text
stringlengths 70
9.35k
| label
class label 2
classes |
|---|---|
This film is about a Japanese woman who has an obsession with calligraphy on skin.<br /><br />The plot is absolutely bizarre. I fail to see any "sensual" or "erotic" undertones. The plot turns an ancient art form into a fetishistic pornography. In addition, the scenes that are filmed in Hong Kong are certainly portraying bad parts of Hong Kong, such as the airport in the middle of the city, poor living conditions and noise pollution. Throughout the whole film, I keep thinking that "The Pillow Book" is insulting the Japanese culture and the Hong Kong environment.<br /><br />"The Pillow Book" is a perverted, yet boring film. Seriously stay away from it.
| 0neg
|
Black guy becomes rich white guy, and rich white guy seems to embrace hip-hop culture, and most of the "funny" moments of this film play off of this. The problem I have is that it doesn't work and almost never works.<br /><br />OK, so no one would expect Lance to grab a body like that and suddenly start acting like Charles Wellington. That would be too much to ask. I'll grant that. But at the same time, it goes too far the other direction. I'm supposed to imagine a rich white guy singing rap and completely upending things, playing like he's a bastion of hip-hop culture, and people just *accept* him? And what about Sontee, who falls in love with him *as a rich white guy*, even though she doesn't care about his money or power? This is so completely unbelievable it's not even funny.<br /><br />I just couldn't suspend disbelief and I couldn't finish the movie. I added one extra star because it did make me laugh, even hard, a couple of times. But I just couldn't get get past the whole "white guy doing hip hop" thing that has never been well done in any movie I've ever seen that tries it. This was no exception.
| 0neg
|
This must be one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I was actually expecting a bad movie but I was caught by surprise believe it or not. The storyline is the traditional, all clichées are included.<br /><br />The dialogue is so poorly written that you actually laugh when the otherwise half-descent actors are trying to make it sound real. The photo is not too good, the music is so malplacée it actually made me angry, the actors are not even trying, altho the script makes it almost impossible you could expect more from people that have been acting for 30 years and the so called action scenes actually manage to lack the "action" itself.<br /><br />I dont understand why these types of bad movies keep on coming, who is financing this shit? Where is the screening ? And why on earth do actors take on this mission impossible script?<br /><br />There are a million hollywood-movies in this genre without even aspiration of reaching the theaters, but even them Straight To Video things actually manages to look professional in comparison.<br /><br />I can not say anything positive about this except the title which explains it all, I feel robbed of 2 hours of my life.
| 0neg
|
At least the under ten year old set will stay interested. Eleanor(Geena Davis)and Fred(Hugh Laurie)Little, a nice well-to-do couple set out to bring home from the orphanage a new little brother for their son George(Johnathan Lipnicki). They come home with quite the odd new sibling...a sharp dressed little mouse named Stuart(voiced by Michael J. Fox). Yes, mouse. Stuart is happy to have found the sense of belonging even if it is in a super sized world that contains his new family's pet cat Snowbell(voiced by Nathan Lane). Stuart embarks on the experience of family loyalty and overall friendship. George will finally accept his tiny new brother when the dapper dressed Stuart saves embarrassment at a model boat race.<br /><br />Also in the cast: Julia Sweeney, Harold Gould, Estelle Getty and Jeffery Jones. And the voices of: Chaz Palminteri, Bruno Kirby and Jennifer Tilly.
| 0neg
|
This is the best movie I've come across in a long while. Not only is this the best movie of its kind(school shooting)The way Ben Coccio(the director) decided to film it was magnificent. He filmed it using teenage actors who were still attending high school. He filmed it in the actors own rooms and used the actors real parents as their parents in the film. Also the actors were filming too using camcorders making it seem much more like a video diary. It is almost artful.(if that is indeed a word)There are a few slip ups however, for example when Cal calls brads(?) land rover a range rover(or vice versa, It's been awhile since I've seen it)
| 1pos
|
"Panic In The Streets" is an exciting and atmospheric thriller in which director Elia Kazan achieved a great sense of realism by shooting the movie in New Orleans, using a number of local people to fill various roles and making intelligent use of improvisation. As a result, the characters and dialogue both seem very natural and believable. An important deadline which has to be met in order to avoid a disaster, provides the story with its great sense of urgency and pace and the problems which delay the necessary action from being taken, then increase the tension to a high level.<br /><br />Following a dispute between the participants in a card game, a man called Kochak (Lewis Charles) is shot and his body is dumped in the dock area. When the body is found and the coroner identifies the presence of a virus, U.S. Public Health official Dr Clinton Reed (Richard Widmark) is called in and his examination confirms the presence of pneumonic plague. Reed insists that all known contacts of the dead man must be inoculated without delay because the very infectious nature of the disease means that without such action, anyone infected could be expected to die within days.<br /><br />As the identity of the dead man is unknown, the task of finding his contacts is expected to be difficult and this situation is not helped when city officials and the Police Commissioner are not fully convinced by Reed's briefing. They doubt that the threat to the public is potentially as serious as he claims it is and their initial lack of commitment is just the first of a series of obstacles which prevent action from being taken urgently. The investigation that follows is hampered by a lack of cooperation from the immigrant community, a group of seamen, the proprietor of a restaurant and also some illegal immigrants before the man's identity and his contacts are eventually found.<br /><br />Kochak, an illegal immigrant, had been in a gang with Blackie (Jack Palance), Raymond Fitch (Zero Mostel) and Vince Poldi (Tommy Cook) and when gang leader Blackie becomes aware of the ongoing police investigation, he presumes that Kochak must've smuggled something very valuable into the country. As Kochak and Poldi were related, Blackie assumes that Poldi must know something about this and goes to find out more. Poldi, however, is very ill and unable to provide any information. Blackie brings in his own doctor and together with Fitch starts to move Poldi out of his room and down some stairs and this is when they meet up with Reed and an exciting chase follows.<br /><br />Richard Widmark gives a strong performance as an underpaid public official who copes efficiently with the onerous responsibilities of his job whilst also dealing with his domestic preoccupations as a family man. In an unusual type of role for him, he also portrays the determined and serious minded nature of Dr Reed very convincingly. Jack Palance's film debut sees him giving an impressive performance as a ruthless thug who misjudges Kochak's reason for leaving the card game and also the reason for the intense police investigation. His distinctive looks also help to make his on-screen presence even more compelling.<br /><br />In typical docu-noir style, expressionist cinematography and neo-realist influences are utilized in tandem to effectively capture the atmosphere of the locations in which the action takes place. Elia Kazan directs with precision throughout but also excels in the memorable chase sequence in the warehouse and on the dockside.
| 1pos
|
This is on my top list of all-time favourite films! It is a fantastic and insightful film. It was Historically interesting and great to watch! I thought the acting from Emily Blunt was fantastic and Rupert Friend was a fantastic Albert, the best actor was chosen for Albert. The costumes were gorgeous and the settings and scenes such as the opera house, were amazing and detailed. I just loved it, all of it! I loved the childhood scenes were she's getting 'bullied' by John Conroy. And where her mother says she has to walk stairs with an adult. One again the writers have done it! They produced this fantastic script! <br /><br />It thoroughly deserves the awards they got. (Oscar and BAFTA wining Sandy Powell, for costume design. A BAFTA for best make-up and hair, an Oscar in Best Achievement in Art Direction, Best Achievement in Costume Design, Best Achievement in Makeup. Broadcast Film Critics Association Awards for Best costume design, also nominated for best actress Emily Blunt. CDG for Excellence in Costume Design for Film - Period. Hampton's International Film Awards for an Audience Award for Best Narrative Film. PFCS for Best Costume design.Sudbury Cinefest, doesn't say what for. VFCC for Best Actress, Emily Blunt.) Overall 10 wins and 11 nominations! That pretty good! http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0962736/awards Have a look yourself, its really interesting! Personally Rupert Friend should have got an award.
| 1pos
|
After watching the Next Action Star reality TV series, I was pleased to see the winners' movie right away. I was leery of such a showcase of new talent, but I was pleasantly surprised and thrilled. Billy Zane, of course, was his usual great self, but Corinne and Sean held their own beside him. It was also nice to see Jared and Jeanne (also from the competition) in their cameo roles. Sean's character, not Billy's, is the hunted, and his frustration at discovering new rules in the game is well played. Corinne walks the tightrope well between her character liking Sean's and only being in it for the money. I loved how the game was played right to the last second. And then beyond! Not a great movie, but an entertaining one all the way and a great showcase for two folks on their first time out of the gate.
| 1pos
|
I love this movie. It is one of those movies that you can watch time and time again and still find engaging. Congratulations!! I believe everyone involved in making the movie and the script should be proud of themselves. It is so eerie, you feel like you are watching a real life band. I would like to see more movies like this. I am glad that they did not choose famous Hollywood stars to be in this movie because it probably would not have worked. And even if Billy Connolly is quite well known, he really got stuck into the role and I could not imagine anybody else playing it. Congratulations again, I really believe this movie deserves the Peter Sellers Comedy Award for Bill Nighy. And when you get to the final scene..... well what can I say!!!!
| 1pos
|
I thought this movie was LOL funny. It's a fun, not to be taken seriously, movie about one man's twisted views on life, love, and... well, ladies "from the lowly bus station skank, to the high-class débutante... bus station skank." Tim meadows plays a guy (Leon Phelps) who was raised by in a Playboy-style mansion by a Hugh Hefner-esquire father figure, surrounded constantly by beautiful porn models and actresses. When his "father" kicks him out on the street he must learn to fend for himself with nothing but the chauvinistic outlook on life that his youth has taught him... that and an unfathomable, nearly mystical level of charm and dumb luck. And so the hijinx begin! If you haven't seen this movie and you enjoy a light-hearted, semi-mindless, comedy/love story, then I highly recommend renting "the Ladies' Man".
| 1pos
|
The movie concerns about Philip(Leslie Howard)he's a serious but handicapped medicine student .He falls fatally in love with a heartless, predatory waitress called Mildred(Bette Davis).She leaves him ,engaging with others(Alan Hale,Reginald Denny).Meanwhile he is romanced with another suitors(Kay Johnson,Frances Dee)but she goes back in a mutually destructive affair.<br /><br />Easily the best and first of numerous films versions of Somerset Maugham's novel. Bette Davis as the cockney cruel waitress winning yet another magnificent interpretation with an alluring and smouldering performance ,absolutely hypnotic in her account of the bondage that occurs from the beginning to the finale.Davis rose the stardom with her performance.Her role as tough and crude domineering woman will be repeated several times in posteriors acting . Leslie Howard as the essentially good and decent student subtly destroyed gives an excellent and melancholic performance.He was an awesome actor(Gone with the wind)besides producer and writer and dead in plane crash during WWII. Both will play again in ¨Petrified forest¨(1936). The atmosphere film is elaborately recreated in the RKO(Radio Picture Inc) studio is entirely convincing. Remade in 1946 by Edmund Goulding, with Eleanor Parker and Paul Henreid; and in 1964 by Ken Hughes with Kim Novak and Laurence Harvey . The motion picture will like to classic cinema buffs. Rating : Very good but a little bit dated.
| 1pos
|
My friends and I rented that movie last night and we had one of the greatest laughs in awhile. The movie is not supposed to be funny at all, but it is just so ridiculous and it lacks any realism whatsoever. First, Phillippe (I forget what his character is called and I don't really care) uses his regular employee ID to go through all the top-security terminals. Not only is that pathetic but it gets topped when his enormous efforts culminate in his finding the so-scary Lego-room, which hosts the super computers. This is plain funny. The tense mood that we are supposed to experience is completely spoilt by the childish looking room. The ending, like all else, is very very very cheesy, especially when the bad guy's lawyer shows up 'right on time'. Anyway, this movie is a good laugh. If you need something to make fun of, definitely see it.
| 0neg
|
I have to point out, before you read this review, that in no way, is this a statement against Iranian people ... if you really want to read something into it, than hopefully you see, that I'm against politicians in general ... but if you're looking to be offended ... I can't help you!<br /><br />Not in Iran as this movie is banned there (see IMDb trivia for this movie). Which is a shame, because the movie is great. Would it not be for "Grbavica", this movie would have won at the International Film Festival in Berlin.<br /><br />Rightfully so (it was the runner-up, or second place if you will). Why? Because it is a movie about oppression. It's not even that this is a complete women issue. It is about the government trying to keep the people down. An analogy so clear that the government felt the need to ban the movie. But by banning it nothing is resolved and/or can they make this movie disappear! <br /><br />Another reviewer had a great summary line: "Comedy about a tragedy", that sums it up pretty well!
| 1pos
|
I recently stumbled across this film on TNT five minutes into it, while on vacation in Florida... (hey there has to be some down time in the hotel, right?) I was initially surprised to see Melissa Joan Hart in any feature length film on TNT. I mean "Drive Me Crazy" isn't THAT old already, is it?<br /><br />But I stuck with it, and was thoroughly surprised and entertained. Melissa plays her role as the psychotic Jennifer excellently. The supporting cast (Nick, the ex-con boyfriend; Karen, her best friend; and her life-controlling parents) all added a great degree of believability. The twist at the end was a nice closure to this tale of the girl who always seemed to be one step ahead of everybody.<br /><br />If you get a chance, check it out!<br /><br />
| 1pos
|
That's what the title should be, anyway.<br /><br />This movie combines guns, explosives, and mindless killing to make one flop of an "action" movie. Let me make my point in a series of questions: answers type deal.<br /><br />What happens in the movie? People die.<br /><br />Is that it? Yes.<br /><br />What is the plot about? What plot?<br /><br />What is the point the movie is trying to make? Killing is the only solution.<br /><br />What are the characters like? Extremely flawed and contradictive toward their own personalities.<br /><br />Is there anything good about this movie? Yes. I'm sure they used some nice Panavision cameras in filming it.<br /><br />If you like constant killing and greed, then watch the movie. If you happen to be repulsed by such low-standard "entertainment", then "Made Men" is not for you.<br /><br />To sum it up, the plotline stinks, the characters aren't worth their while, the storyline is completely resistable, and nothing fits together.<br /><br />This proves one thing: the actors, directors, and whoever helped make this movie certainly aren't "Made".
| 0neg
|
Do not see this movie if you value your mind. At the end of our collective viewing, me and my friends estimated that we each lost 5% of our brains during its course. The only person involved with its making that was not clinically insane was the set designer.<br /><br />Most movies leave a bad taste in your mouth. I realize now that instead of a feeling of revulsion, this movie has bred a deep hatred within me. I hate this movie so very, very much.<br /><br />Some might say this movie is not meant to be taken seriously. If only it didn't take itself seriously. But it does. The plot is a warmed over version of Blade Runner-esque universe melded with the cheap rubber suits so prevalent in bad dinosaur movies. The dialogue is not only puerile and meaningless but often literally painful. Whoopee Goldberg isn't even trying, but George Newbern as the voice of Theodore Rex is like fingernails on the soul. And whether its Juliet Landua with her off again on again British accent or Richard Roundtree (aka Shaft) as the blustering Commissioner, you will sink into an ever increasing sense of incredulity and disillusionment.<br /><br />I recommend this movie only to anyone who wishes to see the depths of stupidity to which mankind may fall.
| 0neg
|
With all this stuff going down at the moment with MJ i've started listening to his music, watching the odd documentary here and there, watched The Wiz and watched Moonwalker again. Maybe i just want to get a certain insight into this guy who i thought was really cool in the eighties just to maybe make up my mind whether he is guilty or innocent. Moonwalker is part biography, part feature film which i remember going to see at the cinema when it was originally released. Some of it has subtle messages about MJ's feeling towards the press and also the obvious message of drugs are bad m'kay.<br /><br />Visually impressive but of course this is all about Michael Jackson so unless you remotely like MJ in anyway then you are going to hate this and find it boring. Some may call MJ an egotist for consenting to the making of this movie BUT MJ and most of his fans would say that he made it for the fans which if true is really nice of him.<br /><br />The actual feature film bit when it finally starts is only on for 20 minutes or so excluding the Smooth Criminal sequence and Joe Pesci is convincing as a psychopathic all powerful drug lord. Why he wants MJ dead so bad is beyond me. Because MJ overheard his plans? Nah, Joe Pesci's character ranted that he wanted people to know it is he who is supplying drugs etc so i dunno, maybe he just hates MJ's music.<br /><br />Lots of cool things in this like MJ turning into a car and a robot and the whole Speed Demon sequence. Also, the director must have had the patience of a saint when it came to filming the kiddy Bad sequence as usually directors hate working with one kid let alone a whole bunch of them performing a complex dance scene.<br /><br />Bottom line, this movie is for people who like MJ on one level or another (which i think is most people). If not, then stay away. It does try and give off a wholesome message and ironically MJ's bestest buddy in this movie is a girl! Michael Jackson is truly one of the most talented people ever to grace this planet but is he guilty? Well, with all the attention i've gave this subject....hmmm well i don't know because people can be different behind closed doors, i know this for a fact. He is either an extremely nice but stupid guy or one of the most sickest liars. I hope he is not the latter.
| 1pos
|
(spoilers??)<br /><br />I wasn't sure what to think of the movie. Not too much of a kids film. Definately should be watched with a parent because it includes death and dying. But I was surprised that I was a bit entertained by it.<br /><br />I was a bit disappointed by the 81 minutes of time we had. (even less without the credits) And the trailer gets you to think the rodent is a main creature. But alas, they torture him. Right until the end of the movie. Those two gripes docked the movie 2 stars. But I do recommend the movie. Even for a sequel.<br /><br />8/10<br /><br />Quality: 9/10 Entertainment: 7/10 Replayable:7/10
| 1pos
|
Weak start, solid middle, fantastic finish. That's my impression of this film, anyway. I liked Simon Pegg in the two films I've seen him in--- Hot Fuzz, and Shaun of the Dead. His role here, though, took a completely different turn. Shows his range as an actor, but nonetheless I really disliked th character as he was portrayed at the beginning.<br /><br />There's a kind of humour I call "frustration comedy." Its supposed "jokes" and wit are really nothing more than painful and awkward moments. Much like the Bean character Rowan Atkinmson plays. There are a number of other comedic actors who portray similar characters too. I don't mean to bash them here, so will not.<br /><br />But do be warned that if you are like me, and you dislike smarmy and maddeningly bungling idiots, Pegg shows just such characteristics for the first third of this film. It DOES get better, however.<br /><br />I read somewhere that this is based on a true story. Hmmm. Maybe. The film's story stopped being annoying, and became kind of a triumph of the "little guy" in the final third. I don't need all films to be sugar and light--- but coincidentally, as this film got better, it also started to be more and more of a happy ending.<br /><br />It was also a pleasure to see an old favourite, Jeff Bridges, play a role so masterfully. I liked "Iron Man," but was saddened by the fact that Bridges' character was a villain. Purely personal taste, of course, as his acting in that was superb. Nonetheless, he was a marvel here as the Bigger Than Life man of vision, the publisher of Sharps. It was nice to see him in a role that I could actually enjoy.<br /><br />Overall then, I liked it! I just wish I had come in 40 minutes late, and missed the beginning.
| 1pos
|
This movies is the best movie to watch for comic book feel. The sets, costumes and the color are just so vivid it is just like stepping into a comic book. This is the movie I think of when the Mob is mentioned, the suits, the hats and the attitudes.<br /><br />Hoffman gives comic relief as Mumbles and you can't help but feel sorry for Madonna as she tries, and fails, to win Tracy over. This movie contains all the classic mob clichés - burying people in concrete, blowing up peoples cars, tieing up the good guy and attempting to blow up his girlfriends house.<br /><br />This movie is a classic in ever sense of the word, even camera angels cry out comic book. Its so great to be able to go back to an older movie and see that someone knew how a comic should be made into a movie after seeing such mistakes as Spawn and the Hulk. <br /><br />!!!YOU HAVE TO SEE THIS MOVIE!!!!
| 1pos
|
The film begins with people on Earth discovering that their rocket to Mars had not been lost but was just drifting out in Space near out planet. When it's retrieved, one of the crew members is ill, one is alive and the other two are missing. What happened to them is told through a flashback by the surviving member.<br /><br />While on Mars, the crew was apparently attacked by a whole host of very silly bug-eyed monsters. Oddly, while the sets were pretty good, the monsters were among the silliest I have seen on film. Plus, in an odd attempt at realism, the production used a process called "Cinemagic". Unfortunately, this wonderful innovation just made the film look pretty cheap when they were on the surface of Mars AND the intensity of the redness practically made my eyes bleed--it was THAT bad!! Despite all the cheese, the film did have a somewhat interesting plot as well as a good message about space travel. For lovers of the genre, it's well worth seeing. For others, you may just find the whole thing rather silly--see for yourself and decide.<br /><br />While by today's standards this isn't an especially good sci-fi film, compared with the films being made at the time, it stacks up pretty well.<br /><br />PS--When you watch the film, pay careful attention to Dr. Tremayne. He looks like the spitting image of Dr. Quest from the "Jonny Quest" cartoon! Plus, he sounds and acts a lot like him, too.
| 0neg
|
A comedy that worked surprisingly well was the little British effort "The Divorce Of Lady X (1938)" . It marks the first pairing of Laurence Olivier and Merle Oberon, before that little film about uncontrollable passion on the 19th century English moors. And while Olivier and Oberon are not particularly well-suited to screwball comedy, it all flows along nicely. Oberon is Leslie, a young woman who ends up in priggish divorce lawyer Logan's (Olivier) hotel suite by way of a nasty English fog preventing travel. She does everything possible to irritate him--but, in the crazy way films go, he falls for her. And she falls for him. But a serious case of mistaken identity occurs when Oberon's "Lady X" (that's all she leaves Oliver in a note) is thought by Olivier to be a married woman. To make matters worse, and more amusing, Lord Mere (Ralph Richardson) goes to Olivier wanting a divorce from his wife whom dear Larry thinks must be Oberon! There is some nice battle-of-the-sexes dialogue, and fun exploration of sexual politics. You can see that Olivier is not too confident with the comedy, but in true Olivier he's a consummate professional, and delivers. And he handles the screwball twists and turns, maybe not with ease, but with gusto. Oberon was no great shakes as an actress, but she was usually competent enough, and despite their reputed off-screen dislike of her, worked well with Olivier. This was filmed in early Technicolour that looks very primitive today (everyone looks even whiter than Michael Jackson), but perhaps the print needs cleaning up.
| 1pos
|
Men of Honor has many great aspects to it. Good action sequences, plenty of "feel good" scenes, a good musical score, but the part that really makes the movie is the great acting. Mostly by Robert Deniro. The story of Men of Honor is focused about Carl Brashear played by Cuba Gooding Jr. who wants to be the first African American deep sea diver in the navy. It chronicles his rough struggle from being a poor farmer to getting into diving school and even further. It is a good story, but it seems like it has been done many times before. A person, against all of the odds, won't give up until they accomplish their goals that they set for some sentimental reason many years ago. It could happen, but a lot of the struggles the Brashear faces in the movie are questionable including the C.O. of the diving school tampering with his final test. However, all of that is made up for the scene when Robert Deniro finally enters the movie. Deniro plays Mater Chief Sunday who is the teacher at the diving school Brashear is attending. As soon as Deniro come in he omits this vibe of extreme arrogance that you can't hate unless you have incredible wilpower. Before the movie ends, Deniro gives off multiple speeches that would have you laughing at how cool he is but you are too stunned at the way he punches them out. In the end you must doubt some of the aspects of the film, but admit it, if it was all the truth, it would have you snoozing it your seat by the first twenty minutes.
| 1pos
|
Although this show has been off the air since 1973, after viewing a DVD set I borrowed at our library, I felt compelled to say a bit about it.<br /><br />I can remember when it was the only color show on television in the 1960s, and sometimes there would be a little "Sunday Night Party" with friends to watch this on NBC on one of the few color televisions.<br /><br />I really enjoy history not so much for the names and dates but how it influences us today and how so much can be so profound based on the most inconsequential actions of the time. Case in point: Virginia City, Nevada, which became one of the richest cities in the world because of the silver, got its name from a character named "Old Virginny", who, in the town's early days, stumbled out of a saloon, fell and broke his whiskey bottle.<br /><br />Old Virginny didn't want to waste the occasion so as the precious liquid was seeping into the dirt he decided to christen the town "Virginia Town". The area became known as the Comstock Lode because another character, Henry Comstock, had the reputation of trying to jump everyone's claim and the area became known as the Comstock Lode.<br /><br />I just watched an early episode that dealt with these 2 subjects. Other episodes dealt with Mark Twain's literary rise while a reporter for the Territorial Enterprise...<br /><br />It was wholesome (and frequently educational) family entertainment. As someone else remarked, each episode would really be considered a movie in its own right - rich scripts and characters. <br /><br />One thing it twisted the truth on was the proximity to Virginia City and the Ponderosa. In truth, to ride from the Ponderosa (all of Northern Lake Tahoe), one would have to ride his horse about 3,000 feet (1,000 meters) down the Spooner Summit to the high desert (3,000-4,000 feet) of the Carson Valley then another 30-40 miles to Virginia city.<br /><br />Needless to say the Cartwrights would have some sore rear ends doing this on a regular basis. But every writer should have some leeway with the truth.<br /><br />How I miss that show, even today.
| 1pos
|
It has been some years since I saw this, but remember it and would like to see it again. It kind of became a "therapy" for me with a personal experience of my own.<br /><br />A thirty-five year old man laments over a high-school baseball game in which he "missed the ball" and his team lost. He thinks about it 20 years later, "if only I'd hit that ball" and how his life would be better because of it. Then, he gets a chance to find out....and gets a little more than he bargained for.<br /><br />It reminds me so much of when I was in high school, I twice tried out for our drill/dance team and didn't make it. This team was the closest thing to a sorority in my school. If you were on it, you were "all that." I didn't try out till my last two years of HS and after the second time, I took it really hard. I'd hit and bruised my leg badly just before tryouts and wore tights to cover the bruise, and that caused me to not make it. That was in 1987.<br /><br />Through the years, even now sometimes, I think "If only I hadn't hit my leg I would've never worn those stupid tights." Now I don't sit and think my life would be any better or even any different had I made it, but seeing this movie made me realize that we never really know how different things may be by changing one little thing way back in the past. Who knows, it could have changed the course of events to the point that I wouldn't have met my son's father.<br /><br />I would recommend this movie to anyone who has that one moment in the past they wish they could change. Be careful what you wish for!!!
| 1pos
|
I hope whoever coached these losers on their accents was fired. The only high points are a few of the supporting characters, 3 of 5 of my favourites were killed off by the end of the season (and one of them was a cat, to put that into perspective).<br /><br />The whole storyline is centered around sex, and nothing else. Sex with vampires, gay sex with gay vampires, gay sex with straight vampires, sex to score vampire blood, sex after drinking vampire blood, sex in front of vampires, vampire sex, non-vampire sex, sex because we're scared of vampires, sex because we're mad at vampires, sex because we just became a vampire, etc.<br /><br />Nothing against sex, it would just be nice if it were a little more subtle with being peppered into the storyline. Perhaps HAVE a storyline and then shoehorn some sex into it. But they didn't even bother to do that... and Anna Paquin is a dizzy gap-tooth bitch. Either she sucks or her character sucks, I can't figure out which.<br /><br />Another part of the storyline that I find highly implausible is why 150 year old vampire Bill who seems to have his things together would be interested in someone like Sookie. She's constantly flying off the handle at him for things he can't control. He leaves for two days and she already decides that he's "not coming back" and suddenly has feelings for dog-man? Give me a break. She's supposed to be a 25 year old woman, not a 14 year old girl. People close to her are dying all over, and she's got the brightest smile on her face because she just gave away her V-card to some dude because she can't read his mind? As the main character of the story, I would've hoped the show would do a little more to make her understandable and someone to invest your interest in, not someone you keep secretly hoping gets killed off or put into a coma. I can't find anything about her character that I like and even the fact that she can read minds is impressively uninspiring and not the least bit interesting.<br /><br />I will not be wasting my time with watching Season 2 come June.
| 0neg
|
This is just a short comment but I stumbled onto this movie by chance and I loved it. The acting is great, the story is simple and touching, and the lines, especially from the 4-yr-old Desi, are so cute and sad. Seek it out.
| 1pos
|
This is, without a shadow of a doubt, one of the scariest and most intriguing episodes of Doctor Who. This is a thrilling psychological ride and you will probably find your own beliefs being thrown into question. Riddled with spine-chilling moments, this is an episode no "Who" fan can afford to miss.<br /><br />Starting from when the pit was opened after the events in "The Impossible Planet", the Doctor and Ida are trapped and are running out of air. With no other alternatives, they decide to find what lies at the bottom of the pit, an event which surpasses even The Doctor's expectations. Whilst there, the Doctor is forced to make what he considers to be the ultimate sacrifice...<br /><br />Meanwhile, Rose and the other members of the Planet try to find a way to fend off the Ood, whose minds have been poisoned by the Beast. Also, is Toby Zed truly cured of his possession by the Beast?
| 1pos
|
what can i say about this film that hasnt already been said? well to tell the truth alot of it looks very fake like some of the slaps and the kicks. how charlie sheen though this was real i dont know. im sure they would be hitting and kicking her alot harder if it was. however the scenes with the pinching and the hot oil look very real. and the final needle in the eye scene is amazingly done and is probibly the only thing on film that has ever shocked me.
| 1pos
|
I too was intrigued by the high (8.5) rating for this film, and was very disappointed. I had just seen a couple of good foreign films and was looking forward to making it three in a row, but it was not to be. I went with a spanish speaking friend who felt the same way. There is not much of a plot, if any. I don't necessarily need that in a movie, but it needs to somehow entertain or bring me in. The best I could say would be that it aspires to be an Altman-esque film, albeit with an extremely small ensemble. Sure, there are moments, but a few moments easily get thinned out by 97 slow minutes of nothing. I do not understand the high rating for this film. I give it a 3.<br /><br />
| 0neg
|
If you're not in the mood for more than an hour long movie than this film could give you some variation. What I love is the ongoing surprises. It's not only once that you want one or more of the short film in 'New York I Love You' to be continue. Yeah, some of the short films makes you curious, some of them very short, some of them longer, some of them has it definite ends, some of them don't.<br /><br />Most of the story presents the sad side of the capital city. It shows many different nationality background. Many of it, make it feels the same way where I have been once went to a capital city in other countries for a year where it has many people came from different countries. This movie explore many type of things you might have known, but for all the characters it's a new things. Maybe some of you have traveled abroad alone to stay for a year or two just to feel something new, meet new people; feel dreamy, sad, but the kind of sad you looking for because it is just that bored you were in your own home. You might want to reliving it again, by watching this.
| 1pos
|
Was the script more fitting for a 30 minute sitcom? Yes, but they still make it work! I thought the actors did a fantastic job with an otherwise bland script, especially Jack Black and Christopher Walken. Most people on the board seem to really hate this film. I personally can't see how that could be, but Envy is just one of those film that you either love it or hate it. Much like Napoleon Dynamite and every Leslie Neilsen movie ever made. You either think it's one of the worst movies ever made or one of the funniest. Don't avoid this movie because of the reviews. Watch it and see if you're one of the ones who really like it! If you do, I guarantee it's worth your money. If you don't like it... well, now you know.
| 1pos
|
Every once in a long while a movie will come along that will be so awful that I feel compelled to warn people. If I labor all my days and I can save but one soul from watching this movie, how great will be my joy.<br /><br />Where to begin my discussion of pain. For starters, there was a musical montage every five minutes. There was no character development. Every character was a stereotype. We had swearing guy, fat guy who eats donuts, goofy foreign guy, etc. The script felt as if it were being written as the movie was being shot. The production value was so incredibly low that it felt like I was watching a junior high video presentation. Have the directors, producers, etc. ever even seen a movie before? Halestorm is getting worse and worse with every new entry. The concept for this movie sounded so funny. How could you go wrong with Gary Coleman and a handful of somewhat legitimate actors. But trust me when I say this, things went wrong, VERY WRONG.
| 0neg
|
I would imagine that if Steve McQueen knew he would go on to become an icon and start "Wanted: Dead of Alive" the same year this film came out, or be in The Magnificent Seven two years later, he would not have done it. But he did, and we are the richer for it.<br /><br />Sure it's a camp classic. Horror the way it was meant to be for the drive-in theater. It's fun and nostalgic.<br /><br />It is interesting that the last lines of the film were:<br /><br />Lieutenant Dave: At least we've got it stopped. Steve Andrews: Yeah, as long as the Arctic stays cold. <br /><br />They never would have imagined 52 years ago that the Arctic would be thawing. The Blob will soon return.
| 1pos
|
This film is a quite entertaining horror anthology film (along the lines of Tales from the Crypt) written by Robert Bloch (author of Psycho). It's good fun for horror fans and has an excellent cast. The movie should also be required viewing for Doctor Who fans since Jon Pertwee (the third Doctor) has an amusing role as a rude and obnoxious horror star!
| 1pos
|
... And being let down bigger than ever before. I won't make any direct references or anything here, but to say the least, this film is pathetic. If you're military trained, don't bother watching. I put it on the DVD with 2 friends wanting to watch a somewhat interesting action / war flick. Why couldn't I just have read the reviews first.<br /><br />Already at the first "bomb" scene the film has huge glitches, and they continue to show and become bigger and bigger. My 2 friends, not connected to the military in any way spotted a couple of the filmmaker's mistakes almost as fast as I myself did and asked me if some of the things going on we're realistic. Well, as you might have guessed, they're not - at all.<br /><br />Avoid this movie unless you're able to overlook these completely idiotic and re-occurring mistakes being made. 2/10 for catching my interest at first.
| 0neg
|
The Ballad of Django is a meandering mess of a movie! This spaghetti western is simply a collection of scenes from other (and much better!) films supposedly tied together by "Django" telling how he brought in different outlaws. Hunt Powers (John Cameron) brings nothing to the role of Django. Skip this one unless you just HAVE to have every Django movie made and even THAT may not be a good enough excuse to see this one!!
| 0neg
|
Walking home after the film, I was humming the familiar waltz music that Natalia and Alexandre were dancing to. I've heard that before - where? Ah, from Kubrick's "Eyes Wide Shut" (track 2), 'got it just as I arrived at the door. It's "Waltz No. 2 from Jazz Suite No. 2" composed by Dimitri Shostakovich, performed here by The City of Prague Philharmonic Orchestra. Yes, I went and picked up the soundtrack from Tower's. What a treat! The film score by Alexandre Desplat was fulfilling - there are fifteen tracks besides two tracks of the delightful waltz. It's not often these days we get a soundtrack entirely dedicated to a comprehensive film score. Reminds me of favorite scores by Maurice Jarre, Ennio Morricone (beginning notes of track 6 have traces of "Nuovo cinema Paradiso"), Georges Delerue, and John Barry. There are subtle nuances of strains and notes from the strings, celeste, piano, and harp. <br /><br />Emily Watson and John Turturro delivered a credibly consuming paired performance. The love story, their intimate connection, is very much between Alexandre and Natalia - his childlike yet tormenting inner world, and her generous and bold understanding of him - a relationship alone to them both. Director Marleen Gorris of "Antonia's Line" (1996 Academy Award's Best Foreign Language Film from the Netherlands) gave us a quietly sensitive film - not without its unsettling human conflicts, intrigues, obsessions, family strives, lovingness and respect. The front-end subject is the mind-game and mathematical logic of chess. Beneath it can be a mild tearjerker of a drama set in the late 1920's. Cinematography captures the serene beauty of Lake Como in northern Italy near the Swiss border.<br /><br />I highly recommend the soundtrack if you don't feel like going to the movies. Alexandre Desplat's lyrical film score of "The Luzhin Defence" is complete.
| 1pos
|
It's not often I feel compelled to give negative criticism of a film; after all I often feel the maxim, "if you don't have anything good to say don't say it at all," would be apt advice for the many naysayers we listen to everyday who nitpick at things we like. If it's all the same to you the reader though I feel compelled to point out that with the lone exception of Christopher Walken in a returning role as Gabriel this movie is pathetically HORRID. I say this to you to warn you in advance that even if you are a fan of Walken's deadpan delivery and style or liked the original "Prophecy" that you will be sorely dissapointed. If you buy it, return it. If you rent it, make sure it's only ninety-nine cents.<br /><br />What's wrong with this movie? A full list would take too long to read and would bore you to tears, but a short summary would be the following: the once rather crystalline clear picture of the relationship between angels and mortals of the first film is ripped to shreds. Gabriel is turned from the rather morbid right hand of God he once was (and in this role he is WICKEDLY funny in the first) to little more than a thug for heaven. Since Walken is so good at playing heavies (we all remember Frank White from "King of New York") he is still enjoyable but the supporting cast is an unmitigated and unconvincing mess of mortals and angels alike who couldn't buy a clue for 50 cents. If you can figure out the plot you're a smarter man than I. One gets the feeling we wander aimlessly from scene to scene just to move the film along to Walken's next big line. By the end of the movie you're actually wishing he'd blow his horn and make the walls of Jericho fall on the people who made this un-natural disaster.<br /><br />Bottom line - it's an insult to our intelligence that they made a sequel to this film in the first place. The original told the right story, answered the questions that should have been, and left alone the ones you were meant to ponder afterwards. There are no compelling reasons to follow these characters that was in the first - the priest who lost his faith, the little girl who kept the "big secret", the teacher who protected her children - even Lucifer himself was more interesting BY himself in the first film than all the other characters in the sequel put together. I feel sorry for anybody who sees this film and not the first because they'll probably never want to watch the original and that's a real tragedy.
| 0neg
|
A blockbuster at the time of it's original release (it was the second-highest grossing film of 1976), the third screen version of A STAR IS BORN has always divided critics and fans alike. The film open to scathingly negative reviews, however, $5.6 million-budgeted picture went on to gross over $150 million at the box office and won an Academy Award and five Golden Globes. It's not without some irony that Streisand's most commercially successful film would also remain her most controversial. For every ten fans who state that STAR is Streisand's best film, there are always ten more who claim it is the weakest film in her filmography. Although both sides have some merit to support their claims, it should still be noted that the seventies take on A STAR IS BORN remains one of the most touching and highly entertaining showbiz dramas that Hollywood ever produced. For my money, it's the best version of the often-told tale.<br /><br />The film is solidly enjoyable and throughly absorbing. Changing the setting from the old Hollywood studio system to the competitive world of the music industry was actually a great idea, and the screenplay forges a realistic contrast between the characters' romance and their careers. This is the main area that the 1976 version of A STAR IS BORN actually surpasses it's classic predecessors. For example, the film is especially successful when depicting the clashing personal and professional difficulties during recording sessions and the never-ending phone calls that interrupt Kristofferson's songwriting attempts. This version of the story is also more believable in it's portrayal of the lead characters. For example, the female leads in the two previous versions were so virtuous and self-sacrificing that they came off as saints. On the other hand, Esther, the female lead in this version, is not only portrayed as being strong and passionate, but also flawed and conflicted. This makes her feel more "real" than the Janet Gaynor or Judy Garland characters felt in the previous films, and makes the story that much more effective.<br /><br />The performances are all on target, even if some of the supporting characters aren't fleshed out enough. If you're looking for an actress/singer who can walk the fine line between tough and vulnerable without making herself seem like a script contrivance, Streisand is definitely the girl you want. She's one of the few film stars who can make even the most banal dialogue seem fresh and natural, and, as usual, she manages to make a strong emotional connection with the viewer. Simply put, her Esther is a fully-realized, three-dimensional human being. Kris Kristofferson may not get much respect now for his laid-back characterization, however, he's always interesting watch and displays a magnetic charisma here that he seldom displayed elsewhere in his career. Kristofferson actually received rave reviews at the time from NEWSWEEK, TIME, and even the NEW YORKER's usually vicious Pauline Kael. Gary Busey and Paul Mazursky also give believable performances, but both have a fairly minimal amount of screen time.<br /><br />The film's soundtrack recording was also a massive success, hitting the #1 on Billboard's Hot 200 and selling over four million copies in the US alone. The Streisand-composed "Evergreen" (with lyrics from Paul Williams) is unarguably one of the most gorgeous songs in contemporary pop, brought to even-further life by an absolutely incomparable vocal performance from Streisand. The rest of the film's original songs (mostly composed by Williams and Rupert Holmes) are pretty good as well, and Streisand sounds fantastic - her live solo numbers remain in the memory long after the rest of the movie has faded. Streisand's vibrant performances bring "Woman In The Moon" and "With One More Look At You" to thrilling life, and make even sillier numbers like "Queen Bee" work far better than they have the right to. Kristofferson's solo numbers sound somewhat tuneless, however, that may have been intentional since he is playing a singer in decline.<br /><br />Though naturally dated in some respects (it definitely does reflect the decade in which it was made), the seventies take on A STAR IS BORN still holds up remarkably well. The film is well-mounted and slickly produced, the chemistry between the leads is extremely powerful and always feels genuine, and Streisand has two emotional scenes near the finale that are both aching effective. In conclusion, A STAR IS BORN is not only entertaining and moving, but it also transcends all criticism.
| 1pos
|
There are no spoilers in this review because everything was already shown in the movie's trailer. I am trying to be balanced in my review because I strongly support local movies, but I can't help but support the backlash against this movie. It is slow, boring and bordering on pointless. Even the "almost nice and believable moments" were immediately undercut by painful clichés and bad acting. Vernetta Lopez and Wong Li Lin, whom I usually love, were only passable in this movie. It felt like the director was trying to make a melodramatic TV Soap, then got carried away and decided to put it on the big screen. The Leap Years should come with an RA rating (Rated Awful) but it hasn't changed my faith in local movies. More good films will come, so long as more films like these don't get made.
| 0neg
|
This was Barbra Streisand's first television special and is "must see" viewing for any Streisand fan. Even non-Streisand fans will enjoy this highly energetic and entertaining piece of entertainment history. Performers like this only come our way once in a lifetime. Brilliant!
| 1pos
|
Apparently Hollywood is just handing out money to anyone with a camera and the ability to speak. This movie was mind numbingly bad. The casting was terrible, the acting unspeakable, and the story filled with holes. Script? who needs script? I was surprised that the movie wasn't as verbally vulgar as I thought it would be, however I got enough shots of T&A to last me a lifetime. The movie was like listening to a 19 year old street racer with ADD (who decided to buy a car instead of go to college) tell a story. Being so poorly scripted, I thought the two brothers in the film were lovers at first. The scenes at the racetrack, along with the main female actor in the film kept making me think of Herbie: Fully Loaded. This is the kind of film is what Grindhouse modeled itself after...only the writers thought they were being serious.
| 0neg
|
The Sea is Watching was an interesting film experience. First of all, the overall feel was intense, internalized, claustrophobic, and small. Each frame seemed to be a photograph of something inside, something very focused and not part of a bigger picture. It was obvious what we were to look at in each frame. The physicality of the set itself contributed to that feeling of smallness and intensity. The lights along the middle of the road cut the road in half, and the tiny gate to the tiny settlement followed by the tiny and few cubbyholes that served as the establishments that made up what seemed to be the entire town. Even the view of the ocean was framed by a tiny landing on which one can count the number of longer grass swaying in the wind. No panoramic views. In fact, it reminded me of the Montmarte sequence of Moulin Rouge where the camera sweepingly focuses in to the windmill creating again a feeling of a small area where everything is happening.<br /><br />While the acting was passable considering I really could not discern how the lines were truly delivered, I felt that the actions were overly melodramatic and nonsensical. Why Kikuno would continue carrying on the way she did when Fusanosuke announced his impending marriage really didn't seem true people hadn't really changed that much, and the character Kikuno was so strong and resilient that even if they were busy taking on O-shin's business for naught, the reaction seemed out of character and unnecessary and distracting. Another example of odd acting was when the drunk boyfriend of Kikuno showed up and Ryosuke decided to intervene and was pushed down the stairs, the way in which he got up and menacingly came up the stairs and the ensuing fight outside among the reeds was simply unsatisfying. It wasn't that I like fight scenes au contraire but it seemed a little stilted and again, overly dramatic.<br /><br />Otherwise, while not a beautiful movie to watch, it provided an interesting glimpse into the darker side of prostitution (as opposed to the geisha). Unfortunately, perhaps it fed into our expectations of wanton women (the "honey I'll give you a deal" comments supported by the over-stretched actions) and seriously caused me to doubt whether indeed 19th century prostitutes really acted in that way. But once inside the house, the inner workings became most interesting, vivid and real and provided a scenario I never anticipated or imagined in my romantic view of Japan in the 19th century.
| 1pos
|
Adolf Hitler's maniacal desire to impose his will on the rest of the world is the subject of this second in a seven part series of films produced by the U.S. War Department as an instructional tool for new soldiers entering the Armed Forces during World War II. Hitler's plan was methodical and well conceived, starting with the conquest of Eastern Europe, expanding to the European heartland, then moving on to the 'World Island' consisting of Europe, Asia and Africa. His final move would be to reach across the oceans for the ultimate conquest of the Americas and the World.<br /><br />In 1935, Hitler ordered national conscription, as the rest of the country fell under his evil spell. Grade school children sang his praises, and young German boys received training and indoctrination in military camps. Marching unopposed into Austria in 1938, Hitler followed by annexing a strip of land bordering Germany and Czechoslovakia called Sudetenland. In 1939, Hitler took all of Czechoslovakia. Later in the year, the world was stunned to learn that Germany signed a non-aggression pact with it's mortal enemy Russia, a ploy to delay Hitler's military involvement on too many fronts. Immediately after, Germany invaded Poland, bringing Hitler's conquest right to Russia's doorstep. He would deal with her later.<br /><br />It was during this period that Britain still declined to oppose Hitler's thrust across Europe. Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain felt he procured a great victory for his country by accepting a treaty with Germany, his infamous declaration stating 'Peace in Our Time'. It didn't turn out that way.<br /><br />The most fascinating information to be learned in this installment, at least to me, was provided by a small snippet of footage from a German pro Hitler rally in the mid '30's. It was led by a German American taking his cue directly from the homeland. The venue - Madison Square Garden!
| 1pos
|
The opening sequence alone is worth the cost of admission, as Cheech and Chong drag that big ol garbage can across the parking lot, filled with gas. "Don't Spill it Man !", hilarious stuff. And then, as 'the plot' ensues, you're in for one heck of a ride. I watched this film recently and it holds up, being just as funny upon each viewing. check it out.
| 1pos
|
"Envy" is bad for a number of reasons. Yes, there are unlikeable characters. That's not the problem. It is that they are unlikeable and we do not care for them at all. "The War of the Roses" featured unlikeable characters but due to proper introductions we grew to at least find ourselves interested in their fate, whereas in "Envy" the introduction is thin, the characters are never believable, and the plot only makes things worse.<br /><br />Ben Stiller is simply repulsive in his role and I'm a fan of his work most of the time. Stiller campaigned to have this released straight-to-video and now I can see why. The movie proposes that he's "best friends" with Jack Black, but from the first five minutes we are given footage that seems to indicate Stiller hates Black. I thought this would develop into some sort of one-sided relationship (a la "The Cable Guy") but it never does, instead Stiller insists he's his "best friend" and I felt confused as he seemed to treat Black like, well, "poo." The movie's plot is ridiculous but it doesn't matter, because it's supposed to be an exaggerated morality tale. Unfortunately the message is lost in the mess. Walken gives a good performance but Black is off-key and annoying (and I usually find him very funny). No, it's not a horrible film but I still can't believe Barry Levinson ("Rain Man," "Sleepers") is responsible for this - it's not one of the worst films of all time but it could certainly be a whole lot better. I wish Va-Poo-Rize did exist - so we could make this film disappear forever....
| 0neg
|
I very much enjoyed "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised". It gave me, once again, a positive feeling about the power of people to decide for themselves how they wish to be governed.<br /><br />It is unfortunate that in Venezuela the twenty percent of wealthy citizens have made all of the decisions for the eighty percent of the poor for decades, if not centuries. However, when their coup failed; after the interim government dissolved the Supreme Court, and The Constitution, and the Ombudsman, and the Electoral Boards, and all Civil Rights, no one took the plotters out behind a barn somewhere and shot them. They haven't even gone to jail. The major plotters are living in Florida, carrying on. And the protection that they had was the "Bolivarian Constitution" passed by a large majority of the Venezuelan People. It is not only History that Bites. Democracy can give you one hell of a nip if you let it loose. And in Venezuela it is loose.
| 1pos
|
If this is supposed to be a portrayal of the American serial killer, it comes across as decidedly average.<br /><br />A journalist [Duchovny] travels across country to California to document America's most famous murderers, unaware that one of his white trailer trash travelling companions [Pitt] is a serial killer himself.<br /><br />Rather predictable throughout, this has its moments of action and Pitt and Lewis portray their roles well, but I'd not bother to see it again.
| 1pos
|
I was in the film too, but i don't know if they actually put this scene in. On the way back from a school trip (in 2005) we stopped at a service station at the same time as they were doing the film, and we were asked (the whole of us) to run in and shout Go! Freebird! We were all around 10 years old, could anyone who has seen the film tell me if that part was actually kept in the film, it would be great to know! I remember I thought the film had never come out, because it was another 2 and a half years before it was released. All of your comments seem to be good so I'm guessing it has been quite a successful film, I might buy it, but first I would like to know if I'm in it! :D Thank you
| 1pos
|
What happened? What we have here is basically a solid and plausible premise and with a decent and talented cast, but somewhere the movie loses it. Actually, it never really got going. There was a little excitement when we find out that Angie is not really pregnant, then find out that she is after all, but that was it. Steve Martin, who is a very talented person and usually brings a lot to a movie, was dreadful and his entire character was not even close to being important to this movie, other than to make it longer. I really would have liked to see more interactions between the main characters, Kate and Angie, and maybe try not for a pure comedy, which unfortunately it was not, but maybe a drama with comedic elements. I think if the movie did this it could have been very funny since both actresses are quite funny in their own ways and sitting here I can think of numerous scenarios that would have been a riot.
| 0neg
|
I saw this not too long ago, and I must say: This movie is terrible. I watch crappy movies for fun. Scarecreow is not fun. Scarecrow is stupid. You have an incredibly corny villain that enjoys screaming awful puns as he kills his victims(actually worse than the one contained in this sentence). He has his hard luck story that he uses to justify his killings. "Everyone picks on me. The only girl that thinks I'm not trailer-trash likes one of the guys that pick on me. I want to kill everybody. Wah." OK, I'm exaggerating. But the premise to this movie alone is enough to put it near the bottom of the list of crappy movies.<br /><br />Adding to what I just said, the kid's mom is promiscuous, he walks in on his mother and her current boyfriend getting it on, mom's boyfriend tells him to leave, kid refuses, insisting that he isn't going to leave his own house. Boyfriend chases kid into corn field. He kills kid right in front of mom, mom screams in terror, boyfriend is like, "OMG! I didn't mean to!" Then he tells mom not to say anything to the police about it. Kid was killed under a scarecrow, though. So, like any kid who gets murdered under a scarecrow, he comes back as a killer scarecrow with a vengeance. His victims "haven't been stalked like this before..." (Scarecrow's official tag line)<br /><br />To make matters worse, this movie was filmed in a whopping 8 days. That's right, 8 days. I was going to give this movie a 2, because in spite of itself, it has one or two redeeming moments. (They're spoilers, so I won't spoil it for you, if you actually want to see this crap.) I could have somewhat forgiven the bad acting, the horrible special effects, the abysmal script, and the bad camera work, but I simply have no respect for lack of effort on that level.<br /><br />This movie isn't nearly as good as I'm making it out to be. If you want to see an example of how not to make a movie, or if you enjoy watching bad movies, like I do, then watch this at your own risk. Everyone else should stay a safe distance away from this movie at all times.
| 0neg
|
Sure, he became rapidly uneven after this film, but from "Knife In the Water" up till "The Tenant", Roman Polanski could always be counted on to deliver something fascinating and unique. Despite many running themes (alienation, paranoia), no two of his films are really alike. The story of this is somewhat similar to his own "Repulsion" from ten years earlier, but the tone is completely different. "The Tenant" manages to balance darker than dark absurdity (I'm a bit hesitant on calling it humor, even though the protagonists bizarre behavior and dialog was occasionally funny) with some truly suspenseful paranoia. Polanski was always a master at building unease, and moments in this film are almost unbearably creepy. The overall weirdness of the film is also a plus.<br /><br />In addition to Polanski's exquisite as usual direction, the rest of the cast and crew offer great contributions. Polanski the actor is often overshadowed by Polanski the director, but his performance here truly captures his characters awkwardness and sense of being an outcast. The themes of social discrimination make this film more than just strangeness for the sake of being strange. The rest of the cast offers strong performances also, especially Isabelle Adjani's sympathetic turn, and Melyvn Douglas and Shelley Winters' appropriately annoying ones. "The Tenant" is often underrated because of how ready people are to heap praise on both "Repulsion" and "Rosemary's Baby", but its just as brilliant as either of those classics. (9/10)
| 1pos
|
At least for a half hour a week. I haven't been interested in anything on the big 3 networks (ABC/CBS/NBC) in years. All of the lions are interesting, although Larry can get annoying at times. I really like the Middle earth action figures they bring in with Hunter. Most of the other characters are interesting as well. The sideshow of Siegfried and Roy is entertaining at times, too. The animation is top notch, and definitely the best CG that has been done on a weekly TV show. Usually when they hire big names to star in a show, they're trying to hide a poor script or characters. Not entirely true in this show though, There's a couple characters that were weak and improved by the voice acting, but overall the characters stand on their own.<br /><br />This is definitely for 16 and up. There's nothing here that most kids haven't already heard before though, and most of the jokes would probably just fly right over their heads. It's definitely not as crude and edgy as South Park, but does bring some of the same "Bash everyone" feel to it. One example is that it makes fun of both Dick Cheney and Barbara Streisand at the same time in one episode. <br /><br />Father of the Pride and other Dreamworks productions like Shrek also feel like the spiritual successors of Animaniacs, Pinky and the Brain, and Freakazoid. It's the same type of humor grown up. It may not be as witty as Spielberg's classic TV series, but it's still good.<br /><br />I hope that it finishes this season off well, and is renewed for future seasons. Otherwise I may never find a reason to watch the big 3 again.
| 1pos
|
Whatever possessed Guy Ritchie to remake Wertmuller's film is incomprehensible.<br /><br />This new film is a mess. There was one other person in the audience when I saw it, and she left about an hour into it. (I hope she demanded a refund.) The only reason I stayed through to the end was because I've never walked out of a movie.<br /><br />But I sat through this piece of junk thoroughly flabbergasted that Madonna and Ritchie could actually think they made a good film. The dialogue is laughable, the acting is atrocious and the only nice thing in this film is the scenery. Ritchie took Lina's movie and turned it into another "Blue Lagoon."<br /><br />This is a film that you wouldn't even waste time watching late night on Cinemax. Time is too precious to be wasted on crap like this.
| 0neg
|
Always enjoy the great acting of Drew Barrymore and her great performance in this film, where she plays a very very complicated young gal,(Holly Gooding),"Skipped Parts",2000, who leaves New York and travels to California and shares an apartment with a up and coming writer, George Newbern,(Patrick Highsmith),"Far Harbor",'96. Many strange things start to happen to Holly and she seeks to find her brother in a mental institution after he killed her father. If you look close enough you will actually see the mother of Drew Barrymore in real life appear as her mother in this picture. If it was not for the good acting of Drew Barrymore and George Newbern, this film should be seen only on Halloween Night! However, it sure has it's surprises in the END!!!!
| 1pos
|
I saw this movie, just now, not when it was released and hailed as best picture of the year here in Israel. and to summarize everything right now, I will just say: this is not a good film.<br /><br />This is Dror Shaul's second feature film, and I have to admit that his first and the TV drama he made before this picture are much better. further more, this is his first attempt at directing a drama. the early works were comedies, and were funny and effective.<br /><br />The first thing you have to know if you'll ever see this film: Israel of the 21st century hates the kibbutz and the values it represented since the formation of the state of Israel. the real situation of the kibbutzim is very dire, and some of them disappear one by one. the kibbutz, Hebrew word for collective, was a sort of village for members only, where the values of equality and socialism were the dogma for everyday life. with the change in social values with time, it seems now that the kibbutz was a place where the human spirit was repressed, locked within the dogma rules, with no ticket out. the entrance of capitalist values and way of life in the 90's and so far made it very hard on the kibbutzim to survive. the crazy mother in the film is the central metaphor for that.<br /><br />But, I regard this film as having nothing to do with nostalgia for the good old days of the kibbutz. once, it was a dream of every young couple to live in a kibbutz and raise children in this quite and beautiful environment. but the film shows the opposite. that the kibbutz, with it's socialist dogma, was a place sort of like a cult of crazy people, with crazy ideas that undermine the freedom of each individual within the collective. this is the central philosophy of post modern capitalism: your individuality is the most important thing. you must place yourself in the center, and no one else but you is the matter. this is the philosophy the film stands for, and that's just it's first sin.<br /><br />If you disagree with me on the political side, I'm sure you will agree that the acting, the tone of the film, it's script and it's direction are the four sins that follow. the film has no real visual text and none of it's shots is something to remember. it is also very "delicate", a delicacy that is no more than artsy fartsy attempt to provoke emotions, which do not surface, not in the film and not with the viewer. it brings nothing but boredom.<br /><br />Can someone please explain: why this film won so many prizes? maybe because it shows that Israel is in line with the rest of the world, hating socialist and human values? or maybe it shows that Israel is a "delicate" place, not giving in to dogmas and fanaticism? that we are basically very human and good people, capable of emotions, especially when they are fake ones, just like capitalism expects us to be? or maybe because it tells one of the biggest lies of Israeli cinema in recent years, a lie that undermines the justification of the existence of the Jewish state? no matter what the answer is, it's not a good one. not for the world, not for human values and not for the Jews.
| 0neg
|
That's right. The movie is better than the book. Don't get me wrong, I love the book. But the movie is just so much better. This film has Jack Nicholson and Shelly Duvall at their best. (I haven't seen Scatman Crothers and obviously Danny Lloyd in anything else.) Some of the ideas used in this movie are better than the ones used in the book. But I already talked about those in my comment on the mini series. But, I missed a few. The film is shot at a better location than where the mini series was shot. And the REDRUM scenes are creepier than those in the book. So if you're looking for a great movie, get Stanley Kubrick's The Shining. But count on having nightmares every night for 3 weeks
| 1pos
|
Somehow they summed up the 60's, ten years that radically changed our country, in four hours. And what a painful four hours it was. They trivilized the major events and happenings and they "claimed" it was about two families yet you barely saw the african-american family. If I were NBC I would be ashamed and embarrassed for airing such trash. What was amusing was this happy-go-lucky family you saw in the very beginning was tortured in so many ways, but managed to attend every major 60's event through the country. And the second family was such a non-factor. They devoted maybe five or six scenes total to this family. That poor son... Please NBC, do not make any movies about any other eras....leave that to PBS and the History Channel
| 0neg
|
An absolute classic !! The direction is flawless , the acting is just superb. Words fall short for this great work. The most definitive movie on Mumbai Police. This movie has stood the test of times.<br /><br />Om Puri gives a stellar performance, Smita Patil no less. All the actors have done their best and the movie races on thrilling you at every moment. This movie shakes your whole being badly and forces you to rethink about many issues that confront our society.<br /><br />This is the story of a cop (Om Puri ) who starts out in his career as a honest man but ultimately degenerates into a killer. The first attempt in Bollywood to get behind the scenes and expose the depressing truth about Mumbai cops. Kudos to Nihalani !! <br /><br />After this movie a slew of Bollywood movies got released that exposed the criminal-politician-police nexus. Thus this movie was truly a trend setter. This trend dominated the Hindi movie scene for more than a decade. <br /><br />This movie was a moderate box office hit. <br /><br />A must-see for discerning movie fans.
| 1pos
|
"The Dream Child" of 1989 is the fifth film in the (generally overrated) "Nightmare" series, and at the latest from this point on, the series became total garbage. The only good films in the series were Wes Craven's 1984 original, and the third part, "The Dream Warriors" of 1987. The second part was disappointing and boring, and it was the fourth part in which the formerly scary madman Freddy Krueger began to annoy with constant idiotic jokes. This fifth entry to the series has hardly anything to recommend except for (admittedly great) visuals, and one creepy scene, a flashback sequence to how Freddy Krueger came into existence. The rest of the film consists mainly of our razor-clawed maniac-turned-jokester yelling stupid one-liners, and the old formula of a bunch of teenage jackasses, who desperately try to avoid falling asleep, because good old Freddy awaits them in their dreams. Lisa Wilcox is back in the role of Alice Johnson, and a bunch of uninteresting crap, such as a super-dumb 'eerie' children's rhyme is added for no other reason than to have some sort of justification for making this superfluous and boring sequel... In Short: No originality, just a decline of the old formula, and an over-load of painfully annoying jokes. My (generous) rating of 3/10 is due to the great visuals, and especially to emphasize the difference to the terrible next sequel, "Freddy's Dead", which is awful beyond belief. In case you're not a hardcore Freddy Krueger enthusiast, "The Dream Child" should be avoided, and even if you are, this is more than likely to disappoint.
| 0neg
|
A woman (Sylvia Kristel) seduces a 15 year old boy (Eric Brown). They have sex...but it's all tied into some stupid plot or something.<br /><br />Easily one of the most disturbing sex comedies ever. Does anyone realize this movie is making light of child molestation? I suppose it's OK cause it's a teenage boy--if we had one with a man seducing a teenage girl there would (rightfully) be outrage. Sorry, but having it done to a boy doesn't excuse it. It's still sick. I realize Brown was of age (he was actually 18 when this was made) but he LOOKS 15. I just find it disturbing that some people find this OK.<br /><br />Plot aside the acting sucks (Kristel is beautiful--but can't act; Brown is easily one of the worst child actors I've ever seen) and the constant nudity gets boring and isn't even remotely erotic.<br /><br />I saw this drivel at a theatre back in 1981. I was 19 and with my 14 year old cousin (who could easily pass for 18). HE wanted to see it--I didn't but I decideD what the heck? We got in and I actually bought tickets for three teenage boys who were obviously underage. My cousin thought is was boring and the three other kids left halfway through! Let me make this clear--three TEENAGE BOYS left a movie with tons of female nudity! That should give you an idea of how bad this is. I'm surprised this was ever released. A 1 all the way.
| 0neg
|
I saw this movie in a theater in Chicago and should have enjoyed it, since I love Nemesis
but if the first half an hour is skillfully done, the rest is just sub-Predator video fodder, a long chase through those post-modern empty factories Pyun affectionnates. My girlfriend fell asleep. I still like Pyun though, but not this
| 0neg
|
Daphne Zuniga is the only light that shines in this sleepy slasher, and the light fades quickly. If not her, than what other reason to watch this. five college kids are signed up to prepare an old dorm for its due date of demolition. Problems are automatically occurring when a weird homeless man is soliciting, and the group are short a few people. Then, a killer is on the loose. I honestly wanted to say I was going to enjoy this one. It had a fair set up, or maybe that was just Daphne Zuniga in it. The film is too slow, and almost as silent as a library. Most of the acting is below average, and the "point-of-view" moments are so old news. Acclaimed composer Christopher Young of such films as "Hellraiser" and "Entrapment" scored this, in a repetitive cue line that was better made for a TV movie. Still, it seems higher than the movie deserves. So, other than Young and Zuniga, this one scrapes the bottom of the barrel.
| 0neg
|
I can't believe we don't have that 70's show anymore. I have all 8 seasons of that 70's show!! I absolutely Love It!! I lay in the bed every night and watch several episodes before I go to sleep. At the end of a long busy day it's nice to kick back and have a great laugh before you go to sleep. I was so sad they took the show off air... at least we still have the re-runs!! I am hoping and praying they will come back with at least a reunion...Like maybe when Donna finishes college and we finally get to see her and Eric get married!!!! Wouldn't that be awesome!!! It would be even better if they would continue it for several years!!
| 1pos
|
This film concerns the story of Eddy as mentioned in the title and his homecoming to old friends in a seaside community. The plot involves the group of friends as it comes to light that Eddy left as a means to deal with death of a friend in which he feels in some way responsible. But this is inconsequential, as the choices made in the production are extremely poor and not fully realized. Screenplays not always need be 'chatty', but they should at least assist the development of the story. Here one line attempts such as "he just took off" or "I know you don't have love in heart" just do fully evoke something worth the audience's time. Also whenever the writer feels at a loss to where to go to next he cuts to a music montage of the protagonist walking through fields to some indie mood music. Talk about trying to hard. If you are interested in a good film, the type that gives quality and substance over just style then this is not the film for you.
| 0neg
|
This is possibly the most boring movie in history. I was really looking forward to seeing this movie given the actor/director Roman Polanski. I think I would rather see the Three Amigos than ever watch this movie again. It promptly went from the DVD player straight into the garbage. My apologies to those of you who apparently liked this movie however you probably liked New Coke as well. I am at a loss to see why anyone would have enjoyed this movie, it is slow, dull and has no real plot. You wait for 105 minutes for the movie to get started. I understand this was made in 1976 however this was an era of bad television all around. Thank god disco and Three's Company are gone along with stop sign glasses and the Bay City Rollers. Oh well just my thoughts.
| 0neg
|
A director and his crew head out to the isolated Beal mansion, to make a low-budget horror film about the seven mysterious deaths of the Beal family that have occurred there in the last century. Even with warnings by the caretaker, the director pays no attention to the supposedly cursed house. One of the crew find a book titled Tibetan Book of the Dead, and use some of the passages from it for their script. But in doing so, when red they raise a ghoul from its grave.<br /><br />Boring, confusing and tacky all rolled up into one, equals this penniless midnight horror production. What feels like an eternity, it just never seems to get going or demonstrate anything effective from somewhat decent ideas. Even though director Paul Harrison's clunky, tensionless direction did construct a couple eerie, moody and atmospheric set-pieces. But laziness did set it early. The whole film within a film structure takes up most of the movie and in this time little to nothing happens of great interest. Nor is it fun. Think of Bob Clark's "Children Shouldn't Play with Dead Things (1972)", and now we've got older actors in the part. However I found "Seven Corpses" to be inferior. The script early on has some cutting wit abound, before it ends up being drab, predictable and left with many unfulfilled possibilities. The cheap foundation involving limited sets didn't help matters either, but the mansion's dreary, dark appearance had a creepy air to it. Performances from a recognizable b-cast is mainly rigid. John Carradine in small part mainly lurks about. John Ireland plays a hot-headed director, Faith Domergue's washed-up actress demands attention and Charles Macaulay hams it up. The slow grinding premise is crossed between "Ten Little Indians" and your usual zombie set-up. However its not all that engaging, even with its occult and supernatural edge. Hell they even throw in some graveyard action, with no prevail. When the rotting ghoul makes its appearance
finally, but a bit late. It does get a little better, if very baffling. Just like the inspired opening, the ending is deliciously downbeat. To bad in between, it constantly drags. Continuity in many scenes comes across non-existent, and the death scenes are more exciting and bloodier (but indeed poorly executed) in the movie they're making, then what actually happens to them when the zombie appears. The generic music score flounders on with its shuddery, but frank Gothic cues, and the camera-work is blandly staged with a lack of imagination. Shoot and frame. Shoot and frame. Job done. That's a wrap.
| 0neg
|
UK newspaper reviews seem to have concentrated on the fact that the reviewers tend to know Toby Young, the journalist on whose real-life experiences this movie is based. The key word here is "based". How To Lose Friends is a fictitious romcom.<br /><br />Sidney Young joins a prestigious gossip magazine in New York, where he proceeds to make gaffe after gaffe before finally Getting It Right and Making It. This involves him selling out, and the movie has some serious points to make about journalistic integrity. However, they are not overdone: the main substance remains a comedy which centres around Sidney's misadventures. The script has its cake and eats it in that Sidney is a stupid, well-meaning buffoon at the same time as being a smart, moderately obnoxious skilled writer. This contradiction is never that much of an issue, because Simon Pegg (as Sidney) projects likability too well.<br /><br />Jeff Bridges underplays Sidney's editor a little too effectively, and Kirsten Dunst is rather anonymous as the conflicted eventual object of Sidney's affections And, with regard to Megan Fox (who plays an airhead bimbo starlet), I can say only this: just say the word, Miss Fox, and I will leave my wife, sell all my belongings, and buy myself a plane ticket in order to take my place at your side as your consort. Of course, given that I'm a fat 56-year-old English accountant, you might not find my offer too enticing, but it's there on the table anyway. Given how short her career has been so far, one might think it is a little too soon for Megan Fox to take on a role which mercilessly lampoons the sort of actress she might be thought to become: however, she does it sweetly, with some skill, and extremely sexily. This girl will go far.<br /><br />There is stalwart support from a variety of seasoned performers - Miriam Margolyes and Bill Paterson from the UK, Gillian Anderson and Danny Huston from the US.<br /><br />There are several laugh-out-loud moments, and I smiled most of the way through. As ever, the F-word makes appearances when it really doesn't need to, although at least a couple of these are very funny.
| 1pos
|
I'm glad that users (as of this date) who liked this movie are now coming forward. I don't understand the people who didn't like this movie - it seems like they were expecting a serious (?!?!?) treatment! C'mon, how the hell can you take the premise of a killer snowman seriously? The filmmakers knew this was a silly premise, and they didn't try to deny it. The straight-faced delivery of scenes actually makes it FUNNY! Yes, there are times where the low budget shows (such as that explosion scene), but I think an expensive look would have taken away from the fun of the movie! So if you like B-movies, and the goofy premise appeals to you, then you'll certainly like "Jack Frost".
| 1pos
|
Holy crap. This was the worst film I have seen in a long time. All the performances are fine, but there is no plot. Really! No plot! A bunch of clowns talk about this and that and that's your film. Ug... Robert Duvall's character is senile and keeps asking the same people the same qestions over and over. This earns him the same responses over and over. I am pretty sure this film got upto a six because people think they should like it. Good performances with famous and well regarded actors, but the actual complete work is a steamy turd. Well, maybe that's a bit deceptive since steam rising from a fresh pile sounds a little like something happening and in this film NOTHING HAPPENS! Sack
| 0neg
|
I had to write a review of this film after reading another comment saying that this is Sidney Poitier's best movie. Poitier had just returned from over a decade's break in film acting and he is clearly creaky here. 11 of his films are mentioned in Wikipedia and they don't include this. 5 of his films are on the AFI's list of top 100 inspiring movies, again, not including this. Berenger and Poitier, rube and city slicker set out to hunt down a dangerous psychopath before he crosses the border to Canada. Some of the attempts at comedy in this film clearly fail and Berenger and Poitier's bonding was cringeworthy and awkward (not helped by a completely bland script). Kirstie Alley (as the hostage) was underused, and almost entirely ignored when she was on screen. Some attempt at suspense is made, for example when you're meant to try and guess which of 5 men on a fishing trip is the murderer (all of them are type-cast villains). I understand that this is the entire appeal to most fans out there. I guessed who it was and I wasn't really trying hard.<br /><br />If you're a Berenger fan, watch the Sniper (1993), you even get to see Billy Zane strutting his stuff. It's much better. All in all I'd give Shoot to Kill 3/10. It's not daring, and it's just too straightforward for me.
| 0neg
|
Strained comedy, a sketch-like revue which was initially a vehicle to showcase one-time radio star Jack Pearl but is now best remembered as America's introduction to The Three Stooges. Actually, Larry, Curly and Moe are billed alongside comic Ted Healy as Ted Healy and his Three Stooges. Although the supporting cast features Jimmy Durante (who is completely wasted on dim material) and ZaSu Pitts, the only audience for the film these days are Stooges-addicts, and even they won't find much to applaud here. Incredibly loud and overbearing, it shows how far Hollywood had to go to reach a certain level of slapstick sophistication. *1/2 from ****
| 0neg
|
I thought the film was good in parts.the start was exciting .the first 30 minutes of the film were good.the camera angles in the first 30 minutes were strange and i did not like it coz the were they not covering the actors entirely.<br /><br />i think the last 25 minutes of the film were really not that great from which we expect a lot in case of such films.<br /><br />the dialoques did not make sense and i don't think they were very witty.<br /><br />i felt as if they were trying to copy films like phonebooth in terms of dialogues,but failed miserably.it seemed as if they many of the scenes between the actors were put for sake of it and did not make any sense to the story.<br /><br />the entire film features only law and caine.<br /><br />i don't think it was a waste of time,its an OK film,but not gr8
| 0neg
|
Hollywood Hotel was the last movie musical that Busby Berkeley directed for Warner Bros. His directing style had changed or evolved to the point that this film does not contain his signature overhead shots or huge production numbers with thousands of extras. By the last few years of the Thirties, swing-style big bands were recording the year's biggest popular hits. The Swing Era, also called the Big Band Era, has been dated variously from 1935 to 1944 or 1939 to 1949. Although it is impossible to exactly pinpoint the moment that the Swing Era began, Benny Goodman's engagement at the Palomar Ballroom in Los Angeles in the late summer of 1935 was certainly one of the early indications that swing was entering the consciousness of mainstream America's youth. When Goodman featured his swing repertoire rather than the society-style dance music that his band had been playing, the youth in the audience went wild. That was the beginning, but, since radio, live concerts and word of mouth were the primary methods available to spread the phenomena, it took some time before swing made enough inroads to produce big hits that showed up on the pop charts. In Hollywood Hotel, the appearance of Benny Goodman and His Orchestra and Raymond Paige and His Orchestra in the film indicates that the film industry was ready to capitalize on the shift in musical taste (the film was in production only a year and a half or so after Goodman's Palomar Ballroom engagement). There are a few interesting musical moments here and there in Hollywood Hotel, but except for Benny Goodman and His Orchestra's "Sing, Sing, Sing," there isn't a lot to commend. Otherwise, the most interesting musical sequences are the opening "Hooray for Hollywood" parade and "Let That Be a Lesson to You" production number at the drive-in restaurant. The film is most interesting to see and hear Benny Goodman and His Orchestra play and Dick Powell and Frances Langford sing.
| 0neg
|
One must admit, that Dev has an eye for beauty and talent. He gave a break to Zeenat Aman, a successful model, and also former winner of beauty pageant's title, by casting her in a role, which was tailor-made for her debut. Her bespectacled , stoned look, and her swaying at the hypnotizing music, made her an instant darling of the viewers. This movie is a treat to the eyes, with it's scenic locales, ethnic people, those Buddha temples, and chirpy, naughty Mumtaz, who looks quite attractive, in her ethnic wear, and dancing skills. Dev is of course, adorable, and this is one of his commercially successful performance. Hare Rama manages to keep the interest going, with it's carefully written script, editing, and captivating music. Like Des Pardes, his another movie, Anand has handled the topic of youngsters falling in the habit of drug addiction, and the theory of them coming from disturbed families, and troubled childhood, is quite plausible. A good entertainer, this movie retains it's freshness till date !
| 1pos
|
First of all, I firmly believe that Norwegian movies are continually getting better. From the tedious emotional films of the 70's and 80's, movies from this place actually started to contain a bit of humour. Imagine.. Actual comedies were made! Movies were actually starting to get entertaining and funny, as opposed to long, dark, depressing and boring.<br /><br />During the 90's and 00's several really great movies were made by a 'new generation' of filmmakers. Movie after movie were praised by critics and played loads of money. It became the norm!<br /><br />Then came United...<br /><br />*MINOR SPOILERS* It's just simply not funny. Not once. Not ever. But the thing is... We THINK its funny. Because we're used to norwegian movies to be funny. Especially with a cast like this with a few really funny comedians. But.. They neither say nor do anything funny! Where's the humor? Show me the humor! Is it the awkward clerk played by Harald Eia? Is it the overacting totally ridiculously unrealistic football coach? Is it the commentaries by Arne Scheie? The movie is just not funny!<br /><br />But thats not my main rant about United. That namely is the predictability. (And it is here I fear that norwegian comedies have come to a standstill since I have seen this in many other movies as well.) All the time you just know its going to end well. All characters are exactly as they are presented in the start of the movie, and everybody gets exactly what they deserve in the end. There's absolutely no room for surprises at all!<br /><br />All in all I can say that I sat with a bad feeling after seeing this movie. It was the one movie that made me realize that we probably need some new blood in norwegian movie making... again!<br /><br />Rating: 1/6
| 0neg
|
Steven Seagal, Mr. Personality himself, this time is the United States' greatest Stealth pilot who is promised a pardon from the military(..who attempted to swipe his memory at the beginning of the movie for which he escaped base, later caught after interrupting a gang of robbers in a shootout at a gas station)if he is able to successfully infiltrate a Northern Afghanistan terrorist base operated by a group called Black Sunday, who have commandeered an Air Force stealth fighter thanks to an American traitor. Along with a fellow pilot who admired the traitor, Jannick(Mark Bazeley), John Sands(Seagal)will fly into enemy territory, receiving help from his Arab lover, Jessica(Ciera Payton)and a freedom fighter, Rojar(Alki David) once they are on ground. Jannick is kidnapped by Black Sunday leaders, Stone(Vincenzo Nicoli)and his female enforcer, Eliana(Katie Jones), and Sands must figure out how to not only re-take command of the kidnapped stealth fighter, but rescue him as well. And, maybe, Sands can get revenge on the traitor he trained, Rather(Steve Toussaint)in the process. Sands has 72 hours until a General's Navy pilots bomb the entire area. On board the stealth, Black Sunday equipped a biochemical bomb, hoping to detonate it on the United States.<br /><br />Seagal gets a chance to shoot Afghans when he isn't slicing their throats with knives. The film is mostly machine guns firing and bodies dropping dead. The setting of Afghanistan doesn't hold up to scrutiny(..nor does how easily Seagal and co. are able to move about the area undetected so easily) and the plot itself is nothing to write home about. The movie is edited fast, the camera a bit too jerky. Seagal isn't as active a hero as he once was and his action scenes are tightly edited where we have a hard time seeing him taking out his foes, unlike the good old days. One of Seagal's poorest efforts, and he's as understated as ever(..not a compliment). Even more disappointing is the fact that Seagal never fights in hand to hand combat with the film's chief villains, tis a shame. He doesn't even snap a wrist or crack a neck in any visible way(..sure we see a slight resemblance of some tool getting tossed around, but it's not as clear a picture as I enjoy because the filmmakers have such fast edits and dizzying close-ups).
| 0neg
|
So I rented this from Netflix because somebody gave me Roger Ebert's book "I hated, hated, hated this movie" and he gave this one a rare zero-star rating in the book and said at the end of his original review "Mad Dog Time should be cut up to provide free ukulele picks for the poor". So I figured from Ebert saying that I would see if it was really as bad as he said it was. I know most society says not to listen to critics and to judge for yourself but I could not express how much I hated this piece of junk like Ebert did and never since Ebert's review of Rob Reiner's "North" where he said he hated that movie ten times had I ever heard such a brilliant hatred movie review. Here we have Richard Dreyfuss as a gangster which I don't think it would be terrible to see Dreyfuss as a gangster if the screenplay for this movie were written well. But above all the other things that were awful about this "movie" I can certainly tell you the script was not written well at all. While the movie starts off with Jeff Goldblum saying that he enjoyed watching Dreyfuss's girlfriend while Dreyfuss was at a criminal hospital the movie starts off with some decent dialog after the opening credits. But after that first 4 or 5 minutes the other 85 minutes just consists of dumb characters talking pointless garbage for 30 seconds then someone gets shot. Then there are a whole bunch of jokes about Dreyfuss being mentally ill. Haha. Not funny. Then we get an unpleasant and unfunny scene parodying Frank Sinatra's "My Way" sang by Gabriel Byrne apparently to insult Dreyfuss. Of course because the screenplay was written on the level of a sixth grader Dreyfuss shoots Byrne over five times and Byrne just will not die. Are we as the audience supposed to even care or find that mildly funny? I can certainly tell you I did not care or find that funny. Not only am I disappointed in Dreyfuss (who I admire much as an actor) for producing and starring in this tripe but I am also extremely disappointed in Jeff Goldblum because this was released the same year that "Independence Day" was the top grossing film of the year and ultimately one of the most successful films in history. Did Goldblum feel that "Independence Day" would be a flop and then just take the next role that was offered to him to make some money if "Independence Day" were a bomb? What did an Oscar winner and the star of two of the biggest money making films in history find remotely enjoyable about this? The opening sequence of "Mad Dog Time" says that the movie is set on another planet. I only wish now that I have wasted 93 minutes watching this trash that it would have stayed and opened in theaters on the planet where it supposedly takes place so that way everyone on this planet would never here of this ridiculous waste of 93 minutes out of my life that I will never get back. Ebert saying the movie should have been cut up is not good enough I am afraid. Every copy of "Mad Dog Time" should have gasoline poured all over it and be lit on fire. I have yet to top a worst movie I have ever seen because this one has won it's honor as the worst movie ever.
| 0neg
|
How the hell did they get this made?! Presenting itself as a caper comedy, the misbegotten "$" is essentially two hours of people mumbling sentence fragments. The usually dependable Warren Beatty looks drunk, and the usually hilarious Goldie Hawn acts like she's on depressants. As for Gert Frobe, his most famous role - Goldfinger - was infinitely more admirable than his character here. Not even the guy with the champagne bottle of LSD can save this litany of worthlessness.<br /><br />Am I comparing this movie to "Plan 9 from Outer Space"? I wouldn't do such a thing even if someone paid me. "P9FOS" was idiotically made but ended up hilarious; this was idiotically made and causes you to feel like your brain just melted out of your ears. Warren Beatty and Goldie Hawn made up for this when they co-starred in "Shampoo", but then they co-starred in the dreadful "Town & Country". Maybe they just shouldn't co-star in movies. All in all, I would rather have my skin torn off than have to watch this again. Awful.<br /><br />Maybe they should remake it with Jackie Chan. Then I would pay to see it.
| 0neg
|
I must admit, when I read the description of the genre on Netflix as "Steamy Romance" I was a little bit skeptical. "Steamy"? In a movie from 1968?? I was prepared for disappointment. And when I realized it was shot entirely in black & white, I knew my erotic hopes were dashed.<br /><br />Boy, was I wrong! Not only does this film have all of the elements of a steamy romance -- the discovery of first love, fear of the secret being found out, a sudden unexpected end -- but at times this movie was downright erotic. You will soon forget that it is shot in black & white. The cinematography deserves every accolade it has received over the years. And the performances from the two stars (Essy Persson and Anna Gael) are intense and memorable. OK, so they're both in their mid twenties trying to play school girls. It's 1968. Do you really expect teenagers from the '60s to be able to effectively explore a lesbian love story like this? Many adult women were still trying to come to grips with their sexuality back then. Anyone looking for real teens here is expecting too much.<br /><br />I think this movie was way ahead of its time. The level of eroticism was an unexpected pleasure; yet it still managed to leave a lot to the imagination, opting instead to give us poetic descriptions to add to what we were shown.<br /><br />I have no doubt lesbians will identify with the characters here. As for you straight guys who love watching lesbians in action: Although it won't be all you expect, I don't think you'll be too, too disappointed.
| 1pos
|
2002's undeservedly popular "I Love the 80's" is an inane, idiotic, offensive and downright disgusting pop-culture mess of a show that was the first in a long-line of horrid television programming that ultimately spelled out the end of VH1, which was at one time the only real music-oriented channel left on TV! I used to practically live on VH1 up until the spring or winter, I forget which one now, of 2002 when garbage like this started to appear for absolutely no reason whatsoever. Out of sheer morbid curiosity (I'd guess that's what you'd call it) I had decided that I would go ahead and give it a look-see anyhow the first night it came on even though the advertisements looked like complete crap. At least I can honestly say that I wasn't a bit disappointed by it because my expectations were obviously bottom basement-level to begin with. The emphasis of this show I found out within the first 5 minutes was less on each year of the 1980's and what was and wasn't culturally significant or popular (which is what I was expecting to see), but instead more of an impromptu platform for a whole slew of really god-awful no-name comedians to display what they more than likely think is their comedic skills *rolls eyes*...more like lack-thereof if you ask me! It's pretty easy now to see why no one had ever heard of any of these idiots before they appeared on this show because they are all so terribly unfunny and pathetic in their attempts at so-called "humor" that I swear I could feel my intestines knot up with each and every rancid one-liner they shot off one after another! Altogether, I have no problem in saying that "I Love the 80's" was/is trash of the lowest denominator, and one of the main reasons why I almost never watch VH1 anymore.
| 0neg
|
Another comedy about a plucky little country struggling through the jungle of the modern (for the forties) global world with only native wit and pluck to guide them, this is a fine entry in the Ealing cannon. Terry-Thomas sparkles as usual in the lead, as a feckless ministry man led to the brink of disaster when a nation he is supposedly in charge of starts attracting the interest of the world, Ian Bannen makes a great romantic lead, Peter Sellers puts in one of his quieter performances as a corrupt politico and the uber-suave John Le Mesurier plays against type as a rugged revolutionary leader. Lots of fun is had by all, especially the viewer; perhaps not in the very top echelon of Ealing classics, but pretty high up.
| 1pos
|
I rented the film (I don't think it got a theatrical release here) out expecting the worse. The previews made the film look awful. I was in fact very surprised, it was well worth watching; it was loosely scripted, almost like an ensemble piece of film. It had some very funny moments in it and although flawed is an effective satire on the show and the people on the show without being too scathing. It is flawed, mainly by the awful soundtrack of bludgeoning 'comedy' effects but on the whole it comes across as honest and generally true to form of the show in an altmanesque or Larry Sanders way.<br /><br />At the moment it is the fashion to be critical of Jerry Springer, he is also an easy target. Springer could have made Citizen Kane and it would be proclaimed 'the worst film ever made'. I recommend this film for anybody interested in the show. A flawed but innovative and interesting piece of film.
| 1pos
|
This last Dutch speaking film of Verhooven made me laugh good. As a film buff looking for all the small details and cross references etc in any movie I can assure anyone interested in film art that this piece amuses all the senses. I haven't read Gerard Reves book, on which the film is based, but I still believe we get a candid picture of a somewhat self-conceited poet/writer who gets his (in a way - no spoiling here). An anti-hero surrounded by characters that have their ambiguous intentions, as has he. All this in a superbly packaged cinematography, Paul Verhopven manages to turn the otherwise rather cute "gesellich(?)" Dutch locations into a suspenseful film-noir setting, impressive work!
| 1pos
|
Why would anyone want to see this?! If this was a film posted on YouTube by a teenager, I might have applauded the teen in doing so much with his mommy's video camera. I might have also congratulated his family and friends for doing a good job acting. Sadly, it was made by a very experienced film maker and these were, apparently, professional actors--making this a very, very sad film. Sad...and very pathetic, actually. As I said, it has a definite made directly to video look about it. It also has narration and acting that just scream "unprofessionals"--how could this be?! The film is filled with lots of corpses and blood. Normally this would turn me off completely, as I hate ultra-violent films and don't like seeing all that gore. However, given that none of it is that realistic, it's bearable. However, I should warn you that there are a few scenes that are still pretty disturbing. For example, the scene with the kid throwing a radio into a lady's tub and watching her naked and frying is pretty bad. There are also scenes where you can hear the thought of psychos as they fantasize about killing women. With a level of misogyny that is pretty awful. the people who wrote this are pretty sick--like killing women is meant to be for our entertainment.<br /><br />After a bunch of senseless murders, the film goes to a dining room table--around which are a bunch of goof-balls wearing black hoods WITHOUT eye holes! They are talking, with pride, about all the murders they have committed and chant. It's all very funny, though I am not sure that was the scene's purpose.<br /><br />Then, the film talks about various sex crimes and killings and even vampirism and cannibalism. Why, I don't know--perhaps because they people made this got off on this sort of crap. And, once again, you see and hear the thoughts and actions of a creepy German-looking man as he tracks down people and kills them.<br /><br />By the way, considering the film used what I must assume are professional actors, I wondered why so many people were chosen who were clearly Germans. While they tried to act like Americans and the film was supposed to be in California, the accents are STRONG. Perhaps German audiences watched this and marveled at how "realistic" the acting was, but to any American it's obvious these folks ain't their fellow Americans! Considering that there really WAS a zodiac killer (who was never captured), I do wonder why anyone would want to make a "fan film" of sorts for the sick menace?! I mean...was this film meant as a snuff film for pervs? I just can't see anyone else wanting to see this or enjoying it. In fact, I wonder what would motivate anyone to make such a stupid AND offensive film?! Worthless and deserving to be in IMDb's Bottom 100 list.
| 0neg
|
OK let's get right to the point. We have five recent college grads (must have majored in the F word) going out on a weekend camping trip. They run into someone who is in need of help, but instead of trying to assist him, they decide to set him on fire instead. Nice bunch of people. Next some of them start go get sick - must be something in the water at the cabin they are staying at. However the neighbors seem to be OK. Oh well, when things start getting really bad, they lock up one their companions instead of getting help (try the neighbor by the way). Some locals don't take a liking to them. They chase one on a high speed romp through the woods for many miles, until the truck breaks down. Somehow ten minutes later he shows up at the cabin (how he could find it and how he could travel at the speed of light to get there is a mystery). Another of the brain surgeon type at the cabin realizes something is amiss so he hides out in a cave to let this blow over. He then decides the next day to return to the cabin believing it must be some type of shrine. He is giddy with relief that he survived (he must have thought it was a 24 hour bug). Unfortuneatley he is met by some not so friendly police officers. Another couple decide to have sex while the flesh eating bug is working its magic, and then the women realizes she needs to shave her legs (taking a lot of the diseased skin with shaving cream). Anyway you get the idea. Nothing makes sense here. These are five people I would not want to be friends with. I was rooting for the flesh eating bacteria. Other characters were introduced who were also somewhat amusing but utterly unlikeable as well. Ninety minutes of good life wasted here.
| 0neg
|
Worst De Niro Scorsese collaboration in this horrible agonizing violent overlong mess. Scorsese is totally out of his element in this film with the horror cliched suddenly loud phone ringing and door slamming gimmicks that seem laughable and embarrassing coming from such a master craftsman. The cast is totally wasted here and the southern accents are very annoying and forced. Nick Noltie plays the wimpiest lawyer in history who would ever believe he can defend anyone ! De Niro's psychotic Bowden is nothing more than the typical 90's movie psycho killer. The scene with De Niro and Lewis early on is very awkward and the climax goes on and on and we should all be more than tired of the on psycho stalker that never dies. One of my most horrible movie experiences. Rent the original it's 100 times better. <br /><br />
| 0neg
|
This film is worth seeing alone for Jared Harris' outstanding portrayal of John Lennon. It doesn't matter that Harris doesn't exactly resemble Lennon; his mannerisms, expressions, posture, accent and attitude are pure Lennon. Best scene: Lennon in a local cafe verbally sparring with a stuttering fan as to whether Paul McCartney & Wings' "Silly Love Songs" is worthy of #1 status in America.
| 1pos
|
I enjoyed this film. It was lighthearted, delightful, and very colorful. You can see that MGM was showing off Technicolor. There are hardly any colors that do not appear in this film. Every scene is packed full. The choreography was great. Gene Kelly is a wonder. He is so talented. The dance numbers in this film are all perfectly executed, and perfectly designed. He understands that the dances can tell the story as much as anything else. The last section of the film, the grand dance sequence, is very impressive. What makes this film very special is Gershwin's music. Few American composers have had a better gift for melody. I very much enjoy Gershwin's music. It is enchanting. Ira Gershwin is definitely one of the greatest lyric writers. He is so witty and charming. This was a highly entertaining film.
| 1pos
|
Finally, after years of awaiting a new film to continue the sexual mayhem of "Basic Instinct", we have been given a great sequel that is packed with the right elements needed for a franchise such as this! I remember everything about the original, the steam, the romance, the sex, the interrogation, the music (by the master Jerry Goldsmith), and everything else from violence and murder, to intense confrontations of all kind! Make no mistake, "Basic Instinct" was a real winner for audiences everywhere. I can remember in 2001 when we were first given the news about such a sequel. Five years later, we have it. I never would have thought it to end up such as this. When it was declared a dropped project, time sure couldn't tell if it was ever a real possibility to begin with. Well, I guess we now know anything's possible in this case. Even if the original director, or writer are not present, all we need is the glamorous, always reliable Sharon Stone, and we have a done deal! Please, hear me out...<br /><br />When people say that this film is bad, I think it is only due to the fact that the style is extreme, and slightly dated. I use the word "dated" only because we have not seen a certain film of the like in many years, and audiences have become adapted to the pointless, boring storytelling seen in other movies that actually make money, and the only reason they make such big numbers is because those films are family friendly. Who needs hole some and clean? Of course it's a pleasant thing to have, but c'mon! Escapism is really seldom these days, and "Basic Instinct 2" gives us real fans what we've been expecting. This film is not an Academy Award winner, nor does it try to be. It simply delivers the die-hard fans what they have been expecting. It's a film for fun. Movies today seem to take themselves way too seriously, but this film is just loose and fun, not taking itself seriously, not too seriously anyway. That said, I shall evaluate the film.<br /><br />The film is a fast-paced film from the first second, as we see Cathernine Tremell in a car, speeding at 110 MPH-and enjoying lustful thrills doing so. Perhaps sex and driving does not mix, because our sexy novelist takes a bad turn and...well, she gets away unharmed, but her studly partner doesn't fare too well. Once again, Tremell is the primary suspect of the accident, and will be put under analyst's and psychiatrists. Dr. Michael Glass (Morrissey) is automatically drawn to to her from the first moment he meets her. Like another criminal investigator before him, he is entranced and seduced, slowly, and surely. His denial of it all begins to crumble around him as she weaves a spell only she has the power to do. Tramell is possibly more dangerous now, than she was before,but like the first one, we'll never really know, will we? Once the seduction is in motion, jealousy, rage, drugs, and a plateful of erotic scenery ensues!<br /><br />This film does not recycle the first one, but rather mentions the previous films incidents briefly from time to time. This is a good thing. It lets us as an audience know that the script has been written to bring the level up a notch or two. Sharon Stone dazzles us again, as though 14 years has not come to pass. Her second run of the deceitful novelist is right on the spot as earlier. Just awesome! David Morrissey is well cast, and manages pretty well. The fact that a non-popular star was chosen, makes his performance all the more enjoyable because we as an audience have no background on him, just what we see him perform. My final thought-8.5 to 9 out of 10. So it's not the first one, nor can it live up to the first ones prize winning place. It can, however, live up to the standards set by the first film, and it does folks! It does.
| 1pos
|
I was China in this film. I choose the screen name Sheeba Alahani because I was modeling at the time in Italy and they couldn't pronounce my real name correctly, so I choose Sheeba and then added Alahani since it was similar to Alohalani.<br /><br />I had never acted before (and it shows), but it was so much fun to film. They gave me "acting lessons" each morning (which obviously were not useful). They dubbed my voice (thank goodness).<br /><br />David and Peter were a blast on the set, full of good humor and jokes. This film was never meant to be taken seriously, it was a tax write off according to inside information. <br /><br />I give it a 1 because I have a sense of humor, but a 10 for the fun I had "acting" in it.
| 0neg
|
"The Man In The Moon" is a pretty good movie. It is very touching at times and is very well done in all respects. I wouldn't say the film was terribly original, but what is these days?<br /><br />The cast members all did a great job with their respective roles. I really enjoyed seeing Reese Witherspoon at such a young age, and does quite a good job. Jason London does a fine job as well. And the only other person I recognized was Sam Waterston, who did a fantastic job with his role. I really liked Sam's character (Matthew Trant) a lot. At times he seemed to be the kind of father you dread, but in the end you really like his character. The rest of the cast was very good as well.<br /><br />If you're into touching movies about growing up and dealing with what life throws at you, then you ought to watch this film. I'd suggest reading the plot synopsis and if that sounds like something you'd be interested in, then go for it. Anyhow, hope you enjoy the film, thanks for reading,<br /><br />-Chris
| 1pos
|
The Haunting is yet another bad horror remake with phony overdone special effects and a big cast of on screen favorites and has no redeeming qualities whatsoever except maybe for the cinematography.Yes remakes aren't all bad but remakes directed by Jion Da Bont definitely are.I suppose that the A-List actors (Liam Neeson,Catherine Zeta Jones,Owen Wilson)are there to distract us from the boring plot,ridiculous special effects, and terrible attempts at scaring it's audience however this is a movie not a tabloid magazine we don't care whose in it we care about the characters and story two things this film missed.The storyline is like taking the classic novel The Haunting Of Hill House and ripping out four chapters and then using whatever's left for the film it is so boring and a lot of it is unexplained.The characters are pretty thin and while the acting is good you don't really care about any of the characters at all.Lily Taylor gives a horrendous performance and sounds like she's 8 years old when delivering her lines not to mention what a horrible screamer she is.Lily Taylor isn't made for the horror genre at all.The ghosts are stupid and cheesy, they look like a bunch of Casper The Friendly Ghost's and the ghost of Hugh Cain looks like a fat guy dressed as the grim reaper for Halloween with a smoke machine.There is this creature on the roof of one of the rooms that is a giant purple mouth and it's not even funny unintentionally just plain sad.The house is pretty and well designed that is probably the only positive thing about this movie it looks nice but that doesn't save it from it's brutal everything else.I can honestly say i felt like i was wasting my time watching The Haunting on TV for no price so I would've been even more pi$$ed if I had paid to see it but luckily it was on Scream Channel.Overall The Haunting is a boring remake that tries to overwhelm you with bad special effects, a poor attempt at horror.
| 0neg
|
This review is based on the dubbed Shock-o-Rama video released on an undeserving world in 2002. How bad is it? It's awful, which is what a '1' represents on the IMDb scale--but it's much worse than that. It's nice to imagine that an original German-language print might improve matters--the comedic English-language dubbing isn't funny at all--but truthfully, this is one of the worst amateur films of any genre you're likely to see. The zombies in the film are as slow and clumsy as ever, and they don't seem to have the ability to speak or think about anything beyond their next meal. However, they're also intelligent enough to operate chainsaws and malicious enough to know that western taboos about genitalia will no doubt enliven their dinner table conversation. George Romero's Land of the Dead posited a zombie nation that retained a shred of social coherence; here, zombies are nothing more than an empty canvas for the perverse imaginings of director Andreas Schnaas. Utterly without redeeming social value, and even worse, entirely lacking as entertainment, Zombie '90 is a bad joke on anyone who wastes money on it.
| 0neg
|
24 has got to be the best spy/adventure series TV had ever aired. The whole idea of telling a story in a 24 hour real time period is dazzling. The style of filming and pacing is what hooks us to watch it. And Jack Bauer is one of the greatest protagonists in a TV series in a long time. I rate this, along with The Simpsons and The X-Files, my three most favorite TV series.<br /><br />This first episode begins with the conspiracy to assassinate US Senator David Palmer who is also running for president. Bauer is called to his office in order to discover who is behind all this and, at the same time, figure his daughter's path to the unkwown after fleeing from her bedroom. Thus, begins an adventure on the best political style and, what's best of it, is that it always takes place in real time, which makes this TV series a real work of originality in a time where almost every program on TV seems to be showing us the same things over and over and over.
| 1pos
|
The third collaboration for Karloff and Lugosi sees a move away from Poe and into the realm of the science fiction serial. Karloff plays Dr. Janos Rukh, creator of a device that can capture light rays through his telescope in the Carpathian Mountains and translate them into pictures that form a visual history of the universe.<br /><br />Before several guests, including Lugosi as Dr. Benet, an astro-chemist who had previously scoffed at Rukh's theories, he demonstrates the existence of an unknown radioactive element, here termed "Radium X", contained in a meteor that fell to Earth in darkest Africa several thousand years ago. Karloff joins the expedition to prove his theories, but Radium X is a tricky compound - it levels mountains at long range, and cures blindness at short range. Rukh is careless, however, and poisons himself, glowing in the dark rather like those old Ready Breck commercials! Dr. Benet is on hand to devise a counter-active for the radiation, but combination of poison and cure drives Rukh insanely paranoid. Convinced he has been cheated, he seeks out the members of the expedition in Paris, including his estranged wife, and his very touch while in his radioactive state means death...<br /><br />Along the way we get the old pseudo-scientific idea that a dead person's eyes record the image of their killer (a remarkably distinct Karloff!) and the Radium X device used to symbolically melt statues that represent the expedition members. And even a touch of James Whale in a cockney landlady in Paris!<br /><br />The Invisible Ray is great fun, aside from the Gothic opening it's interesting to see Universal move the action around to Africa and Paris. The film lacks pace, but is always absorbing. Karloff slightly overdoes his performance but Lugosi is terrific. Universal used the basic story outline again in Man Made Monster, this time with Lon Chaney Jr. as the glowing menace (this time caused by electricity) and Lionel Atwill as a much madder doctor than Lugosi is here. The Invisible Ray is a sombre and clever little film with much to admire. Not as famous as other Universal Horrors, perhaps, but it works and is highly entertaining.
| 1pos
|
I bought Dark Angel seasons 1 & 2 two weeks ago, after catching a couple of season 1 episodes on Channel 5. Nothing prepared me for how brilliant the show is. I haven't enjoyed anything as much since Firefly (also and amazing show). I'll admit Season 2 wqasn't quite as good, but there are still some amazing episodes (see Designate this, Bag 'Em, the Berrisford Agenda, Harbor Lights, Freak Nation etc.) and Alec is great. I've heard some of the plans for the would-be season 3, and I have to say, I can't believe it was cancelled - I won't spoil it for you - but it would have rocked! I also think it has a lot of potential as a movie (although at the moment it seems highly unlikely). As proof of my obsessiveness, Max's barcode number is 332960073452, and in the two weeks I've had it, I am 3 episodes away from having watched both seasons twice. It's just too good.
| 1pos
|
I shudder to think what people must have thought of environmentalists after viewing this piece of overbearing, preachy cinematic trash. Larded with enough Indian-wannabe nuttery and space brother buffoonery to stock a new-age shop, Starlight makes anyone who gives a damn about the planet look like a feather-wearing crystal-fondling idiot.<br /><br />The plot? Alien Rae Dawn Chong arrives to guide a flute playing underwear model in a mystical quest to avert Earth's impending environmental collapse. But first they must defeat an evil alien who looks nothing so much like a refugee from a Castro street bar. Fortunately, they've got mystical grandpa Willie Nelson along to help (who looks faintly embarrassed by the proceedings, as well he ought to be) along with buckets of cheap F/X and reams of pointlessly swelling music.<br /><br />Sure, the clunky script helps to obscure the film's trite plot and staggering pace, but that's just the tip of this melting movie iceberg. Everyone concerned with this film should have their union cards revoked until they complete a real course in environmental science.
| 0neg
|
The only explanation I can muster as to why this film isn't widely distributed is because it hits too close to home for some. This movie was a genuine happy surprise, the satire is genius. This film turns the lights on in the dark that is organized religion and big media, and the roaches scurry for cover. Rent the DVD and watch it for yourself if you haven't yet, this film succeeds where many have failed (Dogma comes to mind) to poke it's nose under the tent, both by using humor and very clever analogies coupled with telling backdrops and locations. Can't comment in depth without revealing some significant spoilers, there are some surprises in this film which even the seasoned film buff will be caught off guard by.
| 1pos
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.