Once Upon a Time In Hollywood
Forgot your password?
Don't have an account? Sign up here
Got more questions about news letters?
Already have an account? Log in here
and the Terms and Policies,
and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes and Fandango.
Please enter your email address and we will email you a new password.
No user info supplied.
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.