review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
In the opening scene of "Malta Story" Mr A.Guinness bore such a startling resemblance to Noel Coward that I fully expected his first words to be "Certain women need striking regularly - like gongs" or some such world - weary bon mot.Unfortunately his dialogue is hardly deathless prose and even the Master would have had trouble bringing it to life.Indeed Mr Guinness wanders through the picture as if looking for a focal point and failing to find one.And therein lies the fatal weakness of the whole movie.Mr J.Hawkins likewise gives up early on and ends up giving a "Jack Hawkins" performance without an ounce of individuality.It could have been spliced from any of a dozen British war movies.Many of the early fifties usual suspects turn up and do their schtick to very little purpose. The Luftwaffe failed to bomb Malta into submission in much the same way as it failed to bring London to its knees.The courage of the Maltese people in the face of incessant danger was recognised by the King and the island was awarded the George Cross.A worthy subject you might think for a movie,but "Malta Story" does not even qualify for the term "worthy" in its most patronising sense.It gives the appearance of being hastily cobbled together to meet a deadline,perhaps before the actors lost the will to live. | negative |
There is a growing trend in the media to vilify and ridicule men. One sees it in television adverts and program plots. Cheaters is a prime example, they could find plenty of female cheaters yet the vast majority shown are men, why? The prime threat to any government's power resides in the male population, they're less likely to abide by authority and are more of a physical combat threat. A way to reduce the threat is to emasculate men in society via the media. Other examples of psychological propaganda are crime dramas full of self righteous cops including big-jawed aggressive women accusing everyone they question trampling their rights and making those men feel like scum. In Australia many top male sports stars have been arrested recently for dubious assaults and drinking charges, another example of the government controlling the male populous by arresting their heroes and asserting dominance. Cheaters, aside from the political machinations is an invasion of privacy and a violation of rights, furthermore most of these women assault the men! If it were round the other way the men would be in jail!! If it were an honest show they would be finding women cheaters, because they don't normally get caught due to the fact that their male lovers are quite happy to get in no strings attached and get out without rocking the boat. Men's mistresses want the men to themselves and want to own and control the men and thus get the men caught anyway. | negative |
The Brothers Quay are directors, judging by conventional thought, should have stuck to making short films. I myself actually really liked their first feature, Institute Benjamenta, but judging by their sophomore effort, The Piano Tuner of Earthquakes, I'm willing to agree they don't come close to equaling their past genius at feature length. Piano Tuner is, without a doubt, a gorgeous film to look at, and often to listen to. Unfortunately, it's borderline painful to sit through with its convoluted narrative and glacial pace. Reading the plot synopsis, it sounds like a pretty good story. But the Brothers fail miserably to bring it to life. One thing they should consider avoiding completely in the future: dialogue. My God, it's awful here. A huge bust. | negative |
There is NOTHING cool, hip, or clever about this film-- liking it just reveals an ignorance of true art cinema. How can you so easily forget that the central fact of this entire film is that these mean & ugly people are . . . SERIAL KILLERS! If they have to dismember total strangers in order to "be a family again," then we don't WANT them to "be a family." What part of that did you have trouble grasping? Why applaud this filth?<br /><br />THIS silly filth is what you do if you can't do art! One's head & life must be deeply empty to mistake this shallow viciousness as "interesting." This is a camera without a brain. What really makes an artwork cool is profundity, questioning the status quo from a perspective informed by a knowledge of history (or, in this case, a knowledge of ANYTHING would be preferable!). Instead, this is just randomly piling up the ugliest images available in a world in meltdown, thanks to just the sort of empty meanness glorified as "cool cause it's so far OUT, man!"). These same violent events actually HAPPEN, every day. They are NOT "just in the film." They refer to actual soul-less people who would do those same things to YOU. Do you WANT those things done to you? A child could have thought this up, it required zero imagination, it is NOT surrealism. This lazy crap has no content, is saying nothing--it's just the worst of the evening news, & it is saying nothing new, nothing we don't already know. It's "the emperor's new clothes," the director hoping there are enough uneducated children, proud of their streak of inhumanity, for this sloppy filth to fly. I can see director Miike's demented fans now: chain-smoking teens-and- twenties drunks covered in tattoos, with metal hanging from holes punched in their faces, their knowledge-base inversely proportional to their intelligence estimate of themselves .<br /><br />There is NO PLOT to this--it is just sheer exploitation of shock-value violence. There is no "hidden meaning" anywhere in this poorly made film. It is fine to explore a film to see if you can find cinematic devices that are ingeniously artistic, BUT you cannot uncover a hidden meaning if one is not THERE! To DO that you need to view & review a REAL piece of cinema. There are PLENTY out there, directed by Fellini, Bergman, Fassbinder, Herzog, Altman, Bunuel, Kurosawa, Lynch, Tarkovsky, Peter Greenaway, Tarantino, Guillermo del Toro, Richard Linklater, Eisenstein, Aronofsky, Gus van Sant, Soderbergh, Shyamalan, Ordet. Why don't you view a REAL art film by the likes of these giants? This wannabe director, Miike, will NEVER make a film equal to one of the geniuses I just listed because he just doesn't have the talent! Anyone could slap together some chaotic crap like "Visitor Q." Teenagers could throw that together in one afternoon! There's no message, no meaning, no plot, nothing to it at all. There are long lists of ART Films to learn from--but THIS "Visitor Q" is NOT an art film in any respect. It has no content to it. It's just one banal horror piled onto another, and the point to remember about those hideous crimes is that those things HAPPEN, every single day, somewhere in the world. They are NOT okay because they are "just in the film." They refer to actual soul-less people who would do those same things to YOU. Do you WANT those things done to you? To others? Why? Because this world is already ugly enough, thanks to people who enjoy thinking about horrific events like this. <br /><br />There are sooooo many art films out there to use your mind to deconstruct, but you are wasting your talents with this piece of crap. There IS no deeper meaning. There is nothing to analyze; why keep trying? I've spent nearly 40 years watching practically every film ever made, and keeping up with all the new ones, but I've never seen anything as disgustingly pointless as this. It's not imaginative or even shocking, because these types of events happen daily all over the world. To make this film, or even to favorably review it, has caused over 50 young airheads who don't know any better to think it's "cool." They may grow up thinking that, convincing others, some of whom may end up DOING these things--convicted killers often reveal how they started out just this way, by being desensitized to the horror of this gruesome inhumanity. Trust me on this,--I know cool, and cool this piece of crap AIN'T. Visitor Q has the FEEL of a genuine SNUFF film, and I'm still not sure it isn't, actually. <br /><br />Your actions have consequences, son. The world is awful enough already. Some violence like this COULD happen to YOU, or to the socially irresponsible director who cranked out this FAKE Art film. Believe me, you won't be thinking it's "Cool" when someone is sawing YOUR skull in half! | negative |
***May Contain Spoilers*** OK, it wasn't exactly as good as expected in fact it was a lot different than I had thought it would be but it still turned out to be a pretty good movie.<br /><br />I usually don't care too much for that type of music but in this movie it worked perfectly (I mean duh he's a rock star) but anyway I loved Stuart Townsend in this, and Aaliyah, although she had a small part in the movie was amazing.<br /><br />And even though Tom Cruise played Lestat in the Interview with a Vampire, I have to admit that I am glad he turned down the role even though I normally hate when they use different people to play the same characters in like sequels and stuff.<br /><br />Overall, the movie was great and I enjoyed watching it, even if there were parts that could have been better. Great vampire movie. | positive |
I just saw this movie last night and, being someone who had very low expectations to begin with, was still disappointed. The most glaring error in this abomination of a movie is that the main plot point (the guy being awake during the surgery), had NOTHING to do with the outcome. It would have ended the same way regardless. So, what was the point of this? Who knows. Also, this surgeon had 4 malpractice suits against him and he didn't think people would ask questions if a patient died on his table? Give me a break. Jessica Alba is completely talentless and Christiansen is almost as bad. The whole thing was just laughable from start to finish. I'm fairly certain that if you could feel someone cutting through your chest with a scalpel, you would be in more pain than that. | negative |
That Certain Thing is the story of a gold digger (Viola Dana) from a tenement house. Her mother uses her to take care of her two brothers, but they are a loving family. Although Dana's character has the opportunity to marry a streetcar conductor, she refuses and holds out for a millionaire. Everyone makes fun of her for her fantasy, but are surprised when one day she really does meet a millionaire, son of the owner of the popular ABC restaurant chain. The two marry hastily, but the girl's dreams of wealth are shattered when the rich father disowns his son for marrying a gold digger. However, she truly loves her new husband and the two are unexpectedly successful at making it on their own.<br /><br />A rare glimpse of movie star Viola Dana, this film is a lot of fun. Dana's role is accessible, natural, and entertaining. She displays a knack for comedy as well as an ability to do drama.<br /><br />The mechanics of the film are a lot of fun too. The camera displays sophisticated late silent techniques like mobility. The title cards are also incredibly clever.<br /><br />If you like films like My Best Girl, It, or The Patsy, you will enjoy this film. | positive |
When you look at Mexico's best movies you will more than likely find that the Photography was performed by Gabriel Figueroa. He is recognized in the world as one of the best that have ever existed. His master control of the cameras gave an added asset to the movies he was part of. If added to his participation we add the direction of Luis Bunuel, you will never find such a pair of aces anywhere else in the world. This story, Nazarin, was written by Spain's greatest writer besides Miguel de Cervantes(Don Quijote de la Mancha). The story in itself is superb: Nazarin a priest that lives by his beliefs tries to live a very Christian life, but as always there are people that do not accept this. He wanders through many places preaching his Christianity but finding, most of the time, people that do not accept him. But besides the splendid story, it is always interesting to try to interpret the enigmatic messages that Bunuel sends us throughout the picture in scenes that make you shiver. | positive |
This is a really bad film, with bad acting and a very boring pace Lorenzo Lamas is really cool though!. All the characters are just annoying (except Lamas), and there is absolutely no one to root or to care for!, plus the action is very boring. The film gives us 3 villains who were supposed to find menacing and disturbing when in fact there boring, laughable and just a bunch of morons that i wanted to shut up!, plus it looks very cheap and amateurish!. Lorenzo Lamas has a lot of charisma but he can't save this piece of crap, and believe it or not the opening was really cool, as was the ending, however the middle is incredibly boring, and got me to have the urge to press the fast forward button!, plus The dialog is especially laughable!.There is a cool bar scene that i really liked, but once Lamas heads to the dock it all falls apart, plus the scene where The villains torture Jennifer's family, and kills them were supposed to find it disturbing when it in fact is laughable!. This is a really bad film, with bad acting and a very boring pace, Lorenzo Lamas is really cool though!, however it is not enough, not recommended. The Direction is very bad. George Erschbamer does a very bad job here, with mediocre camera work, bland location, and keeping the film at a boring pace. The Acting is pretty bad (except for Lamas). Lorenzo Lamas is awesome here, and while he isn't required to act, he is quite fun to watch, and has a really cool character, and had a lot of charisma, however even he can't save this one,and he had no chemistry with the cast either! (Lamas Rules!). Josie Bell is terrible here, and while she's decent looking, she isn't very convincing and had no chemistry with Lamas. Cheryl Jeans is hot, but does not have much to do but scream and scared, she did okay at that.Robert Scott is INCREDIBLY annoying as the main villain, and wasn't menacing at all, he was laughable as were the other 2. Rest of the cast are bad. Overall Avoid! Avoid!, even if you do like Lamas (like me). * out of 5 | negative |
This was a pretty good movie that was overall done quite well. The idea about Mercy (won't spoil) was original also. I think Angelina did a good job as one of her first movies. The only things I frowned upon were some of the corny fight scenes (won't spoil either). I liked the first movie and I liked this one as well. 7/10 | positive |
Two redeeming qualities of this film were the cinemaphotography and a storyline that was hard to resist. However, the script, the direction, and some scenes, were just awful. I kept asking myself why such a good cast would have produced such a bad movie. My only conclusion was that these actors must believe in the charity which underlies the plot of the movie, but knew the movie was filled with flaws.<br /><br />This film could have been so much better, and reached a larger audience accordingly. What makes me think this is that with all of the problems of the film, some scenes being painfully bad to watch, I still wanted to see how the obvious conclusion would resolve itself. | negative |
The first time I ever saw this movie was when I was four years old. I remember loving it and everything about it. 13 years later, I am now 17, and decided to watch it about a month ago because I am taking a 1960's class in school. I didn't really know what to expect, since it had been 13 years since I last saw it, but I was completely blown away by it. The actors were amazing, the music was so fun, and I now find myself singing along to every song. Treat Williams is great as Berger, the "leader" of the hippie group, who always gets what he wants, one way or another (except for at the very end, of course). John Savage is actually very convincing as Claude, the Oklahoma draftee who falls in love with Sheila (Beverly D'Angelo). D'Angelo is lovely as the prim and proper rich girl who eventually rebels against her upbringing and joins the hippies. The other hippies are played by Annie Golden, Don Dacus, and Dorsey Wright. Annie Golden is just adorable as Jeannie, the girl who is pregnant but still as cute and innocent as a child. Don Dacus and Dorsey Wright are good as Woof and Hud, the other two members of the group, and Cheryl Barnes, who plays Hud's fiancée, has an amazing voice. <br /><br />The only problem I have with this movie, however, is that the relationship between Claude and Sheila is not very convincing. They are barely ever shown together, and when they are, they fight (remember the skinny dipping scene?). It seems as though their relationship is very weak, and by the end of the movie we are supposed to believe they are madly in love, only based on the few meetings they had. I also see that many people writing reviews here are upset by the PG rating this movie has. I personally would raise the rating up to a PG-13, only because there is some drug use... but remember in 1979, PG-13 didn't exist. I don't think the nudity is bad at all, it is in no way sexual (in fact, there isn't really any sex at all in this movie), and it is only to show the childlike innocence that the group maintains. In most European countries, nudity isn't regarded as something bad, and I don't see why it is here in the US. Anyways, I give this movie a high rating, and I'm glad it was made back then, because in the insanely "politically correct" world of today, they wouldn't even think of making it, and even if they did, it would be a very "watered down" version, and I'm sure you wouldn't get the full effect. <br /><br />In conclusion, this is a very underrated film that is definitely worth checking out. | positive |
My first impression would be this is Beowulf only with all the good bits of fighting Grendel and dragons intact, making it one thrill ride from start to end. Written by Frederic Lanoir and Arthur Qwak, the two of them had created a fantastical landscape that becomes a character in itself within their story, with its ever changing environment made up of small spheres of land floating around, which can either be wastelands, or globes of greenery.<br /><br />The story's a simple one, which tells of a land which is cowering in the expectation of a mighty dragon's unwanted visit to plunder and destroy, and the resident knights have all but been annihilated. Enter the king's granddaughter Zoe (Marie Drion) who gathers Lian-Chu (Vincent Lindon), a huge brute with immense strength but truly a gentle giant, and his partner-in-arms Gwizdo (Patrick Timsit), who balances the partnership with his cunning brain. Lian-Chu and Gwizdo (together with their pet creature which too proudly spews incipient fires) share a common dream of owning a farm land and spending idyllic days tending to their farm animals in retirement, but in order to do that comes the requirement of being financially free, hence their career in monster-extermination which doesn't exactly pay off.<br /><br />That's basically the whole gist of it, but what makes this film a spectacle, is its CG graphics, which is solidly rich, detailed, and an eye-popping marvel to behold. It has some wonderfully crafted set action pieces that were painstakingly designed to draw you into the thick of the action,, and during those fight sequences, there's nary a boring moment. Photo-realistic moments of non-existent landscapes make you put aside the fantasy of make-belief, and it's easy to be in awe of the landscape which goes beyond the usual three-suns and a kaleidoscope of flying thingamajigs (here's having at you George!) And I couldn't get enough of the finale battle as well, though the usual brick-bats will find some fault at the indestructibility of the principle characters.<br /><br />I guess this film had opened my eyes that there are many more computer-animated companies out there around the world that have quality in their product to match that of Pixar's. And this is definitely a movie that the local filmmakers of Zodiac: The Race Begins and Legend of the Sea can learn from to keep the story effectively simple, and let your moving artwork do all the talking. Definitely highly recommended! | positive |
This movie has some good performances, as others have pointed out, but suffers (as others have pointed out, except for the people who apparently are either friends of the filmmaker or the cast to otherwise explain why they would deem this a "10") from some self-conscious and self-absorbed film school padding and excess plots. This is the type of plot that Sex In The City could handle in a half hour episode, so there was no reason for it to be even an 88 minute movie. A perfect example of wasted footage is the fast forwarding montage in the first third of the movie. Some of the back story is merited, but too much time, for example, was spent on Daria character with the anal sex boyfriend and on the back story for Paulie, who was not a realistic character, although the actor did a decent job with the lines he was given. <br /><br />The worst aspect of the movie was the level of amateurish parts: from typos in the typed material, to bad jumps and edits, poor camera positions, angles, lighting problems throughout and, most glaringly, a poorly written script with a badly developed concept. If the writer (also the director and lead) had collaborated with someone, he might not have ended up with a 100% rotten score on Rotten Tomatoes, which further belays the ability of anyone to truly believe the people who gave it a 10 on the rating system here. | negative |
The gates of Hell opened up and spit out this film, then closed again.<br /><br />Watching this movie makes me appreciate other movies I have seen, like all other movies. Nothing makes sense in this movie.<br /><br />It would really take too long to mention all the plot problems. In fact, except as a warning, it really isn't worth wasting some of the nearly infinite space available on the internet writing about this film.<br /><br />From now on, I will check IMDb before watching any film.<br /><br />Hot darn, IMDb is forcing me to write more about this film. I guess I should warn you about Edison Force while I am at it. But if you had to chose between the two, pick Edison Force. | negative |
I was never all that impressed by Night Gallery, but this one episode stands out.<br /><br />A TV network executive auditions an odd act - a young, nerdy boy who proceeds to make prognostications. The exec dismisses the whole thing as a flaky waste of time until both predictions come true the next morning.<br /><br />What first seemed a parlor act becomes a hit show as the kid's predictions prove consistently accurate.<br /><br />Then, one day, he refuses to do the show. Facing imminent showtime, everyone's at wit's end, even threatening him with legal action if he doesn't fulfill his contract and make his daily predictions.<br /><br />The young boy relents, and foretells a seemingly utopian tomorrow.<br /><br />After the show, the befuddled executive asks for an explanation, only to learn why the complete truth is too terrifying to reveal. | positive |
Based on actual events of 1905, silent film THE BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN concerns an Imperial Russian ship on which abominable conditions lead to a mutiny. Shocked by conditions on the ship, citizens of the port city Odessa rally to the mutineers' support--and in consequence find themselves at the mercy of Imperial forces, who attack the civilian supporters with savage force.<br /><br />POTEMKIN is a film in which individual characters are much less important than the groups and crowds of which they are members, and it achieves its incredible power by showing the clash of the groups and crowds in a series of extraordinarily visualized and edited sequences. Amazingly, each of these sequences manage to top the previous one, and the film actually builds in power as it moves from the mutiny to the citizen's rally to the massacre on the Odessa steps--the latter of which is among the most famous sequences in all of film history. Filming largely where the real events actually occurred, director Eisenstein's vision is extraordinary as he builds--not only from sequence to sequence but from moment to moment within each sequence--some of the most memorable images ever committed to film.<br /><br />To describe POTEMKIN as a great film is something of an understatement. It is an absolute essential, an absolute necessity to any one seriously interested in cinema as an art form, purely visual cinema at its most brilliant, often imitated, seldom equaled, never bested.<br /><br />Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer | positive |
Great film about an American G.I. who quits the army to marry a German girl who saved his life in the last days of the war. She accepts, but does she do it because she really likes him, or because he can support her with easier access to food and such? Meanwhile, her brother and an old friend form an anti-American terrorist group called the Werewolves, their purpose to drive away the occupants (you might remember the same group playing a major part in Lars von Trier's film Europa (Zentropa)). James Best, best known for his role as Roscoe P. Coltrane in the 1980s television show The Dukes of Hazzard, is shockingly excellent as the American. He should have become a big movie star at this age he reminds me very much of Warren Beatty. The other main actors are good, as well. Fuller's direction is quite good, using a lot of long takes again (although they are not nearly as complex as they were in Park Row; the long takes more often than not consist of long scenes with a lot of dialogue). The only problems lie in the script, as seems to be the case with all of the Fuller films that I've seen. It's not too badly flawed, but it ought to have been expanded, fleshing out major characters and parts of the script. Helga, the wife, goes through a major change, but completely off screen. Therefore, the emotional center rests squarely on Best's shoulders. Fuller also should have killed off the sick mother early in the film. I hope that doesn't sound too harsh! She just doesn't really do anything throughout the film except lie in bed. She has so few lines. But Fuller keeps bringing her up as the film goes on. I would have had her death solidify David and Helga's relationship myself. And the film ends too abruptly, and it lacks payoff. These aren't really the biggest flaws in the world (the way I described them makes them sound bigger than they are). 9/10. | positive |
As a kid, I loved this game. I played it a zillion times during Spring 1993 with my friend Andrew. I used to play Axel or Blaze and he would be Adam and no matter how often we played it we never seemed to get bored. Then Streets of Rage 2 came out. And we quickly forgot that this one even existed.<br /><br />You play as ex-cops Axel Stone, Adam or Blaze Fielding, who have quit the force in order to take on the bad guys in their own way. There are 8 levels to work thru in a run-down and corrupt city led by the evil Mr X. Beating up all the bad guys and the end-of-level boss is much fun. Level 4 (The Bridge) was my fave because you could chuck baddies down the holes into the river. You even have the chance to become Mr. X's right hand man at the end of the game (at a price). This leads to the 'bad ending' in which you become the the boss of the syndicate. Exactly how this is possible is a mystery since you destroy the syndicate on your way to Mr. X, but never mind.<br /><br />Streets of Rage also has truly fantastic music. The composer Yuzo Koshiro did absolute miracles with the limited technology of the Sega Genesis. The main theme, Level One, Level 4 and Final Boss are standout tunes. <br /><br />As a Wii owner I am proud to have this forever on my console. But with Streets of Rage 2 also available, it does kind of render the first one somewhat obsolete.<br /><br />Pros:<br /><br />Average graphics but nice backgrounds represented in a comic-book like panel progression that fits the tone of the game.<br /><br />Great tunes.<br /><br />Easy to get into and hard to put down.<br /><br />Cons:<br /><br />Vastly inferior to the infinitely more complex Streets of Rage 2.<br /><br />Poor enemy AI. Baddies often walk away from you instead of engaging in combat. This is especially infuriating with the Level 5 boss.<br /><br />Lack of combo moves.<br /><br />Lack of decent weapons.<br /><br />Bad guy models are repeated far too often.<br /><br />Graphics B- Sound A- Gameplay B- Lasting Appeal B- | positive |
So many fans, so little to show for it. I know, I know, these words are gonna find me in a great minority. A lot of people really liked Good Will Hunting. But seriously please, great film making, not even close, and let's put the blame where it belongs... in the writing.<br /><br />Now, I know they won an oscar for it, and boy did they look good emoting on the screen. But Good Will Hunting is an ABC after school special with lots of cursing in it, and a slightly bigger budget.<br /><br />What this movie does show, is the brilliance of Harvey Weinstein and Miramax Pictures. Mr. Weinstein could take manure, feed it to you, and make you believe your eating bon bons. And that's exactly what the studio did with the film. They created such high faluttin buzz around it, that people believed, and wanted to believe it so much --- that they saw brilliance where there was none.<br /><br />Now, I know some people think it's a great movie, I don't think it's a horribly bad movie, I like to compare it to more in the middle of the road movies, and also to some great Made for TV movies (although, not HBO films, HBO films are unusually better than Good Will Hunting would ever be.) It's just a nice, little film, with some good performances, Robin Williams was not good in it, they just gave him the oscar cause the'd been itching to do it for a while. And of course, the Miramax public relations machine secured Ben and Matt their screenwriting oscar... but come one people... there's better movies out there thatn GWH. | negative |
As far as I can understand, TIW WATCHER is the first work of a young director. My doubt is if this is the work of a regular guy who happens to love films or if this is the work of a cinema student, since there is a reference to Oporto School of Arts in the final credits.<br /><br />Nevertheless, director Ricardo Pinho demonstrates with this movie a total unawareness of some basic notions about cinema. What is a movie? How to tell a story? It doesn't matter, for the novice director. One of the first things you learn in school when you're studying cinema is how to tell a story. You learn that, just like in novels, in movies you should also construct your story in three acts: the introduction, the development and the conclusion. You learn that your story should have a protagonist and an antagonist and that there should be a climax. You learn this is valid for a 3-hour-epic, for the regular movie, for a short film and even, believe it or not, for a 30-second commercial. You also learn there can be levels of subtleness in your approach to the academic structure and that, ultimately, you can even deconstruct it.<br /><br />In rough terms, TIM WATCHER introduces us its main character and then, the movie ends - the whole movie sounds like the introduction of the characters in Jeunet's AMÉLIE. There are no second or third acts in TIM WATCHER. This is not a parody or an art film, thus you can't even try to justify the disrespect for the academic structure. You are expecting to be told a story, and it doesn't happen. Worst than that, TIM WATCHER defines itself as a warning; and one with no real purpose. It doesn't make a point, or at least, not a valid one. Its point is childish, with a sense of vengeance. The situations portrayed are utterly simple and its approach is Manichaean.<br /><br />I was expecting a lot more from this short. The movie opens with a rather good-looking credits sequence and you quickly realize you are watching something with better production values than the regular Portuguese short film. I don't know the budget for this movie, but judging for the thanks-list in the end credits, merit must go to the production team for such good connections in a country where's difficult to have doors opened to young filmmakers.<br /><br />TIM WATCHER seems to be an exercise in style, color and carefully chosen plans, combined with a fine score. That's all. There's nothing else. There's no plot. And that's a shame because it feels like a waste of production values. Hardly, you can see in the regular Portuguese short such diversity of locations and so many available extras to enrich a story.<br /><br />As absurd as the comparison may sound, I must refer the BMW shorts as a fine example of how you can tell a good story in a very short film severely conditioned to product placement and over-the-top stylish cinematography. | negative |
That was a waste of 9 dollars. the movie was terrible. all the "scary" parts were pointless and sadly repetitive. Seemingly all of the tense parts could be completely predicted, and did not seem to hold any bit of the audiences attention. Also, the plot line didn't advance at all during the entire movie, and it was all just a big setup for the grudge 3. When it seemed like the movie was about to make a big plot advancement, it turned out just to be a pointless scene. these directors need to follow Hitchcock's example: every scene has a point. Porbably 90% of the scenes in this movie could have been left out with no change of the plot. Final opinion: Don't waste your time, energy or money!!! | negative |
I would give this show a ten out of ten if it was not for the fart jokes. You people are so damn sensitive it is inane! So quick to point out the "racism" of the show and the jokes, yet are also so quick to say ridiculously sexist, pig-headed crap like "well, duh, some of these other shows do these jokes so much better because at least they have hot women." So disgusting. Abortion jokes are great because, really, who takes abortion seriously anyways? At least I'm not a*bore*son. I hear that Reba McEntire and Sarah Silverman are teaming up to do a movie about sisters taking a road trip together. Talk about a movie of the year! | positive |
... but I laughed. A lot.<br /><br />I saw 'Astérix et les Vikings' at a public screening during the World Cup. The sound was lousy, it was too bright to see the screen properly - but I still enjoyed myself immensely. The names of some of the characters had me rolling on the floor: Smsix, Abba, Vikea... All not very witty, but in good Astérix tradition. Some very good jokes, but also some that not everybody seemed to get.<br /><br />The only thing I didn't like were the voices of Astérix and Obélix, in the German version at least. The voice actors are very well-known around here, which was the only reason they were casted, really. They don't fit the characters at all.<br /><br />All in all, a good way to spend some time (and if it's free, like in my case, all the better) and to have a couple of laughs. 8 out of 10. | positive |
I found this film completely and utterly incomprehensible. I knew some of he facts about Caravagggio, but here they were twisted and puzzling. The images were weirdly interesting but I was looking more for a biographical and/or critical accounting of Caravaggio's life and works, not an LSD type drug trip. The dialogue was very confusing and jumping back and forth in time via the use of trains, calculators, typewriters and cigarettes was extremely distracting. Had it been labelled an "artsy film" I wouldn't have purchased the DVD; now I have a DVD that I'll never watch again and who would buy it? I prefer mainstream films not those that require translation or elucidation. Thumbs down on this one for me! | negative |
An ultra-modern house in an affluent neighborhood appears to be the cause of each of its inhabitants bizarre (and deadly) behavior. Or at least that is what Lara Flynn Boyle's character, Col Kennedy, argues. After a series of deadly occurrences in a gargantuan house next door, Col knows something has got to give. Mark-Paul Gosselaar also stars as the mysterious architect.<br /><br />My opinion: The House Next Door works because of Lara Flynn Boyle and the locations (beautiful house) and stylish sets. Boyle is a talented and dynamic actress, not to mention absolutely stunning. She brings credibility to her character and makes the film intriguing. Without her, it would have failed. "It's so alive" declares a prospective buyer in reference to the house. Yes, it is alive. But the story itself is not so much.<br /><br />Barring Boyle's presence, not much is happening here, as an enormous amount of the movie is spent watching or waiting to see how the house will affect its current owners. The results are predictable. But I liked it anyway. The cinematography lends the film a polished look. 8/10 on account of Boyle, the premise of an evil ultra-modern house, the locations and cinematography, and set decoration and wardrobe. | positive |
Tintin was one of my favorite heroes as a kid. I used to borrow the books from the school library every chance I got. My favorite one was "The Red Sea Sharks" - so much action and humor.<br /><br />This documentary was a brilliant exposition of the background story of Herge and his development of Tintin. The film-maker's personal experience in interviewing Herge and the story of his relationship with the artist who was the inspiration for the Chan character was very moving.<br /><br />A great documentary of a very talented and well-loved artist. A great example of someone who has become internationally renown, and has brought joy of millions of children (and the young at heart) all over the world. | positive |
Originally I rented this film for my daughter since she is keen on soccer - and I was not disappointed that way (except the plot interfered with the soccer scenes). As a dad I suppose I was a little surprised at the introduction of the topic of lesbianism - but I have to admit that as a parent these issues are completely available to children nowadays (as uncomfortable as I feel with the topic). In a way this emotion was a segue right into the main premise of the film - that at some age you must trust your children to make their own choices. This dilemma is introduced by a young British-born teen girl - Jasminder (Jess) - of east-Indian heritage who dreams of playing professional soccer. The pending marriage of her older sister in a traditional Hindu marriage provides many rich opportunities for her to explore (in a nice way) her hopes and fears for her future. <br /><br />The multi-cultural challenge was a very interesting technique to explore Jess's frustration with her parents expectations for her - again no different in substance than most child-parent relationships. <br /><br />In SUMMARY, the soccer scenes are GREAT (lots to learn in slowmo) and while I didn't need the storyline - something was needed to keep the movie going. | positive |
"Hatred of a Minute" is arguably one of the better films to come out of Michigan in recent years. Not to say that it's a brilliant film by any means, but it's definitely worth a watch.<br /><br /> "Hatred" chronicles the sordid adventures of Eric Seaver (played by director Kallio), a formerly abused child now grown up, and starting to listen to his evil side.<br /><br /> "Hatred" is very nice visually. The shots are creative, and the lighting is approporiately moody and interesting to look at. This film actually has an element of production value to it, unlike other recent Michigan releases like "Dark Tomorrow" and "Biker Zombies." Subtle dolly shots and stylized shot composition show good use of this film's $350,000 budget.<br /><br /> However, "Hatred" stumbles in the same places that so many other local films do, and that's in the story and character department. Essentially, things just kind-of happen. Eric Seaver doesn't evolve at all. Basically, he's always been crazy, it's just that people are starting to notice. The film just wanders along its merry way with very little development. Also, the ending is very abrupt.<br /><br /> However- since this is a horror film, since when do we care about plot? We just want to see people die, and "Hatred" certainly delivers. As the body count mounted, people in the theater started cheering "Kill her! Kill em' all!" When people scream back at the screen, it's always fun.<br /><br /> That's the place where "Hatred" succeeds. It's fun. And in the end, that's all that really matters. | positive |
"Committed" is all about Graham as an irrepressible optimist who goes in search of her self-estranged husband who has gone in search of himself which all leads to a sort of kookie, upbeat comedic odyssey involving a bunch of side characters and issues. A fresh, fun, and unpredictable little flick, what "Committed" lacks in story it makes up for in good naturedness and subtle morals and maxims. If you enjoy this little chick flick, which received slightly above average reviews by critics and public alike, you might want to check out Lisa Krueger's hit Indie "Manny & Lo" (1996). (B) | positive |
Ok, I've seen plenty of movies dealing with witches and the occult but this one was just plain weird. This movie starts out as this cult of witches led by a really bad Orson Wells playing the staring role (couldn't they have gotten somebody that looked and acted more like a Satanist) he just did not belong in this movie at all. But anyhow, the coven takes a new member and stabs a doll that resembles somebody and makes her have a miscarrage. The lady that had the miscarrage and her husband go off to a place called Lillith on busness and the lady meanwhile is seeing an image of her sister or whoever it is calling to her and warning her to stay away from there and to never use her powers there or she will die. The couple after they get settled down in the strange town discover that all the inhabitants are all witches and she becomes nosey and afraid of all of her neighbors and friends. Then strange things start to happen as the lady discovers a funeral taking place on a hill that suddenly disapears (that was creepy) as well as seeing the little boy belonging to Orson Wells at the playgroud that he later asks the lady to help him bring back to life. The lady soon tries to escape the town but only to find herself traped by it's inhabitants and powers and finds herself ignoring all of what the spirit tries to warn her about. This movie is ok, it's has it's moments of suspense but it really could have done much better than to have Orson in there. | negative |
I watched this on HBO because it won the Oscar a week earlier. It compares favorably with fictional courtroom dramas.<br /><br />The story is of a 15-year-old black kid placed on trial for the Jacksonville, FL, murder of an elderly white woman based almost solely on the identification by the victim's husband and on a confession that the defense contends was coerced.<br /><br />About half the footage is of the trial; it's supplemented with footage of the defense lawyers (two public defenders) explaining their case, interviewing witnesses, and visiting key locations. This is edited with a minimum of needless repetition, and placed in logical order. The camera work is pretty solid. And there's a mildly surprising epilogue. | positive |
When I saw this animation for first time (I was 15 maybe) I was really impressed! It has completely different style compared to the japan animation and i kinda like it more. Tho whole impression of the movie is more sinister and dark...The colors are not that ...colorous. The Characters don't talk much, there are no long and boring conversations of this and that (like in Ghost in the Shell).With its dark pictures, views of strange beasts and sense of magic, it looks like one of those ancient Scandinavian stories, full of violence and horrendous creators, enchanted forests and deep caves, dwelled by dragons, throlls, orks...and one mysterious hero to stop evil... | positive |
THE SHOP AROUND THE CORNER is one of the sweetest and most feel-good romantic comedies ever made. There's just no getting around that, and it's hard to actually put one's feeling for this film into words. It's not one of those films that tries too hard, nor does it come up with the oddest possible scenarios to get the two protagonists together in the end. In fact, all its charm is innate, contained within the characters and the setting and the plot... which is highly believable to boot. It's easy to think that such a love story, as beautiful as any other ever told, *could* happen to you... a feeling you don't often get from other romantic comedies, however sweet and heart-warming they may be. <br /><br />Alfred Kralik (James Stewart) and Clara Novak (Margaret Sullavan) don't have the most auspicious of first meetings when she arrives in the shop (Matuschek & Co.) he's been working in for the past nine years, asking for a job. They clash from the very beginning, mostly over a cigarette box that plays music when it's opened--he thinks it's a ludicrous idea; she makes one big sell of it and gets hired. Their bickering takes them through the next six months, even as they both (unconsciously, of course!) fall in love with each other when they share their souls and minds in letters passed through PO Box 237. This would be a pretty thin plotline to base an entire film on, except that THE SHOP AROUND THE CORNER is expertly fleshed-out with a brilliant supporting cast made up of entirely engaging characters, from the fatherly but lonely Hugo Matuschek (Frank Morgan) himself, who learns that his shop really is his home; Pirovitch (Felix Bressart), Kralik's sidekick and friend who always skitters out of the room when faced with the possibility of being asked for his honest opinion; smarmy pimp-du-jour Vadas (Joseph Schildkraut) who ultimately gets his comeuppance from a gloriously righteous Kralik; and ambitious errand boy Pepi Katona (William Tracy) who wants nothing more than to be promoted to the position of clerk for Matuschek & Co. The unpretentious love story between 'Dear Friends' is played out in this little shop in Budapest, Hungary, in which Kralik's unceremonious dismissal and subsequent promotion to shop manager help the two lovebirds-to-be along. It's nice that everyone gets a story in this film; the supporting characters are well-developed, and Matuschek's own journey in life is almost as touching as the one Alfred and Clara share. His invitation to new errand boy Rudy (Charles Smith) for Christmas Eve dinner, made in the whirling, beautiful snow of a Hungarian winter, makes the audience glad that he is not alone; we come to care even for the characters whose love story it isn't this film's business to tell. <br /><br />Aside from the love story, I must say that James Stewart is truly one of the best things about this film. He doesn't play the full-fledged Jimmy Stewart persona in this film (c/f 'Mr Smith Goes To Washington' for that); in fact Alfred Kralik is prickly and abrupt and not particularly kind. He's rather a brusque man, in fact, with little hint (until, perhaps, the very end) of the aw-shucks down-home boyish charm Stewart would soon come to patent. When he finds out before Clara that they have been corresponding in secret, in fact, Kralik doesn't 'fess up--he waits it out to see how far he can take the charade, especially since he quickly realises (given his stormy relationship with Clara as boss and underling) that loving the person he knows through the exchanged letters might not equate with loving the person herself. His description to Clara of the fictional Matthias Popkin (what a name!) who was to become her fiance is hilarious in the extreme, but also his way of proving that the letters don't reveal all there is to a man, just as her letters don't reveal all there is to her. Stewart plays this role perfectly--he keeps his face perfectly controlled whenever Clara insults Mr. Kralik, as she is often wont to do, even (and especially) to his face. And yet one believes, underneath the brusqueness and professionalism, that he *could* reveal his identity with as much earnestness and sincerity and sheer *hope* as he eventually does. <br /><br />Special mention must be given to the other members of the cast as well. Margaret Sullavan fares rather less well in the first half of the film, but she really comes into her own in the closing-shop scene on Christmas Eve, when she almost gets her heart broken again by Alfred's most vivid description of her mailbox sweetheart. Frank Morgan turns in a great performance as the jealous Hugo Matuschek driven to nervous breakdown, the man who has to rediscover his meaning in life when he realises that his wife of 22 years does not want to 'grow old with him'. And Felix Bressart plays the role of the meek but loyal Pirovitch wonderfully (a Lubitsch regular, since he appears as a hilarious Russian ambassador in NINOTCHKA)--of particular note is the scene in which he helps his good friend Alfred get the Christmas present the latter *really* wants... a wallet instead of that ludicrous cigarette box Clara is so hung up on. <br /><br />Ernst Lubitsch really does himself proud with this film--for example, the famously lavish and meticulous care given to detail in the creation of the Matuschek shop is well worth the effort, right down to the Hungarian names on the door, the wares and the cash register and so on. But even though Lubitsch chose to have the story set in Hungary, the setting is actually universal: it could happen anywhere; it could happen to you. Therein lies the charm of this simple story, these believable characters who really *are* people. The snow on Christmas Eve is real as well, or at least as real as Lubitsch could make it (he had snow machines brought in at great expense). It is this desire to make everything appear as real as possible that helps make the story even more believable, that gives this entire film a dreamy realism that cannot be replicated. (No, not even in a remake like YOU'VE GOT MAIL.) <br /><br />*This* is really the Jimmy Stewart Christmas film that people are missing out on when they talk about IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE. Not to detract from the merits of that other film, but there'd be no harm, and in fact a lot of good, done in watching THE SHOP AROUND THE CORNER this Christmas instead. It's sweet, funny, charming, and Stewart is impeccable in his role. We should all be so lucky as to have the romance depicted in this film; the best thing about this film is that we come away from it feeling that we very possibly could. | positive |
When I go out to the video store to rent a flick I usually trust IMDb's views on a film and, until this one, had never seen a flick rated 7.0 or above on the site I did not enjoy.<br /><br />Sidney Lumet, a legendary director of some of the best films of the 20th century, really misstepped here by making one of the biggest mistakes a filmmaker can: filling a film's cast with thoroughly unlikeable characters with no real redeeming qualities whatsoever.<br /><br />I like films with flawed characters, but no matter how dark someone's personality is we all have a bit of light in there too, we're all shades of gray with some darker or brighter than others. Mr. Lumet crossed this line by filling this movie with totally unsympathetic and almost masochistic pitch-black characters.<br /><br />Ethan Hawke's Hank is a 30-something whining, immature, irresponsible man-child divorced from a marriage with a wife that hates him and a daughter who thinks he's a loser, which he very much is. His indecisiveness and willingness to let others do the dirty work for him because he's too cowardly to do it himself leads directly to their bank robbery plan falling apart and mother getting killed. By the time he stands up to his older brother at the end of the film, it's more pathetic than uplifting. Ethan Hawke plays his character well, but isn't given much to work with as he is portrayed as someone with a boot perpetually stamped on their face and he doesn't' particularly care that it's there.<br /><br />Speaking of which his character's wife is equally as bad. Just about every single shot of the film she's in is her verbally berating him for rent and child support money and further grinding in his already non-existent self-esteem with insults. Seriously, that's just about all the character does. Her harpy-like behavior borders on malevolent.<br /><br />Albert Finney plays their father Charles, and while Mr. Finney has been a great actor for many decades, he spends about 90% of this film with the same mouth open half-grimace on his face like he's suffering from the world's worst bout of constipation. For someone who's been an actor as long as Mr. Finney, you think he'd be more apt at emoting. Even though he doesn't show it much, his character is supposedly grief stricken and anger-filled. And when he smothers Andy at the film's conclusion it's akin to Dr. Frankenstein putting the monster he helped create out of it's own misery.<br /><br />Marisa Tomei isn't given much to do with her character. Stuck in an unhappy marriage with Andy and having an affair with his brother for some unfathomable reason. When Andy's world begins to spiral out of control she logically jumps ship, but it really doesn't make her any less selfish or self-serving than any other character in the film, but probably the one with the most common sense at least.<br /><br />And finally we come to Andy, played by the always good Philip Seymour Hoffman, is the only reason I rated this film a 3 instead of a 1. His performance of the heroin-addicted, embezzling financial executive who's "perfect crime" of robbing his parent's insured jewelry store goes awry is mesmerizing. His descent from calm master planner of a flawed scheme to unstable, deranged homicidal maniac is believable and tragic. Hoffman's character ends up being the film's chief villain, but it's hard to root against him given the alternatives are an emotionally castrated little brother and a father who's self-admitted poor early parenting led to his son's eventual psychosis and indirect, unintentional murder of his mother.<br /><br />Ultimately this film is really only worth watching for PSH's great performance and it's family train wreck nature. Just don't expect there to be any characters worth cheering for, because there really aren't. | negative |
When I first saw this film on video in a department store... it intrigued me. Considering the fact that I thought I was in love and I was the same age as the youths in this film at the time (although I realize they are now old enough to be my parents), plus the soundtrack being written by Elton John & Bernie Taupin just before they "made it big" here in North America... I figured I had nothing to lose in buying it. I was not disappointed.<br /><br />So far, I have shown it to many guys I have dated since, and to my current boyfriend... obviously, they didn't find it as lovely as I do... preferring to call it a "chick" movie... but I still laugh and cry. This film was vastly overlooked. It's good to see it's available to rent at one of the local video stores around here so that other people can share the magic. <br /><br />So maybe it's a bit far fetched... but it gives you a lighthearted sense of innocence... and a renewed faith in love. | positive |
For a low budget project, the Film was a success. The story is interesting, and the actors were convincing. Eva Longoria, who now stars on the TV Show "Dragnet," is sexier than ever. The locations were ideal for the ganster plot, and the director shows his talent by taking on many roles for his project. Of course this low budget film could use better editing transitions and more special effects for the gun scenes, but the music keeps this script moving. Although this film has it's share of problems, such as continuity, I must say that I would rent the director's next movie. If your a film student, you could learn a few things from the director's commentary. | positive |
What a horrible movie. This movie was so out of order and so hard to follow.It was so hard to follow and was just confusing. The whole time I was watching it I was wishing it would end!!I felt like I wasted 2hours of my life that I will never get back. Save your money and don't rent this movie. I now see why Sarah Michelle Gellar was barely in the movie. The first movie was great but this was just sucked. I would never recommend this movie to anyone. Save your money and watch the trailer because that is about the only thing that is worth seeing with this movie. This movie had no real story to it either. I am still wondering what I watched. | negative |
Let's get some things straight first: Zombies don't exist so the filmmaker can have them WALK, RUN, hell even FLY if he wants to. That's what makes this original Zombie movie so good. Everything they did was so damn original. I hate it when filmmakers do everything like Romero or when fan boys expect everything like Romero. Some idiots think that zombies should only growl like a typical Romero movie, once again zombies don't exist so a filmmaker can make zombies whistle if he wants. The zombies in this movie all look very good but OBVIOUSLY they are not decaying corpses since they JUST freaking died! They are pretty messed up though and full of chopped faces and blood. One of the coolest scenes was a half eaten cat. It looked so damn real my daughter cried when she saw it. This movie got really good reviews in Fangoria and Rue Morgue so that made me want to go see it. I'm glad I listened. They are always right when it comes to real horror fan's tastes. 10 out of 10! Go rent it! | positive |
In a nutshell, skip this movie, it's that bad. In short, this movie is about a weapons factory where secret weapons are being developed. Because they make bad things, they aren't popular so to speak. A new female CEO comes in to clear things up, and make sure the reputation of the company will be improved. She does this by leaking company confidential information to the press... Do you believe this? Furthermore she starts to fire people she has never seen. Incredible uh? A pacifistic group tries to destroy the company's mainframe, because there are the blueprint located of those secret weapons. This mainframe is located in the bottom of the building hidden in a kind of vault. Of course the movie would not be complete without the mad scientist and a robot which is the ultimate killer machine, which resembles like an 'Alien' from the Alien movies. The mad scientist likes the female CEO.<br /><br />The mad scientist instructs the robot to kill everyone, and so protects his job, rise in chain of command, and make the movie interesting. The pacifists team up with the CEO and another person of the board of directors to escape from the robot. Further down the line they agree to blow up this evil computer mainframe, whilst avoiding the robot. They also discover that the factory was developing a part man, part machine soldier. They can erase a persons memory and replace it by a veteran soldier's one. One of the pacifists is transformed in such a soldier and will hunt the killer robot. I guess the mad scientist also wrote the script of this movie. This super soldier looks and acts much the same as Robocop, though not as funny.<br /><br />It boils down to this. People are running, being chased by a killer robot, are hurt by it, but they do not seem to troubled by that, besides limping a bit, and of course the female CEO is the leading character of this movie, and cannot be killed, i.e. survives every attack, explosion, you name it. I won't bother you by the chase, let's skip to the end. They have lots of weapons, yes the pacifist too and they know how to use them. When they're at the roof of the building they empty all there weapons upon the killer robot. They step into an elevator which is used to clean outside windows. And then the female CEO knows some magic as well, at the roof she was complaining about being out of bullets, and like magic the gun is reloaded. This way she can shoot the cables and let the elevator plummet 70 stories or so, and let it stop right above ground surface by pulling the brake. And to top it all off, the police is waiting there for them. The robot jumps after them, and kills the cops. Hilarious no? The robot chases them down the vault where the mainframe is, and when finally the robot is so close to her, that he can touch/kill her, it stops. Because the mad scientist did not want her to be killed. A better name for this guy would be the idiot scientist. Although he is the one who made this movie watchable. At this moment I was already pulling for the killer robot to finish them all of, so the movie would end.<br /><br />I cannot believe that this movie rates this high, and this is why I wrote this comment. Avoid this movie like the plague. It's a monster, and I'm not talking about the Death Machine. | negative |
I just saw this movie for the first time last night. Wow! What a movie! This is the kind of movie you want everyone in the world to see because its just so cool and so interesting.<br /><br />I do not want to give a single word about the plot because I think it would be better for people to go in cold. DO NOT READ THE PLOT SUMMARY before you see the movie! All I'm going to say is that Eastwood, Malkovich, Peterson, and the screenplay by Jeff Maguire are top notch. I wish all thrillers were more like this one. | positive |
Sergei Eisenstein's most famous movie has truly withstood the test of time. The story of a mutiny aboard a warship in 1905 does have the feeling of Soviet propaganda, but does a good job showing the conditions that led to the revolt. The scene on the Odessa steps should remain seared into anyone's mind.<br /><br />Okay, so "The Battleship Potemkin" wasn't actually the first movie to use montage, but they did a great job with it here. Certainly any film history class should show this movie. It's a great historical drama (although I will admit that I don't know how accurate it is). A 10/10.<br /><br />Oh, and we should have learned by now that "Potemkin" should be transliterated as "Potyomkin". | positive |
Low budget Brit pop melodrama focuses on a girl who wants to be a star, becomes one and then finds it all a bit too much. Good cast and a sense of time and place cannot hide the fact that we have all been here before. Several scenes are a bit hysterical and O'Connor's voice sounds a lot like Mini Mouse! She disappeared from sight soon after making this movie - so life can imitated art! A must see if you want to see a punk version of a Star Is Born though. | positive |
I'm shocked that all the "hated it" ratings are sixes and sevens, still above average. To me, this seems a case of "the emperor has no clothes". I understand this film was produced on a very low budget in the early 70's...Regardless, it became a struggle to sit through and watch. The DVD I saw did have some subtitles, but about 75% of the speech is not subtitled. Some of it is hard to understand. The Jamaican patois was cool to hear, but you struggle not to 'tune out' after awhile. Some of the shots were nice, and the realism was there, even if some of the performances were not great.(Jimmy Cliff did a good job) The plot is not bad, but quite predictable. In the 1:43 film, the highlights are Jimmy Cliff(Ivan) singing for a scene, and a couple of shoot-outs and a fight. Probably 15 minutes or so. The rest is pretty boring. BTW, near the beginning of the film, there are some weird cuts with the Ivan character that seem like a editing mistake, which made me laugh for a bit. One reviewer said this film has been cut so many times, that there are few copies of the original 1972 theatrical version out there. The ending was kind of interesting, showing how the media from a young age influences people, it could also be a general comment on the white man's/colonialism's influence on Jamaica. Other main themes are poverty, corruption, church, ambition... In closing, the soundtrack is definitely worthwhile, the film much less. | negative |
As a "lapsed Catholic" who had 11 years of Catholic school, but hasn't been to Mass in 35 years except for weddings and funerals, I thought I'd get a kick out of this. And I did . . . for the first two-thirds of the movie. It was all the standard stuff -- strict parochial school teachings, repressed sexuality, etc. But then, suddenly, the movie turned mean. REALLY mean. Now mind you, I saw this before the pedophilia scandals hit . . . and maybe I wouldn't have been quite so offended at such nasty, hateful digs at the Catholic Church if I'd known about those abominations (such a Catholic term!) and coverups.<br /><br />It's been a few years since I rented the video, and I won't go back to rent it again with a new perspective. It just left such a dirty, nasty, ugly taste in my mouth . . . I wonder what experience all the actors had with the Church, because either they *really* hate it, or they whored themselves for the paycheck. It's an incredibly anti-Catholic movie, offensive to anyone who has a glimmer of a gleam of respect for Catholic education. Which I still do because there were no better teachers back in the '50s. Whatever else those nuns did, they forced me to learn how to read and write the English language. They made us memorize. (How many kids today can do simple arithmetic in their heads?) Truth is, there's nothing more essential for success in America. Can ya read? Can ya add/subtract/multiply/divide? Great. You can get any advanced degree you want. And the discipline of Catholic education will stand you in good stead, not just as you continue your studies, but also for the rest of your life, no matter what you think of the Catholic "mythology" we all had to learn.<br /><br />Such a great cast, such a lousy, rotten script. I really feel bad (and no, it's not "badly" -- trust me, the nuns taught me better) for the writer and director.<br /><br />I thought I had mixed emotions about Catholic school. But the participants in this project must've been those bad (ie.e, stupid) kids who sat in the back of the room, if they were willingly involved in making this movie. | negative |
The viewer who said he was disappointed seems to be wildly missing the point here. This is a superb movie, excellent and realistic portrayals of a middle class Jewish family in Brighton Beach, Brooklyn, of long ago. The nuances are perfect and I felt the casting of everyone was superior. I especially found the acting done by Judith Ivey just perfection---especially the speech she has with her daughter when the daughter comes home late one night. That scene was Oscar worthy. But, really, all the acting was fine. I recommend this movie. It is a fun, family film and delightful to see how a lovely middle class family lived in Brooklyn so long ago. See it and you will be glad you did. Has some very funny lines and the Eugene character is a real comedian--very funny. | positive |
The rumor is true: girls like COYOTE UGLY more than guys. And the reasons are obvious as soon as the plot is given. Jersey girl goes to New York to become a song writer. And after initial frustration of having no luck, overhears some girls partying about the $300 each they made last night. She gets an audition at the bar they work at and surprise! The place is completely full of "two year old toddlers" bursting at the sight of babes dancing.<br /><br />The story is not bad and some characters are likeable, especially Cammie (the "fashion coordinator" part was cute) and the bouncer but let's face it, the drama was horrible and completely laughable from the beginning. Violet and her father looked far too ridiculous while they were relating throughout the movie. And check out Violet too jamming on that keyboard with the break dancer!<br /><br />For the first time I could think of, how could the production be so terrible? For a brief moment with this movie, Hollywood could stand on its two feet and show a new low without any major public outcry without saying, "You were warned!" Instead, it seems COYOTE UGLY has a purposeful intent on trying to kiss every major rear in the world. Advertising babes in a bar, but showing a paper thin "pursue your dream" story disappointed every male teen you targeted!<br /><br />And finally, the music. There was absolutely no break of music I found in this movie, especially when it was needed (the hospital scene). Every scene felt like some short music video you just wish would stop until the bar opened. But the climax was an ultimate laugher: an '80s like song you would expect Cyndi Lauper to jump on the stage and jam with Violet. Heck, I personally thought Bon Jovi was going to jump out with the long hair and jam too!<br /><br />Other than some really smart camera work with the coyote girls when dancing (especially the wet scene), and a couple cute cliches, COYOTE UGLY is something to be purely embarrassed about. Whether you watched or made it, it looked like nothing but time killing. Or wasting depending on how you look at it. | negative |
This movie starts out a little slow but kicks into comedic gear quickly. Each of the three "teenage girls" offer their own believable, distinct, assertive and entertaining personalities. I particularly enjoyed the dialog and interaction between Keith and Lisa. If one looked beyond the superficial "action" that was taking place, Keith's character treated Lisa's "deflowering" with tenderness and consideration. The comic development that followed was also pulled in expertly in my opinion. David Boreanaz gives a wonderful performance as the adult male who clearly gets himself into more trouble than he can handle. Dialogue was sharp, quick and flowed nicely. The director and writer of this film clearly showed how none of the main characters got to claim the moral high ground after all the shenanigans they pulled. Although the movie appears light on the surface, it reflects all the gray areas of becoming an adult, human emotions and desire. | positive |
Mt little sister and I are self-proclaimed horror movie buffs. We have seen just about EVERYTHING, especially zombie flicks. Now, we have seen a lot of good zombie movies, and a lot of bad ones. This BY FAR is the WORST movie I have ever seen in my entire life. Not only was the acting horrible, but the special effects, graphics and ever "zombie" make-up was the worst I have seen. If you can even call it make-up ( black eye shadow around the eyes) This is totally proof that you should never judge a book by it's cover. Cause the cover to the movie is the only sweet thing about. do your selves a favor and DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I was so adamant about this movie I went as far as putting a sticky note on the inside of the movie before i returned it to movie saying "This movie sucks, don't waste your time, return NOW" hahahhaa I don't want anyone else to waste a good movie night on this POS movie! i don't even know how it got the ratings that it did, t should be in the negative | negative |
I saw this film at Amsterdam's International Documentary Film Festival and was privileged to meet both the directors and Tobias Schneebaum, all of whom are lively and outspoken New Yorkers. The film's title in Amsterdam was Keep the River on Your Right, making the sensational aspect of cannibalism somewhat less prominent. Equally important was the loving - and gay - relationship Tobias Schneebaum had with members of the groups he studied as an anthropologist. His reunion at nearly 80 years of age and inevitable leave-taking were very moving. I can only highly recommend this film to anyone looking for a moving story that is anything but pedestrian. | positive |
This show is painful to watch ...<br /><br />It is obvious that the creators had no clue what to do with this show, from the ever changing "jobs", boyfriends, and cast. It appears that they wanted to cast Amanda Bynes in something ... but had no idea what, and came up with this crappy show. They cast her as a teen, surrounded by twenty and thirty somethings, and put her in mostly adult situations at repeatedly failed attempts at comedy. Soon, they realize that she needs a "clique" and cast people in their late 20s to try to pass as teenagers.<br /><br />How this show survived 4 seasons is beyond me. Somehow, ABC has now decided that it is a "family" show, and thrown it into it's afternoon lineup on ABC Family. | negative |
Probably the only thing that got the movie up to a four for me is the fact that I love Peter Falk. One of the world's great portrayers of bumbling incompetence . . . and yet he is one of the only anchors that prevents this from being a chaotic disaster. As Pops Romano, he provides a respectable mix of gangster charm and straight man to Chris Kattan's manic foolishness. Respectable performances are also offered by Richard Roundtree as the harried boss, Vinessa Shaw as a talented female FBI agent bouncing her head off a glass ceiling and Fred Ward as Falk's advisor and Benedict Arnold.<br /><br />The plot concept actually has some wonderful possibilities and, in the hands of a young Steve Martin or Chevy Chase, could have proved a great comedic vehicle. Kattan, who seems to idolize Ernest or Pee Wee Herman, just provides a muddled mess. Sadly, Peter Berg and Chris Penn, who portray his misfit brothers, both fall far short of their proven capability.<br /><br />There are some very funny scenes, but they are far too few and separated by way too many boring ones. What I truly miss here is what always attracted me to the Leslie Neilsen movies. There is no 'second level' of wit riding over the slapstick. No cultural references that only the adults get. . no double entendre. . it is just silly.<br /><br />And, by the way, this doesn't all mean that I am recommending it for your 9-year-old, because hopefully they have better taste and less fascination with some of their body parts and their functions. | negative |
Russ and Valerie are having discussions about starting a family. The couple live in a posh apartment and run an auction business that deals with valuable collectibles. At the same time, a dedicated adoption agency owner takes a mini vacation and leaves the orphanage in the charge of his father (Leslie Nielsen). Father Harry is in the rental business and he gets the brilliant idea to "rent" some of the children of the orphanage to couples like Russ and Valerie. Harry, who becomes aware of the couple'e dilemma, offers a family of siblings for a 10 day rental period! Brandon, Kyle, and Molly move into the apartment with their temporary parents, with amusing consequences, as the new caretakers are inexperienced with kids. But, where is the possibility of a happy ending? This is a darling family film. The actors, including Nielsen as the wheeler-dealer and Christopher Lloyd as the kind apartment doorman, are all wonderful. The script is snappy and fun and the overall production values quite high. Yes, if only life could be this way! Orphaned children everywhere deserve a chance to prove that they are lovable and can give so much joy to the parents who are considering adoption. If you want to show a film to your family that is rooted in good values but is also highly entertaining, find this movie. It is guaranteed to have everyone laughing, even as their hearts are melting. | positive |
A European musician and composer sets out to capture the musical diversity of Istanbul. A lover of experimenting with sound, Alexander Hacke (of the German avantgarde band Einstürzende Neubauten) roams the streets of Istanbul with his mobile recording studio and "magic mike" to assemble an inspired portrait of Turkish music. His voyage leads to the discovery of a broad spectrum ranging from modern electronic, rock and hip-hop to classical "Arabesque". As he wanders through this seductive world, Alex collects impressions and tracks by artists such as neo-psychedelic band Baba Zula, fusion DJs Orient Expressions, rock groups Duman and Replikas, maverick rocker Erkin Koray, Ceza (Turkey's answer to Public Enemy), breakdance performers Istanbul Style Breakers, digital dervish Mercan Dede, renowned clarinetist Selim Sesler, Canadian folk singer Brenna MacCrimmon, street performers Siyasiyabend, Kurdish singer Aynur, the "Elvis of Arabesque" Orhan Gencebay, and legendary divas Müzeyyen Senar and Sezen Aksu. | positive |
Viewed this GREAT Classic film of Greta Garbo and thought her performance was excellent. However, the German film version which had English captions was her greatest performance. Greta Garbo even mentioned to the press that the German film was her favorite where she had to make the change from Silent films to sound. Greta had a high pitched voice and had to take lessons in order to lower her voice for her future roles in films. This story was very sad because Greta Garbo(Anna Christie),"Ninotchka",'39, was abused on a farm by young boys and her father left her years ago as a sailor and then as a coal barge captain. There were many scenes of Old NYC, the Brooklyn Bridge, Coney Island and the sky line of Manhattan. Charles Bickford(Matt Burke),"Days of Wine & Roses",'62 a Classic veteran actor gave a great supporting role. | positive |
I didn't expect much when I saw this at the Palm Springs Film Fest this weekend. It was an alternate choice when two other films were sold out. Still, I held out hope. It sounded a bit much like "Bride and Prejudice" (L.A. guy falls for an Indian beauty, parental conflict, blah blah blah). B&P was not perfect but it was an enjoyable film with some good laughs and likable characters.<br /><br />"My Bollywood Bride" had none of that. The acting seemed stilted and way to by-the-numbers. Characters were so cliché the story seemed like it could have been written by high school freshman drama student. Technically, the sound really bothered me. It seemed as if there was a lot of over-dubbing of dialogue. I mean a lot. I know sometimes it's necessary but it sounded like half the film was shot in a closet and it became very distracting.<br /><br />Two stars is being somewhat generous. | negative |
Man, this gets a lot of good reviews in the review books. Frankly, I found it too slow and unappealing right from the start. I kept waiting for it to pick up a little steam but that never happened. This movie is vastly overrated.<br /><br />Shakespeare, with the King James English, has never appealed to me, anyway, so it may just be me. There is a fair share of the latter in the first half of the film as they show Ronald Colman playing the role of Othello.<br /><br />The good points of the film include - thanks to a restored print - some decent cinematography and a young, slim and attractive Shelly Winters.<br /><br />Overall, this is simply too boring, too much repetition in some of the scenes to watch again. Besides, we all know that most actors are nut-cases, anyway, but kudos to Hollywood for demonstrating it here in this story. | negative |
This is without doubt the best documentary ever produced giving an accurate and epic depiction of World War 2 from the invasion of Poland in 1939 to the end of the war in 1945.<br /><br />Honest and to the point, this documentary presents views from both sides of the conflict giving a very human face to the war. At the same time tactics and the importance of Battles are not overlooked, much work has been put into the giving a detailed picture of the war and in particularly the high, low and turning points in the allies fortunes. Being a British produced documentary this 26 part series focus is mainly on Britain, but Russia and America's contribution are not skimmed over this is but one such advantage of a series of such length.<br /><br />Another worthy mention is the score, the music and the whole feel of the documentary is one of turmoil, struggle and perseverance. Like a film this series leaves the viewer in no doubt of the hardship faced by the allies and the Germans during the war, its build to a climax at the end of every episode, which serves to layer the coarse of the second world war. After watching all 26 the viewer is left with an extensive knowledge about the war and astonished at just how much we owe to the members of the previous generation. | positive |
I liked this movie. That's pretty much all I can say about it. Lou Gossett did a good job, even though I'm still very disappointed in him after all the Iron Eagle movies. And even if I was smiling on the inside when the first main teenager dies (I won't give it away) it was done in a nice, fitting fashion. Pretty much everyone in this movie does a good job, so check it out! It's another one of those movies I found real cheap, so I bought it, and I recommend the same. | positive |
I watched this movie out of a lack of anything else on at the time. Quickly the movie grabbed me with the depth of the characters and subtle plot. I was quite surprised to see that the rating given by my satellite provider did not show any stars.<br /><br />I will not give any spoilers to the plot-line or outcome but most of the characters had at least some redeeming value. Until the very last minute I did not know how it would turn out. Frequently, you can pick-up the formula and predict a story direction. I could not do that with this film.<br /><br />I would recommend this as one of the finer films of this genre. | positive |
One of the best and most exciting of all conspiracy thrillers, (there were a number of such film in the 1970's). This one is about an accident at a Neuclear Reactor and of the attempts to cover it up. Jack Lemmon is the employee who realizes just how dangerous the plant is and Jane Fonda is the crusading television reporter who takes the story on board and both players are at their best.<br /><br />The events portrayed in the film are, of course, terrifying and not in the least bit far-fetched, (much of what happens here happened in real life at Three Mile Island), and although it now looks like something a period piece it, nevertheless, highlights just how fragile and dangerous a world we have created for ourselves. Expect a number of similar films about the effects of global warming any time soon, (and not rubbish like "The Day After Tomorrow" either). | positive |
OK OK, it might be hard to put the entirety of a man's life in one film. Traditionally therefore, biopics focus on one or two significant parts in the subject's life. Now, Byron was a "my week beats your year" fellow, which makes selecting parts that are representative even harder. Furthermore, just as Byron's poetry is inseparable from his life, the man's life itself must be seen as a whole. Lifting parts out is not only not showing the whole picture, it's showing a different picture altogether.<br /><br />Now, in short my review comes down to this: supposedly, Byron was indeed the "my week beats your year" prototype, a guy who lived so intensely that he indeed did more in his 15 or so active years than most do in an entire lifetime. True, he had setbacks and was a victim of the time and social setting he lived in - but in the end, this dude is supposed to be the prototype whose life we'd all want to lead, no? Well, I did NOT, at ANY moment, want to live the life depicted in this film. So it gets 3. Not for being so badly done (which, direction-wise, it more or less was), but more importantly for missing the point entirely in a flat plot.<br /><br />Some more detail. Well, to over simplify things, a Byron bio should have two distinct episodes: 1. Post-first Europe trip: England and his rise to fame + marriage / 2. His life abroad. Now, the important thing is that the SECOND part should be at least as important as the first. Not only was it a lot longer, but the most significant change in Byron took place then. Furthermore, it's where he created his best works (Don Juan, the Vision of Judgement etc. - all the stuff that makes him *really* unique in English literature).<br /><br />Instead, in this film (a) Byron's life never comes across as even remotely entertaining, (b) it only gets *worse* after he leaves England. They did two good jobs: first, they started at his return of his Europe trip (though a bit more of the actual trip would have been welcome as a prologue), second, they chose an angle, and they chose his incestuous love for Augusta (who is rather perfectly cast). The problem with this last thing is that they never let it go. True, Byron remained strongly attached to Augusta for the rest of his life, but, especially as he was such a mood swing person, the fact that his letters reflect that does not mean that at other times he might not have completely enjoyed life.<br /><br />Anyway, the first part of the TV film should have ended with him leaving England. There's no doubt about that. The thing is: once abroad, a life of debauchery began (with the infamous Geneva period), but in Italy Byron also discovered a new life, both for his poetry (inspired by Italian comedy), already in Venice, and for himself when he found the Contessa Teresa Guiccioli and moved to Ravenna (afterwards, at the request of Shelly, with Teresa, to Pisa). In other words, he was also *liberated*. His mind and life opened up (and not only in the decadent sense), while England's closed further as it fell into the gravitational pull of the Victorian age. True, freedom was Augusta-less, but this bitter-sweet freedom tastes sour in this film. We see a lonely, bored snob getting older.<br /><br />I mean, hell, Byron never thought much about his poetry, except when he finally found his own voice in Don Juan! Apart from poetic and romantic developments, his relationship with Shelly (and the down-break) should have been more documented. Also, it is in Italy in Ravenna that he gets involved with politics and revolutionary ideas. This is important, as it shows that the decadent romantic and ultimately escapist language and person of Childe Harold is changing into the more planted-in-life realistic and lighter passion of the language and person of Don Juan. Life and work are one. True, still a bit naive, but it's what got him to Greece! And the whole thing came full circle in Pisa, where Shelley's revolutionary spirit further ignited the spark. Missolonghi wasn't the bored snob suddenly looking for some action. It was the insights in Italy (the Gambas) stirring him into action. It can be a symbol for the man looking for some ancient-style battle excitement while the rest of Europe becomes fixed in the clay of modern reason and conservatism. But it wasn't just that, there was a true inspiration behind it. Meanwhile, Byron wrote massive amounts of Don Juan. True, his end is a bit sad, but it's not like he's worn out. THAT is the essence of Byron's life: he may have had some strong emotional attachments (2: Augusta and Teresa), but EVERY time he managed to reinvent himself truly. Meaning that he wasn't 'less' at the end of his life - no, he'd made a physical and mental JOURNEY that, at the time, few people were prepared to make.<br /><br />I wonder. Why is it that so often the second period in Byron's life is overlooked? Because it had less obvious conflicts, as the man was finally coming to his own? In focusing our attention on the frustrated England years fraught with scandals, we show ourselves to be not much better than the English aristocracy at the time, which Byron so despised, and which, despite the fact that he had no choice, he *willingly* fled in 1816, to find a world that was modern and liberal enough to let him find the voice that would make him the first romantic plainspoken language poet and evolve from a self-obsessed snob to a passionate man moving onward with a cause. | negative |
I saw this series when it world premiered at the Toronto Film Festival. I liked the idea behind the film, where two men got together and told a director from each country to direct a movie about 911. These directors never met before until the project was complete, and they saw how it looked all together. WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! All the pieces were very powerful, and some were controversial. If you are an American, then you may not like this as some of the pieces may be found anti-american. However, i know a few Americans who enjoyed these series. The piece that i found the best was the one from India. It was about how a muslim family, living in the States, had 2 sons, and one of them was missing. The Americans gave them the cold shoulder and automatically assumed that he was linked with the terrorist bombing. It captures the mom's despair and humiliation of these accusations so well, that it brought tears to my eyes. In the end we see that her son had died while trying to save the many victims from the crash of the towers. This was a true story, and that was what made it so real. There were a lot of emotional and powerful pieces, and the African piece was one of the best. It was humourous yet just as powerful as the others. A must see for everyone, and hopefully America will unban this, and let it play in their country. | positive |
It's a testament to Gosha's incredible film-making prowess that he was able to complete both Hitokiri and his stunning masterpiece, Goyokin, in the same year, 1969. And it's a testament to how criminally underrated he remains for the general public (compared to media darlings like the great Akira Kurosawa), that both Hitokiri and Goyokin have received less than 500 votes between the two of them.<br /><br />Shintaro Katsu is Okada Izo: mad dog killer, loyal to the Tosha clan and their boss Takechi, played by another genre stalwart, Tatsuya Nakadai. The Tosha clan was part of a larger alliance that supported the Emperor against the flailing Shogunate. The historical backdrop is fairly accurate - with Japan's increasing political turmoil between imperialists and the Tokugawa and the pressure by the West to end a 300 year social and political seclusion. It helps a lot to know a thing or two about Japanese history and what eventually led to the Meiji Restoration and the abolition of the Tokugawa Shogunate, but it's not essential by any means. The movie was made primarily for a Japanese audience so certain things are taken for granted but it flows very well for the uninitiated as well.<br /><br />As one would expect from a Hideo Gosha film in his golden years (the late 60's) the visual palette is breathtaking, the use of external and internal symbolism hiding behind pictorial beauty. Style however is never decorative for Gosha - it is always employed in the service of story. <br /><br />And speaking of story, Hitokiri is dominated both literally and figuratively by the tortured main character Izo Okada. As most chambara protagonists, Izo finds himself in a moral double-bind, torn between giri (obligation) and ninjo (natural impulse) - although it takes a while for him to realize what exactly his giri is. In the first half of the movie Izo is trying for social self-advancement. Lofty aspirations of social rank and marriage with an aristocrat's daughter - a great progression for someone coming from a farmer's background in the rigid social caste system of 19th century Japan. <br /><br />The turning point for Izo is when he realizes at what cost self-advancement comes, the loss of identity and by consequence the loss of self. It is at that point that he undergoes a very symbolic transformation from a famous swordsman of the Tosha Clan to a "nameless" drifter without past or future, Torazo the Vagrant. Although not technically nameless and not a genre drifter in Yojimbo's mold, it is the loss of his former self and the cast off of ego, ambition and self-dillusion that allows Izo to see things as they really are and redeem himself. <br /><br />Hitokiri ends (which I won't reveal here) in the best way any story can end: both positive and negative with a deeply ironic twist that gives Izo the last laugh, a last sardonic remark in the face of death. | positive |
Thanks to the helpfulness of a fellow IMDb member I've just managed to watch this film for the second time in nearly twenty years, and I can honestly say it hasn't lost any of its kick. I can't believe that Channel 4 have let this one vanish without a trace as it is an extremely powerful, moving and moralistic take on the consequences of misplaced loyalty. <br /><br />It focuses on a clique of friends over the course of ten years and their relationship with two 'outsiders' from school; specifically how they use one and mercilessly torment the other. As events from both the past and present unfold the tension gradually thickens, not dissimilar to Shane Meadows' excellent revenge-chiller Dead Man's Shoes. The acting, writing and direction are very bold for 1983 and still pack a wallop today in spite of the upper crust accents of the central characters. Yes, it might be set in public school but it's worlds apart from anything put out by Merchant Ivory; I got a state education and can still draw countless parables from the story. <br /><br />This is a film that you'll remember for a long time if you see it - except you probably won't, because Channel 4 (or FilmFour) have chosen to bury it. On their own official website they describe it as "an inexplicably overlooked gem from the early days of Channel 4" - overlooked by who? This was one of the very first Channel 4 films (which would later go on to become FilmFour thanks to the success of films like Trainspotting), so somewhere someone must still have the master print. In these days where you can get extended collector's issue DVDs of more or less anything it's a bit moody that they can't give a film this good the promotion it deserves. <br /><br />So, if one of the Channel 4 production flunkies is reading this, stop making programmes that showcase people humiliating themselves in the hope of securing a tabloid deal, chase up this film and sort out a nice special anniversary edition disc or something, please! | positive |
I thought this movie was perfect for little girls. It was about a magical place where Genevieve and all her sisters could do what they wanted to do the most anytime they'd like. Most little girls would like this story, even though there is the thought of death in it. Although no one dies, the king almost does, but little girls would not understand it, so it adds up to make a perfect story. All the events add up, creating a great plot that can have a meaning if you dig deep enough. This story is perfect for little girls, and since it is a barbie movie, the kids can have more fun with it, especially if they have barbies of their own. Anyone can have fun with it, though, because it is so cute and understandable. Overall, I think this movie is a good movie for everyone, especially little girls, and will give anyone a smile at least once during it. | positive |
Michael Keaton has really never been a good actor; in the Tim Burton Batman movies he always falls in the shadows of his great villains. Here, he stars as a widowed husband that picks up radio frequencies that seems like is dead people that tries making contact with the living...<br /><br />Well, this is supposed to be a pretty shocking thriller, but it really misses about every spot there is shocking you. Because there's way too much stuff that ends up unexplained, undiscovered and uninteresting. So where's the shocking excitement when it all gets so bad movie made in the first place that WHITE NOISE makes a fool out of itself? Truly bad acting and horrifying edited, this movie is nothing to watch. Michael Keaton tries making a thriller comeback but ends up missing the target more than ever. | negative |
One measurement for the greatness of a movie is, 'if it came on t.v. right now, would you want to sit there and watch it again?' My answer for the Grand Canyon is as powerful a "yes" as it would be for nearly any movie I have ever seen. There are just so many powerful moments, such an intelligent and moving story, such incredible performances. <br /><br /> It perfectly captures the confusion and violence that were so rampant in the early nineties. But it also dramatically affirms the capacity of individuals to love, think and care. In a slight way, the movie was of its time. It partly portrays society as a balloon about to burst. Because the country was in a recession, and so void of leadership, this was true of that time. But the movie is also timeless. I think it could honestly stand up against any movie that has ever been made, and it is the most overlooked film of all time. | positive |
Let's just say I had to suspend my disbelief less for Spiderman than I did for Hooligans. That is, to say, I have less of a problem believing Toby McGuire can stick to buildings than I do Elija Wood throwing down with toughs in Manchester. I won't get into specifics, as I don't want to write a spoiler, but the idea of grown, professional, British men getting into near death scraps every weekend is, well... funny. And this film is not. The fighting, the idea of fighting, is taken far too seriously. The gravity of the pugilism, the reverence with which the subject matter is treated becomes irritating, as it neither establishes or resolves the conflict. It seems as though the plot, with holes big enough to drive a Guiness truck through, has been slapped together with a contrived "fish out of water" theme so that viewers can gaze into Woods teary eyes as he learns how to become a man ie. hitting other young men of opposing football tastes with blunt objects and then running away as fast as he can. The characters are cartoonish, especially the Americans at Harvard. The character development and story line are telegraphed to the viewer throughout the picture. Unfortunately, the absurdity of the film doesn't reach its height until nearly the end, which by then you'll have spent nearly two hours of your life you are never getting back. Pick up "The Football Factory" or "Fight Club" instead of this corny, and disappointing dud. It doesn't waste time with empty melodrama, the tired old "Yankee in King Aurthur's Court," or weepy, parables of coming of age bullsh*t. They're just pure, dark, and clever fun; the way violence is supposed to be. | negative |
Well, here we have yet another role reversal movie. There were many worth watching, despite the tired plot of gender reversal. However, this one is not. In previous reviews, I think I've made my point about the general decline of enjoyment for Haim movies that followed the late 80s. This is one of them.<br /><br />'Just One of the Girls' is about a high school kid (Corey Haim) who tries to avoid his bullies by dressing up as a girl and attending another school. He joins the cheerleading squad and makes friends with fellow cheerleader, Marie (Nicole Eggert). Obviously, he can't keep up the charade for too much longer.<br /><br />I thought this movie was utter crap, and it wasn't even funny. But, judging by a majority of reviews, it looks like fans of Alanis Morrisette or teen sex queen, Nicole Eggert, are the only ones who'd want to watch this. If you're looking for a good Haim feature (or role switching comedy), look no further than 1989. This is about the point that Haim's career tanked. | negative |
Oh man, why? "Six Degrees" is a show about this so called theory that we all are linked by someone. If focus on the lives of a group of people and the consequences of their actions.<br /><br />When I first heard of this show, it didn't caught my attention at all. It seemed too ordinary, actually. Then, i saw some episodes... and loved it! First of all, the characters. They are all well-written and different from each other. There's a alcohol addicted, a woman whose fiancée cheats on her, a woman who just lost her husband, a driver who has a troubled brother and so on... Unlike what we're used to, most of the characters interact with each other in casualties, like in our daily routines. Great! My favourite ones are Mae, Carlos and Whitney.<br /><br />Then, the cast. They are all great. Jay Hernandez, from "Hostel", shows here his acting habilities in a more 3d character than his previous work as Paxton. The other ones give great performances too, specially Campbell Scott, who plays Steven and Bridget Moynahan, who plays Whitney.<br /><br />Well when i came to IMDb, after watching some episodes, i couldn't believe that it got cancelled. Seriously, i can't understand the low ratings.<br /><br />It's too bad it didn't have more than one season. It would really be a good show to follow! | positive |
There has been a political documentary, of recent vintage, called Why We Fight, which tries to examine the infamous Military Industrial Complex and its grip on this nation. It is considered both polemical and incisive in making its case against both that complex and the war fiasco we are currently involved in in Iraq. Yet, a far more famous series of films, with the same name, was made during World War Two, by Hollywood director Frank Capra. Although considered documentaries, and having won Oscars in that category, this series of seven films is really and truly mere agitprop, more in the vein of Leni Reifenstal's Triumph Of The Will, scenes of which Capra recycles for his own purposes. That said, that fact does not mean it does not have vital information that subsequent generations of World War Two documentaries (such as the BBC's lauded The World At War) lacked, nor does that mean that its value as a primary source is any the less valuable. They are skillfully made, and after recently purchasing some used DVDs at a discount store, I found myself with the opportunity to select a free DVD with my purchase. I chose Goodtimes DVD's four DVD collection of the series.<br /><br />Rarely has something free been so worth invaluable. While there are no extras on the DVDs, and the sound quality of the prints varies, these films provide insight into the minds of Americans two thirds of a century ago, when racism was overt (as in many of the classic Warner Brothers pro-war cartoons of the era), and there was nothing wrong with blatant distortion of facts. The seven films, produced between 1942 and 1945, are Prelude To War, The Nazis Strike, Divide And Conquer, The Battle Of Britain, The Battle Of Russia, The Battle Of China, and War Comes To America.<br /><br />Overall, the film series is well worth watching, not only for the obvious reasons, but for the subtle things it reveals, such as the use of the plural for terms like X millions when referring to dollars, rather than the modern singular, or the most overused graphic in the whole series- a Japanese sword piercing the center of Manchuria. Yet, it also shows the complexities of trying to apply past standards to current wars. The lesson of World War One (avoid foreign entanglements) was not applicable to World War Two, whose own lesson (act early against dictatorships) has not been applicable in the three major wars America has fought since: Korea, Vietnam, nor Iraq. The fact that much of this series teeters on the uncertainties of the times it was made in only underscores its historic value in today's information-clogged times. It may not help you sort out the truth from the lies and propaganda of today, but at least you'll realize you are not the first to be in such a tenuous position, nor will you be the last. | positive |
The movie was "OK". Not bad, not good, just OK. If there was anything else in the theater this would be skipped by far. Sadly, Fast and Furious 2 also stunk, but I'd rather see this than FF2. :) If you have a fetish for harrison ford or that other young punk, this will be a "cute" movie for you. Personally, I'd wait for HBO or Blockbuster. | negative |
Not all movies are Oscar worthy but let's face it, sometimes these types of movies are more fun to watch and leave a longer and lasting impression. This one left me smiling and happy and I couldn't wait to hug my own son. Anyone who has had a pet (no matter what type) knows what it feels like to lose one. I believe most people would identify with Buddy almost losing his best friend who he raised from birth. Bruce Willis was great as the tycoon turned nice guy and Joey Lauren Adams was convincing as a good mother. The little boy who played Buddy had a cherub face and his sister and friend Edgar played terrific backup roles. Liked the movie a lot and it was something the whole family could enjoy. Thanks! | positive |
i just saw Dick Tracy and I thought it was terrible. The paintings in the background of the cities looked awful. Also the mob characters looked too weird. Warren Beatty didn't do an awful job as Dick Tracy but it was definetely not one of his better performances. Madonna should just stick to singing. Glenne Headly did a good job in this movie. I gave this movie a 2/10 just because of the amazing acting by Al Pacino. It wasn't a high note in his career but he still did a good job. | negative |
The Haunting is a film that boasts a really creepy house, good effects work and sound work, a cast that seems to believe that everything around them is real and that house. There are scenes that make you jump, and the sinister aspects of what went on at Hill House in the past, I found interesting. There are genuinely creepy moments in the film and I liked the way the ghosts manifested themselves in sheets, curtains and the house itself. Jerry Goldsmith's score gave it the right atmosphere and the sound design had voices popping up around you. What I wish could've happened is for something a little more intense. Jan De Bont had a PG-13 rating to contend with and I think that he held back a little too much. Poltergeist scared me silly when I saw it many years ago, and it still holds up. The Haunting could've used a few more scenes of pure terror. The ending was for me, a little anticlimactic. Overall, I enjoyed it. The acting is good and there are moments that make you jump. I just wish it scared me more. | positive |
I watched this last night on TV (HBO). I have to admit, that the tension in this movie was unsurpassed by most other FN era movies. I loved the way Chip would be all calm one moment and then VIOLENT the very next moment. It was classic. Ahh yes. The dames, the villians, the cigars and thuggish cops! It has it all. This movie delivered all the goods to me. I especially loved the way they mixed communism into the plot, very common for this era of movie. Very daring also since blacklisting was popular in those days. I rate this movie one of the best I have seen in the FN genre! | positive |
Down to Earth is about Lance Barton, a black comedian who gets hit by a truck. He goes to Heaven and he gets to get another body. Lance gets the body of Charles Wellington, a white guy. So Lance does a few things in the body of Charles. The movie has a few laughs, but it's nothing special. It's a good movie if you're a fan of Chris Rock. Madagascar, the 2005 animated comedy, is better. This is a good movie, but Chris Rock has done way better things than this. It will only make you laugh about 4 times the whole movie. And it's not really laugh-out-loud funny. You'll laugh to yourself and you might giggle, but you definitely won't be rolling on the floor laughing. | negative |
I have never read a Jacqueline Susann novel, but I have also seen Valley of the Dolls, based on another of her books. On both occasions I thought the movie is probably better than the book and will further improve with age (certainly contrary to the books). The reason being that a movie focuses more on a specific style in fashion, design and behavior patterns. And in this aspect The Love Machine offers quite a lot. The set design fits the story perfectly. And all the characters fit in, too. They're perfect in the way that they complete a well balanced general picture. They are superficial and do not develop, it is true, but in this movie I wouldn't want it any different.<br /><br />David Hemmings reprises the role he played in Antonioni's Blow Up. And it's more than a rip-off. He's a fashion photographer, looks visibly aged and seems to start going slightly to seed. Robert Ryan reprises the role he played in Max Ophül's Caught, he is Smith Ohlrig all over again, greedy, bored and boring, uninspired and uninspiring. It's possible Ryan did not want to be in this picture and acted accordingly, on the other hand he might have thought a lot about his part and then given a carefully studied performance. Whatever happened, it fits the picture. Dyan Cannon is great (fantastic wardrobe!), she dominates every scene she's in and is involved in the two highlights of the movie: the burning of a luxurious bed and the knocking down of the Hemmings character with a Academy Award statuette.<br /><br />The title, The Love Machine, is, of course, meant ironically. Robin Stone is a kind of a Barry Lyndon of the pop era (incidentally, the movie IS slightly kubrickysh). That he chooses a TV station to work his way up to the top seems to be a mere coincidence. He sees love (meaning sexual favors) merely as a means for personal advancement. There are rather scary hints of a troubled sexuality which are not explored in the movie. Homosexuality is treated very casually, probably not the standard for mayor movies of the period. The open cynicism of the TV executives need not fear comparison with other good movies about the subject like A Face in the Crowd or Network or Truman Show. They are producing crap, they agree among themselves it's crap and they know they will make a lot of dough with it.<br /><br />I did not regret spending the odd 108 minutes with this movie and would not be surprised if it picked up a cult following, provided it's given the chance (meaning a DVD release). | positive |
I was not nearly as smitten with this as many other reviewers. Sure, it has a pair of lovely girls playing erotic, lesbian vampires. Marianne Morris and Anulka D. play these two lovely sirens with razor teeth that run up to cars on a road out of the way, hitch to their home(at dusk), and invite their prey...sex-starved men to their boudoir. What happens there...well, after they disrobe and kiss each other mostly, they kill their visitors. Director Jose Ramon Larraz does have some flashes of brilliance with his camera. Some scenes are quite eerie and effectively shot, but sex alone does not hold a film up(no pun intended...at least consciously). There really isn't much of a story here. We have the two girls. We are shown some inexplicable and unexplained beginning where we see them shot with pistol. Why? What does it mean" Why do we have the guy that stays for several days greet a guy at the hotel that insists he knows him from years ago? Does that have a purpose? Of course I have even more general questions like what is a couple of nice-looking girls doing as vampires in the English countryside and having a wine cellar filled with wine from the Carpathians? Anyway, the script is riddled with such flaws. It is also very sparse on the action outside of catch victims, wine and dine them(quite literally), and then go to bed in the crypt. The end gets going with some juicier scenes, but it is anti-climatic. There are, as I said, some effective scenes by the director...I particularly liked the way the girls dressed and were filmed in the woods looking for their prey. The house is also a most impressive set. And both girls are as I said very lovely. Marianne Morris in particular stands out - in more ways than one. For you older film fans, silent screen veteran Bessie Love has a brief cameo at film's end. | negative |
This movie started out cringe-worthy--but it was meant to, with an overbearing mother, a witch of a rival, and a hesitant beauty queen constantly coming in second. There was some goofy overacting, and a few implausible plot points (She comes in second in EVERY single competition? ALL of them?) Unfortunately, the movie suffers horribly from it's need to, well, be a TV movie. Rather than end at the ending of the movie, an amusing twist in which the killer is (semi-plausibly) revealed, the movie continues for another twenty minutes, just to make sure that justice is done. Of course, now that the killer is revealed, she suddenly undergoes a complete personality shift--her character gets completely rewritten, because the writers don't need to keep her identity secret any more. The cheese completely sinks what otherwise could have been a passably amusing movie. | negative |
Definitely an odd debut for Michael Madsen. Madsen plays Cecil Moe, an alcoholic family man whose life is crumbling all around him. Cecil grabs a phone book, looks up the name of a preacher, and calls him in the middle of the night. He goes to the preacher's home and discusses his problems. The preacher teaches Cecil to respect the word of God and have Jesus in his heart. That makes everything all better. Ahh...if only everything in life were that easy. The fact that this "film" looks as if it was made with about $500 certainly doesn't help. 1/10 | negative |
Charlie Wilson's War, based on a true story, tells the tale of a Texas congressman and a CIA agent working to secure funding for covert support of the Mujaheddin in 1980s Afghanistan following the USSR invasion of the country. This conflict played a major role in the final years of the Cold War between the US and the USSR.<br /><br />In terms of film making, Charlie Wilson's War is a definite winner. It well-written, well-acted, and well-shot. While most of the attention has gone to Tom Hanks for yet another fine performance, I was even more impressed with Philip Seymour Hoffman's turn as CIA operative Gust Avrakotos. Scenes of Soviet attacks on under-armed villages and of the refugee camp effectively tug at the heart. The film also gives a good behind-the-scenes look at the wheeling and dealing that Congressman Wilson must go through to secure the desired funding.<br /><br />There are, however, two complaints I have about the film. The first is that there is a subplot involving an scandal investigation that is not well-developed and as such only serves as a minor distraction to the story line. The second complaint is that the film lacks some of the context of the war. The film makes the Mujaheddin look like innocent victims, and while they did suffer large civilian casualties, the Mujaheddin were in fact rebels trying to topple the government of Afghanistan. This government, ignored entirely in the film, not surprisingly fought to suppress the rebellion, later calling on the Soviet Union for support in their effort. The film also ignores that the US was aiding the Mujaheddin prior to the Soviet deployment in Afghanistan. The film did hint at the unintended consequences of our covert actions -- consequences we are still feeling today -- but it seems as if screenwriter Aaron Sorkin and director Mike Nichols were willing to sacrifice some historical context to provide a cohesive narrative. (Not having read the book, I do not know if George Crile made the same compromise.) Those complaints notwithstanding, I did enjoy watching Charlie Wilson's War and do recommend it. I would have preferred a film that more accurately depicted the complexities of the situation, as Stephen Gaghan did in Syriana, but the audiences connected better with cohesive narrative of Charlie Wilson's War than with the ambiguities present in Syriana. | positive |
People are being too hard on the film. Sometimes we should just sit back and enjoy the story without attempting to "review" it.<br /><br />The whole thing comes together when Hackman decides not to pull the trigger but his target still goes down. Then the fun begins as everyone about him also "go down".<br /><br />Just think JFK and all the people associated in any way with his assassination, who's lives ended abruptly and in questionable ways and you'll appreciate what is implied in this film.<br /><br />I think it's an excellent interpretation of what may well have occurred. Though the EXACT story line my not have been followed (hindsight here after reading Jim Maars "Crossfire") but it's what is implied that is of interest.<br /><br />I'd love to get a copy of it to view it again. In light of what is known today, The Domino Principle is right on. | positive |
This Gundam series only follows Gundam 0083 Stardust Memory. The story takes place during the same time line as the original Gundam in the year U.C. 0079 the time of the One year war, but the mobile suits are designed as new models are and are as a result look more articulate. The Hero of the story is a young Lt. Shiro Amada, who may lack any real combat experience but makes up for it with creativity and effort.<br /><br />His life get complicated when he meets Aina Sahalin a Jion ace pilot (the enemy), the to end up falling in love and begin to change their attitudes about the war around them. The other cast of characters in the story are not there for background either, every one in this story has a history to them.<br /><br />There is also another Ace mobile suit pilot in this series that can be added into the pantheon of ace mobile suit pilots. Right up there with Char Aznable and Anavel Gato is Norris Packard, not the top villain in this series, but his presence give the 8th mobile suit team a hard fight. 3 of them against Norris and his single MS-07B Gouf custom mobile suit.<br /><br />In conclusion This Gundam along with Stardust Memory is a must see!!<br /><br /> | positive |
The Brave One seems to indicate that the main character, of course, is brave. I'd disagree. The more brave thing to do in a situation like the one that happens to her- getting brutally beaten along with her fiancée who doesn't live another day from it- is to go after the criminals without resorting to a total distorted view of society. Jodie Foster's character, Erica, is a radio personality who's niche is walking the streets and recording what goes on. We're given no real depth aside from 'she had someone she loved, he died, the police don't pursue it, she gets a gun, yada-yada-yada, she gets somewhat but not really involved with the lead detective' into the character, and so were left with something leftover from past movies: the vigilante code of justice, where taking the power in one's own hands is all there is. But we're never too sure if Erica is sane or not, if the filmmakers take a position one way or another (that is until the end, which is such a stupid message to take anyway, dog included as overbearing metaphor), while making the New York City of today, which has become significantly safer than, say, twenty years ago, look like you'll get knifed or beaten if you go down just the right alley or just sit alone on a subway car.<br /><br />There could even be a somewhat better movie in the midst of all of this- perhaps just in the undercooked subplot with Terence Howard's detective, who is involved in some custody battle of a child that isn't his and a woman who he's not linked to and a step-father who, I don't know what aside from owning parking lots and being a bad dude- but we're left to a script that's both ham-fisted and disjointed with logic. It becomes laughable, for example, to see that at first the logical side- of Erica unable to really shoot properly, as seen in her first shooting in a convenience store at the convenient moment of a robbery of a wife by the husband- and then giving way to the illogical of her crack-shot at shooting at a pimp driving a car head on at her and killing him and ducking just in time to not get run over. It doesn't help that Jordon's style with the camera becomes a little more than insufferable: it's called a stedi-cam for a *reason*, not because it can weave in and out.<br /><br />Ironically, the script and direction become very good, or rather work the best they can under the desired circumstances: when looking at the actual beating scene under the bridge, caught between a video-taped point of view by one of the criminals by the regular film cam in a pace that is perfectly disorienting. And when Erica first comes back on the air to her radio show, and she freezes up trying to do her old shtick, and speaks out a 'from-the-heart' about how afraid she is- this scene, from Foster's performance, to the clear direction and script, is the best scene in the film. But aside from that, there's just a lot of posturing into a psychology that's flimsy: is she a De Niro in Taxi Driver or a Bronson in Death Wish? We have her narration over scenes, some of it doesn't have to do at all with her radio show, observing how disgusted she is with walking around at night, nothing to do but her self-imposed task of cleaning up the streets. But unlike Death Wish, a movie that held more ambiguity and never held an answer at the end in a revenge scenario, the path of endless violence just heeds to a message, one that won't be news to anyone who's seen a second of Lifetime movie-of-the-week melodrama.<br /><br />The actors make do with what's given, and in the end it becomes much more frustrating trying to stay with the anticipated, the hackneyed plot turns, and the plain old inexplicable (plus the unintentionally hilarious, like a few expletives shouted by Howard after getting shot in one scene), and the temptation to walk out grows stronger and stronger. It's a very problematic picture, with only a few moments of genuine interest and clear-headed convention-bending. | negative |
I was amazingly impressed by this movie. It contained fundamental elements of depression, grief, loneliness, despair, hope, dreams and companionship. It wasn't merely about a genius musician who hit rock bottom but it was about a man caught up in grief trying drastically to find solace within his music. He finds a companion who comes with her own issues. Claire and Des were able to provide each other with friendship and love but more importantly a conclusion to events which had shaped their life for the worst. <br /><br />Des is an unlikely character by todays standards of a rock star. Yet he has musical genius. He also has an event in his past that has made him stagnate, while things around him literally go to ruins. His focus is creating his Whale Music, in fact it becomes an obsession for him.<br /><br />Claire is the streetwise kid that needs a place to stay. She finds hidden talents while being in Des company. She also finds a mutual friend that accepts her. She learns to trust him over a period of time.<br /><br />These two find love with one another. Not the mind blowing, sex infused kind of passion, but a love where friendship and understanding means more. For two people who have been hurt, they find trust together. | positive |
Many mystery stories follow the standard whodunit path: murder most foul, gathering of clues, gaggle of possible perps, sprinkling of red herrings, and inevitable showdown between clever evildoer and even more clever crime solver.<br /><br />"Forgotten" abandons the well-trod and gives us complex characters who may or may not have committed terrible acts. The fact that at the end of three episodes we have no easy answers and no neatly-tied package might frustrate some, but for me it was the indication of an intelligently crafted tale which probes, disturbs, and haunts with the question: What does an evil person look like?<br /><br />Excellent acting and production combine to make a mystery not easily... forgotten. | positive |
By 1955, five years after this one was released James Stewart and Anthony Mann had completed another six films together, four of them Westerns. Their rapport was obvious from the outset and what was intended as little more than a Universal progrmmer became both a cult and a classic. Buffs of the period will revel in the fact that the first ten names on the credits were all more than well known - and that's not counting Ray Teal or 'Anthony' Curtis, later to become Tony. Perhaps ten years later the 'psychological' western was well entrenched but in 1950 it was rare to throw Ahab into the mix with Cain and Abel, to say nothing of addressing several other issues along the way, and still furnish a conventional western on the surface and full credit to all concerned. One to add to the DVD collection. | positive |
Despite having a very pretty leading lady (Rosita Arenas, one of my boy-crushes), the acting and the direction are examples of what NOT to do while making a movie.<br /><br />Placed in southern Mexico, Popoca, the Aztec Mummy (real Aztecs, by the way, DID not made mummies) has been waken up by the lead characters and starts making trouble in Mexico City suburbia, during the first movie (The Aztec Mummy). In this second part, the leading man and woman want to find th mummy and put it in its final resting place (a fireplace would have been my first choice...)<br /><br />Into this appears The Bat, a criminal master-mindless stereotype of a criminal genius who creates a "human robot" (some idiot inside a robot SUIT) to control Popoca and (get this) take over the world. The final match between the robot and the mummy is hilarious, some of the worst choreography ever witnessed. The funniest part is that this movie was made and released by a serious Mexican movie studio!<br /><br />The acting is just as awful hearing the movie in Spanish as it is in English (they dubbed the over-acting!). You should watch this movie through MST:3000. The comments are even funnier. | negative |
I loved this show. Such talent; and I am so disappointed that it is canceled, after only just beginning. I looked forward to this show all week long. And so sorry for the people who were hoping to be The One. I would have loved to see who would have won. It just began, and in my opinion,it should not have been canceled. I hope these young artist have been viewed by talent scouts, and have the opportunity to reach their goals. I voted, and sat waiting for it to come on; never knowing that it was canceled. And I could not believe that it was. I am amazed that it had low ratings; because it was in my opinion one of the best reality shows on TV. | positive |
In all of low budget history. this movie has to be one of the worst. True ther are some humorous sides to the movie, but in general it was just plain awful. I just can't understand what person could not out run a bunch of slugs. I mean they have to be one of the slowest creatures on the planet. The only part worth while in this movie is the close up of a slugs attempt to bite the finger of a man. This was rather amusing. | negative |
Thin story concerns two small town brothers and their struggles over family honor. David Morse is the responsible, straight-laced cop and 'good' brother; Viggo Mortensen, the 'bad' boy, is a former soldier and ex-convict. As an actor (particularly in his earliest years), Sean Penn seems to have modulated his performances under the Method. Turning first-time writer and director for this arty, obtuse drama, he works his script and characters out through the same methodical process, slowing the pacing down to a crawl (ostensibly so we can catch every nuance and inflection). This approach might be fascinating if there were three-dimensional characters to care about, but photogenic Morse and Mortensen aren't really convincing as siblings. Worse, we expect more from prominently-billed veterans Charles Bronson and Sandy Dennis, who hardly get a chance to come through with anything interesting. The picture is balky with turgid sequences, a wobbly narrative and confusing editing (always slanted to point up the artistic excesses). Penn's tricks with the camera show off a talented eye, yet they are mostly an irritation. *1/2 from **** | negative |
I had seen this movie when I was a boy (Before WWII) and was surprised that the local library had a copy. Saw it again after some sixty years and forgot how bad it was. This is an example of a movie that was not a "A" movie. No editing, poor script, weak acting and not much directing. Should not even be as high as a "B" Had a laugh at how jaded I've become over the years. Seems to me I thought it was good when I originally saw it. | negative |
Hopper has never been worse as if he felt as this movie is worthy of only a grade B performance and he delivers a rather good one. Outside of Madsen and Hopper the acting is horrid; you've seen better at your local high school. The sound and at times the editing and camera shots are low end of B-movies. The scene with the peeping tom is of movies greatest gratuitous nudity scenes I've ever seen (it doesn't even come close to fitting in the movie). The script was probably a great 10-page outline, but when it comes out to a full-length movie there are more holes in it then the dead bodies Madsen left behind. I do have to say Hopper dressed in a nice suit driving the Hummer had me laughing out loud, but I don't think that was the intent. Yes there is a little style, and Hopper can always draw my interest. However the interesting plot concept never pays off and you are left wondering why you wasted your time watching this. | negative |
If you came into the film with expectations, throw them away now, because no amount of hype will do this film justice.<br /><br />To categorize this film into a single genre would be criminal. It's a spy thriller, has elements of noir, bits and pieces of action, science fiction, and cyberpunk all tied together with a brilliant narrative, mind-bending plot twists, and gorgeous cinematography.<br /><br />A lot of the comments here have centered around it being derivative, both in good and bad ways, of other movies. But as they say, every story cribs from Shakespeare, so once you can get past that, you're in for a hell of a ride.<br /><br />You will need to suspend your disbelief at some points, and while the set never becomes unbelievable, there are portions (read: the elevator) which suffer from a low budget and somewhat cheesy visuals. Don't misconstrue that to mean it's on the same level as cheesy Sci-Fi channel movies, though, because this is on a much higher level.<br /><br />If you're looking for action, you should turn away. This is pure psychology. But if you're willing to sit down and devote a good 90 minutes of your life to a novel cinematic experience, by all means, DO IT NOW! Watch this movie now before it becomes cool to have seen it! | positive |
Despite the previous reviewer's screed, this is a well paced and interesting documentary with lots of clips from classic 1950s sci-fi films that influenced Spielberg, Lucas and others in their more recent efforts. I agree that Spielberg's films aren't even in the same league as the films discussed here, such as William Cameron Menzies' brilliant INVADERS FROM MARS, to name just one of the many titles examined, but this is still a remarkably good overview of 1950s paranoid sci-fi. Yes, it turns into a commercial for the tepid remake of WAR OF THE WORLDS during the last fifteen minutes; you can turn that off. The rest is surprisingly good, and it's nice to see contemporary filmmakers remember the films that inspired them, even if they can't begin to match the originals. | positive |
Breaking Glass is a film that everyone aspiring to be in the music industry should see more than once. It is a very dark tale about the way a record company manipulates a singer to do things their way and to make as much money out of her as possible. Looking at some of today's 'search for a star' style TV shows on both in the UK and abroad I am always reminded of this film. Though not an expert on the subject, the winners of these shows tend to have one very big initial hit and then its downhill from there. This film predates these shows though the effect seems the same. After getting rid of her manager, played quite brilliantly by Phil Daniels, slowly but surely the record company changes her lyrics puts her on stimulants and she is eventually totally burnt out. You potential stars of tomorrow.... WATCH THIS AND BEWARE !!! | positive |
'Rejseholdet' is one of the best new danish tv-series that i have watched.<br /><br />The series is about the danish police force's Unit 1 - a kinda FBI-style team that help solve murder cases all over the country, and the cases they work on, plus the influence that their jobs have on their personal lives, and the price they sometimes has to pay to be a part of a top police team.<br /><br />I didn't expect much when I started watching this series - I was pleasantly surprised, the series is exciting, sometimes fun, it's got both drama and suspense, I love it. | positive |
After realizing what is going on around us ... in the news .. in our homes .. the whole new world .. I remembered this show and how obsessed I was watching it every week (in my town) ..<br /><br />I started looking for this series .. 3 days ago .. didn;t have luck till this moment .. and I was shocked when I read about it and about CBS ..<br /><br />People, I believe they stopped the show because it's talking about something way ahead of our understanding of the new world ... it was trying to deliver a hidden message about something terrifying ..<br /><br />The people who stopped it are the same who are controlling the world Now .. I remember in one of the episodes it was talking about the ONE dollar and the pyramid with the one eye ... | positive |