This is the third chapter in the SHREK franchise, and even tho is not great as its two predecessors is still good.
Here Shrek deals with his father that is close to death and it's seen as the new king of Far Far Away. But after a first attempt to pose as the king goes awry, the king says on his deathbed that there is a boy named Arthur that is the only heir to the throne left besides Shrek. So Shrek recruits Puss and Donkey and goes to find and take Arthur to Far Far Away (with also the help of Merlin the wizard).
Meanwhile Fiona, the queen and all the other fairytale princesses try to defeat Prince Charming and his army of fairytale villains, and thanks to Dragon and the nice fairytale characters they defeat forever Charming. And Fiona and Shrek also deal with having babies for the first time.
The first two Shrek movies were great, and while this has some low points, it's also good in its own way (just like the fourth and one).
The animation and the soundtrack are good as always, and the actors are all good; especially Mike Myers as Shrek, Antonio Banderas as Puss in Boots, Rupert Everett as prince Charming and Justin Timberlake (in one of his few movies) as Arthur.
I recommend this movie to all fans of the tetralogy.
I really loved the first SHREK movie, it was great, funny, clever and full of endearing characters. Sometimes sequels don't live to the original, but this is not the case because SHREK 2 is, at times, even better than the first one. It has much more characters, great soundtrack and a great cast.
This movie begins with Shrek and Fiona that have their honeymoon and returning home they are invited to visit Fiona's parents (King Harold and Queen Lillian) in the kingdom of Far Far Away. Of course Fiona's parents are shocked to see their daughter transformed, and especially Harold tries to get rid of Shrek once and for all even paying Puss in Boots (an expert ogre hunter). In the meanwhile the Fairy Godmother along with her son Prince Charming tries to plan the wedding between Fiona and Charming. But, after Puss becomes friends with Shrek and Donkey, the trio does everything (with also the help of the fairytale creatures) for stop Charming and save Fiona.
The animation is great and stunning like in the first one, with vivid colours and nice backgrounds. The soundtrack is even better than that of the predecessor, with much more songs (including Eddie Murphy and Antonio Banderas' cover of ''Livin la Vida Loca''). All the actors are pretty good, especially Mike Myers, Eddie Murphy and Cameron Diaz as Shrek, Donkey and Fiona. Rupert Everett is deliciously evil as prince Charming, Antonio Banderas' Puss in Boots is very likeable and adorable and Julie Andrews in one of her most recent movies to date is perfect as Queen Lillian.
All in all, one of the best sequels to CGI animated movies ever made and one of the rarest sequels that even surpass the original in terms of quality and story. Worth recommended.
In 1932 Disney became producing shorts in colour thanks to the three-striped colour process (beginning with FLOWER AND TREES). Among the few other colour shorts from 1932 we have the first of the two Silly Symphonies about Santa Claus (the other being THE NIGHT BEFORE CHRISTMAS in 1933).
This short gives us a close look on what happens in the North Pole the day before Christmas. The dwarvs are cleaning the sleigh and feed the reindeers, and while Santa checks the list of who is naughty and who is nice, they work on the toys for the children of all world.
With a simple plot, nice colours and catchy music, this is among the best Disney shorts of its era and it's perfect to watch during the Christmas period.
I am not a huge fan of thrillers, but once in a while there are some that surprise me. I just prefer thrillers that aren't that violent or gory and I had low expectations for ''Money Train''. Thankfully, I was wrong. While the movie is far from a must-see, it was an ok and enjoyable time-passer.
The leads (played by Woody Harrelson and Wesley Snipes) are two foster brothers that work as transit cops. While Snipes' character has a good life, Harrelson's life is a mess. Then, as a sort of personal revenge, he decides to steal the money train (that carries the New York subway's workers' salaries). But when something goes wrong will his brother save him? See the film.
The bottom line is that the movie is fun. Along with the two leads also Jennifer Lopez (in one of her first movies and one of her best) and veteran Robert Blake (few years before he retired) give nice support. The actors' performances are ok and the story is not great, but decent.
Before I go to the review I have to admit that the movie's plot is a bit similar to Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, even tho is set in the Mojave desert. Now I can go to the movie.
Robert Blake plays the title role, a Paiute Indian that kidnaps a younger woman (played by Katharine Ross) for marrying her. But after Blake kills the girl's dad and has a brawl in a saloon he becomes a fugitive with his girl. Robert Redford plays the sheriff that has the duty of bringing Willie Boy dead or alive (in the meanwhile of the President William Howard Taft's visit). Susan Clark plays the doctor of the Paiute Reservation that has a brief relationship with Redford.
Despite Robert Redford plays a wholesome character that in the end succedds in his mission, the movie is mostly focused on Robert Blake and Katharine Ross and their run from the law. Good performances, nice locations (especially the Mojave desert at daylight), and a nice soundtrack make this Western well worth seeing.
One of the greatest American movies based on the Bible from the 1960s
This is, without doubt, one of the greatest American movies based on the bible made in the 1950s-60s, along with ''Ben-Hur'' and ''The Story of Ruth''. It's very accurate considering its source material (the Gospels) and just like many kolossals of the time it has lots of actors in it.
The title refers to the life of Jesus Christ, from his birth in Nazareth to his death on the cross and resurrection.
The movie can be divided in two parts. The first, after a long sequence of credits naming all the cast, with the birth of Jesus in Nazareth, the Magis' visit, Herod's death, Jesus' baptism by John the Baptist, his first years of teaching, the forgiving of Mary Magdalene and Lazarus' resurrection from the dead. In the meanwhile Herod, Caiaphas and Pilate discuss with their co-horts their views about John the Baptist and Jesus. My favourite scene was when Jesus discussed with the apostles of the fact that material things are not that important in life.
The second part depicts all the events of the last days of Christ's life: the Palm Sunday, the last supper with Judas' betrayal, the trial in front of Caiaphas, Pilate and Herod, the crucifixion between two thieves and the resurrection from the dead.
The scenery is great, especially in the outdoor scenes; the Canyonlands National Park in Utah (where the scene of the Sermon on the Mount was filmed), the desert of Moab, the Lake Paiute Tribe's river in Nevada, Glen Canyon and California.
The music score is very impressive, especially in the credits (opening and ending) and Hendel's Hallelujah.
Shot in color, The Greatest Story Ever Told is the excellent chronicle of Jesus' life, with everything portrayed in every single detail, even much more than ''King of Kings''.
In three hours George Stevens managed to tell all the scope of the life of the teacher of Christian teachings in one movie, and with the greatest all-star cast ever seen in a Bible-based movie. There are some, like Sal Mineo, a pre-Murder She Wrote Angela Lansbury, Ed Wynn and even David Hedison that vanish after a few seconds, but they are also decent. While the bigger roles (apart from Max Von Sydow as Jesus) like Josè Ferrer and Telly Savalas' are pretty good, and surrounded by various supporting actors that were very known faces of B-movies and TV shows of those years (like John Abbott, John Lupton, David Sheiner).
I want to talk about the roles and actors that for me, were the best in the movie:
* Joanna Dunham as Mary of Magdalene, first known as the adultress and then as one of Jesus' most loyal followers along with the apostles.
* Telly Savalas as Pontius Pilate, that also gives to the crowd the chance of choosing who to crucifix between Jesus and Barabbas, and in the end he washes his hands. He is very charismatic, and this fit the part well.
* Robert Blake as Simon the Zealot, the one who informs Jesus of John the Baptist's inprisonment. A bit unrecognizable because of the huge beard.
* Josè Ferrer as Herod Antipas. He is the first (before Caiaphas and Pilate) that complains about Jesus' behaviours and is also tired of receiving complains about him and John the Baptist. He is also helped by his team of guards.
* Michael Ansara as the Commander of Herod's guards. He is very vicious looking, and very menacing especially towards Charlton Heston as John the Baptist.
* Michael Tolan as Lazarus. In his few scenes before his death is very endearing and friendly towards Jesus.
* David McCallum as Judas. One of the apostles and the one that manages to betray Jesus, take him to the guards and to the trial. I have to warn sensible viewers that the scene where Judas throws himself in the flames is very upsetting.
* Charlton Heston as John the Baptist, that is the last prophet before the beginning of Christian religion.
* Max Von Sydow as Jesus (in his first American movie). I am not exaggerating, but he is perfect for the role of Jesus (even better than Jeffrey Hunter and Jim Caviezel). He is very authoritarian and with his very commanding voice of his he gives probably one of his greatest performances in his career.
I always watch this movie after Easter. It's one of the best Bible-based movies ever made, second only to the TV series ''Jesus of Nazareth''. It was also nominated for four Academy Awards (Best Soundtrack, Best Special Effects, Best Costumes, Best Color Photography). And watching this movie, even multiple times is a great experience. Must-see for all 1960s kolossal fans!
A great and timeless tale about the dark side of man
This ranks among the best movies from the 1940s not only for the performances or direction but also because it is a tale dealing with the worst side of men when it comes to greed.
The movie begins with two Americans (Humphrey Bogart and Tim Holt) that live in Mexico and they are very poor. Their only needs are food. Then they have the idea to join a old prospector in gold mining. The trio goes in the Mexican Wilderness searching gold, and as time passes their best and worst sides slowly come out, since they all want a part of the treasure.
The strongpoint of the movie are the actors' performances. Humphrey Bogart has never been better (along with CASABLANCA) and he stoods out in the trio. His character at the beginning is very humble and then he becomes easy to loath. Tim Holt is pretty good as Bogart's sidekick and Walter Huston gives a very good performance as the old codger(and he also won the Academy Award for this one). The direction by John Huston is also outstanding, and it has great cinematography for its time (and it still stands well to this day). And the script is very thoughtful.
I recommend this movie to old movie fans not only because it's on IMDB's top 250 but also because unlike many movies of its time it took the hazard of showing off men's worst sides. Truly one of the best movies of its time.
Among the less remembered movies of Laurel and Hardy, but still funny
Having always been a longtime fan of Laurel and Hardy I can say I saw almost all of their movies (silents, feature films and even some of the shorts they made when they weren't yet a pair) and THE BIG NOISE was one of my last movies left to watch. I also wanted to watch it because it has a dubious reputation, and it also ended in the Harry Medved book ''The fifty worst movies of all time''. So is THE BIG NOISE that bad as its reputation suggests? Not that much. Now, it's NOT the best movie with Laurel and Hardy, but is far from ATOLL K (their lowest point).
At the beginning Laurel and Hardy work as janitors and part-time detectives and they are called at night by a weird scientist that calls them at night for extreme surveillance on a tiny bomb that can blow entire cities! Unfortunately two of the scientist's neighbours are crooks and try to have the bomb at all costs for their evil plans. So after a meal of microscopic proportions (designed by the scientist himself) Laurel and Hardy go on a cross country trip with the bomb for avoiding that it gets stolen. After re-enacting a scene from the 1929 short BERTH MARKS but making it even longer, they end up using the bomb for its purpose (from a radio controlled plane).
So, is it terrible? No. Laurel and Hardy are older and some of the gags are recycled, I agree, but they still manage to crack a smile from most die-hard fans. And they manage to carry the plot well, considering also the setting. The supporting cast is decent, with Arthur Space and Robert - here still Bobby - Blake that are good scene stealers in the first part.
The bottom line is that the movie isn't that great but it didn't seemed dreadful or painful to watch, which a bit disappointed me because I was thinking before watching it that the film would made me cringe.
In this non-THIN MAN movie director W. S. Van Dyke, Myrna Loy and William Powell are teamed again in what is considered by many (including other reviewers) one of the first movies dealing with amnesia.
After William Powell is knocked on the head with a life preserver while saving a drunkard from drowning, he regains his memory and he returns back to his old personality - a crook that has Frank McHugh as his crime partner. In the meanwhile he has to deal with returning with his ex-wife (played by Myrna Loy) that is ready for divorce and has a new suitor, and he also finds out that during his past life he worked in a bank and had access to lots of other people's money. How he regains his old memory and personality is the device of the movie's plot.
A thoroughly enjoyable old movie with great writing and acting by all in the cast (especially from Powell and Loy). Definitely worth-watching.
This is another of the many ''Silly Symphonies'', the shorts made by Walt Disney studios from 1929 to 1939 that had lots of music, different characters for each short, and not the usual Disney characters like Mickey Mouse, Goofy and Donald. While many of the black and white ones are forgettable and derivative, this one is among the best and more innovative for its time. The animation is great for a black and white toon, and I personally liked very much the shoots of the spider walking through the hallways of the Sphinx, the sequence of the dancing mummys was very cute, and the sequence of all the figures in the wall moving is very extraordinary! The soundtrack is very energetic, and all the characters - the spider (I have to admit it but I found him very cute), the mummys and the figures in the wall - are very likeable and endearing. All in all, a must see for everyone who calls himself a Disney shorts buff.
On July 2018 IMDB changed the criteria for inclusions on IMDB's Bottom 100 (the list of the 100 lowest rated movies based on the users' ratings). Now, instead of 1,500 ratings movies must have at least 10,000 ratings for being eligible for this list... making the list more for major releases than for obscure movies of the past like it used to be. And the old Bottom 100 was also full of almost all the movies featured on the TV show MYSTERY SCIENCE THEATER 3000. I'll put it straight: the movies were riffed in this show and the folks (including the fans of MST3K) gave lots of scores of 1s assuming that these movies are the worst movies ever made. I actually saw various movies featured in the show and I have to be honest, NOT all of them (including PUMAMAN) are that bad! And this movie, despite its score of 2,2 it's quite enjoyable and funny in its own way.
Is ''Pumaman'' that terrible? No. Now, it's not a GREAT movie, but not a TERRIBLE movie either.
At the beginning we hear about an Aztec-like cult that has Superman-like powers and the villains (led by legendary actor Donald Pleasence) want to destroy it and kill their emissary, the Pumaman. We soon get to know who is the Pumaman, and no one would think of the English paleontologist as a superhero... but he soon begins to suspect of something weird when he is thrown out of a window and lands on his feet safe and sound. Soon a South American believer named Vadinho chases the guy for announcing him that he is the Pumaman and soon this ''super-hero'' tries everything and eventually succedds in defeating the villains and even saves his girl.
So, why this movie doesn't deserve the hate? The plot is very similar to a comic-book based movie, and despite the special effects seem ridicolous and very dated, this is not a major problem. And the very tense soundtrack fits perfectly the movie's 1980s atmosphere.
The bottom line is that while the movie is silly, predictable and with many shortcomings, it's funny and enjoyable and more than a time-passer as well. I would personally NEVER put it in the Bottom 100 as there are many movies worst than this (like ''Manos the Hands of Fate'', ''Beast of Yucca Flats'' and ''Santa Claus Conquers The Martians'').
#1 on IMDB's top 250, one of the best movies of all time and more than 6200 reviews... what's more to say about this movie?
As I said in the summary, there are too many reviews for this movie and it's among the best movies of all time. So, why I wanted to review it? Because this movie touched me so deeply and I found it so great and powerful that I have to say my opinion at all costs. This is out of my system, now I can go to the review.
THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION is a masterpiece and only a idiot wouldn't watch it (or hate it). Everything in this movie is perfect: the dialogue is clever and well written, with many great lines (included also in the narration by Morgan Freeman), the cinematography is great, the soundtrack is among the best that were ever heard in 1990s movies, and the performances are very strong and heartfelt. Tim Robbins and Morgan Freeman give their best performances in their careers. Robbins is hard to empathize with at the beginning, but more the movie goes on more you come to like him. Freeman also narrates the movie, and here is suave, easy to empathize with and likeable (as in all his other movies). And also the supporting players in the movie are good, including James Whitmore in one of his final roles as Brooks Hatlen.
My favourite scene apart the tear-jerking ending? The scene of the inmates listening to the Mozart aria through the speakers. So, you don't have to like prison dramas for liking this movie. Yes it's depressing and sad in points - but is also perfectly and cleverly written and acted, and deserves all the praises that received. A movie that has to be seen at least once, and if you don't love it I suggest you to go to a psychiatrist!
This is one of the greatest movies not only of the 1950s, but of all time. What makes it unique are the direction, the actors' performances, the cinematography and the set. In my opinion, whoever loves classic movies or movies in general should watch this movie at least once in a lifetime - it's that great and perfect! This movie should be even shown in film schools as a textbook example of how to make a movie without special effects but only with a good script and talented actors. That's it: a movie shot in black and white and for almost all the time the film is set in a small room.
The direction (by Sidney Lumet in his debut) is top-notch and the actors' performances are all career-bests. Henry Fonda has never given a better performance than the one he gives in this movie, and all the other actors - Jack Warden, Jack Klugman, Robert Webber, Lee J. Cobb, Martin Balsam, John Fiedler for naming a few - who were still unknown at the time, are great here and give great support to Fonda. All in all, an exceptional movie in all ways.
I should mention right here that I am not a huge fan of thrillers, but once in a while some thriller surprises me. But there is a part of me - the part of me that wants to see all the bad movies ever made (even the ones from the Bottom 100, and this movie made it to the list thanks to the changes apported in the list since the last summer, and increasing the number of votes caused a strong impact on the list)
In this movie (a remake of a movie I never saw) Nicolas Cage plays Edward, a cop that is invited by his former girlfriend to go on a island searching for a young girl that disappeared there. But Edward soon finds a large mistery to unsolve, and he also finds out that in that community women are the superior race, and men are treated as slaves for their pagan rites, How Edward will find the disappeared girl and connect the dots?
Watching this movie I didn't find it as bad as its overall score of 3,7 and almost all the negative reviews would suggest. Despite I hadn't hopes for this movie I ended up enjoying it so much because of its many twists and turns and it has also some good cinematography. Nicolas Cage here gives another great performance, but I felt sorry for him at the end. And the supporting cast is all good.
Pleasant and interesting thriller, and it doesn't deserve at all the hate it has received. And I know many would be angry at me, but its inclusion in the Bottom 100 is undeserved! Don't buck on conventional wisdom, because I think that this is a nice thriller that fans of the genre will love (and the fact that I liked it as I am not a huge fan of thrillers says a lot!).
Always had been a great fan of THE MASK with Jim Carrey and Cameron Diaz, it was funny, great and enjoyable for both kids and adults. Why they had to make such a terrible sequel out of it? It makes me cringe. And it's at number 9 on IMDB's Bottom 100 (a well deserved position).
Let me say that the script was mind-numbingly dumb and filled with clichès to say the least, with nothing in common with its excellent predecessor. And the direction by Lawrence Guterman, who also directed NUTTY PROFESSOR 2: THE KLUMPS and CATS & DOGS, which were much better, was close to incompetent. The movie's plot is supposed to be about a cartoonist that becomes a dad and tries to raise a child, but the movie rarely follows it, and it's more concentrated on gross and unfunny humour (including the baby making his dad insane, the dog that wants to kill the baby but is the baby that turns all this around and many other moments I won't mention)
The sets remind a lot of the old Disney and Warner Bros. cartoons, but these and the CGI effects don't have the charm the first movie had. The casting is among the worst you can find in a sequel: Jamie Kennedy hasn't got the same talent and charisma Jim Carrey has, and he is so annoying, so stupid and so irritating that it's not a character you would root for, and the dog and the baby are incredibly frightening. Alan Cumming is a fine actor, and I liked him in various of his movies, but here he is completely wasted as Loki, and he looks disengaged here. And why Bob Hoskins signed for this movie I'll never know.
One of the worst movies ever made for children, one of the worst sequels ever made (and it should have never been made in the first place), dull, pointless, stupid and even incredibly frightening in some points! Avoid this movie at all costs, your brain will thank you for this!
Even though I am not a fan of horror movies at all, I wanted to see HOUSE OF THE DEAD because of the many bad things I heard about it, and I really wished that I have watched something else instead of this one!
This incredibly tiresome and stupid movie was directed by Uwe Boll, that is famous for directing movies based on video-games. So this movie is directed by a bad director (MUCH worse than Ed Wood) and it's based on a awful video-game. Much worse than this???? The plot: some stupid and horny adults go on a island known as Isla de los Muertos (Island of the Dead) for having fun. But instead everyone turns into zombies and rips each other's skin. Yet with no explanation whatsoever the victims know martial arts and have always huge supplies of weapons for killing the blood-thirsty zombies. And Jurgen Prochnow is wasted as the boat Captain because his role is so underwritten that it comes off as awkward.
There isn't really much plot - just zombies, cursing, nudity and violence. If you love this stuff then this is a movie perfect for you and you'll love it. But if you are NOT a horror fan (like me) and you like intelligent movies, you must steer clear from this dumb and obnoxious film that deserves to be on IMDB's Bottom 100 (at #7 place).
Well it's not as bad as I assumed (and there are MUCH worse movies than this)
This is among the most panned movies of all time since it was based on a TV show. And while I can understand the fans of the original TV show I still don't think that this movie is THAT bad. I would NEVER put it in the Bottom 100 as I can name many other movies that are much worse than this one (FREDDY GOT FINGERED, THE CAT IN THE HAT and DISASTER MOVIE for example).
In this full length version of the 1960s TV show John Steele and Emma Peel battle with a duplicate Emma Peel and Sir August de Wynter (played by Sean Connery), a mastermind that wants to rule the world with his weather-controlling machine. And while this plot could look stupid to some, it certainly is! But you can't do anything but admire the extraordinary special effects as well the sets. In particular I loved the special effects (the CGI insects were cool to look at). I personally can't give a 1 to a movie with great special effects and sets, it deserves at least other 4 points for the effects.
As for the acting, even though the movie it's bland Ralph Fiennes and Uma Thurman are good in their roles. And it was a surprise for me seeing Sean Connery in such a nasty role and Patrick Mcnee as the Invisible Jones (a small role).
However, while the movie is a bit bad, it's watchable and far from a huge disappointment. But I am NOT saying it's great!
Truly one of the most inept and worst sequels ever made
The original THE EXORCIST with Ellen Burstyn and Max Von Sydow is not a masterpiece, but it's still a great movie. What a great way for ruining its reputation, with such a terrible and awful sequel! There are even much worse sequels out there (SON OF THE MASK, all of the POLICE ACADEMY movies, the last two JAWS movies are the prime examples) but judging on the badness of this movie that it's not a glowing endorsement!
EXORCIST 2 THE HERETIC hasn't got any redeeming quality at all. The direction by John Boorman, who is among the best directors of 1970s' thrillers, was close to asinine. The acting is pretty terrible, especially by Richard Burton that does nothing but overact all the time and behaving nastily. Louise Fletcher lacks charisma at all, and even James Earl Jones' performance and a small Max Von Sydow cameo (for giving us the connection between this film and its predecessor) couldn't have saved this movie at all, because their characters are so badly written that both Jones and Von Sydow look very bored and disengaged as well. And the soundtrack is very creepy and nightmare inducing, and then there was the scene of the african plains with that shrilling scream that was so painful to hear that I felt like my head was exploding!!! I am serious when I say that this is one of the few movies that caused me pain and it was fault of the movie!
This movie has all the ingredients for a truly awful and dreadful movie: badly acted, poorly directed, written by a Jack Russell and with many scenes that make no sense whatsoever. No wonder this movie bombed and it was panned by EVERYONE at the time (including the critics and the few that liked the original THE EXORCIST in 1973) and also it's not a true sequel and a substandard movie as well!
This ranks among the cults of the worst movies of all time (and it ended again on IMDB's Bottom 100) and it's also unintentionally funny. And it's probably the strangest and most psychedelic Christmas movie out there!
The kids on Mars are depressed, and this because they don't have Christmas presents and Santa Claus that gives them presents. Then the martians have the idea of kidnapping Santa Claus (and in the process they also kidnap two Earth children that act very poorly). On Mars the Martians are happy but Santa and the kids not. This because the kids are nostalgic of their home and their family and Santa in the technological world of Mars hasn't nothing to do but pushing the same buttons over and over again. Then Dropo (the dumbest and most obnoxious alien that you'll ever find in a movie) disguises as Santa and then the Martian kids are happy, and the real Santa Claus and the two kids are sent on Earth at the end.
Everything in this movie is pretty bad. The acting is very bad by everyone (especially by the two Earth children). I personally saw much better acting in Pauly Shore or Steven Seagal movies! The sets are pretty bad, like in PLAN 9 and ROBOT MONSTER there is too much stock footage, and the alien's costumes are the most hideous costumes I ever saw in old B-movies. The special effects are atrocious (especially the polar bear that is a guy in a suit which his head falls while he is chasing the kids), the characters are all unlikeable except Santa, but I hated Dropo SO much that I wanted to jump in the movie and beat him for stopping him! And the soundtrack, except the credits' song (I am ashamed of saying it but I found it catchy) it's very annoying and grating.
In substance, a truly awful movie but also a must-see that you can use for a laugh or two. It has to be seen to be believed!
I agree with many that this movie has many shortcomings, but I don't consider it ''the worst movie of all time''. Yes, it is poorly made, it was cheaply made, but I think that there are many movies that are MUCH worse than this one (MANOS THE HANDS OF FATE and THE BEAST OF YUCCA FLATS are much more amateurish and poorly made than this) and there are much worse directors than Ed Wood (Harold P. Warren and Coleman Francis for example). And I consider PLAN 9 one of the greatest bad movies.
The many flaws of this movie are: the acting, full of corny dialogue and overacting (especially by Tor Johnson and Vampira); the sets and the special effects may be poor and cheap (I laughed a lot when I saw the pie plates used as UFOs); and lots and lots of stock footage. But I find this movie entertaining for the dialogue and also for Bela Lugosi's final performance (here billed ''Almost starring Bela Lugosi'' since he died before the movie was released). And Ed Wood directs nicely, and except at half-way the movie is very fast-paced.
All in all, a nice and funny time passer and among the cults of bad movies! Not to be missed.
While many today remember Robert Mitchum for noir movies (like NIGHT OF THE HUNTER, OUT OF THE PAST and THE BIG STEAL) he also was great in other genres. And even though this is not his best war movie Mitchum shines in this forgotten movie. He plays a infantry colonel stationed with his men in South Korea before the Korean War. The movie has two subplots: Mitchum at war with his men or winning the affection of a UN worker (played by Ann Blyth). He is among the most believable characters I ever saw in a war movie, and that because he is NOT larger than life or hard as nails. Instead he looks like a decent man which everyone could count on. The only problem with the film is that even though it has some light moments (and Mitchum handles them well) it's very explicit as for some scenes of soldiers injured or killed that look a bit brutal. Not a war movie for the faint of hearth, but still awfully good.
Always had been fond of old Hollywood movies of all genres (Westerns, comedies, dramas) and War movies are no exception as well. Since I heard lots of great things about this movie, I had high hopes for it, and after the viewing, I was incredibly surprised.
ATTACK ranks among the best war movies of the 1950s, period. It's very well photographed, the black and white still looks good now and it fits the atmosphere and setting very well. The soundtrack is very haunting and it doesn't come out as annoying.
The script is very intelligent and thought-provoking, there are various parts full of suspense, and even though the characters look unlikeable, in the second part of the movie the characters become easy to root for, and you feel their pain like if they were near you. Robert Aldrich directs perfectly (even better than when he directed THE DIRTY DOZEN), and you can smell the tension between these men.
When it comes to the cast, it's among the best you can find in a war movie: especially Jack Palance and Lee Marvin (even though he has a supporting role) give very strong performances. And then there are many familiar faces of the 1950s movies - Eddie Albert, Richard Jaeckel, Buddy Ebsen, Robert Strauss, German actor Peter van Eyck and even a still unknown Strother Martin - that are good as well. My favourite of the supporting players was Eddie Albert as the cowardly captain of the outfit, that is also responsible for the loss of also human lives (even before the events that happen in this movie) and it's strongly hated by Palance's character. But after he confesses about his temper he becomes a symphatetic character (and you can root for him)
William Smithers debuted here giving a solid performance. While many today won't remember him, he appeared in many famous TV shows of the 1960s like COMBAT!, STAR TREK, THE RAT PATROL and he also had a supporting role in PAPILLON.
All in all, one of the greatest war movies of its time and it's a must see for fans of serious movies and great actors that give strong performances.
Terrific Western with many great things that make it unusual
Although I am personally a huge fan of Westerns (and I yet reviewed a few here on IMDB) I noticed that almost all of them are pretty much the same. But there are some, like this one, that are a bit different, they are the must-see of the genre. And this Western is in my top 10 of favourites.
This movie could look familiar but instead is original. It begins with a punk (played by Earl Holliman) that kills the wife of the Sheriff (played by Kirk Douglas). The punk's father (Anthony Quinn) is a great shot in a nearby town, he looks like he is above the law and it's a old friend of the Sheriff. But Douglas has no pity for his old friend's son and will he punish him for his sins? See the movie by yourself.
In this Western everything works perfectly: the actors' performances, the direction by veteran John Sturges, the cinematography, the soundtrack, all! And it has an inusual twist for a Western. Other Westerns I strongly reccomend because of their greatness and uniqueness: STAGECOACH, THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE, THE COMANCHEROS, THE SEARCHERS, THE BIG COUNTRY and SHANE. Each one better than the other.
Not perfect like the original movie and a disappointing sequel to a great family film
The original BABE movie is among the greatest movies ever made for families, and it's a movie that I still love very much since my childhood. Sadly, its sequel BABE PIG IN THE CITY is not perfect like the original and it's a bit disappointing when compared to the original. It's darker (not surprising since it's directed by George Miller), depressing and twisted.
The movie begins with the final scene of the first movie when Babe and his master Arthur Hoggett return to the farm with a welcome parade, but after an accident forces Farmer Hoggett in bed, his wife has to go to the big city with Babe for saving the farm from being sold, and then all hell breaks loose: Mrs. Hoggett is arrested, Babe remains alone in a hotel that it's inhabitated by various animals (fish, dogs, cats, monkeys, etc.) and the landlady's grandpa, played by Mickey Rooney. But even when all the animals are taken away by law enforcement officers, Babe with the help of Ferdinand (that flew all the way from the farm for Babe) and his new animal friends manages to survive against the odds.
Unlike the original, this movie is more for older folks (from 8 years old upwards). There are many depressing and sad moments, the original had them too, but in this movie are too much for making it a nice viewing to small children. And most of the gags and situations fall flat as well. However, as a sequel BABE IN THE CITY is not really fit for jumping in the category. But as a stand-alone movie yes.
This ranks among the best war movies made in the 1940s thanks to the acting and direction. Plus, since this movie was made during the war, many would find the characters stereotyped (like the Nazi officer and the Italian soldier played by J. Carroll Naish), but since the movie it's great this can be forgiven.
Bogart plays a tank commander that is stuck in the North-African desert with his men and with them he tries to find the rest of the armies and also supplies of water, and in the meanwhile they stumble on the evil Nazi commander and the Italian soldier that is taken prisoner. When they find the water, they wait for a brief period of time, and... well, I won't spoil what happens next. Just see the movie and enjoy.
This today can also be considered one of the first ''men's movies'', because the cast is full of male stars and there isn't a single woman in the movie. And this ranks among Bogart's best performances, and even though he doesn't dominate the movie he is still great, and he is supported here by the likes of Lloyd Bridges, Dan Duryea, Bruce Bennett and J. Carroll Naish.