review
stringlengths 143
6k
| label
int64 0
1
|
|---|---|
I saw this movie by accident yesterday at a cinema. I had some hopes for the movie because I really like Spoorloos (The Vanishing) and the book it's based on. The movie starts out okay as it at first seems to be a nice thriller. Quickly though the movie becomes a mess with uninteresting plotlines, characters that are never fleshed out and nobody in the audience cared for (like Marjoke) and terrible editing. The movie has fade to black bits that are just way too long, a messed up chronology that jumps back and forth and lots of scenes that just don't add anything to the story and could easily have been dropped. After suffering through the story you'll get treated to one of the worst endings I've seen in a very long. It should also be mentioned that the movie has lots of explicit sex scenes which you're probably used to if you watch a lot of dutch movies. It's hard to mention any good things about this movie. About a third of the audience had already walked out of the theater halfway into the movie and I didn't hear a kind word after the movie was over. Avoid this movie at all costs. it really destroyed any faith I had left in the dutch movie industry.
| 1
|
SPOILERS AHEAD<br /><br />This is one of the worst movies ever made - it's that simple. There is not one redeeming quality about this movie. The first 10 minutes are quite tricky - they actually lead you to believe that this film will be shocking and will have you on the edge of your seat. Instead, you will spend 83 minutes punching yourself while watching stolen and poorly made scenes run without any organization. The lake was ridiculous, looked like an aquarium, and had the same plant in different parts of the lake bed. Characters show their advanced teleportation powers, for example Alex Thomas who falls into the lake (drunk), and then ends up on his boat in an impossible position. Angie Harmon put up a pitiful performance as Kate, made worse by the space-time continuum rupturing dialog that appears to have been written at the last minute by a fifth grader. An example of this would be when she said, 'Flashlight!' in such a stupid manner that it shows the threshold of how much a human body can cringe before it snaps in half. Finally, the editing of this movie was by far the most bizarre and horrific that I have ever seen. It was like the cameramen were a bunch of chimps who had been given camcorders by scientists. An example of this would be when we suddenly get a closeup of the headlight on Alex's car. I would bet that there was little to no time spent editing this movie. The ending was absolutely pathetic. The writers were obviously trying to create some sort of mysterious plot line that made the viewer say, 'oh yeah!' Instead, we're left to view some dumb painting of a spider that somehow fits into the story line. Unfortunately, there is not one perspective in the millions out there that could save this movie from being a festering piece of crap.<br /><br />I give this a .5 out of 10, the .5 being from the fact that this movie was recorded on film instead of becoming a picture book.
| 1
|
This was truly horrible. Bad acting, bad writing, bad effects, bad scripting, bad camera shots, bad filming, bad characters, bad music, bad editing, bad casting, bad storyline, bad ... well, you get the idea. It was just, just ... what's the word? Oh yeah ... BAD!
| 1
|
As part of our late 1950s vocabulary, we well knew the Ponderosa, Little Joe, Hoss, Ben Cartwright,etc. on that great show 'Bonanza.'<br /><br />It came Saturday night and everyone was glued to the television set. This was a real show depicting family values. There may have been a weekly crisis, but it was the strong family atmosphere that pulled everyone together.<br /><br />Lorne Greene was dominant as the patriarch of the family. His words depicted wisdom. We often were left to wonder that Ben Cartwright, a widower, must have been the best of husbands to that poor wife of his who had died. He reared wonderful sons.<br /><br />Naturally, we all wondered why Pernell Roberts left the show. The show was a gold mine and Roberts surrendered loads of money when he departed. His career never took off as he was associated as a Cartwright son. He should have tried to get back into the series. He certainly lost a bonanza by dropping out.
| 0
|
This solid black and white slapstick comedy with a dark (but hopelessly contrived) plot is a true crowd pleaser that will have you howling with laughter (as well as rolling your eyes with disbelief).<br /><br />It's the old psychopath on a train story but that is of no big importance as the thriller portion of the film almost seems to be merely a counterweight to the antics of the great comedian Robert Gustafsson. His hapless, nearly incurably optimistic soldier invokes both compassion and schadenfreude in a fashion that almost rivals Chevy Chase.<br /><br />The thing about the film that appealed to me the most, however, is that wedged between the improbable and the hilarious are the accurately portrayed everyday joys and nuisances of train travel. They add a most welcome sense of realism and recognition.<br /><br />This thriller comedy has admittedly borrowed most of its 'suspense' from Hitchcock and should, in my opinion, only be watched for its comedy value (which is high indeed). Besides Gustafsson, Lars Amble's solid performance as a delightfully cynical misogynist is worth the price of admission alone.<br /><br />Heartily recommend.
| 0
|
The recent release of 'Mad Dog Morgan' on Troma DVD is disappointing.This appears to be a censored print for television viewing. Some of the more violent scenes have been edited and portions of the colorful language have been removed. Anyone who viewed the film uncut will be mad as hell at this toxic DVD version. 'Mad Dog Morgan' deserves to be released on DVD in the original theatrical cut. However, even as released on DVD, the film is still one of the better depictions of bushranger life in nineteenth century Australia. After having toured the Old Melbourne Gaol, with death masks of convicts on display, it is 'Mad Dog Morgan' that comes to mind.
| 1
|
A lot of people in the cinema enjoyed this film, but it only made me feel misanthropic. If smug 'intellectuals' bantering about their irritating sex lives, sounds ok to you, watch it. I felt bored, but glad I did know people like that. The premise of the film was that, as with all societies or great civilizations, they are eventually doomed to fail. According to the female historian character, who bores us with this fact, America is showing signs of it's decline (Admittedly she goes into greater detail than me). The next part of the film is concerned with the vacuous, fatuous and asinine behaviour of her friends and colleagues, and the various miseries caused by their libidinous behaviour, with a vague attempt at humor. A lot of people liked this movie where I watched it. I could not relate to it.
| 1
|
This production was made in the middle 1980s, and appears to be the first serious attempt to put BLEAK HOUSE on celluloid. No film version of the novel was ever attempted (it is remarkably rich in subplots that actually serve as counterpoints to each other, so that it would have been very hard to prune it down). The novel was the only attempt by Dickens to make a central narrator (one of two in the work) a woman, Esther Summerson. Esther is raised by her aunt and uncle, who (in typical Dickens style) mistreat her. She is illegitimate, but they won't tell her anything about her parentage. Later we get involved with the gentry, Sir Leicester Dedlock, and his wife. Lady Honoria Deadlock (Dame Diana Rigg) is having an increasingly difficult time regarding her private life and the meddling involvement of the family solicitor Tulkinghorn (Peter Vaughn). We also are involved with the actions of Richard Carstone (Esther's boyfriend) in trying to win a long drawn out estate chancery case, Jarndyce v. Jarndyce, which everyone (even Richard's cousin John Jarndyce - played by Desmond Elliot) warns is not worth the effort.<br /><br />Dickens had been a law reporter and then a parliamentary reporter before he wrote fiction. Starting with the breach of promise case in PICKWICK PAPERS, Dickens looked closely at the law. Mr. Bumble said it was 'a ass' in OLIVER TWIST and Dickens would consistently support that view. He looks at the slums as breeding grounds for crime in TWIST, that the law barely tries to cure. He attacks the Chancery and outdated estate laws, as well as too powerful solicitors and greedy lawyers (Tulkinghorn, Vholes) in BLEAK HOUSE. In LITTLE DORRIT he attacks the debtors' prisons (he had hit it also in David COPPERFIELD). In OUR MUTUAL FRIEND he looks at testators and wills. In THE MYSTERY OF EDWIN DROOD he apparently was going to go to a murder trial. Dickens was far more critical of legal institutions than most of his contemporaries, including Thackeray.<br /><br />But the novel also looks at other problems (like charity and religious hypocrisy, the budding Scotland Yard detective force, social snobbery in the industrial revolution). He also uses the novel to satirize various people: Leigh Hunt the writer, Inspector Fields of Scotland Yard, and even the notorious Maria Manning. Most of these points were kept in this fine mini-series version. If it is shown again on a cable station, catch it.
| 0
|
I like Dylan Moran from his work in Black Books, although I found some of his stand-up to be really indulgent in terms of long confused gaps... however I was intrigued to see this film starring he and Michael Caine and curiosity got the better of me.<br /><br />I was stunned.<br /><br />Dylan's vocal range and characterisation of the different people he was playing in the film was absolutely perfect, something beyond the skills of a mere stand-up comedian and really truly on a par with alec guinness, john hurt and the other greats- truly he was skilled in his portrayal.<br /><br />Michael Caine was a very convincing prima donna and the standard british film device of having a precocious child on hand to be overly wise and withering worked- the only aspect I didn't really like was the unbelieveable plot feature of the chemistry between Dolores and the cockney gangsta's hard man played by Dylan.<br /><br />Other than that, it was great.<br /><br />I also like the non-cop-out ending where it did end up happily ever after, but with MC getting a beating. OK, it's not exactly being strung up by your goolies and beijng disembowelled (which is what a real crime boss would do to you if you nicked £50k off them) but it showed at least a small measure of reality in the story.<br /><br />I liked the film, and I would recommend it to anyone- but- I would also warn them not to turn it off after 15 minutes because it started a bit slow. If you stick it out, then it will all come back.<br /><br />And with regards to the swearing- well, they're in Ireland. It wouldn't be real otherwise.
| 0
|
If it wasn't for the performances of Barry Diamond and Art Evans as the clueless stoners, I would have no reason to recommend this to anyone.<br /><br />The plot centers around a 10 year high school reunion, which takes place in a supposed abandon high school(looks more like a prop from a 1950s low budget horror flick), and the deranged student the class pulled a very traumatizing prank on. This student desires to kill off the entire class for revenge.<br /><br />John Hughes falls in love with his characters too much, as only one student is killed as well as the lunch lady(Goonies' Anne Ramsey). We're led to believe that the horny coupled gets killed, but never see a blasted thing! This is a horrible movie that continued National Lampoon's downward spiral throughout the 80s and 90s.
| 1
|
Hello, I was alanrickmaniac. I'm a Still Crazy-holic. It was just another movie I watched partly on TV. Then I had to get the video tape to finally find out how it ends. Then I wanted the DVD, because the tape showed first signs of decay after a few weeks. After the DVD I had to lay my hands on the soundtrack. Then on several film posters and the film script. Right now it has become that worse that I try to push other people into addiction with my website and Still Crazy parties. <br /><br />How could that happen? What drove me into addiction? <br /><br />OK, it's one of those funny but somehow sad and melancholic intelligent comedies like only the British can produce. <br /><br />Alright, the movie is worlds apart from stuff like ''This Is Spinal Tap'', because of the characters, that aren't childish or ultra cool, but real. This is a story about men getting older, too. A story about men getting along with each other. Or don't. It contains some of the best actors possible. Tim Spall. Stephen Rea. Bruce Robinson. Jimmy Nail. And Bill Nighy. Bill Nighy who puts on one of the best performances I've ever seen in a film.<br /><br />Good, the soundtrack is unbelievable. Foreigner's Mick Jones has written the songs for the imaginary band Strange Fruit. Jimmy Nail who plays bass-man Les Wickes and Bill Nighy portraying the egocentric but awkward singer Ray Simms are really singing. We know that about Jimmy Nail, but if you've only heard Bill Nighy's singing in 'Love Actually', you have no idea how great and powerful his voice is. <br /><br />Well, you'll fever for every scene to come for the x-th time, especially those concert scenes. You'd die to be able to really stand in the dancing crowd when Strange Fruit is doing 'All Over The World', singing on the top of your lungs. You long to cry and celebrate with thousands of people the rebirth of the real Strange Fruit at Wisbech's festival stage. <br /><br />It's hard but... I'm addicted to this film. I'm addicted to Strange Fruit. If there's a world where this band really exists I'd like to move there. <br /><br />Got Still Crazy... anyone?
| 0
|
Had this movie been made a few years later, I would have given it a lower score. However, for 1909, this was a dandy little movie and still stands up pretty well today. Just don't try to compare this silent film to later silents--the industry changed so radically that the shorts of the first decade of the 20th century don't look at all like movies made in the 1910s and beyond.<br /><br />This movie is 11 minutes long (about average for most films back then) and is a variation of the Edgar Allen Poe story, THE CASK OF AMONTILLADO. While many are familiar with the story, I won't elaborate further as I don't want to ruin the film. Just suffice to say that it's very creepy!!
| 0
|
Really, the use of stock nature documentary of swarming bats employed by THE BAT PEOPLE is some of the most effective ever. There are shots of teeming bats hanging from the ceilings of caves, swarming bats flying out of caves or swirling about near the mouths of caves. That alone is enough to be unsettling: Imagine all of them swarming after you? And they do indeed swarm in what should have been a show-stopper sequence that happened at about the forty minute mark, a downright inappropriately hilarious sequence where a teeming swarm of bats seem to attack a police car, splattering across the windshield like bloody broken eggs. The problem is that this sequence happens about fifty minutes too late to save the film, most of which consists of one or more people running around, screaming, waving their arms about at jabbering excitedly about some poor goofball who managed to get bitten by a bat during his vacation.<br /><br />The fear is that he is coming down with rabies, which does indeed suck, so their vacation is ruined, as the plot synopsis on the top of THE BAT PEOPLE's reference page does indeed point out. So here is an effective summary of the movie: A young couple goes on a romantic getaway which is ruined when the guy is bitten by a bat. They bravely try to stick it out but he starts raving, trying to convince those around him that it's a bit more involved than rabies, that he can't control himself, and they everyone should KEEP AWAY.<br /><br />Now, when some one is frothing at the mouth, covered with sweat, eyes boggling about like one of the cheaper Muppets and screaming at you to GET AWAY FROM ME, you get away from him. You don't try to give him drugs, you don't try to tell him you love him, you give the guy his space, go home, and try that scenic getaway next year.<br /><br />But no, the people in this movie all behave like morons, insist on pushing the guy to his brink, and he flips out, mutates into a part man part bat type creature, and kills a bunch of non-essential secondary characters. Nothing wrong with that, but the movie forgets that it's a low budget Creature Feature and tries to be some sort of psychological study. Instead of a monster movie, we get lots of people running around trying to get this guy to take a chill pill, and eventually he runs off into the hills looking very much more human than he should have, people insist on trying to chase him down and pay the expected price.<br /><br />The main thing wrong with the movie is that this should have happened in the first fifteen or twenty minutes, thirty tops, and the movie should have been about the guy AFTER he had turned into a Bat Person, rather than about the journey there. It takes a good eighty minutes to really pick up steam on that front, with some interesting character sketches along the way involving the always entertaining Michael Pataki as a small town cop who's lost his moral edge, and the late Paul Carr as a physician friend who doesn't quite get the message.<br /><br />The movie is dreadfully boring, about fifteen minutes too long and missed the opportunity to be a nice, forgettable little Creature Feature about a mutant run amok like the Italian horror favorite RATMAN, which I watched today and was sadly inspired to try this one after seeing. Me and my bright ideas, though the scene with the cop car was a howler: Too bad we couldn't have had another twenty minutes of that.<br /><br />3/10
| 1
|
Coen Brothers-wannabe from writer-director Paul Chart relies far too much on ideas lifted from other (better) movies, yet does manage to create a creepy atmosphere that keeps one watching. Robert Forster cuts loose as never before playing a psychopathic psychiatrist (ha ha) who goes on a killing spree in the desert. The film is unusual, but in its attempt to keep one step ahead of the audience, it becomes alienating and off-putting (with a role for Amanda Plummer that is downright humiliating). An admittedly bravura finale, many quirky bits of business--and Forster looking great in the nude--make this a curiosity item, nothing more. Veteran movie-director Irvin Kershner produced, and maybe should directed as well (could Paul Chart be a pseudonym?). *1/2 from ****
| 1
|
The story of a little girl who was driven once by fear and now by pain, she becomes woman and a vengeful crime fighter. Her power is to manifest strong anime characters onto herself. This movie fuses animation with live action as she wields her animated sword through all that stands before her. She struggles to deal with life, her demons, and her fears.<br /><br />Young Emily watched her parents fight and argue. She watched her Dad leave her motherless. Emily soon discovered she had the power to do something about it. Emily grew through life traveling as a loner and at night she had the power to make a difference in the world.<br /><br />This movie is a great blend of animation and real action. There are many themes and metaphors that run deep through the movie. This movie is broke up as a 12 part series.
| 0
|
Did Francis Ford Coppola have a brain aneurysm some time after directing 'Apocalypse Now' that made him absolutely incapable of making a good movie? <br /><br />You have to wonder what the director of 'The Godfather' and 'The Conversation' was thinking when he made this flabby film. It gives Kathleen Turner a starring vehicle, playing a woman who travels back in time and gets to redo her adolescence knowing all of the things that life as an adult has taught her, and Turner, the trooper that she is, does what she can with it, but this movie couldn't be saved by anyone.<br /><br />It doesn't even have any style to it, and, given its director, one would expect that even if it had nothing else, it would have that.<br /><br />Grade: C-
| 1
|
DO NOT WATCH THIS SAD EXCUSE FOR A FILM. I have wasted time and money on this and am pretty p**sed off about it.<br /><br />The acting is comparable with high school plays. The script is shocking. There is no plot. Twenty minutes from the end (which I believe I should be rewarded for reaching) I had a headache from all the screaming, crying and wailing the five girls make.<br /><br />The majority of the violence is (rare for a film nowadays) suggested rather than graphically depicted but I found the characters so damn irritating that I wanted to see them, and indeed every single person involved in the making of this piece of s**t, die in the most horrible ways possible.<br /><br />I spend ten more minutes of my life saving you from a very poor 100 minutes of yours. Don't do it.
| 1
|
Quite average even by Monogram standards, this mystery (a remake of The Sphinx) has an oddball plot which is not unraveled to much effect -- you'll see through it after about ten minutes. The two leads have some nice breezy dialog at the outset, but John Hamilton is hopelessly dull as the villain (perfectly cast Lionel Atwill originated the role) and Warren Hymer's nitwit shtick is pretty annoying. However, it's worth sitting through for a five-minute appearance by the incomparable Mantan Moreland as Nicodemus the janitor, who gets the better of the defense attorney during a hilarious courtroom appearance. You've got to hand it to Bill 'One-Take' Beaudine; he wasn't much of a director, but he would always punch up a routine programmer with some goofy vaudeville.
| 1
|
I'm not saying that because the production values were so low, but because it was filmed terribly. That shot of the girl washing her hair in the creek? Did we really need to sit there for an overlong shot and watch her do that for 5 minutes in the same spot? It was terrible, the lighting was just plain bad. You could barely see anything and when the characters were talking, you could barely hear what they were saying. Did I watch the whole movie? Of course not I skipped through most of it, and I don't want to hear anyone say I need to watch the whole thing first to judge it. This film was so poorly done and executed that even by independent and low budget standards it's just plain terrible. Awful movie...don't waste any time on it unless you want a good laugh, but even then it's not because of the actors 'funny' lines, it's because of how painstakingly bad the production is.
| 1
|
This is probably one of the most original love stories I have seen for ages, especially for a war based (briefly) film. Basically it is a story based in two worlds, one obviously real, the other fictitious but the filmmakers say at the beginning that it is only coincidence if it is a real place. Anyway, Peter Carter (the great David Niven) was going to crash in a plane, he talked to June (Planet of the Apes' Kim Hunter) before he bailed out and said he loved her. He was meant to die from jumping without a parachute, but somehow he survived, and now he is seeing and loving June in the flesh. This other place, like a heaven, is unhappy because he survived and was meant to come to their world, so they send French Conductor 71 (Marius Goring) to persuade him to go, but he is obviously in love. Peter suggests to him that he should appeal to keep his life to the other world's court, he is granted this. Obviously love prevails when the two lovers announce that they would die for each other, June even offers to take his place! Also starring Robert Coote as Bob Trubshawe, Kathleen Byron as An Angel, a brief (then unknown) Lord Sir Richard Attenborough as An English Pilot and Abraham Sofaer as The Judge/The Surgeon. David Niven was number 36 on The 50 Greatest British Actors, the film was number 86 on The 100 Greatest Tearjerkers for the happy ending, it was number 47 on The 100 Greatest War Films, it was number 46 on The 50 Greatest British Films, and it was number 59 on The 100 Greatest Films. Outstanding!
| 0
|
The direction had clearly stated that this film's idea and plot is totally original....however, as to those who have read 'slam dunk' comic, we can clearly see that the characters are very similar and even some jokes...<br /><br />Another note is Jay Chow himself DO NOT know Kung Fu, it just won't impress anyone if he tries to act like he can, many people today can see the differences.. Luckily the movie do not contain much of KunG Fu fighting and much are enchanced by stunners and visual effects...<br /><br />I think that Jay's acting is still a pain to watch, especially when almost everyone else in the film is so much better. The only reason I think why Jay is the main actor is simply is for his popularity.<br /><br />Despite how hard I wish to stop anyone from watching this thus making this 'orginal' movie getting what it shouldn't have, it has became one of the best budget films in China for this year.
| 1
|
I loved the Batman tv series and was really looking forward to this. But they tried to do too much.<br /><br />Why they had the story of Adam West and Burt Ward trying to recover the batmobile was beyond me. I don't want to knock Burt or Adam for the way they look now.....It's been 35 years since they appeared at Batman and Robin, but to see them dressed in dress suits and fighting 'badguys' was kinda sad. I would rather of just seen the ex-stars do commentary. The batmobile side story was stupid.<br /><br />As for the flashback movie, I think it was too short and left out way too much. It was really just a quick overview in my opinion. I'd like more background. They showed the Penguin and Joker for about a minute each just to tell the same stuff I already knew. The Joker had a mustache under his makeup and the penguin had to smoke even though he hated it and was an ex-smoker. That was it on those 2.<br /><br />I'd love to read the book. I am sure it has more in it that this showed. Like why was there 2 Riddlers or why 3 Catwoman's or 3 Mister Freezes. Where was Commishioner Gordon, Cheif OHara, Alfred, Mister Freeze, King Tut, etc. the List goes on. Like I said even the ones that were in this one were barely in it.<br /><br />Very disappointing. And really corny.
| 1
|
So many literary adaptations are disappointments. There are many reasons for that, but usually it is the need to cut down a complex novel to the size of a screenplay. The Dead is unusual - it had to be 'padded', as the short story itself is a tiny, relatively short gem. It may in fact be the finest short story in the English language. In beautifully spare language it tells of the realization of Gabriel Conroy that his life, and the lives of so many around him are controlled by memories of the dead. Even his own wife of many years loved a man now dead more than him.<br /><br />To bring such a short story to the cinema was always going to be tricky. John Huston did a magnificent job. He never gave in to temptation to play it up or use fancy technique to expand on the story. It is simple and true, with outstanding acting. The only slight miss-step is the use of music to accompany the devastating final soliloquy.<br /><br />Its rare indeed for a movie version of a literary masterpiece to be itself a masterpiece, but I think its fair to use this term for this movie. Its not a bravura piece of film making, but it is simple and pure - I always think of Ozu's movies when i think of The Dead, its at that level of purity and simplicity and deep wisdom.
| 0
|
A doctor and a policeman in New Orleans have only 48 hours to locate a killer infected with pneumonic plague.<br /><br />An effective, and classy, little thriller directed by Elia Kazan that blends documentary realism with a race against time pulpy heartbeat. Set and filmed in and around New Orleans, Panic In The Streets is taken from the story Quarantine, Some Like 'em Cold by Edna and Edward Anhalt who won an Oscar for original story. It also boasts a fine ensemble cast that deliver top rate performances for their director. In turn, Richard Widmark {bringing the method a year before Marlon did for Kazan in A Streetcar Named Desire}, Paul Douglas, Jack Palance (as Walter Jack Palance) & the wonderfully named Zero Mostel, all get sweatily moody as the pursuers chase the pursued to halt the onset of a potential Black Death epidemic.<br /><br />Where the film scores its main suspense points is with Kazan's astute ability to cut back and forth between the protagonists without altering the flow and mood of the piece. From Widmark's Public Health doctor, with hypodermic needle in hand, running around trying to locate the bad guys so he can do good; to the bad guys themselves who are bemused as to why there is such a wide scale hunt for them; the tension is stacked up to fever breaking point. To which thankfully the final thirty minutes becomes a cracking piece of cinema. With Palance excelling as a nasty villain that ironically puts one in mind of Widmark's own Tommy Udo from Kiss Of Death three years prior.<br /><br />It's an imaginative and intelligently written story, one that cunningly links rats and criminals to being carriers of disease. A blight on society as it were. It's noirish elements, such as paranoia, blend nicely with its basic procedural thriller being. While some memorable scenes are suitably cloaked by the stifling atmosphere that Kazan has created. Although some of the early character psychologizing threatens to steer the film down some over talky based alleyway, this definitely is a film worth staying with to the end. Not essential film-noir, and maybe not even essential Kazan, but certainly a highly recommended film that begs to be discovered by a new generation of film lovers and reappraised by the old guard who may have missed it back in the day. 7.5/10
| 0
|
The final installment in the action thriller franchise is just that probably the hardest hitting of the three films. It goes further to play the anti-Bond theme. Bourne doesn't like what he is doing and wants to know about his blurry past. Everything about this film hits it on the nail from the cinematography to choreography/stunt work to the script to acting.<br /><br />The film starts out in a flurry as Bourne is running from the Moscow police. The story seems to pick up right where the first film left off. Or does it? The time is a little muddled here, but we get the fact that Bourne is remembering things. A sudden flashback while trying to clean himself up nearly gets him caught, but he makes it and doesn't kill anyone. They aren't his target. From there we get more of the intrigue of his past with a new player, Noah Vosen, who seems to know everything about Bourne and will protect it at all costs. Pamela Landy is back as well as Nicky Parsons who seems to have a past with Bourne as well.<br /><br />The cinematography is in your face following tight on practically everything. The car chase is even more intense if that seems possible than the ones from the first two. And the veteran cast chasing Bourne is superb with a nice part by Albert Finney. It also has slight political overtones in relationship to rendition and other government policies, but that is minor and integrated very well within the plot. All in all this is the best of the trilogy conclusions this year, if not the best action trilogy ever.
| 0
|
This film (like Astaire's ROYAL WEDDING - which was shown after it on Turner Classic Network last night) is famous for a single musical sequence that has gained a place in Gene Kelly's record: Like Fred Astaire dancing with a clothing rack and later dancing around a room's walls and ceiling, this film had Gene Kelly dancing in a cartoon sequence with Jerry Mouse. The sequence is nicely done. What is forgotten is that Kelly is telling the story behind the cartoon sequence to Dean Stockwell and his fellow child students at school during a break in the day, and sets the stage for the sequence by having Stockwell and the others shut their eyes and imagine a pastoral type of background. Kelly even changes the navy blues he actually wears into a white 'Pomeranian' navy uniform with blue stripes on it. Jerry Mouse does more than dance with Gene. He actually talks - a first that he did not repeat for many decades. He also finally puts Tom Cat into his proper place - Tom briefly appears as King Jerry's butler, trying to cheer him with a platter of cheeses.<br /><br />But the sequence of the cartoon with Kelly took about seven minutes of the movie. Far more of this peculiar film is taken up with Kelly's story of the lost four day furlough in Hollywood, and how Kelly ends up meeting Katherine Grayson and (with Frank Sinatra) stalking Jose Iturbi at the MGM film studio, the Hollywood Bowl, and Iturbi's own home. Except that the two sailors mean no harm this film could have been quite disturbing.<br /><br />Kelly has saved Sinatra's life in the Pacific, and is getting a medal as a result. They are both among the crewmen back in California who are getting a four day leave. But the script writers (to propel what would be a short film - Kelly has plans to spend four days having sex with one 'Lola', an unseen good time girl in Hollywood) saddle Gene with Frank. <br /><br />It seems Frank is one of those idiots that appear in film after film of the movie factories (particularly musical comedies) who are socially underdeveloped and in need of 'instruction' about meeting girls (or guys if the characters are women). Frank insists that Gene help 'teach him' how to get a girl. Just then a policeman takes them to headquarters to help the cops with a little boy (Stockwell) who insists on joining the navy (and won't give the cops his real name and address). When a protesting Kelly is able to get this information out of Stockwell by asking him some straight questions (which the cops could not ask), they insist Kelly take the boy home to his aunt (Grayson). Still protesting, Kelly gets saddled with increasingly complicated problems (mostly due to Sinatra's simplistic soul view of things). He misses seeing Lola the next day by sleeping late - Sinatra felt he looked so peaceful sleeping he did not wake him up. He keeps getting dragged back to Grayson's house, as Sinatra feels she is the right woman for himself, but needs Kelly to train him in love making.<br /><br />I suppose my presentation of the plot may annoy fans of ANCHORS AWEIGH, but I find this kind of story irritating. While the singing and dancing and concert music of Kelly, Sinatra, Grayson, and Iturbi are first rate, it is annoying to have to take the idiocies of someone like Sinatra's character seriously. In the real world Kelly would have beaten the hell out of him at the start for following him at the beginning of the four day furlough - what right has he to insist (as Sinatra does) that someone who saves their life should assist him on learning how to date? That kind of crap always ruins the total affects of a musical for me - unless the musical numbers are so superior as to make me forget this type of nonsense.<br /><br />The stalking of Iturbi is likewise annoying. Kelly tries to get Grayson to like Sinatra when he says Sinatra can get her a meeting with Jose Iturbi to audition her singing ability. For much of the rest of the picture Sinatra and Kelly try to do that, and keep floundering (at one point - for no really good reason - Grayson herself ruins Kelly's attempt to get an interview at MGM with Iturbi). It is only sheer luck (that Iturbi feels sorry for an embarrassed Grayson) that she does give him an audition of her talent. <br /><br />Kelly, by the way, ends up with Grayson. Sinatra's conscience at not being able to help her see Iturbi makes him ashamed of his bothering her (but not pulling Kelly into it, oddly enough) and he meanwhile accidentally stumbles into meeting a waitress (Pamela Britton) from his native Brooklyn. And naturally, without any assistance from Kelly, Sinatra and Britton fall in love. Ah,'consistency'! Thy name is not 'screenwriting' necessarily!
| 0
|
With the death of her infirmed husband, May, an older woman faces a future in an urban world that views her as invisible, dead from the neck down, and unwelcome in the pseudo- sophisticated yuppie homes of her son, Bobby and his shallow wife, Helen, and Paula, a self- absorbed, clinging, and minimally talented daughter. The central family is anything but warm, supportive, and understanding of her new and tragic stage in life with the death of her husband. The Mother is a quiet character study that points up how in some societies, the elder parent is both unwelcome and a burden to grown children whose careers and status seeking overshadow all else. <br /><br />As May comes to realize the world is still important to her, the lonely widow finds her libido reawakened and alive with her daughter's boyfriend, a carpenter and rough sort. May embarks on an uninhibited sexual affair with Darren whose character is sympathetic to her at first, but his flawed nature is quickly revealed through the pressures of the women who surround him.<br /><br />This is the kind of role Hollywood actresses of a certain age whine is never written for them, but would never appear in because the film's frankness, overt sexuality, unglamorous wardrobe, little makeup, and social commentary on the vapidness of the very society most film industry women are enchrenched. The performance by the lead actress, Anne Reid ranges from quiet to giddy and her interpretation blossoms on screen from the drab widow to a sexually alive and freed middle age woman without face-lift, hair extensions, and liposuction. She bares more than her soul for the screen.<br /><br />Daniel Craig is the enabling handyman, Derrek who beds both mother and daughter. He turns in another stellar performance that is at first sympathetic to the widow's situation, but in the end is without redemption as his true nature unfold and he is literally the rooster in a hen-house. His aimless character's inability to say no to the ex-wife, boring girlfriend, and her mother is blamed as the root of his ineffectual existence. While good with his hands at building a conservatory, he is unable to construct meaning in his life.<br /><br />One of the best films from Britain in years, it is simply adult in its storyline. The Mother is the rare kind of film that is perhaps too honest for American audiences to tolerate having no car chase, no bling, no rap soundtrack to drown out the cretin performances by TV starlets and buff studmuffins. The Mother reflects how the aging baby boomers are now disposable people that offspring are willing to overlook, send to the retirement home, and get out of the way. May doesn't know what to do as she is made alive by Darren, isn't willing to go to the old folks home, and finds her kids are more conservative than she ever was at their age.
| 0
|
When Jan Svankmajer lets his imagination run wild, get ready. You're in for dark, harrowing films like 'Alice' and 'Little Otik,' or short gems such as 'Down to the Cellar' and 'Jabberwocky.' All of those are excellent films that represent disturbing, surrealistic film-making at its best.<br /><br />On the other hand, when Svankmajer attempts to make a political statement of any kind, you're advised to leave the room in a hurry. Svankmajer's films in this vein tend to be both adolescent and preachy, presenting straw-man caricatures in repetitious fashion to express his pseudo-brilliant insights.<br /><br />'Lunacy,' unfortunately, is very much this latter type of movie. Cartoonish ideas and characters are stretched paper-thin for an appalling two hours. There are a few moments that briefly hold interest, but these few oases are separated by vast deserts of boredom.<br /><br />If you found Svankmajer's dreadful, monotonous short film 'Et Cetera' brilliant and hilarious, you'll probably love 'Lunacy.' If you've never seen a Svankmajer film before, please start elsewhere.
| 1
|
Well where do we start, there was a lot of potential for this film with such big stars playing a role. But the whole story was ruined by a horrific plot. This movie did not pan out to be what i would expect, the good guy makes it out alive, i mean co mon nobody wants the good guy to be successful. The ending was cringe worthy and very cliché no thought what so ever, YOU GOT THE PLOT ALL WRONG THE BAD GUYS ARE MEANT TO COME OUT SUCCESSFUL.<br /><br />If you want to waste 1 hour and 2 minutes of your time spend it doing something else this movie was the epitome of CRAP. I really think the actors did this movie for some quick Vegas cash no doubt about it. SAVE your money watch a better movie.
| 1
|
This film is an absolute disgrace! I thoroughly enjoyed the original Airport, and I can't believe how the same people could produce this twaddle nine years on. First of all, the acting is bad. The original had actors who had done quality (non-disaster) films before, but this one uses actors who have done the disaster movie circuit already (Blakely, Kennedy, Wagner). Also, George Kennedy's character Patroni seems to get promoted very quickly. He is now the lead in the film, but his character isn't strong enough to carry it off: he has lost the charm and humour of Airport (1970), and the character is now just boring. Have I mentioned the plot? Is it at all believable that someone would send a missile after the Concorde?? NO!!! There are also too many loose ends; scenes that have no relevance whatsoever to the plot. The scene where the hot air balloon lands on the runway, the chase of the thief in Charles De Gaulle airport are two such scenes. Both would be interesting - if only they had something to do with the actual story. There also many unanswered questions: Why does Patroni open the window and fire a flare at the other plane? Why does Robert Wagner's character kill himself? (He must have another stupid and costly way of Why is there no enquiry after the missile almost blows up the Concorde? Why are the back projections so bad? (It looks as though a cartoon missile is following the Concorde; although it does work well when the plane lands in Paris) Why does Patroni think that he is in a flight simulator? (when he turns the Concorde over) Why does he get a hero's welcome in the cabin of the plane after having terrified the passengers? And why is the ending so poor, if it can be called an ending at all? Given their one-dimensional-ness, no-one seems to notice this. The blessing given to the young couple on the plane by the girl's coach is shmaltzy, the man who plays the saxophone is annoying, and the woman with the bladder problem is just plain silly. The scenes where Susan Blakely is lying on the roof of her conservatory, and the when she tells Wagner that she still loves him are quite awful. In conclusion, this film should have been the climax of the previous three Airport films: instead it is a diabolical, sub-moronic, complete and utter waste of time, money, energy, celluloid and 'talent'!!!!!!! Remember when Patroni asks the French pilot if he has 'ever landed on his belly?' This film certainly does the belly flop, and lands flat on its pointy nose...
| 1
|
I first remember bumping into this zaniness from the Zucker brothers and Jim Abrahams, back in the early days at Comedy Central. Back in those days (the 90's) their programming consisted of Benny Hill reruns and the original MST3k, complete with bearded host.<br /><br />Capt. Frank Drebin (played by the stone-faced, dead-pan filibuster, Leslie Nielson) is a process created first from the amalgamation of various stereotypical police television show protagonists (think Dragnet meets Starsky & Hutch the Show), boiled in a flask full of well-known police television show plots and scenarios. This is distilled, 3 times to produce the most pure policeman every made. Forget about Simon Pegg in Hot Fuzz (for now. save it for later). Frank Drebin is clueless at most times, a terrible driver, a terrible shot, macho yet sensitive and vulnerable. He is a master of the police investigative methodology (a.k.a - ask Johnny the Leathery Old Shoe-Shine Boy). This does not make him a bad cop. Cops get lucky also. Capt Drebin (notice he's a Captain here) has perfected it. Along with his partner, Nordberg, and the rest of force, perfectly parody the police drama over the course of 6 golden episodes.<br /><br />The show is a treasure trove of hilarious dialog and quotable quote-ables. Most of the sight gags are a bit dated and silly. The magic never came from the sight gags,however. At its core was a nonsensical and straight-faced conversation and activities in the foreground, with crazy things occurring in the background. The movies can best be described as 90 minute compilations of the best gags from this series. Think of Monty Python's And Now For Something Completely Different.....<br /><br />If you liked Airplane 1 & 2, Naked Gun 1,2,3, or Top Secret, then you will definitely enjoy this. <br /><br />I always liked the series better than the movies, even though I saw the movies first. Why? 2 words : No O.J.
| 0
|
This movie was craptacular. I was so emotionally uninvolved in every single character that the movies' biggest antagonist was, in fact, myself. I played it beautifully throughout; promising myself I would walk away, but only drinking another beer hoping it would auto-magically transform into something engrossing along the way. Even in this state, I couldn't help but notice that Cuba's acting was as flimsy as tracing paper. His obsessive dedication to his job was unconvincingly done as well as his one night binge after the failure of his own idiot standards. Burt came on the screen as a General, that's right, a General (who wears too much makeup). I fell into a frighteningly fast binge to rival Cuba's, except mine was real and I stubbed my toe. Recompense! Recompense my stubbed toe!
| 1
|
Well, now that all of the director/ productions company's friends and relations have posted their shill reviews after seeing this at various festivals, I guess it's time to show reviews written by people who actually paid 10 bucks to see it.<br /><br />Like the director's 'Dear Jesse' (the only other one of his films I have seen), 'Loggerheads' suffers from a lack of focus and too many ideas crammed into an indie budget. I swear, this guy might have better luck doing miniseries. I kept waiting for the various plot threads to come together, but they only intercepted at points blatantly forshadowed in a way obvious to all but the most dense viewer. It was like watching a season of Lifetime made-for-TV movies crammed into one, long (did I say LOOONG) sketch on the old 'Carol Burnett' show. Maybe an enterprising male suitor could take his girlfriend to see this and then exclaim 'Hey...remember all of the chick flicks we went to last year...the one about the adoptive mother...the one about the gay guy...the one about the Christian housewife. We went to THREE Chick Flicks last year; so now we have to go see Terminator 4!' I guess one has to do anything to cast a familiar actor to get funding, but what oh what is Bonnie Hunt doing in this flick? She isn't exactly known as a dramatic actress, and this attempted 'performance' won't be sending Mr. Oscar to her door. I mean (speaking of Lifetime Original Movies), wasn't Valerie Bertinelli or Farah Fawcett available? Ms. Hunt has always come off to me as cold, maybe she should have played the other mom? I wish I would have chosen 'Capote' to fill my weekly Gay-themed Indie Allowance..oh well, maybe next week. I think there is a good reason why Capote is playing at tons of theatres all over the NYC area and this one is playing at only one; let the distributors faith in this flick assure to to run in the opposite direction if you don't trust this review!
| 1
|
There have been numerous productions that tell of the development of the atomic bomb. The Robert Taylor film ABOVE AND BEYOND (flag waving interservice propaganda really; if you believe this one you think that the Army Air Corps, in the person of Paul W. Tibbits, ran the entire show!), the NBC produced ENOLA GAY (probably A LOT closer to the mark), and the BBC-TV series, OPPENHEIMER, with Sam Waterston in the title role.<br /><br />FAT MAN AND LITTLE BOY takes the same approach that the BBC series did but widens it; it avoids the 'Gee Whiz' technology of the Manhattan Project and focuses on human aspects; the personalities involved in the work. Instead of focusing on Oppie, it covers a wide swath of mythical but pretty typical people who were part of it.<br /><br />With reservations, Dwight Schultz did a good job as Oppie, presenting a dreamy, Ivory Tower academic who struggles to relate his contributions as a physicist to his inclinations to view the world in a wider social and moral context... only to have that struggle won by an overriding lust for personal power and glory. In THE DAY AFTER TRINITY it was made clear that Oppenheimer viewed himself as a 'superior being' by virtue of his vast, wide ranging intellectual prowess. In the end that was Robert Oppenheimer's downfall; he saw himself as a sort of 'Philosopher/King', a moral and intellectual superior who could (and rightfully SHOULD) 'wisely' prescribe what was best for the rest of the world re. nuclear weapons development and deployment. <br /><br />Unfortunately, wisdom doesn't dictate the actions of nations or direction of events on a global scale. Wisdom doesn't bestow temporal power. When it tries to exercise such nonexistent power (as Oppie found when he opposed the development of 'The Super', the hydrogen bomb), wisdom is ignored and banished by those who REALLY have the power.<br /><br />I found myself faulting Schultz character in one way; his Oppie exposes himself TOO closely and personally to the Manhattan Project, despite the doubts and fears that tore at his intellectual basis. The real Oppenheimer would have had to take a different approach; at the beginning he would have had to come to the firm resolution that the project would result in ultimate good. The ugliness it produced along the way would be an incidental price that must be paid to attain that ultimate good, and it must be ignored... at least until the end of the project when there was leisure to assess the gains and losses. Oppie clearly did that, and it resulted in his controversial postwar statements to the effect that science had now known sin, and that was a knowledge it could never lose. <br /><br />While the project went on, such considerations HAD to be pushed aside if he was to maintain his sanity.<br /><br />Because of this ambiguity, Schultz character comes off as a weak, frightened little boy who could NEVER have served as 'Coordinator of Rapid Rupture', as Oppenheimer unofficially dubbed his post.<br /><br />Paul Newman's take on Gen. Leslie R. Groves is fascinating, and a bravura performance, if possibly a LITTLE BIT over the top.<br /><br />Groves was a civil engineer by training, but first and foremost he was a SOLDIER, and a general to boot! He's accustomed to DEMANDING that things go HIS way... intensely driven, a foul mouthed, spoiled child who has tantrums at the drop of a hat, who reveres his country and isn't too proud to fall on his knees and pray. In other words, very much like REAL (ie, NON civil engineer) soldiers, aka George Patton! Grove's MISSION not only comes first, it is his ONLY consideration... feelings and egos be damned, except for his OWN, of course! <br /><br />Groves couldn't admit it, but he knew full well that he NEEDED Oppenheimer; military rank meant NOTHING in the world of theoretical physicists. Oppie was a necessary interface between the two worlds he had to straddle.<br /><br />Again... I have to fault the script on this, and for the same reason.<br /><br />In reality, Groves already OWNED Oppie; if he didn't, Oppie would never have been chosen for the post in the first place. History tells of MANY cases where other scientists, some as stellar as Oppenheimer, simply walked away from Groves recruitment efforts. At one point Groves was so desperate that he proposed DRAFTING the physicists he needed!<br /><br />Groves attempts in the film to maneuver and control Oppie were UNNECESSARY... they only exist here as a dramatic device which indeed helps make the atmosphere of the film quite ugly.<br /><br />Kusak's 'Michael Merriman' is a composite of several real characters, but they're from a different time frame. Several research accidents similar to the one depicted happened in POSTWAR weapons research. <br /><br />Merriman's radiation overdose creates another ugliness in the film, but one which is, IMHO, necessary, and pretty accurate. People with weak stomachs will have a hard time handling the hospital sequences; they're all TOO real.<br /><br />The main idea that comes across, but not strongly enough IMHO, is the big truth of the Los Alamos experience. The scientists who signed on were young, idealistic and naive as well as talented. Most were on their first excursion out of the shelter of the campus. To them the project was a patriotic adventure that allowed them to practice experimental physics on a large scale without the constraints of budgets or 'excessive' bureaucratic oversight. <br /><br />It was not only their brilliance, but their youthful exuberance that produced the atomic bomb. <br /><br />There's plenty here to make the thoughtful viewer intensely uncomfortable about this movie. Just the same, if you filter out the Hollywood BS (there isn't that much of it really), this is probably a pretty accurate view of the inside of Manhattan Project.
| 0
|
It's interesting to see what the director tried to do with this film. But the problem is that it's not very good. There was nothing really original in the film and while the plot was well presented, the main characters were all a bit to shallow and you didn't bother for any of them.<br /><br />Rather bland (and sometimes downright bad) photo leaves a bit to be desired but I guess you can't expect to much from people who are just doing a low budget film for the heck of it. It's unfair to review the film and compare it to other high-budget films. But alas, that is what one must do. On its own, it's not very good. And compared to others, it's still not very good. But it is not without its good points! I liked the plot. It was built up rather nicely and tied together well at the end. Sometimes in the really dark scenes, it managed to build up a creepy feeling as well.<br /><br />However in the end the film fails to impress. The characters are pretty much non-existent and we don't care for any of them. Any of them might die, but it's possible to pinpoint the final 'survivor' from very early on.
| 1
|
This movie is based on a Stephen King novel in which mysterious new shopkeeper Leland Gaunt (Max Von Sydow) offers each citizen of Castle Rock the item he or she most desires - but there is a heavy price to be paid for these transactions. Local sheriff Alan Pangborn (Ed Harris) is soon forced to deal with a variety of brutal deaths and suspicious circumstances.<br /><br />Below average for Stephen King cinema: I can see why some people would think it was boring. It plods along without offering genuine scares and forces the viewer to spend time (yet again) with a bunch of repulsive losers whose hatred of each other is spooky.<br /><br />I do enjoy the novel and don't believe that this lackluster movie does it justice. There are too many unfortunate changes from book to screen.<br /><br />Von Sydow makes Gaunt much too charming. We're supposed to be SCARED of Gaunt at the right times, not amused by him. I also hate it that the sheriff's primary deputy (Ray McKinnon) is written and portrayed as such an annoying, Barney Fife-type moron. Star Ed Harris looks as if he was forced into doing this picture by his agent, but professional that he is, he really sinks his teeth into his dialog. Bonnie Bedelia (as Pangborn's love interest Polly) and Amanda Plummer (in one of her standard mentally unbalanced roles) come the closest to creating characters who are likable.<br /><br />Yet it is also foul and mean-spirited.<br /><br />Although I'll be darned if it didn't feel a little cathartic watching a bunch of unlikable movie characters tear each other to pieces. The climax has some good explosions.<br /><br />I often give movies a better rating than they probably deserve, but in this case I feel I should really be honest and just say: 3/10.
| 1
|
Well, since it's called Porno Holocaust and directed by Joe D'Amato, I went into this film expecting sleaze...and while I somewhat got it, Porno Holocaust was a massive disappointment as it's just so damned BORING. The title suggests that the film will feature porn, and that's not wrong - Porno Holocaust is pretty much just porn, and most of it is just the same stuff over and over again, I was fast forwarding before the end. The first sex scene is between two women and it got my hopes up, but after that it just degenerates into normal porn, and the rest of the film (for the first hour!) is made up of talking, and you can imagine how much fun that is to sit through! The plot focuses on a deserted island where, believe it or not, something strange is going on. Naturally, it's not long before a group of people - made up of a few men and some scientists, who all happen to be sexy women, land on the island. They have sex a few times and some strange things happen, then over an hour later they're attacked by a mutant zombie creature with an eye for the ladies...<br /><br />This must have seemed like a good idea for an original porno - a zombie who likes to get it on, but unsurprisingly it doesn't work well at all. The film clocks in at just ten minutes short of the two hour mark, and that is far too long for a film like this. I have no idea why Porno Holocaust is as long as it is; if they'd just snipped one minute out of every sex scene, the film would have been under ninety minutes, and that would have made it much more tolerable! The zombie takes what seems like an eternity to appear (it's quite a long time before there's a sex break long enough for them to actually travel to the island in the first place), and when it does finally appear, it's a huge disappointment! I realise that this is low budget B-movie trash, but D'Amato surely could have tried a bit harder and come up with something better than this! I'm not even going to bother mentioning the acting, atmosphere etc, there's no point. Porno Holocaust is basically just your average dull porn flick with a slight sprinkling of horror, and I can't recommend it!
| 1
|
Imagine an exploitive remake of The Defiant Ones with a black chick and a white chick attached to each other. Set the story on some Caribbean island where the drug dealers rule and the revolution has arrived. And have the black woman be from Huggy Bear's stable of ladies and the white woman be a watered down Patty Hearst and you've got Black Mama, White Mama.<br /><br />In those waning days of the drive-in theater this item must have been a big old hit. All the hot buttons of the Seventies are pushed in this one. Even though they both fill out their clothes better and will get a few whistles from the males in the audience no one is ever going to mistake Pam Grier and Margaret Markov for Sidney Poitier and Tony Curtis. All right, Halle Berry and Jamie Lee Curtis.<br /><br />Margaret and Pam are prisoners where the guards and the warden look lasciviously at the new fish arriving. Margaret is a rich girl from the state who took up 'the revolution', whilst Pam's your basic high priced call girl who's been servicing the local drug kingpin and grew tired of it and tried to leave the island.<br /><br />Margaret's fellow revolutionaries ambush the bus transporting them from the women's prison to town, but they get lost in the escape. Both have their different agendas, but like Sid and Tony they can't quite agree on whose agenda comes first. Makes for some interesting times as the police, the drug dealers, and the revolutionaries are all looking for these two illfated chain buddies.<br /><br />Just so you don't get any wrong ideas the head of the revolutionaries and Markov's kanoodling partner is named Ernesto played by Filipino actor Zaldy Zshornack. The whole mess was shot in the Phillipines who were getting their own film industry started.<br /><br />Nice location photography in the Phillipines is all that Black Mama, White Mam has to recommend it. But if you're a fan of really bad black exploitation flicks, this is one for you.
| 1
|
'Driving Lessons' sees two middle class quintessential British families meet head on, when Grint's character comes into contact with Evee, (Walters), a slightly deranged out-of-touch actress with an ego. Grint betrays his overpowering, and over-Christian mother, (Linney), and goes off travelling with Evee to Scotland, to accompany her on a trip to participate in a Poetry reading, something she claims could be her last, due to an illness.<br /><br />Grint's portrayal of a caged youngster, brainwashed by an overbearing, and even hypocritical mother, is the masterpiece of this film. His portrayal of a downtrodden teen in search of his true morals, and happiness, is captivating to watch unfold throughout. The film is sharply shot, and well paced, with very few moments leaving you tired, an achievement, particularly considering the nature of the plot. Walters really grabs hold of her character with both hands, and successfully brings the audience to her side of things, emphasising Linney's ironic immorality throughout. Her role in 'Driving Lessons' is enjoyable and memorable in every sense.<br /><br />The plot develops nicely, leaving the audience cheering on Grint as he chases back to Evee's place during his lunch break during his stint at a local bookshop to apologise for his wrongdoings. The values in the piece are continued and brought out thoroughly up until the final drag, in a very consistent way. The overbearing, (and relieving), main idea being that religion doesn't lead to happiness, and certainly doesn't lead to morality.<br /><br />The audience are left sympathising with the radical but lovable Evee, with her and Grint making an irresistible partnership on the big screen, transferred directly from their debut in the 'Harry Potter' series. Charismatic and beautiful acting together with a tight and fact paced script make this a must-see this Christmas.
| 0
|
This has got to be one of the worst movies I have ever seen. It is (I think) a story of a rebellious college basketball player, his tough-but-fair coach, his girlfriend, and a fellow student (played by Michael Margotta) who has continual nervous breakdowns. The story goes nowhere, there is zero character development, there is nobody to care about, and the performances, with the exception of Bruce Dern as the coach, are terrible. It is hard to believe how a talent like Jack Nicholson could direct such an awful movie. Make sure to avoid this turkey.
| 1
|
How to lose friends and alienate people is decent comedy with a bit of romantic approach.<br /><br />It's actually a story of Sidney Young(Simon Pegg) breaking through in journalist and magazine writing business which is interpreted in a funny way. Simon Pegg made an OK appearance, slightly worse than his usual. Movie is not hilarious or funny all the way or anything like that but it has its moments, and those moments are really hilarious.<br /><br />I recommend this fun and worth watching American with English cream comedy to all people who just wanna sit, relax and enjoy movie for what it is. If you're about to watch this movie with critical approach then you should pass unless you want to be disappointed and start trashing it.
| 0
|
- A newlywed couple move into the home of the husband's dead former wife. It's not long before the new wife begins to have the feeling that someone doesn't want her in the house. She sees skulls all around the house. But when the husband investigates, he can't find anything. Is someone trying to drive her back to the asylum that she was recently discharged from? Or, is the ghost of the dead wife trying to get the new wife out of her house? <br /><br />- This is the first time that I've watched The Screaming Skull without the assistance of the MST3K crew. And, it will in all likelihood be the last time I watch it this way. Can you say dull? I'm not talking ordinary dull - I'm talking watching grass grow dull. There are great stretches of the movie where nothing happens. The screen could have gone blank and I would have gotten as much entertainment out of it. The characters drone on and on with the most monotonous conversations imaginable. The Screaming Skull could probably be marketed as a sleep aide.<br /><br />- The actors don't help matters much. Most of them deliver lines with the conviction normally reserved for a grade school play. I haven't looked it up, but I would be shocked to find that anyone associated with this movie ever appeared in anything of cinematic value. I won't even go into the script the actors are given to work with. Let's just say that the characters are given some of the most idiotic lines ever uttered on film.<br /><br />- You've been warned! Either avoid this one at all costs or, at least, seek out the MST3K version.
| 1
|
I don't know how people can watch this - the only people who enjoy watching this are those who have no feelings and emotions and enjoy watching people die, houses burn down, car crashes, babies die, and cast members being killed off every week. Its the most absurd thing on television and i still don't know how it pulls in the ratings. Its so depressing. I can imagine the writers sitting down and saying - 'so who shall we kill of next week then' or 'whose house shall we torch in a months time?'<br /><br />Its the most depressing, absurd and most stupid thing on TV at the moment, and i cant understand peoples motives for watching this depressing pile of crap anymore
| 1
|
I thought this was movie was great, Richard Greico and Yasmine Bleeth have great chemistry in this movie. Yasmine Bleeth's character plays a women who has fallen head over heals in love with Richard Greico's character. They end up getting married and everything seems perfect except Yasmine Bleeth wants a baby more than anything, however she has a hard time trying to conceive. Richard Greico will do anything to make her happy, and will go to extreme measures to make her happy. I thought the acting was great in this movie, and it keeps you guessing. It shows how naive one can be when they have fallen in love. Yasmine Bleeth is a good actress in this, and I wonder why she never made it further in her career. Richard Greico is very impressive as the deceiving husband, and plays the evil part very well. I wonder why certain actors make it and certain ones don't. All and all a great movie that I would recommend.
| 0
|
The sight of Kareena Kapoor in a two-piece bikini is about the only thing that wakes you up from your sleep while watching Tashan the mega-disappointing, mind-numbing new film at the cinemas this weekend. Bad films are bad films and we see some every week, but Tashan is not just a bad film, it's a terrible film. Terrible because it takes its audience for granted, terrible also because the filmmakers expect to get away without a plot or any common sense only because they've got big movie stars onboard.Written and directed by Vijay Krishna Acharya, Tashan is what you'd describe as a road movie, but one that's going in all the wrong directions. Saif Ali Khan stars as Jimmy Cliff, a call-centre executive who's hired to teach English to Bhaiyyaji - that's Anil Kapoor playing an ambitious UP gangster, desperate to go cool. Jimmy's got his eye on Pooja, the gangster's pretty young assistant (played by Kareena Kapoor), who uses Jimmy to swindle her boss of 25 crore rupees. Determined to recover his money and also to punish both Jimmy and Pooja, Bhaiyyaji recruits his most trusted henchman to do the job. So you have Akshay Kumar as Bachchan Pandey, the gangster's faithful aide from Kanpur, who tracks down the culprits and recovers the stolen money that's hidden across the length and breadth of the country.Much like those bad eighties potboilers, Tashan too is held together by a threadbare script centred on a vendetta plot. But the treatment's so over-the-top, so indulgent that it fails to establish any connect. Instead of a coherent screenplay or a traditional three-act structure, you get a handful of set pieces around which most of the scenes are loosely constructed. That garish item song in the desert, the bullet-dodging action scene at a Rajasthani fort, Kareeena's bikini moment, even that ridiculous climatic action scene complete with shaolin monks, a water scooter zipping through a dirty naala, and believe it or not, even a Dhanno-style horse-driven tonga. In all fairness, not all these set pieces are badly done - the item song in the desert is quite neat actually - but very little of it makes any sense in the larger picture, because you're just going from one piece to another without any help from the script really. Little do you expect in a seemingly fast-paced road movie, to find a sickeningly sentimental flashback track about childhood sweethearts.You see the problem with Tashan is nobody associated with this film knew what film they were making. What's more, I don't think they cared either - the film reeks of arrogance. Arbitrarily packing in elements of every genre without actually bothering to stop and see if the mix does work, Tashan is like an overcooked stew.There are films that kill you softly, and then there's Tashan, a film that kills you with excess. Packaged snazzily with glossy-finish camera-work, exotic locations and fancy costumes, every frame of the film probably cost lakhs to put together, but it still feels like a hollow piece in the end because the story doesn't hold. Borrowing narrative from Tarantino and style from Stephen Chow doesn't help either because they don't blend with the film's wafer-thin plot. One may have complained a little less if the characters were more engaging, but Anil Kapoor's grating Hinglish dialogue makes you want to slit your wrists, and Saif Ali Khan fumbles through the film foolishly, unable to find his feet. Kareena Kapoor, meanwhile, queen of over-the-top delivery, does a decent job. But of course, if Tashan is salvaged to some extent, it's thanks to Akshay Kumar's irresistible presence and his spontaneous approach to the character. You cringe when he's cupping his crotch repeatedly, and you scowl when he delivers those double-meaning dialogues, but not for a moment can you take your eyes off the screen when he's up there.Despite some good music from Vishal-Shekhar, the songs seem like they're only prolonging your misery. Well that's because Tashan is a test of your patience. In case you didn't know, Tashan means style. I'm sorry to say, this film has none.
| 1
|
Excellent film. Suzy Kendall will hold your interest throughout. Has not been shown on American TV for a decade. One scene that has always stayed with me is the German cavalry gas attack. You will find others. Hope they soon put it on tape.
| 0
|
Chris Kattan is a great sketch actor on Saturday Night Live...but he should probably leave the movie industry alone unless he gets some sort of creative control. He plays an annoyingly peppy character who basically comes off as mildly retarded and on speed. Wanna know the only funny parts? The stuff they showed in the previews. Yes, his rendition of take on me is funny. Nothing else is. ESPECIALLY when you can tell he's trying very hard to be a physical comedian, which he shouldn't have to try at because he is one. And yet, his 'demolishing the vet's office' bit comes off as cringingly bad. This movie made me develop an eye twitch. Avoid it at all costs, and keep watching SNL.
| 1
|
If it had been made 2 years later it would have been BANNED! The number one MUST SEE recommendation of the day!. The best Rouben Mamoulian film I have seen this far (have but have not yet seen J+H).<br /><br />There's no wonder why this film got less than 200 votes. A bigger greyzone that could not care less about what's proper would not be seen again until the 60's. As morally ambiguous and dark as 70's grit but with a certain charm as well. Of course this had to lay low in the later 30's and sadly it does not appear to have been re-discovered.<br /><br />Seriously. This got it all. Great actors: Gary Cooper, Sylvia Sidney and the this time not so lovable Guy Kibbee. And a mighty good director. This far I haven't been RM's biggest fans but I have liked his films a lot and with this he steps into a new league. One of the best 30's films I have ever seen! This is something I never thought even existed! 9.5/10
| 0
|
In Hong Kong, 1962, the editor Chow Mo-wan (Tony Leung Chiu Wai) and his wife, and the secretary Su Li-Zhen Chan (Maggie Cheung) and her husband simultaneously move to an old building. Each couple has just rented a room in apartments on the same floor. Their wife and husband stay most of the time away from home, and Chow and Li-Zhen have the same habits: they like kung-fu stories and noodles and soap from a restaurant nearby the building. Their close contact becomes friendship and a sort of platonic and repressed love. Later they realize that their mates are having an affair, Chow falls in love with Li-Zhen, but her shyness and probably repressed condition of married woman keeps her love in a platonic level. 'In the Mood for Love' is a very slow, beautiful, melancholic and romantic love story, with a wonderful photography and soundtrack and a very unusual edition. The film had not had a screenplay, and the actors were never sure about what they would be shooting. Later, the director edited his story based on the footages. When Chow moves to Singapore, there is a gap of many years in the story until 1966, when its conclusion is intentionally open and not well defined, leaving questions such as who is the boy with Li-Zhen. My vote is eight.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): 'Amor À Flor da Pele' ('Love on the Surface of the Skin')
| 0
|
I've always believed that David and Bathsheba was a film originally intended for Tyrone Power at 20th Century Fox, although Gregory Peck does give a good account of himself as King David, the monarch with a wandering eye.<br /><br />A whole lot of biblical subjects get covered in this film, adultery, redemption, sin, punishment and generally what God expects from his followers.<br /><br />When you're a king, even king in a biblically prophesied kingdom you certainly do have a lot perogatives not open to the rest of us. King David has many wives, including one really vicious one in Jayne Meadows who was the daughter of Saul, David's predecessor. But his eyes catch sight of Bathsheba out in her garden one evening. Turns out she's as unhappily married to Uriah the Hittite as David is to quite a few women. Uriah is one of David's army captains. David sends for Bathsheba and him being the King, she comes a runnin' because she's had her eye on him too.<br /><br />What happens, an affair, a pregnancy, and a carefully arranged death for Uriah in a battle. But an all seeing and knowing Deity has caught all of this and is not only punishing David and Bathsheba, but the entire Kingdom of Israel is being punished with drought, disease, and pestilence.<br /><br />The sexist law of the day calls for Bathsheba to have a stoning death. David shows weakness in his previous actions, but here he steps up to the plate and asks that the whole thing be put on him. He even lays hands on the Ark of the Covenant which was an instant death as seen in the film.<br /><br />My interpretation of it is that God admires guts even if you're wrong and he lets up on David and forgives them both. Bathsheba becomes the mother of Solomon and she and David are the ancestors of several successors in the divided kingdoms of Israel and Judah until they're both conquered.<br /><br />Susan Hayward is a fetching Bathsheba caught in a loveless marriage with Uriah played by Kieron Moore. The only thing that gets Moore aroused is a good battle. I liked Kieron Moore's performance as a brave and rather stupid horse's rear. <br /><br />No one can lay the law down like Raymond Massey. His Nathan the Prophet is in keeping with the John Brown character he played in two films, same intensity. <br /><br />So when His own law called for death, why did God spare Bathsheba and keep David on the throne. Maybe it was the fact He just didn't want to train a third guy for the job. He'd replaced Saul with David already. <br /><br />But I think the Christian interpretation might be that this was a hint of the New Testament forthcoming, that one might sin and receive mercy if one asks for it penitently. I'll leave it to the biblical scholars to submit interpretations.<br /><br />Watch the film and you might come up with an entirely new theory.
| 0
|
'Ghost Son' is Lamberto Bava's best film and, at the same time, also his worst. I suppose that statement requires some slight clarification. It's his best because it's well directed, ambitious, accessible and very stylish, but his worst because it's a dull, unoriginal movie and undeniably a huge letdown to all the real fans of Bava's past efforts. Let's face it: many fans, myself certainly included, wouldn't have been interested in this film judging by the plot, the famous names attached to it and even the boring sounding title. The only motivation here was Lamberto Bava, who brought us large amounts of convoluted Gialli and fun splatter films in the past. 'Ghost Son' is a bit of his comeback film, alongside 'The Torturer', and although the latter definitely isn't a good film, it at least lives up to his fans' lines of expectations, with excessive amounts of sleaze, blood and sadism. 'Ghost Son' is a weak and intolerably soft horror film, even talking in terms of mainstream ghost stories. The emphasis lies too much on sentimentality, and this badly affects the already limited number of horrific & creepily atmospheric moments. The basic premise might feature one or two potentially good ideas, but the film is overall dull and far too clichéd. John Hannah and Laura Harring star as a happy couple, living on a remote ranch in South Africa and breeding horses for a living. The joy and happiness couldn't possibly improve, so naturally something tragic is bound to happen, and it does. Mark dies in a car accident, but the inconsolable Stacey remains at the ranch where she's in constant contact with Mark's spirit. She even gets pregnant with his child, but shortly after baby Martin's birth mysterious events begin to occur. It seems as if Mark's restless and selfish ghost 'possessed' the baby and uses him to encourage Stacy into committing suicide. With all the focus on the couple's relationship, many of the events and sub plots are underdeveloped and/or remains unexplained, like the whole background of the youthful maid Thandi. There's too little action and the only real fright-moments are too obviously borrowed from classic films such as 'The Exorcist' and 'Rosemary's Baby' (vomiting green goo, self moving furniture
). Purely talking in terms of horrific entertainment 'Ghost Son' is a painful misfire, but it has to be said, it's a beautiful and enchanting looking failure. The cinematography is extremely elegant and many camera angles are truly inventive and suggestive. The moody score sometimes even manages to create an ominous atmosphere even though there's nothing of any significance happening on screen. There are several beautiful images of the South African wildlife to admire but, if that interests you, I suppose you're better off watching National Geographic instead. Not much to recommend here. Fans of atmosphere-driven ghost stories have much better options to choose from and die-hard Bava fanatics are advised to (re-)watch 'Demons', 'Macabre' or 'Blade in the Dark'.
| 1
|
It is no wonder this movie won 4 prices, it is a movie that lingers to any soul, it isn't a wonder why it took Paul Reiser 20 years to finally give in and talk to Peter Falk about his idea. I can understand every part of it, this is a movie that will make you cry just a tear, or thousands.<br /><br />Story: 10/10 When Sam kleinman gets a letter from his wife about her leaving him to find something else his son and him take out on a road trip to find her, and while they do that they find something lost, Friendship, family, and affection for each other. At the beginning you know whats going to happen, but none soever the story is not that easy to figure out from beginning to end, it is a ride between a father and his son, and a husband and his wife. It is no wonder it took Paul Reiser 20 years to write this beautiful romance/comedy.<br /><br />Actors: 10/10 Well you cant say anything else that what i about to say, hey it is with Peter Falk in it, he is a legend everything he does in movies are magic, when you use Peter Falk in a romance/comedy what do you think you get? A perfect outcome, it is no wonder this movie is that perfect and won that many prices. As the son Paul Reiser does an excellent job, although he isn't a great actor always that doesn't mean that this didn't work actually Peter Falk and Paul Reiser plays the perfect Father and Son, the rest of the cast is good enough but you don't see them as much so just say they do what they shall to get this to shine even more. <br /><br />Music: 10/10 It doesn't always work when using music sometimes it just doesn't fit but that is not the thing in this movie, the music is perfect in tune, it makes the movie even more compelling. This part of the movie will shine off as good as the other parts, a great soundtrack for a Romance/Comedy thats for sure.<br /><br />Overall: 10/10 There are so many Romance/Comedy movies out on tapes, DVDs, Blu-ray and what not, but this movie is one of the special ones. it doesn't happen everyday that you can create a story like this, it takes years thinking about this and the fact is that actually what it took to make it, a great piece that should be bought and kept into the human soul, see it when you get old and see it with your father at a old age, i think then this movie will spark like no other ever made.
| 0
|
This movie is such a fine example of the greatness that is 80's entertainment. Oh don't get me wrong, most of the music back then sucked. I only ever liked the metal bands from the 80s. Bands that had some balls. Forget that whiny keyboard crap and all that 'life is horrible and I want to die' garbage. But the movies from the 80's are the best. They were all about nonsense and just having a good time. This movie exemplifies that! Party! Get naked! Get laid! WOOOOOOHOOOOO!
| 0
|
In case half of this film's footage looks strangely familiar, it means you watch way too much of this gory Italian cult-crap! For you see, the notorious demigod Lucio Fulci did not only produce this movie, he also took the liberty of re-using the most sadistic killing sequences in his own (and more easily traceable) 'Cat in the Brain'. The opening scene already, in which a prostitute is brutally decapitated with an axe, features in Fulci's later film and so do another handful of killings and sleaze moments. Andrea Bianchi's 'Masssacre' fails miserably as a giallo, since the search for the sadistic killer among a movie-crew shooting a horror movie is all but compelling and suspenseful, but it's still good entertainment if you're into cheap 'n shlocky horror trash. The incoherent script introduces a whole bunch of repugnant characters who're all potential maniacs, but none of the red herrings Biachi comes up with are plausible and you can point out the killer almost immediately. Whatever remains to enjoy are the truly misogynous make-up effects and the hilariously awful acting performances of the ensemble cast. Whenever there isn't any bloodshed on screen, like between the first and second murder, 'Massacre' is a slow and almost intolerable with its inane dialogs and thoroughly unexciting photography. Thankfully in the second half, there are women getting impaled on fences and males being stabbed repeatedly with rusty spikes. The music is crap and the use of filming locations is very unimaginative. My advise would be to skip this puppy and go straight for the aforementioned 'Cat in the Brain'. That one features ALL the great moments of 'Massacre', and then some.
| 1
|
I am a Christian... and I feel this movie is awful.<br /><br />Nobody but hard-core, Bible-belt Christians are going to like this movie. The message is just too in your face. If you want to touch a wider audience, you have to be way more subtle. You can't have the dad waving the bible around and carrying it with him in EVERY scene. RIDICULOUS! <br /><br />Poor direction. The reveal of people missing should have been terrifying, but it was laughable. They leave their clothes on the ground? It reminded me of old Ed Wood movies: 'Oh my God! People are missing!' That scene in the plane is just stupid. Think about it: if you found your relative's clothes next to you, you wouldn't just scream 'oh my god. they disappeared! they're missing!' and start crying and yelling. You would first be in denial... you just wouldn't jump to that conclusion. Watch Jodie Foster in FLIGHTPLAN. My favorite shot is the dog sitting out on the lawn with a pile of clothes and boots sitting next to him. I about fell off the couch I was laughing so hard.<br /><br />The music was so bad and so distracting. It was as if the composer was in his own world scoring his own movies. 'here's my chance to do a thriller', 'here's my chance to do action!' STOP TELLING ME HOW TO FEEL JAMES COVELL! A good score supports what's happening on the screen... this movie needed more of an UNDER score, but instead it was as much in your face as the message was.<br /><br />The writing was bland. So was Captain Christian Kirk Cameron. Chelsea was the worse: 'you don't understand! People are missing!'. Brad Johnson was laughable. The two stand out performances came from the Anti-Christ and the older guy (sorry, can't remember their names) In watching the 'making of' (to answer my question of 'what were they thinking???'), the producers and filmmakers and actors are just deluding themselves... saying 'we're gonna reach wide audiences' and 'brad Johnson is amazing' and 'this is just like a Hollywood movie'. I came to the conclusion that they just don't know what the 'heck' they are doing.<br /><br />I commend the effort. Getting the message to a wide audience is a fantastic idea. Film is the best medium possible to do that. Look at movies like WIDE AWAKE, SIGNS, CONTACT, PASSION OF Christ, even O'BROTHER, WHERE ART THOU? The bottom line is that the film needed to be made by people who have talent and vision. Unfortunately, it was not.
| 1
|
Looking back at the career of Alfred Hitchcock, it never fails to be surprising how such a brilliant and visionary man could be denied sufficient recognition for how revolutionary he was for the film industry. It is likely a sign of how ahead of his time Hitchcock was, always attempting to push the envelope, and never coasting along with a film made simply for the purpose of being entertaining, but always with a deeper, more poignant motive on his mind. Strangers on a Train, one of Hitchcock's first and more underrated hits, is a perfect example of these traits - an entertaining and suspenseful story, even when viewed over 50 years later, yes, but so carefully and intelligently constructed it stands today as a masterpiece in film technique. <br /><br />Arguably one of the pioneering 'suspense thrillers', Strangers on a Train may come across as slightly dated in certain aspects, but it retains every bit of superbly crafted tension as it did back in 1951 (if perhaps slightly less shocking). The brilliant use of cinematography and lighting as well as quick, careful editing are what really make the film stand out, drawing out every possible iota of tension and retaining the audience's focus even in slower scenes. If there was ever any doubt of what a simply masterful filmmaker Hitchcock was, simply watching five minutes of Strangers on a Train should be enough to disavow such sentiments; every shot is so carefully chosen and constructed, all serving to drive the storyline ahead in a particularly innovative fashion. Sadly enough, there are certain moments in the story which are screechingly out of place enough to jar our focus away from the superb cinematography and editing - Bruno being able to reach down to the bottom of a sewer grate is simply unbelievable, and the figure of a stereotypical old man crawling under a wildly out of control carousel provides unintentional comedic relief in what is meant to be the film's most tense and engaging scene. These are only brief moments, but they are enough to stand out as painfully weak in an otherwise stellar film.<br /><br />But what really makes Strangers on a Train stand out is the story premise. As Hollywood films of late run the risk of descending inescapably further and further into the vat of turgid clichée after clichée, it's wonderfully refreshing to see a 50 year old film with a premise which actually comes across as smart and original. Sure it's fairly straightforward, but the concept of 'swapping murders' is simply one that would not fly in films of today's day and age, which makes it all the more entertaining to watch; the film's brilliant screenplay keeps the action flowing at a swift pace while providing us with some wonderfully memorable lines all the while. One can't help but notice the deeper themes Hitchcock is alluding to throughout as well, especially the concept of 'darkness in humanity's heart', demonstrated by elderly ladies being fascinated and exhilarated by the prospect of murder, as well as Bruno's own cavalier attitude towards death. Hitch also works in many moments of dark humour (Bruno popping a child's balloon with his cigarette is priceless), and irony, shooting suspenseful scenes in happy, easy-going environments, such as the iconic carnival scenes, to create an even more eerie atmosphere. This may be a suspense thriller, yes, but to overlook the brain concealed beneath it would be simply inexcusable. <br /><br />The antagonistic figure of Bruno (essayed to perverse perfection by Robert Walker, sadly in his last film role, but easily stealing the film from his admittably very talented fellow cast members) is without a doubt what makes Strangers on a Train so memorable, as the character is a marvel to behold. Here we have a simply superbly crafted villainous figure, all the more intriguing by how ordinary and unassuming he seems. Rather than cackling madly and thwarting the hero at every possible moment, Bruno is a calm, controlled, psychotic mess. He speaks of murder in such an offhand tone, yet retains a passionate glint in his eye when discussing different fashions of killing people. Bruno could seem to represent the 'Id', as Freud would put it, the inner, darker and uninhibited aspects of mankind. It makes an interesting contrast to the hero figure, Guy Haines, and how bland and uninteresting he seems, almost as if to drive home the prospect of evil being much more interesting and appealing than constantly striving to do the right thing. <br /><br />Yet despite this implied message, Hitch still twists our emotions enough that we root for Guy at every turn, and cheer at each new obstacle he is forced to overcome. It's a testament to actor Farley Granger's talent that despite Robert Walker's villain easily stealing the show, Granger's hero still comes across as sympathetic, still commanding our support even when falling prey to being a far less compelling character. Superb support is given by Ruth Roman, who manages to overcome the clichée and be a more innovative and complex romantic interest figure, Kasey Rogers giving a stunning performance as Guy's horrifyingly manipulative and hedonistic first wife, and Patricia Hitchcock, proving that she is far more talented than being simply 'the director's daughter' would imply. The superb cast (headed by a simply wonderful Walker) really bring the film to life, adding so much more merit to the film than simply Hitchcock's breathtaking stylistics. <br /><br />All in all, Strangers on a Train may still come across as slightly too dated for certain viewers, but it's still a shock how modern and appealing to contemporary audiences seems, considering it was released half a century ago. Once again, Hitchcock proves his unparalleled mastery of tension and film technique, and the film's surprisingly original and enjoyable premise is alone worth a viewing. Highly recommended to anyone wishing to undertake a brilliantly made but superbly entertaining film experience! <br /><br />-9/10
| 0
|
This is the kind of movie that wants to be good but sucks. First thing, what the hell are those punk trying to do with the school? I think the kids doesn't seem to realize the gravity of the situation. Deker guy say to the girl that they under his responsibility when she ask why he wants to go back for them but right after this he gives a gun to the wheel chair dude and wants him to go alone repair the phone line. Where is the responsibility there? I understand poor actors must pay their food but why not just give them the money that takes to make a stupid movie like that or give that money to a charity. Oh yea and none of them knows how to aim. The stupid punk guy shoots in the cafeteria nowhere like a crazy. They all want to look professional but they all suck. One more thing I don't believe that there's no emergency exit in the school the kids are trying several doors but they all locked. What happens if there's a fire and the dumass security guard is dead? It is illegal to not have an emergency exit in school. Anyway there's a lot more to say but it would be too long. I spent some time of my life to watch a crap.
| 1
|
Wow. I have seen some really bad movies in my time, but this one truly takes the cake. It's the worst movie I've seen in the past decade - no exaggeration.<br /><br />As a US Army veteran of the war in Afghanistan, I found it nearly impossible to even finish watching this ridiculous film, not because it brought back memories - far from it - but because there was absolutely no attempt at 'authenticity' to be found anywhere in the film. Not so much as the tiniest little shred. It seemed like it had been written by an 8 year-old child who got all his notions of war (and soldierly behavior) straight out of comic books. The film was made in Honduras, which should have been a clue, but even that can't fully explain the atrocious production values of this cliché-ridden piece of trash.<br /><br />I could try to list all the endless technical flaws, but it would take virtually forever. From the ancient unit shoulder patches which have not been seen or worn since WWII, and the character's name tags, like 'ColCollins' (worn by the character 'Colonel Collins'), which was actually spelled using the reversed, mirror-image 'N' of the Russian alphabet (not the US alphabet) the list just goes on and on. The uniforms, the equipment, the plot, and most especially the behavior of the characters themselves -- every single scene was just chock-full of ridiculous flaws, inaccuracies and utterly mindless clichés.<br /><br />Neither the storyline itself nor the characters were the least bit credible or believable. It was all laughably childish, in the extreme. This was obviously a movie that was meant to appeal strictly to pre-pubescent boys, and I have little doubt that even they would find this film utterly absurd.<br /><br />In short, this film has absolutely NO redeeming qualities at all. It's a total waste of time. I'd strongly advise anybody reading this to pass this garbage by; it's truly not worth wasting a single moment of your time for.
| 1
|
A family traveling for their daughter's softball league decide to take the 'scenic route' and end up in the middle of nowhere. The father is an avid photographer, and when he hears of an old abandoned side show in the town, he decides to take another detour to take some photographs.<br /><br />Of course, the side show is filled with inbred freaks, who promptly kidnap the women and leave the young son and father to fend for themselves.<br /><br />The only cool thing about this film is how the family actually fights back against their inbred captors. Other than that, there's nothing worthwhile about the film.
| 1
|
After 'Attack of the Fifty Foot Woman' with Alison Hayes opened the doors for women to be just as dangerous as men, there was obviously an open market for other movies to pick up and carry the torch and what more a lovely actress than Dorothy Provine from 'It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World' to play the role. The downsize is that cute and blonde Provine may just be too sweet and innocent looking to step into Allison Hayes' size 50 shoes. This role really needed someone with an amount of smoldering sex appeal; Provine is more the girl next door type. She may have taken and done this role to prove she could be sexy, but the material lets her down. Lou Costello, however, proves he can do a movie without Bud Abbott feeding him lines and he even interjects a dramatic role in some of his scenes when he not turning to Gale Gordon as his front man for gags. Gordon, however, establishes that all he can be is blustery, perturbed and pushy, much the same character he creates later on 'The Lucy Show.' Charles Lane also plays the same role in everything he does: a straight man, and his screen time is limited. The special effects are convincing for the time, but I would have liked Dorothy to have been a little more than cheesecake and dressing and at least have been allowed to become dangerous. As the movie's lead character, she takes second billing to Costello who is in all of the movie with Dorothy several times vanishing like a sub-plot. The whole movie put together just can't decide if it's supposed to be science fiction, a comedy or just a parody of the Allison Hayes classic. There's a lot of good scenes, some very funny humor and some very ridiculous camp that affects the rest of the film. Still, I do like this movie for it's empowerment of women; there's not enough movies out there like this one. If this movie had a chance to be remade today, I'd highly recommend Courtney Cox and Jason Alexander in the lead roles and allow me to completely re-write the original script. Courtney tops my lists of actresses who I believe could and should adequately play gorgeous giantesses; although, I have to admit that if either of the titanic beauties Allison or Dorothy came after me, I'd go quietly !!
| 0
|
I went to see Glenn McQuaid's 'I Sell The Dead' in it's North American premiere at the Toronto After Dark Film Festival. Seeing as this is the second showing worldwide I didn't quite know what to expect of this film, especially having not seen the short film that inspired this big screen adaptation.<br /><br />I'll start off with a slightly more elaborate plot synopsis, without giving away any spoilers.<br /><br />This movie is about Arthur Blake, how he became a grave robber and the interesting and supernatural discoveries that both he and his mentor discovered.<br /><br />The costume and set design in this film were excellent. I was amazed to hear that the entire film was shot in and around New York. The costumes were very accurate to the time, really bringing you as a viewer into the mindset of the time. This movie works just as well as a period-piece as it does a horror-comedy.<br /><br />The interaction between the two leads was very fluid. They played off each others acting with ease. The dialogue between the two was very well written, with Glenn adding his comedic touch even in tense situations.<br /><br />The story is very encompassing and the ball gets rolling from the very start. I'd compare it to a visual page turner, always wondering just what will happen next. The characters themselves are all very vivid and unique adding different emotional layers to the film itself.<br /><br />All in all, I recommend this film for anyone in the mood for some dark humour, with a bit of horror mixed in.<br /><br />9/10
| 0
|
The Thief of Baghdad is one of my ten all-time favorite movies. It is exciting without gore, it is beautifully filmed and the art direction is flawless. The casting couldn't have been better. Rex Ingram made me believe in genies. And the epitome of evil is certainly captured by Conrad Veight as Jafar. He set the bar very high.<br /><br />..I watch this movie at least twice a year...and never tire of it. This film is an adventure for all ages..no-one too old to enjoy it. The Thief of Bahgdad jogs my memories to a more innocent time...I was ten years old the first time I saw it and the U.S. was just about to enter WWII. Conrad Vieght was such a great actor that he was able to continue this underlying 'evilness' a few years later in 'Casablanca.' And Korda teamed up,I believe, with Justin and Dupree again in 'The Four Feathers'....great film-making!
| 0
|
...and I love it. Lots of special effects, and for a movie that's not made on mega budget, this movie really does great job of creating a fantasy masterpiece. I'm one of the guys who didn't understand the story at all, but this was still a great flick to watch. It's definitely up there in standards surpassing Bored of the Rings, and on par with movies like Harry Potter. Which is saying a lot for a movie again, made on a fraction of the budget of these international hits.<br /><br />One thing I really love about this movie is that it so stretches the envelope of adventure movie to come out of Hong Kong. The topic is exotic and original. Production quality is unlike anything seen coming out of HK for fantasy action movie, and acting is great.<br /><br />One of the best movies to come out of Hong Kong, this is the Infernal Affairs of Hong Kong fantasy movie, and I hope they'll continue working in this area, until they surpass Hollywood adventure movies.<br /><br />Just fantastic.
| 0
|
Michael Caton-Jones's Scottish period piece bears little connection to the Sir Walter Scott novel of the same name...<br /><br />The film opens in the Scottish highlands, with Robert Roy McGregor and his men hunting down a bunch of cow thieves who have stolen several heads of His Lordship James Graham's cattle... The scene then switches to a sword-fighting contest attended by noblemen with longhair wigs, adorned shirts, soft colored coats, paleface make-up and conventional gestures...<br /><br />MacGregor lives under the protection of a local lord named Marquis of Montrose... When he enters an ill-advised trade agreement with Montrose, he innocently leaves himself exposed to the malicious plots of Montrose's evil-doers... The unfolding of their perfidy is the most creative and pleasant part of the movie, though it takes a repugnant turn with a violent rape... When Rob Roy is finally compelled to rebel against the English soldiers, the action becomes well understood, ending with the predictable duel between him and an expert with the blade...<br /><br />Liam Neeson injects heroism and passion to his character... He is intelligent, fair and virile... He carries his height with grace as the Scottish chieftain of a small community... He is a loving father, a passionate lover, and a noble husband, driven to desperate acts by dastardly villains... He'd rather die than tell a lie or betray a trust... <br /><br />Oscar winner Jessica Lange gives the film class as the strong robust devoted wife, a proud peasant woman, brutally raped by an icy psychotic aristocrat... Lange's lines are filled with dignity and integrity: 'I will think on you dead, until my husband makes you so. And then I will think on you no more.'<br /><br />John Hurt brings his usual clever touch with character roles to make Montrose something more than a greedy Marquis, ruthless with money and tempered by the English court's fashion for foppery... He is a pompous arrogant man with two villainous servants at his service... Honor, in his view, seems a quaint notion... He has two objectives: ruin the reputation of his rival, the Duke of Argyle, and to hunt down the fugitive MacGregor... He sends his soldiers to burn the Highlanders' homes, to kill their people and their livestock...<br /><br />Tim Roththe perfect antithesis to the hero, is fearsome and strangely an effeminate enforcer... He is a penniless British aristocrat, a nasty 'hired sword' wonderfully evil, ravishing and murdering his way through the Scottish mist... His name is Archibald Cunningham... He turns out to be a liar, a thief and a murderer... He dismisses himself as 'but a bastard abroad, seeking his fortune and the favors of great men,' and therefore can't care about anyone else: 'Love is a dung hill and I am but a cock that climbs upon it to crow.' He even jokes that he once raped a young boy whom he mistook for a girl...<br /><br />Cunningham seems pathetic... He smiles foolishly, and utters words with affected refinement, but not terribly harmful-until a muscular swordsman insults him, and we discover that he's a cool head and an expert with a sword... He really does steal the film with a performance that earned him a Best Supporting Actor nomination...<br /><br />And while Brian Cox is suitably odious as Killearn, Andrew Keir is Montrose's rival, the powerful local aristocrat, the Duke of Argyll, one of the few trustworthy men McGregor meets outside his own family... <br /><br />Set in 18th-century Scotland, and with an atmospheric musical score, 'Rob Roy' is really a love story between a man and his wife, a recognizably human story, unjustly dwarfed by Mel Gibson's 'Braveheart,' that does tell essentially the same story of provincial resentment of overbearing English landlords...
| 0
|
A very bad attempt at a young spinal tap. At least the music in spinal tap was good.<br /><br />This is really a very sad case of Hollywood nepotism at it's worst. A bunch of Hollywood execs, bad musicians and producers create some 'poopie' show so their kids can be in the spotlight. Oh please!!! The potty humor was even bad. I hate this stuff when there is really incredibly talented kids (musicians, actors and artists) out there busting their butts to have success and this crap comes along.<br /><br />Help u all!!!! Why wasn't Gene Simmons in it??? Ameriac's taste in entertainment is going down the toilet.
| 1
|
This is one of my favorite films for many reasons. To begin, there are standout performances from lovely Debra Paget as a princess/dancing girl, from Michael Rennie as the villain, handsome young Jeffrey Hunter investigating crime in her city/state and others. The film is an unusually colorful adventure, and we even see the princess rehearsing the dance she later performs (for once). She manages to skewer Hunter before she learns he is on her side; also the photography, the costumes by Travilla, Lionel Newman's music and the film's style are unusually fine. Add to this rousing action, intelligent characterization and fine direction by veteran Harmon Jones of a Gerald Drayson Adams' script set in 1249 AD, and you have the ingredients of an enjoyable Grecianized Near-Eastern. But there is much to praise about the unusual and well--developed storyline here, as there is much more to praise other than the film's swift pace, well-managed physical action sequences and superior technical aspects. Classically-trained actors such as Michael Ansara, Edgar Barrier, Wally Cassell, Jack Elam and Dona Drake are not commonly found in one 'B' film together; nor are there fascinating sets, a variety of locales and a mystery of the quality that is supplied here. One way of assessing a film is, 'If I were guaranteed to live through the experience, would I choose to undergo these events and perform these actions?' Since my answer is a resounding 'yes' in this case, this film remains one of my choices as a favorite and very-underrated cinematic work. Could it be that US critics' all-too-frequent disdain for females as warriors and thinkers that as in so many other cases has caused closed minds to misprize this estimable film's obvious anti-tyranny and pro-entertainment qualities?
| 0
|
An unflinching descent into psychological and physical oblivion that will undoubtedly burn images of the truthful brutality and suffering of war into your cerebral cortex in a way not many other films will. In fact, there is simply no other war film like it.<br /><br />Director Kon Ichikawa witnessed the unthinkable horror of Hiroshima first hand only 10 days after the bomb was dropped. He has said that from that day it would always be his mission to express the pointless, empty violence humans inflict on each other and themselves. <br /><br />Mr. Ichikawa shows us that there are no winners in war... for the paths to victory and defeat are paved with the same soldiers soullessly marching down roads which only have death and destruction at their end.<br /><br />Mr. Ichikawa succeeds in bringing his message to the world thru this haunting piece of cinema.
| 0
|
The only reason I didn't fall asleep during this movie is because the seats were not that comfortable. Hannibal is BORING>BORING> BORING and BORING!!! This film is just dreadful, not because of any violence or graphic mutilations. It's actually quite tame in that regard. The story moves at the speed of a lazy snail. I have the feeling that director Ridley Scott just phoned this one in. The actors are all fine they just needed some direction. The music score is also very annoying. It's especially noticeable since so little is going on in the film. It does look good but that's not enough reason to see it. By the way did I mention that it's BORING?<br /><br />
| 1
|
If this film was just outrageously poor would be fine, the problem is many take it seriously. To make it short, a few points: <br /><br />- There is no story, no focus, no lead whatsoever and all the questions raised fail to find an answer. Overall, the film is extremely repetitive and boring (I have been in war-torn African countries several times and found all the lingering on local misery and hopelessness very painful to watch but still having no sense).<br /><br />- Questions raised are pure manipulation and the truth is that they are no questions but statements.<br /><br />- I am no doc filmmaker, but what's the point in raising, for example, the question of weapon smuggling, if the only element brought to the audience is a local reporter's statement? The director doesn't even bother showing us at least a sequence where he would be waiting near the airport trying to spot heavily loaded trucks leaving the area right after a plane landed.<br /><br />- The story of the fish takes up less than 5 mn, and is only supported by a sequence where the director films a documentary shown during a local conference. Did this guy do any work at all???? <br /><br />- Abject poverty is shown all the time in endless sequences but where's the point? One can go almost anywhere in Africa with a hand cam and shoot the same images unfortunately. Where's the big news? <br /><br />- Filming the prostitutes watching and crying over images of their assassinated friend and fellow prostitute is worth the worst emotional manipulations one can see these days on thrash and real TV.<br /><br />- The parallel drawn between the famine devastating the country with over two million starving and the exportation of fish is absolutely pointless, dishonest and makes no sense but to manipulate viewers in typically anti-globalization and anti-western feelings.<br /><br />There is an interesting debate in France after an academic published a very detailed comment on the film, which brought number of journalists working in Africa for decades to investigate a bit further about several details. It turns out that: <br /><br />- The fish waste shown drying in the sun and collected by some local people is not at all meant to be eaten by human beings but is collected to be exported for reasonably good money for animal-feeding purposes. I think I am not the only one having had the impression that the director suggested the exact opposite.<br /><br />- Arm smuggling is a reality (but there again, where's the big news??), but not the way this film explains the issue. If the empty planes landing in Mwanza do participate in smuggling, they actually unload their shipment in a different location in Africa, then go to Mwanza to pick up fish in order not to make the trip back empty (meaning that they do actually land empty in Mwanza...).<br /><br />- People do eat fish locally, contrary to what the film suggest (around 40-60% of what is taken out of the lake) and thousands of people make their living with it. Good for them! It's private business of that kind that will one day take African countries out of poverty and not western moaning and endless foreign assistance.<br /><br />I cannot tell how shocked I am seeing the success of this film!
| 1
|
This film was probably inspired by Godard's Masculin, féminin and I urge you to see that film instead.<br /><br />The film has two strong elements and those are, (1) the realistic acting (2) the impressive, undeservedly good, photo. Apart from that, what strikes me most is the endless stream of silliness. Lena Nyman has to be most annoying actress in the world. She acts so stupid and with all the nudity in this film,...it's unattractive. Comparing to Godard's film, intellectuality has been replaced with stupidity. Without going too far on this subject, I would say that follows from the difference in ideals between the French and the Swedish society.<br /><br />A movie of its time, and place. 2/10.
| 1
|
The title, although singular, will undoubtedly remind real horror fans of Tod Browning's immortal classic about a troop of circus freaks and how they were misunderstood by the outside world. I can assure you, however, that this 'thing' has absolutely nothing to do with 'Freaks' or even with the art of professional film-making in general. This movie was recommended to me, supposedly because it's raw, disturbing and thought provoking despite the low budget production values. Yeah right
The person who recommended it to me may now consider himself to be my personal foe! The low budget factor is correct, but that about sums it up. 'Freak' is dreadfully slow, poorly made and every character that gets introduced is downright insufferable
and that includes the freak too. Two siblings on their way to a new life encounter a deformed mental patient who escaped from the transport truck to another hospital and heads back to the house where he killed his mother at age 9. This could have been an interesting slasher with good isolated filming locations but, instead, Tyler Sharpe decided to make it boring and pointless family drama. The lead actress' attempts to look emotionally devastated are pretty laughable and the total lack of suspense and action can hardly be blamed to the limited budget. Total failure!
| 1
|
Chop Shop is a hidden treasure out in theaters! I cannot begin to describe how wonderful the performances are in this movie. This film is for anyone who wants to watch a powerful story and see an example of what contemporary movies should look and be like.<br /><br />This film is about a young boy, Alejandro 'Ale' who works and lives with his teenage sister, Isamar 'Izzie' in a one-room tiny loft in an auto shop. The story takes place in a part of New York City (that I did not even know existed--Willits Points) where there are endless junkyards and body shops. Here, Bahrani tells the story of two forgotten children hoping to support themselves by buying and fixing up a food van.<br /><br />Ale makes money helping at the auto shop, and Izzie helps at a food van; both, however, earn extra money on the side. Ale sells bootleg movies and stolen car parts; Izzie results to selling herself. Their lives are surrounded by grit and grim, but even though both witness, live and barely survive within their harsh world, their love for each other is never tainted by the filth that surround them. And occasionally they are able to laugh and enjoy moments of their childhood that is being stolen by the reality of struggling to survive and stay together.<br /><br />The best comparison I have for Chop Shop is that Bahrani's juxtaposition of an innocent love between family members against such a bleak atmosphere is as powerful as Pasolini's Mama Roma combined with the struggles of growing up too fast in an adverse environment just as in Bresson's Mouchette.<br /><br />Having co-written, directed and edited both this film and his first, Man Push Cart (which won awards all over the world), Bahrani is a total package filmmaker.<br /><br />I can only hope that his films will not be hidden treasures for long!
| 0
|
Don't be taken in because the premise of this film is a good one. It is, but that, does not a good film, make.<br /><br />Comedies require a well-honed script and masterful direction. Sadly, this poorly executed film has neither. Leconte, a good director in other genres, does not deliver in his comedic farces (Les Bronzes series being another example).<br /><br />The comedic timing is terrible. Some jokes are telegraphed. Some are re-hashed from other movies. Others just sit there as if they were giving you time to laugh. The plot has messy subplots (the allergic daughter, the lesbian co-owner) and just does not develop or envelope the viewer. It isn't funny and it isn't believable for a second.<br /><br />Compare this to any comedy by Billy Wilder (Some Like it Hot, A Foreign Afair, etc.) or by Leconte's compatriot, Francis Veber, a true GENIUS at French comedy (Le Diner de Cons, Le Placard, Les Comperes, La Chevre, La Grande Blonde, etc.) and you'll see the difference in their tight scripts, great comedic acting and timing, with each joke leading to the next one.<br /><br />Watching Mon Meilleur Ami twice would be cruel and unusual punishment, not a good sign for a comedy.
| 1
|
If you have seen this movie, then you will know that it is one of the worst Bollywood movies ever made. Bollywood is known to copy Hollywood movies. Who would of known that they will copy Terminator 2. The difference between both Film industries are Hollywood spends millions and Bollywood spends 100 thousands (Average). Thats the problem with this film, if you want to make a T2 style movie, then do it properly. The director added a bogus fantasy storyline about a reincarnated snake who finds his long lost girl (in the previous birth) dead by 2 guys, but the blame goes to 10 people. She suddenly reincarnates into a ghost and together they want to kill the 10 people they blame for her death. Not to mention, the Reincarnated snake guy or villain has some kind of super powers. He can transform into anything, he can fly, disappear, fire power, wind power, you name it, he has it. He even gets bazookered and survives the T1000 style. You are probably wondering how he survives. its best not to ask, and its best not to waste time and money on this movie. Its Best just to forget this film even came out. I think its a shame to use a big starcast for this outrageous movie with a nonsense storyline.
| 1
|
An independent feature can now be seen as both a work of film art and a video resume. Enter Broken, and aggressively promoted, twenty minute short with style and enthusiams to spare. But is it any good as a film, or does it only work as a demo piece? Ah, there in lies the rub.<br /><br />Broken is the story of Bonnie Clayton who is abducted after awakening from a reoccurring nightmare one night by 'a sadistic stranger and his colorful entourage' (quote from the video box). As she's held captive, it becomes obvious that her abductors know things about her that even she didn't know about herself. While they question her, a black-clad soldier guns his way into their hideout in an attempt to rescue her. Mayhem ensues.<br /><br />Fortunately for us, director Alex Ferrari seems to know what he's doing, or at least he's very good at faking it. Broken does not suffer from any lack of visual flair, which is especially commendable considering its budget and the inexperience of all involved. What it does suffer from is weak and kind of derivative writing. Think Long Kiss Goodnight meets The Matrix, written ten minutes after reading Fight Club. The good news for Ferrari and producer/writer Jorge Rodriguez is that the story elements are easily ignored for the oodles of eye candy on display. Does the plot really matter that much in a twenty minute short meant to show off the technical skills of its creators? No, not really.<br /><br />Though it would be unfair of me to overlook any negative aspects in light of the films budget and length. Broken is no genre classic. The biggest problem was that it actually would have worked better as a full-length feature. The final 'twist' doesn't get enough build up time to be shocking. If Ferrari were allowed the time to slow burn the feature as needed, plot elements would seem less random, and the film more complete. Here's to knowing he's getting the chance.<br /><br />Audio Broken's Dolby Digital 5.1 presentation is second to none in the indie world. I've never heard such aggressive surround from such a small feature. The Matrix inspired soundtrack is very rich and deep, gunshots have punch, and even the dialogue gets in on the surround effects. Of everything presented on this disc, it is the audio that speaks the praise for modern independent DVD production. Also included is an equally impressive Dolby 2.0 surround track, which is the menu default.<br /><br />Extras There are literally hours of making of features to be found on this disc. There are so many extras, in fact, that I find it unrealistic to list and describe each of them here, while still expecting my readers to continue reading. Whatever shortcomings the actual short may have, the DVD is unprecedented in its informational resources. People who enjoyed the film can learn all there is to know about its production, including everything from the conceptual art to the promotional campaign. Those with plans to make an indie film of their own can learn just about everything they need to know from these features.<br /><br />The extras are broken down into categorical menus. These include: pre-production, production, post-production, after the short, and cast and crew bios. From a critical standpoint, I found that some of the sections were quite short. Had they been edited into one featurette per menu option, they would've been less frustrating to navigate, as the curser defaults to the top selection with every return to the main section menu. This is, of course, just nitpicking, but perhaps for future DVD releases the filmmakers will take my advice to heart.<br /><br />It has six audio commentaries and hours of interview footage and talented people, and despite the consonant salesmanship, their true colours do shine through.<br /><br />The willingness to share their film-making secrets with anyone who picks up this DVD is quite generous. From the extras I learned what editing and effects software is most reliable and effective, what brand of camera creates the most professional look for the lowest price, even where to get cheap air soft weaponry. On top of this, I was given several alternate options, in case I found myself unable to locate any products used on this particular production. Wannabe filmmakers unwilling to read a book on the subject would do well to watch this DVD.<br /><br />Overall I've scored the actual short as a 6 out of 10, but wish there was an option for feature length potential and effort, because I'd have scored it an 8 or 9 in these fields. I recommend the DVD for its features and as a perfect example of what can be done with a mere eight thousand American dollars. Those who purchase the DVD can think of themselves as ghost producers for a larger project, as the more attention these guys get, the more funding the feature-length version will get.
| 0
|
This is one of the best horror movies i've seen in a while. An eerie abandon house, interesting characters, gore and a twisted plot. Who could ask for anything more in a horror movie? It is pretty predictable for the most part but then again most horrors you can figure out within the first 10 minutes so I won't hold that against it. The music, camera angles and so forth are excellent. The sets are well make and very convincing. There was pretty much no subplots however, it being a horror movie too many alternate plots only take away from what were wanting from a horror anyhow... To be scared... This one keeps it pretty simple and does just that. If I were to compare it to any other movie I would say it reminded me of the remake of Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Definitely a horror movie lover must see.
| 0
|
What's with all the negative comments? After having seen this film for the first time tonight, I can only say that this is a good holiday comedy that is sure to brighten up any lonely person's day. When I saw that Drew (Ben Affleck) might end up spending the holidays alone, I wanted to cry. You'll have to see the movie if you want to know why. Also, even though I liked Tom (James Gandolfini) and Alicia (Christina Applegate) after awhile, if you ask me, they were real snobs. However, this film did make me smile and feel good inside. Before I wrap this up, I'd like to say that Mike Mitchell has scored a pure holiday hit. Now, in conclusion, I highly recommend this good holiday comedy that is sure to brighten up any lonely person's day to any Ben Affleck or Christina Applegate fan who hasn't seen it.
| 0
|
Two years after this movie was made, 'The Juror' came out. Don't waste your time on this one. See 'The Juror' instead. 'The Juror' is essentially the same story as 'Trial By Jury,' with better acting, better directing and a far more gripping aura about it. William Hurt was not believable as a cop-gone-bad, and Armand Assante couldn't be more unlike a mob boss if they had dressed him in a clown outfit. You didn't become involved enough with Joann Whalley's character to be that upset by what was happening to her. Also, the way in which she interacted with the jury wasn't compelling or interesting in any way. Kathleen Quinlan's role as a hooker/killer wasn't fleshed out enough and quite frankly was unnecessary for to the plot.
| 1
|
I totally disagree with the other reviews.All basically negative.I took a chance on this movie and was glad that I did.Glad indeed.I couldn't find anything wrong with it.Nothing period.The script is original.The actors are all likable and convincing.Dee Smart reminded me of Marcia Brady from the Brady Bunch.But this gal truly can act.The setting in the Australian Outback is perfect.Incredible scenery.Great soundtrack i.e Paul Kelly.God bless Paul Kelly.The Cranberries are also here.I have seen this movie twice in less than 24 hrs.I will probably watch it again.It is that interesting.It makes one think.It is(was)probably better than nine-tenths of the so-called Hollywood blockbusters that were also out during this time.Back Of Beyond is a likable.Well photographed film.I couldn't find anything wrong with it.Check it out!My first review!
| 0
|
(This review will have some very obvious spoilers, so beware.)<br /><br />A friend brought this over, and we made it through 45 minutes of the movie before we decided that Fast Forward 8x Speed was the only way that this film should be watched. There were points when we were watching the movie at normal speed where I would leave, prepare part of lunch, and return, to find that literally nothing had happened. 2 lines of meaningless dialogue were exchanged. Nothing happened the background, no important facial gestures were made, nothing but mind-numbing awkward silence.<br /><br />This is NOT how to make a thoughtful film, especially when the movie's plot follows all the same basic Hollywood movie tropes. If I told you that Disney was making a film about 4 girls starting a band, and the singer was a French exchange student, what you would expect to be the 'conflicts' that arise?<br /><br />The lead singer has to overcome stage fright? Someone has an unspoken crush? The band is late for their performance, and a side-character has to buy them time?<br /><br />*SPOILER ALERT*<br /><br />All of those things happen in this movie.<br /><br />At no point in this film do you have even the slightest fraction of concern that these girls won't be able to accomplish their goal.<br /><br />*THIS ENDS THE SECTION OF SPOILERS*<br /><br />I like Japanese films. I've spent a lot of time in Japan. I work for a Japanese company. Heck, I even know all the bands referenced in the record collections and MDs that they're going through, and I've sung along to the title track with friends at karaoke.<br /><br />This is probably the worst film from Japan I've ever seen. Do not be confused. Though the characters will have points in the movie where they do typical Japanese high school things, this is not a 'typical day in the life of' movie. This is 'a day in the life of 4 extremely random, heavily-conflicted, awkward Japanese students.'<br /><br />There are noticeable problems with the DVD, as well. Viz decided that a great extra would be a producer reading aloud the Wikipedia entry about the Blue Hearts. What a value! In addition, they care so little about the subtitling that the band's name in the subtitles, 'Paran Maum' is different than it is in the chapter selection menu, 'Paran Marum'. In the final auditorium scene, there is a VERY visible reflection/ghosting effect on everything, but this seems to be the fault of the original film.<br /><br />2/10, do NOT view if you do not absolutely love awkward silences.
| 1
|
The film is nothing else than an exposition of nudity. Has anyone noticed that all three main female characters appear naked? It looks like the only winning bet for Portuguese filmmakers is to include some (if not a lot) of nudity of the local stars, together with slang which otherwise, in the nowadays Portuguese society, is repulsed with horror. If you watch advertising for Portuguese films at Portuguese TVs, they all have included a 'hot' scene from the movie. I'm not saying, by any means, that Portuguese society is alienated; just that the movie industry does not seem capable of finding others ways of success. Going back to the movie... There is nothing left from the spirit of the book, which is a masterpiece. The film could have been a good one, had there been emphasized the real idea of the book (of actuality at any time) and not the strictly erotic part. It had almost all the ingredients... but the 'chef' was awful...
| 1
|
I had hoped this movie was going to be mildly entertaining, like other sorts of its genre. However, it was lame and I didn't find myself laughing very much. Watch it on HBO, maybe, or if you've got a free rental to waste and you need a movie to pass the time. But I don't recommend paying to see it.<br /><br />The plot is simple and straightforward, and it could have been funny, maybe, if the script was better. Jason Lee can be hilarious, and he gets a few laughs here and there, but the movie falls flat. Just don't go see this one. The directing is lackluster, but for what it is, directing isn't that important. I guess its main drawback is that it is just not very funny. See something else, don't waste your time here.
| 1
|
This was the one movie to see about the Civi War. My aunt actually played in this movie as an extra in the Justin and Madeline wedding scene, and my uncle was an extra on a horse. The script was genuine, and accurate. The costumes were tastefully done, the seqence was in order and even the accents were good. I dearly love Patrick Swayze and James Ried. They were the best 2 choices, and it even had a great supporting cast. The Civil War is my favorite thing in American History, and I love movies about it. I have seen quite a few, and this movie and it's sequal North and South Book 2 took the cake. If you haven't seen it, rent it. As soon as possible. It's quite an eduation.
| 0
|
World At War is perhaps the greatest documentary series of all time. The historical research is virtually flawless. Even after a quarter century, it is the most accurate and definitive documentary about WW2. An invaluable historical work that includes interviews with some of the most important and fascinating figures from the war. I highly recommend it as a learning experience.
| 0
|
Return to Me is a charming gem of a movie. With an absolutely star studded cast, who can go wrong with this modern day fairy tale? It also includes many, many jokes written by the funny girl herself Bonnie Hunt, who wrote and directed this film. David Duchovny is also very good, showing a different approach then from his everday alter-ego mulder on my favourite show the x-files. a great date movie!
| 0
|
The Priest, into profound love and suffering showed not the result of love, but the process of love and salvation has high-souled beauty of human(or vampire?). http://plaza.rakuten.co.jp/confuoco/diary/200911290000/<br /><br />And the love of Femme fatale is not notorious, but lovely in taking the responsible death as a vampire. She did not keep falling deep into the paradise lost, but decided to leave human alone. Fragile, but lovely Femme fatale! This movie made me think about suffering between human and vampire, that far beyond priest, and salvation. Also I thought about love. Adam was not so responsible for Eve's but this Adam(priest), sacrificial and responsible to pick Eve up from the Paradise Lost, vampire's world. Another Symphonic Poem of Adam & Eve, Paradise Lost.
| 0
|
What can be said about THIS? Truly one of the most mind-numbing experiences of my life. Your brain will attempt to shut-down as part of a primal impulse of self-preservation. I was left shattered from the experience of watching this 'film' and I took a good two hours to fully recover. This movie now joins Revenge of the Boogeyman and Zombiez as part of the hellish trinity of horror films. I certainly do not mean this distinction in a good way. I mean this in a terrible way. A terrible way.<br /><br />This film has no redeeming features. Everything is appalling. Artless camera-work endlessly presents us with the ugliest setting imaginable, i.e. lots of corn, lots of mud. The story is beyond stupid. The script is
was there a script? The villain is severely unscary and wears yellow wellington boots. The kids are annoying. The lead man is charisma-free. And it has the audacity to go on for 100 minutes. Utterly without merit on any level, this is akin to torture. Normally such a statement would be an exaggeration meant for comical effect. Not in this case. I'll even say it again this is torture.<br /><br />At the end I was in a state of paralysis. This was brief thankfully. But once I recovered I decided I had to watch the 'Making Of' featurette. I had to understand. Maybe there would be a reasonable explanation for this atrocity. Was it all an elaborate joke? I watched the first 2 minutes of the 'Making Of' featurette and discovered that the writer/director was, to put it mildly, somewhat misguided. I also discovered that because I had taken time out to watch the first two minutes of the 'Making Of' featurette of Dark Harvest 2 that I was an idiot. Not a pleasant voyage of self-discovery. Life sucks.<br /><br />Highly unrecommended.
| 1
|
A good film, and one I'll watch a number of times. Rich (the previous commenter)is right: there is much more going on here than is clear from the title boards, and I have to wonder how much has suffered in translation. Were there more in the original? Or was a native-language audience expected to lip-read more? Or -- since the screenplay was written by the author of the novel on which this was based -- was this a currently popular story with which the audience was already very familiar? In short, very worth a look, but it probably requires more work from contemporary viewers than the original 1913 audience had to put into it.<br /><br />The Alpha Video release touts the new organ score, but the music is not matched to the story progression in any way. Sure, it starts promisingly, but degenerates into a repetitive, Phillip-Glass-like monotony that reflects nothing of the action on the screen. After listening for a while, I turned off the sound and simply watched: much better!
| 0
|
I loved this film!!! It was so easy to become a part of the characters lives and really feel the emotion they were going through.<br /><br />A film filled with laughs, sarcasm, shocks and upset just a fantastic romantic drama really!<br /><br />The only part i didn't enjoy was in the special features. The behind the scenes commentary was a little off putting. Because i'd seen the film before the extras i prefer thinking of the actors like the characters (silly i know) but the actors personality's are very different from the characters they play. But nevertheless its a totally fantastic, spectacular, brilliant film i recommend that anyone who looked at this film and thought hmmmmmmm should i buy it? answer must be a definite yes!
| 0
|
an awesome made for the sci-fi channel movie which by far surpasses many of the poor previous efforts they've churned out. Bruce Campbell is on superb form as a possible investor who gets caught up in a bizarre experiment led by a delirious professor,Stacey Keach,and his half-wit assistance,Ted Raimi. The film is pure b movie gold and its great to see Keach and ram up on screen with Bruce, and the fact that a lot of the film works purely on Bruce's comic slapstick acting is what make it hilarious, and makes me ask the question, why isn't this guy getting more of his scripts commissioned?, it indeed a sick world. Definitely worth a watch.
| 0
|
I must say I thought the show Greek would be really ridiculous and stupid. Since I am part of a sorority I didn't want them to make Greek organizations look bad....<br /><br />but I think Greek is hilarious. Yes, they do have the stereotypical sorority and fraternity but it's not mocking but just cute humor.<br /><br />All the characters are pretty likable minus Rebecca Logan (I just can't stand her), Casey and Rusty have good chemistry as brother and sister. Then there is Cappie. Who doesn't love a guy like Cappie haha His character brings so much to the show. Rusty's room mate, Dale played by Clark Duke, is hilarious as well.<br /><br />It's definitely fun to watch so tune in for season 2. I can't wait till it is back on!!
| 0
|
Before 'Miracle on 34th Street,' Maureen O'Hara and John Payne made this, this, this film. I was going to describe it, but can't find words for how badly this film turned out. The subject matter of adopting a child and Maureen's illness are both very serious and sensitive issues, but that notwithstanding, this could have been done a whole lot better than it was. It was so extreme in its portrayal that it didn't come across as real at all. Probably its problem started with a weak script.<br /><br />Another example of a screenwriter taking a novel and writing a weak movie. (See my review of 'A Stranger in My Arms.') The beautiful O'Hara was often saddled with clunkers like this, another being Forbidden Street (Britannica Mews,) which I may review eventually.<br /><br />If you have any emotional ties to this from childhood, you'll be kinder to this rather lifeless, colorless, and lackluster film. But for something along the lines of this, maybe you can find its TV-movie remake. It has to be better. It has to be.
| 1
|
This show was appreciated by critics and those who realized that any similarities between 'Pushing Daisies' style and anyone else's was not a steal. (Yes, I've seen 'Amelie.' 'Pushing Daisies' is somewhat similar but still different enough to be original.) Rather, there are too few shows on TV that have this kind of quirky charm. The greatest similarity is to 'Dead Like Me' but 'P.D' comes by that similarity honestly: Bryan Fuller created both shows. (Both shows involve an 'undead' young woman, For example.) This show never stopped being funny and charming, and it was always odd, yet was consistently humane.<br /><br />I must say a word about the conventions of on-going story lines. some people have complained that this show lacked a moral center because in the first (and several subsequent) episodes Ned seems to get away with causing the death of Chuck's father without consequences of any kind. First of all, this must be a new definition of 'without consequences of any kind' because, in spite of the fact that Ned was only a boy and did not realize that he had caused the death of Chuck's father, he nevertheless felt guilty from the moment he realized what he had done. Further, about a dozen episodes into the series, Ned finally did confess to Chuck that he had caused her father's death with his gift. Now, there are no police to charge people with magically causing one person's death by bringing another person back to life, so the questions of absolution and restitution have to be taken up without societal guidance. In other words, it's between Ned and Chuck, who was not inclined to forgive Ned anytime soon.<br /><br />But this does point out a problem with continuing story lines in network dramas. I remember when David Caruso's character on 'NYPD Blue' did something wrong and it seemed he got away with it--for a whole year--then he got caught and was forced to resign from the job (and left the show). The point is, viewers should learn by now and not assume that just because a regular character does something wrong in a single episode, and is not caught in that episode, that he has gotten away with it. There is always next week--and maybe even next year.
| 0
|
This Don Siegel/Clint Eastwood strange and hypnotic drama was left by the wayside in 1971 and what a pity. A fascinating character study with some great women for Squint to deal with. Geraldine Page was one of our supreme actresses and she's perfectly cast. Young Jo Ann Harris is a flirty minx, and Elizabeth Hartman (who died too young) is undeniably repressed.<br /><br />A 7 out of 10. Best performance = C. Eastwood. Released the same year as DIRTY HARRY, this did no business, beside getting some good reviews. Seek this out unless you're only into 'Explosion' films. Very subtle and frightening, this piece will stick with you.
| 0
|
The good things first: I agree with another viewer who said that Gene Raymond has a marvelous drunk scene. He does -- I was tickled to finally get a chance to laugh. And there were other moments I found amusing -- Raymond's parents in the bathroom with the defective plumbing, and the scene in the restaurant with Robert Montgomery trying to make Carole Lombard jealous by mouthing sweet nothings to a stranger. <br /><br />But overall, I was dismayed. I love Carol Lombard and most of Hitchcock. And I understand the restrictions laid on productions by the Hays Code. But this was embarrassing and awful to watch. Of course I knew they'd end up together, this is a romantic comedy after all. But it made no sense, it happened too fast. Plus I can't believe the professions of love when confronted with such hurtful behavior, both physical and confrontational.
| 1
|
I claim no matter how hard I seek I'll never find a better movie version of 'Othello'. If you love Kenneth Branagh's magnificent masterpieces 'Much ado about nothing' (1993) and 'Hamlet' (1996) as much as I do I'm dead certain you'll also find Oliver Parker's 'Othello' irresistible. Laurence Fishburne has been in a various splendid roles during his career. He was quite terrific in 'Boys n the hood' (1991) - I've always considered his amusing role of Furious Styles as his very greatest achievement. That was, of course, way before I saw this.<br /><br />He plays the part of Othello and he is probably in the most challenging role of his whole career but he does a brilliant, fantastic job. Irène Jacob is absolutely charming Desdemona and Kenneth Branagh is just simply phenomenal in a most fascinating role of the story's crooked, manipulate villain Iago. Marvelous 'Othello' is part of the absolute elite among Shakespeare's ingenious works. It deals with his favorite topics: crookedness, envy, deceitfulness and jealousy. This movie adaptation is certainly one of the finest films I've seen that's based on William Shakespeare's plays.
| 0
|
The show's echoed 'bubbling' sound effect used to put me to sleep. A very soothing show. I think I might have slept through the parts where there was danger or peril. I had also heard that some set up shots for a show on sponge divers was shot in Tarpon Springs, Florida. I would assume Lloyd Bridges never dove there. I only remember the show in reruns and although it was never edge-of-the-seat exciting we would make up our own underwater episodes in the lake at my grandmother's house... imagining the echoed bubbling sounds and narrating our adventures in our heads. I thought 'Flipper' had better undersea action. Of course, he had the advantage of being in his natural environment.
| 1
|
The greatest Tarzan ever made! This movie is done in a way that no other Tarzan ever has come close in doing. It has every thing in it that you would want in a Tarzan movie. No other Tarzan movie ever has or ever will portray the character this well. I would say that if you have seen a Tarzan movie and liked it you should see this one you will love it, and if you have never seen Tarzan you should see this one and forget the rest of them.
| 0
|
The first few minutes of 'The Bodyguard' do have a campy charm: it opens with crawling text from the Bible (the part that Samuel Jackson recites to his soon-to-be victims in 'Pulp Fiction'), continues with two karate school teachers in New York arguing about the eternal question of mankind (who is better? Sonny Chiba or Bruce Lee?), and then Chiba appears, playing himself; he immediately stops a plane hijacking and breaks a bottle in two with his bare hand. Unfortunately, any entertainment value, intentional or unintentional, soon gets crushed by the disjointed story, the lack of action for long periods of time, and the poor quality of any present action. To keep it simple, here's why 'The Bodyguard' is an unbearable movie to watch:<br /><br />1) You don't know what's going on. <br /><br />2) There are barely any fights. <br /><br />3) The fights that are there, are short and terribly filmed.<br /><br />Sonny Chiba is cool. Judy Lee is gorgeous, her face is glorious. It's only for them that I give 'The Bodyguard' a 2nd star out of 10. This movie makes 87 minutes feel like 5 hours.
| 1
|
Another fun, witty, frothy RKO musical with Astaire and Rogers, FOLLOW THE FLEET is a charming film. While it lacks the stand-out great tunes of SWNG TIME (although the final number 'Face the music and dance' is one of the team's best and rightfully so), it is hugely enjoyable, as these two could virtually do no wrong together in the 1930's. Once again, the plot is lightweight and forgettable, but watching Fred and Ginger dance together is sheer heaven. These two conveyed more romance and magic in dance than many couples in films do in a huge love scene. While there are better Fred and Ginger musicals, this is certainly a must-see.
| 0
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.