text
stringlengths 199
4.98k
| label
int64 0
1
| label_text
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|
Up And Coming was a very positive sitcom, which brought a tool/and or channel that opened the young minds of the Black Culture. The focus and outlook was a message of positivity for our people, and hope for change. I advise this selection for every American household to experience the struggle, and the reward. The show was never given the chance to blossom into the idea of middle-class Blacks becoming business owners of their own. The issue's were so compatible with real life situation's that impacted the lives of so many. I sincerely hope that the entire volume can be restored, and put on DVD for Americans to enjoy with their families.<br /><br />Thanks. | 1 | positive |
Oh God. Why is it that Nickelodeon has such a hard time producing even a half-decent movie? I mean, this movie might have been good, but it was:<br /><br />A. Too short B. Rather superficial, stereotypical, and insulting to some C. Ultimately pointless<br /><br />First of all, the "dress up the nerd to look cool" thing was VERY consumerist, VERY superficial, VERY pointless, and VERY insulting. It has the stereotypical nerds-stupid faces, glasses, never kissed, vacations with his mom, etc. Well maybe the reason that guy has never kissed a girl is because he's gay! Does that mean that all gays are nerds? And what's wrong with being friends with your mother?<br /><br />The worst part, by far, was the ending. The whole drama of the movie revolved around Zoey finding out Chase loved her, and blah blah blah, and then, when Chase finally decided to tell her, <br /><br />A. he didn't tell her in person because right as he was about to the typical distraction came along B. he tried to text message her, but her PDA fell into a fountain and died before she got the message.<br /><br />The End.<br /><br />HOW LAME IS THAT????? I mean, why is it that cartoonists just can't change anything in the series? So many of us would like to see these two get together. Why can't we see it? I mean, are the producers really that uncreative, that they can't think up new problems to go with changes in the series? So they have to stick with the same plot and outlines, and make as many episodes as they can just using those? After a while, it gets dull and frustrating.<br /><br />I WANTED TO SEE SOME ACTUAL ROMANCE IN HERE, DARN IT!<br /><br />Okay. I'm done with my rant. | 0 | negative |
This movie is honestly one of the greatest movies of all time...if you suffer from insomnia. It is a fool-proof way to guarantee hours of sleep at a time. As the movie slowly progresses, the audience slips into a state of unconsciousness and gradually loses sight of any sort of plot that the movie might actually contain. This effect is surely created due to the lack of sweet action/sweet babes.<br /><br />Also, Mr. Eisenstein was obviously unable to master the art of montage. A prime example of this is the scene on the Odessa steps. For no apparent reason, an event that in real life would have taken a matter of seconds is transformed into a seven minute nightmare for any sane viewer. This editing flaw tarnishes any sort of realism in the entire film. Honestly, i've seen more realistic editing watching cartoons.<br /><br />Some individuals who have commented on this title have hailed Battleship Potemkin as: "One of the greatest movies of all time" and, "Truly a masterpiece". Well i'm writing this comment to persuade readers to avoid watching this film at all costs. My best guess is that my fellow Potemkin critics simply wrote the wrong words in their summaries. Surely what they meant to say was: "One of the greatest snooze-fests of all time" and, "Truly an epic fail".<br /><br />In conclusion, don't waste your time. If you are interested in watching a movie of far superior quality, go to www.youtube.com and watch a Halo 3 montage. If i played the movie "Battleship Potemkin" in a game of slayer on guardian, i would shoot it in the face with my sniper rifle and then teabag its dead body. PEACE! | 0 | negative |
This is a new approach to comedy. It isn't funny.<br /><br />The joke is that this, in and of itself, is supposed to be funny.<br /><br />The story is based on a French short story, located in Paris, and the characters have French names. Louis Aubinard, for example ... played by ... Bob Hoskins? The movie also stars the equally French Jeff Goldblum and Natasha Richardson. The situations are similar to and the characters perform as if in those Carry-On movies from years back.<br /><br />I believe these are also jokes - to cast these actors who make no attempt to act French in any way, to have them cavort in the manner of broad English dance hall comedy, and to leave the whole bloomin' mystery unexplained to the audience.<br /><br />In the humour department, this is practically the Algonquin Round Table, isn't it?<br /><br />The movie tries to be charming and quirky, and I guess these characteristics are sort of funny. Not as funny as Duck Soup or Love and Death, perhaps, but funnier than The Deer Hunter or The Battleship Potemkin.<br /><br />It is an example of personal filmmaking. It makes no real effort to reach out and share with the audience, but stays true to its premise and its internal logic. Although all the situations are unbelievable, they are logical within the film's own bizarro world.<br /><br />I generally like this kind of eccentric movie, but I found this one to be paced too slowly, to be dull-witted, tedious, and to provide too few pleasurable surprises or genuine wit. It just kind of meanders in predictable and sophomoric ways, and wastes some wonderful talents along the way. It has to be the low point in the career of each of the major stars, who are all otherwise distinguished players. I found it to be the biggest waste of talent since The Betsy, and I wish I had never seen Goldblum and Hoskins in this thing.<br /><br />So, call it an interesting miss, and pass on it as a rental unless you really have a lot of time to kill.<br /><br /> | 0 | negative |
I really don't think it's necessary that I write a review on a movie with a title as derisory as "Snake Island", but even in the abstract confines of its own genre, this hit a new low, so my anger must be known. The only reason why I even bothered to watch this unbelievably bad movie is because I knew it was going to be bad, it was really late at night, I could not sleep, and in the past, really bad movies would drain the energy out of me and make me long for slumber. It became very quickly very early on that this movie was going to be awful, but it condescended below even those expectations.<br /><br />The movie was directed and written by Wayne Crawford, who also stars in the movie as a tourist guide on the African river, who ends up having to strand his team on a remote island called Snake Island until another boat comes down to pick them up. They hang out, get drunk, and then become subject to the onslaught of poisonous snakes who are on a mission to purge their island of human beings.<br /><br />If your jaw dropped at the last sentence of my second paragraph, don't bother to reread it, you got it right the first time. Frankly, I prefer my creature features when the creature(s) just attack the nonsensically dumb humans out of hunger, not because they have some kind of a mission. These aren't mutant snakes. They're not giants like what you see in "Anaconda." They're just ordinary, everyday African snakes like mambas and vipers
only they have the brains to form armies, take up causes, work together to trap people, understand our language, and even dance! Did your draw drop again? Well, it's going to drop further. Amount midway through this awful B-movie, about the part where I'd already given up, the human characters start drinking around a campfire and then all of a sudden, they break down into some kind of an orgy. And while they dance nude and such, the snakes hunting them all of a sudden stop and start jamming along to it. The combination of this scene and the scene where we discover that snakes, some the most roguish creatures on the planet, have formed an alliance against human beings for some oddball reason, proved just too much for my poor brain. And just when I though the filmmakers couldn't take it to an even lower level, the snakes started to sing.<br /><br />The people in the movie? Well, let's just say that never before have I rooted for the creatures to kill everybody off so quickly. I just could not stand it any longer.<br /><br />I really don't think I need to keep going on; you get the picture. If there is anything that makes "Snake Island" any different from its other rivals, it's that it does dare to try to be even dumber and that's not a complimentary achievement. Whyjust whyI continue to subject myself to these really bad movies, I guess I'll never really know. But "Snake Island" hits a brand new low. It's a cheap, trashy excuse for a motion picture that makes "Anaconda," a brainless snake movie, look as brilliant and sophisticated and thrilling as Steven Spielberg's "Jaws." You have been warned. | 0 | negative |
Forget some the whiny (and pointless) comments left here by some. This series is well acted, well shot, and makes a refreshing change to most of the pap on TV.<br /><br />Any fool can nitpick anything. However, in this show the characters are believable, the story lines intriguing and compelling (but do require some intelligence on the part of the viewer), overall it's enjoyable, and it's British !! (We do occasionally come up with some gems, and this is one of them).<br /><br />The shows are an hour long each and i think there are four of them all together (at least I've only seen four of them). The show clearly impressed some U.S. TV station/director who made a longer series which was nowhere near as compelling in spite of the bigger budget.<br /><br />If like soaps and reality shows you won't like or understand Eleventh Hour. | 1 | positive |
I've just seen this movie in a preview and I can only recommend to watch it. It was about 90 minutes long and when it was over I felt like it could go on for hours. The stories of the protagonists are so realistic and you feel really at home. The movie basically consists of dialogs but I wasn't bored a minute. 18 people of really different characters and each one of them acted out so well. I had to laugh, felt awkward, was sad and still felt happiness. All in all it is a movie that shows the different kinds of people in our society, the way they communicate and how love has changed and nowadays is handled as an economic thing. Dating becomes something that is similar to an audition. The whole audience loved it. So please watch it if there's a possibility. You'll love it! | 1 | positive |
In 1965 producer Kevin McLory -who owns a part of the Bond cinematic rights- associate with EON Productions (Harry Saltzman and Albert Broccoli) for making "Thunderball", the fourth film of the 007 franchise. The star is Sean Connery, of course.<br /><br />In 1982 McLory wins a legal battle and can produce an "independent" Bond film. "Never say never again" (NSNA) is one of the two "unofficial" 007 films made outside EON (the other is the 1967 comedy spoof "Casino Royale"). NSNA is a remake of "Thunderball" and stars the original Bond, Sean Connery -who comes back to the role after many years of absence.<br /><br />The film is released some months after "Octopussy" with Roger Moore, the 13th episode of the EON series. At the time press calls it "War of the Bonds"... Both films are a big success in 1983, even if "Octopussy" earns more money at the box office.<br /><br />NSNA is a luxurious film made by excellent technicians -director Irvin Kershner who led "The Empire strikes back", Douglas Slocombe -cinematographer of "Raiders of the lost Ark"-, and screenwriter Lorenzo Semple Jr -who wrote "The three days of the Condor"- among others...<br /><br />The cast is excellent with Connery, a then relatively unknown Kim Basinger, Barbara Carrera, Klaus Maria Brandauer, Max Von Sydow, Edward Fox...<br /><br />Although all that the film remains inferior to the original "Thunderball". It lacks many fundamental ingredients for being a real Bond movie: there's not the traditional gun barrel sequence, there's not the "James Bond theme", M and Q are not played by the traditional actors... It's a copyright reason: EON only is allowed to use these elements. Briefly, NSNA lacks the classic cinematic 007 atmosphere.<br /><br />On the other hand the film is exciting and enjoyable. Brandauer is a very good villain and the women (Basinger and Carrera) are sensual and gorgeous. But the main highlight is Sean Connery! He's once again wonderful in the role, he's older but looks fitter and nicer here than in "Diamonds are forever", his last performance in the role of the British super-spy before NSNA. | 1 | positive |
I saw this film before two weeks. It's kitsch, boring and totally unintelligible for people, that haven't read the original book. There are many fact mistakes too... actors plays rather poor, you must laugh even in the sad moments. It was a totally waste of time. | 0 | negative |
It couldn't.<br /><br />From the cutting dialogue to the super special effects this film was a joy to behold throughout. The immediate feel for the bitterness of the antarctic, the affinity for the characters that is built up at the base level before the real action heats up and the cunning finale combine to make this one of the most memorable and enjoyable films around.<br /><br />Up against a long list of films that have attempted to exploit the theme of visitors from another planet, The Thing comes out on top and laughing. Who can forget the perfectly timed dialogue and the chilling special effects? Special effects that are a lot more impressive than the computer generated images that we get to see today. I for one found some of the most enjoyable aspects of the film to be the way that we were introduced slowly to each member of the crew, and the way that they all had some distinctive character traits. This wasn't just a senseless bloodbath-come-slasher-horror flick. This film had feeling. Emotion.<br /><br />I truly can't recommend this film highly enough. I have yet to see anything in it's class that comes anywhere near to matching, let alone bettering, the near perfect acting and timing utilised in this cunning polymesmeric feat of cinema. | 1 | positive |
The Foreigner is a straight-to-video Steven Seagal film that was originally intended to be released as a theatrical feature in March, 2003, an intention which was reportedly reversed when Seagal's prior film (Half Past Dead) tanked at the box office. According to some reports, the film had a lavish $20 million budget, including location shoots in Warsaw and Paris, and was completed as part of the studio's obligation to a two-picture deal which was negotiated after the relative success of Exit Wounds seemed to indicate that Seagal still had a solid following.<br /><br />Despite the size of their investment, Sony Screen Gems probably made the right move in shelving this movie. It is nearly incomprehensible. What am I saying? It IS incomprehensible. I don't think I understood what was going on at all, except in the very broadest terms.<br /><br />Seagal is employed by a mysterious guy to deliver a mysterious package to another mysterious guy. Other mysterious guys try to stop him. Other highly mysterious guys try to kill the moderately mysterious guys who try to stop him. Other really, really mysterious guys do especially mysterious stuff, all of which which was in fact too mysterious for me to figure out. The intended recipient's mysterious wife tries to intercept the package before it can be delivered to her husband. Because he is a self-proclaimed "consummate professional" who has been hired to deliver the package only into the hands of the husband, Seagal at first defies the wife, then later gets involved in protecting her and her daughter from other mysterious guys with unexplained agendas, as well as from her husband.<br /><br />Many people have mysterious, cryptic conversations. Many people blow each other's brains out. Some guys seem to die more than once, while in other scenes gunfights end without a clear view of the result, so the audience sees somebody die, but is not sure which one of the gunslingers is headed to boot hill. Allegiances shift often, adding further mystery. Or should I say confusion?<br /><br />I don't know who was on whose side, or what anybody really wanted, and the resolution was as unsatisfying as the exposition. At the end of the movie, I just sat there thinking, "That's the end? What the ...?"<br /><br />I couldn't even figure out the credits. IMDb says that Aussie actress Kate Fischer (from "Sirens") was in this film, but I'll be damned if I know where. Either she was left on the cutting room floor or she wisely opted out of the project. She could have found some activities more beneficial to her career, like having unnecessary surgery, ripping those pesky insert cards out of magazines, or taking some community college courses in animal husbandry.<br /><br />Seagal used to be a pretty fair hand-to-hand combatant, but the action scenes didn't manage to redeem this film at all. Seagal is in his 50's now and is a very large man, so he is reduced to a mimimal level of physical exertion and even during that he is contained in a knee-length coat to hide his inchoate Brandoesque girth. He might even get a little winded removing the wrappers from candy bars, although that's understandable if you estimate just how many of those he must have to eat to maintain his present girth.<br /><br />Steven Seagal seemed to be making a comeback with Exit Wounds, but if his last film was half past dead, this one must be pretty close to filling out the other half. | 0 | negative |
I can barely even remember what DECADE I saw this film. It was when I was a teenager, I think (I'm 37 now). I started watching it as a late night movie sometime in the mid to early 80s, and so much of it has stayed with me ever since. Seeing other comments, I had NO idea it was shown at theatres, or that anyone else even new it existed. I don't think I've even mentioned the movie to anyone else.<br /><br />But half a lifetime later, I still remember much of the movie that I watched late at night so long ago. I think the innocence of the charactors, their situation, their mutual affection over a long period of time, left a long term imprint for reasons I don't quite understand. Maybe it is because I was a teenager at the time I saw it, and it touched me somehow..... I really don't know! I also REALLY wanted to know what was going to happen when the after the end of the film happened. Oh, the agony!!<br /><br />I've not seen it before, or since, but I would love to. I keep a casual look out for it, but I now doubt it will been shown and it seems to have faded into oblivion. But I'd proberbly miss it in the TV guide even if it DID show up. Pssttt!!!<br /><br />Reading the reviews here has renewed my interest. If anyone knows of its availability in Australia, by all means email me and let me know.<br /><br />Oh, and Sean Bury... nice to see you make an appearance on the comments here. I've had a look at your movie history and noticed your last appearance in a James Bond film. What are you up to these day? Oh, and do YOU have a copy of the film? CHEERS!!! | 1 | positive |
Interesting concept that just doesn't make it. I watched the whole movie, but had to read IMDb comments to find out what Code 46 meant. If/when it was explained in the film, I must have been in a coma, or possibly brain-dead by then. I only watched it for Tim Robbins. The fact that I did not know any of the other actors should have been a tip-off. We all have to start somewhere, but this film should not be it. As to the 'anti empathy virus virus'-Holy Utility Belt, Batman! Where were The Joker, The Riddler, etc? Also, why are the women all so damned ugly? If I want to see less-than-plain stick-figures, I'll just walk down the street. The best part of the film was the car crash. It was totally believable, and not over-the-top like most movie crashes. | 0 | negative |
This film is about two horse traders who agree to escort a small group of Mormons across the desert. Along the way, they encounter a murderous family of thugs who menace the peaceful folks and put their pilgrimage in jeopardy.<br /><br />WAGON MASTER is what I would term a "little" John Ford film, as it obviously did not have the budget or scope of some of his other Westerns. In particular, this film lacks the big-name stars like John Wayne but allows some of the usual supporting characters to take center stage. Long-time Ford stock character actors Ben Johnson, Harry Carey, Jr. and Ward Bond have been elevated to starring roles and perhaps the one who came of as "the" lead was probably Johnson--though the other two got nearly as much screen time and focus. This is not a bad thing, as the film worked just fine without the big star--and is well worth seeing.<br /><br />Now this isn't to say I loved the movie. It was very good but certainly not perfect. In particular, as far as the music goes, you'll probably either love it or hate it. I found the Sons of the Pioneers' music a bit schmaltzy at times. It did evoke a nice mood, but seemed to occasionally dominate the scenes. I think a little would have worked much better. Plus, with their incessant singing in the background, I kept expecting Roy Rogers to pop out at any moment. Another minor problem is that the plot was amazingly simple and the ending was pretty much a foregone conclusion.<br /><br />However, and I am glad to say there is a 'however', despite this being rather formulaic and sentimental, the film still worked well. This was primarily due to John Ford's nice, as usual, direction as well as Ben Johnson's exceptional performance. He was able to provide an excellent anchor for the film. Another plus for me is that I saw this in the same week as BRIGHAM YOUNG, another film about the Mormon migration. While BRIGHAM YOUNG was a bit silly and overly "saintly" in its portrayals, here the Mormons were less "perfect" and more like real people--with foibles and personalities. Oh, and speaking of BRIGHAM YOUNG, it seems as if Jane Darwell was the 'go to' girl for Mormon-themed films during this era, as she was a major supporting character in both films. Considering that she died in BRIGHAM YOUNG and it was set about 20 years before WAGON MASTER, this is some stunt!<br /><br />Also, if you'd like to catch a glimpse of the famous Jim Thorpe, he's in a tiny role where he plays the impassive Indian dancing next to Jane Darwell around the camp fire. | 1 | positive |
I saw this movie because it had a giant person and was labeled as a monster movie. I do not understand why it is called a monster movie. The movie is a drama. I was expecting a lot of destruction, but what did I get? Most of the movie was relationship problems and people thinking that a woman was a loony because she saw a spaceship crash with a giant inside for an unexplained reason. The action started a few minutes toward the end. Since the woman was killed, isn't that murder? Couldn't they have done anything else besides murder her? If you watch this because you expect it to have action because it is labeled as a monster movie, don't watch it. It is not a monster movie. It is a drama. | 0 | negative |
This is not the kind of movie that really merits critical attention. It's not going to win any Oscars - it's really not a very good movie at all. Heck, it's not even really a movie - just a string of short disgusting, gross-out skits strung together in an effort to make entertainment. And as much as every critical bone in my body cries out to give this movie a failing score, gosh darn it, I'm going to give it a much better score. The kind of people who are going to enjoy this movie are not the kind of people who really care what critics have to say, so I'm not going to give some snobby critique of Jackass's quality of surreal existentialism that permeates and commentates on how our society....oh forget it.<br /><br />What's to say? There's no plot development, no character development - no real beginning - there's a semi-enjoyable end that's not nearly as funny as the skit that precedes it, and everything in between reeks of improper, bathroom humor that junior high kids laugh at. It's actually pretty funny.<br /><br />Leave at the door all your preconceptions of a good movie. Jackass: Number Two is just gross-out crap. That's really all it is. I do give the filmmakers this, though: they come up with some pretty imaginative stuff. You'll probably cringe several times throughout, want to throw up a couple times, wiggle and shift uncomfortably as the people on screen do death and vomit-defying stunts. Vomit, crap, urine, semen....virtually every bodily fluid can be seen in Jackass: Number Two. There's nudity, sexual humor abounds, and so on and so forth.<br /><br />It's entertaining. If you're the kind of person who finds this stuff enjoyable, then you will probably really like Jackass: Number Two. I laughed several times. Like I said, it's pretty imaginative stuff. I never once wanted to vomit - though I do have a pretty strong stomach. Just accept the movie's premise: a bunch of idiotic guys do weird crap for fun. Once you get past that, accepting it and going with it, you'll enjoy it. The only flaw in the movie is the sheer excess of all the weird and disgusting stuff. There are several very imaginative, very disturbing skits, but it drags in many places as they do ones that are less interesting. Towards the end things pick up, but in the middle of the movie the drag hurts the overall film's quality. In a half hour TV show this isn't a problem, but with film length celluloid, it's inevitable that boredom will ensue at some point. After awhile the gross crap just becomes desensitizing.<br /><br />On the whole, though, Number Two is an entertaining, imaginative, and above all, disgusting comedy that will leave you with a feeling of pain, nausea, and hilarity. Go see it if you must, but hey, if you know you don't like this kind of stuff, don't bother. You'll just be disappointed. | 1 | positive |
I'm also a SF buff, among other genres, and I especially like those films from 60's and 70's with their "ideas over effects" premise that produced so many intelligent and likable stories put on screen. In a nutshell I completely agree with scott-886's review of this movie. I heard of this film, and being what I previously mentioned, a 60's and 70's SF buff, with a penchant for SF stories with touch of the "Twilight Zone", I expected a lot, and my expectations were heightened with reviews ranking the effects of this movie "second best" to Kubrick's "2001 Space Odyssey". What a fraud. "Journey to the far side of the sun", was ordinary, convoluted, half baked, silly looking film, with laughable amateur special effects (and remember I love films from that era and despise CGI), and it can be fully compared more to 60's SF disasters such as "Marooned", which "Journey" very much reminded me of. The idea behind it all is not that bad, but building the plot on a story of a twin planet to Earth, on which the same world is inverted, asked for a master like Kubrick to direct. Needles to say Robert Parish is nothing like that, so he delivered boring and silly movie, that looked and felt like a matinée TV series of those days. Not worth wasting your time on, even if you are an absolute fan of the genre. | 0 | negative |
There is no doubt that Alfred Hitchcock was a seriously talented director. Many of his films are undeniable classics that have stood the test of time and are highly watchable to this day. This list could include The 39 Steps, Rear Window, North by Northwest, Dial M for Murder, Vertigo, The Birds, Shadow of a Doubt, and a few other films.<br /><br />However, "Suspicion" is not aging well at all and is really so unwatchable that it seems to me that it was probably a bad film even by 1941 standards. The list of scenes that work well could be listed on a matchbook with a crayon. The script is loose and ridiculous most of the time, but the acting seems so forced and wooden and borderline amateurish throughout, that it is almost unbelievable. Joan Fontaine tries to shore things up but she is on a slippery slope and Cary Grant doesn't provide much assistance. His acting is so bad at times that I have seen better performances in high school plays or college Theatre Experience classes where a Chemical Engineer is acting for the first time with no formal training.<br /><br />After about 30 minutes of watching this film you may find yourself reaching for the DVD sleeve in the dark to see if you accidentally picked up some kind of special edition version that was cobbled together without any editing.<br /><br />The subject matter is serious, yet the film has a silly and trite feel to it that just seems so out of place you become numb with perplexity.<br /><br />"Suspicion" is basically unwatchable and another very very very overrated BAD movie. | 0 | negative |
this is an example of a movie that can have great potential and is executed very poorly.. i am a fan of kids and thumb sucker and many other so called teen angst films, but this one bugged me.<br /><br />why is every white kid made into a thug who loves rap, its getting to be one dimensional. the acting was awful but simple since It mainly consisted of just dropping f bomb after f bomb just a bad bad movie if you'd like to see better movies like this : thumb sucker kids bully all<br /><br />those i think are better so i recommend one of those is you'd like to see a good "teen movie" i hope my comment you found useful and hope you hear future comments from me | 0 | negative |
This is one of the best Czech movies I have ever seen. The director did excellent work, there is great camera and the actors are really great. I like war movies so I really liked this one. I would recommend it to anyone who wants to know something about Czech pilots during 2nd World War and their life after the war, in communism. | 1 | positive |
The movie is an adaptation of a Japanese story by the respected author Yukio Mishima. It simply doesn't make the transition into a credible story about Brits and Americans.<br /><br />The story moves sluggishly, especially the part where Miles and Kristofferson are separated and the director fills in with the cliched shots of a ship's prow cutting through the waves, and the little route line filling in on the maps, while their letters are heard in overvoice. The film moves so languidly that I even fast-forwarded through the sex and masturbation scenes which, although long, are not really either passionate or erotic. The film did achieve a measure of notoriety when Kristofferson's then-wife divorced him for extra-curricular activities with Miss Miles during the filming. I guess they enjoyed the sex scenes, but it isn't quite the same for a viewer.<br /><br />There are no characters to hang on to. The sexually frustrated widow is unlikeable, the little kid is detestable. Kristofferson is amiable enough, but he just doesn't have the acting skills to bring much to the role, although perhaps we don't really want get too involved with him, considering his ultimate fate.<br /><br />As for the little kid, well, he kinda falls in with a bad crowd after his dad dies, and they help him plot some evil against the man who enters his mum's life. Now this is a really bad crowd. They don't just shoplift and smoke dope, nosireebib. They slip a mickey to a cat and vivisect it. This is shown in gory detail. But of course, this is only practice so they can do the same thing to Kristofferson!<br /><br />So the movie mostly moves slowly, with no characters to relate to, and when something does happen it is unrelentingly morbid.<br /><br />The ending is about as unsatisfying as any movie you'll ever see.<br /><br />This all might have made some sense if the Japanese locale and cultural context had been retained. As it stands, it is just abysmal.<br /><br /> | 0 | negative |
Out to Sea was a great movie. I expected comedy and from about 10 minutes into the film to the end, there was comedy, and laughing points. Jack and Walter are great together, and the addition of Rue McClanahan made it a wonderful movie, that should be seen over and over again. | 1 | positive |
I'm not a big fan of movie musicals. "Annie" was a stage show I loved but the movie was a flop. The "Phantom Of The Opera movies" (and I believe there were three) failed to match the Weber staging. But I LOVED this. The DVD will take a place of honour among my "keepers." Even though it's a movie adaptation, it somehow captures the flavour and the atmosphere of live theatre. Bette Midler, always a treat, is just exceptional in this role. There's great music, lots of laughs and even a tear or two. I've seen most of the big musicals of the eighties and nineties. Somehow I missed this one so there's no comparison to make. But if it gets revived I shall be first in line for tickets! But this movie is so good, I'll be in the odd position of wondering if the stage production will measure up to the movie. | 1 | positive |
The year still has three weeks to go but unless a really horrendous turkey shows up before then, Passion Of the Mind may be the winner of my lousiest movie of the year contest. An interesting idea badly executed. And, for that matter, badly acted. Demi Moore is very good at curling her lip and smoking cigarettes, but is that all she does? And why so many cigarettes. Did Ligitt and Myers or one of the other bad boys of nicotine have some of their illicit profits invested in this production. It's confusing, silly and moves at the frantic past of a arthritic earthworm. I gave it a 3. Should have been a 2!<br /><br /> | 0 | negative |
The film is excellent. One of the most noteworthy things about it is that Flynn's performance is superb. This is worth stressing, as he was often derided as an actor by Bette Davis et al.<br /><br />I remember the scene where Flynn gets Arthur Kennedy drunk in order to take him to his doom at the Battle of the Little Big Horn. The cold, calculating look on Flynn's face as he does so is extraordinary - much better than the much vaunted Spencer Tracy or many other stars could have done.<br /><br />The other thing to note is the excellent performance by George P. Huntley Jr as Lt "Queen's Own" Butler. It is baffling why he stopped making films shortly afterwards - one would have thought that he would have been set up for years after as a character actor. | 1 | positive |
Of all the adaptations of books by Alistair MacLean, I feel that this qualifies as the worst, but don´t blame MacLean!. It would appear that all that this film shares with the novel is the same title. We have no suspense, no sense of foreboding of mystery, no chance to really empathize with the main characters. We spend the entire duration (or at least I did) waiting for Charlotte Rampling to shed her clothing (for Charlotte, this appears to take a remarkably long time!). Still, a glimpse of Charlotte Rampling´s tits really can´t save this disastrous film. MacLean has once again been kicked into the gutter to endure the sniping of those bitter hacks and nit-pickers who would appear to blame him for all the ills that befall attempted filming of his books. Poor old Alistair must have crawled into a corner and whimpered when this one came out. At least "Bear Island" - which also uses the Maclean name but apparently none of his novel - was a LITTLE exciting. The excitement here is in waiting for the final credits. | 0 | negative |
If you thought "ROSEMARY'S BABY" was bad, this one isn't much better. Easily one of the worst movies ever made, like it's lame predecessor, it goes nowhere fast. <br /><br />Rating: 1/2* out of ***** | 0 | negative |
Late film critic Gene Siskel said that this movie shows how easy it is to make a movie. He was giving it a compliment even though now that might have been taken as an insult these days. Even though I didn't always agree with Gene Siskel, I agree with him here. Love Jones is a shining example of how a love story should be: realistic with real characters in real situations.<br /><br />The story chronicles the ups and downs of the relationship between Darius Lovehall(Larenz Tate) and Nina(Nia Long). Larenz Tate and Nia Long are more than just a beautiful couple on screen. These two actually have chemistry together. You can feel the vibe between these two whenever the are on screen and its fantastic.<br /><br />Bill Bellamy is pretty funny as the deceitful Wood and Lisa Nicole Carson is great as Nina's friend Simone. Isaiah Washington is just as great as Darius's close friend Savon and I sigh every time I see him in a movie. The guy is a great actor whose career is ruined by industry lowlifes and the childish games they play. You can believe that he called the little weasel on Grey's Anatomy out of his name but anybody that knows how Follywood works knows better than to believe any "official story" from the place of make believe. At any rate...<br /><br />Love Jones is a wonderful love story full of interesting and likable characters that are in realistic situations that anybody that has been in love can relate too. You love these people because they are believable and are not portrayed as gangsters and tramps. Not one obscene stereotype can be found here. Contrast that with the Romance movies of toady. Exactly. In closing if you love Black Cinema then you would do well to own a copy of this movie. | 1 | positive |
My first question, is NOT about the horrible acting, NOT about the horrendous writing, it is the directing. The choices that were made about the cinematography are some of this worst decisions I have ever seen. Why does EVERY single bad guy have to die in slow motion? I was about to beat myself with a rubber hose. The camera shots make it so that you can't see whats going on. I was JUST about to turn the movie off because of Jalal Merhi's accent, when it made it to the sex scene, so I thought it might get better, well it did not. If you rate special effects on an A,B,C rating scale, I would have to put it around a W or so, and did I mention the acting? Wow, was it bad!!! And the WORST part of the entire "Expect to DIE" experience, is the blatant misuse of the phrase on the cover, which is: "THE MATRIX JUST GOT DEADLIER". comparing this movie to the Matrix is easily the WORST comparison I have EVER seen. If you haven't seen this movie, Don't, unless you are looking for a good reason to beat your head against the wall. | 0 | negative |
SPOILERS AHEAD------------------------- Mel has got it going on. From the opening credits to the ending credits this movie has straight laughs. Dave Chappel shows why he is a comedic force. Cary Eewes carries the movie most of the time, but the supporting cast fills in strong when the plot is drawn away from Robin Hood. Right from the beginning this movie proclaims it's self not to be taken seriously. If you took a time machine and gave the characters thoughts of modern day antics you would get this movie. What makes this movie special you say? Throughout the movie you see blinken and acuhu walk beside each other becoming great friends as Robin Hood's sidekicks. But, it Blinken is never told or fails to grasp that he is black, until the crowd says " a black sheriff", Blinken replays "He's black". That is a timeless scene. Simple one of the most enteraining movies of our time. | 1 | positive |
Although Flatliners is 15 years old, tonight was my first time ever seeing it. I had heard about the movie Flatliners, but there was never a buzz about it to make me go out and rent it or make a point to see it period. Well, I caught it on one of the premium channels and I must say that it was very good.<br /><br />This movie was about some brilliant young medical students deciding to explore death. They have figured out a way to cause a person to die briefly and bring him/her back to life. Besides the all-star cast, this movie had some serious bite to it. Just the very thought of exploring death is riveting enough, but I really thought the writer & director did an excellent job in giving a different yet hair raising view. This was no generic attempt to thrill, frighten, and make one's mind race... this was the real deal.<br /><br />Instead of making it an empty, superficial, star-studded thriller, this movie had substance. A nail-biter, white knuckle, edge-of-the-seat, hard nose thriller. I give it an 8/10. | 1 | positive |
I saw Winnie's Heffalump a couple of days ago. A nice story based on well known characters created by A.A.Milne. Although Winnie, Piglet, Tigger and Rabbit are all present in this animated feature, the main character is Roo this time. He befriends with scary Heffalump who proves to be not scary at all and shows everybody that friendship knows no boundaries and everybody wants and deserves to be happy. I love this film and I would love it even more were I 10 or 15 years younger. Alas, I would like to become a kid again to enjoy this Heffalump story much more but all I am left with is a sense of sadness at the loss of a sort of childishness and innocence of which this movie is full
I was glad to hear Carly Simon sing, Joel McNeely provided great score. | 0 | negative |
I absolutely LOVED this movie as a child. I can't seem to find it anywhere! I was mentioning it to some friends just the other day, and not a single one of them remembers it! Can anyone help me out? My older sister vaguely remembers it. There was also another movie I remember that was half live action and half animation, but I can't remember the name of it. The characters were animated and the background was real...I seem to remember it being about a kangaroo, and I believe the setting of the film was in Australia. I'm going out of my mind trying to obtain copies of these films that were such a memorable part of my very enjoyable childhood. Edit: I searched IMDb for this other movie and found out it's called Dot and the Kangaroo! All I had to do was type in "kangaroo" in the search bar under characters, and the name of the movie in the list was like a bell going off! MAN, I love IMDb! Thanks! | 1 | positive |
Really, REALLY... What pleases audience (american one!) in this so called show is totally beyond me. What can we learn from these series:<br /><br />1. Each casino there is spending about 2-3 billion bucks every year to rent a satellite and enormous quantity of hi tech high resolution cameras for their security team. Let FBI bites the dust of them.<br /><br />2. Every security employee must have voluptuous breasts, of course natural ones. The tits must be shown all the time otherwise they will lose their job. <br /><br />3. If the employee happens to be a male, he needs to get breasts implanted, then go to step 2. <br /><br />4. Only in Hollywood one can blatantly rip off other show's ideas then implement them as their own and call all this crap "original" and "art". <br /><br />5. Every security with tits bigger than 39D is considered immortal and cannot die.<br /><br />I really would like to have the opportunity to vote with minus values. -10/10 for this one! | 0 | negative |
As a Czech I am very pleased when I read these comments here. I am absolutely sure that this film is great. And what you maybe don't know is that story was specially written for Mr. Brodský. The man you can see is him and his typical attitude - to live and to resist death. He was one of great actors and we are very lucky that we he has made so many beautiful films during his life. You are lucky you could see at least one of them. Enjoy. | 1 | positive |
Probably the best Royal Rumble in years.<br /><br />Match 1 sees Edge battle Shawn Michaels in a good but very long match. Next up one of the worst wrestlers on the roster - Heidenreich takes on The Undertaker in a boring casket match. Match number 3 sees Bradshaw defend his WWE title against Big Show and Kurt Angle in a surprisingly good contest. The next match up sees Triple H defending his 10th heavyweight title reign against Randy Orton in a great match up.<br /><br />Next up the Royal Rumble takes place in which 15 Raw superstars and 15 Smackdown! superstars hit the ring to try and win the rumble and face the champion whoever that may be at Wrestlemania 21. Highlights included Tough Enough 3 winner Daniel Puder getting his ass kicked by Chris Benoit, Eddie Guerrero and Hardcore Holly! All of the superstars beating the crap out of Muhammad Hassan, and Raw superstars vs Smackdown! superstars!<br /><br />Not a bad PPV at all.<br /><br />Edge vs HBK - 8/10 Taker vs Heidenreich - 4/10 JBL vs Angle vs Big Show - 7.5/10 Triple H vs Orton - 8.5/10 The Royal Rumble match - 9/10 | 1 | positive |
"This film is great! I watched it with some friends and we thought it was proof that a film doesn't have to see commercial success to be a hit!" ...is what I would love to be able to say about this film. In the words of the film itself "you are very very bad!" I went to see an unlicensed acupuncturist once so generally agree with the moral of the film though.<br /><br />i'd include a spoiler, but the lack of plot makes this very tricky. overall, a cinematic disaster.<br /><br />quotes; 'you're not a leper at all!' 'you're beautiful, and i bet you're nice too' 'have you ever seen a naked man's body?' 'you couldn't break a piece of straw.'<br /><br />cameos in dubbing; Micheal cane x3, harold bishop, steve erwine, benjamin netinyahoo, yoda. | 0 | negative |
The opening of "The Jungle" promises us a safari adventure with a science fiction element, but mostly what we get is a travelogue with lots of stock footage and padding (and the odd leopard attack). The movie is leisurely when you want it to be gripping, and tries to inject interest into the proceedings with badly staged matches between various wild animals (I had no idea that lions and wild boars were natural enemies in the wild, did you? I thought the big cats stuck to hunting herbivores, but apparently the producers knew better). <br /><br />As for the actors: Cesar does his usual great job of rocking the mustache, and Marie Windsor is reasonably believable as the progressively thinking rajah's daughter (nice eyebrows, btw!). However, Rod Cameron is barely watchable as the hunter returning as the sole survivor of his expedition. I'm sure he was in demand in his day, but here he comes off as a Rent-A-Center Bogart : rough looking, but with none of Bogey's range or timing. He spends the movie going back and forth from stoic anger to angry stoicism, and any time the screenplay attempts to crank up some romantic sparks between himself and Windsor, you just have to laugh. That crabbed, knobby face isn't a good vehicle for tenderness. <br /><br />The screenplay is not entirely without merit, although it does make some odd choices. Early in the first act, the screenplay makes a point of spending several moments where the heroes decide to bring along the obligatory clever young boy and monkey mascot, but then basically ignore them until ***SPOILER*** the monkey somehow gets hold of a live hand grenade during the mammoth scene and accidentally tosses near Windsor. This is so Cameron can prove his bravery by diving on it and saving her life at the cost of his own.***END SPOILER. It's possible that the Indian version of this movie (which I understand ran better than 2 1/2 hours), might have given the kid and the monkey more to do. <br /><br />Another thing that makes the film show its age **SPOILER**is the issue of the woolly mammoths (the plot device that sets the safari into motion in the first place). When they finally appear, the way the scene is filmed, it's obvious that the "mammoths" (obviously elephants draped in shag carpeting) aren't really "attacking" anyone, or even moving all that fast, and yet Cameron immediately sets to trying to wipe them out with hand grenades. These days, the idea of destroying the last known specimens of a species thought to be extinct would be unthinkable, especially when all they seem to do is roll through the jungle at a nice walking pace.***END OF SPOILER***<br /><br />So IMO, four stars, which is pretty good for a Robert Lippert production (normally Lippert hack jobs rate two or three stars at best). It's not a train wreck of a film, or anything; plus, it seems to mean well,with the rajah's daughter arguing for amelioration of the most repressive aspect of the "traditional ways" and the elements of "mixed race" romance that was pretty progressive in 1952. And there's some nice scenery and exotic spectacle. See it if someone offers to show it to you for free, but don't expect much except an interesting historical chapter of early fantasy cinema. | 0 | negative |
Hummmm,...ANOTHER Keystone comedy set in the park!!! It seems that the number one location spot for shooting was in this same local park, as so many of Chaplin's and Arbuckle's films are set there! And, while this is yet another one, it is different enough and well made that I still enjoyed it.<br /><br />Fatty is interested in a younger than usual looking and acting Mabel Normand. I think she's supposed to be a little younger, though in her mother's eyes she is TOO YOUNG to be interested in men. Well, Fatty does not share her feelings and soon he and Mabel run away for some innocent fun. Things get complicated when the mother's watch is stolen. Fatty finds it and gives it to Mabel as a gift,...and MANY problems result.<br /><br />Decent pacing and the fact that this movie did not rely too much on cheap slapstick but a reasonable plot make this a cute and enjoyable little film. | 1 | positive |
I just want To say that this movie was excellent .<br /><br />I loved it from the beginning until the end. <br /><br />The acting was great .The director did an amazing job and I would like to see it again.<br /><br />Jennifer Tilly did a very good performance , The guy that interpreted his father (Manny) was another great actor BUT I CAN NOT RECALL HIS NAME .<br /><br />I can't wait for El Padrino II.<br /><br />Damian Chapa looks so good and I think he is one of the most talented actors out there. There is pleanty of Latin actors that do a great job like it is shown in this film!<br /><br />Rent It!!! Rent it !!! Rent it !!! | 1 | positive |
I mean, nothing happens, 5 dumb kids go to Oklahoma to find a magical forest of marijuana... this could've been fun, if it hadn't been for the 5 worst actors in the world. And the dialogs weren't even half an inch of fun. The only thing that I almost showed my teeth of, was when the dumb cops stopped the teenagers in either Oklahoma or Kansas... The plot could have been fun, had it not been for abysmal interpretation. If you even think about watching this piece-of-crap movie, don't. How dumb is it, that the guy gets away from the cops by telling them he's gay, like his friend did (just that he wasn't pretending...) and there's that dumb hick joke about the several meanings to the word "gay". I'm laughing my hair off.......NOT....... Anyway... WORST MOVIE I'VE EVER SEEN!! | 0 | negative |
good job.that's how i would describe this animated Scooby-Doo adventure.this is so far the best of the animated Scooby movies i have seen.i liked the story.i thought it had some depth to to it.the movie is also well paced.it doesn't get boring for a minute.it also has an interesting group of characters(besides Scooby and Shaggy and the gang,of course)plus,the movie was a real blast.i has a lot of fun watching it.i also liked the great Scottish music.it was very catchy and infectious.naturally,we know that Scooby and the Gamg will solve the mystery,but it's still fun getting to that point.the animation is also pretty good for this movie.i would love it if they did a 3D animation Scooby adventure,but we'll just have to wait and see.for me,Scooby-Doo and the Loch Ness monster is a 7/10 | 1 | positive |
This movie used to be played constantly on the Disney Channel when I was a bit younger, and I really remember liking it. However, I didn't have great taste back then (not to say that I do now) so I can't vouch for my nine-year-old self too well. The movie was probably a 7/10 but it had some good music so I gave it an extra point. Yeah, worth watching. I know that some fans of this movie are wondering what a certain song is - the one that appears when she is in the car crash. The song is "Play a Love Song" by the Jaguars and it is VERY hard to find and obtain. In fact, this movie is, too. I can't find it anywhere online or on DVD or on VHS. I'd like to see it again so I can gauge if it was actually a good movie. Oh well. | 1 | positive |
I Won't say anything about music, because this topic can be so deep that it can become one huge separate review, so let's concentrate on movie that is brilliant... No doubt, one of the best works of Forman.<br /><br />The simple story about love, friendship, freedom and ideals... oh yes, the ideals for which even pacifists are ready to go in war...<br /><br />There is not a single fake word, single fake character, single fake feeling in the story, because the love, freedom and friendship isn't something complicated for the characters of movie. These things aren't something that "everyone can view from different angle" These aren't things that need much thinking to understand... their love is simple, their friendship is simple, their ideals are as simple as the word "simple" itself and that's why these characters are so deep.<br /><br />Berger, the leader of a hippie played by Treat Williams is a guy who lives to live and that's the biggest happiness for him... he has his ass - (as he sings in one of the scenes in the movie) and that's enough to make him happy with his property...<br /><br />Berger never accepts that something can't be done... and his right... If he wants to go to some rich guys' banquet in his dirty old clothes and huge long hair, he will do it... if he want's to go to another state to just see his friend, he'll do it... he never thinks twice... he just do it.<br /><br />How? why is he so powerful? the answer is simple: because he is FREE.<br /><br />Just watch how the wind makes the hair wave in this movie and you will understand it all, maybe you will even free yourself too. | 1 | positive |
The previews were so funny that I couldn't wait to see this movie. I just got home and I have to say I couldn't have been more embarrassed at this movie. Yes there were times where the jokes were funny, but the stereotypical roles were painful. Joan Plowright is a fine actress but the scene with the "negro spiritual" was just in poor taste. Needless to say the laughs were few and far between in the movie house for a largely white crowd (I was one of a very small handful of blacks). | 0 | negative |
Upon renting this, I wasn't expecting to be blown away. In fact, I knew it was going to be horrible. It was just seeing how horrible it really was. That's what comes with low budget horror.<br /><br />"Snakes On A Train", not to be confused with the serpentine summer blockbuster "Snakes On A Plane" with Samuel L. Jackson, is about a woman who is put under a Mayan curse that causes snakes to hatch inside her and devour her from within. Her only hope of surviving lies in a shaman that lives across the border, so she and her companion stowaway onto a train bound for Los Angelas. Throw in a few passengers and hilarity ensues.<br /><br />Come to think of it, though, the story isn't half bad. Isn't half good, either.<br /><br />The acting in this film rivals that of a Sci-Fi Original, if not worse. Trust me, it's horrible. The snakes were another problem. They were supposed to be rattlers, I guess, but most of what you get instead are mostly harmless garden snakes that don't attack anything and there's this rattling sound effect that gets really annoying.<br /><br />The gore effects on the other hand, while not on the Tom Savini level, were actually pretty good.<br /><br />And another thing, the ending alone makes up for the rest of the movie. I'm not going to talk about it here, so you'll have to rent this and see for yourself. | 0 | negative |
I am sick of series with young and clueless people, talking about their "problems" all the time, self centered, boring and absolutely annoying (Popular; Dawson's Creek; Beverly Hills; etc). "Hack" is a breath of fresh air, with a great actor (David Morse), a completely different plot, credible people with REAL problems (thank God !!) and very, very good histories. I just love it!! I hope "Hack" will go on for a long time, because it is a great television series for grown up people, for a change. | 1 | positive |
I think it's incredibly hard to write any kind of full-scale review to Giorgino, merely because it's one of those viewer-dependent, complex, poetical and philosophical movies that are brain-wearing if, while watching them, you're trying to enjoy their shell and get to their core simultaneously, yet there are several things which are certain and beyond any doubt for any man of art (which, I hope, I am). The first thing: it's a certain masterpiece, even of that kind of art which remains through a long long time; the second: it's one of those rare "dark" movies in which darkness is poetic, even romantic, attractive and much more sad than depressing, like the art of Pieter Brueghel or Caspar David Friedrich. As to the core of the movie, someone called it Kafkian, though I don't agree with that because actually it's far beyond Kafka's misanthropic logic and much more like Edgar Poe's parables: dark and scary but through that touching the most gentle strings of our souls. Actually, on the poetic side (which is much more important than the narrative), Giorgino is a tale about eternal peace and love which can be achieved only through eternal childhood of soul. Those who have such souls are usually branded as crazy by our society, but from another point of view, they all have the virtue all the others lost when become "grown": the virtue of God's love. Indeed, Giorgino is a very Christian movie, "Be like children" (Mt 18:3) is it's real hidden tag-line, though the movie never deals with any kind of moral and concentrates only on the Christian philosophy for, dare to suppose, true God is beyond any human moral. Yet I think that Boutonnat is too harsh portraying "grown" people as a sort of demons trying to steal childhood from rare survived souls, but it's his point of view and he has a right to think so. While watching Giorgino don't try to look for some hidden symbols (though there are some), better look for thoughts expressed through characters and their behavior, and do learn from them. Also I cannot mention that the movie looks astonishingly through excellent photography, especially through rational use of color filters, incredibly apposite editing, wonderful acting of all the cast and, of course, due to the atmospheric beauty of winter mountains that reminded me of the Brueghel's "Hunters in the Snow". Also, interestingly enough, the scene with Death in the form of an old woman with sunken black-ringed eyes riding a cart, instantly reminded me of Pesta (Plague) from the series of drawings by the Norwegian painter Theodor Kittelsen, depicting how a black plague is sweeping out the population of a small town in the mountain valley. Is it a coincidence? | 1 | positive |
I originally posted the first user comment on this movie,and claimed it was crap and it didnt make sense.I DIDNT MAKE SENSE. Campfire tales is a thoroughly enjoying film (now that im 2 years older and watched it last night).The actors were famous but not TOO famous. The acting itself was more than acceptable,it was rather good.I will rate the movie per segment of films.<br /><br />1)The black and white scene (A.K.A-"The Hook") This one was rather pointless,it looked good,but didnt hold much grip at all,the only disappointing one,i dont think it was even included as a segment.Here is the scare-o-meter.<br /><br />------(Poor)<br /><br />2)The R.V Story (honeymooners stuck in woods) Possibly the most entertaining of all tales,the acting was good in this one too,dissapointing bout the typical caravan sex scenes.Yet it was intruiging,you think "WHo was knocking on that door".It had suspense,and not too gory.Liked this one<br /><br />--------------------------(Very Good)<br /><br />3)Internet Chat Tale (Little Girl Meets Psycho) This was a smart addition,gore left at a minimal,frights left at EXTREME.Although dull at times,the last few minutes were most entertaining,dont get me wrong it was still fun to watch.Real creepy,and could happen to anybody,so watch who youre talking to.<br /><br />---------------------------(Very Good)<br /><br />4)Ghost Tale (Man kisses ghost)?? Not the best,it wasnt too atmospheric for a ghost tale.This one was strange,the aspects were rather good,playing music and the screaming,but everything was too real to be ghastly,although it was good,it was quiet bloody,and could have been better with that idea.<br /><br />-------------(Acceptable)<br /><br />5)The Ending (the 4 lost teenagers) These are the 2 attractive gals and guys telling the tales through-out the film.The best thing about the film is definantley the ending,it set a great impression,the ending was totally un-expected.Watch it,it was so well done,the realism was spectacular.<br /><br />-----------------------------------(TOP NOTCH)<br /><br />6)THE FILM OVERALL Campfire tales was more than i used to take it for,i actually like it so much now im buying it on video,cause its a truly entertaining horror movie forget the trash you see these days,like many,im dissapointed that this didnt really go nowhere,it was straight to video,to me it was better than all the hype "horror" you see these days. Overall for Campfire Tales<br /><br />----------------------------- (Very Good)<br /><br />8 out of 10 | 1 | positive |
Everybody interested in Texas needs to have this DVD. It's just a good movie about real Texas with great scenes. It took a bunch of Texans to do this right. Hollywood never would have gotten it. There are so many subtle things that Tubb put in the movie and may not have even thought about, but it makes the show.<br /><br />Guest cameos are not seen as cameos at all. Each star fits in perfectly and does not distract from the film. Many of the guests spots blend so perfect that when the credits roll you will go back through the movie to find the character. Strait's roll is dead on, it could not have been done any better in real life.<br /><br />The second half of the movie is completely different from the first, it get's a little "hokey", but that's alright. Somehow the storyline works. The "hokey" stuff is like an after school special but it looks believable and natural.<br /><br />I have never heard anyone use the Sonny Pruitt line before, other than locals that I grew up with. That was the icing on the cake for me.<br /><br />Definitely a collectible, right up there with Pure Country, Sugarland Express, Jr. Bonner, Texasville, The Last Picture Show, Giant, and of course Hud.<br /><br />Gig'em Aggies '86 | 1 | positive |
Anyone can make a movie these days. Budget, production value, or experienced crew don't have to stop the self described "director" from "realizing their dream" these days.<br /><br />Respect for the craft of film-making, or even just respect for any film aesthetic are no longer prerequisites for actually executing a film.<br /><br />Director Bill Cowell must have thought he struck gold when Lion's Gate decided to market his original film as a sequel to a film he had nothing to do with.<br /><br />I personally find Lion's Gate far, far more in error than Cowell in regard to Dark Harvest 2 being made available to the public. Lion's Gate's deceptive marketing of this film should be investigated by the state attorney general's office and Lion's Gate's officers should be pickled in sulfuric acid and kerosene for their utter disregard for film, film-making, and good sense.<br /><br />As for the film itself, it's not even worth commenting on. | 0 | negative |
This is a below average "whodunit" with the cliche everyone in the living room routine. Charlie Chan is a Secret Service Agent doing government work, and he must find who killed a scientist working on a bomb to defeat German U-boats in World War Two. There is little to recommend with this movie, since the neither the bomb nor the scientist nor the war have much to do with the plot. Charlie Chan fans will most likely find this movie disappointing. Who dunit? Who cares? | 0 | negative |
The original story and funny compelling characters went over well for a teen girls slumber party movie (2 times now). I loved it, it was fun and moved quickly, no boring drawn out scenes. It is violent and has a little language (though most of it is covered up). Its a great movie. David Strickland was a terrific actor. Ron Eldard gave a wonderful performance. I watch it with the girls every time. | 1 | positive |
It was on a day in 1891 when Scottish inventor William K.L. Dickson surprised his boss, Thomas Alva Edison with his remarkable work in the development of motion pictures. After many experiments, Dickson was now able to capture scenes of real life with his camera, and reproduce them through his invention, the Kinetoscope, as if a fragment of time were preserved in celluloid. Soon, Dickson's Kinetoscope would become an enormous success as a new way of entertainment, with many people eager to pay the nickel that was charged to be able to watch people dancing, or acrobats performing stunts through the "peepshow" of the Kinetoscope. However, the invention wasn't complete, in order for it to capture on film the real life as we know it, sound was needed on the movies. So Dickson kept experimenting and this short experiment, Kinetophone's first film, was the result.<br /><br />In this experiment, codenamed simply as "Dickson Experimental Sound Film", director William K.L. Dickson stands in front of a recording cone for a wax cylinder (earliest method of recording sound), with his violin on hands, playing a song named "Song of the Cabin Boy". The idea was to record the song into the cylinder at the same time that the camera was recording his movements. In order to show that this was a motion picture, two of Edison's "Black Maria" laboratory decided to do a little dance in front of the camera. Unlike what author Vito Russo claimed in his book, "The Celluloid Closet", this little dance had nothing to do with homosexuality as it obviously is a reference to the environment of loneliness of the lab, akin to the lonely sailors to whom the "Song of the Cabin Boy" was dedicated to (the title Russo suggests, "The Gay Brothers", is actually anachronistic as "gay" had no homosexual connotation in the late 1890s).<br /><br />Sadly, Dickson was unable to achieve the desired effect, and the Kinetophone never could really produce the synchronized audio with images. While he had the cylinder with the sound and the celluloid with the images, the synchronization of the two elements was not exactly effective, and the sudden appearance of Auguste and Louis Lumière's Cinématographe prompted Edison's team to focus on projecting systems and eventually Dickson left the company. Fortunately, in 1998 Dickson's cylinder with the movie's sound was rebuilt and film editor Walter Murch made a restoration of the experiment as it was intended. Finally, "Dickson Experimental Sound Film" could be heard with synchronized sound, just as its creative inventor had intended. While it was not a successful attempt, this outstanding film is a testament of the enormous genius of the father of Kinetoscope. 8/10 | 1 | positive |
doesn't mean this movie is good. i was really frustrated by it on many levels. it's kind of the tip of the hat to bukowski. hey, i've read that guy in college--let's see what matt dillon does with him. and i like matt dillon. i thought he came close to looking a little like hank, but mostly just the ruddy cheeks. i have to care about a character, though, and there just wasn't much here to care about. i think time might be cruel to bukowski, and that bothers me a lot, because the writing was solid in a sort of post counter culture time. hard to sit through, scenes that went nowhere, and a soundtrack that made me want to vomit. i ask for very little, got less. | 0 | negative |
As a person who knows the filmed ship and some other ships, too, I cannot see the movie as a movie, only. As a movie is has some great, wonderful shots of the ship, most of them done on an existing vessel - apart of the ones in the disaster scenes, of course, and a certain room under deck. But regarding the story and dialogs I only can call it big crap. Nothing of that would happen like this on a real sailing vessel. No wonder, the film had bad impact on the existing ship - if I didn't know better, I wasn't tempted to do a sailing voyage for sure. Definitely, for Europeans I recommend to switch off once the ship ran aground. After that, the over-emotional, very American part begins which I couldn't bear. The pics are really, really great, no wonder in a Ridley Scott film, but if you can avoid listening to the text, it will become much better. | 0 | negative |
Gary Busey's best performance in a nicely-flowing biography. Since had a musical background, he was able to do his own songs and it really works. It's always good to see that fine actor, Don Stroud (one of the crickets) and Charlie Martin Smith as well.<br /><br />An 8 out of 10. Best performance = Gary Busey. Thankfully, Mr. Busey was Oscar-nominated for this, losing to Jon Voight in COMING HOME. A fairly low-budget flick that doesn't disappoint, with GREAT SONGS by Mr. Holly. I hope this made plenty of dough. Busey was never this popular again for varying reasons, but thankfully he has this one great one on his resume. | 1 | positive |
"Murder Over New York" is an entertaining entry in the Charlie Chan series of films, but if you're paying attention, a lot of plot holes reveal themselves to the observant eye. While traveling to New York City for an annual police convention, Chan (Sidney Toler) meets former Scotland Yard investigator Hugh Drake (Frederick Worlock) on the same flight. Now employed by military intelligence, Drake is tracking Paul Narvo and his Hindu servant, suspected for acts of sabotage around the world. Drake believes that by contacting Narvo's elusive wife, he'll be able to pin down the whereabouts of the master criminal.<br /><br />When Drake winds up dead in the library of George Kirby, president of the Metropolitan Aircraft Corporation, Charlie theorizes that he was killed by a recently discovered poisonous gas called "tetrogene", administered via a glass pellet that releases the poison when broken. Summoning Kirby to bring all of his dinner party guests together, Chan and Police Inspector Vance (Donald MacBride) question those in attendance, as one of them may be the killer. Among them are Herbert Fenton (Melville Cooper), a fellow Oxford student of Drake's, actress June Preston (Joan Valerie), unknown to Drake but requested by him to attend, Ralph Percy (Kane Richmond), the chief designer at Kirby's aircraft company, and Keith Jeffrey (John Sutton), Kirby's stock broker. Kirby butler Boggs (Leyland Hodgson) is also a suspect, especially after Number #2 Son Jimmy (Victor Sen Yung) catches him steaming open a cablegram, the contents of which concern Boggs himself.<br /><br />There are some other cleverly planted characters in the proceedings as well. Mrs. Narvo turns up as Patricia West (Marjorie Weaver), and contrary to Drake's suspicion that she might lead him to Narvo, is actually on the run away from her former husband and a disastrous marriage. She's involved with David Elliott (Robert Lowery), principal of a chemical research firm, and thereby a suspect in the tetrogene angle.<br /><br />As with many Chan films, racial comments must be taken in stride with the proceedings. This one offers two glaring ones. When Kirby's black servant is brought in for questioning, he states that he doesn't know anything about Drake's murder, that he's completely "in the dark". Chan's response: "Condition appear contagious".<br /><br />Later, following Inspector Vance's order to round up all the Hindu's in New York, Jimmy Chan comments on their arrival with "They're all beginning to look alike to me." Actually, the scene provides one of the elements of comic relief in the movie, as Shemp Howard impersonates Hindu mystic "The Great Rashid", but is actually uncovered by the police to be con artist Shorty McCoy.<br /><br />Before the movie's over, two more victims fall to the clever Narvo - his confederate Ramullah, and aircraft magnate Kirby himself. To uncover the killer, Chan, in concert with Elliott, arranges for a test flight aboard a newly developed TR4 Bomber after discovering a poisoned capsule planted by mechanics on the plane the day before. Before it can release it's deadly poison, the Brit Fenton catches the falling capsule in mid-air, revealing that he knew about the plant. Arrested and brought in for questioning, Chan asserts that Fenton is not Narvo. The real Narvo reveals himself when he offers a poisoned cup of water to the nervous Fenton, anxious to maintain Narvo's secret. But Chan was clever enough to be wary of such an attempt, and reveals the real murderer - Narvo now in the guise of stock broker Jeffrey, having undergone reconstructive surgery following a car accident.<br /><br />Now for the plot holes. When first investigating Hugh Drake's murder, it was maintained by the police that fingerprints found in the library did not match those of any of the dinner guests. However Jeffrey/Narvo was present at the dinner party. It had already been established that Drake had one non party visitor in the library, chemist Elliott. If the fingerprints really did not belong to Narvo, then making them an issue was pointless.<br /><br />Also, at the end of the film when Narvo offers Fenton the poisoned water, how did he think he would get away with it with everyone there as a witness? But going even one better than that, how would a world traveling saboteur like Narvo have the time and wherewithal to establish himself as a New York City stockbroker, it just doesn't make sense. <br /><br />For trivia fans, a few more points bear mentioning. In the film, Number #2 Son Jimmy is a college student studying chemistry as he comes to "Pop's" aid to solve the case. In the prior Chan film - "Charlie Chan at the Wax Museum" - Jimmy was a law student.<br /><br />The poison gas formula would get reworked in a later Chan film, this time by Monogram with Roland Winters in the Chan role in "Docks of New Orleans". In that story, poison gas is released from shattered radio tubes in similar fashion to claim its' victims. | 1 | positive |
A milestone in cinematic history, 'Bronenosets Potyomkin' is one of the handful of great films out there that richly deserves to be called a classic. It was the picture that made Sergei M. Eisenstein a figurehead of film-making at the time. And today, it is still remembered as the wonderful piece of cinema it always has been.<br /><br />'Potyomkin' is a film that NEEDS to be seen as one entity, not to be picked at. Don't just watch those clip shows where they only present the 'Odessa steps' sequence and then move on to 'Citizen Kane' or 'The Godfather', see it all in it's glorious 75-minute running time to really understand and enjoy it. Don't expect every infinitesimal detail to be perfect though, I mean the acting of the '20s silent era makes 'Scooby Doo' look like a master of understated realism, certain plot points may seem illogical and some of the battle sequences look dated, but it is still an immensely enjoyable movie.<br /><br />The most memorable moments in the film are the mutiny on the battleship, Vakulinchuk's body falling off the ship, the sailor under the tent at the end of the pier, the mother holding her dead child, the baby carriage on the Odessa steps and the lion rising up to roar as further carnage ensues. For each new pair of eyes that look upon it, 'The Battleship Potemkin' comes alive once again. | 1 | positive |
THE ATTIC starts off well. The somewhat dreary story is helped greatly by the two main actors and there's a semblance of a character study going on here but the film goes downhill fast when Carrie Snodgress' character buys a monkey. Not one of those cute little monkeys. She buys a real big chimpanzee!!!<br /><br />This sudden plot device basically kills the movie. It's just not conceivable for a woman like the one Snodgress plays, who has a hard time doing anything because of her domineering father, for her to, out of the blue, buy a chimpanzee. I mean, come on! Forget about it! | 0 | negative |
This film is terrible. Not only is the story unbelievable, the situations the characters put themselves in are so silly, to the point where it isn't shocking. I find it sad that Daisy Eagan, star of Broadway's The Secret Garden, decided that this would be a career step. The idea is interesting, two young girls coming of age very quickly. But the sex isn't even arousing. The film is silly, the story is silly, the performances are silly, and the whole concept while interesting falls flat. I'm sure all 14 year old girls make out with guys after they've had their first period and tried to flush their panties down the toilet. Better Luck next time guys. My Scale * T-Scale * | 0 | negative |
It kept me on the edge of my seat. True, the story has a few plot holes, but the sheer tension of it, the way the director just keeps challenging the premise is simply fascinating.<br /><br />José Coronado and Adriana Ozores are two of Spain's best actors (see La vida mancha and Héctor) and here they appear as a happy upper-middle class couple. Beneath it all, the truth is that all of Coronado's life is a lie. He's not an economist, never went to college or does not work in Spain's Central Bank Reserve, as everybody else believes. We get a few insights as to how he kept up appearances or manage to do it, and while not very plausible it is still somehow believable.<br /><br />The inner-workings of the scam are shown intermittently, but it is credible because Coronado is a source of self-assurance and assertiveness. He not only believes in the scam, he also believes in the film premise, and therefore he carries it.<br /><br />Sure, it tests belief that a wife would not know the inner workings of a marriage's finances for almost 10 years, but again, since he's supposedly a brilliant economist.<br /><br />It has been said, in a nationalistic tone, that the movie is not "distinctively Spanish", as if that were a litmus test for good film. True, no castanets or odd cabbies in this one, just a taut thriller. You'll want to know how this story ends once you start watching. | 1 | positive |
I happen to have read all of Junji Ito's English released manga. I watched the Tomie film and it was a big steaming pile of turd. THANKFULLY Uzumaki actually does justice to the manga. I think those who have read the manga will really appreciate this film more, as many screenshots and camera angles are exactly like in the manga and it is interesting to see how the book characters are played in the film. This film reminds me of eerie indiana. The ending differs to the manga, which I was expecting. Kirie looks like her manga counterpart, and her male friend suits the whole very well. Very creepy I have to admit, this film feels like a feverish nightmare, the kind you have when you were a kid. Not really scary at all, but freaky, if you get my drift? Another great horror from Japan, get yourself a copy. | 1 | positive |
Fantastic Russian WWII movie. Like most Russian WWII movies, The Ascent is incredibly harrowing. It's also dense in its symbolism. The story follows two partisans, Sotnikov and Rybak (Boris Plotnikov and Vladimir Gostyukhin), who go on a mission to search for food. On their trip, they are spotted by German soldiers, who wound Sotnikov. Sotnikov, in turn, kills one of the Germans, which leads to trouble for the two partisans and everyone else they later run into. The greatest success of the film is its vivid sense of place. Russia is frozen and snowy, and it's hard not to feel that cold go straight to your own bones. Shepitko keeps her shot close to the characters, examining every crag of their faces. It was probably not the choice, but the film is framed 1.33:1, which gives the film a sense of claustrophobia. While the entire film is quite an achievement, I did feel that the first half was stronger than the second. My main complaint about the movie is that it develops into a very unsubtle Christian allegory by its climax. I just don't think the symbolism adds much to the proceedings, especially when I was already intrigued by the debate between the two partisans. It's not quite fair. I was weighing the pros and cons of their argument. I began to lean toward the point of view of a certain character, and then the director pops up and tells me that he's Judas! Despite some heavy-handedness, this is still a must-see. | 1 | positive |
Traffik is an excellent miniseries dealing with drug trafficking in Europe. This is the European produced PBS series on which the Oscar-nominated movie Traffic is based on. If you loved Traffic then Traffik is a must see.<br /><br />Overall I would highly recommend this miniseries to anyone that is interested in seeing drugs from a social point of view. The screenplay is exciting and unexpected as it weaves through the lives of drug dealers, traffickers, farmers, policians, and police officers. Unlike other movies that sensationalize the issue of drugs, Traffik presents it AS IS. | 1 | positive |
the usual disclaimer - I do not give 1 star ratings to movies which are harmless, bad, low budget and silly, although they may deserve it. These films are often funny, and get rated 2-4 based sheerly on entertainment value - not as a representation of their exemplary film artistry. This film fits this model perfectly. It is a Mexican monster movie, riddled with voice-over narrative and extremely weak not-so-special effects. The makeup is not that bad, and the acting is sometimes quite entertaining, but this film is almost as silly as Aliens vs Predator and the script isn't half as slick (Aliens vs Predator might get a 1 from me, but I want to see it again before I commit).<br /><br />The plot is ridiculous, but deliciously convoluted. If you've read this far, you must really want to know... A group of remarkably unscientific scientists comprise the main characters. Most of them are heroes - sort of - but one is (of course) mad, and quite perverse. This mad scientist invents a laughable nuclear powered robot (who looks a bit like the tin man from Wizard of Oz, but has a human face inexplicably located inside its head). An Aztec mummy, discovered by the same 'scientist' whose wife just so happens to have been an Aztec princess in a past life (don't ask), is pitted against the robot for the big "climax" the fight scene alone is enough to put the most stoic movie watcher on the floor in belly laughs.<br /><br />For what its worth, given the budget and the utter silliness of the script, this is a very entertaining low budget goof ball monster movie. If you're into that sort of thing, go for it. | 0 | negative |
Born in 1946 I was about eight years old when first viewing this movie and it left a deep impression.Not only scary ,for lack of a better word this movie haunted me for more than 50 years.The mob goon played by John Larch was terrifying.The only scene that stuck out in my mind during those 50 years was the killing of the little girl and the uncaring policeman referring to her as a "little n----- kid".Those words were replaced when the movie was shown recently on TV,maybe there are two versions of the movie or someone felt compelled to alter a little bit this heart breaking scene.Accurate or not the film went a long way in formulating my opinion of the South and still till today the closest I've come to visiting a southern city is El Paso.That stand may seem extreme but there is a little bit more to the story.When the movie was shown recently it became clearer why it haunted me for years.With the newsreel like beginning this movie gives the impression that what is being shown is fact.The film is made supposedly only one or two years after the depicted incidents adding to its realistic credibility.The terror in the movie isn't provided by creatures or space aliens but by persons living in our society at the time.Re killing of little girl:The recent viewing helped make clearer the impact it had on my 8 year old mind.When this movie came out the only school I had ever gone to was attended by mostly African-Americans.The victim looked like a girl in my class,it was like seeing an actual killing.It made a horrible scene that much worse.Maybe no one will find this review helpful but it helped me. | 1 | positive |
D'Amato's hardcore/horror hybrid doesn't really live up to its extraordinary title and intriguing premise, wherein various vapid contemporary types are attacked by a monster on an Atoll previously used for nuclear experiments, but for the most part the film is so slow, the action so dreary and the cast so clearly repulsed to be having to have sex with each other that the film becomes a chore to watch.<br /><br />This is a pity, because the film sets up a promising idea. A group of scientists are taken to the Atoll by a naval officer in a small vessel. The scientists three women and two men are an intriguing cross section of sexual types, suffering to various degrees from nymphomania, co-dependency and frigidity; there's even an intriguing foray into the world of female sex tourism, where one of the women stops off at a brothel to get serviced by two hunky Caribbean studs for hire. The creature himself a mangled native Islander with a horribly scarred face and an unfeasibly long pizzle bears some affinities with the old Creature from the Black Lagoon and is the kind of nuclear nightmare that has hovered over postmodern man since the cold war commenced, despite those of us in the West having retreated into hedonism and relativistic science.<br /><br />Porno Holocaust certainly is a film which shows the post-sexual revolution Westerners coming across their mirror image in a nuclear monster, yet the torpidity with which it unfolds really lets down the fierceness of the idea. There is a promising interplay of action shots with POV shots, which suggest that the monster (who looks/stalks on as horror monsters from their POV position tend to do) is akin to the voyeur in the audience getting off on the sex between the "beautiful people." The sight of the monster forcing a gorgeous young woman to suck his over-sized member certainly throws the target audience's ugly fantasies in their face. But D'Amato has developed similar ideas better in other films, and Porno Holocaust is a potentially fierce idea let down by the execution (even D'Amato's usual cinematographic skills let him down with much dreary camera-work). | 0 | negative |
I will keep it to bullet points so here goes: 1. Very badly scripted. 2. Tries to be like Resident Evil. 3. Zombies slow and docile one minute the next minute Raging lunatics. 4. Never saw blood clean up so easily! 5. Special effects not as good as the original "day of the living dead". 6. Acting not as good as the "Bold and the beautiful". 7. It looks like it was written in 1 week and made the next week.<br /><br />Basicaly Med team plus Special Forces go into a Zombie infested university to find the first Zombie and extract a serum to cure the plague. All die except the 2 main stars so predictable even though unarmed and swarmed with 100s of zombies they survived. However special forces (who were trained at kindergarten school scouts) only took 1 zombie to kill them even though they had weapons. Also the obligatory jerk on hand to fill any gaps. Overall load of rubbish. | 0 | negative |
Idiots go camping and act like idiots before they finally die like idiots, yes Camp Blood (or if you're wanting an awful, badder than bad pun that suits a badder than bad film, "Camp Bloody awful"), is so bad it's actually quite depressing to watch. And it has all the ingredients to be a perfectly bad film... <br /><br />Awful acting-check. Bad script-check. Tacky effects-check no originality whatsoever-double check. <br /><br />It doesn't even attempt to be different, and is riddled with every predicted cliché imaginable. For example, the film opens to a couple having sex in the woods, so of course they end up dead. <br /><br />One of the most disturbing things is that this film actually spawned two sequels, how and why only baffles the mind. <br /><br />Just stay away from this one. | 0 | negative |
CORRIDORS OF BLOOD <br /><br />Aspect ratio: 1.66:1<br /><br />Sound format: Mono<br /><br />(Black and white)<br /><br />London, 1840: Whilst attempting to formulate an anaesthetic solution, a dedicated surgeon (Boris Karloff) becomes addicted to narcotics and is blackmailed by local bodysnatchers.<br /><br />Riding the coat-tails of a Gothic revival occasioned by the recent success of Hammer's THE CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1957), Robert Day's CORRIDORS OF BLOOD is an odd mixture of historical drama and Grand Guignol theatrics. Producer Richard Gordon lured Karloff away from Hollywood - where his movie career had become stalled in a B-movie rut (VOODOO ISLAND, FRANKENSTEIN 1970, etc.) - for a couple of lurid shockers in which good men are thwarted by circumstances beyond their control. In GRIP OF THE STRANGLER (1958), he played a novelist who stumbles onto a horrific secret whilst researching a series of murders from recent history, while in CORRIDORS OF BLOOD, he's a drug-addicted surgeon who falls prey to a gang of criminals masterminded by East End pub landlord Francis de Wolff. Less a horror film than a melodrama with ghoulish trimmings, the movie hedges its commercial bets by including a number of gory thrills (a leg sliced open, a face destroyed by acid, etc.), but the narrative is motivated chiefly by Karloff's altruistic pursuit of an anaesthetic formula that will alleviate the terrible suffering of patients during surgery.<br /><br />Produced under the title 'The Doctor from Seven Dials', the finished movie went unreleased until 1962 due to indifference by distributors MGM, by which time co-star Christopher Lee had earned a prominent screen credit, despite playing a small - but significant - role as 'Resurrection Joe', a sinister Cockney thug who murders carefully selected patrons of de Wolff's squalid pub and sells the remains to local doctors. Lee filmed this glorified cameo before THE CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN catapulted him to international stardom, which accounts for his limited screen time, though his intense performance is one of the film's highlights. Adrienne Corri (VAMPIRE CIRCUS) distinguishes herself as de Wolff's partner in crime, and there's a feast of familiar faces in supporting roles, including Francis Matthews (DRACULA: PRINCE OF DARKNESS), Betta St. John (THE CITY OF THE DEAD), Finlay Currie and Nigel Green. Superb art direction (by Anthony Masters) and cinematography (Geoffrey Faithful). | 0 | negative |
Yet another cookie-cutter movie about a hardened adult who meets an adorable, street-smart kid (Cop and 1/2, Gloria, etc). And once again, it is not funny or interesting, for anyone to watch - kids or adults. I'm sure some people might find this movie amusing, but I have no earthly idea why. Once again, I feel sorry for the poor kids who were forced to work in this movie, so that everyone else and their parents could make some bucks at the price of a cheesy cheesy movie. | 0 | negative |
The first half of the movie is not that bad actually. Although there's not really too much depth in the characters, the story is somehow funny and generally OK with potential to get better, which it doesn't.<br /><br />In the second half things start to turn for the worse, not only for the characters in the movie, but also for the viewer, who will be basically waiting for the story to come to its obvious end.<br /><br />The previous user comment mentioned: "It's a love story, a road movie, a thriller, a comedy of errors, an 80's movie and most of all, it's a Jonathan Demme movie."<br /><br />Well, please allow me to rephrase that: "It's a boy gets girl story, they happen to be driving around in cars, the thrill is gone as it is all too clear how things will evolve, there wasn't any scene in this film to which one might laugh out loud, it does have some slight 80's feeling and yes, Jonathan Demme really was the director." | 0 | negative |
The acting is awkward and creepy, and not in a good way...at all. The writing, the dialogue, and the chemistry between the actors is horrible. Nothing makes sense and every close-up of an actor's expression or reaction lasts 3 or 4 seconds too long, making it seem like a Mexican Soap Opera (telenovela). Everything about the writing is unrealistic, and all of the actors involved make it that much worse with their campy interpretations of the script. Am I the only one who sees this??? To use the word cheesy to describe this Canadian disaster would be the understatement of the century. Did the director even watch the final cut before it was put on the air??? | 0 | negative |
The interaction between Portman and Sarandon was quite interesting, and I was really sold on the mother-daughter relationship. It is a family story that isn't dulled down by frills and special effects; a story of how it really is. I couldn't help but give of a sigh at the end of this movie for alas it is a well told bittersweet tale of growing up and relating with family and friends. The acting was quite exquisite and I hope we'll be seeing both Portman and Sarandon in familiar roles down the road... | 1 | positive |
The first murder scene is one of the best murders in film history(almost as good as the shower scene in Psycho) and the acting by Robert Walker is fantastic.A psychopath involved with tennis star in exchange murders.That´s the story and overall this film is very good but theres one problem:why dosen´t Guy Haines go to<br /><br />the cop in the first place.4/5 | 1 | positive |
It's the story of three brothers pulling together in the midst of hardship and loss, and learning that the really important things in life are family, love, trust, and forgiveness. The entire cast manages to pull in a powerful performance despite a few lousy one-liners. A great film for fans of true to life problems befalling believable families. Also worth a look for fans of Dermot Mulroney or Sean Astin. They both do an astounding job, often bringing you to tears. Take my word for it and rent this today! | 1 | positive |
This movie is about a young girl who goes to live with her rich cousins falls in love with one of her cousin, and reject the advance of a amoral suitor who brings trouble on the family. After seeing the 1999 version and reading the book, I decided to watch the older version. I found it did stay true to Fanny character in the book, but it was also boring character. Fanny character played by Sylvestra Le Touzel was lackluster; she often appeared to be about to faint. I also did not like Robert Bourbage who played Henry Crawford. I could not imagine him being interested in Fanny or her cousin Maria. Jackie Smith Wood who played Mary Crawford was okay but the wig she wore was so ugly. I lost interested in her acting and I kept staring at her wig. I kept expecting it would drop off her head. I could also see a slip of her real hair under the wig. | 0 | negative |
This was the most god awful movie I have had to sit through. 30 minutes into the film and I couldn't take any more. Seriously, do not bother with this one unless you are a sentimental nut job or one of those pseudo-arty types that like this kind of tripe so that they may feel more cultured. Boring, although the acting is fine; the kid is just plain irritating. Some scenes are a little strange with very weird close-ups. I don't know why they did the whole movie in black and white, but whatever effect they were hoping to have failed miserably. There was just nothing to watch, and although its a sad tale, supposedly, its just so stupid that its hard to feel any sympathy for the characters. | 0 | negative |
I recently purchased this on DVD as I hadn't heard of it and like robert carlyle.<br /><br />Obviously this movie is not going to have Hollywood blockbuster special effects,in saying that though the special effects were decent enough,and the acting was fine also.<br /><br />I found the movie to be enjoyable and do not regret buying it at all,at almost 2 hours long it is just the right length for this type of movie.<br /><br />Do not expect thrilling explosive action from beginning to end though,it is a fairly well balanced movie with a decent enough storyline! | 1 | positive |
Swift's writing really has more in common with Kafka and Orwell than with fantasy-adventure writers, so it's curious that Gulliver's Travels has been deemed a children's novel. Lucky kiddies!<br /><br />The same applies to this movie. There have been some really awful versions of this story, which must be why people are reluctant to look at this version. I mean, it's a TV-movie and it comes from muppetteer Jim Henson, so how should we expect anything but cuteness?<br /><br />Look again - beauty turns up in the oddest places. Children love this movie enough to sit through all three hours of it, but it also takes the time to get Swift's dark vision right. I hate special effects, but here they are used to carry the story forward instead of just dazzling us. Please note that the producers took the trouble to recruit classical actors like John Gielgud and Peter O'Toole who perform their eccentric roles with perfection.<br /><br />Dramatically, the romance between Gulliver and Glumdalclitch is rendered touching and poignant, as well as funny (she's a little girl, but twenty times his size). The frame-story has a theme about absent fathers that many children will relate to. And the part about Gulliver in the asylum introduces an element of horror dealing with the abuse of authority (apparently deriving from Val Lewton's "Bedlam" [1946], another forgotten masterpiece).<br /><br />The VHS is always turning up in the bargain-bin for a few cents, which is an insult to the many great artists who put this thing together. I encourage audiences to recognize a good thing by getting this movie and inspiring others to watch it. Although it has a lot to offer children, grown-ups will find that it stands up nicely to such classics as Aguirre, Brazil, 1984 and other serious fantastic works. | 1 | positive |
Foolish hikers go camping in the Utah mountains only to run into a murderous, disfigured gypsy. <br /><br />The Prey is a pretty run of the mill slasher film, that mostly suffers from a lack of imagination. The victim characters are all-too-familiar idiot teens which means one doesn't really care about them, we just wonder when they will die! Not to mention it has one too many cheesy moments and is padded with endless, unnecessary nature footage. However it does have a few moments of interest to slasher fans, the occasional touch of spooky atmosphere, and a decent music score by Don Peake. Still, it's business as usual for dead-camper movies.<br /><br />There are much better films in this vein, but over all The Prey may be watchable enough for die-hard slasher fans. Although one might be more rewarded to watch Just Before Dawn (1981), Wrong Turn (2003), or even The Final Terror (1983) again.<br /><br />* 1/2 out of **** | 0 | negative |
I am really amazed how little fame this film had. i think it has to do with distribution companies and etc.<br /><br />Don't be idiots - if you are looking for a good fun take this movie - this is very nice movie to pass few hours with and the music is GREAT.<br /><br />It's about ..... well girls and boys and whats between them with not too much story but not all movies should be PULP FICTION should they?? it's nice and cute and gives good time . The girls are also very good looking and this makes the whole movie even more enjoyable.<br /><br />Why i gave it only a 9? well the story could be little more convincing from the middle and on. in some point you start to see events that are little less reliable. SMALL SPOILER: The baby is crying and the father goes in and tries to relax him. now i am not talking about some small cry but- no - hysteric cry and 30 sec after that the father goes out and "baby is sleeping"- excuse me , when and how exactly did you make him calm and sleep and be able to leave his room in 20-30 seconds. but ignore this kind of small picking because the film itself is not Docudrama - it's fun and this should be overlooked. | 1 | positive |
Although coming after three Star Wars, Krull & countless others, this movie would look outdated in the 1950s... 1 SFX mostly consist of 1970s videogames effects such as bolts etc; annoying after a short while. You also get a SFX creature that looks like a poor man's version of some tier-IV Harryhausen monster.<br /><br />2 sets are mainly ruins in the countryside, with papier-mache temples and miniature cities or abodes that makes 1950s Japanese monster movies look like flawless perfection.<br /><br />3 Plot is paper extra-thin...Hercules must find Zeus' seven golden thunderbolts stolen by conspiring gods & zombie tyrants.<br /><br />4 action mainly consists in retarded, muscled-up Hercules ( check the variety of facial expressions ) wrestling cheap 1970s videogames effects.<br /><br />5 acting award goes to Milly Carlucci (third Carlucci show-biz sister with Anna & Gabriella ), which says all.<br /><br />6 SFX make other tier-II Italian salad bowl movies such as L'UMANOIDE & STAR CRASH look like masterpieces.<br /><br />Well, considering that Ferrigno's main acting exploit consisted in impersonating a retarded green monster, wearing a whig and green espadrillas, we ought to be lenient.<br /><br />Watch it & forget about it. | 0 | negative |
This has to one of the most pathetic, predictable and badly acted films I have ever seen. Clint Eastwood has never been worse, never have I seen somebody less convincing on screen. I was laughing at him the whole way through. Then there's this romance kinda thing between him and the gorgeous Rene Russo, which was even more pathetic than the one between Mr.Connery and Ms.Zeta-Jones in Entrapment.<br /><br />One IMDb user posed the question: What's not to like about this film? I'm asking: What is to like about it? And the answer is: John Malkovich. He is an absolute genius and probably the best movie villain ever (He even saved Con Air you know). But that's it. <br /><br />This movie is called In the line of fire, but 'Bodyguard 2: the rip-off' seems to be a more appropriate title. Watch only if you are a die hard John Malkovich fan. Otherwise, avoid at all cost. *1/2(out of five) | 0 | negative |
One of the worst films I have ever seen! After watching it i walk out like, what happened? I am confused to this day, can someone explain that movie to me please? both the acting and picture quality are so bad ,you'll think you're watching someone's school project made with a home camcorder. First,I can not believe that how some people could give 10 star to this movie.Because,.it's unbelievably bad movie! This movie isn't scary at all! There is even no Typical horror clichés,too. The plot and acting of This movie was terrible. It's not,fantastic,surrealistic or horror,It's just hideously bad Turkish feature film.And finally there were a lot of unnecessary scenes and unnecessary characters. When I watch 'Gomeda' I fell into so hopeless,so sad for young Turkish movie maker.Please,please don't make 'cinema' like this! | 0 | negative |
Sacchi is the best Bogart impersonator ever... dry and droll as Sam Marlowe. The music from award winning composer George Duning [From Here To Eternity, Picnic, The World of Suzie Wong], the cinematography of perfect locations [including the famous Ambassador Hotel] are all right on target as famous tv director Robert Day [Kojak, Streets of San Francisco, The Avengers] guides the most endearing group of well-known character actors through a spoof of every dark detective film every made. See this if you loved all the old serious flicks and have a sense of humor... this one is a hoot. | 1 | positive |
First, let me say that I find films like Shawshank Redemption and Green Mile, and most of Spielberg to be absolutely horrid and stomach turning. Although, National Velvet on the surface would seem to be in the same genre and has what should be cringe-worthy moments, I thoroughly enjoyed it, laughing and bawling throughout the film.<br /><br />The premise of the plot, a young girl with an unknown horse from a small village entering the Grand National is certainly as implausible as could be, but it is the only thing that you have to accept for it to work as a fairy tale or allegory. The characters have depth and grow throughout the story. Ann Revere gives an absolutely stunning performance as one of the wisest women ever depicted in an American film. Her interaction with the good-hearted Donald Crisp is funny and sweet. While Liz Taylor tries a bit too hard to be even cuter than Margaret O'Brien (she succeeds btw), her passion and love for her horse shines through her face. Mickey Rooney gives a beautifully nuanced performance of the trainer.<br /><br />This is far from a perfect movie. Some of the situations and scenes are a bit corny and dated (the kids' antics, and Rooney's scenes at the track and in the pub for example) but it doesn't matter. The plot remains true to the characters and leaves quite a bit unsaid. We don't have unnatural overly dramatic and preachy moments - sometimes more is less. The final scene is a great example of this - the emotional dialog is left to the viewer to fill in.<br /><br />Strong understated performances, rounded characters, pithy dialog, intelligent and internally consistent storyline. We believe in the characters and are moved by their story. Yup - they just don't make them like this any more... | 1 | positive |
My mother told me not to go to see "Kadosh" -- but who ever listens to one's mother? <br /><br />I was so turned off by it while I was watching I thought I must have lost my feminist credentials on the way into the theater, so I checked with card-carrying feminists the next day. No, they also thought it was much more an anti-Orthodox screed than a pro-feminist statement, painting the Orthodox as equal to the Taliban.<br /><br />While this Israeli movie is careful to show that the sect the story is about is the ultimate ultra-Orthodox Messianists, it is so nasty as to be unbelievable (plus that the non-fanatic Orthodox rock-'n'-roller(!) one of the sisters is in love with is incredibly sexy--even in Israel that must be fantasy).<br /><br />The theater was quite crowded, so there's a pent-up curiosity to see Israeli movies; too bad this vicious movie is the one getting wide distribution. This was almost enough to drive me back to insipid Hollywood romantic movies. <br /><br />(originally written 4/29/2000) | 0 | negative |
Englar Alheimsins are very good movie. She happen on a mental home in Iceland. Ingvar E. Sigurdsson is in a leading role and is good. Other good actors in this movie are Baltasar Kormákur and Bjorn Jorundur. I like this movie she is very good. I voice with this movie. | 1 | positive |
I am a history teacher and overall I was pleased with the movie. My teen-agers enjoyed it over the holidays. Is it 100% accurate and is it a little sappy in places? Yes..but it took my kids away from the computer and play station to spend four nights watching it all.<br /><br />The battle scenes were impressive and we met plenty of historical characters throughout. Lloyd Bridges as Jefferson Davis and Hal Holbrook as Abraham Lincoln stand out. We all thought Phillip Casnoff as Bent was evilly and charmingly brilliant. We all thought Charles stole the show from Orry and George.<br /><br />We will enjoy the movie again! | 1 | positive |
I very much enjoyed Bruce Almighty but the minute i found out that there was going to be a sequel WITHOUT Jim Carey, i knew it was bad. Although Steve Carell was hysterical in the first film ( the babbling scene is one of my favorites) , and, in my opinion , deserves an Emmy for his role in The Office , he is pretty weak in this dull comedy. I'm curious how much work the script writers put, because we could just as well do without the story . But even if we discard the huge plot holes (why did elephants and lions come to aid Evan when the flood only concerned that particular area of Washington) the film is simply ...not funny. I did not laugh once and as far as i remember, a comedy is supposed to make you laugh . Or giggle at least. Not this one.<br /><br />There is small hope however. Evan Almighty has "family" written all over it and maybe a family viewing might be enjoyable,(kids might be entertained by the variety of animals and the silly jokes) , but ,for me, Evan Almighty simply doesn't cut it.<br /><br />I give it a 4/10 and hope that Carell will be more careful when choosing his roles in the feature. | 0 | negative |
I am so angry to the point i normally down make reviews with spoilers but in this case I'll make an exception.The first scenes of this movies are weak and then when they get to the meat and potatoes of the movie it sucks. This is one movie were i rooted for the bad guys because the captain-save-the-day was unbelievable and there was no connection to him or nothing to make you like him. The lead actor gave the weakest performance and Laurence Fishburne or Matt Dillon couldn't even save this movie. Sometime there are eye openers or great moments in a film that may not be that great..this movie has none. If you are looking for a movie to see in the meantime while nothing peeked your interest...don't choose this one..save your money. | 0 | negative |
Along with virtually every Republic Picture ever made, "Murder in the Music Hall" seems to have undeservably faded into oblivion. A shame, because this lusciously produced, expertly directed and written, and crafty mystery-suspense item spins an enticing whodunnit thriller against the setting of Radio City Music Hall. A murder in one of the building's posh penthouse apartments casts suspicion on the luscious Rockettes--among them, Vera Ralston (who besides giving an appealing performance of subtlety and vulnerablity, provides a few dazzling ice-skating production numbers), Helen Walker, Ann Rutherford, Julie Bishop, and several other delectable B-movie starlets of the '40s. Tall, blond and handsome William Marshall (usually cast in musicals) hunts down the killer as the complex and increasingly creepy plot unfolds, against the swankiest settings you'll ever see in a film noir. The ending is as much of a surprise as is this sadly forgotten, classy murder mystery. Well-worth restoring and reviving on cable-TV, VHS or DVD. Republic sank a hefty budget in this Grade-A production, and "Murder in the Music Hall" is as slick, unnerving, and immensely enjoyable as any of the major studios' films of its era. POSSIBLE SPOILER: Pay attention to the rhapsodic song composed by the victim just before his death. Then, amidst the showgirls' incessant chattering in their dressing rooms, try to pinpoint the one humming that fatal melody. You'll discover who the killer is just as William Marshall does. Grand fun, the kind of movie they truly don't make anymore, and what a loss--both to movie-goers and actors alike. | 1 | positive |
Heart of Darkness, a short novel written by Joseph Conrad about greed, corruption, and traveling through Africa was, to say the least, a tedious read. The Narrator follows Marlow, a seaman who travels into the deep of Africa to rescue Kurtz, somewhat of a prodigy Ivory trader who supposedly went crazy, this conclusion arose when the Ivory stopped coming into the main port. The basis of the story is Conrad writing lavishly of the surroundings, he sets the scene wonderfully, but possibly a bit to extensively. The story seemed more like a water color painting, as apposed to the slow creeping mild action story that Conrad might have intended to pan out.<br /><br />It sometimes happens that after you read a book, maybe watching the feature film might help correspond some thoughts with those in the book, or vise versa. Not so with Heart of Darkness, even with the supporting role of masterpiece actor John Malkovich the movie only confused me more, there seemed to be no real main characters in the film, no one stood out to the others, non of the extensive symbolism was explained. It was rather bland and drudging to say the least.<br /><br />In all do respect to the Author, The Heart of Darkness is a true short novel masterpiece, it touches on some very severe subjects, the lies of Marlow, and the greed of Kurtz. It is not a book to be taken lightly, and will put you in a rather somber mood. A book like this I feel might be to heavy for a lot of people. I would however recommend this book to those who crave a sad pseudo action story without a textbook happy ending. | 0 | negative |
A little while ago, I stumbled upon this DVD while browsing Netflix, and with such an impressive cast, decided to give it a go.<br /><br />Never before have I seen a movie try to be a new version of an existing great movie (Scarface) and failing so spectacularly.<br /><br />The main issue seems to be a complete misunderstanding of what the story should be. In Scarface, Tony Montana was the self-proclaimed "bad guy." His spectacular rise and eventual downfall wasn't sad, it was a great (and the only logical ending) to someone who lived such a life.<br /><br />Damian Chapa, as director, writer, and lead actor, sees Kilo as some sort of hero, or at least a complicated guy. However he doesn't want to do the grunt work of creating a realistic, sympathetic character. He was raised by a white mother, except for the six months of his childhood where his father, a gangster himself, showed him his life. For reasons never fully explained or even really mentioned, he decides he wants to be a drug dealer, and actually drives to the bad part of town, approaches two dealers and says, "Hey, I'd like to buy some drugs." He drops his father's name, and in apparently no time they are not only rich, the two guys who are supplying him are acting subserviently to him for reasons, again, never explained.<br /><br />Chapa wants you to feel bad when his character is sentenced to prison when a police informant lies about him. However, since he's dealt large quantities of drugs before, why should one feel sympathy for him going to jail for it this time? The most obvious case of Chapa wanting to be the good guy is in his prison execution of a White Supremacist/rapist played by Gary Busey. In Scarface, Tony Montana kills someone in prison because he pretty much has to in order to elevate himself, it's done, he moves on. But in this case they ham-handedly have to make Busey not only a rapist/pedophile but also a White supremacist. A little overkill, don't you think? I won't go into detail in this regard too much more, but their desperate message of "PLEASE LIKE ME! I'M A COMPLICATED GANGSTER!" fails on every level. Try as they might, I didn't feel bad, conflicted, or sympathetic when his buddies are killed (following a shootout), his wife is also killed (shortly after she called him out on being a lousy father, and during an attempted escape when he decided it'd be OK to ride right next to a car filled with gunmen while his wife is in the car), and his eventual demise.<br /><br />Suffice it to say his acting can be fairly summed up as lousy, his only achievement bringing the term "wooden" to starry new heights. Busey should be credited for actually putting effort into his ridiculous role. Tiny Lister did well. Stacy Keach is playing his warden from Prison Break role. Robert Wagner is coasting for a paycheck. Faye Dunaway, while a touch dramatic, still turns in a performance better than this movie deserved. Brad Dourif is in the film for about two minutes and does what he can. And to give the film credit, it does one-up Scarface in one way - Jennifer Tilly now holds the title of "Most Ridiculous Attempt at a Hispanic Accent." (Sorry Robert Loggia.) In short, this movie had an interesting premise, but a poor story arc, unsympathetic characters, and hit-or-miss performances. I'd advise Mr. Chapa to ease up on the forced sympathy next time - really, we don't need to like your character, we just need to be interested. Better luck next time. | 0 | negative |
Five Fingers relies heavily on barbaric, shock value Hollywood tactics to elicit apparently a positive movie-going response. This is where this movie fails throughout, primarily because it is too graphic to be taken seriously. I was repulsed and disgusted that Five Fingers was even made, and essentially had to force myself to continue watching it. Torture in and of itself is gruesome. Even the sounds coming from a room where someone is being tortured are gruesome. But obviously the makers of this stinker of a movie felt that was not enough. It had to go way beyond what was needed, and simply and effectively ruined any chances this movie had of making some sort of valid point. For this reason, this movie came across as nothing more than being self-gratifying. Five Fingers also pretty much relegates itself to a B-movie status solely by its indulgence on manipulation of time. In other words we are shown the present and then the past is revealed in snippets. This is a little bit of a twist of the normal Hollywood manipulation of time. Whereas the viewer normally is shown page 95 in a 100 page script as the beginning of the movie, and then the rest of the flick is essentially explaining the ending, Five Fingers is dedicated to flashing back, which gets quite tiring by the end of the movie. Overall, Five Fingers made me feel stupid for watching the whole movie, because torture is obviously obscene, and it certainly was not necessary to resort to graphic mutilation to make this point. I am surprised that Dick Cheney did not make a guest cameo appearance at the end as some sort of torture superhero. This movie is a perfect example of what happens when an important topic falls into the hands of greedy, mindless dolts. | 0 | negative |
I first heard about Commander's Log when I was on the concom for the local science fiction convention. Craig Bowlsby, Linden Banks, Sophie Banks, and Brian Oberquell came out to show the video and give a couple of panels on making TV on a shoestring budget. I have to say that I was very pleased when I finally had the chance to see the show. Comparisons with Red Dwarf are inevitable, since the first seasons of Red Dwarf were also shot on a low budget (although Commander's Log has to set some kind of record for the least amount of money spent per minute of air time), and thus have to make up for the lack of "eye candy" with good writing and acting. Linden Banks, who plays Chief Petty Officer Blather, does a particularly good job of presenting an earnest but clueless persona.<br /><br />Bowlsby's original idea was for the story to be told in two minute "interstitials", shown in between other shows over the course of an evening, although for some reason, Space didn't get how cool an idea this would have been, and so the interstitials were all rolled up into a one-hour show, which Space normally showed in two half-hour episodes. The existing DVD doesn't include episode 3 (which premiered at Cascadia-Con in Seattle in 2005) or episode 4 (which was previewed at VCON in Vancouver in 2006), but if you're in touch with your local fannish community, you may catch news of a showing somewhere near you. | 1 | positive |
Anthony Minghela's (writer/director) Cold Mountain is a carefully constructed, sensitive, and intelligent drama set in the social context of the confederacy during the civil war, which deals with the politics of the war in a very subtle and realistic manner. While it accurately depicts the brutality and inhumanity of that war, it also does something that many films related to this period to not handle as effectively - Cold Mountain studies the southern context from the inside out, and portrays changes among the non-slave owning common people wrought by the war. And, almost uniquely, Cold Mountain does not over-generalize southerners, northerners or anybody else.<br /><br />The film surfs through genres as needed - never presenting a dull moment. It is a romance, a war story, an action-adventure and historical fiction, all nicely woven into one.<br /><br />The story centers on Inman (Jude Law) and Ada Monroe (Nicole Kidman), who are smitten with each other for very simple reasons. As this young romance begins to bud, Inman enlists in the confederate army, taking with him a book Ada has given him and a photograph of her. Ada's character is one of the most brilliant aspects of the film, which is important because the audience experiences this film from a third person perspective, but the story is clearly hers from the beginning to the end. Ada is an intelligent southern belle and daughter of a liberal minister. She begins the film as a daddy's girl skilled in many of the arts that southern women who have been surrounded by servants most of their lives were expected to learn. In other words, as she admits to Ruby Thewes (Renee Zellweger), she is a master of everything useless.<br /><br />Ada's father passes on, and she is left to manage his modest estate by herself. With no experience of this sort, she struggles, and survives by holding the memory of Inman close to her heart. Ruby enters the picture as a tough young woman who has been raised by a drunk and negligent father. Ruby has all the skills and abilities Ada lacks, and as they become inseparable business partners, they grow to love one another as best friends. Inman's experience is radically different, but something of a mirror image. During his participation in the war, he sees many friends killed for causes they don't really believe in, and decides to desert. Nobody he meets comes to his rescue as he begins the thousand mile walk back to Cold Mountain and Ada, and most of those he meets die.<br /><br />The bulk of the film takes place during Inman's long walk, following both of the protagonists as they live, learn, grow and change. An on-going act of will borne of desperation preserves their intense passionate love. For Inman, it is his only source of hope in a world of pure desperation. For Ada, it is very much the same thing, but also a symbol and remnant of the old south - a world which is rapidly passing.<br /><br />The cinematography is powerful and breathtaking. There are beautiful shots of Appalachian landscapes which give the film a strong sense of history. The script and editing are also extremely strong - emphasizing the broad class and educational differences reflected in the ante bellum southern dialects of the middle and lower classes. With the cast of this film, nothing short of perfection should be expected. And the cast, mostly, rises to the occasion. My one criticism, however, relates to the accents adopted by Kidman and Law's characters. An Australian and a Brit probably should not be expected to accurately reproduce southern American speech, but there are a few occasions where these two exceptionally gifted actors produce distracting vocal slips. I admit my oversensitivity to this, and can say with some confidence that it won't bother most people. Zellweger's performance is outstanding and she creates a character I will remember into my senescence.<br /><br />Very highly recommended. | 1 | positive |
I won't lie, I rented this film because it was an "arty" film with some possible explicit sex. I got that scene and Catherine Deneuve's (briefly shown) breasts, but the rest of the film is just the usual long pretentious European art films with lines like "Did I have a mother or father, I don't know" (paraphrased). Usually delivered in long soliloquies.<br /><br />If you are curious about the transition of "art" to porn, might be an interesting look, with use of the fast forward button (I was still too slow!) | 0 | negative |
Subsets and Splits