder. | 0neg
|
Maybe the animation is computerized now and maybe the DTV Sequels are not going to hold a candle to the original art from the hearts of incredibly talented artists under Walts guidance, But Bambi II is much better than many of Disney's other Classic sequel attempts to make money on nostalgic baby boomers.<br /><br />It may be blasphemy to say this but Bambi felt incomplete to me. Once I got over the misery of his mother being shot and watched it as an adult, I figured out why. The sequel answered the questions I didn't know to ask as a kid about the first movie. What happened after Bambi met his father in that heavy snowfall and before the spring he shook owls tree scratching his antlers? Why was the dancing on clouds moment after meeting Faline ruined by some buck challenging Bambi. Why did Thumper ask if Bambi remembered him, where had Bambi been, and for how long? He was teaching his dad how to loosen up. He was dealing with a big mouth bragger and unintentionally creating a rival that would later challenge him for Faline. Rondo, as far as I could tell was never named in Bambi, but the fight between him and Bambi makes more sense after the sequel.<br /><br />If you stop the DVD of Bambi just as Bambi goes looking for his mother and you start Bambi II the story picks itself up almost seamlessly. I am still a little confused by how many springs go by before the birth of the twin fawns.<br /><br />My only negative is a very minor one. Two new characters: The porcupine and the ground hog are funny and slapstick but I am not sure how essential they are to the plot and how much was an attempt to get a better running time. | 1pos
|
This movie is an utter delight to watch. I have probably seen it a dozen times, and I never get tired of it. Everything about it is perfect: it's well-directed, well-acted, beautifully filmed, has great music, and the script and story are wonderful.<br /><br />Agneiszka Holland does an outstanding job directing this film. Each character is separate and unique; each one has little personality quirks that makes it seem real. Just about every scene in the movie includes children, animals, or both -- which must have been a nightmare to coordinate. Ms. Holland pulls it off without a hitch. Everything melds perfectly, and we are transported to a distant place and time, and fall in love with real, human characters. <br /><br />The primary three characters in this story -- Mary Lennox, Colin Craven, and Dickon -- are all children, played by actors who are around 10 years old. Ordinarily having one child in a movie is difficult enough, but again, somehow they pull it off. All three kids -- especially Kate Maberly -- do a fine job of acting, and they are quite credible. Kate is simply divine as Mary Lennox, and Heydon Prowse was a good counter-point to her as Colin.<br /><br />The story is touching and charming, and I think you'd have to be almost inhuman not to have a tear in your eye by the end of it. I absolutely fell in love with these children, and came to care very much about their characters. The "secret garden" really does seem to be a magical place (and I will say no more about it, since otherwise that would spoil things), and at the end I found myself wishing I could go and visit it first-hand. The accompanying music is wonderful -- I find myself humming it for days and days after watching it.<br /><br />In short, everything comes together to make this film a masterpiece. It is easily one of the 10 or 12 best movies ever made, perhaps *the* best movie ever made. I love it so much that I went out and bought the DVD of it, even though I'd seen it 8 or 10 times already. If you have not seen it I give it my highest possible recommendation. My score: 10/10. | 1pos
|
Don't expect a balanced view from this movie. It is a highly biased propaganda piece, although there is some counterpoint scattered throughout. Micheal Moore comments that corporations are only after profits. The narrator announces that the corporation is bound to place profits of the stockholder above the public good. Noam Chomsky, throws in his radically left ideas as frosting on this bitter cake. He paints with a broad brush that even though the people working in corporations may be moral, the institution of the corporation is inherently evil.<br /><br />The movie points out that a corporation will move into an impoverished country and are hailed as a hero for providing opportunities for workers. When the pay rises and the workers start making additional demands upon the company, the documentary states, the corporations leave those workers behind in search of more worker to exploit. There's no denying that there is some truth to that. The balanced point of view is that those exploited workers have had an improved standard of living as a result. It is clearly not up to the standard of living in the first world, but it is an improvement.<br /><br />The movie progresses by creating a psychological profile of a corporation as through it were a person. The premise being the corporation is an amoral or immoral person. They even interviewed an FBI employee that profiles psychopaths. If course, they only look at the negative aspects of corporations.<br /><br />I know one of the experts interviewed, although I won't mention his name because he is tort-happy. I know his motivations are less than honest. He is out to make a name for himself.<br /><br />I am the CEO of a corporation. I am also a life-long Democrat. I have a blog on political moderation that advocates, among other things, reasoned debates on things of importance to our culture. There is absolutely no doubt that there are corporations whose culture is oriented toward the exploitation of people. There are also corporations, like mine, who have a corporate culture toward providing a service to customers. I am well compensated for the service I provide, but I enhance the value of companies I serve and I can serve them with honesty and integrity. Corporations have served to enhance the standard of living for all Americans, although at times in unethical ways. I was looking for a balanced review of the value that corporations have brought as well as things that need to be changed so that pure greed and unethical behavior in some corporations can be held in check. There was an opportunity to present some legitimate concerns about the affect of corporations, both positive and negative, but the producers passed on that opportunity. Ironically, the "What Do We Need to Do?" Segment on the Q&A bonus materials is a lot closer to the reasoned debate that I had hoped for in the movie.<br /><br />If you believe that corporations are inherently evil, this movie will be preaching to the choir. If you are looking for something other than propaganda, you will be disappointed by this film. | 0neg
|
OK its not a oscar winner.its a Michael Winner.but this comedy has a great double act in Caine and Moore infact this is the first time i seen Moore do a comedy and he is quite excellent.a good supporting cast the script is more carry on than anything else and whats wrong with that.id sooner watch this than Trainspotting. | 1pos
|
Rian Johnson created a great modern day noir film (which was also his debut as a director) with Brick that was really enjoyable. When the word about The Brothers Bloom started making its rounds, it immediately reeled me in. Johnson's style in The Brothers Bloom seems to almost mimic Wes Anderson's at times as several scenes (especially the first ten minutes or so) have a similar feel that seem to be shot in the same way you'd see in an Anderson film. The film also has a Kiss Kiss Bang Bang feel to it with how colorful every shot is. The tone was similar in both films as they both had humor as an underlying tone amongst a dramatic adventure revolving around crime. This film is just a real pleasure to look at. The cinematography seems to tell a story all on its own as every shot seems to be done in a unique way and everything is so vividly colorful.<br /><br />Every factor of the film is strong. The story isn't entirely original as we've all heard con men stories before, but the way the story unfolds and the development of the characters involved makes it a new experience. The dialogue is also top notch. Nothing stuck out as being cheesy or hokey. Every line spoken was either witty, charming, or something you'd expect to hear in everyday conversation. So it was realistic and natural. The entire cast has to be the film's strongest point though. There doesn't really seem to be a character that's wasted or isn't used to their full potential. Rachel Weisz does steal the show though. Her character is so charismatic, outgoing, and eccentric that she just steals every scene she's a part of.<br /><br />The Brothers Bloom is one of the best films to be released this year, which is a shame since it seems to have a limited release. It offers something for everybody looking for a good time at the movies whether it's an adventure that will take them around the world, romance between two of the central characters, an oddball character that's great comedic relief, the development of both brothers as characters as their crime of swindling people as con men causes drama, and even plenty of explosions to satisfy the action junkie. The conclusion of the film is both heartwarming and heartbreaking, as well. The Brothers Bloom will probably be overlooked by the many assured blockbusters coming out this summer, but it comes highly recommended from me and should be on everyone's must see list. | 1pos
|
Rome: Total War is a great strategy game. The Total War series is one of the best around, only Football Manager can beat it. The game is set during the growth of the Roman Empire and the mission is simple: take control of the empire! There are 3 factions that trying to gain power, the Julii in the North of Italy, the Brutii in the South and the Scripii in Central Italy and Silicy. You are meant to help gain territory for the Empire until you have enough strength to conquer Rome itself and the other two factions. As you conquer states you are also able to play as other states such as Gaul, Greece, Egypt, etc. What makes the Total War types of game in one. There is the battle real time part which is excellent and the mission is simple, win! The other part is the turn-style strategy on the European map and you have to do a lot to maintain your empire. There are other parts to the game as well, such as Historical battles and set-piece battles.<br /><br />Rome: Total War is a great game and worth playing and is very addictive. Medieval: Total War II is also very good and I will like to play Empire: Total War when it comes out. | 1pos
|
So much for the "sacred feminine"!<br /><br />This movie bore more resemblance to Paris Hilton than Paris, France. It was good looking, but extremely shallow.<br /><br />Ron Howard did a fine job of directing, but Tom Hanks was completely unconvincing. Visuals were excellent, but the music was overbearing. Ian McKellan was fabulous. The actors who played Fache and the bishop were also excellent, but did not have enough camera time. Too bad.<br /><br />Most of my criticisms are probably aimed at the material Howard had to work with, meaning the book, "The DaVinci Code", which contained multiple gross art history errors. As a veteran Art Teacher with a Master's degree in Art Education, these errors was extremely distracting to me in both reading the book and watching the movie.<br /><br />Some of these errors are as follows: <br /><br />The windows at the pyramid at the Louvre contain 673 panes of glass, not 666.<br /><br />Leonardo (Whose last name is NOT DaVinci..Da Vinci simply refers to the town he lived in) never referred to the "Mona Lisa" as the "Mona Lisa" in his life time. The moniker was given to the painting by the Art biographer Vasari in the 1800's; thus, Leonardo never could have come up with the outlandish anagrams.<br /><br />The painting "Madonna on the Rocks" is actually entitled "Virgin on the Rock"; again, this was done so that Brown can create a convenient anagram. In the Louvre, it is NOT located in the same room as the Mona Lisa.<br /><br />The Last Supper is NOT a fresco. It is a mural. If Mary Magdeline is to the left of Christ in the painting, then where was John? Why would Leonardo make him be missing? It was customary for painters from the Florentine school (where Leonardo hailed from), to make young men appear more feminine than older men, to infuse a bit of innocence in their appearance. Additionally, the Bible contains NO references to the "holy grail", or "chalice". Leonardo was simply making his painting more natural,in keeping with his naturalistic interpretations of his subjects.That's what Leonardo was famous for!! Leonardo, like most of us, simply believed that Jesus didn't have the, uh, " bling" to own a golden chalice!!<br /><br />There is a sketch by Leonardo of the "mystery hand" holding the knife in the Royal Windsor Art collection, and that hand definitely belongs to Peter. It is not a "disembodied hand wielding a dagger".<br /><br />If I hadn't read the book first, I would have been confused with the flash backs, which were very poorly rendered.<br /><br />The film was very "talky", which is bad enough, but the talk itself wasn't accurate. I'm surprised the main female character's (Sophie) head didn't explode with all the condescending lectures she was given.<br /><br />"Sacred feminine", indeed...I'm a woman, and "The Davinci Code" insulted my intelligence. | 0neg
|
I love watching this show. Charlie comes across as truly interested in his subjects and unlike others in his field, doesn't tend to take sides. He has a sense of humor and he has a wide range of guests, from the Nobel prize winners to the lamest celebrity on earth. However, I enjoy watching them because Charlie Rose seems born to interview and to interview correctly for the person across from him. Tom Cruise? No, I'm sorry, I'll pass on that one. However an hour with Tom Hanks? Could that be so horrible? I doubt it. Everyone needs a break from the constant political backbiting and drum beating once in a while and I appreciate his "fun" shows. Sometimes, you just want to listen to why "Run, Forest, run" was so catchy. Lighten up! | 1pos
|
Basically, most of the actors rush their lines, and except for the two Antonios (Lochlyn Munro somewhat OK), the acting basically sucked, which means the directing also sucked. <br /><br />Weak story, weak writing. Worst of all was the music. <br /><br />It's also funny that the writer (Mike Mains, the worst actor in the film) wrote himself the part of having the first primary relationship in the film. The interaction between the two of them is about as exciting as that between a turtle and a rock.<br /><br />The positive reviews here are a joke. It is however, an adequate film for those who want to get high and laugh at how awful this film is. | 0neg
|
I just love, love, love this film. The cast is perfect, right down to all the bit-parts. At first I was bothered by DM's accent (& her blonde hair is a shame) but the sweet script transcends all that. <br /><br />All the characters are pitch perfect, the lines so funny & the message inspiring! The locations are also great, I don't know where this is in NYC, but I would love to live there!<br /><br />I think Jeff Daniels is simply brilliant in this film, and Mary Steenbergen too. The scene where DM tells her she's a singer is lovely & the sparky scenes between JD & DM are so sweet and funny too!<br /><br />www.menmoneyandchocolate.com | 1pos
|
HORRIBLE movie! Bad actors, fancy cars in the Victorian age, and a pathetic need to remove the homosexuality from the story are just some of the things that makes this an awful screen version of an amazing book. The fact that they have changed Basil Hallward into a woman is ridiculous! I found that the movie was straight forward homophobic, and I felt appalled by it. Why shoot a movie when you do not like the story? This seems weird to me. At some point I actually wondered whether or not they had casted such bad actors to ruin the real story of the book. It seemed to me that they had completely lost the point; Dorian Gray is almost never independent in the book, but in the movie he suddenly feels like taking control and arrange a party right after the death of his former love. Which brings me to the scene where he dumps her, which might be the worst piece of acting ever seen. Non of the two seems like they even know what they are talking about and a tragic love story suddenly becomes quite amusing, in a rather painful way to everyone who actually likes The Picture of Dorian Gray. Further more it seems stupid that the movie begins with a strange story about a nuclear bomb, when that hadn't even been invented yet at Dorian Gray's time. Simply just a horrible version of a really great story! | 0neg
|
Director Soren Kragh-Jacobsen sure picked his young protagonist well -- Jordan Kiziuk as Alex in the Danish film "The Island on Bird Street" practically carried the film by his undeniably superb performance. The film is about a Jewish young boy, bordering teens, his survival "adventure" in Poland during Nazi occupation.<br /><br />How heartwarming can an uneasy wartime premise be? It actually achieves beyond "Jakob the Liar" -- Alex's courage, his creative ways in taking care of himself when he's all alone, his tenacity and steadfast belief that his Dad would come back for him
hold its own. And there is suspense: we fear for him, we want him to succeed, we pain, and we felt angst and joy with him. The set of his hide-out is somehow graphically appealing: a solitary, broken brick wall arrangement, with atmospheric lighting, and momentary interludes: a solitary dog on a street, paper off the ground dancing in the wind
<br /><br />Music is by Zbigniew Preisner (Krzysztof Kieslowski's "Trois couleurs: Bleu" 1993, "Rouge" 1994, "The Double Life of Veronique" 1991, also "Fairy Tale: A True Story" 1997), hauntingly complements the plot. This may not be of Hollywood stature likened to "The Schindler's List", yet it's a small film with powerful impressions. It's a life-affirming story. Alex hanged on to hope -- we can, too. | 1pos
|
*Caution potential spoilers and road hazards ahead* ROUTE 666 is actually the kind of lightweight straight-to-video extravaganza that would make a good date flick. Whoever you're with, they'll get bored quickly and want something else to do. The premise had potential, that being federal agents stuck in the middle of nowhere with a prisoner, being pursued by homicidal ghouls. Unfortunately, the execution is as bland and bleak as the desert landscape that surrounds them.<br /><br />Lou Diamond Phillips sleepwalks and occasionally "trips" through the film, and his is the best performance. Steven Williams does add some oomph to the proceedings, too. The rest are wrung from the "hey, memorize the script and recite the lines" academy.<br /><br />Speaking of script, in ROUTE 666, a lot of talk replaces any modicum of action. Well, suspense for that matter, seems to have taken a holiday, also. What's left, is a talky, unexciting, predictable outing that has a couple of good moments. ROUTE 666? Don't go there, girlfriend.<br /><br />Not recommended. | 0neg
|
Mario Bava's TWITCH OF THE DEATH NERVE (aka BAY OF BLOOD) is often noted as one of the main influences of the more modern "slasher" film, including Friday THE 13TH and many others. It's influence is obvious in these new films, and Bava's film, though older, is just as strong, if not more so than it's numerous followers.<br /><br />The film starts with an aging land-owner (or bay-owner, to be more precise...) who is murdered in the first scene. Her killer is then murdered right after - putting the wheels in motion for 11 more grisly deaths. It seems that there is great dispute over who owns the bay and what is to be done with the property, and all those that try to "gain" from it are brutally dispatched...<br /><br />TWITCH OF THE DEATH NERVE is a fine "classic" slasher that gets lost in it's own storyline. As the killer/killers are hashed-out, the story begins to lose some momentum in trying to reconcile itself. Regardless - slasher fans will probably pop a boner for this one, as most of the deaths are pretty twisted, even by today's slasher-standards. Definitely a must-see for the genre fan...8.5/10 | 1pos
|
This film is composed of elements that appeal to me but I was disappointed. The acting is journeyman quality and the cinematography is professional. The story is generally juvenile and poorly detailed, with some exceptions. Those good scenes made viewing less painful. The plot development tries, but fails to achieve a coherence and fails to allow the characters to become real. This leaves the movie as an 18 year old's fantasy of what he could do if he left his home town in anger and embarrassment and had hot chicks falling for him through a series of adventures while traveling on money provided by a cool dad living vicariously. The young hero accomplishes nothing on his own merit except for saving the trans-Darien expedition from a guerrilla band in a scene that rings so phony it would have worked better as a dream sequence. This is not a retelling of the universal stories of transformation through adversity or rites of passage. Although the central character grows a beard and looks older by the end of the movie he has not matured. Likewise, decent acting and production values have not created a mature or compelling film. | 0neg
|
I have been a fan of Will Smith for years and I have to say this may be his best film yet! "The Pursuit of Happiness" is just a wonderful (based on a true) story, full of adventure, hope, and pain. I saw the movie last night in a packed theater. Big Willie Weekend has returned, and for good reason! It's a great movie to see during the holidays and definitely a tear-jerker! Perfect for a date, a night out with friends, or even with family. If you ever thought Will Smith really couldn't act (and shame on you!), you'll think otherwise once you see this movie. You can really feel what he's going through just by looking in his eyes. And Jaden Smith is too adorable! Their on screen chemistry is almost unbearable to watch! Go see this movie! Great acting, great directing, great writing...you won't regret it! | 1pos
|
Cheap, ugly, pointless. This movie in a word sucks. I fell a sleep watching it several times. I was astonished by the barrage of bad f/x, lousy acting and poor story telling. Be afraid, very afraid of this movie. It will totally waste about an hour and a half of your life. I just feel like i should get some sort of compensation for torturing myself with this abomination of a film. If i could do any kind of web design i would make a site dedicated to warning people about this "HORROR". One thing that could have slightly improved this was if the girl took her clothes off at any point. it is cold in the movie, but she could have shown something more than her nice belly, which by the way for me was the highlight of this poor project. | 0neg
|
I was there at the Wembley Live Aid show.<br /><br />Being that I was one of the last few to buy my ticket at the company that takes you on their coaches to concerts. The last four or six I think, you could only come to their office and buy them in person.<br /><br />As I was and still very much so a big fan of The Who, I wasn't a Mod, and knowing that they had "retired" this would be or could be the only chance to get to see them. I had a friend who was watching it at home recording their section on VHS for me. Then it happened, the satellite feed broke just as they started My Generation, I sometimes wonder if it was because the rest of the World were using to much power at that time that the system couldn't handle it all at once. Shame, and yes I did Pete Townshend fall over.<br /><br />The weather was stunning, just as Elton John came on it started to drizzle lightly, but not for long, it was needed, the drizzle not Elton. Queen was amazing; three friends & I saw their very last show as a group a year later at Knebworth House, 120,000 people were also there too!<br /><br />RIP Freddie, what a Showman.<br /><br />When we were leaving through our side of the Wembley tunnels the atmosphere was electric, we were singing "Feed the World". During the coach ride home we could make out sets from Sabbath and others on the radio.<br /><br />Its a shame that in twenty years nothing much has changed for the African people, such as Politics and war.<br /><br />I have three used T Shirts, a little small for me now, that came in sealed bags and two mint Programmes and a mint Live Aid: The Concert book that came out very shortly after the gig. The Wembley Live Aid concert ticket stub is still in good condition in the photo album.<br /><br />What a fantastic piece of History, 1 out of 72000 people seeing the real deal out of 1.5 to 2 billion watching on their telly's. When people talk about it and you mention that you were there they tend to look at you like you are lying, at first they just don't believe it, you really do, sometime's, have to prove it. It does fill me with pride to know that I was at a very Historical Musical event. | 1pos
|
WARNING: SPOILERS! Me and my 9th grade English class watched The Old Man and the Sea movie after reading the book. Overall, I think this movie was pretty bad. The movie was different from the book because there were new characters, Santiago's daughter, who wanted him to live with her and she didn't even try to have an accent. The other main characters were Earnest Hemingway, not played by him, and his wife. Having Hemingway in this story was an interesting idea, but all of the scenes with him are either parts from the book modified to have him in it, without really changing them, or really boring, which just makes it longer and makes it take more time to get to the interesting part, when he catches the marlin. Also, they left out the part where he caught the dolphin, so, in the movie, he was out there for days and he never ate. The new parts did not add to the story at all, except for taking up time. Seriously, I could hardly stay awake while watching it, and I have never fallen asleep in class. <br /><br />The movie did not help me imagine or understand the story any better because it didn't look like how I imagined it would look. It was also really fake looking, when he saw the giant marlin, it didn't look all that big, and also, it was just a movie on a green screen and it looked like the fishing line went through the marlin at one time. When the marlin was strapped to the side of the boat it was the same size as the boat and the book said it was a few feet longer than his boat and it looked like it was made of rubber. When it was dark it looked like he was in a boat in the middle of nowhere. The movie was also less interesting because it did not say what he was thinking, so you didn't feel as attached to him, and a lot of the stuff he thought was important or interesting. 3/10 stars. | 0neg
|
In my opinion, Monk is one of the best shows I have seen in a long time. The main characters, detective Adrian Monk (Tony Shalhoub), and his friend and personal assistant, Sharona Fleming (the very talented yet underrated Bitty Schram) are very likeable and well-drawn. More importantly, the episodes are very well-written and highly amusing. I definitely recommend it. | 1pos
|
Poor Buffalo, New York! All the snow they get there and then a movie like this blows into town too. And when I say blows, I mean BA-LOWS! The best parts of this one belong to the stunning Russian babe. Without her soft-core porn scenes to keep your eyes peeled for there'd be no reason to tune in in the first place. Not unless you have a sick affinity for a violently aggregated body count that would make Tarantino blush! The bloodbath finale is so painful to watch that you end up hoping a stray dum-dum passes through your TV screen straight into your brain! I mean, they actually stage the scene in an all white room just so the blood will show up better when splattered on the walls! Well that's the ten line minimum that the IMDb forces upon reviewers. Yep, ten lines just to say "It Stinks!" | 0neg
|
Elizabeth Hurley is hopelessly lost in her role, trying to spice the devilish flavour with ridiculously idiotic walk - I had no idea that Dark One hopped around like (not even a Playboy) bunny. Brendan Fraser, although somewhat intense with early geekish Elliot Richards, enjoys being there more as the film grows. Watchable from a rather aesthetic point of view - dramatic changes of scenery make it fast and sometimes even fun.<br /><br /> | 0neg
|
Who spent the time to watch this move which is done in poor taste and insults one of the greatest American leaders. Don't waste your time. I would rather get injection into the base of my finger nails then watch one second of this "film" which is in true poor taste and form. | 0neg
|
This is another one of those movies shot on video with a nice looking DVD box that gives the impression it's actually a film, when in reality it looks like it was shot on super 8 video by the neighborhood kids. I know it was shot one a canon xg1 after watching the "making of" documentary (another one of these low budget films with a "making of" documentary that acts like they've just finished making Citizen Kane). Normally I stay away from these movies (I don't say film because it's not) because they're terrible and movies made by amateurs don't entertain me, but this was at the library and the library usually doesn't have these "shot on video" movies, so I duped! There's no logic in this movie whatsoever. For some reason, a vampire's blood turns people into zombies. It's never really explained why but there's lots of lapses in logic and stuff never explained in this garbage. Like when they find the body that hasn't decomposed like it you'd think it would have having been buried in a 120 year old cemetery, the police would be called since it was obviously just buried. But for some reason, the idiots in this movie are under the impression that it was buried in the 1880s and never decomposed. Also, they never seem to wonder why a "dead body's" eyes seem to flicker as if they were trying to pretend they were dead but are not.<br /><br />The "writer" of this movie is under the impression that hoards of zombies being shot is somehow scary. It's not. This is why just anyone should not be allowed to make a movie. There should be some sort of test you should have to pass first before being given a budget, any budget, to do something like this. If you're supposedly making a "horror" movie, learn about what is scary, not simply "ooh, it's zombies, and even though it's been done now a thousand times, people will think ours are great!" Of course the "acting" is awful but the direction is worse. Way, way too many close ups. The "directors" need to learn about "establishing shots" so the audience can have an idea what is going on, instead of these annoying constant close shots.<br /><br />My favorite part of the movie is when the girl asks the Sheriff "why don't you just run them over?" He was thinking "because they're unpaid extras. We just don't have the budget for it" <br /><br />But the thing that bugs me the most about garbage like this, is when you see comments in the IMDb where the people are praising this obviously awful movie. I mean, look at how many comments they have for other films. Zero. It's so transparent these are people from the movie, it's insulting. There's no way anyone in the world outside the production of this movie would actually think this thing is great and comment here on top. There should be some sort of rule that people who worked on a movie cannot comment on their own work in here.<br /><br />Avoid this garbage like the plague. | 0neg
|
Nazli, an 18 year old girl with Persian origin, tries to break away from her father who has decided that she should marry her older cousin. She falls in love with a Swedish guy, something that her father dislikes and tries to prevent. Director Reza Baggher has said that this movie was inspired by "Romeo and Juliet", but the parallels are few and the differences aren't especially good either. Sara Sommerfeld does her best to help this mostly hopeless script, but that doesn't help. How much I tried to find good things in this movie, I couldn't and gave up. The directing is poor and the cinematography is rather bad. And what did the title ("Wings of Glass" translated into English) have to do with the happenings? Rating: 4/10 | 0neg
|
Does anyone remember "About Last Night" with Rob Lowe and Demi Moore. Two people meet fall into a relationship and move in together. Then the couple has a fight and proceed to follow the advice of their friends instead of their hearts and winds up more deeply in love and understanding of one another but separated.<br /><br />Rob Lowe meets Demi Moore at a company softball game. Vince Vaughn meets Jennifer Aniston at a pro baseball game. They fight and break up and follow the advice of their friends. Rob Lowe listens to his buddy in the bar Jim Belushi (and at work). Vince listens to his buddy at the bar Jon Favreau, Vince has a brother giving him ill-advice at work. Demi Moore listens to Elizabeth Perkins. Jennifer listens to Joey Lauren Adams. Doing a nice comedic turn as usual.<br /><br />Neither are getting good advice and screw up the relationship badly, till it is almost unrepairable. This was like an extended episode of the TV show "Men Behaving Badly" mixed in with an episode of Oprah on proof that Men Don't Listen! <br /><br />STAY AWAY........STAY AWAY....... unless you think Jennifer got a nice tush and you want to see it.<br /><br />At least Rob Lowe and Demi Moore had on screen chemistry. You want to see them make it. I laughed at all the wrong moments in the Break Up.<br /><br />Rob Lowe and Demi Moore ride off into the sunset at the end of their movie. She rides her bike and he runs after her.<br /><br />****SPOILER ALERT**** <br /><br />At least the Break Up didn't cop out at the ending. They don't get back together. They run into each sometime later. They only give you a hint that they have feelings for each other without laying it on too thick. | 0neg
|
I am groaning as I write this but during the early '80s with all the ninja craze as as a kid who practiced and loved karate, I loved this show. I never knew who Lee Van Cleef was prior to this TV show but my father did. He remember Lee in all the spaghetti westerns and would laugh that the villain of the cowboys was a good guy ninja now.<br /><br />You have to wince at some of the shows you liked as a kid but, you know, thats what makes the memories of your childhood so amusing if your lucky.<br /><br />Now, I am older and a father, and I appreciate actors like Lee more than the pinheads in Hollywood making $20 million + a picture. Actors like Lee kept us entertained and made guys like Clint Eastwood ("For a Few Dollars More") and Kurt Russell ("Escape From New York") look so good.<br /><br />When he died in '89 it gave me pause. He deserves to be remembered and I won't forget this weird funny show he did that kept me glued to the screen with all it's oddball fantasy.<br /><br />The 13-year old boy in me gives this a 9 star rating and a 10 star rating for the beady-eyed, hawk-nosed actor who played the lead.<br /><br />Rest-in-Peace, Lee, you are remembered. | 1pos
|
Cruel Intentions 2 is bloody awful, I mean uber-bad. Words can not explain how bad it is, but I'll give it a go anyway.<br /><br />The plot of Cruel Intentions 2 is very similar to the first film. Sebastian (Robin Dunne), is kicked out of a private school and is forced to move to New York. There he decides to make a fresh start and just a life a normal life and settle down. Unfortunately he has to deal with his step-sister Kathryn (Amy Adams) wants to drag him down. Sebastain starts to fall in love Danielle (Sarah Thompson), the innocent daughter of the Headmaster of the school. Kathryn wants Sebastain to just sleep around with the whole school which had been describe as a 'whore-house'. Kathryn also wants to get revenge with Cherie (Keri Lynn Pratt), who humiliated her during the school assembly. Kathryn wanted to make the freshman into the biggest slut in the school, a similar sub-plot to the first film.<br /><br />Cruel Intentions 2 is basically a cancelled TV-show, which was turned into a prequel. There are so many problems with the film. It is poorly written, unfunny, and badly acted. Luckily for Amy Adams that the show never took off because now she is a fairly big actress. Whilst Cruel Intentions had a sense of realism and can been seen to be set in the real world, Cruel Intentions 2 is set in sitcom land and as described on amazon.co.uk 'a randy version of Saved by the Bell'. There were some dark themes involving sex and drug use in the first film, but in Cruel Intentions 2 tried to make it funny and some of the ideas in the film shouldn't be, such as Kathryn having an affair with a teacher. Other ideas also don't work such as the secret society where all the popular kids meet to discuss the downfall of other students. The film also had a major problem of sexualised 15/16-years-old. I know that teenagers do have sex, sometimes a lot, but when done on film or television, is treated very seriously. One famous sense was when Daneille encourages Cherie (who is around 14/15 in the film) to simulate sex on the back of a horse to the point where she has a orgasm. The idea of turning a girl around 14/15 into a slut is just very wrong with me, and shouldn't be made into a subject of comedy. The jokes in the film fall flat, whether if it's a verbal gag like 'she goes all moist when she sees you' to a visual gag where Sebastian pushes Kathryn face first into mud.<br /><br />There is a lot wrong with this film, which I don't have time to go into, but I say it should be avoid. Just watch Cruel Intentions, whilst not a classic, still is a decent film and treats the subject matter well.<br /><br />This film is just a pervert's wet dream, having school-kids having lots of sex with each other. | 0neg
|
Garrett did a fine job recreating Gleason, including his voice -- although his one attempt at singing as Gleason missed the mark. As biopics go, this one was well shot, but loses points for it's chaotic structure (with far too many jarring flashbacks), key storyline omissions and factual errors. Among the omissions: Gleason's film work (all the way back to the '40s and on to the year before his death), his first TV sitcom ("The Life Of Riley" was a 1949-50 Emmy winner!) and what happened to him between 1956 (when the last non-interview scene supposedly takes place) and his death 30 years later (!). Among the goofs: the wrong cue music (his most-used TV theme was also a hit single for him in 1953, "Melancholy Serenade"; after introducing his variety shows, Jackie'd leave the stage to the strains of "That's A-Plenty", etc.) I was surprised to discover halfway through the film that he was still working the more-or-less small-time; too much screen time was devoted to his early years, which could have been greatly condensed. I also agree with another reviewer that the comedy monologues were uniformly terrible; one wonders why ANY of the audiences shown were laughing at all (except during the "Honeymooners" sequences). It's unfortunate that the producers chose to present Gleason in such a relentlessly negative light. Maybe their view was, "Hey, he's dead. He can't answer back and defend himself. He's from another era than we are so who cares? Let's just trash him." Gleason wouldn't have had the career he did is he was really so hopelessly bad and untalented. If he did have any redeeming qualities, the writers of this film chose to leave them out. | 0neg
|
Shep Ramsey is forced to land his ship in the suburbs, hilarity ensues. But yet this film is so much more. Brilliant execution and top-notch acting from Hogan and Christopher Lloyd are examples of what propel this film to the top of cinematic history. There is a sadness in Hogan's Ramsey; a feeling of alienation. This is perfectly exemplified in the scene where Ramsey must play an arcade game. He truly believe he is saving this virtual world, and he plays with such veracious intensity that he ends up forcing the machine to explode, causing us the audience to look on in empathy for this lost soul. A truly heart wrenching experience, and a masterpiece I shall never forget, this one haunts dreams folks. | 1pos
|
I enjoyed this movie tremendously, but then again I'm a big Theodore Roosevelt fan. The movie does nothing to damage his reputation and is minimal in its application of modern sensibilities. There's lots of action, which closely mimics the historical accounts I've read. Believe it or not, by all reports TR was much as he is portrayed. Good performances abound with Tom Berringer topping the list. <br /><br />I'll skip trying to tell you what was on these peoples mind when they went to war, however, TR had been de facto Secretary of the Navy and a politician for quite a while so I vote for less naivete than hinted at by another commentator. That said, true believers are reported to have been a far more common breed at the time. <br /><br />A good rent, but I wish it were available on DVD. Talk to Ted Turner about that. | 1pos
|
These 3 stories are each so brilliant and wonderful... each in its own way. They describe what it was like to be gay in a small town in Connecticut in the 1950's, the 1970's, and in the year 2000. We see the hopelessness of the lesbian of the 50's - forced to move to Greenwich Village, and the torment of the perfect student/athlete of the 70's, who is nearly killed by his classmates for being gay. The stories ring true, and I can attest to the validity of them, because many of the same things happened to me.<br /><br />The film includes many grand performances by a large number of our best actors and actresses, just as some of our best writers put the stories together. And it ends on a somewhat upbeat note. This film is a treat which should be required viewing in all schools and churches.<br /><br />Don't listen to the negative reviewers of this great film. They seem to be shocked by how DECENT the gay characters in this film are. Well, guess what? Most of us ARE exactly like that. Yes, there is a need for films showing the full spectrum of gay people, and there ARE. Look for them. But the Brittany Murphy character in this film's 50's segment lived a story almost identical to that of my aunt. I myself had an experience VERY similar to that of Jonathan Taylor-Thomas in the 70's story. And I KNOW people living the 3rd segment today. So don't tell me these stories are "unreal." They are DEAD ON real. And my thanks to all three playrights for giving them to us. | 1pos
|
Although the tagline of Attack The Gas Station (1999) is `Just when you wanted to laugh, here they come,' it might as well have been `Idle hands are the devil's playthings.' In ATGS, the third and most successful film from Korean director Sang-Jin Kim, four young Korean punks, well, attack a gas station obviously (twice, the same station both times), because they are bored. As they realize running the station for an evening might be more profitable than simply robbing it, they end up taking hostage the manager and employees as well as most of the customers. On the surface, ATGS is a black comedy with a great cast, but in the end is also a wonderful examination of group dynamics. The group is lead by Sung-jae Lee, who plays No Mark. He is the most conservative looking of the four, with short, military style hair, and relatively normal clothing. He is also one of the easiest ways to recommend this movie, as he totally dominates the screen whenever he is in it, to the point where it is completely believable that he intimidates two armed police officers in their squad car as he chases them down with a moped. Oh-seong Yu plays Bulldozer, who is in charge of the hostages and swaggers around menacing people with a hockey stick. He gets less screen-time than the other three, stuck as he is in a back room with his prisoners, but is always impressive as he is shown controlling the ever growing crowd. Seong-jin Kang, who plays Ddan Dda-ra (a failed musician) and Ji-tae Yu, who plays Paint (a failed painter who likes to create nudes, then throw paint across them and shout `I'm a genius!'), are fun to watch and are more punkish, but are overshadowed by both No Mark and Bulldozer. Even considering that, all four give outstanding performances and are consistently entertaining to watch. It is as they take more and more hostages that ATGS becomes really interesting. It just seems impossible that one man, Bulldozer, even armed with a big club, can control a group of twenty plus hostages. They even ask him about this. `What would you do if a group attacked you?' to which he replies [this is an approximation] `I would pick just one. I would ignore all of the others and just beat up that one guy, no matter what. It's happened to me once. Four guys attacked me. I sent one to the hospital. Me? A couple of bruises.' As he relates his story, the hostages shrink away from him. But the hostages are not controlled simply through intimidation. Bulldozer punishes them by making them do handstands. Ddan Dda-ra makes four rival gang members sing as he and his friends eat. No Mark forces the manager to fix a broken phone, but keeps smashing it after it's been fixed (after which he yells `Fix it!'). And of course, they get the hostages to control each other. They encourage the employees to browbeat the manager. Bulldozer instigates a fight between one of the employees, a heavyset high-school kid, and a gang member who's been bullying him. After the kid easily beats up the gangster, Bulldozer makes him his number two man, even leaving him in charge of the hostages as Bulldozer goes to eat with No Mark, Ddan Dda-ra and Paint. It is these group dynamics that are perhaps the most fascinating aspect of ATGS, as we watch No Mark and his gang utterly dictates situations that seem at first totally out of control. On a personal note, I'm very glad guns are almost totally non-existent in ATGS (only the cops have them). The movie leaves no doubt whatsoever that the gang are bad-asses. It shows them beating up groups twice their size. As mentioned, No Mark is able to push around two armed police officers. But it's a bad-assness based entirely on their personal abilities. They push people around because they can, not because some gun gives them that power. If No Mark and the others had used guns, it would have been the gun that was controlling the hostages, not them. Using guns would have made ATGS much more serious and disturbing, when it is mostly satirical and relatively light-hearted. The absence of guns lets us like No Mark, Bulldozer, Paint and Ddan Dda-ra, who are criminals, but not villains. Yes, they rob a gas station (twice) and beat up a bunch of people, but their threats mostly end with a mild pummeling. With a gun, the only alternative from shooting someone in a horrible but non-lethal manner is to kill them. Without that ever present threat of death, Attack the Gas Station can provoke a chuckle as these four young men get away with (metaphorically speaking) murder. | 1pos
|
Both an entertaining and a sincere movie. Jules Sitruk definitely did a very good job in here. The story had indeed some emotional involvements and was above the average. I liked the way Gerard Jugnot and Jules interacted with each other. Sometimes it was a bit oversubscribed and unrealistic - I'm thinking of the gorgeous sequence with the German soldier who had his knee dislocated - but nonetheless it didn't minimize the movie's natural charm. The historical background adds a significant amount of authenticity to the whole plot and grants the movie additional quality. Solid acting, entertaining experience. Recommended. | 1pos
|
This movie is a testament to the power of love. Orson Welles portrays a WWII vet who will not allow himself to ruin his wife's new life. As I watched the scene where he denies his true identity, I was awestruck by the sacrifice he made. The scene in which he met and spoke with his son was so touching!! This is an awesome must-see for Orson Welles fans. Also the casting of a young Richard Long and a very young Natalie Wood was a stroke of genius!! | 1pos
|
I was very disappointed in the story line of this film. The cast did an admirable job with an over-blown, far-fetched plot. Also, there are many discrepancies in the relationships between the characters. Obviously the writer and director were trying to confuse the audience by hiding the "true" identities of some of the characters. There is nothing wrong with that in this type of movie. However, doing so by having characters say and do things that openly contradict earlier scenes is not excusable. The performances of Connery, Zeta-Jones, and Rhames are very good considering what they had to work with as far as dialogue goes. As a gen-x male, I must applaud the appearance of Catherine Zeta-Jones. WOW!!!! It almost made everything else seem unimportant. | 0neg
|
...is Sean Bean. How did an actor of his caliber allow himself to get trapped in this mess? My God, this is bad! The writing is something out of an afternoon soapie (though even those shows have enough pride not to hand out this many clichés, usually). Most of the acting--except Bean, whose professionalism apparently extends even to trash like this--is almost comically lousy. The only name I recognize (other than Sean Bean) is Amanda Donahoe, whose performance is so cheap it makes her crappy work on "LA Law" look like an Academy Award winner. None of the other actors deliver anything more than dull-eyed recitations of their bad lines, which makes me wonder: Are these actors all this bad, really, or are they this bad only because the script sucks so completely? All I can say here is that if you're a Sean Bean completist, as I am, you'll want to watch this--and then check it off your list. Be shocked that he ever agreed to be connected to such dreck. If you're not a Bean freak--avoid, avoid, avoid, because minus Bean, this has absolutely NOTHING to recommend it. | 0neg
|
MAN I FELT LIKE I WASTED 2 HOURS OF MY LIFE AFTER WATCHING THIS PIECE OF CRAP!! This movie shouldn't even be called a movie, it shouldn't even be on IMDb. I mean this movie has no story, no structure, no characters, no message, no nothing. If I actually took my time to write a detailed review I'd probably end up hanging myself for wasting more time than I already did watching this ridiculous pile of steaming crap that was actually supposed to be a movie. If you plan on watching this movie make sure you schedule an appointment with a psychologist for some therapy cause this movie will depress you for giving it the time you have. They ought to take this movie and stick in the cam'ron's rear end. | 0neg
|
If somebody knows a hundred odd things about Italian cinema then it must be assumed that that person must surely have heard of Gianni Amelio.He is a great figure of Italian auteur cinema having made important films like Colpire al cuore,Il Ladro di bambini,Lamerica and Così ridevano.It is sad to state but a hard to digest truth is that "Le Chiavi di casa" is a film for which Gianni Amelio has failed miserably.There are elements in this film which have the potential to emotionally stir a viewer but they do not have any effect as they are presented in a disconnected manner.This is a film about a father and his troubled relationship with his invalid son but so many questions are left unanswered.It is not sure whether this film is favoring invalid children or is just showing fake sympathy.Casting for the film has not been done properly.There are times when "Le Chiavi di casa" appears as a pathetic euro pudding as it features an English actress Charlotte Rampling sharing screen space with an Italian actor Kim Rossi Stuart in Germany. | 0neg
|
I've only myself to blame.<br /><br />When a film boasts that it has a group of tourists getting high on funny mushrooms, resulting in them being "attacked by ghostly creatures, never sure whether they are experiencing gruesome reality or startling hallucinations", the chances are it will contain tourists getting high on funny mushrooms, resulting in them being attacked by ghostly creatures, never sure whether they are experiencing gruesome reality or startling hallucinations.<br /><br />And I am unlikely to really go for that.<br /><br />So what we have is some young people, who start out alright, but become more repugnant as the film goes, running around a swamp, screaming, swearing, getting more and more muddy, while bodies and leering faces jump out at them in entirely predictable ways, while the camera zooms around in that style that has become quite trendy in recent years. Admittedly, a story that involves hallucinations is as good as any to be filmed in such a way, but that doesn't make it any less annoying.<br /><br />The result is an incomprehensible mishmash; ugly (not so much because of gore, as there is surprisingly little, but the direction), dumb and, in the end, just dull. But I will give it one thing.<br /><br />It's the first time I've ever seen a horror film with a talking cow. | 0neg
|
Laughs galore and a disarming modernity punctuate this sophisticated screwball comedy. Grant is at his pinnacle. And Dunne tops him blow for blow. Surprisingly "liberated" for its day in many ways. D'Arcy, Cunningham, and Compton take turns nearly stealing the show, and Ralph Bellamy started patenting his career with this role. Marvellous fun. | 1pos
|
If i wasn't in the middle of a blizzard and had nothing else to do, Id demand the last 2 hrs of my life back.<br /><br />Since you people generally like reasons for why stuff was crap: No plot line, pseudo-self discovery in what was supposed to be a romantic comedy, the self-discovery fell on its face hard, and in one scene stacy and barb start dancing around a room for NO reason. This was BAD. I wouldn't have finished it but i always see a movie through to its (in the case) incredibly craptacular end.<br /><br />What I'm guessing was the point of the movie: Buy a palm and get Carly Simon cds. | 0neg
|
Yet another movie aimed at the 'not for everyone' crowd, This simply fantastic movie about a clown who tries to survive as a tenant in a cannibalistic butcher shop has 'Jeunet et Caro' written all over it. The visuals are awe-inspiring, and the film is contains with numerous scenes where sound and visuals combine to give the viewer a gritty feeling of rhythm within the movie. Beautifully choreographed and staged, well-written, and exciting. Pardon the irrationality of this review, but I get excited even when writing of it. Go see. | 1pos
|
Yawn.<br /><br />This is yet another painfully boring movie that tries to get by on soft-core pornography and (oh so shocking!) S&M themes to keep the viewer interested. Imagine the worst episode of "Red Shoe Diaries," I mean the absolute worst, with black actors. This movie is worse. Another viewer cleverly equated this to "Eyes Wide Shut." The is much similarity, although the dismal, slow-moving EWS is FAR more interesting than this turkey.<br /><br />The dialog was probably written in less time than the movie spans. Seriously.<br /><br />Actual porn movies have better scripts and less wooden acting. <br /><br />I gave it a "2," only because the opening sequence was pretty well done.<br /><br />Avoid this one like the plague. | 0neg
|
If you want to experience a fantasy world of mythical beasts and far-off lands there are several choices. Firstly you can dream it. Secondly you can read it. or thirdly you can see a movie about it, where all the imagination work is done for you with visual effects and camera work. So why on earth are there movies made which still require us to use imagination to make the images seem real, or even watchable??<br /><br />I have no problem with the "B" or even "C" movie genre. Some old and very respectable movies are made using plasticine model monsters, and superimposed close-ups of real insects... not a crime, nor a problem. But in this film, even those tried and tested, basic techniques are done badly. Although, hang on, was that a cameo by the "Asteroid-millenium falcon eating-monster" from "The Empire Strikes Back"?? No, surely not!<br /><br />I sometimes wonder how and why films like this ever get made. I mean, someone has to have an idea at some point, and the "story" grows from there, right? I couldn't even piece a story together out of this, the final product. So how on earth did anyone first answer the question "So, what's this film going to be about?" Initially titled "The Dark Castle" I believe... then had a name change to entice an entirely different audience. The added female voice-over at the start belies this attempt at trickery... in fact, I'm not sure that one couldn't take this film and it's packaging to the advertising standards commission, and hold the company liable for every copy sold under these false pretences.<br /><br />I rated this film "2", and justify the rating thus... one point for creative use of the poem "Jabberwocky". And one point for all the laughs I got from everything in this film! And I wasn't laughing at the funny bits I assure you! So rather than try to explain what this film is... how about a little about what it isn't. It's not a parody or a spoof, this limp lettuce of a production is somebody's actual attempt to make a movie. It's not a horror... believe me, "comedy of effort" would be a better genre! And it most certainly isn't any kind of soft-core porn either... don't let that name-change fool you! All in all, shockingly bad and pointless stuff. Not for horror, fantasy, sci-fi, B-movie, c-movie, or even any-movie fans at all.<br /><br />Ever. | 0neg
|
The story starts off at the Battle of Dunkerque as a German Unit infiltrates British lines and joins the evacuation to England for the purpose of conducting covert operations. As the Battle of Britain commences the Germans focus on disabling the new British Radar stations.<br /><br />As an old Italian movie it was filmed without sound and voice-overs were added later just like a Spaghetti Western. Filmed as a wide-screen movie the pan and scan job to fit a TV screen is poorly done. But that is not the worst of it. There are several split screen periods in the movie with up to four different pictures at once and to refit for a 4:3 aspect ratio the editors just cut out the edges of the film, essentially cutting some of the multiple views in half. Very sloppy.<br /><br />The acting and directing is dull if serviceable but the script and editing (not just the editing for TV) is weak. The casting deserves special mention as laughable. I like Van Johnson, but a British Air Marshall? And the very Mediterranean looking Germans are a hoot!<br /><br />For World War Two history buffs you may enjoy the scenes of the beaches of Dunkerque as I can't recall ever seeing it represented in a movie before. Unfortunately, the scenes of the air battles later in the movie will make you cringe.<br /><br />This movie may have some curiosity value for those of us who love war movies but others will probably be disappointed. I gave it 4 out of 10.<br /><br />Bob | 0neg
|
Formulaic, lightweight comedy<br /><br />-- so lightweight it almost floats off into thin air -- about an insecure chick (pop-eyed, pencil-thin Brittany Murphy) who sneaks a peek in her boyfriend's (somber Ron Livingston) Palm and definitely doesn't like what she finds there. Before she is done, she has managed to corral three of his former gal pals and they along with the boyfriend appear as unwitting guests on a Sally Jesse Raphael (Kathy Bates) -type TV talk show<br /><br />where much dirty laundry is exposed, thanks to the machinations of an evil show producer (steely-jawed Holly Hunter). It's a paycheck, I suppose, but what in the hell<br /><br />is Oscar winner Kathy Bates doing in 'tween' crap like this? | 0neg
|
For producers and screenwriters, trying to make a historically accurate film, especially one dealing with a faraway and complex period, is a thankless and often pointless task. History, having no clear beginning and no clear end, is almost impossible to squeeze into the conventional story structures demanded of cinema-going audiences - at least as they are perceived by film financiers. And the result is always a mass of over-simplifications, compressions, chronological mayhem and mis-characterization. Even if the end result is a good story, which in this case it sadly is not, the value of the piece as 'history' is as good as useless. This is the case with 'To Kill a King'. As an aide to history it is without value, because the events and conflicts it portrays were almost certainly nothing like the film-makers would have us believe. And as pure entertainment it's unpardonably slow. It gets ties up in arcane issues that we have no special reason to be concerned about any more, and rarely flames into life. Some of the performances are lively (Everett as King Charles is the high point), but most are one-dimensional, include that of both Fairfaxes (Dougray Scott and Olivia Williams). Overall, unless Civil War costumes fascinate you, this film offers little return on the cost of a cinema ticket. | 0neg
|
The Enterprise is somehow knocked back in time and the ship becomes visible to the folks in the US Air Force. Not wanting to mess up the future, they try to get out of there fast--but not until they accidentally take a pilot prisoner. At first, they don't think this is any big deal (Huh? It sure seemed like one). Then a bit later Spock informs the Captain that the pilot's son plays an important part in space travel history so they MUST return the pilot ASAP--especially since at this point, the pilot hasn't yet sired any kids. So, they realize they must erase the pilot's mind and steal the records of their being spotted (boy, this seemed really easy) so that time would not be affected.<br /><br />This is a decent episode but also one that is easily forgotten. Despite having seen the episode many times, it just never seems to stand out in my mind--sort of like eating white bread. Sure, it's filling but not all that memorable. | 0neg
|
It was surprising, at least after all the media attention in Latin circles it received, to come out of this movie as if I had just lost 2 hours of my time. If anything after having seen Mexican and Colombian cinema and being familiarized with the themes they depict, "Paraiso" doesn't seem to know where it wants to go and what subjects it really wants us to familiarize ourselves with. The theme of illegal immigration, a hot topic these days, has received plenty of attention from many media outlets, even film. Pick any Mexican or Colombian film from the last decade and the idea of an "Better American hope of life", is soon to be found, however, "Paraiso" fails at showing us what really motivates these characters or what lies behind their intentions. Possibly, poor acting has something to do with that, hiring non-actors from some of these roles was a huge mistake by Mr. Brand, who could learn plenty from his Mexican and Spanish counterparts, he lacks the experience to be able to take a mediocre script and really bring a believable and manageable story within the confines of the Spanish language. Hopefully Latin-American cinema has a little more to offer than this. | 0neg
|
I was stumped at the video store - had basically narrowed the DVD search down to 2 - Sphere (yeah, I know..) and Savior, this interesting looking title on the bottom shelf.<br /><br />Thank goodness I chose this one.<br /><br />What a brilliant, gut-wrenching, agonising movie...<br /><br />Other comments have said it was a low budget job, but the DVD version I just saw didn't even make you think about the mechanics of the movie - just the characters and events that this film portrayed.<br /><br />The cinematics - beautiful scenery etc (to show that man really has no sense at all - he can be surrounded by some of the most amazingly beautiful surroundings and still turn the place to hell) and sound (the gunshots / ambient stuff etc were very well done) were all spot on..<br /><br />For the actual plot, the other comments posted are a lot more lucid than mine, so I won't bother trying to explain the premise of this flick.<br /><br />I really don't know what else to say - some of the scenes containing brutality were brilliant (in a really horrible way) - none of the usual hollywood (tm) bad guy finally gets it in the end type stuff - cliche - it really just showed how pointless these kinds of conflicts are. cliche<br /><br />Oh man - this film is going to stick with me for quite some time. And I kind of wish it didn't. I was after a throw away movie (should have rented sphere) and instead got this thing that I just cannot stop thinking about.<br /><br />Dennis Quaid was amazing in it, and the rest of the cast were excellent, too.<br /><br />And yes, I cryed like baby Vera..<br /><br />PS: I actually registered just so I could vote & comment on this movie..<br /><br /> | 1pos
|
"xXx2: The Next Level" (Revolution Studios and Columbia Pictures changed the subtitle from "State of the Union" for international territories, for obvious reasons) comes from the director of "Die Another Day," which was terrible; producer Neal H. Moritz, whose last credited project was the dire (and thankfully now-cancelled) "Point Pleasant"; is a sequel to the dreadful "xXx"; and comes equipped with Samuel L. Jackson's stated dislike of making movies with rappers. On this showing, you can't blame him.<br /><br />Trading in Vin Diesel (his character is written out by someone saying that he got killed in Bora Bora) for Ice Cube is no improvement; not only is he not the most expressive actor, but he's not that convincing in action (when he's being chased by Scott Speedman you just KNOW that Speedman would catch him like that (snaps fingers) in real life). In fairness to Mr. Cube, he's far from the only thing wrong with this; Simon Kinberg's screenplay seems not only to have been aimed at emotionally and intellectually stunted 13-year-olds but written by them as well, with the plot starting idiotically and continuing from there - the villainous Secretary of Defence played by Willem Dafoe is so pantomime villainous that when he makes a speech to Jackson you're surprised he doesn't laugh maniacally.<br /><br />Suspending disbelief is one thing, but when you have a movie that expects people to believe that tanks can be handled like motorbikes... and which works in such daft plot turns as characters having their deaths faked just so they can be around for the climax (why not just kill them there?)... and that has a finale which depends on a car and a Presidential bullet train being able to fit on the same track despite the car being a compact if speedy sports car... in this case it's just impossible. Admittedly it doesn't help that said scenes are incompetently executed thanks to shockingly bad special effects and shoddy direction; some of the miniatures are glaringly obvious, and I particularly hope that lead effects house Industrial Light and Magic didn't do the CGI bullet train shots. And as for the way some of the shots go from film to what looks like video and back again...<br /><br />The cast isn't much good either, although it's fun to see Peter Strauss as the President (in spite or because of his not sounding like he believes a word of this); Xzibit not only helps parts of this seem like "Pimp My Ride: The Movie" but he can't act, Dafoe is Special Guest Villain level, and Jackson phones it in. As for the female characters, Nona Gaye and Sunny Mabrey are pretty much defined by their cleavage and by the fact that one's good and the other (the one who looks like a cross between Nicolette Sheridan and Rachel Bilson) isn't. (The movie can't even be laddish properly; for some reason the sexiest woman in the movie (Masuimi Max, who plays Xzibit's girlfriend and who helps out with the robbery of the artillery-carrying cheese truck) isn't listed in the credits.) And the tiresome, crowbarred-in rap numbers don't help, certainly not compared to Marco Beltrami's score. (Ironically, at one point on hearing the female string quartet Bond our hero complains about the music; they are not to blame for the aural wrongs.)<br /><br />"xXx2: Whatever" is so unexciting and so absurd that despite its stabs at relevance (our hero claims Dafoe is hatching "World War IV"), the only way to get through it is as a laugher; the sight of Ice Cube in a suit and tie (with umbrella!) is funnier than his intentional attempt at comedy later in the same scene. To make it worse, the last scene leaves the door wide open for a third movie... if it does happen, why not cast Scarlett Johansson or Charlotte Church as the new Triple X? It's not like realism is a key factor here. | 0neg
|
There is a reason why Bert I. Gordon's American-International cheapies were paid more lip service than the works of Ed Wood on the now-defunct Satellite of Love: the man carries the dishonorable title of being one of the most inept directors of low-budget schlock. But whereas stuff like "The Amazing Colossal Man" (a man turned giant by atomic testing) and "Beginning of the End" (Peter Graves vs. giant grasshoppers) had a certain charm reflective of the 1950s' "high- concept/low-budget" brand of sci-fi, "Empire of the Ants" is a bottom-feeder from start to finish, trying desperately to capture the low-grade magic of a bygone era. The only real merit of "Ants" is its nostalgia value--yes, I would watch this as a child and be utterly terrified of those bloodthirsty, radiation-grown buggers; years later, the puppet heads being shaken off-camera are less than impressive (as is Gordon's excessively shaking camera during the attack scenes), as is the stock footage blown up to make the ants tower over our human protagonists. The exposition scenes are painfully awkward, the dialog mostly atrocious, and the performances reflect this (with dismal results). The film is padded out with nonsensical clichés (the old couple who wanders off for no reason; the girl who sprains her ankle; another who gets snagged on a branch) and incredible lapses in logic (why can't our zeroes see or hear a cluster of ants that are mere feet away?), which culminates in a third act that apparently tries to wax philosophical in the vein of H.G. Wells' original story (which I haven't read) but falls flat on its face. "Empire of the Ants" is an interesting epitaph for a genre that has long since passed, but its best possible fate will probably be drunken viewing at your next house party. | 0neg
|
Two or even three movies for the price of one! The first is a travelog that was shot somewhere south of the US border. There are some excellent scenes of local fishermen and the culture of ordinary folks. Rumor has it that these are from Orsen Wells circa 1942. The second movie is unabashed marketing for tourism in Mexico - the last shot is of a tourist poster that melts into a plane flying to or from our neighbor to the south. The third movie is a lackluster mystery of sorts with Tom Lawrence at his worst. It is not that all of his Falcon movies are terrible, some are decent. The Falcon in Mexico is not one of his stellar performances and not really worth your time viewing. Half an hour after the movie, you won't rember who did it or care. Costume design by Renié. | 0neg
|
First of all, the battle of Poltava is very far from the center of this movie, so the international title is very misleading. Second, the story sucked. Big-time. Two french noble mens, one on the Russian side and one on the Swedish side, just for them to meet and settle at the end? Ridiculous.<br /><br />All the foreign characters are played by Russian actors, and the foreign language is done by voice over, which is done really bad by the way.<br /><br />The clothing is historical incorrect, with the officers on both sides looking like the Napoleonic offers during Waterloo. I guess Oleg Ryaskov got some inspiration from Sergei Bondarchuk's Waterloo. Except there is more than 100 years apart from these two battles. And for example, the Swedish attack wasn't lead by Karl XII (because he was wounded and couldn't lead Sweden in battle), it was lead by Carl Gustaf Rehnskiöld. I could go on and on about historical incorrectness.<br /><br />The sound effects are the same throughout the movie. There is this exact same sound every time someone stabs another, and the guns all sound the same.<br /><br />This is not a movie worth watching in my opinion. | 0neg
|
Yasuhara Hasebe's violent Nikkatsu pinker Assault! Jack The Ripper is a sleaze classic that's about as rough as you're gonna find 'em--and it's easily better than the XXX Forced Entry and its ilk. At different turns, it dips into humor, eroticism, sadistic violence, misogyny, and drama and it plays out perfectly.<br /><br />What we got here is the story of a cake decorator and a waitress who work together and kill women to get off. The twist on this one is that the oversexed gal is the one who encourages the limp-dicked guy's spree of pastry-knife-in-vagina stabbings after an accidental killing gets him excited enough in the sack to please her. Great play between characters and straight up smuttyness make Assault! a real winner.<br /><br />Assault! Jack The Ripper is a new favorite of mine. Not as graphic in the vag-stabbing department as I would've liked but God bless the Nipponese and Hasebe in particular for consistently bringing the best sleazy rape films to the table. You already know if you need to see this one--9.5/10. | 1pos
|
If you're like me, and you're tired of seeing the same old crap come out of Hollywood year after year, add this movie to your watch list. 'Gun Shy' is a witty, off-beat comedy with an all-star cast. Liam Neeson stars as a nervous undercover DEA agent that must bring an old world mafia thug, Oliver Platt, and Columbian drug kingpins together in a multi-million dollar sting operation. At the same time, Neeson must also deal with an increasingly volatile digestive system and a horrifying fear of being found out. Produced by co-star Sandra Bullock. WARNING: Dumb people may find this movie boring or confusing. | 1pos
|
As many of the other reviewers have stated, this movie presents to us a character with dreams of creating a "good life" for himself, who ends up falling into the prison system. Q-Tip and Darnell Martin do a great job in developing a script that embodies a trueness to the characters, which I am sure that the cast helped expand on. The silent moments of the film present the best moments (especially the last minutes where his works are displayed).<br /><br />The movie takes ideas from many other prison films, however I have never seen a film present anything about asbestos and prisoners having to work in these conditions. After watching the DVD, I only wish that commentary were added and interviews at least with the director and writers. Worth a watch (or two). 8/10 | 1pos
|
This movie is powerful on many levels...the character development, the plot, the acting, the special effects, the scenery, the music...it is uplifting and "on the edge of your seat" exciting....you are not just watching this movie..you are involved in it because you are carried away by the story...you are so affected by the plot and the compassion that you feel for the characters...I was especially touched by the development of the friendship between the two boys and the influence of the grandfather and the uncle in this story....and the truth revealed that good things can come from life experiences that, at the time, seem too challenging for words! ...wholesome, funny, thrilling, and touching....you can cry and you can laugh with the audience...finally, a movie for the entire family to watch and enjoy together!! | 1pos
|
This film exemplified the acting talents of Amitabh Bacchan. As he's aged his roles have been more of a dramatic nature and I think that this role in particular shows his talent and skill as a cinematic artist. Kareena Kapoor was another highlight. She looked beautiful in her plain clothing and makeup, a nice change indeed. Amir Khan doesn't seem to be as emotionally engaging with the audience and the limited scenes with Jaya Bacchan is just disappointing. She lights up the scene when she is in the room, and there just isn't enough of her to make a completely believable character. The musical numbers seem gratuitous and out of place in this dramatic context and it would have worked better had they been removed completely. This is still a very good film exploring ethic conflict in India post-partition, but just does not have the strength and impact of Bombay (1995). | 1pos
|
This movie made me think, laugh, cry and most of all smile. Newcomers, Ali Hillis and Drew Fuller, did a magnificent job in the role of Alexia and Jason. I hope to see them both in more leading roles in the near future. Abigail B. is just brilliant. I love that child! Hats off to the entire cast. They were all perfect in their given roles. I know the film is based on a Christian novel, and being a Christian, I was glad to see a film of this caliber make it to the big screen. The message is clear, simple and one that we can all learn from...believer or not. Thanks to everyone involved in getting this film to the big screen. It was truly a touching and inspirational movie. | 1pos
|