I really don't know why this movie was classified as a comedy when it is not anything nearly like that and the whole thing is a mess. I love a good "stupid comedy" like any other normal person but. This thing was just pathetic this weak, unbalanced and (mostly) unfunny attempt at a teen sex comedy left me with a new lack of respect for Corey Feldman, which is quite a feat. It's full of dialog that you can tell is SUPPOSED to be funny, but never really manages to draw out a single laugh. The opening scene is a prime example of this...if you don't laugh in the first five minutes of the movie, just turn it off because you are in for a whole lot more of the same. I'm really not even sure what part of this movie qualifies it as a comedy of any sort.
Movies are supposed to cause you to feel emotions for the characters, good movies will leave you talking about the film to others and referring to the characters as if it's real. This movie caused some emotions, mostly anger, but not in the good movie kind of way. The "villain" of the story never gets served; instead it feels he is glorified, and that I place on the screenwriter/director who is the age of said character...
The acting was awful to awkward. The camera work was amateurish. There was no plot, no twist, and no end. The soundtrack didn't even make sense with the movie. There really is not one single redeeming quality about it. The screenplay is horrible. Jeff Seigel should stay a production assistant because he sucks as a writer. This movie is garbage plain and simple. To see Corey Feldman in such an awful film is sad but maybe not that surprising. To see Brian O'Halloran from the Kevin Smith series of movies in this is more depressing.
I didn't like this movie because it supports the emotional abuse of women. The three main characters all do sexual things with guys, and none of the girls is painted in a good light by the director. I am a guy and I'm not a feminist but I respect women, but this movie still ruined my night. If you are a sadist and hate women, you might like this movie, otherwise don't watch it. The way the movie paints the main female characters makes you question if the director had a bad relationship with his mom or got cheated on by a past girlfriend and is still bitter about it. Oh, and I almost forgot to mention, the movie doesn't really end. It just kind of stops...Which I was happy about, but the fact that there is no real story to it at all probably greatly contributes to its overall crapping. There is no conflict, or rising action, or resolution. It's is just an hour and a half of vomit inducing crap literally. Aside from how depressing it was, the movie's plot was disjointed, there was some decent character development, but there seemed to be no resolution. There were a lot of loose ends left at the end of the movie.
After "hooking up" with a series of guys at a house party, April is the talk of her high school. Her best friend Michelle, envious of all of April's attention, decides to try and follow in her footsteps and become more sexually forward. At the same time, their mutual friend Caroline has become so infatuated with her older boyfriend Ryan that she doesn't realize he's just using her. All the while, John, spends the week informing his two best friends, Colin (April's repressed and confused brother) and Tyler (the subject of Michelle's crush), about obscure sexual urban legends he reads about online, that just somehow end up managing to come true. Throw in the naive principal Dr. Jordan, who also happens to be Michelle's father, and Mr. Kimbal, a chemistry teacher trying desperately to dodge repeated seduction attempts from his students.
In this over-the-top comedy, the relationships of three girls and fours guys - in affluent, adolescent suburban reality - intersect through the topsy-turvy world of love, power...and hooking up.
The relationships of three girls and four guys in affluent adolescent suburbia intersect through the topsy-turvy world of love, sex, and power.
When You're Six Tons -- And They Call You Killer -- It's Hard To Make Friends...
I really can't believe this movie was done in 1966. It really is interesting and since I love animal it was a plus. If you are an animal lover and enjoy a good fish story, this is the film for you. The only thing that was a little weird for me was the music but the rest was amazing I really can't believe these people did this in that year I just can imagine what they could do with the technology that we have now!
This is an outstanding film about a killer whale named Naumu who is being protected by an oceanographer, Robert Lansing,(Hank Donner) and has a very hard time trying to tell the local towns people that this whale is not harmful. John Anderson, (Joe Clausen) is more worried about his salmon business and does not want a whale eating up his profitable business.
The interaction between benevolent humans and a creature considered a threat. It pits an ignorant, small town against an oceanographer (Robert Lansing) and a shop keeper (Lee Meriweather) in working to educate the local township that Namu is not a threat, but a lonely animal needing attention. The scene in which Lansing and Meriweather engage in play with Namu inside the lagoon is priceless. Moreover, when Namu miraculously rescues the very man (John Anderson) who tried to kill him, makes this movie unbelievably precious.
Ivan Tors produced many films and TV shows that nudged the audience to treat other species with respect and wonder. This was a novel film in its time that introduced audiences to the "Killer Whale" as a potential friend rather than threat. Based on a true story and very well made (lots of great location photography). The cast is low-key and everything is handled in a convincing manner. This was typical of the Tors approach. It's well-done material- not overly sentimental, with a respect for science and a plea to evolve as a species. It's the sort of movie that one doesn't see these days in a sea of CGI fantasy and family films that are merely bad comedy.
A compassionate scientist forms an unlikely friendship with a magnificent killer whale
Well this adaptation does no justice to the book. Although none of the versions have been very good. Approaching this as a musical is all wrong. You could sort of get away with it with 'Tom Sawyer' because that is really just a children's book and much lighter. 'Huck Finn' is a serious novel aimed at older readers and, as I recall, was some 500 pages long which was why I didn't finish it. Being a darker more serious story than 'Sawyer', it weathers being a musical far less.
It doesn't help that a couple of the songs really stink either. the movie gets off to a decent start, and the title song 'Freedom' is actually quite good. so are the songs 'Honey Darling' and the excellent 'Rose in a Bible', but pretty much all the rest are sub par. the Harvey Corman number, 'Royalty', is just plain awful. And so is Corman. it's hard to imagine Harvey Corman as giving such a horrible performance, since he is always so talented and funny, and you think he would be just right for this role, but he's not. he over acts so terribly and the song is so bad, it pretty much sinks the movie at that point, and it never recovers.
As a musical, this film does not work. The numbers are awkwardly placed and spaced, and some of the actors are unsure of their singing altogether. The songs in the companion film Tom Sawyer work better because they are usually sung as a voiceover, serving as an internal dialogue.
While not entirely faithful to the book, captures its essential themes and spirit rather well. There are some technical problems (the lighting always seem to be half in shadow, whether it's night or day!) and its kiddies-friendly tone seems at odds during the Grangerfords/Shepherdsons sequence, wherein we see men being shot and killed right on camera--and it's handled rather lightly.
Another basic problem with this adaptation is that some of the most interesting events in the story take place off-screen. You only hear them described afterwards, which is a very weak storytelling device. The cinematography is good; the acting by Jeff East and others is good, especially the actress playing the Widow Douglas. And Paul Winfield is an excellent choice for the character of "nigger" Jim.
Talented filmmaker J. Lee Thompson stages this musical version of Mark Twain's "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" with artificial verve, and nothing in it looks quite right or plays at the appropriate tempo. Stolen from his guardians by his own delinquent father, Huckleberry Finn stages his own death and hits the Mississippi River with his friend, Jim the Slave (why the two don't return to the sisters whom Jim works for is never made clear--both he and Huckleberry would certainly benefit from their generosity). Songwriters Richard and Robert Sherman, who also adapted the screenplay, seemed to lose their way musically once their mentor, Walt Disney, died; here, their songs are like leaden chapter stops in the narrative, not that the actors have much musical range. Teen star Jeff East doesn't even have music in his speaking voice, and he crawls through the picture lethargically, talking through his nose as if he had a cold. Paul Winfield fares better as Jim, though this pictorial, phony journey must have seemed quite a comedown after his "Sounder". Cinematographer Laszlo Kovács gets some beautiful shots of the raft on the water, but the limp direction and editing makes nearly all of Kovács' compositions look poorly framed. The color schemes are gloppy, with day scenes appearing as dusk and vice-versa. Director Thompson, who makes the white folks look like doddering scoundrels and the black folks look like grinning simpletons, can't work up a cohesive pace for the picture, and it jostles about from one poor vignette to the next.
Lovers of Huckleberry Finn might cringe at the liberties taken in this film, particularly at the end. The end that Twain wrote for the book wasn't very strong, with Tom Sawyer returning and making a muck of things. This is not the only version of Huck Finn that tries an alternate ending.
Huckleberry Finn, a rambuctious boy adventurer chafing under the bonds of civilization, escapes his humdrum world and his selfish, plotting father by sailing a raft down the Mississippi River. Accompanying him is Jim, a slave running away from being sold. Together the two strike a bond of friendship that takes them through harrowing events and thrilling adventures.
One of Mark Twain's best-loved stories becomes a screen musical in this family-friendly adaptation. Mischievous Huckleberry Finn (Jeff East) is a 15-year-old boy who has long had a difficult relationship with his often violent father. When Dad tried to kidnap him, Huck decides to run away from home, and heads out of town on a raft. Huck is soon joined by Jim (Paul Winfield), a runaway slave who is no more eager to see his master than Huck is to see his father. As the two friends make their way down the Mississippi, they're faced with a variety of challenges and adventures, including a run-in with a pair of shabby but dignified actors, The King (Harvey Korman) and The Duke (David Wayne). Produced in association with Reader's Digest magazine, which in 1973, scored a box-office hit with a musical version of Twain's Tom Sawyer, Huckleberry Finn featured original songs by Richard M. Sherman and Robert B. Sherman, who also wrote the songs for a handful of Disney hits, including Mary Poppins.
Beware of his sword.
SWORD FOR TRUTH is a compact ninja OAV that looks forward to NINJA SCROLL and even shares some of its stylistic touches. But it is not Ninja Scroll at half the length it's nowhere near as intricate or compelling as the later film but it should satisfy fans who are looking for a quick fix of nonstop gory ninja action. And it being an OAV should tell you enough.
It tells the story of Shiranosuke Sakaki, a lone swordsman who intervenes when the Nakura clan is attacked by an outsized, bloodthirsty white tiger which makes short work of the clan's first line of defense. The tiger is a diversionary tactic to lure the guards away from Princess Mayu who is abducted by the Seki Ninja and held hostage until the Nakura clan can turn over the treasured Ginryu sword to them. The clan leader, Daizen Imura, is so impressed with Sakaki that he hires him to take the sword to Benten Island, where the Sekis are waiting, to bring back the princess in one piece. That's basically all there is to the story, which ends in such a fashion, including the introduction of new characters and a possible new conflict, that it's clear a sequel was planned that was never made.
Still, it's filled with all kinds of elements designed to please fans of hard-edged ninja anime: "kunoichi" (female ninjas in striking red outfits); sex (the hero is quite a ladies' man); nudity; an "Invincible" ninja who can eject swords out of his body after they've been plunged into his flesh; a monstrous underwater ninja; and plenty of decapitation, dismemberment, and spurting blood. The chief problem is that the blood is usually colored black, making the whole thing look a lot less bloody than it should be. One wonders if the colors were changed in the transfer process to avoid a harsh rating, which makes no sense since anime isn't subject to a ratings system. So much ninja anime is notably bloody; why the sudden caution?
For anime buffs that may be put off by the bloodshed, I should point out that the artwork and design are of singular high quality and worth examining even if the animation is stiffer than usual and uses short cuts in the action staging. The line work is bold, the colors are rich-despite the nighttime settings for most of the action-and the backgrounds are rendered in exquisite detail. The character design is particularly strong, with great detail and distinct facial features accorded even the most minor characters. The director is Osamu Dezaki (under the name Tsutomu Dezaki), with character design and animation direction by Dezaki's longtime partner, Akio Sugino, and the piece reflects the distinct animation style of these creators, as seen in such other notable titles as SPACE ADVENTURE COBRA, GOLGO 13, and BLACK JACK, among other titles.
When master swordsman Shuransuke Sakaki refuses to be cowed by the clans populating ancient feudal Japan, he chooses a lonely and dangerous path to tread, indeed. Eventually Sakaki is hired to rescue ... read more the beautiful Princess Mayu from a team of ninja bandits, but his employers leave out an important detail -- in order to find her, he must battle the spirits of hell first. Sword for Truth was directed by Osamu Dezaki.
I really won't go all intelligent about it and explain the script, the direction and the characters and so forth. Because this movie doesn't even deserve this and I won't loose any more time on it. I felt compelled to give a review as some sort of warning just see it if you want to cry about how bad is it or if you want to feel bad for actually watching it as I did. Just stay clear of this one it's a waste of time.
A group of aliens arrive on Earth as part of an advance invasion force. Their mission is to kidnap a small sample of humans and run them through a series of rigorous tests to determine if they would make suitable slaves. Harper, one of the alien experimenters, has beceme frustrated with her planet's endless cycle of conquest and extermination and begins to feel some sympathy for her human captives. While the prisoners see a glimmer of hope in the compassionate alien, will it be any use in stopping the enormous attack fleet just a few days from Earth?
In this sci-fi thriller, Harper (Isabella Hoffman) is a reconnaissance agent from an alien civilization sent to Earth to study the planet and its inhabitants. Harper has taken over the body of a human... read more being in order to not seem conspicuous, and has been performing tests to see if her mind control techniques will make it possible for her people to enslave the human race. But Harper has learned that most of the earthlings do not respond to her methods, and another three alien scouts -- Alpha, Bravo, and Charley -- are sent to see if the path can be cleared for a massive invasion of the planet three days hence. While Harper's new comrades show little concern or compassion for human beings, she has developed an understanding of humans during her six months on the planet and is no longer certain that taking over the planet is a good idea. The Advanced Guard also stars James Avery, Michael Weatherly, and Jeff Kober.
This movie like almost any movie is not without its flaws but what it lacks it makes it up with heart. This movie has that Disney feel or even nickelodeon but it seems that it wasn't and maybe that is why after the apparent flaws this movie has. It has to make up with a lot of heart but still doesn't quite get there. But don't get me wrong this movie lets itself be watched without much hassle and it does its purpose and entertains in a softer manner that what the story is really all about. A couple of characters or maybe even the actor's seems out of place or wrongfully casted and not very well developed. But the kids and John Goodman really make up for everything else. What can I say? It could have been so much better and bring such a serious theme to a higher level of movie.
The story is pretty straightforward a kid living alone with his environmentalist father has to learn to go back to civilization once his dad dies of an infection of the leg. The kid goes into a jail for children were he makes his very first friends , bust out with them , fight the creepy sergeant who's always after him and learn to let go of the burden his late father had inflected upon him.
After the unexpected death of his survivalist father, an eleven year old boy raised in the Alabama wilderness must learn how to make a home in the modern world.
Eleven-year-old Moon Blake has spent most of his life hiding out in the forests of Alabama with his father, an anti-government radical who clings to conspiracy theories and trusts no one. Moon's life suddenly changes when the land is sold and his father dies. Knowing only what he learned from his father, Moon decides to follow his last instructions; make your way to Alaska where "people could still make a living off trapping." In the path of civilization, Moon quickly lands himself in a reform school where he meets the mean-spirited Constable Sanders and learns what friendship is all about. Determined to get to Alaska, he and his new friends escape from the school outwitting Constable Sanders each step of the way. "Alabama Moon" is a classic kid's film (based on the novel by Watt Key), complete with adventure and survival that most kids only dream about.
How can I start this? I will say this is the heart and soul of history of artistic writing and writing artistic. With a great Narrator Ryan Reynolds besides the greatest influence of Comic Books History writers and artist, creators and developers.
Such passion for this whole world is neccesary for all of us and it still feeds our imagination and our Society and our wolrd. This is an excellent documentary for both comics fans and not so involved in them what is comics and the superheroes universe.
This is an excellent documentary that highlights the uniqueness of the mythology behind DC comics and its ever growing universe.It contains numerous interviews with big names from the industry that explain the origins of the company( thus resulting the name of the documentary )and its evolution throughout history.With the expansion of the mythology to TV,movies and video games it's important to see the extent at which the story evolved through the comics and the importance of this medium in general in providing great stories.Therefore this is a great example of documentaries being attractive to a core audience (of comic readers) as well as to the general public who just want to find out more about the mythology of their favorite character(s). But it talks about all the most notable and important moments and people, it shows the evolution of these character and their stories and how they adapted to the times.
Comics aren't removed from reality, they make a statement about it. I also love that it focuses on the personal and emotional connection people make to these superheroes. It definitely sells the idea that there's more gravity to the genre than the reputation would have you believe. And at no point does it seem like the people who are passionate about comics are pathetic losers. It encompasses a wide variety of people, some of them very talented who went on to working in the industry themselves
A look at the history of the comic book publication that launched such legendary characters as Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman.
The purpose of "Secret Origins" is two fold. What with DC Comics finally putting their characters on the fast track to big budget films in the box office, this ninety minute documentary is meant to school new audiences that might be interested in learning about characters they're only vaguely familiar with. If you'll notice, the onl characters spotlighted in this documentary are those that have had movies in theaters or have big budget movies coming to them, thus we get to explore Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, The Watchmen and The Flash, all the while this is meant as a promotional tool for the magic and wonder that is DC Comics. The documentary is really just a recounting of the creations of classic iconic superheroes from their company and there's never really an exploration in to the darker side of the company. We watch talking heads for ninety minutes intercut with fancy montages of comic book scenes harping on the influence of these characters and how they have managed to live on in American culture, and there's never really anything beyond the relentless boasting about the awe and wonder of the company and the characters within the company. I'm all for celebrating the mythology of comic books so "Secret Origins" isn't a waste of time, but it's good to know that this is more an infomercial for the glorious DC Comics company and what they're going to do for the big screen and you than it is an honest look at the company and its practices. You really will not learn anything new with "Secret Origins" if you're the typical comic book fan boy.
Superman was invented by two Jewish immigrants who were turned down by companies when they pitched the idea, Batman was invented by Bob Kane, Wonder Woman was an icon for feminism and invented by a man who had a most unique sex life, and Shazam! managed to outsell Superman upon its original release in newsstands, a fact mentioned and then quickly undermined once the documentary jumps back on to the glory of Superman and his power over the youth.
All of which is narrated by Ryan Reynolds (The star of the upcoming "The Green Lantern" adaptation, shocking enough), who conducts his reading with a rather lethargic and sardonic tone, never quite mustering up enough excitement to soak us in to the documentary. All the while there is just an utterly rapid fire barrage of factoids any self respecting comic book geek will know already. Suffice it to say "Secret Origin" is a title pretty exaggerated as a means of summing up DC's origin. If I had been twelve this documentary would have been amazing, but as it stands it's merely just okay for what it promises as a promotional tool and somewhat glorified DVD special feature. As mentioned, the only heroes spotlighted in this documentary are those with potential film opportunities or films currently being made, so Shazam!, Plastic Man, Aquaman, Green Arrow, they're all considerably glossed over and just footnotes mentioned only to favor the bigger superheroes the doc tries to push on us. However I do give the doc a point for mentioning how DC inspired Marvel to create their own properties while also dwarfing them in sales. "Secret Origin" is an entertaining enough refresher course, but as it stands is not the best comic book documentary ever released.
In the end "Secret Origin" is what it's supposed to be. It's a promotional tool for DC and Warner as well as a refresher course to inject these superheroes back in to the minds of respective consumers all of whom may not yet be aware Green Lantern and the Flash have films in the works as we speak. I'd highly suggest the potential consumer wait until it's re-released with a bigger DC/Warner home DVD release as an add-on special feature.
Thanks to Felix Vasquez Jr from cinema-crazed
"Is there any man here that does not know that the seed of war in the modern world is industrial and commercial rivalry?" - Woodrow Wilson
Tim Hetherington, a British photojournalist, and Sebastian Junger, an American journalist, direct their first film, a documentary following a platoon in Afghanistan. The filmmakers actually risked their lives to follow the soldiers around for a year and captured some pretty remarkable footage. They don't interact with the soldiers at all and instead let them tell their story to the cameras through interviews and of course through their actions with each other and on the battlefield. The footage is surprisingly raw and real.
Restrepo is shot at a very personal level. The camera never intrudes on the soldiers during their work, and thank God considering some of the harrowing things they go through in this movie. This film hardly even feels like a documentary in the sense of what we think of documentary today. It is filled with interviews, but the bulk of the movie is truly documenting the lives of these soldiers. We get to see all sides of the emotional spectrum that can be afflicted through trauma. We get to look at how different people cope with such horrors as are experienced in this film. And it is all through such respectful eyes. I never once thought, 'Wow, they should really stop filming this.' Every moment of the film feels so important and the fact that all this was so clearly and eloquently caught on camera is astounding.
The unequivocally greatest thing about this film is the fact that it has absolutely no political agenda. It really has no alternative motive other than telling the story of these incredibly brave soldiers. The film only seeks to honor the brave men who served our country in the most dangerous area imaginable. This film isn't for the political leaders responsible for the war. It isn't for the military commanders that send these soldiers into battle. This movie is for the soldiers themselves. It is a true soldier's film in every sense. It has a very stern focus on the individual. It makes such an important point out of this aspect that it could have possibly gone even further. There are a lot of men in this platoon and thus we don't get to know any one person particularly well. We get to know the platoon well as a whole and how each man interacts with his fellow soldiers and how they all deal with loss and tragedy. Each individual soldier in this movie is important and the movie strives to show how meaningful that is. It is a remarkably important aspect of the film.
You won't see many documentaries like this, and there's probably a good reason for this. The kind of footage captured in Restrepo isn't easy to get and you have to be just as brave as the soldiers themselves if you are to accompany them into battle to document their bravery. But thankfully when the opportunity to get such unforgettable footage arose, it was all put together extremely well. This is not an easy film to watch, but in the end it is so remarkably worth it.
Recent (say in the last ten years) Fiction films about war, BLACK HAWK DOWN for example, have taken the same approach this films takes. The men are men doing a "job" and earn our respect on that level. The fact they do "the job" is what earns our respect. The fact that War isn't your usual job is not questioned, not by the filmmakers or by the men doing the job.
Part of the job is not to question the job and you don't do a lot of debating while you're either hiding or shooting to save your own life. That's more of a Hollywood idea of war than reality anyway it would seem.
This keeps the film from being political, so doesn't alienate people who are pro or con to the specific war the movie might be about.
So this fits into our modern war film approach comfortably on that level. Does it need more than a slice of life approach to be fascinating and tension filled? Not really, if it's done well enough and this film is very well done. The men interviewed talk about being disturbed but they way they talk is real, one guy who can't really sleep at all since actually smiles through his this part of his interview, hiding his horror behind telling something he finds embarrassing. This is so different than the "acted" stories of war we get in movies traditionally and such.
Could the film have let us know some history to the valley the men are stuck in or try to let us in tactically a little more from a distance. Probably could have, though bits of this are filled in by the troops as they are the new group in the area and some past mistakes haunt them and they repeat some of those same mistakes. War isn't really a clean job after all or a nice one.
The central battle has very little footage, obviously the cameramen were hiding for their lives so that section is a series of very very close up talking heads, the professionally detached talking heads of those involved and their armor does crack as they get into it, the little actual footage of the battle shows the real raw reactions.
This is making the best of a bad situation for the filmmakers, but it does rob us the horrid experience of the initial attack.
No enemy dead are shown at all in the film, only some collateral damage victims. This, it could be argued, is slanted a bit from the filmmakers point of view, or of course is just a limitation of their "embedded" status with their troops. Perhaps, the film suggests, they rarely see the enemy up close in this particular valley fight. Perhaps, but they aren't shown for whatever reason. Likewise there is scant footage of some of those U.S. troops who die when they are alive. This does also take away some emotional connection. And frankly when everyone wears the same uniform and has the same haircut it does get confusing at a few points as to who is who.
Some of the footage is very crudely recorded, shaky/grainy to a distracting degree--to be expected, but don't sit too close in the theater. It's edited and assembled very well, if there is/are movie tricks, and certainly there are, in terms of "faking" reaction shots or re-ordering events to make it more dramatic---it's seamlessly done. It all feels honest.
It's a very very good slice of life and puts you there with the men. And though very young they do mostly come off as men. That's all it does and it does it perfectly. There is no "ulimate" film on this war because, of course it's still going on. This film would seem to suggest that it's not going to end with us, "on top" but it doesn't say one way or the other. If you want to see our volunteer army in action in one specific area for one year, there hasn't been anything better previous to this film or in any of the Iraq movies, docu and fiction, done so far.
Sebastian Junger and Tim Hetherington's year dug in with the Second Platoon in one of Afghanistan's most strategically crucial valleys reveals extraordinary insight into the surreal combination of back breaking labor, deadly firefights, and camaraderie as the soldiers painfully push back the Taliban.
British director Tim Hetherington died in Libya from an RPG while working .
Wow what could have been a nice movie turned out to be a wash up of great proportions. Really the most unforgivable sin is that it was intended to be funny, or at the very least slightly amusing, but it fell flat on it's face at every turn. The Vampire voices trick was embarrassing. The wire effects are done with no finesse. In the end the movie had so many flaws no fun and no originality it doesn't come back from being an epic fail.
Vampire Warriors follows the uneasy friendship between vampire hunter Ar (Jiang Lu-Xia) and a family of "vegetarian" vampires, including Max (Chrissie Chau) and her womanizing father Lung (Chin Siu-Ho). Ar spends her days walking around hunting down bad vampires, while Max and her good vampire friends hang around town aimlessly, complaining about how bored they are. That all changes with the arrival of Mung (Yuen Wah), a vampire kills other vampires to make himself more powerful (aren't they always?). When Ar realizes that Mung's dragging her sister (Law regular Pinky Cheung) with him, she joins forces with the vegetarian vampires to fight their common enemy.
besides the plot to me it felt like a tour of genova I wanted to travel and actually be there with them the movie takes you that close to them they look very simple but the story is a little slippery because it stands you on a theme then changes suddenly.. and it really doesn't show consistency!! and Hope Davis is scary as a mom that appears and dissapears as the girls imagination plays with her memory and feelings!! or the mother could really be mean and wants her death to be with her as company!! just another point of view and are people there really like that lets meet at the cafe the blue one!! nice!!
A man moves his two daughters to Italy after their mother dies in a car accident, in order to revitalize their lives. Genova changes all three of them as the youngest daughter starts to see the ghost of her mother, while the older one discovers her sexuality.
Dr. Frankenstein: I am going to turn you into a mindless zombie. Have you ever seen a mindless zombie?
Alvin: Are you kidding? I live in Hollywood!
This movie came a couple years before the new computer animated Chipmunks but it's actually one of the last of their cartoon era. And it is a nostalgic trip that will surely appeal to anyone who actually saw the original cartoons but the magic is fading and we are all grown ups now and we have such different tastes now. So it is very difficult to fully enjoy but thanks for the nostalgic trip and the memories. Just like Alvin and the gang can do it!
While the Chipmunks are working at the amusement park, Majestic Movie Studios, in a singing attraction. Little do they know that the real Dr. Frankenstein are in a new attraction called, "Frankenstein's Castle". After Alvin drives a crazy bus ride, they miss their next performance and get locked in the park after closing time. Dr. Frankenstein figures that the castle isn't scary enough and re-creates the real Frankenstein and after the monster finds the boys, it starts a wild and wacky adventure!
Lex Luthor: And my deathbed claims that I've seen the error of my ways can't change that. But there is one thing I can do to honor his memory.
This movie besides it flaws shows the real humanity of Superman that he is inded all powerful but in the end raised as human with all the human imperfections maybe not physically but deeply rooted in his psyche. All-Star Superman is the latest animated feature from DC Comics, based off the comic book series of the same name by Grant Morrison and Frank Quitely. It is the seventh featuring Superman, that's including the Superman/Batman and Justice League movies. Eighth if you count the short film with Shazam. The comic, not part of the regular continuity, features Lex Luthor overdosing Superman with solar radiation so that the Man of Steel will die. Superman then goes on a quest to leave the world in a better place than when he left it.
Though I have not actually read the series this video is based off, I love Superman. I've read the comics, watched the series, bought the movies, and even listened to a few of the old radio programs.
The movie is a different version of the Superman character, much like the comics. The movie starts off with him realizing that he's dying and that Lex Luthor killed him. This is the first time since Superman: Doomsday that he's had to face the idea of his own mortality. Much of the movie focuses on the drama of the characters dealing with his impending demise. Though there are plenty of action sequences thrown in just to keep you entertained.
The voice cast does a good job. The voices of Superman, Lois Lane, and Lex Luthor are all terrific. Though I'll always hear the voices of Tim Daley, Dana Delany, and Clancy Brown when I read the comics.
The animation is great. One of my complaints about these animated features has always been that the animation was too close to Bruce Timm's Justice League. So it's nice to see that they're moving on in that aspect.
Sadly, this video left very much to be desired. Not that it was outright bad. It just should have been better.
The main problem with the movie is that it's too episodic. Watching it I felt I could tell where one comic book ended and another began. I understand that it is based off a specific comic book series, but then again so were Superman: Doomsday, Justice League: The New Frontier, Superman/Batman: Public Enemies, Superman/Batman: Apocalypse, and Batman: Under the Red Hood and those all seemed to work fine as a straightforward movie.
A resulting problem is that many of these episodes don't help the main story at all. I've read that the comics feature a lot more episodes and the producers cut them down. Honestly, they should have cut it down more. Take for instance the episode with Parasite. On it's own the scene was quite entertaining, especially seeing Clark try to save people without revealing his identity. However, afterward I found myself asking why they bothered with this segment. It added virtually nothing to the story of Superman dying. The scenes with Atlas and Samson are similarly unneeded.
There was only one thing about the movie that I hated. In one early episode Superman is able to grant Lois his powers for one day. For once she can do all the things he can. So what do they do? They fly to Metropolis where she watches him save the day, without doing anything just like she's always shown doing. I kept waiting for her to shoot heat beams, use freeze breath, or beat up some bad guy. Sadly this moment is wasted as they set up something later in the movie.
Just as a general complaint about these animated movies, I'm getting a little tired of always seeing Superman and Batman. As I said, it's the eighth movie with Superman while Batman has eleven with a twelfth on the way. While I do like Superman, I would like to see some other characters too. I loved Wonder Woman and Green Lantern: First Flight, but neither are getting sequels (GL: Emerald Knights is sort of a sequel but not really). I know they've had trouble getting another live action Superman movie off the ground, but must they flood the animated market with him? It's kind of like Marvel Animations obsession with putting the Hulk in everything. While I enjoy Superman, Batman, and Hulk, the animated film medium is the perfect venue to explore lesser known characters that don't have several live action movies.
Overall, the film simply does not flow as a cohesive whole. Fans of the All-Star comics may enjoy that it was adapted, or complain about what wasn't adapted. Superman fans will probably enjoy the different take on the character that the movie explores. But from a film audience point of view, it is too disconnected from itself to be truly enjoyable.
Media seems obsessed with the Death of Superman. He had a death in Superman Returns, a death in "Superman Doomsday" and now another death in the animated adaptation of Grant Morrison's "All Star Superman" comic book. A seemingly successful rescue of a Dr Quintum's mission to the Sun has saturated Superman's cells with too much solar energy. This is causing rapid cellular deterioration which would eventually lead to his death. With time running out for the man of steel, Superman sets about to put all his affairs in order before he goes while continuing to defend the earth against threats from within and without.
From the get go, All Star Superman feels like a multi episode TV series compressed into a single movie. But really, that is more the fault of the original source material which in fact was meant to be 12 seemingly standalone stories with some of the plot points finally "coming together" in the final issues. While this worked for a bi-monthly comic book series, it does not have the similar effect as an animated movie. Here the film just feels unfocused and rushed, cramming what is supposed to be a year's worth of events into 70 odd minutes. For example, a single fade out later and superman returns to earth after a couple of months to find it take over by a bunch of long lost Kryptonians. An episodic miniseries would have been a better medium to convey the full feel of the original story.
Thankfully The production team's faithfulness to the source material is not entirely a shortcoming. The animated movie not only sticks to the "self-contained stories" format but also the well developed personalities and timeless characterization. Everyone is perfectly cast, bringing the characters to live in a very natural way. James Denton's Superman/Clark Kent is possibly the most lovable incarnation second only to Christopher Reeves's live action portrayal. The loyal script and top notch acting imbues Superman with just the right level of noble superhuman grandeur mixed with a down to earth homely touch. He is the hero, and the farm boy at the same time. Similarly, Clark Kent's oafish demeanor is comedic yet sincere; his interview with Lex Luthor and subsequent escape from the prison riot caused by a supervillian's escape is possibly the most fun part of the entire movie.
Here is another strength of All Star Superman. It is not a brainless hero brawl like Superman/Batman nor is it as dark and edgy as Batman: Under the Red Hood. The story plays out more like a character centered drama that is not afraid to tickle the audience with a few lighthearted moments. The main cast is given great depth and development as we get to know their reasons for doing what they do. Even Luthor gets a heart wrenching moment once you find out that the reason behind his hatred of Superman goes much deeper than just "because he foiled my plans".
Special mention goes to Christopher Drake's soundtrack which is by far his best work. His music covers a great range, bringing out the best in the scenes it complements; it is grand, emotional and magical. One might go so far as to say that his score here is actually better than Shirley Walker's stuff from the 90s Superman Animated series, just slightly behind John Williams. (In what is possibly a nod to "The Mummy", the music takes on a very Egyptian Gothic style with the appearance of antagonist Bar-El played by Arnold Vosloo, who also played the main antagonist of "The Mummy".)
There is action, not to worry, a good deal of it. Moi Studios once again perform animation duties, maintaining the smooth character movements seen in their previous productions; smoother than Japanese anime at least and without animation short-cuts. While some backgrounds appear lackluster, The production team's faithfulness to the source material is seen in the character designs which is a slightly streamlined version of Frank Quintley's artwork. Too bad the painted colors by Jamie Grant have been replaced with a very "standard" color palate. The colors here look exactly the same as........as every single DC animated production featuring Superman.
It seems like a farce that the movie stuck so closely to the comic going to great lengths to even replicate whole scenes perfectly yet cut out and streamline a fair bit of material. Perhaps Warner Premiere and Bruce Timm might consider a "directors cut" in which they go back and animate the rest of those scenes like the Bizzaro world, or the visit by Superman from the future. At least the plot threads established throughout the movie are woven together nicely in the end.
There are two ways to see this movie. One is that this movie is a "All Star Superman lite": a bite sized version of the great graphic novel for the uninitiated which will hopefully entice them to pick up the miniseries (now available in trade paperback form and an "Absolute" collectors edition). The other way is that it is meant to cheese off the long time fans so that the fans will go around saying "the comic is better" and in the end help to drive up publicity for the comic. Both ways, a perfect win-win situation for DC.
Try to enjoy this movie as it is. Of the scenes that were not cut out in production, revel in its loyalty to the original comic. It covers the full range of comedy to tragedy, heroic to humble, life to death.