Stewart McBain (Coleman) is a real-estate mogul who spends his living blowing up old buildings to make room to erect new buildings. All goes as planned for a new subdivision, until a group of protesters object to the destruction of one lonely, ugly building, called the Dutch House. Typically, the media is sent to the scene of the protest, and McBain appears on TV in a bad way. His children - Daphne (Thurman), Chloe (Amis), and Jimmy (Hewlett) - ridicule him for appearing on TV, and as a reward for their remarks, he drops them off at the Dutch House with $750 apiece, and tells them they're on their own. They must find jobs if they expect to make money to stay warm. McBain and his wife, Jean watch from afar as their children adapt to their new lifestyle, meeting new friends, and inviting others into their new home, including a decrepit bum.
Stewart McBain (Coleman) is a real-estate mogul who spends his living blowing up old buildings to make room to erect new buildings. All goes as planned for a new subdivision, until a group ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Rachel M (au) wrote: Amazing. This movie is one of a kind......Thank you for making it.
Wes S (us) wrote: Decent but very lacking. There's a lot of confusing bits and the effects aren't too great, but I liked the story enough. Typical 'bad people get killed, good people live' slasher film but the ending was strange and the characters were dull.
Jason D (us) wrote: Outside Providence suffered from a false identity. Clearly, from the package art and the way it was advertised, many assumed it to be another dumb American Pie-esque comedy, but luckily, Outside Providence proved to be much better than that. The story is about a not-so-smart, misguided outcast kid in the 70's. He hangs out with his stoners friends getting high with them, helps his little handicapped brother on his paper route, and gets his balls busted by his tough-guy father (Alec Baldwin, whose actually pretty good in this). After one night of debauchery, he accidentally crashed into a parked cop car. He is then sent to an elite private school where he meets an enemy, the headmaster of the dorms, as well as the love of his life (a young and fully clothed Amy Smart). Their bond grows, as does our lead character who branches out and becomes a man, albeit with a few hilarious moments in-between. Yes, this movie is pretty funny and overall, pretty good. It's interesting to see the box cover, the marketing, and critics making a big deal about the one-armed, one-eyed dog in the movie when it only had about 30 seconds of screen time. Kinda pointless. I enjoyed the authentic Rhode Island dialect and mannerisms of the people, as well as the filmmakers ability to make this an authentic R-rated movie, when they could have EASILY sold out and made a PG-13 friendly raunchy and generic teen comedy. Good movie.
Sonya W (fr) wrote: Sean Pertwee and John Pertwee AND Omar Epps, sounds totally bizarre.
Jeff B (fr) wrote: Courtroom dramas just don't really do it for me. Christian Slater was good however. And, of course, Gary Oldman. Why it took until this past year for him to first be nominated for an Oscar is beyond the ability of my comprehension...
Jeffrey M (mx) wrote: Long associated with action films and high-brow science fiction adventures, 1492: Conquest of Paradise represents one of director Ridley Scott's less noted films. It's a film that is quiet, grandly scaled, beautifully shot, and very ambitious. It's also a film with narrative flaws, a lethargic pace, and perhaps an overly generous take on Columbus.The best thing about 1492 is Scott's world building. We are entreated to fantastic cinematography, with shots that capture the vastness, wonder, and yet stark nature of the real world. Scott films his scenes with a masterful sense of scope, never placing his characters above the scenery, as a skillful reminder of the grand stakes at play. The world-building is equally impressive, with sets that are fantastically realized. It's a period piece that doesn't simply look like its' period, but rather inhibits it. As such, the technical merits of 1492 can scarcely be questioned.The film's narrative, however, is a mixed bag. The performance by Gerard Depardieu was surprisingly strong, offering a more complicated view of Columbus than other film treatments. The supporting cast is also fairly well received, and is served by a script with intelligent dialogue and a keen eye towards subtlety. The trouble comes from the film's almost disengagement with its subjects. We see Columbus's struggles, but never feel them. We see the stakes, but never quite feel involved in them. The film suffers from a disengagement, most likely originating from it hands-off approach towards Columbus. Had the film tried to be more of a character study, giving us more of the human dynamics (particularly the politics involved), it would have been more successful. The treatment of Columbus is also undeniably generous, painting a man ahead of his time, relentlessly ambitious, but also exceedingly humane. History would perhaps suggest some of these notions are a bit dubious, Columbus was a rather hard man.Overall, however, I found the film engaging. The technical merits alone made it always watchable, and the story itself was treated with great respect by Ridley, who populates the story with interesting characters, strong performances, and large scale, though with plenty of problems along the way.3/5 Stars
Ian C (ru) wrote: I loved this as a kid. How wrong was I. Pure wank. The basketball gag was quality but how did it even get made. Shit jokes and some of the humour is pure cringe but in a really bad way.
Aj V (kr) wrote: I really didn't care for this weird sci-fi alien movie, the story doesn't make much sense for one thing, and none of the actors are very good either. I wouldn't recommend seeing this movie.
Dan B (it) wrote: Low budget British 70s horror that starts well, but suffers from some risible plotting and slow pacing. That being said, the central performances by Rupert Davies and Sheila Keith are quite effective and the later scenes do approach something genuinely nightmarish. The screening was followed by a Q&A with director Pete Walker who came across as thoroughly pleasant and modest and still seemed to take old school exploitation delight in trying to ruffle liberal feathers.
Dana S (us) wrote: Harold, you're making another basic common masculine mistake: you're confusing love and laundry.
William W (de) wrote: Preminger was an excellent match for Joan Crawford, who's work I alsoadore, because he was pretty good, though not great, at the melodrama.This is a fine love triangle, and you root for Henry Fonda, even thoughevery warm-blooded woman would pick Dana Andrews over him in aheartbeat. I found this in my 10-DVD Henry Fonda Collection, and it's agreat set well worth purchasing. I'm not a huge fan of his work, buthe's definitely done some great films and amassed a fine body of work.Preminger and Crawford are always solid for me, and they certainlydon't disappoint in collaborating in this early work of his.Eventually, I hope to see every film of each of these three cinematicgiants.
Shannon L (nl) wrote: This is the next movie I want to see.
Kurt F (au) wrote: 3/01/17 I guess I forgot to review this film. It is a different sort of superhero movie. It has a decent amount of humor. The only thing I didn't like so much is that it was a but difficult to follow exactly what was happening between deadpool and the villain. Unique though, which is always a good attribute for a film. Good action too, even if it did seem somewhat stuffed into the plot just to get it in there.