text
stringlengths 98
6.42k
| label
class label 2
classes |
|---|---|
This Desperate Hours-type robbery/hostage number is D'Amato's spin on the Roughie genre a crime and sex related genre piece with more than its fair share of gratuitous sexualised violence. Yet D'Amato's tale also stands as a critique of the kind of male fantasizing behind this kind of sex movie, always keeping itself self-conscious that this is some male inadequate's masturbation material.<br /><br />A couple of two-bit hoods rob a convenience store on the eponymous 7th Avenue but, as with Charley Varrick's plunder, the loot turns out to be mob owned, and the felons find themselves on the run from a local gang Boss. They hide out in a nearby sex shop, and kidnap the proprietess, who happens to be the Boss' lady. In the sex shop, one of the goons a total creep named Bob takes a peek into a hand-held cine-viewer, salivating at a What the Butler Saw-type sexual performance by two ropey models. The rest of the film might be taken as the events which would ensue were they to be aimed at the men who shop at the 7th Street pleasure shop
The goons and the proprietess plus a black con crony of the men drive to the woman's country home, where a trio of students are enjoying a vacation romp. The students are held hostage and subjected to an amount of sexual exploitation and humiliation at the hands of the goons, but by the end of their forced sojourn together, the women have paired off with the men and some satisfactory coupling has taken place. This strand of the story reaches its fulfilment in the coupling of the black man, who has taken a great deal of racist abuse from his companions, with a virgin student who has spent the bulk of her screen time masturbating over the sexual shenanigans of others. He turns out to be a thoughtful lover, introducing the nervous girl to the delights of cunnilingus and she reciprocates by giving him a handjob, as he is concerned with keeping her hymen intact! This positive view of sexual sharing is rewarded as it takes him out of the house when the mob catch up with them, giving him the opportunity to sneak back into the house, overpower the mobsters and make his escape with his buddies. The students are also rewarded by ending up with the stolen loot, just like the paid sex performers in a porn film are rewarded by their bags of (also probably mob) cash
D'Amato arranges a psychologically suspect but nevertheless adept plot of sexual partnering whilst continually re-enforcing the idea that the sexual scenes are just that, sexual scene in a movie. The virgin is often seen touching herself at the sight of other couplings, yet even here the viewer is struck (unless he's an idiot, like the goons) with the knowledge that a woman masturbating over sex could be merely a male sexual fantasy (which is not to say women don't masturbate about the most un-PC scenarios, but the occasions it happens in this film remain self-consciously self-serving). It is no mistake that the virgin's sexual release in orgasm by cunnilingus is accompanied by a montage of scenes that she'd/we'd previously witnessed. It was often a plot device of 70s porn to see a woman inducted into sexual enjoyment within the story, but few directors made as much effort as D'Amato to show that the woman is a character in a male sexual fantasy. To back this up, we see the first man she saw having sex, the student Frank, reflected endlessly in a mirrored bathroom after his bout with his insatiable companion, the sexually voracious student Sue.<br /><br />D'Amato's Pleasure Shop on 7th Avenue is an existential place in which fantasies can be enacted for and by the lonely men who walk the New York sidewalks. Some of the music score is eerily reminiscent of Herrmann's music for Taxi Driver, and the end credits show the movie houses and porno shops of Times Square, the market for the fantasies which D'Amato so self-consciously films in and for that Pleasure/Porno House on 7th Avenue. | 1pos
|
No, not just POSSIBLY one of the worst...it IS the worst film of all time. A real stinker. The director ought to be taken out and shot. If you ever get the urge to rent this piece of garbage--if you can even find it anywhere--do yourself a favor and rent something far more watchable, like "Plan 9 From Outer Space." | 0neg
|
"A man is only as faithful as his options." --Anonymous (or maybe Gene Simmons).<br /><br />Men, when you're dragged by your fem-boss like the vagina-whipped pussy you've become, to see GHOSTS OF GIRLFRIENDS PAST, at least take solace in the film's educative axioms during its first act.<br /><br />"The power of a relationship lies with whoever cares less." "It's your feelings for her that are killing your game." "...marriage is an archaic and oppressive institution that should have been abolished years ago..." Of course, these truisms are regarded as misogynistic pap within the context of this pea-brained excuse for a romantic comedy (that men will say they enjoy in order to part a woman's thighs); societal truths that women refuse to believe men believe.<br /><br />Even if one were to regard romantic "love" as true, this movie itself - and all its characters - hypocritically denounce everything they claim to believe in at every turn with their unthinking, irrational, contradictory actions.<br /><br />Professional Philanderer Connor Mead (Matthew McConaughey) and Jenny Perotti (Jennifer Garner) are the couple just waiting to be paired. Director Mark Waters and writers Jon Lucas and Scott Moore make no bones about ripping off Dickens's A Christmas Carol as the movie's plot: a spectral playboy uncle (Michael Douglas) appears to arrogant bachelor Connor to warn him of three ghosts who will visit him to show him the "error" of his skirt-chasing ways.<br /><br />These apparitions appear to Connor at his brother's wedding rehearsal weekend, where Connor is busy getting drunk and going Larry David by telling it like it is: "...love is magical comfort food for the weak and uneducated; makes you feel all warm and relevant but in the end, love leaves you weak, dependent - and fat." Playing Connor's brother Paul with no conviction is Breckin Meyer (so beige his name shouldn't have capital letters), who is marrying a wildly retarded woman (Lacey Chabert) who looks like Jennifer Love-Hewitt without the talent, in other words, exactly like Jennifer Love-Hewitt.<br /><br />Michael Douglas's ghost is hilarious when he's telling truths about staying powerful in relationships, but it's all for naught, as he is stuck in a Chick Flick that will ultimately emasculate him and make him confess that philandering will leave you lonely. Never once considering that marrying a shrike whom you will eventually lose interest in will also leave you lonely.<br /><br />Connor tells his brother: "You're going to be miserable without her" - again, never once considering that he could very well be miserable WITH her.<br /><br />If you think I'm belaboring this point, it is nothing compared to how the film pounds home its dangerously skewed idiot girlie message about absolute states, again and again. And again. And again. And again.<br /><br />Never once considering the reality that you CAN be joyful within a marriage. AND joyful without.<br /><br />Connor, who is a famous avant-garde photographer of women, is shown his girlyman dates with Jenny; his search for true love supposedly at an end and him not taking the opportunity to "settle down." But if he had settled down at that point, his success would have faltered, for it was the fire in his bachelorhood that gained him the financial and critical success.<br /><br />None of this is taken into account because - Women Be Dreamkillers. It makes no difference how HIS career path might have derailed - as long as SHE be happy.<br /><br />He tells her she's gorgeous - but she's Jennifer Garner. Should those lips really go with those cheekbones - or was there a mistake at the clinic? Jenny insists Connor "woo her," which he does, playing foosball and eating ice cream together and generally becoming female in order to pretend he doesn't want to bed her - until Jenny, like all women, deludes herself that he "isn't like other guys" and invites him to bed with a clear deluded conscience.<br /><br />Then - after all her yammering about "taking it slow," she forces him to spend the night. Let me get this straight: HE has no say in the matter.<br /><br />The future fem-ghost, all sinister in flowing white robes and mute, shows Connor Jenny's wedding - to someone else.<br /><br />During this "future wedding" scene, Jenny looks back at the church door regretfully, as if Connor might appear to halt the proceedings. So... women get married because someone - anyone - ASKS them to, not because they really love the person. Never once is it considered what a shallow, time-serving person Jenny is for allowing a man to think she is "in love" with him, yet hoping - longing - to be rescued from his embrace by someone whom she believes she loves more.<br /><br />So after hammering home the idiocy that marriage will keep you from misery, the movie shows us explicitly how a marriage can BE misery (for HER as she pines for her "True Love"; for HIM as he never gets through to her completely), yet it never recants from its demonstrably incorrect platitude. Demonstrated incorrect by ITSELF! GHOSTS OF GIRLFRIENDS PAST is another in a long line of tiresome films where females prove conclusively they don't know WHAT they want. If a man has Game, he must be denigrated as an amoral, emotionless philanderer; if he doesn't have game, he is a dweeb, like Breckin Meyer or his coterie of groomsmen even more pathetic than himself.<br /><br />And the grandest irony is that, like all powerful men, Matthew McConaughey actually leads the profligate lifestyle portrayed in GHOSTS OF GIRLFRIENDS PAST. At certain times he may choose to settle for awhile on one favorite, at times he may be married - but - there isn't a woman in the audience who wouldn't gladly destroy any McConaughey relationship for a lick of that v-shaped man-chest and a night of that southern drawl.<br /><br />Michael Douglas was right all along...<br /><br />--Review by Poffy The Cucumber (for Poffy's Movie Mania). | 0neg
|
"Riddick" has got to be the worst science fiction film I've seen in a long time, at least since Travolta's "Battlefield Earth". From the frankly pretentious introduction from writer/director David Twohy, all the way thru to the mind-numbing finale, all you get is a parade of great eye candy used in the service of a muddled and incoherent story. Riddick, who was just a simple convict in "Pitch Black", is now transformed into something called a Furyan, some sort of super warrior race that was wiped out by the other races or by the big bad Necromongers (what a stupid name!) - after seeing it twice, I still can't figure that one out. It's the same ridiculous "twist" that Stephen Sommers used in "The Mummy Returns" with Brendan Fraser's character; it didn't work then and it sure doesn't work here, either. You also get Judy Dench ("M" from the Pierce Brosnan Bond movies) as something called an air elemental who can turn into some sort of foggy stuff and can glide (but not fly!) but who has really nothing at all to do with the story. The main villains, a religious sect called the Necromongers, are pitched to us as the supreme evil in the universe, a force that will destroy all human life wherever it's found (which makes you wonder why they have wives). Problem is, they seem to be more interested in a pedestrian and boring power struggle for their throne than in carrying out their "holy mission". The movie drops you right into the middle of this mess - I suppose that it was meant to be an intriguing way to start the movie but after the first 30 minutes you'll still be scratching your head trying to figure what the heck's going on. If you haven't seen "Pitch Black", then you won't understand a good half of the movie anyway.<br /><br />But the real problem with this thing is the utter and unrelenting darkness of the whole thing - all the characters that exhibit any kind of humanity are killed, leaving us only with the cardboard villains or the cardboard "hero" who mouth insipid and repellent lines like "you keep what you kill" which, from the last shot, appears to be some sort of moral Twohy is trying to teach us. There's never any real suspense or sense that Riddick is in danger - he's just an indestructible cypher who you know will win the big showdown against the Evil Leader in the end. To make it even worse, this is a "director's cut" which in this case means that you get a movie that is even more boring than the theatrical release. A waste of money to make, and a waste of money to watch. | 0neg
|
I love the original Class.... and also love the original Toxic Avenger. It's a fine line, but but they crossed it and went to cheesy and annoying. The lead is VERY annoying as is most of this movie. The Toxie sequels are kind of on the same lines as this...but back on track now with Toxie 4. I wish they'd do a sequel to Class like they did with Toxie 4 and disregard the crap fest sequels. Again there's a fine line between cheesy fun and annoying crap. This is annoying crap. Lloyd hit the mark again with Toxie 4, and I wish he'd do Class the same justice!! He can do it, I have faith! The second and third of this series are no fun stinkers. There's all the stapled of great exploitation here, but it's just not fun. Lloyd please make this right!!! | 0neg
|
While I don't agree with those reviewers who claim that "Pod People" is the worst movie of all time - these viewers have obviously never seen "Teenagers Battle The Thing" - it is, indeed, a very painful viewing experience. It's got brain-dead characters uttering highly contrived and unlikely dialog and acting with the finesse of sock puppets. (It's also got an English dub created with a tin ear and ESL voice actors reading their lines from cue cards for the first time). It's got fuzzy, washed out sepia tinted photography that resists any attempt by the viewers' eyes to pull pleasure and satisfaction out of the film stock. (It's possible I just saw a bad print of the movie, but even so.) It's got a highly derivative plot that is derivative in all the wrong ways - what's the point of ripping off E.T. if all you do with it is create a "spam in the cabin" type horror movie??<br /><br />It also gets off to a rousing start by subjecting us to a full length performance of the worst version of an 80's pop song ever heard by human ears. Seriously, as if the movie didn't have enough problems with pacing and atmosphere and dialog and characterization, it also alienates us by subjecting us to a supposed "studio session" where the pop star sings a would be song about driving a car with some of the most maladroit lyrics you will ever hear. (FYI, Mr. Pop Star, you don't want feel the wind in your EYES, you want feel it in your hair or your face. If you feel it in your EYES, you are effectively blinded and will soon crash your car.) The character comes off as an abrasive, self-important jerk, and his cronies and cohorts seem to have been drained of all intelligence, humor, self-awareness or even basic motor functions. <br /><br />I have to say that I liked the little boy. In spite of the high-pitched feminine voice they dubbed over his part, he seemed genuinely alive with the enthusiasm and magic of childhood, which is a miracle given the situations he was probably working in. The cast and crew probably loved him to death, and he was probably as the only person in the film who wasn't aware that he was sinking into a pile of suck. The kid's performance, even buried under a painfully affected dub, adds a star to the rating.<br /><br />Also of interest is a synthesizer-heavy soundtrack with very "New Age music" elements that both adds to and takes from the movie's watchability. It's got some nice hypnotic "drone" and "trance" elements, but there is far too much of it and it's mixed waaaay too loud at times. It adds another star to the ratings. Well, half a star, but it would have been a full star if the composer had cut it in about half and turned the volume dial down to "10". <br /><br />As far the rest...I'm pretty sure the director just pointed the camera at the actors and let them roll. It doesn't look like a film with very many second takes or screenplay rewrites, and the poor actors (who come off as European community theater players at best) are left to struggle with the script as best they can. And as I mentioned, the horrible English dub robs their performances of even the limited nuance and dignity they may have contributed to the film in the first place. <br /><br />Boy, what a *painful* film. I recommend saving it for times when you feel bad about yourself and your career and prospects. Watching "Pod People" for even a few minutes will put things in perspective: "I may have made some dumb mistakes", you can tell yourself, "but at least I never had anything to to with 'Pod People!'" | 0neg
|
Yes. I have been able to watch this. I won't tell you how, but I have. Its a deep subject really - collecting dammed souls (Which I thought I might be watching another version of Ghost Rider, or something.) However, this show was light and humorous.<br /><br />It is a show that reminds me of one that used to be made here in England, way back in the 1960's - "Randle and Hopkirk Deceased". Anyone remember that show?????<br /><br />This show has great humour between its characters, and the plot/s of the shows are unique and light in a dark way.<br /><br />I like the way that they show is based within a Diy type store (The Workbench), giving it that "Down to Earth" feel about it...I love the way that the boss is always on to the 3 x slackers. Also making it realistic as well.<br /><br />I also love the fact that all his friends want to help him (Sock and Ben), and do so.- when ever the boss (*The devil contacts - SAM)<br /><br />He (SAM) has a love interest as well, who is incredible beautiful.(Andy). He likes her, she likes him, and yest not one of them have gone any further about it; and I also love the love/hate relationship between Sock and his old girlfriend - Josie. I would love these two feature in every episode, and maybe one day get back together. There are great in any episode they are in...<br /><br />I love the actor who plays the DEVIL (Ray Wise). Good quips, good lines, nice tan...He is smooth, and Ray Wise plays his part well.<br /><br />I still think the show mustn't get rid of the parents of these slackers. THey must be shown from time to time. To give the show reality as well. Remember, one of the quips is that they are all (*Or most of them - still at Home)<br /><br />Maybe a future episode can be written whereby all 3 of them leave Home and get a flat between themselves (Sam, Ben and Sock) eventually.<br /><br />And maybe a visit from the Other side (God) within this show would make it more interesting as well. Just to show that the devil doesn't and will not get it his own way all the time.<br /><br />I really do think that we have another hit show in the making here. It got that feel Quantuam Leap feel about it. You know what I mean?<br /><br />I hope the writers of Reaper read these comments..... | 1pos
|
There is so much tragedy that takes place in the world involving the military and others involved in physical conflict, yet it is rare that a soldier comes forward to tell the truth. In Shake Hands with the Devil: The Journey of Roméo Dallaire, we are lucky to have not just a soldier, but a leader who took so much responsibility for the Rwandan genocide onto himself explaining through word and deed what happened there, and its meaning. This is a wonderful documentary, and a moving story about an honest man's quest to understand the difficulty and horror he experienced. It is impossible not to be emotionally moved by Dallaire's story, and the well-crafted way in which it is told. | 1pos
|
Don't really know where to start with one of the worst films I have had the displeasure to watch in a very long time. From the setting which was quite obviously and very clear to anyone who has visited London for even 1 day will agree...was not London. To the much unexplained way how Snipe's character managed to escape the country back to the US without a single problem. Then he convinces the girl and grandmother to visit him in America, how on earth did Grandma agree to that...he's an assassin! Well that's the ending how about during the film, well unfortunately that didn't fare much better. We have British cops driving an amazing range of cars, I'm sure it was an eighties Vauxhall Belmont which chased the taxi after the assignation, but a modern Subaru Imprezza escorting the prison van in a few scenes prior. SO19 or whoever the gun toting arm of the Met they were trying to portray was happily running around the streets with their guns out chasing after Snipe's along with the CIA. There were children walking around, but the police were still stating they had a clear shot to shoot him, does this happen in London? No it doesn't, I live there. We also have the very implausible travel from central London to the airport (let's say Heathrow for arguments sake) within 5 minutes of receiving a call. We also have terrible American accents, a young girl who's posher than the Queen, but lives in Elephant & Castle. What does it say for British police when helicopters and a number of officers at Snipe's location can't find Snipe's and he manages to evade capture by hiding behind some stairs? The train station was obviously not even on UK soil and the fight scene sound effects were terrible. The plot was also extremely poor, boring and been written and filmed a lot better a thousand times before. But there were a few notable actors cast in this film, what were they thinking and please don't let that sway you to watch this film! This film didn't seem to know what it wanted to be, if you are going to concentrate on the dramatic aspects from the aftermath of an assignation then you need a strong rigid plot with plausible scenery and setting, this is something the viewer has time to take in and appreciate and if you do it wrong then you notice it. If you want an all out action film (which this is not) then continuity and scenery can be put to the side. | 0neg
|
The main line of defence seems to be: lighten up, it's just entertainment / just a kid's movie / just a special effects flick. Pausing awhile to note that people who run this line of defence have all but conceded that the film is, in fact, bad, let's take these points one by one - shall we?<br /><br />As entertainment it's poor. Dialogue is flat and perfunctory (don't expect to be dazzled by repartee); the story lacks the beauty of the first Star Wars film and the tension of the second ... and then there's the magical `character development' everyone complains about. We must distinguish character development from character delineation. The former is nice, but the latter is absolutely essential, and it's the latter that's missing from `The Phantom Menace'. Jar Jar, the young Obi Wan, Darth Maul, Armidala, Annakin - all are scarcely characters at all, and are very difficult to get enthused about. Jar Jar in particular is a collection of mannerisms, nothing more. This lack of character doesn't just prevent the film from becoming the darling of the intellectuals - it makes it dull. There are hundreds more entertaining films. Only those people who entered the cinema carrying plastic light sabers, grimly determined to enjoy themselves, failed to notice this.<br /><br />It's a kid's movie. Well, yes, in a sense - but not a good sense. Good children's movies form a proper subset of good movies - simply because adults have access to all childhood emotions and desires, but not vice versa. So in one sense a `kid's movie' is just a movie that can be understood and apperaciated by children (as well as adults). Is this a kid's movie in that sense? Maybe. But it's also a kid's movie in the bad sense: it's deeply witless, and inexperienced children might - I say, MIGHT - fail to notice just how witless it is. Children may - I say, MAY - ignore the fact that Jar Jar Binks is a deeply irritating non-character because he is all colour and movement and he speaks funny. Is this really all we want?<br /><br />Special effects. These aren't so hot, either. George Lucas has fallen in love with computers and failed to notice that his digital animals don't move at all in the way that real animals move - worse still, they don't move like any kind of physical object at all. Nor do most of the alleged physical objects. Compare the trundling white juggernaut at the start of `Star Wars' - a convincingly solid model - with the insubstantial collection of pixels that darts past us at the start of `The Phantom Menace'. The special effects have actually deteriorated, and to make matters worse, there are more of them.<br /><br />So the defence that `The Phantom Menace' is allowed to be a poor movie because it really wasn't trying to be something great in the first place, just won't wash. Especially so, given the ludicrous claims George Lucas has arrogantly made, again and again. So Jar Jar Binks is the first digitally created main character? Rubbish - the dragon in `Dragonheart' predates it (and, one might add, is at the very least a genuine character). So George Lucas is pioneering a new kind of filming-making, more like painting and less like photography, than the old? Absolute twaddle - Walt Disney did THAT in the 1930s. I'll tell you what IS new. Never before has there been so much sizzle, and so little sausage. | 0neg
|
This film started promisingly, and for about the first 35 minutes was full of riotously funny humour - but then, it appears that the scriptwriters just ran out of the ideas - So what did they do? They just repeated the same old ones over and over and over again to the point of tedium, where you can see the jokes long before they arrive.<br /><br />A pretty girl walks past Kevin and Perry - and you just wait for one of them to get an erection for the hundredth time - the same joke was done better in Waynes World (schhhhwing!). A few laughs are saved for the last 5 minutes or so, but this just looked like a what would have been funny as a 30 minute TV show, padded and stretched into a movie.<br /><br />In the UK, this film has been rated '15', which is a shame as a sizeable proportion of the audience that would most likely appreciate the schoolboy humour is too young to see it at the cinema - They'll probably catch it on TV sooner or later, which is where this film belongs. | 0neg
|
A Troll in Central Park is not a terrible film. It's just extremely sweet and innocent and this world isn't ready for it. Anyone over six years of age will be embarrassed to watch this - even alone - but that's more of a societal problem. But there are definitely reasons to see this. The animation is amazing, particularly with the children. It's realistic but somehow completely believable in an animated world. And their movements are so fluid and realistic. You can tell every action was acted out and studied meticulously. I really wish this was done more often. The environments also look amazing, especially when the human world comes into play. As for the cute or humorous sidekicks, that's another story entirely. It's probably just a personal bias, but I hate the way Don Bluth designs his more cartoon-y characters. Their personalities aren't any better, ranging from "cute" to marshmallow-peep-flavored-vomit "cute".<br /><br />Anyone who loved The Secret of NIMH will be shocked to see this film. I mean, how can the same guy who made a progressive, dark and outstanding film be responsible for this? The story is very fairy-tale esquire, like a children's storybook come to life. The villains are more humorous than threatening, the characters spontaneously break into song and dance and everything is whitewashed with cuteness. This is the result of Don Bluth finally giving in to the pressures of Disney, trying to replicate their formula, losing his identity in the process and ultimately falling flat. Luckily, Anastasia would be a healthy step up. But for fans of Bluth's one-hit wonder, it's kind of depressing. | 0neg
|
This is a really a beautiful and touching movie. Many others and I have given many praises to this movie. But its popularity and IMDB rating at 7.5 are quite a surprise to us.<br /><br />As many of you can only watch it on DVD/VHS now, let me give you an info. I watched it the first time in the cinema and the following 5 or more times on DVD. When I watched it in the cinema, near the end of the movie when John Sullivan Sr reappeared, ALL THE AUDIENCES IN THE CINEMA cheered and applauded. I mean ALL THE AUDIENCES. Really, no kidding!!! It touched the entire crowd. Very emotional and uplifting. I have gone to cinemas for lots of movies, but rarely did I see any effect like this. Based on such audience response, who could doubt about how good this movie is?<br /><br />Yes, its story line is not 100% logical. But if such measuring stick is applied to ALL MOVIES, I wonder which one can pass and be considered good!<br /><br />Frequency, I highly recommend it, to be watched and to be owned!!! | 1pos
|
Kathy Griffin is without doubt one of the best stand-up comedians of all time. She's hilarious! Her observations on life, politics and celebrity culture in particular are always dead on, witty and ultimately thought-provoking. She is unafraid to share her experiences no matter who she offends in the process and it is this honesty that makes her so funny. Allegedly is one of her many specials and as they are all excellent, I cannot choose a favourite. However, needless to say, if you love Kathy or comedy in general, you will not be disappointed! You'll be quoting her as soon as the show is over, if not during it! She is awesome! | 1pos
|
When a writer turns director plans to make a movie. What do you expect? At least an original story if not a perfect direction. But Mr. Rumi Jaffery shamelessly copies Bruce Almighty, adds some idiotic sequences of his own, throws few songs and here's what we get- a horrible copy of Bruce almighty. To add to the shame quotient, director denies it being a copy.<br /><br />If the director had blindly copied the almighty, the movie could have been at least watchable. The modified script has easily made this one of the worst flicks of this year. Less said about the star-cast, the better. Throw money on us, we'll do any crap you say. Come on Mr. Khan and Mr. Bachhan, You've achieved a lot in your career. At least pay attention to the scripts you choose.<br /><br />If India had Razzie, this one would have been a sure winner. | 0neg
|
Lynch's second film is a 4-minute mind-boggling trip into the subconscious. A dream Lynch's niece had while in school inspired it. She had a dream in which she recited the letters of the alphabet. And that pretty much summarizes what this film is about. The filmmaker used that simple idea as the basis of this fascinating short. If you are familiar with Lynch's work, you pretty much know what to expect. Nightmarish images are plentiful, and the film's atmosphere is strangely dense. I did not know what everything meant but it was fun to watch. Something I noticed here was the constant allusion to sex. Is it me or Lynch is a little too preoccupied with sex? The truth is that most of what I saw in the movie struck as being related to sex in one way or the other. It is possible that my mind was simply playing games on me. The fact is that only Lynch can make so much with so little. It is a true delight from beginning to end. If you are remotely interested in the director's work this is mandatory viewing. | 1pos
|
Everything about this is so truly awful that I actually watched the whole thing. The original movie was unique in that we actually got to see scientific research in action. Here we get to see Hollywood management in action. Add pieces from Alien, Day after Tomorrow, X-Files, recent gore films, even Prince of Darkness plus a reporter on drugs sub-plot, and many other things that have no place in the story. If you cut all that out you will find that the remains last less time than the original film. The final battle against the microbes is sub-SciFi channel. The production looks good but who cares? The acting from the main stars is unbelievably indifferent (give me my paycheck, I'm outta here). Bad bad bad. | 0neg
|
One of the better films I've seen in a long time, totally not LaChapelle's style, but as Littlepirate stated this, he must not have watched all the commentary, as to why and how he shot it, without tons of lighting, and using a cameraman with a home brew backpack steady-cam. Its not anything like his Christian Agularia's videos. Its unique and the DVD's bonuses made it a definite must buy. Rent the movie, and watch the extras, and believe me, you'll want to go buy a copy for yourself. Amazing dance moves, and those that say it's just a seizure, well probably don't dance. ( different moves are explained in the extras section, they are not just shaking around, there are actually steps to their dances). Tommy the Clown is an inspiration to see, he could leave and actually progress his way of life, but instead chooses to stay and help out the youth in the inner city, this man should be given an award for his courage. (even after being robbed, he still stuck it through). | 1pos
|
I can understand why some people review this show here and call it "rubbish" because it is not easily watchable. It takes you out of your comfort zone and is not banal safe comedy that often seems to often thrive on television. The main character Jill is a savagely cruel person, when her husband is diagnosed with cancer she drops him off at the hospital and goes to a dating agency to find a new man. When a couple move in next door she thinks nothing of wearing the disabled woman down physically and emotionally to get at her husband. You get the idea. Many of the lines are superbly witty in an outrageous "she can't say that" type of way. Interestingly Julia Davies has both naturalistic supporting characters like Cath and Don the couple next door and exaggerated broad comedy characters that inhabit Jill's world without the mix of the two jarring in any way. It is easier to watch a second or third time if you give it the chance, then you seem to be able to concentrate on the savage humour without feeling too much pity for the put upon characters involved. Superb. | 1pos
|
Best film this year. Indian Cinema at its best.If its said a "lost film by David Lean"-It deserves it. Vidhu Vinod Chopra-Two Thumbs up-This man is our hope.<br /><br />No words to describe this film. A modern day masterpiece. Vidhu Vinod Chopra's best. Breathtaking performances from Big B, Saif, Boman, Jackie, Sanjay, Vidya etc. Superb music and score and wonderful cinematography and locales not to forget the awe inspiring visual effects. In the years to come will be remembered as a CLASSIC. This is a poem on celluloid. Shakespeare nestling in the sands of Rajathan. This piece of work would have made Shakespeare smile broadly<br /><br />A must watch for Cinema Lovers. EKlavya-a Royal TREAT! | 1pos
|
I admit that when I first heard of this movie starring Sofi'a , I wanted to see Sofi'a topless or in lace nightgowns..but that changed when I watched this movie.. I was familiar with Roselyn's work (Boat Trip,Rush Hour 2)and this was the 1st time I saw Jaci. Like with most of the fans of this movie,I fairly enjoyed it,as a guy -I enjoyed the eye-candy..Especially Sofi'a,even though she emulated that "cuchi-cuchi" Charo style,with her comical antics and Sofi'a over doing her hot and sexy colombian accent!! Because this movie was directed by a woman,this was a light screwball comedy..the story was simple,the comedy tame,lot of silly cliché's(especially for Sofi'a)and the acting was OK,though I was surprised at Sofi'a's comedy timing,since she never had any training at acting!!I don't know if this movie would have been better if a man directed this,his perspective.But because I enjoyed watching Sofi'a working off on the other Latina's,in all their sexiest,I could bare to watch this over again!!! | 1pos
|
<br /><br /> Actually, I believe that "Jezebel" is a very different film "animal" from "Gone with the Wind". GWTW is a mega-epic, with the whole Civil War and Reconstruction period as backdrops. "Jezebel", on the other hand, plays out over a much shorter period of time, historically. I'm not even a big Bette Davis fan, but I'll say that if "Jezebel" doesn't convert you, you can't be impressed. All of the performances are excellently crafted and satisfyingly deep, as would be expected from a stage play taken to the big screen. I love GWTW, but "Jezebel" works as well or better at capturing the same basic period in US history, while also keeping you waiting expectantly for the heroine's next outlandish maneuver. William Wyler was one of the great directors, and his gift shines through in every scene. I give "Jezebel" 10/10 stars, and Davis more than deserved her Oscar. | 1pos
|
I am a HUGE fan of A&E originals, as well as Masterpiece Theatre. Two of my favorite movies of all time are "Pride and Prejudice" (1995), and "Wives and Daughters". I am now adding "Victoria and Albert" to my list of all time favorites. This movie was absolutely stunning! And, what's even more amazing is that, unlike the previous favorites I mentioned, "Victoria and Albert" is a TRUE story! As soon as I finished watching it, I immediately went online to try to find more information on Victoria and Albert, family photos, excerpts from their diaries, etc. I had always thought of Queen Victoria as a women of 75 or so, and in a wheelchair. To see the true story of her younger years was such a treat.<br /><br />The story was told SO very eloquently. Jonathan Firth and Victoria Hamilton were outstanding! They breathed life into their characters. I felt connected to Victoria and Albert somehow after I finished watching the movie. I actually felt like I was watching their lives unfold. The supporting cast was unreal. This was a dream cast, if I've ever seen one. Absolutely NO ONE was miscast. Nigel Hawthorne, as Lord M, was wonderful. The scene were he has to say goodbye to Victoria was so touching. Seeing these two historical characters sharing a tearful goodbye, and a handkerchief, was simply beautiful. The scenes between Victoria and Albert were pure magic. I love the scene between the two of them over the game of chess. I just don't know what else to say, except that this movie was utterly brilliant. It's an amazing in-depth look into 19th century British politics, but, above all, it's a stunningly glorious story of TRUE love. I'm getting teary-eyed just thinking about it! Please, please, take the time to see "Victoria and Albert". If you don't like this movie, well... then you and I could never possibly be friends. I know it's a bit harsh, but there it is. :) | 1pos
|
I love Godzilla but I really think that the U.S. should not have made a Godzilla of their own. I like the original a lot better. I also love the new look of Godzilla he looks meaner and more destructive even though he's a bit smaller. | 1pos
|
It's a crying shame that this show doesn't occupy its rightful place in the pantheon of late night talk shows. Sometimes, large swaths of the show would go by without a single laugh, but you would still turn off the TV feeling you'd watched something entertaining. It's hard to explain; it was humor as dry as it comes. And when the show was hitting on all cylinders it was an absolute riot. The standout episode to me was the one in which Lily Tomlin came on to promote her movie "The Search for Signs of Intelligent Life in the Universe". Instead of answering the questions as herself, she portrayed a Manhattan socialite who had been a financial backer of the film. To top it off, the character she played despised Lily Tomlin. Yet the interview seemed so real, with Havey appearing to actually get upset at the woman's snootiness. I've not seen a situation like this on any other show (except Tuesday Night Titans). I hope some network rolls out re-runs someday. | 1pos
|
After a nuclear rocket, containing wasps from a scientific experiment researching the effects of sending the insects into space, crashes in an uncharted part of Africa nicknamed "Green Hell" by the natives, the frightening result is gigantic mutated monstrosities the result of prolonged exposure to radiation. Now with word that these monsters are terrorizing that portion of the African continent, the scientists responsible for the experiment travel into the heart of Africa hoping to put a stop to this newfound threat.<br /><br />Dull. Dull. Dull. A better word could not be more apt to describe this turgidly paced movie filled with scenes of folks walking, and walking, and walking some more. Although this film is only 71 minutes in length, it feels more like three hours. Sure there's some half-decent stop-motion animated monsters but they are particularly disappointing in comparison to other stop-motion efforts of the era and the stock footage used from STANLEY AND LIVINGSTONE (1939) perks things up slightly as well towards the end but aside from those short moments of excitement, well there's lots and lots of walking. Did I mention that already? Did I also mention this movie is almost a surefire cure for insomnia? | 0neg
|
This movie was made to be a film about a war between the Japanese mafia and a group of ninja's and the two yard servants who get in the middle to save their boss, the highest man in the mafia. The fight scenes were filmed slowly, for example when an actor through a punch he made his fist move slowly as if going to pet a strange dog. The editor later added sound effects and speeded up the film to give the illusion of extremely fast fighting. The novice camera tricks in this movie give it a hilarious touch. Wires used in fight scenes made me laugh for hours. When you finally meet the ninja warriors in the end, you'll stare in awe as they use "ninja invisibility" in the fight. It's one of my favorites. | 1pos
|
The winner of Best Foreign Language Film at the Golden Globes last night is the first feature-length film from Afghanistan. Shot by fledgling writer/editor/director, Siddiq Barmak, "Osama," the film exposes the desperation and terror of a beautiful twelve-year-old girl (Marina Golbahari) during the Taliban era in Afghanistan. She becomes her widowed mother (Zubaida Sahar) and grandmother's only hope for survival since the Taliban rule decreed that her female family and thousands of others like them cannot appear in public without a male relative as escort. The Taliban has also decreed that women would not be permitted to work. <br /><br />The girl, her mother, and a young street urchin, Spandi, (Arif Herati) survive a violently suppressed demonstration launched by Afghan women. The girl and her mother had secretly worked in a hospital until the Taliban dismissed all the staff and closed its doors. Faced with imminent starvation, the girl's mother decides to disguise her daughter as a boy, so that she will have an opportunity to work. They decide upon the name Osama as the disguised young male. The film reaches critical mass when Osama, as a boy, along with Spandi, are taken to a Taliban training camp where it becomes increasingly difficult to keep her sex a secret. Marina Golbahari's innocent beauty and ability to express a wide range of emotions is sure to flower into the making of a talented and beautiful actress. <br /><br />The film is the epitome of everything negative surrounding the Muslim world's treatment of women. You cannot help but to despise the Taliban's inhuman treatment of women and the palpable fear that even the men experience in a land run by religious and hypocritical zealots. You could consider the film a downer, however, it plays like a thriller, with tensions kept high by focusing intently on the girl. It presents a believable and disturbing window into the soul of a society devastated by repression and war.<br /><br />Director Barmak shot this film on a shoestring budget with inexperienced actors, and created a cinematic masterpiece. He incredibly elicits professional performances from amateurs, building tension and intensity from the first opening scenes of the Taliban spraying crowds of women clad in shapeless blue Burkas. Since Barmak received much of his training in Iran, the film is typical of the Iranian style of filmmaking by ending abruptly with no resolution of the conflict. It is a film worthy of high praise; however, be prepared for experiencing a great deal of anger and anguish by witnessing the subjugation of Muslim women and children without much resolution or hope.<br /><br />Opens in the Bay Area on February 27, 2004 and on Feb. 6th in Los Angeles and New York | 1pos
|
A beautiful film which captures the spirit of a man's struggle to make his dream come true. Jeff Bridges is invincible in the role of Preston Tucker and effortlessly pulls the viewer inside the mind and spirit of this maverick entrepreneur who brought to the automotive industry seat belts, fuel injection, pop-out windows and most of all a legend called the Tucker Torpedo.<br /><br />Acting just oozes out of this fine actor and id consider it as his best performance ever. Excellent direction,screenplay and soundtrack. great duologue's too. especially "can any one in this room look me in the eye and say we cant do it" and on hearings a non-affirmative he replies "except you".<br /><br />The courtroom speech is something which recharges your spirit and fills your body with passion. Very true as he puts it " fifty or fifty million...thats only machinery..its the idea that counts..the dream.." | 1pos
|
This movie was not only badly written but the acting could not have been worse. The only actor who was any good was the 10 year old boy, who actually had feeling when he cried. The script was not the best either. Most of the lines were very cheesy. I had to laugh to keep from hurling. The story line was not all that great or accurate. The president did not have very good security either. How could they not see the barrel sticking out of a window across the street right in front of them? I would like to think that the people protecting the president are a little smarter then that. For dealing with a level 4 hot agent the doctor was not very intelligent seeing as she touched her mouth with a gloved hand after handling the dart that contained the virus. No real doctor would ever work with any level 4 agent with out the right protective gear. There was also not a very accurate representation of what the Ebola virus can do to a person. Now I don't know that much about Ebola but I do know that it does more to your body then just give you a bloody nose and a cough. A better representation would have made this movie better. Everyone looked too good through out the movie. Plus it jumped around a lot. There were too many holes in the plot. In one scene they were standing up talking and in the next scene they were dead. Now how about that ending. No movie would be complete without the terrorist falling off of the roof after being hit with a portable tunnel, the bomb being turned off with two seconds to spare, and a bit of romance. Everyone has time to flirt when there is a hot agent that is air borne around a hospital. | 0neg
|
I don't know why Gibson's work does not translate well to the screen, but this is another example of a bad medium translation. In the short story, there is tension through the entire work. The film seems to center on the voyeuristic side of the sex scenes being played out on screen. These scenes have little or nothing to do with the plot. The main characters wasted their considerable talent in this very forgettable movie. | 0neg
|
This extremely well written and acted movie is a little treasure that I discovered on the "not rented very much" section of the video store. It follows the relationship of two commitment phobic people who were madly in love with each other but are always looking for a reason not to be happy. Alternatingly absolutely hysterical and poignant, this movie is a must see for all who enjoy a well done realistic romantic comedy (as opposed to an unrealistic one such as Runaway Bride). Certainly not least, Salma Hayak is absolutely gorgeous, sexy, and funny and Russell Crowe shows why he will be a heavyweight in the industry for a long time. You will see why he was robbed of the Best Actor Oscar last year for the Insider after viewing. 9++ Enjoy. | 1pos
|
This was supposed to be a great comedy, but I didn't find a man losing his wife in a poker game to be something to laugh about, nor did I find it cool that the woman would have a fling with the gambler who "won" her. All of that is supposed to be "hilarious," to all the mainline film critics. <br /><br />Well, I guess that's just another of the thousands of examples of how sick film people are, on both sides of the camera. The lower the values, the more they like it, and vice-versa.<br /><br />And while your at it, Hollywood: stop with all the Elvis imitations. That's getting tiresome, especially in Vegas. So was Nicolas Cage's constant yelling in here. This movie will give you a headache in addition to making you nauseous. <br /><br />This is one honeymoon you want to skip. | 0neg
|
<br /><br />Average sci-fi thriller movie back in 1973.But today due to numerous improvements on the ideas presented here,this movie is only likely to be enjoyed by the most avid sci-fi movie completist.The special effects here was ripped off by numerous 1970's sci-fi TV series like those countless Six Million Dollar Man/Bionic Woman shows.If one has seen those TV shows before seeing this movie,nothing comes out new or fresh.Come to think of it,the Six Million Dollar Man pilot episodes came out before this movie!So actually,the special effects here were not too original after all.Also,they were not content with the Six Million Dollar Man rip off,they even stole the actor who plays Dr.Rudy Wells in said TV show!No sirree.They can't pull a fast one on a guy like me who has seen a lot of movies and TV shows so I am NOT IMPRESSED at all and do not buy into the hype.So now what have we got?Story?The story looks to me like a reject script from a 1960's Twilight Zone episode.The story was too full of plot holes it's not funny.Yes indeed. this one makes a great victim for MYSTERY SCIENCE THEATRE 2000 lampooning fun........ | 0neg
|
Vicky Baum's novel "Menschen I'm Hotel" serves as the basis for this 1932 film that was a vehicle for Greta Garbo. "Grand Hotel", as directed by Edmund Golding, was a magnificent film that had a lot of first class stars of the era in prominent roles. In fact, this seems to be one of the first films to have relied in the prominent "names" it gathered to portray the different characters in the movie.<br /><br />By today's standards, the film is dated, but for a discriminating film fan, "Grand Hotel" is a classic because of the star turns one witnesses. Also, today's fans have to make concessions for the style of acting that was prevalent at the time. The movies have begun "talking" not long before this film was made and the stars of those silents were still doing their acting in front of the camera as though no one was going to hear them talk. In fact, most of the complaints in comments submitted to this forum would have been different if this was 1932 and the film had just come out.<br /><br />The best advice for anyone new to this film is to sit back, relax, and enjoy the trials and tribulations of the people seen at Berlin's Grand Hotel.<br /><br />The biggest surprise of the film is the shortness of Greta Garbo presence in the film, in which for some unknown reason, she looms large above the rest of the players. As the Russian ballerina Grusinskaya, Ms. Garbo played one of the best characters of her career. Her way of acting is still imbued with what was expected of her.<br /><br />John Barrymore as the Baron Von Geigern, the impoverished nobleman, is key to the story. The moment he meets the great Grusinskaya, he is lost forever. Lionel Barrymore is excellent as the poor Otto Kringelein, who thinks he is going to die real soon. Joan Crawford, is the stenographer Flaemmchen who seems to arise passion among all the men she meets. Ms. Crawford does excellent work in a role she discarded later on in favor of more dramatic appearances.<br /><br />What makes "Grand Hotel" the timeless classic it became is the magnificent camera work by William H. Daniels, a man who knew how to get the best out of Greta Garbo in their many films together. Also the music which is from Franz Lehar's "The Merry Widow" serves as a nice distraction in the background.<br /><br />The most famous phrase in the film "I want to be alone", seems prophetic in retrospect as the divine Garbo had about eight more years in the movies. | 1pos
|
I have seen several Fu Manchu films and he was a popular character from the 1920s all the way up to the 1970s--having appeared in many American and British films and serials. He was a demented and power-mad genius--sort of like Dr. No or Blofeld or Dr. Evil. However, in this rather listless installment, the menace of evil is very, very subdued and the film never delivered on its promise.<br /><br />Unlike other Fu Manchu films, in this one he is NOT the main character. Warner Oland plays Manchu and looks a lot like his Charlie Chan character. He is only in about 10 minutes worth of film despite his high billing in the movie. His purpose is to see Anna May Wong's character and reveal to her that she is his daughter--and that he expects her to help him carry out his revenge. So, one day, Wong is a sweet cabaret dancer and the next she's expected to carry out a plan for murder--and at first she agrees wholeheartedly. Having her become his evil accomplice wasn't a bad idea, but what sank this film was by having Manchu killed soon after this. This "brilliant" villain sure wasn't very careful and got himself killed rather easily. Additionally, Wong's character was a real negative because she never really could make up her mind whether or not to be evil--spending so much of the film bouncing back and forth---and in the process losing all the cruel menace that SHOULD be part of any Fu Manchu picture.<br /><br />An additional deficit in the film is how they used veteran actor Sessue Hayakawa. I wasn't upset to see a Japanese man playing a Chinese man--heck, for Hollywood, that's a lot closer to realistic than the usual White Westerner playing Asian roles of the era. Instead it was a completely mindless plot device thrown into the film towards the end. While his and Wong's characters barely interact, there is a love scene that appears out of no where AND makes no sense since the lady was already in love with another man. It looked as if there may have originally been much more to this but it was somehow cut, at least in part, from the film and they forgot to completely remove traces of this subplot.<br /><br />So, what looked like an exciting adventure film turned out to be a rather dull little film. The only big plus for the film were the great sets--they really were cool and made this B-movie look more like a higher budget feature film.<br /><br />So much promise--so little delivered. | 0neg
|
There is really not much to be said about this incredibly awful TV show. The premise was dumb, the background music was annoying, Monica played more like a mean big sister than a host, the men in competition were obviously looking for two minutes of fame (or were really hard-lucked with meeting women), and the clueless woman at the center.....enough said. The one positive is that it survived just a few weeks. What is really sad is that the powers that be at FOX have managed to come up with shows (in my honest opinion) that are even worse than this mess since then. One episode of "The Moment of Truth" has pretty much left me with the sudden urge to projectile vomit all over my TV screen. To only be able to go back 20 to 30 years and be able to watch some of the shows we referred to as garbage back then....they seem pretty appealing right about now.<br /><br />If by chance "Mr. Personality" is released on DVD, pass it up and spend the money on bathroom deodorant. | 0neg
|
I really, really wanted to enjoy this movie but it just didn't seem to gel. A movie spoof is supposed to be funny, not make you sorry for the people appearing in it. Not to mention sorry for the people who financed it because you pray they can somehow make their money back and yet you know they probably won't. A movie lives and dies by it's script and for a comedy spoof this just wasn't very funny at all. And I agree with the 2 other people who said the "fart fight" featuring Lorenzo Lamas was the definite low point. Flatulence on film was funny when Mel Brooks did it in the classic "Blazing Saddles" but that was a long, long time ago. And how disappointing to see a film with the smoking hot Robin Shou and veteran Don "The Dragon" Wilson and neither one of them fights?? Just much too brief cameos for both, truly a shame. Might have helped things a bit here, at least there would have been some great fighting to make up for the lack of great comedy. | 0neg
|
I'm usually very wary of horror films that centre around a fairy tale basis but this was a brilliant movie. The cast was brilliant (bar from the cop.) The actress who plays Erin has a very Fatal Attraction Glenn Close charm about her and has the ability to go from sweet and innocent to dark and menacing in an instant. The script was remarkably well written. It was very chilling movie and kept you on the edge of your seat. The artistic direction especially the illustrations used to tell the story are breathtaking. I am really hoping that there will be a sequel to this. It also deserves more recognition than. Hats off to everyone who worked on this movie. | 1pos
|
The key parts of Dostoyevsky's novel are either missing, or are so badly twisted, that I found myself laughing hysterically throughout this movie. There were a couple of good casting choices, and some good sets, but otherwise, it is a complete wash. This movie completely misses the points of Dostoyevsky, but it isn't too clear on it's Russian setting either. The poor cast is made to deliver the English dialog with bad Russian accents. The movie opens with Raskolnikov trying to assassinate Tsar Nicholas II and Tsaritsa Alexandra as they are leaving a church! (only 60 years too soon and completely destroys the subsequent plot assumptions). Key scenes such as Sonia's Father's speech to Raskolnikov (in which is contained the main theme of the work) are gone. What is meant to be a scene in which Raskolnikov and Sonia experience profound repentance, grace and forgiveness during the reading of the gospel story of Lazarus, is twisted: Sonia reads one sentence of the Gospel (tossing aside the theme), and then it turns into a big kiss moment instead. Avoid this one like the plague! | 0neg
|
Check that lame-o-meter. Donald Pleasence is Axel MacGregor, a world renowned writer, test pilot, big game hunter and writer. MacGregor has a lop-sided sense of machismo and his ego has been threatened by a black leopard who attacked him on safari. He has the animal captured alive with the intent to let the beast loose on his private Southeast-Asian island paradise in order to track it down and claim superiority with a high powered rifle. Meanwhile his daughter and granddaughter make an unannounced visit. MacGregor will have more than enough to deal with...right down to his last bullet. The supporting cast includes: Nancy Kwan, Lesly Fine, Ross Hagen and Jennifer Rhodes. | 0neg
|
This movie is one of the best. Robin Williams and Nathan Lane are phenomenal and hilarious, but the best performance throughout the film is by Hank Azaria, as Agador, the adorable flaming butler. My favorite scene is when both families are sitting together eating dinner. I don't want to give anything away, but wow I was in tears. Gene Hackman is extremely funny as a conservative senator. This film is colorful, unique and will keep an audience roaring with laughter. Yes, the movie follows some typical stereo types among a gay male couple, however, is not offensive in anyway, shape or form. I think this is such a cute film, and if you haven't seen it, or if you happen to be in the mood for a laugh out loud movie rent The Birdcage.<br /><br />My Rating: 9/10 | 1pos
|
I should start by admitting that I find Jennifer Aniston adorable.<br /><br />Vince Vaughn is every fast talking overly-confident friend I've ever known.<br /><br />This film could have been great. It isn't.<br /><br />It is a weak film full of odd underdeveloped (and thus unexplained) side characters and it contains one of the most unsatisfying (and the biggest 'cop-out') endings ever put on film.<br /><br />If I want inadequate, unfunny, unsatisfying and realistic, I'll refer to my own struggling relationships. I don't need to pay Hollywood top dollar to show me that. I can get that for free.<br /><br />It has its hints at humor, but overall? Awful. | 0neg
|
This is definitely the best movie I have ever seen! It was great to see all the celebrities in the late 80's! Especially Courteney Cox! Barry Bostwick was also one of the best actors in the movie! All the romance and passion is definitely there! If you ever get the chance to see it, don't let the experience slip away from you! | 1pos
|
Oh Man i watched this yesterday on tv after seeing it 20years before in the cinema! This Movie is absolutely underrated. Snake is one of the first damn cool Actionheros in Moviehistory. Kurt Russel is perfect, carpenter did a great Score as ever. This movie will never suck, absolutely great!!<br /><br />-walk on- Holzi | 1pos
|
Begins in tremendous style and is very watchable throughout although one does begin to worry about a certain lack of clarity. I think the film is longer than it need be and is ultimately unable to deal with the deeper issues it alludes to. A tighter film would have meant we were on the edge of our seats throughout and, possibly more importantly, forced the director (or writer) to get what they wanted to say more simply expressed. Many have suggested there may be something, lost in translation and that is a fair point but my own feeling is that the film makers simply overstretched themselves a little. Having said all that it's a very decent film with plenty of blood, gore and surprises, plus its always good to look at. | 0neg
|
Although publicized as a dramatization of Custer's Last Stand, this bears little relation to the events as known. It is a story of.... well, it is one of the most morally ambiguous pieces of Griffith's that I have seen. Griffith spent most of his career using his serious pieces to dramatize society's problems, even when he had no solution to offer, from WHAT WILL WE DO WITH OUR OLD to his last credited directorial job, THE STRUGGLE. I think Griffith meant to raise questions and tell an exciting story, as he always did.<br /><br />The first question is: which massacre? After some setting scenes, we witness a massacre as a cavalry unit attacks an Indian village. We are not told why they are attacking it. Then, when that is over, we see a wagon train moving west. Was the massacre of the Indians intended to leave their lands empty for settlers? The camera pulls back, and we see a wolf watching the wagon train, then a bear appears and drives off the wolf. Then the bear is driven off by an Indian scout in a bearskin.... and he brings the Indian forces that massacre the wagon train, leaving only Blanche Sweet and her baby alive.<br /><br />To which massacre does the film's title refer? Who is to blame? Who began this cycle of massacres? Who benefits? Was there no beginning and can there be no end?<br /><br />Although Griffith directed more than five hundred pictures, almost all of which survive, he has a vast corpus of works that are rarely seen, because so many people concentrate on his best features and perhaps a dozen of his best-known shorts. Kino is to be applauded for including a sizable number of his lesser-known, but equally powerful shorts in their most recent compilation, and for hiring John Mirsalis to do scores. | 1pos
|
By definition, I'd really refer to this as a shocker film rather than as a scary movie. This film prefers special effects and disturbing, bloody scenes to say suspense or good writing. The acting was sub-par at best, though I would say it may be Chris Kattan's best job yet. Average cut between shots has to be in the milli-seconds. The shot selection bounced so much I began having a headache. The only movie with more cuts was probably Domino. The ending was sub-par. The movie seemed to want to incorporate too many themes for one horror movie: killer husband/wife, haunted house, deranged surgeons, ancient evil, etc. The best part of the movie was that at very least they had the decency to set the tone early to let you know what was going to be coming at you. That being said, I did watch it all the way through, so it clearly wasn't as bad as it could have been. | 0neg
|
I watched this one only for a single reason: Claire Forlani. She is so beautiful that I can't express it with words (and I couldn't in German as well, so it's not a genuine language problem).<br /><br />In this movie, she is married to a writer and his best friend somehow falls in love with her - well, seeing her in her full beauty makes this biggest of loyalty breaches understandable in my book.<br /><br />But the director seems to see the act of cheating as the ultimate sin. I don't want to spoil too much here, not that there would be too much to spoil anyway, but I really felt that the moral index finger of the film makers was too much to swallow. Okay, it's nothing a friend should do to cheat on his best friend with his wife - but hey, feelings sometimes make us do things that are not really clever, but still that's what feelings are there for in a way... and since it always takes two persons to cheat on a third one, I really could not understand what this movie wanted to express in the end. <br /><br />Drama? Yes. Romance? A little. Relevance? None at all. That is except for watching Claire Forlani looking like an angel - again. | 0neg
|
I rarely see a movie that I enjoy as much as I enjoyed this film. It is just so gorgeous on so many levels, it has a very intriguing plot, and a twist at the end that leaves you with a very shocked brain. There's not too much that I can say without giving away much of the plot, but it's fair to say that if you watch this movie, you will NOT be disappointed. It is just so captivating, it has a wonderful soundtrack that matches the movie perfectly, and the ending is so sad, yet so imaginative. The cast displays an amazing performance and the camera work is quite complex and stylistic. In my opinion, the best movie of the "dark humor" genre to be exhaled from someone's mind yet. The only reason I couldn't give this a full 10 stars is because of the fact that it may be a little confusing to some, due to the fact that it is left very open-ended. 9/10 | 1pos
|
One of the worst movies ever made...thus making it one of the best movies ever made. Everybody who loves awful movies, must go see this movie. I saw it at a midnight show, and got a free fortune cookie! This is basically an awfully funny version of "King Kong." They ripped off the plot, the ending, and anything that might be ripped off. I liked the gratuitous, no-nudity sex scene. Go see this movie for the music alone. It is total seventies crap. The dubbing sometimes comes after their mouths have stopped moving. Total ineptitude. Great movie. The special effects are not-so-special. There are animals galore that are mean one minute, tame the next, and can rip off a leg, and make it disappear in a millisecond. Also watch for the bad acting in the flashback scene (yes, they even used flashbacks, it ruins them all.) For the guys, there is a jungle babe that only has a small animal skin that sometimes is glued on (only one arm strap) and sometimes falls out of. I personally like her makeup...in the jungle at all times, it's perfect! I don't know whether to give this movie one star for not really trying too hard, or 9 stars for being so entertaining. | 1pos
|
For the information of your readers - I am the person who played the mother in Cindy and Donna. My stage name was: Suzy Allen. I never used the name Susy Allen and any information shown for Susy Allen does not apply to me. I don't know why I was not credited properly. I agree that Cindy and Donna was a terrible movie, but the stagehands and crew said I was the best actor in the movie! We spent an entire day filming one scene, with me and my "husband" driving on a freeway, with me nagging him about not taking me out often enough !! I had a lot of fun trying to be the whining, miserable wife for the movie, even though in real life I am nothing like that character. It was also very interesting for me to have to dub in some of my lines after the movie was finished. Quite a challenge to get everything right on cue. | 1pos
|
This is truly one of the most disturbing films I have ever seen. If the goal of a great movie is to make its viewer changed forever, "The Grey Zone" certainly has succeeded. Yes it is not "Schindlers List". It has no uplifting theme, other than that in the face of no hope, doomed individuals tried desperately, if for nothing else, to save one life among millions of doomed. In the end even that effort is futile.<br /><br />It's images are haunting.<br /><br />Do to its depressing topic and even more disturbing ending others have criticized this movie as not being "entertaining". In fact it is entertaining. It is a horror movie of the real kind. The horror of human evil based on prejudice and hatred.<br /><br />Everyone needs to see this movie, with the exception of those who lived through it, as they already know! | 1pos
|
To date, the only other films I've seen by Luigi Batzella are "Devil's Wedding Night" (abysmal) and "Beast In Heat" (SUPER abysmal). However, "Nude For Satan" is a much better film in many ways, but it will definitely not be for all tastes.<br /><br />A doctor, racing to an emergency call, sees what he thinks is a woman in the road and slams on his brakes. His little Volkswagen has been screaming along the back roads like it was a Maserati, from the sound of it. But, before he can get out of his car, there's a crash & there's a woman who has wrecked her car and is hanging out the door, so he puts her into his car, which will then not start. He sees a nearby house so he goes for help, but encounters a very strange man who then disappears. The lights in the house go out when he calls for help, but the front door is open so he wanders in to find the house seemingly abandoned & full of debris. In exploring, looking for someone, anyone, he opens various doors to find nasty surprises inside. And then, he seems to find the woman that he rescued from the accident, surprised to find that she has made it to the house.<br /><br />As the film goes on it seems that the doctor and the woman are in some kind of alternate reality, in which they have doubles. And there's a mysterious man who seems to preside over all that is weird there, presumably, Satan. In encountering the Satan character for the first time, the woman appears nude, while we get a close-up of Satan's eye...talk about undressing someone with your eyes! For the most part, this is very dream-like (or nightmare-like, to be more accurate), and while it's somewhat nonsensical it's still quite interesting and a far better offering than the other trash I've seen by this director. If you like weird Italian horror films, this is definitely worth checking out. 7 out of 10. | 1pos
|
A lot of my friends worked on this movie. They said there were tons of cop-movie in-jokes here and everybody would crack up between takes, with cast and crew having a good time during all those party scenes. They said Marc Singer (remember Beastmaster ?) was a really cool guy, Madsen laid back and Hopper (gettin' kinda' creaky in his way) but still stretching his chops. Its just a low-budget flick fer' gosh-sakes. Sincere in its ponderous way and way better than any million-dollar stinking Seagal or Stallone crap-shoot. Course you can bet your ass nobody was getting $20 million to star in this. Like, you all were expecting maybe "Miami Vice" ? Morally, I figure this flick is a hell of a lot better than some reprehensible 'fun' slasher-crap flicks that fanboys seem to eat up like so many catsup-dripping hotdogs. Hell, I bought this movie in a discount bin at Blockbuster, expecting the worst and surprised to get more than my money's worth. Charles Durning was pretty solid in this and the twist at the end was totally unexpected. And without a doubt, I agree with some of the other comments that the gals were definitely HOT ! This is just a freakin' low-budget movie with all the exploitation elements intact, and every dollar up on the screen. Controversial ? Not really. Amusing ? Yes. A good movie ? Well, better than a lot of the big-budget studio crap that's out there... | 1pos
|
I myself am a eclectic martial art stylist who blends Wing Chung Kung Fu, Brazilian Jiu-jitsu, Professional Wrestling, and Krav Maga into a single loosely structured flexible system I call "Combat Wrestling", and of course, I like a good martial art film now and then. Prior to Bruce Lee's days, the Kung Fu and Karate Films made in the Orient cared little for realism and moved more towards fantasy. Bruce Lee brought some realism back, and other martial art actors like Chuck Norris, and Steven Seagal (sp?) also tried to keep the fight scenes realistic, often doing the fight choreography as well. However, I have been dismayed at the ridiculous scenes being filmed currently both in the East and West involving the use of cables so a fight scene includes some ridiculous sequence of guys jumping from trees to trees or backwards to a rooftop, or leaping forward and kicking like 20 time alternately with both feet. It is quite fitting that the Scary Movie series and the Austin Powers have both spoofed these absurd fight scenes. <br /><br />There have been many actors in the past who have tried to step into the shoes of Bruce Lee, with 10,000 cheap imitations, only a handful possessing any talent or skill to a remarkable degree and none like the Master Bruce Lee.<br /><br />However, the Kung-Fu Magazine hall-of-famer, Jason Yee, is a fellow worth watching, and may be an exception to the rule. I hope so. I'm getting tired of directors trying to foster the illusion of an actor or actress who couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag being some Master martial artist (with a little help of wires, stunt doubles, and camera angles). Of course, movie fights have to be faked or serious injury or death could result. Often the stunt men are more highly trained than the actors, and I deplore this giving a 30 day crash course in Kung Fu or Karate Weapons or hand to hand to some actor who doesn't have the real skills. It is dangerous for all concerned. I'd like to see the return of the actor/martial artist combo like Lee, Norris, Jackie Chan, Steven Seagal. Jason Yee shows real promise as a martial arts actor.<br /><br />But then, many people wouldn't watch a "Karate" movie if they were paid to see it. "All that senseless violence...what shame!" I wonder sometimes what planet these guys were born on, as if John Wayne shooting up the bar in a Western is any less "senseless", and notice how the worship and adoration of firearms---the great equalizer---has turned our streets into shooting galleries. Now everybody is a potential killer, not just a highly trained fighting elite.<br /><br />But the fault is not in the possession of firearms, but the tendency to go straight for the gun or other weapon and use deadly force for the slightest of problems. But then, our own government does this and sets a good example for thugs to emulate. Uncle Sam will attack with the slightest provocation with such goodies as bunker busters, and cluster bombs? Why can't I, Joe Average Citizen do the same?<br /><br />Actually, some martial arts training would help REDUCE violence in the streets. Sound martial art philosophy, the Golden Mean---standing between the "Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out" school, and the extreme and absurd nonviolence taught in some other schools, where the student is taught a skill which is forbidden to ever be used.<br /><br />Frankly, I wouldn't want a man living as my neighbor who would just stand still and meditate as two thugs butchered his wife and children. Such a man is worse scum than the thugs who attack.<br /><br />There is a middle path that lies between, the path of truth. Use no force greater than necessary in the given circumstances. This then is the famous Oath of Peace made famous not by Boddhidharma, but Steven R. Donaldson the fantasy writer.<br /><br />It runs in part "Do not harm when words are enough...do not maim when injury is enough, do not kill when maiming is enough...". <br /><br />Good cops, good soldiers, and good martial artists always follow this creed. But alas, we live in a society where the Natural right to defend oneself from aggressive human predators has been almost totally obliterated by modern governments. Do not fight back, just call the cops, and let the professionals handle it. This kind of stupidity is ominous. Often by the time the government which desires to control every facet of our lives gets to the scene, you or your loved ones are dead. Small comfort that the thugs who put you or your loved ones in their graves are apprehended and punished AFTER THE FACT.<br /><br />But what is the answer? A gun on every belt? A box of Hand Grenades in every car? How about reducing this craving fear of everything and everybody! Martial arts can help here better than a million dollars worth of psycho-therapy.<br /><br />How about a real martial arts training in the schools. A real martial art, not a lukewarm watered down nice and sweet claptrap with a smattering of Zen or Taoism as cream on top. The Warrior Path, paradoxically does not lead to wanton violence, but rather effectively eliminates it. But finding a real martial art, instead of a saccharine watered down version that is a total waste of time and money, is not easy! Good luck! Enjoy this film, but remember...it is only fantasy! | 1pos
|
I came into this title knowing absolutely nothing about it, besides the fact that Christian Slater was the lead. What I watched was nothing short of fantastic. <br /><br />We are first introduced to Bob (Slater), a man on the verge (or possibly in the thrall of) of a total breakdown. Sort of reminds you of Milton from Office Space, but taken so far over the edge, there's just no looking back. He's mistreated at work, he hates his job, and he wants it all to end. <br /><br />The thing that really got me attached to this film was the observations of the inner workings of Bob. He talks to his goldfish, and for crying out loud, the thing talks back. This is obviously an unstable man. His stabilizer though, found in the "victim", Vanessa (played amazingly well by Elisha Cuthbert), reminded me so much of Carrie-Ann Moss from Memento. She carries him, but teaches him to be a stronger man through essential "ball-busting". <br /><br />The script was perfect for each of the lead roles. Both Cuthbert and especially Slater shocked me to no end with their talent. This was Slater's ideal role. Director Frank A. Cappello regained some status with this. It was quite the achievement. It's unfortunate that it had such a small release (I would've never heard of it if it wasn't for the fact that I got an advance DVD). It's going to go overlooked for many. Look it up at your local video store, folks, this will be worth it!!! | 1pos
|
I expect this movie was made simply to shock or something, and perhaps it did in 1991 but now it's simply an interminable yawner. A primal no-no of screen writing is the over-use of time jumps, you know, when there is 1 minute of action then a flash on the screen telling is "two years later" etc. Too often this trick is used in this movie to cover awkwardness in the basic story and to cover gashes in the fabric of the script. This flick starts with several such devices. Time jumps can work if the script is top-drawer, which this one is not. It's basically a simple story of a cuckolded, self-absorbed imbecile and his neurotic, self-absorbed wife who is having it off with her rudderless, self-absorbed brother.<br /><br />All I can conclude after drifting through this mess is that it is a story of arrested development in a trio of unbelievably childish adults leading fantasy lives in chic settings.<br /><br />Worthwhile only for the photography and beautiful settings, houses, flats and parks along the Thames, not to mention the very attractive bodies of Saskia Reeves and Clive Owen, talented actors who are completely wasted as the two maddeningly inane and vapid leads. Alan Rickman can do little more than look befuddled and helpless as the wronged husband.<br /><br />It's all rather sick, but not because of the incest issue, which isn't really very shocking due to the ineptness of the script, but more so because of the abominable selfishness and stupidity of the characters. The motivation for the characters' behavior is highly confusing, besides, who cares anyway.<br /><br />Rubbish. | 0neg
|
In their penultimate Frankenstein entry, the Hammer folks return virtually full-circle to the first film in the series (The Curse Of Frankenstein). Apart from a few changes in personnel, and the way that this one goes for a peculiar black comedy approach, the two films are almost identical. Despite the fact that times had changed between the completion of the two films, one would hardly notice it after viewing The Horror Of Frankenstein. Old-fashioned, predictable and familiar in the extreme, it is arguably the weakest of the entire series.<br /><br />Brilliant young student Victor Frankenstein (Ralph Bates) is the scourge of his teachers and the wet dream of all the girls in his class. He goes to university in Vienna, where he enrages the dean by impregnating his daughter. Also whilst in Vienna, he befriends another student, Wilhelm Kassner (Graham James), and persuades him to return to the family castle when the teaching term is over. Frankenstein inherited the castle, along with a buxom housekeeper named Alys (Kate O'Mara), when his father was killed in a shooting "accident". Once at the castle, Frankenstein and Wilhelm are soon engaged in scientific experiments involving the forces of life, but gradually Wilhelm grows unhappy with the direction the research is taking. Wilhelm is perfectly happy to lethally inject, then revive, a tortoise
but Frankenstein seems to have bigger ambitions, including eventually re-animating a dead person. Wilhelm prepares to leave, but is murdered by Frankenstein after threatening to expose the immorality of his research. The young scientist doesn't stop there after purchasing various body parts from a local grave robber (Dennis Price), he begins to bump off more of his close friends. Slowly but surely, he assembles all the parts he needs to construct a man, but when the crude, disfigured human monster (David Prowse) is eventually reanimated it has uncontrollably violent tendencies, and smashes its way out the castle to go on a killing spree in the adjacent countryside.<br /><br />Lots of reviewers say that The Horror Of Frankenstein suffers from the absence of Peter Cushing, but in truth I think that Ralph Bates is one of the few positive things about this film. While certainly not in the same league as the legendary Cushing, Bates still manages to bring much to the role, playing the evil doctor as a supremely confident, smug and single-minded type. The female characters are also nicely played, with O'Mara oozing feline sexuality as the promiscuous housekeeper, while Hammer regular Veronica Carlson is also solid as Frankenstein's childhood friend. The film suffers from its uninspired story and leisurely pacing. Also, the monster played by Prowse is far too unintentionally funny and has none of the scare factor that Christopher Lee demonstrated in the original movie. Prowse resembles something from a gay's only Halloween party, with his disfigured head, muscular physique and tight boxer shorts. When he is on screen, the film should be peaking into a crescendo of horror, but instead it becomes an accidental comedy! The Horror Of Frankenstein is naturally going to be of interest to those who like and have seen the others in the series, but for the more casual viewer it provides little to get excited about. | 0neg
|
The true story of Anne Sullivan, the teacher of Helen Keller, and her struggles to teach a deaf, mute, and blind girl. Set in the south on an Alabama tobacco plantation the story combines elements of family life, psychology and persistence. The movie teaches not to pity or treat someone as a lesser because of a handicap. The acting was good. The script writing however was mediocre and lacked elements of excitement. The plot line at times became uninteresting, but the ending was dramatic and captivating. I found this movie to be of mediocre quality. I would not consider the movie extremely entertaining, but would suggest watching it to learn more about Helen Keller. | 0neg
|
It seems that the intent of this movie was to make you feel bad for these "poor" rich kids. All it made me do was think how ridiculous they are. If they want a normal life or whatever they can have one. They can go to school meet a woman get married and have kids and not take any of their families money. They are capable of doing whatever they want but all they can do is feel sorry for themselves. I also didnt like how the Director didn't remind us who the people are. There were so many rich kids I couldn't keep track. | 0neg
|
The scene where Sylvester is lying unconscious on his bed in the kitchen, and was lowered through a trap door from 1:10 am to 4:00 am is probably the most frightening scene I never watched on a cartoon. They never show what happened to Sylvester, but when he returns, he's changed physically and looks completely traumatized (his fur is white and looks aged, he's not shivering anymore, and his eyes are dilated and with a lost look). Not showing what's in the basement urges you to try to figure it, and you'll probably end realizing the horrors Sylvester witnessed are beyond your imagination. That kind of involvement of the audience is, in my humble opinion, the most elegant form of horror to me! | 1pos
|
...I'd rate this fourth out of the four I can think of. As Australian post-apocalyptic movies featuring Kurt Cobain's ghost go, Freedom Deep is A-number-one!<br /><br />So I watch bad movies for fun. That's my excuse. After reading the back of the DVD's packaging, which contains the phrase "we see how his talents are nutured (sic) and developed under the guidance of his spiritual mentor - 'Kurt Cobain,'" how could I not buy it? I could not not, that's how. There's another misspelling in the quote above I'd love to reproduce, but IMDb automatically corrects it every time I try.<br /><br />Freedom Deep takes place mostly in two time periods, between which it alternates: 1998-ish and 2018, with a little bit of "much later" as well. The nineties bit concerns a young boy named Liam, who has trouble at home and trouble with the other children at school. And, come to think of it, trouble with his teacher at school, a fact which is revealed in an inadvertently hilarious scene. The other prominent timeline focuses on an adult Liam (who, it should be noted, looks absolutely nothing like young Liam) who basically wanders around the desert a lot. To spice things up, sometimes he wanders through the snow. At one point, in a radical narrative departure, he manages to wander in a boat.<br /><br />Not sold on it yet? Just wait. The best part is that no incarnation of our protagonist, not young Liam, adult Liam or even old Liam, speaks a single word. Not because they're mute, but because it's, y'know, artsy. There's some voice-over here and there, but even that's sparse. I believe it was 28 minutes into the movie before *any* main character actually spoke a word to someone else, and that was through a headset to an unknown party. It's all about as enthralling as it sounds.<br /><br />Freedom Deep is a mess. It's Gordian's Knot, and I have no idea why anybody tied it. So there's this woman. She's a bounty hunter. Or an assassin. Or a government agent or something. I guess it's possible she's from the future of the future. I couldn't tell you. It's 2018, civilization's presumably in crumbles, and for completely unknown reasons she's been tasked with finding Liam wandering out in the desert. Liam's probably wandering the desert to get away from the society that wronged him, except I think that society has been destroyed for close to 20 years at this point. Maybe whatever society sprung up in its place picked on him too. Liam's had it rough. Anyway, she shoots a camel, finds her quarry, has a confusing wireless conversation, burns her headset, rapes Liam at knifepoint (!), they fall in love, and he never says a word. Your typical boy meets girl, really.<br /><br />All the while, she reads through the pages of a book Liam has written. It's the same book Liam started writing back in the 1998 timeline. One would hope that's a helluva book. And clearly it is, as she decides to spare his life because of it; she's convinced it must reach civilization.<br /><br />Meanwhile, young Liam runs away from home and manages to find a surrogate family in the form of a gay couple, half of which is a transsexual "mother" and the other half of which really likes heroin. Liam escapes his troubles, as he always has, through his love of plaid shirts, a horrendous hair-do, Kurt Cobain, and lots of music that sounds nothing like Kurt Cobain's. Music rights cost money. Soon he finds another outlet for his pain (pain best represented in voice-over by the heartfelt words "heal my wounds"). Poetry!<br /><br />The movie states that young Liam's story starts in 1998; we're told no more. Liam endures school and home life, escapes from it, finds an odd replacement family, takes up writing, gets in a series of publications, and becomes well-known enough to get into a meeting with corporate bigwigs who'd like to put his column in their magazine as a regular feature, all by March 12th of 1998, the movie tells us. Even assuming the rest of it started on January 1st, that little dude can move.<br /><br />I have no idea what to make of this movie. I didn't mention how Kurt Cobain really fits in because, well, he doesn't. Why does anyone care what a pubescent mute thinks, at least enough to publish him? Who is sending someone to catch and possibly kill adult Liam? Why? Who does our almost-assassin talk to on her headset? Why does she burn the thing afterwards? Are there wireless towers or satellites after the nuclear holocaust? What the heck happened with the cliff scene? Why does the word "prophet" keep popping up in reference to this movie? If Liam arrives at what looks like a fully intact city at the end, was it really harmed in the first place? Is he just some nutjob wandering around the desert for years and all the rest is his hallucination? Why did the writer-director think he could get away with three versions of a main character who never utters a word? I'm baffled.<br /><br />It's not the worst movie I've seen (I've given out a whole lot of one-star ratings), but it's bad. And it might not be the most confusing movie I've seen, but it's at least top five. As bad movie fare goes, it's entertaining and maybe worth a watch, but isn't a must-see crappy flick experience.<br /><br />In conclusion, let me present a condensed version of what the experience of watching this movie was like:<br /><br />Me: Wait, what?<br /><br />Roommate: I dunno.<br /><br />Me: Rewind it.<br /><br />(Rewind.) (Watch it again.)<br /><br />Together: What?<br /><br />(Repeat.) | 0neg
|
''Hotaru no Haka'' (Brazillian title : ''Túmulo dos Vagalumes'') is a very sad and moving film about the second war in Japan,focusing in the difficulties of a brother(Seita) and a sister(Setsuko).After their mother is killed in an air raid and their father was also killed working in Japan's navy army, Seita needs to be responsible for his little sister Setsuko,a very adorable and sweet little girl. They both go to their aunt's house to live, but after knowing that Setsuko and Seita are now orphans,their aunt changes her behavior and starts to be cruel and annoying with them. Seita stays tired of that, and decides that is best to him and Setsuko to live in a different place, that is a kind of an abandoned shelter. Having problems to find supplies and needing to steal to have something to he and Setsuko eat, Seita and Setsuko gradually starts to have many health problems. Setsuko even goes to the doctor, since she is with malnutrition and diarrhea, but in war times, everything gets even more difficult.<br /><br />Even if you are not an anime (japanese cartoons) fan, this movie is worth of watching. | 1pos
|
Never having seen a Butler Brothers Production before, I came into this film fresh and with no bias one way or the other. I'd read both pro and con reviews of their previous movies (ALIVE AND LUBRICATED, BUMS, etc.) and thought these zany brothers might be worth checking out. Having received and watched CONFUSIONS OF AN UNMARRIED COUPLE, I must say that there are both pro and cons in this one little film and, unfortunately, the cons tip the scale a bit too much for a positive rating.<br /><br />The most appealing aspect of the film is undoubtedly the snappy dialogue and the comedy it contains. Watching Dan (Brett Butler) try to sneak his old mattress out his ex-girlfriend's apartment was pretty damn funny (note: this is attempted while his ex is still in the apartment). His comment "We need to talk" while peaking out from behind the would-be stolen mattress is quite hysterical. The downside to the dialogue is its delivery. Brett may be a fine film maker, but he's not an actor. His lines are delivered in queue-card fashion with poor (or little) emotion. Naomi Johnson as Lisa (his ex) does a more admirable job, using both good facial contortions and voice modulation to get her side of the story across.<br /><br />The fact that this is a story about messed up relationships is old territory covered many, many times, too. This accompanied by the continual panning back and forth of the camera during conversations/arguments makes for an old and stilted feel. I'm sure the intention was to give the audience the sense that they were the camera, watching this story unfold, but the effect gets tiring and irritating after a very short time.<br /><br />The other sense (for me, at least) was that I was watching a soft-porn film without the sex. The verbiage was there the f-word being used liberally, as well as other profanities and felt abused/overused rather than natural flowing dialogue or shocking. I'm no prude and enjoy the occasional merry chorus of "F-yous", too, but Confusions of an Unmarried Couple went overboard.<br /><br />I understand the budgetary constraints of such a small production and seriously appreciated what Brett and Jason Butler were doing here. They just needed to avail themselves of better filming techniques (i.e., not the continual panning) and find an actor who could play the Dan character with an edgy style, and I feel almost certain that the film would've received much more praise from me ...and perhaps others. | 0neg
|
This reeked of a bomb, yet I had to watch it because Dennis Rodman movies always provide that so bad it's good theme going for them. This one was no exception: terrible acting, bad music, and an even worse plot are all repertory examples. This was the worst out of the 3 legitimate movies he was in ("Double Team" and "Cutaway" were slightly better because they either had better actors in it to somewhat make up for the loss or at least fairly suitable dialog). But in this the one-liners just fell flat and weren't even laughable for how bad they were. It's good I saw this so if by some chance there was another unfortunate such as myself that saw this as well we can ever so delightfully bash it together. Such a bad movie!<br /><br />Final put-down:<br /><br />Movies : NO! It was released straight to video anyways.<br /><br />DVD Purchase : You've got to be kiddin' me.<br /><br />Rental : If you say so. | 0neg
|
This month (April 2007), Turner Classic Movies has re-introduced six old RKO films that were presumed lost. Nearly all of them were very good, but STINGEREE was a dog--a film better left lost! Unless you are a rabid fan of the Jeanette MacDonald and Nelson Eddy style operatic movies, this movie will probably annoy you with its very old fashioned and horrid singing. In addition, the plot is pure 1930s corn--completely lacking in realism and full of silly clichés that make decent actors look really, really bad.<br /><br />In addition to horrid opera-style singing, the film was saddled with some weird miscasting. As for the Irene Dunne, she was just fine. Her horrible warbling is exactly what the producers were looking for and back in 1934 it would have gone over quite well at the time--after all, she could sing, though in a style that is so out of style today that many will find the singing quite painful (my ears are still bleeding). But for the leading role, "Stingeree", they poorly chose Richard Dix who was unable to effect any sort of an accent. It seemed very odd that although the film was set in Australia and he was supposed to be English, he sounded exactly like an American! They should have instead given the part to cute old Snub Pollard, an Australian who played a tiny bit part in the movie (so you know he could effect a convincing accent of at least an Australian) but who used to be an amazing comic with Keystone Studios.<br /><br />Now for the incredibly silly plot: Irene wants to be a professional singer, but the nasty old crow who took her in is jealous of Irene's talent so she is planning on keeping Ms. Dunne from meeting a famous English musician and producer. But, quite by chance, the famous bandit Stingeree hears Irene and does everything he can to make her dream come true--even if it means him being caught. He is, but she is discovered in the process. After traveling the world and gaining great fame, Irene is determined to go back to Australia, as she knows she loves him and must marry him--even though they barely know each other and he is currently on the run again. In the end, just like in the campy MacDonald-Eddy operettas, they live happily ever after and the audience is thrilled that the singing is finally completed! They don't make movies like this any more--and for once, I am quite happy about this! What a load of hooey!<br /><br />PS--Late in the film, Ms. Dunne is braiding her very long hair. If you watch closely, you'll see an editing error, as her hair goes from just beginning to being braided to almost completed in a blink of an eye. | 0neg
|
I love movies that inspire me. And this one did. I love how INDIGO was distributed - with the exception of the 100 AMC theaters that showed the film on one day at one time, INDIGO was only shown when a community requested it and agreed to have at least 50 people come. To me, that's amazing. When was the last time you saw a new film with a whole community of people? <br /><br />I love, too, that the spiritual content was not watered down or shied away from. I had fun watching Meghan, the girl who played Grace. I would have loved to see even more of the inner workings of her character, of what it was like to be her.<br /><br />This film had a $500,000 budget. For a small independent film to work on that kind of budget and produce what it did - it's just amazing. I'm impressed, inspired, and looking forward to seeing many more spiritual films like INDIGO. | 1pos
|
"Epoch" has a pretty good premise, but oh my God does the execution blow chunks. I don't like to use the word often, but this movie is just retarded. The screenplay, the acting, the character motivations -- God. It's like a bunch of kids wrote this movie, giving the characters all childish qualities. The idiot Chinese Government, who SHOOTS A MISSILE at the big black rock thingy, and THEN blames the U.S. Government for their jets getting destroyed! And guess what? Later, the brilliant Chinese sends a division of soldiers to invade a foreign country because that country wasn't "big enough" to have a say about who comes into their country!<br /><br />What a retarded movie. I swear, I've never used that word to describe any film, but "Epoch" really takes the cake. | 0neg
|
This is clearly the worst Wesley Snipes movie I have ever seen. And I have to say I was sorry that they didn't do better because it was shot in my country and I was looking forward to what they had done. It was also disappointing that in the car chase they took advantage of the fact that most people in this world don't know how Bucharest looks like and they had no continuity in the route they used. Every street or boulevard was in a different part of the city, even though the scene looked like the streets came one after another. The only thing I liked was that they used "Club Twice" (the club of one of the characters) in the movie, and that is one of my favorite clubs. If you're from Bucharest and you want to see how they used the place watch it. If you're not from Bucharest but still want to see how they used the place watch it. Otherwise don't waste you're time. P.S.: At least they didn't put vampires in the movie. It would have been to much, even for Romania. | 0neg
|
Some quotes from friends of mine about the TV series "Hex":<br /><br />'Pretentious sub-Buffy twaddle.'<br /><br />'"Hollyoaks" for Goths.'<br /><br />'Moody, dark, impenetrably pointless.'<br /><br />'As scary as a balloon on a stick.'<br /><br />'Too mediocre to qualify for a "So Bad It's Good" badge.'<br /><br />'Clearly written for teenagers by marketing men and seedy hacks in cardigans.'<br /><br />'Money back, don't want.' <br /><br />'Takes itself far too seriously.'<br /><br />'Bad, bad, bad. Just really bad.'<br /><br />'Like "Angel" but without the plot, the jokes or the acting talent.'<br /><br />'A ghost train ride with the power switched off.'<br /><br />'Makes me ashamed to be British.'<br /><br />'Makes "Charmed" look like it was written by Chekov.'<br /><br />'I'd rather watch fabric conditioner commercials back-to-back than another episode of "Hex".'<br /><br />So there you go. I couldn't find anyone who watched this miserable TV series who had a good word to say about it. Mind you, I'm 39 and most of my friends are of a similar age. There must be a lot of sullen teenage Goths out there who liked "Hex" enough for it to have such a high IMDb rating. | 0neg
|
In 'RV' Robin Williams plays Bob Munro, a business executive who is trying to get in touch with his family. Problem is, he is not cool anymore and is out of touch. Suddenly, he has to the family vacation plans from Hawaii to Colorado; else he could lose his job. So the idea is rent an RV and go driving, and that is where the fun begins.<br /><br />It is refreshing to see Robin Williams back in the comedy seat. He is truly the life of this film. Unfortunately, he is probably the only funny one in the movie. I can not say it was that good; it is like 'Family Vacation' meets 'Cheaper by the Dozen 2'. Not entirely original, but there are some fun moments with the RV.<br /><br />I did like the Gornickes (Jeff Daniels and Kristin Chenoweth), they were a little too unbelievable, but they did have a good report with Robin Williams. I think both Robin Williams and Jeff Daniels should do more projects together. | 1pos
|
when the film came out on TV around 98 or so I saw it and thought it was the best sci-fi film that was ever made.....bare in mind I was 8. Now in 2007 i watched it a second time and before seeing it i saw people on the IMDb website saying words like it's superb or excellent and and thought to myself it must be as good as I remembered. <br /><br />Oh God how I was wrong. I seriously can't find one good thing about this movie. This is the perfect example of bad film making... 1) Bad Script (e.g. The Blond saying Kurt is out there more than 15 times etc) 2) Not realistic (e.g. Tommy not putting down camera....ever) 3) Terrible! acting (I seriously tried to get into the film but the bad acting from EVERYONE accept from the black guy and the one called Mel...and they were only okay) 4) Eye Sore watching all the different camera angles from the camera 5) Not Original (came out just after year after Blair witch came out)<br /><br />5 great reasons to hate this film and for the love of god read this = IT IS NOT REAL, IT IS NOT BASED ON TRUE EVENTS, IT IS A STORY Written BY DIRECTOR and just found out today the film has a fan club. this is the first film i have ever said was terrible (check my records) and i can't understand why anyone over 10 would think this was real or any good at all! COP ON! | 0neg
|
This is a thoroughly bizarre kung fu action vampire slapstick exploitation movie, essentially an attempt to combine the success of two films, the excellent Chinese hit Mr. Vampire and the international hit The Gods Must Be Crazy (which for reasons unknown to me, was considered "good" and "funny" upon its release in the US). They also threw in a little Bruce Lee montage at the end, no kidding, but don't worry, they worked it in tastefully-haha! The African bushman from Gods... (yes they got the actual guy) engages in amusing slapstick with a hopping vampire. All the white people are horrible, and the Taoist magician from Mr. Vampire rides an ostrich and saves the day, basically. Somehow this was all worth sitting through, if only for the sake of it being one of the strangest films ever made. | 1pos
|
This film is a masterpiece. The Planet doesn't shy away from the real issue at hand, unlike so many other films of this nature. Without giving too much away, this film is very balanced; not overly optimistic, yet not too pessimistic either. Also strikingly different from other movies of the sort is how many cultures are explored, from first world countries to developing nations. Yet, it never loses the focus of the message presented early on in the film--that we have a time frame in which we must act in order to prevent further, more severe consequences than have already appeared.<br /><br />That being said, the cinematography in this film is exceptional. The scenes were gorgeously shot, and the careful editing really captures the scale of the issue, from the smallest insects to the entire globe. Perhaps most noticeable is how well the soundtrack (of a very electronic nature) flows with the visuals. There is one scene that combines the music with the scene (you'll know it when you see it) so well I would have purchased a ticket to see it alone.<br /><br />The Planet is not to be missed. | 1pos
|
As a once regular viewer of MST3K I have to say this is not even close to being the worst file ever made. It is however one of the worst feature films in reset memory. It is to, borrow a word from another review, very "Talky". This wouldn't be bad if the dialog and charterers where better, but these are both action move grade. It's kind of like watching the charterer from Godzilla in The Godfather, with a plot the makes little sense on top. Overall the plot makes little sense, there not much action, despite this being marketed as an action move, the tempo is slow and boring and the move is hard to follow and and not worth following. The only good points, the cinematography and, best of all, it's only an hour and a half.. | 0neg
|
"Enduring Love" is an above average Brit flick all about Joe (Craig) who finds himself in wrestling with potential guilt over a hot air balloon accident. And, If that weren't enough, he finds that tragic incident also beset him with a peculiar sort of obsessive stalker which eats away at his peace of mind and infects his relationship with his girlfriend, Clair (Morton), until he finds himself slipping over the brink of destruction. A very well managed film with a good cast and production value and a plodding and plaintive story, this film builds slowly to a crescendo between two horrific incidents. "Enduring Love" should be an engrossing watch for realists into of psychodramas. (B+) | 1pos
|
This film is wacky and zany but just isn't funny. I yawned and cringed my way through it. It truly is the worst film that I have ever seen.<br /><br />I went to see it at the cinema on the strength of the trailer and persuaded my cousin that it looked better than "Dead Poets Society" which was also showing. That was my crime, it was also my punishment. My cousin still complains about it today. | 0neg
|
Complete Cinema (FilmTvIndia):<br /><br />Neha Arts Presentation's CHAL MERE BHAI is a breezy, light hearted, rib-tickling comic caper, revolving around the strong bond shared between two brothers and their predictable, falling head over heels in love with the same stunning lass. So there is Mamaji (Shakti Kapoor) an over ambitious, over enthusiastic theatre artiste, Mamiji (Himani Shivpuri) a mad hater of her hubby's not-so-funny antics and in between them is their Pune returned Bhanji, Sapna (Karishma Kapoor) who has landed up in Mumbai in search of a job. She is a bumble bee to the core, who always ends up doing the wrong things, but unintentionally at the right time. Once on her way to give her interview she wrongfully bumps into Vicky Oberoi (Sanjay Dutt) a la Mere Mehboob style, only this time the dropped books have been replaced with the dropped files. Since Vicky happens to be the M.D. of the Oberoi group of companies, she dosen't get the job. But on her way out she mets Pa Oberoi (Dalip Tahil), chairman of the company, who gets carried away by her pools of tears and hires her. Next the damsel in distress Sapna forcibly grabs a lift from Vicky's younger brother Prem Oberoi (Salman Khan), the theatre buff of Mamaji's group, to reach on time on the first day of her job. Slowly and steadily Vicky gets drawn towards Sapna, not to be left behind, Vicky and his Dadimaa's (Sushma Seth) grandson Prem discovers that he too has fallen head over heels in love with Sapna, who reluctantly reciprocrates his love. Now Pa and Dadimaa wants Sapna as the bride of the Oberoi mansion, by marrying Vicky. Vicky says yes, Sapna is confused, Prem adds to the confusion confounded until...And then how the sacrificial jigsaw puzzle is abruptly solved, forms the substance of this 'savior de f aire '. Production values have substantial glitz and glamour. Technically apt. Cameraman Harmeet Singh seems to have been literally in a holidaying mood, so he has beautifully captured the new scenic locales of Cine Tirol region and Salisberg - Austria, where nothing else but only the songs have been canned. Editor A.Muthu has been hampered by the hackneyed story, screenplay, dialogues of Rumi Jaffery, Ikram Akhtar, Yunus Sajawal and even their constant take-off on senior actors like Dilip Kumar and Amitabh Bachchan was not in very good taste. Musically the Anand-Milind - Sameer combo leaves much to be desired, with only the title song sung by the principal actors,'Chori chori sapno mein aata hai koi' and 'Meri neend jaane lagi hai' that are worth humming.<br /><br />Performancewise Sanjay Dutt excellent as usual and exudes a tremendous screen presence. Salman Khan too matches his senior co-star especially in the comic sequences. Karisma Kapoor successfully displays her comic forte, apart from portraying all the nuances of her well defined role. On the other hand Naghma, Sonali Bendre and Twinkle Khanna's gutsy, guest appearances are just about okay. Shakti Kapoor and Himani Shivpuri impress, and the rest of the cast pass muster.<br /><br />Directorially David Dhawan has done a fair job, but he is handicapped by oft-rehashed subjects.<br /><br />Super Cinema (FilmTvIndia):<br /><br />Neha Arts' CHAL MERE BHAI is a comedy with a love triangle. Sanjay Dutt and Salman Khan play two brothers. They are sons of industrialist Dalip Tahil. Sanjay is the elder brother and he manages the business. Salman is not interested in family business. He wants to be a great actor. He works on the stage with Shakti Kapoor as his director. Shakti's neice Karisma Kapoor comes to the city for a job. Dalip gives her the job as the secretary of Sanjay. Karisma is a blundering worker and Sanjay does not like her. Sanjay is injured in a fight. Karisma takes him to a hospital and Sanjay's life is saved. Sanjay's father Dalip and grandmother Sushma Seth are impressed with Karisma and they want Sanjay to marry Karisma They don't know that Salman and Karisma are in love. Sanjay also agrees to marry Karisma. Now one brother has to make the sacrifice.<br /><br />Production values are good. Harmeet Singh's cinematography is pleasing. Technically okay. Ganesh Acharya's choreography is good. Anand-Milind's music sounds nice in the theatre, but there are too many songs. Two songs 'Meri neend jaane lagi hai' and 'Chori chori sapnon mein' are hummable.<br /><br />The first half is a breezy comedy. Tempo slows down in the second half and the story runs on predictable line. A major drawback of the film is that the basic story has been repeated in many films, and recently in "Dillagi" and "Pyar Koi Khel Nahin."<br /><br />Performance-wise, Sanjay Dutt impresses. Salman Khan is natural. Karisma Kapoor is lively. Shakti Kapoor, Sushma Seth, Dalip Tahil, Himani Shivpuri and Asrani provide able support.<br /><br />As the director, David Dhawan again shows competence as a maker of light comedy. The drawback is that David and his team of writers are running out of ideas. They are only repeating situations seen in other films. Dialogue writer Rumi Jaffery is able to provide occasional punches.<br /><br /> | 1pos
|
I had a good friend tell me I would find this hilarious, which has historically always been a bad sign. After sitting through 2 and half episodes and trying to force the occasional smile, I could stand it no longer. It's not that it's spectacularly bad, it's just that it is, at best, average in every respect. The humour is predictable. Gormsby's dialogue wears thin after the first couple of lines. The acting is dire for all but a couple of the main characters (Gormsby and that fat PE teacher) and the few dramatic elements are plastic, hollow and laboured.<br /><br />Don't get me wrong. It's great that a low-budget show from NZ of all places has done well outside its country of origin. And thank god there's no laugh track, but Christ, I have to voice a counter opinion to all this wanton praise since I've sat through repeated viewings of it now (with the aforementioned friend and his flatmate) and I honestly hate it. Now this might be asking for it, but am I the only one? | 0neg
|
The hypothesis of Chabrol: that life in society is only possible if it is based on lies, in the film, is a total lie! Also, it's interesting that the narrator at the actual time of these problems: pedophilia, unemployment, female cops (on television), was neurotic. It seems contrived in many situations: the infidelity of Vivianne (the nude painting of her), the assassin (the photo that was found in the assassin's bag). | 0neg
|
"Cutting Class" is easily one of the most awful slasher flicks from the late 80's.Brian returns back to college aged 18 after spending five years in a mental asylum for killing his father.He tries to worm his way back into the lives of his ex-best friend Dwight and Paula his old flame.And suddenly a bunch of people start dying,in the most bizarre and stupid ways in slasher film history.There is for example death by pottery kiln,death by photocopier,but my favourite is the old classic,flagpole under a trampoline so the fascist Gym teacher gets impaled on the American Flag."Cutting Class" is a stinking piece of crap filled with silly jokes and a little bit of gore.The acting is downright horrible and the characters are completely flat.There is no suspense and the killings are lame.This film is clearly as bad as "Hollow Gate" or "Return to Horror High".Avoid it like a plague.1 out of 10. | 0neg
|
Pretty entertaining movie staring Cheech Marin as a Latin guy named Rudy from East LA who mistakenly gets deported to Mexico. Marin is tooling around some factory one day when INS busts in and rounds up the lot of them. Jan Michael Vincent busts him, Rudy not having his id is thought to be an illegal and is promptly shipped off to Mexico. Meantime Rudy's cousin or something like that played by Paul Rodriguez ends up at Rudy's house waiting for his arrival. Rudy ends up meeting Jimmy (stern) down in Mexico and begins to work some low end jobs and things to earn some cash to get back to the US. After many comical scenes he meets Dolores and brings her back to the US. Of course he marries her in the end and she is able to stay...the end. This isn't the funniest movie I have ever seen, but its very entertaining. Cheech is always fun to watch and saves what probably would have been a fairly boring movie. If your looking for some time to waste on a Saturday, as I was, flip the channel and find this. 6 and half stars. "Born in east LA, I was Born in east LA!" | 1pos
|
Dennis the Menace is among the few films on the video shelf that is able to keep the entire family amused. In the film, we see the newspaper cartoon of our youth come to life with a cast that could not have been more perfectly chosen. Walter Mattheau and Joan Plowright are ideal as the neighborly object of Dennis' affection; he the loveable old curmudgeon and she the unfulfilled neighborhood grandmother. Mason Gamble embodies the spirit of the spunky menace you cannot help but love. Margaret and Joey appear on the screen just as you had always imagined them, as do the parents of the menace.<br /><br />Of course Christopher Lloyd gives a fine performance as the true menace to this sleepy village. Lloyd may be just a tad too scary for younger children, and some of the riverside scenes with Lloyd and Gamble may be the stuff of nightmares. Parents beware.<br /><br />If your young ones are not easily scared or influenced to devilment, this will be the film to provide an evening of fun for all ages. | 1pos
|
After 65 years, this film still rings true in many ways. Several people have mentioned the "bathing the baby" scene, but my favourite is the alarm clock scene. One thing I appreciate is that Dunne and Grant's new baby actually looks fairly new, jerky movements and all - maybe not 5 weeks old, as stated, but definitely younger than the usual Hollywood "newborn". I'm sure that at the time, this movie was quite educational for many people like the two main characters, who thought that you adopt a baby by going to the nearest orphanage, picking out the one you like, and walking out with it. I only wish the filmmakers had taken the opportunity to really underline the fact that *everybody* wants a 2-year-old with curly (preferably blond) hair, blue eyes, and dimples, but what about the 99.999% of less "perfect" children very much in need of a good home? The film does slide toward melodrama on occasion - did it take a full-blown earthquake for Irene Dunne's character to have a miscarriage? One thing I noticed is that this film actually shows a married couple sharing the same bed! Mind you, Irene Dunne is lying on top of the cover with her dressing gown on, tensely waiting for the baby's next feeding, while Cary Grant is off to sleep, but I still wonder how it got past the Hays office. The little girl who plays 6-year-old Trina is not *too* saccharine (except for her voice), but at the end of each speech, she is obviously remembering that she's been told to "Smile, dear, smile!".<br /><br />What ruins it for me is the ending - their little girl has been dead for only a few *days*, and her parents are ready to start with another baby. IMO, at this point, any normal parents would react with revulsion to the thought of "replacing" their dead child. As another reviewer mentioned, in this film it's like replacing a dead goldfish. If only the filmmakers had implied that several *months*, or better yet, a year or more, had passed, and shown the couple finding each other again first, it would have been much more believable and touching. BTW, several reviewers have mentioned the poor quality of the DVD or video they watched, but the one I had from Triton Multimedia was, not outstanding, but quite all right. | 0neg
|
***SPOILER*** Today, talk of performance-related erectile dysfunction is on every woman's lips, if you'll pardon the expression. Group or open sexuality, for the uninitiated straight first-time "vanilla" male, particularly in the same room/bed with another male, can be a very stressful situation.<br /><br />Simply put: Despite the appeal and willingness of Carol & Alice, neither Bob or Ted, in their situational anxiety, were able to "get it up". Watch carefully and you'll see the disappointment on the faces of the women.<br /><br />As the former public relations director and spokesman for the 1970s Sandstone Retreat (imdb: "Sandstone") I often compared the psychological benefits of well-introduced group sex with the well-guided initial psychedelic experience. Both experiences often result in highly euphoric, life changing, long lasting insight.<br /><br />Finally, B&C&T&A, despite the wardrobe, is by no means a quaint relic of the swinging 60s/70s. Real life realizations of their entirely rational human impulses occur every day and night in every large city and small town around the world.<br /><br />The Sexual Revolution, and the realities of polyamory, polyfidelity, the swinging lifestyle and safer sex practices remain alive and well in God-fearing America in the 21st Century. | 1pos
|
This is the kind of movie that makes this exercise of writing up every feature I see kind of redundant, because it's not much of a movie. (at 60 minutes it's not much of a feature either) Bob Moog invented, you know, the Moog synthesizer, which as the movie illustrates has been the source of lots of directions in music, some legendary (Bernie Worrell), lots fun (Stereolab), and lots of atrocities against the ear (Rick Wakeman, Keith Emerson). The common thread between these musicians is nonexistent, and the movie doesn't even try - it just plods from point to point, with Bob in tow to look on like a proud papa. I think the reason there's no cross-cutting is that there's no content - some lawyer clearly wouldn't let them talk about Moog's battles with the company that bears his name (don't ask me for more detail), and all that's left is a sequence of short arbitrary rambles - still life with Gershon Kingsley, still life with DJ Spooky (who is a pompous ass), Moog picking bell peppers, et cetera, plus some wan recitations of the word 'spirituality.' The only breakout moment is when Worrell tells Wakeman that he thinks of a keyboard as a woman that he's having sex with and Wakeman responds, 'I tried that but I found that the songs became very short.' To which Worrell replies, 'Play slower!' THERE is a cultural frisson to die for. | 0neg
|
The third picture featuring Clint Eastwood as Dirty Harry. Clint Eastwood resumes his role as Police Inspector Harry Callahan; Tyne Daly plays the role of Inspector Kate Moore and Harry Guadino as Lt Al Bressler. Harry gets into one of his usual predicaments when his is relegated to Personnel to help interview patrol officers on the list to make inspector. While filling his duties in personnel he learns that there are eight openings for inspector and three of those eight will be filled by woman. A group of people who call themselves the People's Revolutionary Strike Force (PRSF), led by Bobby Maxwell, are making plans to go on a crime spree all over the city of San Francisco. When Dirty Harry's longtime partner is killed by the PRSF during a major weapons theft, Dirty Harry vows revenge and, surprisingly, is given some support by his superiors. Harry has one problem, he's given a new partner and it's non other then a lady inspector. After the Mayor of San Francisco is taken its up to Harry and his new partner are expecting to find him. All and all I give this movie 8 weasel stars. | 1pos
|
This movie was really great, it had an exciting and plausible plot, reasonable acting -- and it wasn't just cheesy crap compared to most of the other drivel that was being played for us kids at that time. This clearly stood out shining in my mind, up there with "The Neverending Story" and "Flight Of The Navigator". This movie didn't talk down to me as a child, which I quite liked. And it wasn't just another cartoon, which for the most part I found painfully dull in their lack of realism. The Natty character, and all those she meets on her adventures (including the wolf that she befriends), are unique, interesting, thought provoking ... and you actually care what happens to them all by the end.<br /><br />And how many other movies aimed at youth have a kid getting chased away from eating out of a garbage dumpster ? Heh.<br /><br />Great film !<br /><br />I want to watch it again to see if I still like it as much, but I know I probably will ... I know the plot quite well, I did watch the movie at least 8 or 10 times as kid. | 1pos
|
This show is fusion... Curb Your Enthusiasm meets The West Wing. I think this was well done , but 10 episodes clearly enough. Basically ,this is a fictionalized account of DC , playing as the political version of Curb. What Larry David is to Curb, James Carville is to this show. Very intelligent though not quite as funny as Curb, the show is a fine depiction of how The inner circle of DC uses the media to get their message to the masses. I do feel the show could have used more humor but it is more of a fictionalized documentary , with roots of truth . I liked this show and ,surprisingly, I thought James Carville is a fine actor. Hmmmm , maybe that is telling in itself when it comes to our beloved public servants, but I shall digress. The material here is real and I like that the issues are more of light nature. One can easily enjoy this without taking on the somberness of the state of the world. The show is nonpartisan , so no side of the political aisle needs to be offended. Give this a watch and you will probably agree that it is a nice show and that 10 eps are just enough. | 1pos
|
Surely Lynch's best movie. I was lucky enough to catch this on cable the other night, what a supreme joy. Wonderful art direction and remarkable performances all round. The dark Dickensian sets of London are hauntingly beautiful. Hunt this one down, highly recommended. | 1pos
|
Mostly silly, with Adam Sandler doing his usual goofy stuff, but Jack Nicholson - looking like Orson Welles - gives the movie exactly what it needs. There are some scenes that we expect in an Adam Sandler movie (e.g., someone eventually exposes something embarrassing about himself), but other parts really hit you. The whole "I Feel Pretty" sequence was a real surprise. And of course, there's some great lines, especially the "phobe" scene. Also starring Marisa Tomei, Luis Guzman, John Turturro, Woody Harrelson and Rudy Giuliani (yes, THAT Rudy Giuliani).<br /><br />So, in conclusion, I don't feel angry at all after watching this. In fact, I feel pretty. A real hoot. | 1pos
|
I would like to take this opportunity to say that this film is 100% RUBBSIH, NOT NOT WATCH IT UNLESS YOU LIFE DEPENDS IN IT!!<br /><br />This is without a doubt one of the worst films i have ever seen! I was absolutely speechless after watching it and quite frankly I am absolutely appalled at the good comments its bin given on this site! where they watching the same movie as me? First of all the movie was terribly written and acted badly. Lindsay lohan can barely act. why did they make her sing? 9 also why was everyone so shocked when she sang for the first time? she sounded like a freaking cat being strangled!) She hasn't been good in any movie since the parent trap (also why are people saying shes hot? SHE IS UGLY AND A CHAV!). I found myself wondering what on earth this whole story was all about and i never got to the end because it was making me severely depressed and i couldn't stand another twenty minutes of this rubbish - it would have made me suicidal! It seems to me that the director just wanted to make a teen movie and couldn't really be bothered to get a story or a proper script. Lots of people have said that it was great for the target age, what was that exactly? I am thirteen and didn't like it!<br /><br />In conclusion if you were to rent or buy this movie it would be a complete waste of your time, energy and money. | 0neg
|
I think this movie should rate at least FOUR Oscars!! OK now that the same drugs that apparently the director was on when he produced this 'stinky fish' have worn off all I can say is: "How can a good cook take such excellent ingredients for making a fine dish (film) and combine them so badly??"<br /><br />I am a fan of Patrick Stuart but he must have been doing some penance for past evil transgressions to actually have allowed himself to be cast in the role of Nemo so badly.<br /><br />I do not REALLY need to get into discussing the pirates do I?<br /><br />Shane | 0neg
|
This movie is great.Because it deals with nasty subjects and themes that are just too real and raw for most directors out there to even attempt to handle.Tod is a truly consummated director and storyteller(pun intended).I certainly can see an autobiographic commentary here, as any viewer paying some attention could.But for all it's dead pan humor and dark views of the human nature, this movie is a lot of fun and full of twisted, brilliant moments.*Spoilers Next*For example: when the character Scobby is high on marijuana and sees himself as a guest on Conan Doyle's Show...great!! And when his little brother(highly annoying and egotistic but also very intelligent)hypnotize his father to..love him!*End of Spoilers* By any means you should compare this with Tod's masterpiece: Happiness, but with Welcome To The Doll House(another excellent movie of his)this could stand very tall and proud.Highly recommended essential look! | 1pos
|
I saw it when it was first broadcast--and some of it again when rerun a year or two later. It made me very squidgy. The principals and producers weren't really comfortable with the material and it showed. The only thread of the story that was credible was Hope Lange's distress at having her son (or adopted son?) suddenly find out about his father's (or adoptive father's?) live-in boyfriend. <br /><br />Scott Jacoby was horrendously miscast. The only way Hope Lange and Hal Holbrook could have had this ugly, obnoxious kid was to have taken in the child of some (unrelated) friends. Perhaps the other couple got killed in an auto accident--who knows? Anyway, it would make sense for Hal and Hope not to have had any kids of their own, so this created a whole new backstory that was not explicitly dealt with in the script. Here they were stuck with this pushy brat, and bending over backwards to be nice to him and smooth over his ruffled feelings, and they always got bupkis for their trouble. <br /><br />The pivotal scene was Martin Sheen bringing out the birthday cake ('but it's noawt moy boitday!' kvetches the brat) and then Sheen has to swallow endless abuse and innuendo from the little creep, who (let's face it) knew the score from the moment he saw his 'father' living in the same house with this other guy. This is another example of disjuncture between the actual script and the story as portrayed: the Scott Jacoby character is an up-to-date, crudely aware little wiseguy, but the director and adult actors are going around pretending he's this delicate flower who's had a sheltered life. I imagine that the kid was a past-master at subtle psychological blackmail. This new 'revelation' just gives him more ammunition. His poor adoptive parents! <br /><br />And the moral is: Don't adopt a kid who's obviously not yours. You'll get no thanks! | 0neg
|
I kinda liked the first movie, if only for its premise and craziness, but the first movie had too many awkward moments (especially the piano scene). I must say, Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds is a DELIGHTFUL movie, and it's a sequel, no less! I was sad to see the original Marc be played by someone new (and not as good looking), but after I found out the guy was in the short film "Crush", I definitely had a better impression of him (I loved that short film!). Troy was just... I'm speechless. =) Overall, the movie was much quicker, tighter, no serious awkward moments, still over the top as always, light hearted, and funny. There were so many funny sex scenes in this movie it's worth watching it a 2nd time! I'm definitely buying this movie soon! | 1pos
|
This is actually a well made film. because of that, I doubt very highly that it was directed by Lo Wei. My vote is that Chan, once allowed to choreograph the fight scenes, just went ahead and directed the film, much as what happened with Bruce Lee and The Chinese Connection, another film claimed by Lo Wei that he didn't actually direct. In fact that's pretty typical for Lo Wei - probably half the films he made were directed by the actors while he was off gambling, drinking, or sleeping it off.<br /><br />At any rate: Although the film is heavy handed and a little slow, the story is not without interest (this is one of the few 'fu films where we see a potential villain repent and become a good guy), and the performances are all above standard for this genre in the mid-'70s. I believe this film, I believe its characters. Certaily not a masterwork, but a worthwhile dramatic 'fu film.<br /><br />Oh, and the fight scenes are all pretty good. | 1pos
|
Well I just spent the evening watching this with a group of 7 friends, mostly high-school teachers, collectively our book & film club. It started off quite positively - a bit bonkers perhaps but sort of amusing but by the end the audience was variously commenting: "I'd have preferred having needles stuck in my eyes!" or extending toilet breaks so they had less of the film to watch, or lamenting the sheer tedium of this movie. I didn't think it was THAT bad (not "up" to Death in Venice standard for example) but by the end I was wondering what point the film-maker was actually trying to make. Given that it was impossible to have much sympathy for any of the characters and given that nothing actually happened, surely there must be a philosophical point to it all? Once I realised there was none, I realised we had been yet again tricked into admiring an Emperor's invisible suit. I cannot believe people have given this film such high ratings. I think you've had the wool well and truly pulled over your eyes. | 0neg
|
This film is a 75 minute animated commercial for the Gobots toy line. The animation was produced by Hanna-Barbera, so I thought I'd give it a shot.<br /><br />Since I was nearly 30 years old when this toy line was introduced, I didn't expect to really understand the charactors, and the plotline.<br /><br />As I watched this epic, I kept wondering what made Roddy McDowell do a voice for this thing. Musta been paid major bucks.<br /><br />The bad guys are destroying everything in their paths, and the good guys (the GOBOTS®) are out to get them. Lots of pointless shooting, and noise. Perfect for the kids of the mid '80's.<br /><br />The color and animation is typical Hanna-Barbera. The backgrounds were decent, but the stilted animation style hurt the flow of the story. Perhaps Tonka (the toy maker) just couldn't see paying more for better work. If they had, this film would be better.<br /><br />Hanna-Barbera is not at fault here. They are capable of some fine work, and have done fine work in the past. This, unfortunately, is not the one.<br /><br />This film was rated G. If there had been live actors instead of animation, this thing would be rated PG. What's the difference? | 0neg
|
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.