Datasets:

AlignmentResearch

/

IMDB

like 0

Follow

FAR AI 9

[ "This is an interesting series that takes real life people (Jesse James, John Wesley Hardin, etc)...and dramatizes part of their real story with a continuing series character taking part in that story. Railroad Detective \"Matt Clark\" -- takes a role in tracking down famous outlaws from the Old West in stories that are at least partly based on the true accounts. In that sense, it's almost an anthology series, and as someone else pointed out, this odd structure poses some timeline conflicts with the real events, but it's a fun series with plenty of action to satisfy a western-hungry 1950's audience -- and it still holds up pretty well 55 years later. Clark cuts a powerful figure in his western gear as he goes up against some of history's baddest baddies. And his girl-sidekick Frankie is quite a dish. If you're a western fan, be sure to check it out if you have a chance." ]

[ "I originally scored Sarah's show with a nice fat 8, but I've struggled a bit with her humor of late and a thin 7 is what's settled in. I shall explain.<br /><br />You will either like Sarah's humor, or you won't. If you don't, I doubt anyone could persuade you. You folks know who you are and it's perfectly fine, but then you know that too. Moving on, the first season gave us fantastic bits about Sarah, her friends and family, and her pursuits in life. In one memorable episode, she is \"pulled over\" by Officer Jay whom she meets for the first time. - \"Do you know why I am standing here?\" he asks. \"Because you got all C's in high school?\" she quizzically replies. It seemed to be a genuine question. - That is funny stuff in my book. Sarah can come at you from odd angles. In another episode, her affair with God was notably funny. God being petty and jealous added wonderfully to the joke. It is clever, it is a twisted view, but she would show us the truth in the humor and we laughed.<br /><br />Then, came the second season. While still not without some new and inventive comedy, we seem to have slipped somewhat into banal poop and fart jokes, quite simply. I get some good laughs here and there, but much of it seems like filler while she, and the writers, struggle to foment some original material. Sophomoric and tiresome are the feelings I have for the episodes lately, but I have been gutting it out for the gems I do find (the turtle) and waiting for her to turn it around. I was a fan of her \"Jesus is Magic\" routine and would like to think that I understand what she is capable of. Let's get back to that." ]

[ "Having not seen the films before (and not being able to stand Matt Damon), I was reluctant to go see The Bourne Ultimatum when we were asked to see it for AS Film Studies. <br /><br />However, I was pleasantly surprised that even a film with Damon in it could be enjoyable. <br /><br />Fast fight scenes, crazy motorbike chases and BIG explosions were what threw you out of your seat in TBU. The near-misses between the CIA and Bourne kept you on your toes and throughly entertained.<br /><br />Nevertheless, several things really grated my cheese.<br /><br />Firstly, the fact that the film was just a series of Bourne, CIA, Bourne, CIA, Bourne, CIA. This sequence got repetitive and ultimately dull. Although Damon did keep us entertained and seemed always one step ahead of the CIA, I was getting a bit annoyed with the constant survival of Bourne. He crashed a car and got out as if he had tapped it or something! Very unrealistic.<br /><br />And secondly (inevitably) - the SHAKY CAMERA. It was so shaky it was completely noticeable and made me and everyone who went to see it in my class (even the tutors) seasick. We were told by the tutors that if we ever used that in a film we made in class, it would automatically be wrong and we would be told to use a tripod. Fair enough if Greengrass wanted it to look like we were there watching Damon and Stiles holding a conversation, but surely we wouldn't be shaking our heads that violently!<br /><br />But all in all TBU is an enjoyable film and worth a watch. But I didn't think it was the best film of the year, despite being an entertaining piece of cinema.<br /><br />8/10." ]

[ "This wasn't what i wanted to see. I bought this on DVD and under the movie i found myself irritated and turned off the movie for a moment.<br /><br />Heres what i didn't like:<br /><br />1 They were shooting at the father<br /><br />2 The tribes was really annoying<br /><br />3 the dinosaurs (mostly)looked to faked<br /><br />4 The bad scientist well he was annoying<br /><br />5 The picture quality on the DVD was really bad<br /><br />What i DID like: <br /><br />1 The music by Jerry Goldsmith. This music is really great. I have the bootleg soundtrack from this movie. Sadly the sound quality is not good, but its OK for its time.<br /><br />2 The first time we see the dinosaurs they inspire a sort of awe.<br /><br />3 Baby is kinda cute when he is in the water and is playing<br /><br />4 That funny scene with the tent. <br /><br />5 The children who sees this film would hopefully learn that evil always loses." ]

[ "There seems to be only two types of reviews of this film on the net. Those who hate it and curse Ralph Bakshis name and those love it and call it work of genious. I'm inclined to be in the middle. I'am forced to agree with most of the criticisms of this film (e.g.the cruel cutting of the story, badly rotoscoped charecters, over acting etc...) But dispite this I still love this film. The rotoscoping (when done properly)adds an eerie lifelike dimension to the charecters and the final battle scene at the end of the film is fantastic. The surrealistic scenes when the nineriders chase Frodo are stylish and well executed and the musical score... magic. Sadly the bad points outweight film but if you can bring yourself to ignore them it is a great film.<br /><br />(No doubt I'll be lynched by an angry mob of people who hate this film after writing this review, ah well, such is life)" ]

[ "Narratives – whether written, visual or poetic epics – generally try to avoid too may characters; readers and viewers, after all, can be too easily overwhelmed by trying to keep track of who exactly is who. This is especially true in film, I think, simply because we cannot easily go back to refresh our memory in a cinema. Viewers like myself, however, don't have that problem because we see all our films on DVD or VHS.<br /><br />A year ago I was introduced to Audrey Tautou, a French actress, whom I first saw in The Fabulous Destiny of Amelie Poulain (2001) and later in A Very Long Engagement (2004), both of which were finely crafted and complex stories with a large cast of characters. This earlier offering exceeds the others in both ways: more characters and more complexity.<br /><br />Now, other directors have used those techniques before: Robert Altman with The Player (1992), Short Cuts (1993), Gosford Park (2001) and others; Paul Thomas Anderson did the same with Magnolia (1999). Stanley Kramer did it with A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World in 1963, a comedy of almost epic proportions. The difference with this film is, first the director lets us 'see' inside the head of some of the characters and second, some scenes are repeated as means to refresh the viewer's memory as the story flip-flops between different time periods.<br /><br />The basic – the core, so to speak – story concerns a young woman, Irene (Tautou) who is told, by a fellow commuter on a train, that she will meet her true love on that day. This occurs in the first few minutes of the film. The clever irony at this point is that Irene doesn't realize that the young man opposite (Gilbert Robin) may be that 'one true love'. And, nor does he...<br /><br />They go their separate ways with neither realizing the potential significance of their close encounter. However, chaos results throughout the rest of the day, not only for the two young people, but for the rest of the characters who appear in a series of cleverly constructed and interwoven vignettes that all seem to be going nowhere, and yet...<br /><br />If the story were simply that, it could tend to be boring, and even quite predictable. Not so. The script and the director rip into our expectations with a host of innovative scenes that are all too commonplace, but which are turned into believable, extraordinary events that allow the two possible lovers to meet again. For example, the next time some bird poo from the sky drops onto a book or paper of yours, consider your alternatives; two characters make an obvious choice that must occur before Irene and her man of destiny meet again. Or what about a stone chip flying onto your windscreen? Consider again what would happen...<br /><br />All of that is interesting enough. What was more interesting for me was assessing each new man who came along and trying to decide whether this guy was THE ONE for Irene, or whether it was, in fact, the young man on the train. That kept me guessing for a while.<br /><br />I'll let you think about that, should you see this delightful romp.<br /><br />Recommended for all." ]

[ "This is one of the funniest movies I have seen. I watched it on DVD, and the disc does not have any special features, or even a menu, but that is not necessarily what I care about. <br /><br />I tend to judge movies on a case by case basis, depending on, among other things, if it is a big studio production or a smaller film. This is a smaller film and I am willing to forgive minor things. That said, I believe it has one of the most imaginative and original title sequences that I have seen.<br /><br />I enjoyed the acting of all of the major players. I especially enjoyed Til Schweiger and Alan Arkin. Alan Arkin has most of the funniest lines. The character portrayed by Claire Forlani might come across as unrealistic to some people, but I have personally known real people with emotional problems that very readily look at life's decisions as her character does. That helped me pick up the nuances where her hurts could come out through the veneer of her humor.<br /><br />This is not a movie for children, obviously, but it does NOT engage in gratuitous sex and nudity. There is quite a bit of adult language, though, but it can sometimes be very funny. (In particular, Alan Arkin's character, who can't even swear correctly.)<br /><br />Also watch for the cameos from known character actors." ]

[ "I've just watched Roll and what a pleasure it turned out to be. Toby Malone's performance really stood out, I found myself actually caring about what happens to Matt throughout the whole of the film, which itself is a lot of fun, very pacey with a good mix of well rounded characters, quite an achievement considering it's short running time. There are plenty of good twists throughout as well, it will keep you guessing until the end. Other characters to watch out for are the totally insane Tiny and the sneaky attractive Jesse. It may not have the huge budget of a Hollywood blockbuster but don't let that put you off, you could do a lot worse than checking this out, you won't regret it. Good Fun. 7/10" ]

[ "This is part one of a short animation clip showing the history of the Matrix, the war between man and machine that resulted in the eventual creation of the Matrix. The animation is part Japanese anime, part contemporary american animation, and is very well made, considering the excellent directors behind the movie. It shows the initial development of AI and the exploitation of the machines by Man, until the day they rebelled..." ]

[ "They played this on the July 4th Twilight Zone marathon and this is, hands down, the worst Twilight Zone episode I've ever seen. It's completely out of sync with the rest of the series in its tone. Even though Twilight Zone is a pretty uneven series and many episodes end up being groaningly predictable, this one was completely out of place. Compare this to legendary episodes like \"A Stop at Willoughby\" or \"Midnight Sun\", and you realize there is no comparison.<br /><br />Buster Keaton did what he could with such terrible material, and frankly it surprises me that someone of his historic comedy stature would stoop to the level of this episode. Even though he seemed to be giving it some effort, he MUST have needed the money... there's no other explanation." ]

[ "What a horrible comedy. Totally lame. The supposed \"humor\" was simple and stupid. Stanly Tucci (a great actor) had the only parts worth chuckling at. And he was tied up and gagged at the time. Don't waste your time with this one. It deserves a 0/10." ]

[ "1st watched 5/26/2002 - 4 out of 10(Dir-Michael Almereyda): Weird story about a druid witch who tries to capture eternity by inheriting her granddaughter's body. At least I think that was the relationship. A kind of eerie quality is held throughout this film not unlike Stephen King's The Shining. The difference is that there was campiness in Nicholson's performance that isn't at all in this film. This is all taken very seriously until near the end when some lame one-liners and attempts at litening up the mood don't work at all. The performances are not the problem here, but the story is. Everything doesn't seem to come together very smoothly and the viewer is left with a lot of pieces of information and no real understanding of what happened in the film. There is a very small throwaway performance by Christopher Walken as the uncle of the granddaughter which, of course, gives him top-billing in an attempt to sell the film. Don't buy into this gimmick and avoid this film.<br /><br />" ]

[ "With this movie only running 61 minutes and nothing all that good on television, I decided to pop Revolt of the Zombies into the DVD to pass the time. Even while realizing the era from which it was coming, I was sorely disappointed. It started with the oddly upbeat quality of the opening score (what - no brooding music?) and then the rather slow moving opening sequences. Gosh, I figured a movie about zombies - even from the 1930s - would have SOME chills to it (White Zombie, with Bela Lugosi, certainly did) but this had none. Zero. It was scarcely even dramatic (except for the few moments with the burning eyes superimposed on the film to indicate the mesmerization of someone). Like the equally dull King of the Zombies, this movie may be an interesting curiosity to own, but nothing more." ]

[ "It's not a terrible movie, really, and Glenn and Keitel are top-notch actors. Further, they do an acceptable job with the very weak script. The scenery is lush and the plot has some interesting twists. Further, I umderstand why these actors and the crew made the film, they are professionals and they get paid for it. But I do wonder why studios spend the time and money to make a film and then don't release it for theater audiences? Even if a film is a box-office flop, surely it makes some money. If you are a fan of Keitel or Glenn, rent the video or catch it on TV, as did I. Granted, the movie won't help solve the immigration quandary with Mexico, but the experience is far better than 90% of the standard TV fare of today." ]

[ "Unless somebody enlightens me, I really have no idea what this movie is about. It looks like a picture with a message but it´s far from it. This movie tells pointless story of a New York press agent and about his problems. And, that´s basically all. When that agent is played by Pacino, one must think that it must be something important. But it takes no hard thinking to figure out how meaningless and dull this movie is. To one of the best actors in the world, Al Pacino, this is the second movie of the year (the other is \"Simone\") that deserves the title \"the most boring and the most pointless motion picture of the year\". So, what´s going on, Al?" ]

[ "Here goes the perfect example of what not to do when you have a great idea. That is the problem isn't? The concept is fresh and full of potential, but the script and the execution of it lacks any real substance. It should grab you from the start and then pull a little on your emotions, get you interested and invested in the characters. This movie doesn't have what it takes to take off and sustain flight, and here is why. First you don't really care about the characters because they are not presented in a way that people can relate to, I mean this is not Superman or Mission Impossible here, it's suppose to be about normal people put in a stressful situation. They are not believable in the way they act and interact. Example : Jeffrey Combs as a cop over chewing is gum, frowning and looking intense all the time isn't the way to go here. I mean what is that?, he looks like he's on the toilet or something. I loved him in re-animator and the way he was playing the intense/neurotic, unappreciated medical genius was right on the money. But not for this, he tries too hard to over compensate by looking so intense and on edge but in a still mild neurotic manner, it's not natural, I'm surprised he didn't dislocate his jaw during filming. The movie is basically on life support, it barely has a pulse and it kept me waiting for something that would never come." ]

[ "Flavia(Florinda Bolkan of \"Don't Torture a Duckling\" fame)is locked away in a convent of carnal desires by her father.Tired of all of the sadism she sees around her(rape of a young woman in a pigsty,sexual cravings,horse castration)Flavia decides to run from the convent with her Jewish friend from the outside,Abraham.The two don't get very far before they are captured and then brought back to be tortured and forced to repent.After punishment she joins up with a band of Muslims called the Tarantulas,who had invaded the convent prior and leads a crusade that turns into nothing short of a bloody battle behind the convent walls.\"Flavia the Heretic\" is a well-directed and fairly notorious piece of Italian nunsploitation.The film is slightly gruesome and sleazy at times.The acting is great and the characters are well-developed.Overall,\"Flavia the Heretic\" is a genuinely moving and intelligent movie with plenty of nudity and gore.You can't go wrong with it.8 out of 10." ]

[ "The concept was ok but hardly original. The acting was plastic. But the real spoiler was that there was only one joke and a grubby one at that. This is a film for fourteen year olds who have been let out on their own for the first time. Don't dare to watch it with your kids." ]

[ "If my memory is correct, when this movie was released it came across as something of a comedy - a funny look at the adult entertainment industry. If that's what it's supposed to be, it doesn't really work. It just isn't that funny. Setting that rather significant (since this is called a comedy!) failure aside, since I have no personal knowledge of the subject matter, I'll avoid comment about the authenticity of the story - which deals with the goings on behind the scenes in a Toronto massage parlour, except to say that - if this is true - the life is pretty dull. <br /><br />For over an hour, this movie really doesn't give us much of anything except some background knowledge of the main characters. Conrad is the newly hired manager of the massage parlour whose basic job apparently is to make sure the girls aren't giving \"full service\" - a euphemism for actual sex. As for the girls themselves, Betty's goal is to buy a parlour of her own so that she can run her own business, Cindy is an illegal immigrant to Canada working to support her family back home and Leah is - well, Leah is a somewhat strange, undefined character with a nipple fetish - true - who seems to be in the business because - well, because she's in it! I have no idea what her character was about. Those three may well fairly reasonable composite characters who accurately represent the motivations of the women who get involved in this business.<br /><br />The movie meanders about and doesn't offer much until the \"twist\" reveals Conrad to be the bad guy. We should have gotten to that point sooner. The only thing truly interesting here was that part of the story - Conrad's secret plan and the revenge plotted against him by the girls. That plan for revenge was pretty good, and you're grateful when it comes out because basically up to that point you're wondering why you wasted your time with this. Had the story been more focused on the revenge, this might have actually been a fairly funny movie.<br /><br />The performances from the 4 leads were all OK, although I didn't think anyone came across as outstanding. All four characters were a bit shallow. Cindy was a sympathetic character, and so was Conrad for a while, although he turns out to be the bad guy of the movie. Given the subject matter, there's surprisingly little nudity (and what there is is restricted to one scene.) In fact, there even a certain air of innocence around a lot of this. As for the overall quality of the movie, it's a low-budget effort, which shows, although you expect a certain griminess, I suppose, of a movie set in the context of a body rub parlour, so that's forgivable. It certainly says something, though, that this was released 8 years ago now and is still the only credit on writer-director Soo Lyu's resume and - given the normal lack of depth in the Canadian film industry - that it wasn't even deemed worthy of being nominated for any Genie Awards - the Canadian version of the Oscars. 4/10 - and I'm being a bit generous with that." ]

[ "Every time I watch this movie I am more impressed by the whole production. I have come to the conclusion that it is the best romantic comedy ever made. Everyone involved is perfect; script, acting, direction, sets and editing. Whilst James Stewart can always be relied upon for a good performance, and the supporting cast are magnificent, it is Margaret Sullavan who reveals what an underrated actress she was. Her tragic personal life give poignancy to her qualities as a performer where comedy acting skills are not easy to achieve. Lubitsch managed to get the best and he obviously gave his best. Watch for the number of scenes which were done on one take - breathtaking." ]

[ "Although I bought the DVD when it first came out, and have watched it several times, I never wrote a review.<br /><br />I loved it when I first saw it and I love it still.<br /><br />Sadly, it seems it never made enough money to motivate anyone to do a follow-up. I have to assume QT still controls the rights, but after Kill Bill if he does a film that is as true to the comics and books as My Name is Modesty, with another tough female lead, anyone not familiar with the character will see this as a let-down.<br /><br />Peter O'Donnell wrote his stories to focus more on psychological suspense rather than action thrillers.<br /><br />The tug of wills between Modesty and Miklos is very true to the source material and is tense, suspenseful and fascinating to anyone who doesn't have to have gore and explosions. Alexandra did a great job in playing how O'Donnell's character would have taken control of the situation.<br /><br />I find this particularly ahead of the curve following the sorely needed reboots of Batman and James Bond. After 2 dismal earlier efforts, although not nearly as well known to the public, this is really a reboot of the Modesty character, and it is really sad that probably no more films about her will be made." ]

[ "I loved \"Dan in Real Life\". A wonderful journey-to-love story like You've Got Mail or While You Were Sleeping, but not ridiculously full of sight gags and crude jokes, and not so romantic it makes you wanna throw up. <br /><br />Dan Burns (Steven Carrell) is a popular advice columnist who can't seem to get things in his own life straightened out. Until one day, on a family gathering/trip, he meets and instantly connects with Marie (the always beautiful Juliette Binoche)a radiant specimen of a woman who seems to be framed in a hazy filter hearkening back to the starlets of classic cinema. Chemistry happens over a cup of tea and muffin, but Marie must be off for a previous engagement, and they must part ways. <br /><br />Later we are treated to Dan's tight-knit, fun-loving relatives who not only have big breakfasts together but also enjoy using the intelligent and sweetly dorky Dan as the butt of many bachelor jokes. What I liked so much was that although the family's characteristics could be seen as obnoxious to some, I thought it was a great portrayal of a big family that doesn't venture into parody or crude exaggeration. The Burns family is simply a close, loving group of people who are truly interested in the best for Dan. There are wonderfully awkward family moments that aren't unrealistic. The family is nosey, but never mean-spirited or gossipy; quirky, but never outlandish.<br /><br />And then Dan falls in love with his brother's girlfriend he's brought to the family gathering. And thus begins a roller-coaster of restrained longing and funny love-budding. <br /><br />I could go on but I just thought this movie was simply awesome. It's not particularly \"hip\" or \"clever\", never too wordy and obsessed with dry humor or biting wit as many comedies are in modern cinema. There is a nice balance of storytelling visuals and funny-but-real dialogue. in fact, early in the movie, the initial spark of love begins with whimsical discussion in a classic Hollywood-style conversation where the characters say what they're thinking out loud.<br /><br />So I've probably rambled and repeated myself, but I highly recommend \"Dan in Real Life\". It's a great date movie, trust me, you'll laugh, and only if you're a geek like me you'll get a bit teary-eyed. Filled with fun and magical love, \"Dan in Real Life\" won't disappoint.<br /><br />=================== 3.5 out of 4 stars Grade: A" ]

[ "Yes, this movie make me feel real horror, when i realized that i paid for it and spent more than 1 hour of my life trying to watch it. The bald guy just give me the impression of being a psycho - Junkie actor and the girl is the worst actress i ever seen . Believe me if you appreciate your time avoid this movie, i understand a movie requires money to be created and some movies do not have that money but that is no justification for a stupid plot and bad acting. I'm always supporting independent movies, when it deserves the support, but movies like this makes a bad name for this kind of movies. I'm still traumatized. I will not trust in any nice cover anymore." ]

[ "When I saw this trailer on TV I was surprised. In May of 2008 I was at Six Flags in New Jersey and this was showing at a 4-D attraction (you know, the attraction that the seats move). I take it that the version I saw was a shortened version (15 min.) and also re-created to add the motion effects. It was a cute movie... but that was it. It was educational and told about the first mission but the ending of a CGI spacewalk seemed a bit...well...trite. I was not a big fan of the movie but i would recommend this movie for any parent wanting to inform their children in a fun way about the first moonwalk. I will say, the character actors were well selected and the characters themselves were cute. So all-in-all, I would say, if you want to bring the younger kids... go for it. But if you are wanting to take your older kids, take them to another movie... they will thank you." ]

[ "This can be one of the most enjoyable movies ever if you don't take it seriously. It is a bit dated and the effects are lame, but it is so enjoyable. There are giant crabs that attack a girl. oh, and the crabs sing Japanese. It is amazingly bad. And the ending, which has been telegraphed throughout the entire film is hideously awesome. Predictable, but seeing the final fight will leave you rolling in your seat. Don't even give this film a chance and you will love it. Susan George is fun to watch and yes, she does appear naked. Her daughter isn't quite worth putting up with, but she does get attacked by giant crabs. They are the size of large cats. This is a 2, but I love it. As a movie, my God, but for entertainment, I give it a 7. Did I mention there are giant crabs?" ]

[ "I saw a lot films about Charles Dickens' Christmas Carol. But this one is the best of all! There is an atmosphere which is exactly the same as in the book. The actors (George C. Scott and others) are great! Unfortunately, you can't often watch the film in Germany and Switzerland." ]

[ "My 3rd-year French classes always enjoyed this film very much. In a multi-cultural, inner-city high school, the film provided many subjects for discussion (in French in class, but I know a lot of discussion went on in English after class). The most obvious is the relationship between Protée and Aimée compared to the one between Protée and France.<br /><br />I always mentioned that I felt this film had one of the \"sexiest\" scenes I had ever seen in a movie. One year, a 17-year-old African-American shouted, \"Yes!\" when he figured out the scene: the one where Protée is helping Aimée lace up her evening dress, all the while both are examining the reflection of the other in the mirror. Directors use the \"mirror technique\" when then want to focus on the inner conflict on the part of one or more character in a scene: this is a perfect example of the technique, and it is \"sexy\".<br /><br />Most students had trouble understanding the end of the film. One suggested that one theme of the movie was \"Africanism\", and that no matter how much one loved Africa or Africans, one cannot \"become\" African (like the driver tried to do): one must BE African." ]

[ "It's hard to find an outright bad historical drama that's based on the life of any number of British monarchs. Just take a well respected British or Australian actor, make things look pretty, and you're guaranteed a formula for Oscar success.<br /><br />The Young Victoria is no exception, getting just about everything right, the cinematography striking and beautiful, with soft lights and lush colors and fabrics. Starring Emily Blunt in a role she can finally soar in, the film begins with Victoria's 18th birthday and moves through the intrigue and issues that surrounded her eventual rise to the throne and her famous marriage to Prince Albert (Rupert Friend). As the young Victoria herself laments, she's moved like a chess pawn by a variety of parties as she finds her footing and her voice as one of Britain's most influential rulers.<br /><br />While this moving around the chess board is fairly typical territory, it is the development of Victoria's relationship with Albert that makes the film slightly more interesting. I confess: I have a degree in history with a specialization in the Victorian era, so I'm a bit attached to these figures. Despite their many flaws as rulers, Victoria and Albert were some of the first leaders devoted to improving civilization for their people. They left their legacy in the arts, in public health and education, and in Victoria's conservative views and mourning culture after Albert's death. But these things are only briefly hinted at during the film.<br /><br />It is fairly well established that Victoria and Albert were not only madly in love, but held a level of respect for each other not usually seen between monarchs in arranged marriages. Even if it did occur behind the scenes, their's was certainly one of the best known. Blunt and and Friend have just the right type of chemistry to do the famous pair justice, the proper mix of restraint and desperation. It's a different love, not usually shown on screen, especially in this sort of film. It's encouraging to finally see a relationship in which man and woman are on a equal playing field.<br /><br />But we don't get to see that love enough. While the filmmakers try to fit the affair amongst the political trappings, it doesn't quite build up the sort of momentum needed to keep the tension high. Also, without delving into the more advanced important public work of the pair, things feel a bit in limbo, superficial instead of intimate, and sometimes confusing. It's not as big an issue during the film, but afterward, the effects wear off rather quickly and you find yourself trying to remember what you just watched, despite the perfect performances by the leads, most noticeably Blunt who even captures the famous monarch's expressions.<br /><br />For as much as it tries, Victoria succeeds on many levels but lacks that certain sparkle that would take it from solid to classic." ]

[ "I finally got my wish to see this one in a cinema. I'd seen Fritz Lang's film on video some years ago. I'd been hoping that ideal screening conditions would work their magic.<br /><br />Conditions were ideal at Cinematheque Ontario. Pristine full-length print. Intertitles in the original Gothic-script German with simultaneous English translation, accurate without being too literal. Live piano accompaniment. Ideal.<br /><br />The film's magic sputtered for a little while but ultimately failed to catch, at least for me.<br /><br />This film bears no real relation to Wagner's Ring cycle as I already knew but some may not. Wagner had adapted the 13th c. Niebelungenlied to his own purposes. Part I of Fritz Lang's epic -- \"Siegfried\" -- has much that will be familiar to listeners of Wagner however.<br /><br />\"Kriemhild's Revenge\" is the story of Siegfried's wife Kriemhild, her marriage to King Etzel (Attila) the Hun, and her desire for revenge against Hagen and Gunther, the rechristened Nibelungs, for the murder of Siegfried. The spectacular conflagration in this film presumably evolved and expanded in the Wagnerian mythos into his Götterdämmerung, his Twilight of the Gods, and the end of Valhalla. This film remains earthbound.<br /><br />Most of the film is spectacular. The massive sets rival those of \"Cabiria\" (1914), which inspired Griffith's \"Intolerance\" (1916). Their decoration sets a new benchmark in barbaric splendour. There's a huge cast of scarred, mangy Huns and Art Deco Burgundians. And battles. Battles that never seem to end in fact.<br /><br />Kriemhild is very successful in her plan of revenge. She manages to destroy all around her. Her loyalty to her martyred Siegfried seems not to stem so much from love, or devotion, but from something closer to psychosis. Lady Macbeth cried out, \"Unsex me here.\" She knew she was emotionally unprepared for what she needed to do. But Kriemhild displays no normal human emotions, and certainly nothing one equates with the feminine principle. She is already \"top full of direst cruelty\", to borrow Shakespeare's phrase, from the outset. Margarethe Schön and her director convey this with a glower. I don't want to exaggerate, but that glower is virtually the only expression ever to \"animate\" Kriemhild's face. It's the ultimate in one-note performances. It's clearly intentional however, not simply a case of poor acting.<br /><br />What we have then on offer is a one-dimensional sketch of an avenging Fury. Some might see Kriemhild as an empowered heroine. I just see the film as misogynistic." ]

[ "Corbin Bernsen's sent letters to four criminal associates he's worked with in the past and it's a real intergenerational mix with Fred Gwynne, Lou Diamond Phillips, William Russ, and Ruben Blades. They're to meet him in this obscure Montana town and he doesn't explain why because he's then picked up by out of state police from New Jersey on a warrant. <br /><br />Of the criminal group that's been gathered together, they all know Bernsen, but don't know each other. A lot of comedy involved is them feeling each other out. As the oldest Gwynne though denying it kind of takes charge with the others grumbling, but going along. Especially when they figure out what Bernsen had in mind.<br /><br />As for Bernsen, he's got the good fortune to be picked up by a pair of bumblers in Ed O'Neill and Daniel Roebuck. He gets the drop on O'Neill and escapes.<br /><br />After that it's the four criminals trying to finish what Bernsen started and Bernsen getting away the police. In the intricately plotted screenplay, it's fascinating how both story lines keep intertwining with each other. Hoyt Axton as the local sheriff watches in amazement at what unfolds in his town.<br /><br />Disorganized Crime is a fabulously funny caper film by a bunch of players who seem mostly to have had a background in television or would soon. I can't say that anyone stood out in the cast they also seem to click so well together. <br /><br />Ironically none of these people are comedians per se, but they all exhibit a light comic touch that good directing brought out. <br /><br />Disorganized Crime is one very funny caper movie, the kind of film that well known pessimist Mr. Murphy would have written." ]

[ "so... it's really sexist, and classist, and i thought that it might not be in the beginning stages of the movie, like when stella tells steven that she would really like to change herself and begin speaking in the right way and he tells her not to change. well, he certainly changed his tune, and it seems that the other reviewers followed suit. what at the beginning appears to be a love story is really about social placement and women as sacrificial mothers. the end of the movie does not make her a hero, it makes the whole thing sad. and its sad that people think it makes her a hero. perhaps that is the comment of the movie that people should take away. positive reception reflects continual patriarchal currents in the social conscience. yuck." ]

[ "I missed almost all of the first season, but when the other shows went to reruns, I started watching. I ended up buying the entire first season off iTunes. This is now one of my favorite comedy shows. Patrick Warburton is the key. His dry sense of humor has me rolling all the time. David Spade is funny, but sometimes a little Russell goes a long way. I enjoy the other cast members more (but not saying he doesn't add to the show).<br /><br />Do yourself a favor. If you haven't checked this one out, give it a try. If you can catch the episode where \"Jeff\" goes to the sperm bank, you will see how good this show is.<br /><br />I hope this series has a long run." ]

[ "I was expecting a movie similar to Deuce Bigalow, which I enjoyed. However, this dud seemed to last forever. It's one of those flicks which enjoys the sad placement of PG-13 while not being kid appropriate. The jokes aren't just low-brow or f**t jokes, they're crude, lewd, and many acts cross the boundaries to not only bad taste but beyond legal and moral decency. Many scenes appear to have been chopped to get the PG-13 rating...too bad...it might have made a bigger splash as an R-rated film if the funny was left in. (Overstatement? Probably.) I do not recommend this movie. It is a full-on waste of time...and I'm a movie lover and ready to give just about anything a shot. At 45 minutes in, the movie felt like it should be winding down...and boy were we ready for it to. The ending is quaint but doesn't salvage the rest of this quagmire/tourist trap of a rental. 1/2 star (glad I saw it as a freebie...would have been sickened to pay hard-earned greenbacks for this tripe)" ]

[ "The day has finally come for me to witness the perpetuation of Azumi's fate as an assassin, fruition of her character and the ultimate attempt to draw me deeper into the world she rampaged through so mercilessly during the first saga.<br /><br />That's as poetical as I'll get when talking about Azumi 2: Death or Love, because when I cringed over the heavy sentimentality of House of Flying Daggers and complained about the credibility of Aya Ueto portraying a blood-driven assassin, after watching Azumi 2 I started to appreciate the previously mentioned shortcomings more than ever before.<br /><br />Not only does the determination of each assassin feels sluggish and uninspiring but also many important elements are omitted from the entire experience. In Azumi 1 we saw the assassins use various stealth tactics (which is their number one priority) as well as logic to make easy work of their marks with swift executions and quicker abilities to escape. But I won't hold that against this movie too much since the story is slightly tweaked this time around and many more obstacles are planted in Azumi's way to prevent her from reaching the warlord and displaying any signs of charisma. By the way, Chiaki is foolishly shelved for the most part of the film and is basically playing a toned down version of Go Go, minus the cool weapon and sense of menace.<br /><br />This brings me to the final blow which is the action, simply disguised in the title as the 'Death' side of the epic. In the first half of the film we see the debut of many promising adversaries with flashy looks and even flashier weapons. To no one's surprise they meet their end one way or another but the film falls short when each of them start dying too fast and too easily. In Azumi 1, the young assassins were mostly overpowering the opposition with quick but somewhat satisfying battles and the final showdown between Azumi and Bijomaru in comparison to the fights in Azumi 2 was at least climaxed and worthwhile. Some interesting effects were introduced but they were unable to achieve innovation due to the shortness of each encounter. I am in no way knocking down the conventional style of samurai films with their quick and realistic battles but characters in both Azumi films were so imaginative and straight out of anime that the rules could have been broken and the action should have been further enriched.<br /><br />The romance side of Azumi is there to fill in time between the fight scenes and unfortunately at the end it serves no purpose nor provides a much needed resolution.<br /><br />As a fan with an open mind for wide variety of movies and animation, I won't lie and I'll admit to my neutrality and unimpressiveness towards the first Azumi film, but I'll step right up and say that after watching Azumi 2, the original was made to look like a flawless masterpiece. For what it's worth, Azumi 2: Death or Love could have gone straight to video, with its invisibly richer budget and a failed potential to add or even expand on the bumpy journey of desperate assassins, doing their best to restore the peace, with an unwavering courage to die trying." ]

[ "I was glad to watch this movie free of charge as I am working in the hotel industry and this movie came lately to our movie library. Nothing against low budget movies, but this movie has horrible acting and directing. How can a movie as this one ever be made. The director should be blacklisted, and for all the poor actors, it is for sure not a jumping board into a career. Please make sure that you'll not watch this movie, the acting is lame, the camera and directing awful. There are just a few more movies out there which deserve to be called the \"LOW 10\". Another example would be \"Dracula 3000\". People who make money with this movie should give it to charity, so at least it serves for a good reason. <br /><br />In this case I would watch it even another 10 (or at least one more time)." ]

[ "I liked it but then I think I might have been ironing at the same time. This reworking of Cyrano de Bergerac/Roxanne is an utterly undemanding, formulaic romcom rescued from straight-to-video ignominy on its release by the sharp turn of Janeane Garofalo. Playing the Frasier of Pets, she finds herself caught in a love trap when insecurity leads her to pass her best friend (Uma Thurman) off as herself when a caller comes a-courtin'.<br /><br />This is an interesting film in the fascinating career of Ben Chaplin. An average British actor, he gave the Hollywood treadmill a shot with this film. He is unremarkable and his anonymity in studio productions is unsurprising on the basis of it, although he has appeared in substantial cameos in both the later Terence Malick films. Uma Thurman does a ditzy turn on autopilot and Michael Lehmann packages it all together competently. Icky phone sex though. 4/10" ]

[ "Users who have rated this movie so highly simply can't have seen enough good films to compare it with. Have they all been brainwashed?? I have rarely felt so disappointed by a film and some of that must be attributable to the ridiculous hype surrounding this movie.<br /><br />From the first, BU is just a chase film. We pick it up at the end of one chase and go straight into another. And another. And another. And another. Do you see a pattern emerging? There is virtually no time 'wasted' on plot, character development, or boring old reality.<br /><br />If you haven't see the other two Bourne films, you're pretty lost. If you have - you only WISH you were lost - somewhere a long way from a cinema.<br /><br />Paul Greengrass's dispassionate style worked exceptionally well on United 93 which was a sentiment overload desperate to happen, but on Bourne and his interminable woes it just has the effect of removing the audience from involvement with the character. He runs. He jumps. He punches. He gets blown up. He clears tall buildings. Yada yada yada. Above all - he SURVIVES. He survives like a plastic Action Man survives, which only makes the ridiculous stunts he pulls all the more slack and lacking in any kind of tension. So he drives off a building? So what? He'll survive. Yawn.<br /><br />There's a girl thrown into the mix because Bourne's love interest died in a previous incarnation, but she's just decor. I've seen more character depth and snappy dialogue in episodes of Captain Scarlet.<br /><br />Bourne's own journey of literal self-discovery is dull and formless and tells us nothing we didn't know from the first movie. He was turned into a killing machine. Big deal. He finds out his true identity. So what? It doesn't have any emotional resonance when it comes.<br /><br />The 'twist' ending is telegraphed and weak. Oh, dear, the more I think about this film the more I hate it! I've already reduced my score to 4 during the writing of this comment! I'd better end now before the slide continues.<br /><br />I love a good action flick and I love a good thriller. The Bourne Ultimatum is neither. It's a loud, tedious series of flashy edits, ridiculous sound effects and cartoon violence. <br /><br />The idea that it 'shows the way' to the Bond franchise is utter crap. Casino Royale blows it out of the water." ]

[ "Rich, alcoholic Robert Stack falls in love with secretary Lauren Bacall. He marries her and is so happy he stops drinking. However, Bacall is secretly loved by Stacks' best friend, Rock Hudson. And Stacks' nymphomaniac sister, Dorothy Malone, lusts after Rock. Throw in a few complications and the movie goes spinning out of control (in a good way).<br /><br />Very glossy movie in beautiful Technicolor with jaw-dropping fashions and furnishings (check out Bacall's hotel room at the beginning). Everybody looks perfect and dresses in beautiful, form-fitting clothes. Basically this is a soap opera with grade A production values. The story itself is lots of fun and some of the dialogue at the beginning is hilariously over the top. The acting by Hudson, Stack and Bacall isn't that good, but seeing them so young and glamorous is great...especially Stack...when he smiled my knees went weak! Dorothy Malone, on the other hand, is fantastic--she deservedly won Best Supporting Actress for her role. She's sexy, violent, vicious and sympathetic...all convincingly. <br /><br />Fun, glossy trash. Don't miss it!" ]

[ "Everyone does things that they later regret. Things that they wish they could blame on drugs or alien possession. Things that although seem rational at the time, later reveal themselves to be engraved invitations for suffering and endless recriminations of stupidity.<br /><br />For some people it is signing the note for the new Hummer, for others it is picking up a homicidal hitchhiker, for still others it is sending their bank account information to third world millionaires mysteriously strapped for cash.<br /><br />For me it was a film.<br /><br />D-War: Dragon Wars In hindsight, I should have guessed how environmentally friendly and thoroughly recycled this movie would turn out to be from its stuttered and repeating title. But with my willing suspension of disbelief intact, and a naive faith stemming from the cool looking poster in the lobby, I really wanted this film to work. Sadly, by the time the old man in the pawnshop explained the entire backstory, fifteen minutes into the picture, I had the sudden, sinking revelation that comes from knowing every plot point of a still unseen film. And worse: I knew just how badly every point would all suck.<br /><br />Let me be perfectly clear here, the English language lacks sufficient nuance and depth in the field of ultimate evil to properly describe just how bad this film really is.<br /><br />As for knowing all the twists of movie, I was wrong. In the spirit of the old Godzilla films, whose scales this one is not worthy to fill, it conveniently sprouted extra sub-plots every time the main characters were threatened by the specter of meaningful dialogue.<br /><br />It was infested with close calls, miraculous escapes, and concentrated deposits of poorly explained angst.<br /><br />This film is what would happen if you gave the produces of the Mighty Morphing Power Rangers access to the national defense budget. And lots of liquor.<br /><br />Let me try to explain.<br /><br />Imagine you could get a hold of all the coolest-looking set pieces from successful action movies of the last decade: First take the rasta-talking army of amphibians from Star Wars Episode One and remove their Prozac until they are ready to club Navy Seals.<br /><br />Next, take close approximations of Kira Knightly and Tom Cruise (You can even call him Ethan as a \"subtle\" nod to the Mission Impossible franchise.) and give them lots of film noir narration, so no one get confused while trying to follow the wading-pool depths of their thoughts.<br /><br />Finally add a raspy-voiced villain in pointy armor worthy of a Lord of the Rings yardsale and a couple of giant cobras, angry at having their scenes deleted from latest edition of King Kong, and lay them all out in no particular order in modern day Los Angeles.<br /><br />Now run to the drugstore to find something for your sudden migraine. When you return, puree these ingredients until any overlooked hint of originality is dissolved into a homogenized mass of cheese and serve semi-gelatinous.<br /><br />At several points during this picture, I found myself saying out loud, \"Make the bad movie stop,\" and breaking into tears.<br /><br />To call this a B-movie would be giving it an undeserved promotion. After summer school, and a lot of physical therapy, it might possibly pass for a C level film if you could somehow sleep through most of it.<br /><br />In short, if you ever find yourself with money and brain cells to burn, and the need to punish yourself for hideous, unspoken sins against humanity, Dragon Wars might just be the film for you." ]

[ "This movie is completely ridiculous. Not only is the plot atrocious, but the acting is horrendous. The special effects are asinine and the entire movie is set in a post-apocalyptic desert. Yet, it is by far the most amusing movie ever given permission to be produced. It is 101 minutes of laughs due to the fact that we all know there will be no fuel in the year 3000, or any El Camino's. There are also other aspects which I will not spoil, just because they are what makes the movies so wonderfully moronic. I highly recommend this movie, just because of its utter idiocy. I have no idea who would watch this expecting it to be a high quality feature, but if a good laugh is what you need, watch Exterminators of the Year 3000!" ]

[ "I saw this ages ago when I was younger and could never remember the title, until one day I was scrolling through John Candy's film credits on IMDb and noticed an entry named \"Once Upon a Crime...\". Something rang a bell and I clicked on it, and after reading the plot summary it brought back a lot of memories.<br /><br />I've found it has aged pretty well despite the fact that it is not by any means a \"great\" comedy. It is, however, rather enjoyable and is a good riff on a Hitchcock formula of mistaken identity and worldwide thrills.<br /><br />The movie has a large cast of characters, amongst them an American couple who find a woman's dog while vacationing in Europe and decide to return it to her for a reward - only to find her dead body upon arrival. From there the plot gets crazier and sillier and they go on the run after the police think they are the killers.<br /><br />Kind of a mix between \"It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World\" and a lighter Hitchcock feature, this was directed by Eugene Levy and he managed to get some of his good friends - such as John Candy - to star in it. The movie is mostly engaging due to its cast, and the ending has a funny little twist that isn't totally unpredictable but also is kind of unexpected." ]

[ "How Tasty Was My Little Frenchman tells a story that is alternately sad, scary and life-affirming. It ends with a brutal finale that you knew had to happen, even though you were hoping--maybe even beleiving--it wouldn't.<br /><br /> Utlimately, this is the film's greatest strength: it expertly plays with your emotions and expectations, then drops a bomb on you.<br /><br /> I saw this in a film theory class at USC back in the mid-'90s. It is not easy to find, but is definitely worth hunting for." ]

[ "The image of movie studios being financially-driven instead of creatively is not without truth (in fact, it's more true than false). This begs the question why Castle Rock Entertainment allowed Kenneth Branagh to create a full-length, uncut version of \"Hamlet\" with his complete creative control among other things. Of course, Branagh had to agree to some concessions (a star-studded cast, and a 2.5 hour version for wider release), but why would the film studio allow Branagh to spend money on a 4 hour version that they knew few would see? Could they have, at least in this case, had enough respect for the material and Branagh's vision to create something for only a few people? That is not a question that I can answer. Whatever the reason, this is a glorious vision for those who are willing to spend four hours watching \"Hamlet.\" Everyone knows the story, so I will not spend much time on that. However, unlike other productions of the play, stage included, this is a completely uncut production, which has never been done before. According to some, Shakespeare never intended for the play to be produced uncut, leaving the decision of what to include to the director's discretion. That being said, I have no doubt that had he been able to see it, the Bard would have been overjoyed with Branagh's production.<br /><br />The film is top-heavy with film stars, although most have mere bit parts. All play their parts equally well. I would have thought Branagh too old to play the part of Hamlet, and while he still may be, his performance more than makes up for it. Hamlet is a complex part, displaying every emotion from grief to anger, happiness to madness, and everything in between. Branagh nailed it. Derek Jacobi is terrific as the wily Claudius, whose deception and treachery sets all these things in motion; his unique voice is perfect for the role. Julie Christie is also very good as Gertrude, Hamlet's caring mother who doesn't realize what is going on until late in the game.<br /><br />The classical actors are cast in bit parts (Judi Dench is on for all of 60 seconds and has no lines), but at least they're in it. Surprisingly, no one takes this to heart; everyone gives it their all, and it shows. Special mention has to go to Jack Lemmon and Billy Crystal, who are excellent. Robin Williams is a little too silly, but he's not bad (his part is pretty small anyway).<br /><br />Yet, this is undeniably Branagh's show. He adapted one of the most famous plays in history, and in so doing, he took on a whale of a project; it's impressive that he got it done, but the fact that the film is this good is a monumental achievement. What I really liked about this film is that you don't have to be a Shakespeare scholar to enjoy it. As most people know, Shakespeare is difficult to digest, but Branagh and his cast understand this. \"Hamlet\" is still immensely enjoyable to just sit and listen to the actors deliver the brilliant dialogue and excellent acting.<br /><br />This is a must see for anyone and everyone. It may be four hours long, but it's definitely worth it." ]

[ "Cult of the Cobra is now available on DVD in a pristine print that does full justice to whatever merits it has as a movie. Unfortunately, that is not saying much.<br /><br />It has a competent cast of second-rankers that acquit themselves as well as could be expected under the circumstances. It is efficiently directed, entirely on sound stages and standing sets on the studio backlot. It looks OK, but is ponderously over-plotted and at a scant 80 minutes it is still heavily padded.<br /><br />For example, the double cobra attack on the first of the GIs was surely one attack too many.<br /><br />The business about Julia choosing to marry Pete rather than Tom never amounts to anything. Tom immediately falls in love with Lisa and she never has any reason to be jealous of Julia (nor is she).<br /><br />Julia's 'feminine intuition' is introduced as if it is going to lead to an important plot development, but it doesn't. Similarly, Pete's investigation into cobra cults and the suspicion that briefly falls on Tom serve no purpose other than to fill up screen time.<br /><br />These are just symptoms of the underlying problem. The movie is structured like a mystery but it isn't. As soon as the curse is pronounced we know exactly where the story is heading, so the characters are left painstakingly uncovering what we already know.<br /><br />The ending is particularly lame. Julia is menaced purely by accident. Lisa has no reason to want to kill her - she just happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. When Tom turns up in the nick of time to save her, it is not even clear whether she was threatened at all. He then simply disposes of the cobra in the way any of the previous victims might have done.<br /><br />It is such an inconsequential little pipsqueak of a story that I found myself wondering how on earth it had been pitched to the studio heads. Then it occurred to me. Someone said: \"Those Val Lewton movies were very successful over at RKO, so why don't we make one like that?\"<br /><br />Cult of the Cobra is clearly modelled on Cat People: mysterious, troubled, shape-shifting woman falls in love with the hero, is apparently frigid, kills people, arouses the suspicions of the hero's woman friend and dies at the end. But 'modelled on' doesn't mean 'as good as' - by a wide margin. It copies, but doesn't understand what it is copying.<br /><br />It is obviously trying for the low-key, suggestive Lewton style, but this approach doesn't follow through into the story. Lisa is no Irene. She is meant to be strange and mysterious but there is no mystery about her. We get a glimpse of her after the first attack in Asia, so immediately recognise her when she turns up in New York. There is never any doubt about her purpose. Neither is there any ambiguity about whether of not she actually turns into a snake.<br /><br />Then again, during her nocturnal prowling we get, not one, but two attempts at 'buses'. Neither come off, because the director doesn't understand what makes a 'bus' work and, in any case, they happen to the stalker, not the person being stalked.<br /><br />These faint echoes of Cat People give Cult of the Cobra whatever small distinction it might have, but they only draw attention to the yawning gulf between the original and the imitation.<br /><br />Plagiarism may be the sincerest form of flattery, but I doubt if Lewton or Tourneur were particularly flattered when this tepid little time-passer came out." ]

[ "This is what makes me proud to be British. This is by far the funniest thing on TV. The league consists of Jeremy dyson, Steve pemberton, mark gatiss and the lovely Reece shearsmith. Totally underrated, this horror-comedy is perfection. The characters are iconic and the catchphrases bizarre, \"Hello Dave\". It is a comedy that everyone simply must watch.<br /><br />The best thing about the league of gentlemen is that it is always fresh, and always pushing the boundaries. It does not need to rely on catchphrases(unlike little Britain) for it to be funny. the fact that the league are willing to kill off arguably their most famous and iconic characters, shows us that they've got balls of steel." ]

[ "I gave this movie a 10 because it needed to be rewarded for its scary elements and actors AND my god the enging! The thing is I don't want to tell anyone anything about the acting or story because it will ruin the movie. But I will recommend that you go straight to your nearest moviestore right now and rent it! (Don't forget popcorn!)" ]

[ "\"The Cat's Meow\" contains a few scenes that boast intelligent dialogue, and some fine performances, a few of which surprised me. Eddie Izzard is more effective than I expected as Chaplin (partly thanks to an excellent hair and makeup job by some talented designer); Joanna Lumley is compelling as novelist Elinor Glyn; and Kirsten Dunst is winning as Marion Davies (though why movies never use her real-life stutter is difficult to explain). But these elements don't add up to a successful whole. The screenwriter seems to have worked very hard on certain scenes--the meetings between Davies and Chaplin are particularly well crafted--but not so hard on the big picture. Several minor characters don't need to be there, and don't behave consistently. The basic plot is full of illogic (e.g., why does Thomas Ince think it's a good idea to tell Hearst something he really doesn't want to hear?), and the party scenes are repetitive and tiresome. I'd like to think a trip on Hearst's yacht was more fun than the movie indicates. Davies is characterized as a standard bubbly Flapper type, which isn't really accurate, and the screenwriter's ideas about Chaplin and love are implausible. <br /><br />Strangely, Bogdanovich, who seemed so connected to the Thirties in \"Paper Moon\", lacks a similar affinity for the Twenties. He insisted the excellent costume designer use only black and cream, which gives the party guests a very artificial look, and plays only the most stereotypical songs of the period (e.g., \"Yes, We Have No Bananas\"). When Hearst insists everybody \"Charleston, Charleston!\" it looks as if the actors had a ten-minute dance lesson just before the scene was shot. <br /><br />The lives of silent film stars can make fascinating movies, I'm sure, but not this time." ]

[ "I was going through a list of Oscar winners and was surprised to see that this film beat Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid for best picture in 1969. After actually seeing it, however, I'm not surprised anymore. It was way ahead of its time in regards to its style, cinematography, and use of flashback to help develop Joe Buck's character.<br /><br />The most amazing thing to me is the depth of Joe Buck's character in such a short movie. I think Voight captured the naivete and the viciousness-when-provoked. The two scenes that really caught me were after he gets the blowjob in the theater and when the older man solicits him. I think when he looks in the mirror he's trying to see if it's really him that has done- or is about to do- something terrible.<br /><br />I think it was a brilliant decision by Hoffman to take this role. Otherwise he may have been typecast after the Graduate. Anyway, this considered an all-time great for a reason." ]

[ "OK, so I don't watch too many horror movies - and the reason is films like 'Dark Remains'. I caught this on (a surprisingly feature-filled) DVD and it scared me silly. In fact the only extra I think the DVD was missing was a pair of new pants.<br /><br />However, the next day I was telling someone about it when I realised I'd only really seen about 10% of it. The rest of the time I'd been watching the pizza on my coffee table - nervous that my girlfriend would catch me if I actually covered my eyes. The few times I DID brave watching the screen I jumped so hard that I decided not to look up again.<br /><br />The film-making is solid and the characters' situation was really compelling. The simplicity of the film is what really captured my jump-button - it's merely a woodland, a cabin and a disused jail - and a LOT of darkness. Most surprising to me was the fact that while this was clearly not a multi-million dollar production, the make-up effects really looked like it was! Also, it's obvious this is a film made by someone with a great love of film-making. The sound design and the music really made use of my surround system like many Hollywood movies have never done. I noticed on-line that this film won the LA Shriekfest - a really major achievement, and I guess that the festival had seen the filmmakers' clear talent - and probably a great deal more of this movie than I managed to.<br /><br />Turn up the sound, turn off the lights, and, if you want to keep your girlfriend - order a pizza." ]

[ "Okay, truthfully, I saw the previews for this movie and thought to myself, what are the producers thinking? Hutton, Jolie, and DUCHOVNY? How could the monotoned actor possibly compete with Jolie's natural power on the screen? But surprisingly, the two had the kind of chemistry that showed intense caring without a kiss. Even David's humor matched up to Jolie's spark and fire. As for Hutton, he played the psycho very well, contrasting with David's calm delivery of life threatening situations. Overall, I was very impressed with the writing and character development. I gave it 8 stars." ]

[ "A large part of the scenes should be cut off. There is a lot of scenes that should have been cut off. For example the scene where the hunters mentions \"I got spiders on my dick\", \"I like dick\", playing in the mud scene, or a bar scene where a professional dinocroc hunters main job is a snake charmer.<br /><br />How about other terribly incoherent scenes featuring a woman, Diane who wants to loose her virginity to a boyfriend who walks like he wears women's panties three sizes too small. While they make love, didn't they realized they are making it out next to the little boy who will soon run away and loose his head? Why did they do in a living room? I mean his head really flipped. How about the beach scene very reminiscent of Steven Spielberg's Jaws scene at Grant Lake. All these strange scene could easily be re-dubbed and billed as a comedy.<br /><br />Here in my local town, the cineplex theaters had been advertising for months about Dinocroc, and I am glad I didn't watch it because I later found out it was shown only for 1 or 2 days before it was canceled. The movie was THAT bad. I suspected that Dinocroc was not a good movie looking at the preview. It features the leg of Dinocroc that looks like a child wearing green pajamas and slippers with claws and walks up and down like a 2 year old. It could easily passed over as Baby Geniuses.<br /><br />If any students of movie making wants to learn what not to do this is a real classic trash. Such as Diane's boyfriend who walks like he had an advanced case of syphilis makes you wonder what the poor woman sees in this guy who looks drunk even before he get to drink beer. When this happens, who cares about Dinocroc? The panties man looked more more interesting than the entire movie of Dinocroc. His acting was so bad, he makes a much better replacement for Mr. Bean. MOVE OVER ROWAN ATKINSON, here is a man with a better comedic talent in a horror sci-fi flick. Perhaps the worse casting in the history of Hollywood." ]

[ "While it was filmed at a Florida National Guard site, \"Tigerland\" totally reminded me of Fort Polk, LA., firing ranges, maneuver areas, waist-deep water and all. The movie was fairly authentic and the characters similar to those same ones at my AIT in 1974. The difference between the Tigerland year, 1971, and mine of 1974 is all the drill sergeants and instructors knew they weren't going back to Vietnam, as it was pretty much all over, so training was very relaxed - not a challenge at all. That was the precursor to all our troubles in the 70s and 80s, which I know for a fact as I stayed in until 2004. I never heard anyone mention \"Tigerland\" but the Army did have realistic Vietnam training villages at different bases across the U.S. Vietnam Vets tell me that up to 1972 Basic & AIT could be pretty rough and rugged, because the trainers had been there and were mandated to train Vietnam-bound men those skills to make it, although that was not always the case. Both a drill sergeant at Polk and later one of my Vietnam Vet NCOs, when we had become instructors at a basic training brigade at Fort Bliss, told me there was nothing they could do to get anyone ready and people just had to find out and figure out for themselves. This movie rates high." ]

[ "And a rather Unexpected plot line too-for the era: there is Plague in the City of New Orleans-and only Richard Widmark can stop it! Elia Kazan's trademark subjects: waterfronts, working men, crowds, fugitives, blue collar folk, violence on a backstreet-are all showcased here.<br /><br />Jack Palance is quite effective as the ice-cold mobster out for a big score, Zero Mostel as Dom Delouise somewhat miscast but certainly watchable as his go-fer. I enjoyed Barbara Bel Geddes as the stalwart, cool wife-I thought she and Widmark were a believable couple.<br /><br />He himself always reminds me somewhat of Sinatra-in the face and in the intense quiet manner-and that is meant as a compliment if anything. I'd never even heard of this movie, and yes, you have to admire Widmark's performance. I also enjoyed Paul Douglas-he seemed to play this role many times, they make an unlikely but effective team.<br /><br />The plague itself is a McGuffin-and you gotta know it's not exactly done the way it would have been in Real Life-rather small-scale at the least no?-but I found it carried the plot along nicely.<br /><br />Check this out. It's good. *** outta ****" ]

[ "Guinea Pig: The Devil's Experiment is without a doubt ***** stars on first view, its a raw realistic creepy and disturbing look into the dark side of human nature. This movie gets right to the point, you may be thinking what point? The point is to satisfy fan's of just extreme violence and gore. This movie has some gore, more or less just torturing a women violently. There are really only 3 scene's that could be considered gore. I'll tell you one thing though Guinea Pig: The Devil's Experiment makes Hostile look like Sesame Street. If you thought Hostile was a crazy brutal disturbing torture flick then you ain't seen the half of it until you've seen Guinea Pig: The Devil's Experiment.<br /><br />Movie Rating 0-5, Gore 0-10<br /><br />Guinea Pig: The Devil's Experiment (Uncut) ***** (7)" ]

[ "This film is awful. Not offensive but extremely predictable. The movie follows the life of a small town family in the mid-60's. The father, the principal at the school, is going through a mid-life crisis. Enter a pretty teacher from the big city who starts challenging her students' minds with some thought-provoking stuff, like think for yourself. The principal doesn't agree with her teaching but she is pretty. You can connect the dots. His teenage daughter (Winona Ryder wannabe Tara Frederick) is fed up with the small town lifestyle and wants to live. She gets some bad advice, hangs out with some bad boys and apparently family planning wasn't being taught at her school. Shocking! Seeing that director Paul Shapiro has mainly worked in TV, this movie plays like a more adult version of an after-school special or a very special episode of one of the more mundane sitcoms." ]

[ "Firstly let me say that I didn't like the fact that The Rock won the title that is so gay. Next I feel Regal should have got back his European title, Jeff Hardy is a crappy champ. Rob Van Dam had the Intercontinental title too long already Brock should have won it. I am pleased with Storm and Christian being tag champs, best match was the Booker T and Big Show match in my opinion." ]

[ "This obvious pilot for an unproduced TV series features young Canadian actress Shiri Appleby as an amnesiac with some pretty incredible powers that must be put to use when a man-turned-flying demon is let loose on the world. The CGI is par for a TV job, and Appleby is OK as an amnesiac but hard to swallow as a superheroine. Familiar TV face Richard Burgi is along for the ride as Appleby's mentor, but he can do nothing to elevate this dreck above the mediocre level. We see way too much of the cartoonish flying demon right from the start, a bad sign. Also, the scenes where Burgi is training Appleby for battle are actually laughable. They are a bad copy of similar scenes in several other movies, most notably REMO WILLIAMS." ]

[ "Does anything at all happen in this movie. There are only the bizarre short scenes where I didn't know what the hell was going on so that doesn't count. This movie is sooo boring it hurts, and this is coming from a person who likes it when movies are about making movies. Confused?, well I was after watching this crap. What was Donald Sutherland on, because he missed it with this one completely. And what's with the \"pedofile\" scene at the beginning of the movie. Can put anyone to sleep! 4/10" ]

[ "In \"Die Nibelungen: Siegfried\", Siegfried was betrayed. Now, Kriemhild seeks revenge. She marries Hagen, and through a series of events, finally engages in a very drastic (but fitting) action at the end.<br /><br />One of the things about watching this movie nowadays is that we can look at certain portrayals. Attila the Hun (called Etzel in the movie) is shown as the strange person from the east, possibly an allusion to the Soviet Union. Obviously, it was not Fritz Lang's fault that Hitler used \"The Nibelungenlied\" for German national pride in the Third Reich, but one can see what the Fuhrer liked about the story. Nonetheless, this is an absolutely formidable movie." ]

[ "This is one of my favorite movies of all time. I loved Rain Man with Dustin Hoffman and Tom Cruise. This movie is in some ways similar, but makes Rain Man seem artificial, shallow, unemotional, and trivial by comparison." ]

[ "Kenneth Branagh shows off his excellent skill in both acting and writing in this deep and thought provoking interpretation of Shakespeare's most classic and well-written tragedy. Kenneth plays the role of Hamlet with such a distinct emotion that provokes tears. Kate Winslet's performance is also of great note." ]

[ "Just a few words.... This movie really sucks. It's like those TV Movies with bad cast and plot. It's amazing how they could make this sequel worse than the III. Don't waste your time watching this crap, even if you like the tremors movies." ]

[ "Just kidding! This was one of the worst movies I have ever seen! It was so bad though, that it was hilarious. My friend and I purposly rented it because it looked so bad. Cheesy old horror flicks are always good for some laughs. The plot stunk, some of the voices were dubbed, the quality was horrendous. But I sure had a blast watching it!" ]

[ "Well, what can you say about a Barbara Cartland adaptation?<br /><br />There are some amazing actors in this (Oliver Reed, Sarah Miles, Christopher Plummer) but they clearly are clocking up the money.<br /><br />Lysette Anthony and Marcus Gilbert have appeared in two other Cartland epics - Anthony with Hugh Grant (who looks suitably embarrassed) and Gilbert with Helena Bonham Carter.<br /><br />If you really want to see a \"watchable\" adaptation of Cartland, the Bonham Carter one is the one to go for (\"A Hazard of Hearts\" - what a title!!). Gilbert is the weak link in that, but Bonham Carter is suitably beautiful and of course can actually act, and the rest of the cast play it to the hilt with tongues firmly in cheek (Edward Fox & Diana Rigg)" ]

[ "Bruce Almighty, one of Carrey's best pictures since... well... a long time. It contains one of the funniest scenes I have seen for a long time too... Morgan Freeman plays God well and even chips in a few jokes that are surprisingly funny. It contains one or two romantic moments that are a bit boring but over all a great movie with some funny scenes. The best scene in, it is where Jim is messing up the anchor man's voice.<br /><br />My rating: 8/10" ]

[ "Thoughtless, ignorant, ill-conceived, career-killing (where is the talented Angela Jones now?), deeply unfunny garbage. It's no wonder Reb Braddock hasn't directed anything else since - anyone who has a chance to make his first film on his own rules, based on his own script, with the help of Quentin Tarantino himself, and creates something like THIS, anyone who feels that THIS was a story worth telling to the world, doesn't deserve a second break. Under the circumstances, the performances are good - the actors do what they're told to do, and they do it well. It's just that they shouldn't have done it in the first place. <br /><br />0 out of 4." ]

[ "Truly awful film made by cinematographer-turned-director Ted Tetzlaff. Decent enough looking film but for a time-bomb movie totally devoid of any tension whatsoever. Ford, as someone put it here, sleepwalks though this one with his characteristic smirk. There are some details thrown around- Canadian ex-army or RAF, defused bombs in the war, his wife is leaving him- but none of these back stories add up to much. The bomber himself is a complete mystery. Why is he trying to blow up this shipment of mines? For that matter, what time period are we talking about here? WWII or postwar?? I assumed the latter which makes bomber's motive even more salient. Generally, though, just a horrible film. There are plenty of good time-bomb flicks to skip this one. Watch any episode of \"Danger UXB\" for a more exciting time, at about the same running time." ]

[ "This is the worst documentary to come out of Canada ever!!!! I'm glad to see the guys haven't made another movie. All they want to do is get a movie made and it doesn't have to be the one they wrote. They keep changing the script to suite the person they're pitching. I could not get out of the theatre fast enough when I saw it at that year's Toronto Film Festival. Please never see this film." ]

[ "Stan & Ollie become SAPS AT SEA when their wayward little boat is commandeered by a vicious murderer.<br /><br />The Boys are wonderful in this feature, which starts out with one of their most hilarious set pieces, the horn factory. Always a few steps out of sync with the rest of Creation, Laurel & Hardy inhabit a world where icy radios & bedded billy goats are the rule, not the exception. With its brief length, the film is more in style with their classic short subjects, which explains its episodic nature.<br /><br />Only the Boys get screen credit, but movie mavens will recognize other familiar faces: James Finlayson appears as a loony doctor, Richard Cramer does full justice to his bad guy role, sweet Mary Gordon plays the Boys' perplexed neighbor. That's Charlie Hall as the apartment house desk clerk and silent screen comic Ben Turpin portrays a most peculiar plumber.<br /><br />One of the film's script writers was silent comedian Harry Langdon.<br /><br />Stan & Ollie are the main focus, however. Watching Hardy go berserk at the sound of a horn, or Laurel's antics with bananas, for instance, reminds the viewer why these fellows remain absolute cinematic giants." ]

[ "A classic cartoon, always enjoyable and funny. It has an interesting plot complete with lovable characters. Road Rovers is a show worth seeing, it is a short 13 episodes, and if you can ever manage a chance to see it, you should. Unfortunately, it is very hard to find. I think Warner Brothers Studios should release a DVD that contains all 13 episodes. I would definitely buy it if they did, and if they do, you should buy it too. if you have kids who like dogs, they will love road rovers! Road Rovers should have gotten more attention while it was being aired, it was definitely an original and very special show that should have been appreciated much more than it was." ]

[ "It SURPRISINGLY had a plot! ;) I've seen movies with less plot (I don't wanna mention Asian movies but...). I thought the camera wasn't bad at all for a cheap movie like this, and also the atmosphere wasn't too bad. There is no real reason for most things people do and the way they react to what happens. Although I do think that about a lot of movies, in this case it was horrible, of course.<br /><br />It ripped off some movies SO badly just for single scenes. The acting was bad but I've seen worse. The movie was bad but I've seen worse. Watching this film is an experience between boredom, laughing fits, death wish, sadism, horniness and entertainment on a low level.<br /><br />So if you like gory movies with stupid plots this one is the right film for you.<br /><br />I gave it 3/10, because it CAN be entertaining if you don't expect to see a good movie and you're in the right mood." ]

[ "This is not the video nastie, but only because it came out in 1994 when they were presumably tired of the whole thing in Britain. It is 75% a rehash of The Boogeyman, and would have been banned for the same reason - whatever that was.<br /><br />I was initially confused as I thought that Annie (Kelly Galindo) may have been a different Lacey, but she was someone trouble by psychic visions of a boogeyman similar to the one in the first film. Fans will immediately note that they are not the same person.<br /><br />After seeing a murder in a bathroom, and also seeing the address as well, Annie, her psychiatrist and a para psychology student who greatly resembles the guy on the cheap romance novels and butter commercials, head to the house, and, sure enough, it's the same bathroom. 24 hours later a murder happens just as she described. Of course, we have no idea who this boobilicious woman is or why she was murdered.<br /><br />Then the movie shift to a rerunning of The Boogeyman story with some extra footage that we did not see in the original. Notably, the boogeyman is shown unlike the original. Sadly, some of the good scenes were cut, but 90% of it is there. Why rerun this film? Did they find the footage in the trash? What was the purpose? <br /><br />We'll never know and, despite the psychologist telling Annie she is cured, we all know the bogeyman will never die." ]

[ "Spike lee has to be one of the most over rated directors I have ever seen. He is the critic's darling because he supposedly makes films with a \"message\" or he is just so bohemian in his approach that it makes critics that are waterlogged from formula Hollywood films eat his stuff up just for being different.<br /><br />Summer Of Sam does not even do that well. The cinematography and editing style is Oliver Stone, and so is the narrative. The plot is a lot like \"Do The Right thing\". The portrayal of \"Guidos\" or for the PC set Italian-Americans (of which I happen to be one) is straight out of Eddie Murphy's Raw. Only Eddie Murphy's impression of a macho Italian guy picking a fight with a much taller African-American is much, MUCH more believable than the cartoonish, broad Italian caricatures shown here (the John Leguizamo character being a possible exception).<br /><br />Is there anybody who saw this movie that could not figure out how it was going to end up? As soon as Richie came into the film I could already see the fist in his face and the foot in his stomach, I could already see him being accused of being the killer. This character had the most integrity in the whole film so, of course, Lee is going to show what happens to people that stand out in a crowd (what a white bearded clique!)<br /><br />Someone please, please give Spike Lee a lifetime pass to all the Basketball games he wants. So, maybe he will be enjoying himself too much to pick up a film camera for a long time and we won't have to be subjected to his self important drivel and furthermore I won't have to see critics (some of them whom I respect) ohhhh and ahhhh to an Emperor with no clothes." ]

[ "Sur mes lèvres or READ MY LIPS is fine little thriller that also examines the lives of 'outsiders', people who live in the periphery of our vision who struggle with the need to 'fit in'. Director Jacques Audiard with and co-writer Tonino Benacquista have created a tense, tight, completely entertaining little thriller that makes some significant statements about out of the norm individuals and their plights.<br /><br />Carla (Emmanuelle Devos) is a plain Jane, mostly deaf, thirty something unnoticed secretary for a company whose life is one of social and sexual isolation and whose view of the future is rather bleak. Enter Paul (Vincent Cassel) a recent released ex-con parolee who responds to an ad to be Carla's assistant. There is a mutual physical repulsion at first meeting: Carla had hoped for a well-groomed, genteel man who might fulfill her fantasies and Paul is a coarse, unkempt sleazy guy who is not impressed with being a clerk. Their concepts change rather quickly when Paul salvages Carla's job by filling her request to steal a letter that would cost her her job and Paul discovers Carla's lip reading ability which he sees as a way to spy on the criminals from his past who threaten his life for money owed. So this odd couple of a team join forces and together enter a dangerous suspense filled ploy to gain Paul's safety and freedom. The relationship is full of twists and edge of the seat suspense with each of these unlikely characters fulfilling roles in their lives that fill the chinks in their walls of isolation in surprising ways.<br /><br />Devos and Cassel deliver bravura performances and the remainder of the cast is uniformly strong. Once again Alexandre Desplat has produced a musical score that enhances the tension and cinematographer Mathieu Vadepied finds all the right lighting and angles to suggest the worlds of isolation of the characters as well as the Hitchcockian sense of suspense. Director Audiard wisely manipulates a factor that is at once sensitive and transformative for the story: he shows us the difference between 'hearing' the world with and without hearing aids and in doing so makes some powerful social comments. This is a fine film that remains in the ranks of the best of the French film noir genre. Recommended. Grady Harp" ]

[ "What an appalling piece of rubbish!!! Who ARE all these people who blubber on about how good this is? Yes, it's \"arty\"; and yes, it's \"foreign\", but .... that's not enough. The plot is boring and disjointed, like a reality show but not so slickly made.<br /><br />The people are intrinsically uninteresting; but as characters they don't have enough depth to feel empathy for them. If they are based on real people then I feel very, very sorry for them.<br /><br />The violence (and some of it is very violent) seems quite ostentatious and gratuitous. It's like the producer has visions of being Quenton Tarantino. Not that I think very much of him, either.<br /><br />And oh yes: if I had neighbours like these, I'd move!" ]

[ "\"Night of the Living Homeless\" was a fairly strong finish to the first half of Season 11. Obviously a parody of various zombie movies, most notably Dawn of the Dead, this episode parallels the homeless with the living dead, as creatures who feed and thrive off of spare change rather than brains.<br /><br />Kyle is blamed for the sudden mass outbreak of homeless people when he, out of the goodness of his heart, gives a $20 to a homeless man in front of his house. More homeless people begin to infiltrate South Park, until the town is completely overrun with them. This is a very strong Randy Marsh episode, as he assumes the role of the shotgun-wielding leader of the adults who take refuge on the roof of the Park County Community Center. But before Randy makes it to the community center, he is accosted by hundreds of homeless people while hilariously screaming \"I don't have any change!!\" Unfortunately, the refugees end up losing Gerald Broflofski to the homeless, when he tries to escape by catching a bus out of town, and unwittingly tosses away all his change for the bus to distract the homeless people. Then he becomes one of them, asking everyone for change.<br /><br />The boys attempt to find out why there are so many homeless people in South Park, and find a man who is a director of homeless studies. They find out that the nearby city of Evergreen used to have a similar problem with the homeless, so they escape to Evergreen to find out what they did to solve the problem. Unfortunately, homeless people break into the man's house, and he attempts to take the easy way out by shooting himself. However, he fails several times, as he shoots himself in the jaw, in the eye, in the chest, in the neck, in the shoulder, screaming horribly until he finally dies. This scene may have been funnier had a similar scene not happened in \"Fantastic Easter Special\" two weeks ago.<br /><br />Meanwhile, a member of the refugees discovers that due to the homeless problem, the property values have nosedived, thus the bank has foreclosed on his house, making him homeless. Randy immediately turns on him, holding the gun to the man's head. When the man finally begs the others for a few bucks to help him out, Randy pulls the trigger.<br /><br />In Evergreen, the boys find out that the citizens of the town sent the homeless to South Park, and that the passing of homeless from town to town happens all over the country. The boys modify a bus that leads the homeless out of South Park and takes them all the way to Santa Monica, California.<br /><br />The zombie movie parallels and the great Randy Marsh lines make this one definitely re-watchable. 8/10" ]

[ "ok. for starters, taxi driver is amazing. this, this is not taxi driver or amazing. what it is is bad. but i thought it was bad funny, which means that it did have some redeeming qualities. like the dialogue...wow. there was more or less no plot, the characters were all stupid, and the movie was preachy. there were some places were i thought the movie would dive into taxi driver type violence, which would have hit the message at the end of the movie on the head much harder. i can't even believe that there are like 20 other people who have seen this movie. yeah, it's worth watching if you are real bored and you want to reaffirm the fact that anyone can make a movie, or at least can try to." ]

[ "This Charles outing is decent but this is a pretty low-key performance. Marlon Brando stands out. There's a subplot with Mira Sorvino and Donald Sutherland that forgets to develop and it hurts the film a little. I'm still trying to figure out why Charlie want to change his name. Every movie with \"Charles\" has been pretty bad." ]

[ "I really liked BATMAN: DEAD END, I thought that it had a theatrical feel to it and that given a chance Collora could make a fine film. This trailer didn't quite give me the same impression. The story line, or potential story line, was quite good but due to the acting and special effects left me feeling like this would have made a good TV movie or television show.<br /><br />First, Michael O'Hearn is not that good a Superman. I actually thought he, in his brief appearance, made a decent Clark Kent. Sorry, I just don't think of SuperMan as being that buff. The suit Kent wore masked his size. Batman may have the body of a bodybuilder but not Superman. Supes is toned no doubt but not bulk. Anyway, I didn't care for all his posing and his transformation from Kent to Superman seemed cheezy. Now this may not be just O'Hearn's fault, Collora may have to take some of the credit for poor scripting and direction.<br /><br />Second, the special effects for flying were cheezy. Superman flies through the sky. If was obvious that this Superman flew close to the ground, with the telephone cables and buildings visible above him. I don't think there were any full body shots of Superman flying. Evidently the harness and rigging supporting O'Hearn must have been located on his lower torso.<br /><br />All in all it was a good trailer. I'd probably pay to see a film, if ever made, and would be sure to catch it on television. The story line, an alliance between Lexcorp and Wayne Industries, Superman jealous of Lois's attraction to Wayne, Lex and Twoface teaming to beat Superman and the joining of forces between Batman & Superman is a good one. I'm sure with a larger budget and approval for a full film Collora and company, even O'Hearn could deliver a decent film. Certainly one better than the most of the comic based crap coming out of Hollywood lately." ]

[ "I truly despised this film when i saw it at the age of about 6 or 7 as I was a huge fan of Robin Williams and nothing he could do was bad. Until this. This complete trash ruined Robin for me for a long time. I'm only recovering recently with his funny but serious part in Fathers day but then he went on to create another mistake, Bicenntinial Man i think it was called but the point is. Robin should be getting much better jobs by now and now he has returned to performing the slime that originated with this 'classic'." ]

[ "This film is a true and historical film. It is very useful to those researching the LDS church, because it is 100% true. It is an excellent film and I recommend it.<br /><br />It is very factual, exciting, and motivational. There are some who think it is not factual, but it is.<br /><br />It is about the restoration of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and about the prophet, Joseph Smith, who restored it. It has such events in his life as the disease that he had when he was a small boy, his courting Emma Smith, Emma, his wife, giving birth, and so on. But most importantly it reveals the restoration of the church." ]

[ "Liked Stanley & Iris very much. Acting was very good. Story had a unique and interesting arrangement. The absence of violence and porno sex was refreshing. Characters were very convincing and felt like you could understand their feelings. Very enjoyable movie." ]

[ "I love the movie. It brought me back to the best time of my life. <br /><br />We need that time again, now more than ever. For me it was a time of freedom, learning, and finding myself. I will always miss it. There will never be another time like the 60's, unfortunately." ]

[ "Cheezy action movie starring Dolph Lungren. Lungren is a one time military man who has retreated into a teaching job. But the changes in the neighborhood and the student body have left him frustrated and he decides that he?s going to hang it up. Things get dicey when while watching over a bunch of students in detention some robbers take over the school as a base of operation for an armored car robbery. Its Dolph versus the baddies in a fight to the death. Jaw dropping throw back to the exploitation films of the late grindhouse era where bad guys dressed as punks and some of the bad women had day glow hair. What a stupid movie. Watchable in a I can?t believe people made this sort of way, this is an action film that was probably doomed from the get go before the low budget, fake breakaway sets and poor action direction were even a twinkle in a producers eye. Watch how late in the film as cars drive through the school (don?t ask) they crash into the security turret (don?t ask since it looks more like a prison then a high school) and smash its barely constructed form apart(it doesn't look like it did in earlier shots). What hath the gods of bad movies wrought? Actually I?m perplexed since this was directed (?) by Sydney J Furie, a really good director who made films like The Boys in Company C. Has his ability failed him, or was this hopeless from the get go and he didn't even bother? It?s a turkey. A watchable one but a turkey none the less." ]

[ "1st watched 12/7/2002 - 3 out of 10(Dir-Steve Purcell): Typical Mary Kate & Ashley fare with a few more kisses. It looks to me like the girls are getting pretty tired of this stuff and it will be interesting what happens to them if they ever decide to split up and go there own ways. In this episode of their adventures they are interns in Rome for a `fashion' designer who puts them right into the mailroom to learn what working hard is all about(I guess..). Besides the typical flirtations with boys there is nothing much else except the Rome scenario until about ¾ way into the movie when it's finally revealed why they are getting fired, then re-hired, then fired again, then re-hired again. This is definetly made by people who don't understand the corporate world and it shows in their interpretation of it. Maybe the real world will be their next adventure(if there is one.). Even my kids didn't seem to care for this boring `adventure' in the make-believe. Let's see they probably only have a couple of years till their legal adults. We'll see what happens then." ]

[ "I saw this film on its release, and have watched it 3 or 4 more times, including last week. I regret I have to be a voice of dissension with regard to Mr. Branagh's performance.<br /><br />This is really a glorious, sumptuous film, to say nothing of ambitious at over 4 hours long - beautifully shot and designed. Derek Jacobi, Julie Christie, Kate Winslet, Richard Briers, and many others do fine jobs. Then there's Kenneth Branagh. If ever there was a vanity project for an actor, this is it, and Mr. Branagh spares nothing in putting the \"ham\" in Hamlet. From the stunt casting (which gives us the worst performance ever by the woefully miscast Jack Lemmon), to the bits of distracting business thrown in to infuse a sense of \"naturalness,\" to his own performance which runs the gamut from throwing away the single most famous soliloquy in all of literature to screaming every line of others. His performance confirms that, while he may come across better on stage where bigger is necessary, he has never been a great film actor. The scenery budget could be charged to catering, Mr. Branagh eats so much of it. His performance is a perfect example of why people don't go to see Shakespeare - \"full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.\" And if there is fault to his direction, it is that he keeps the camera firmly glued on his overblown performance.<br /><br />No matter what theories people may posit on the Bard, he was, after all is said and done, a playwright. The brilliance of his plays rest in the fact that his themes are universal and timeless. Although there is no \"right\" way to play his plays, there is most certainly great acting, good acting and bad acting. Shakespeare himself gives instructions to the players in the text of \"Hamlet\" itself. It amazes me how Mr. Branagh \"mouthed\" it, but did not hear it. It was an example of spending too much time working out how he's going to say something, and too little figuring out WHAT he's saying.<br /><br />While Mr. Branagh has certainly done a wonderful job in mounting some entertaining productions, he would be wise to stay behind the camera and allow those who know the art of acting to practice it. His direction has always been better than his acting. I still give him immense credit for resurrecting interest in filming Shakespeare. He set a great template for other productions. And, it would be interesting to see him onstage, from about 20 rows back. But, I do hope he chooses to direct more and act less.<br /><br />Is it worth seeing? Certainly. There are many little joys to be found in the film. But, it's a long, long movie and, by the end, one may feel less that they enjoyed than survived it." ]

[ "Wow... what... a whirlwind. The 30's is a decade with plenty of movies of every type I can imagine, especially during the early talkies phase. There were movies which are painfully static and dull, like \"Dracula\" with Bella Lugosi, and there were those that just don't give it a rest, sometimes in a good way and other times not. This is one of the films that don't stop for a minute, and that is both a wonder and a pity. Lloyd Bacon, who also directed \"42nd Street\", must have been the king of the Depression Era musicals and he was probably excited with the possibilities sound brought to the world of cinema, for he filled this picture with it. There mustn't be a full minute or two without music or someone speaking. It's completely crazy! I was thinking the movie deserved a 5 (or a 6, tops) because the pacing was very poor, since it was insanely fast and I sometimes didn't know what was happening and what to think. The characters seemed to just running to and fro places, talking about things which didn't interest me and probably no one else. I thought I was just going to be rewarded with a small headache. I noticed Lloyd Bacon also cast the female lead in \"42nd Street\", Ruby Keeler, and \"42nd Street\" was a movie whose ending was the best part of it. And you know what? It happened the same thing with \"Footlight Parade\"! The ending is absolutely incredible! It has become, hands down, the most impressive musical I have ever seen. The final part presents us some musical numbers and those are, believe me, something that make seeing the other rest of the movie worth. The numbers are flawless! There are three big bits and the most impressive is surely the second one. Suddenly the screen was filled with gorgeous and inventive camera work, beautiful people and plain entertainment that made me forget my small headache." ]

[ "The movie starts out with a bunch of Dead Men Walking peeps sitting in individual cells, waiting for their inevitable meeting with death represented by the electrical chair.<br /><br /> Then our \"hero\", who is called Tenshu, is taken to the chair, he's zapped, and then....he's still \"Alive\". AHA ! He is given a choice by some creepy military guys who look really cool : Either we zap you until we've made sure you're actually dead OR you can walk through this door and take whatever destiny might lie ahead of you\". Our hero says yes to option 2, and then the actual story commences.<br /><br /> He wakes up in a different sort of cell (very high-tech and very big), where he finds another cell-mate, who also managed to survive the electric boogie-ride. A voice in the speakers tells them that they are free to do whatever they wish, as long as it happens within that room. Sounds a little suspicious, but the two men accept : What else can they do ?<br /><br /> What these two men do not know is that they have been set together, so they can awaken an inner urge to kill within them. Basically the unknown scientists in the background p**s them off until they decide that they should kill each other. Sounds weird ? Indeed, but there's a greater purpose to all of this. THIS is the part which should not be revealed, and so it shall remain unrevealed.<br /><br /> But fear not, it is the unknown that lures the viewer to watch more of this pseudo-action movie, fore it has an entirely different approach to the question : How long time can you stand being with a man who's an S.O.B. and would you kill him to obtain freedom ?<br /><br /> The first hour is basically trying to awaken your interest, it sneaks up without you actually knowing it. Then it becomes a roller coaster ride with WILD Matrix-like action fight-scenes with a touch of individuality to honor the comic book from which the movie is based upon.<br /><br /> The movie is indeed very special, so special that normal cinemas won't view it under normal circumstances. However, the story is fascinating, the music is fantastic, and the actors do their bit (some more than others) to make the movie truly unique.<br /><br /> If you should be so fortunate that your cinema or video store has it, watch it, and enjoy the fact that not everyone is trying to make mainstream movies to earn huge bunches of cash.<br /><br />" ]

[ "A bunch of women who can't act sit around, talk, smoke pot. They have another woman in a wheelchair they hide because she is deformed, and occasionally they kill some one to feed this person human flesh that really looks like some store-bought ham which they dressed up by sticking on a few plastic fingers. We don't see them killing anyone, suddenly there is a body on the floor, covered by a bloodied sheet. I can't eat Spam cover by a sheet anymore because of this. Just the thought of Spam cover by a sheet is enough to induce the same narcoleptic fit brought on by trying to get through all of this movie. Occasionally there are randomly inserted scenes of a guy who is \"hunting\" them by way of torturing some guy he strapped to a chair is his basement. Why he caught this guy and how he is connected to the Sit-On-The-Couch Sisters is never explained. There are also scenes of some \"superhuman\" guy freaking out. He p***es blood and punches through a wall, but who he is or what is wrong with him is neither explained nor even tied in to the story.<br /><br />There is no action, no special effects, no story. If you want to watch some boring people talk in a profound way about nothing while sitting around and eating ham and smoking, then here's 90 minutes of that, because, except for a scene where one chick does some hooking on a street corner and the aformentioned random scenes, absolutely NOTHING happens. (YAWN) Oh, I almost forgot, you get to see them move some stuff, including the deformed sister, when they move to their new apartment. Its one of the few times they're not sitting on a couch or lying in bed." ]

[ "I read the novel 'Jane Eyre' for the first time back in 1986. It was round that time that I saw the BBC-version with Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clarke. It was an excellent version and very much like the book. Years later, I laid eyes on this version and was horrified. William Hurt is totally miscast as Mr Rochester. Mr Rochester is a passionate character, where as William Hurt portrays him as a block of ice. The same goes for Charlotte Gainsborough. It was like watching two zombies together. This is story about love and passion, but I couldn't see it in this version. No, back to the BBC-version. A wonderful time is guaranteed." ]

[ "The sword fighting was out of this world, the fights scenes spectacular without the flying on a wire techniques (until the end) that are way too common today. The scene with Chan and Pray was probably the highlight of the movie. The characters in the assault on the bad guys mansion were cliché but the movie is comfortable with it. An injection of humour from Woo.<br /><br />The plot with it's twists and turns was unpredictable and exciting and you couldn't tell who was good or bad or which side people were on. <br /><br />A good sense of suspense and well timed surprises. The depth of the story is quite intense for a flighty film of this genre and reaches you in ways most kung-fu flicks don't." ]

[ "The premise of this movie was decent enough, but with sub par acting, it was just bland and dull.<br /><br />SPOILERS The film does not work because of the nature of the death, it was accidental, so although it was a murder it wasn't like the guy set out to do it. Also through some flashbacks there is a secret that is revealed that sort of makes the events like justice to a degree. There is no emotion in this film. The first 20 minutes or so is just this woman calling her sister, and hearing her message. It was dull and boring.<br /><br />With some polishing, and better acting it could have been pretty good." ]

[ "I went to this movie expecting an artsy scary film. What I got was scare after scare. It's a horror film at it's core. It's not dull like other horror films where a haunted house just has ghosts and gore. This film doesn't even show you the majority of the deaths it shows the fear of the characters. I think one of the best things about the concept where it's not just the house thats haunted its whoever goes into the house. They become haunted no matter where they are. Office buildings, police stations, hotel rooms... etc. After reading some of the external reviews I am really surprised that critics didn't like this film. I am going to see it again this week and am excited about it.<br /><br />I gave this film 10 stars because it did what a horror film should. It scared the s**t out of me." ]

[ "Originally called The Changer. The Nostril Picker is a poorly constructed tale about a loner named Joe Bukowski (Carl Zschering) who \"likes em young\". Unable to socially interact with girls he bumps into a tramp who teaches him a special Vietnamese chant. This \"chant\" involves whistling 'London Bridge is Falling Down' whilst hopping around like an epileptic morris dancer. Nonetheless, Ugly Joe tries it out and hey presto! He is now a girl. Ideally he needs to be a young guy in order attract girls. But lets not talk about ideals here - this film was made in 1983 and released in 1993, in an ideal world it should have NEVER been released.<br /><br />The Film Asylum dubbed this horror hokum as \"mind numbing, ham handed story telling\". Its worse than that. The Nostril Picker really takes the biscuit, in fact the whole god-damn cookie jar. Terribly scripted dialogue delivered by brain-dead actors, a ridiculous plot and a predictable twist. Just when things couldn't get any more absurd the story goes off on its own nonsensical tangent. For instance, Joe decides to kill the girls by changing back into himself. But i thought he wanted to get close to them? Not content with being a murderer Joe also turns into a cannibal and eats some of his victims, of which there were only around 3-4.<br /><br />The highlight of this terrible movie involves Joe picking up a hooker (Steven Andrews) then taking \"her\" back to his apartment. What happens next defies belief... Joe turns back into a man, but also discovers the hooker is a man. How does he react? Well, in a Benny Hill-esquire fashion, he chases \"her\" around the apartment with a bunch of squirty dildo's only to trip up on a blow up doll. God knows what Patrick J Matthews and Stephen Hodge were thinking of. At least this scene paved the way for another priceless moment. This involved the male hooker reporting the incident to a curly haired police officer with a 2-bit joke shop 'cop' uniform. The hilarious acting is a must see. Especially the hooker's inability at saying \"dildo\" and his demand for \"satisfaction\".<br /><br />Apart from the above mentioned incident this monotonous slash flick was a complete bore. You know a movie's bad when the DVD trailers were more exciting. Normally, i'd fast forward to the good bits, only there weren't any here. The main action sequences involved Joe simply stabbing his victims repeatedly. Forget quick cuts, Matthews utilizes fadeouts (one during a stab scene) to limit any form of suspense there might already be. One girl's non-reaction to her fingers being chopped off is laughable. Normally i'd relish the words \"uncut\" but in this case they were far from a blessing. Just more agonizing cinematic torture. The whole movie felt like an unedited episode of Midsummer Murders, only less entertaining. I'd hate to see the cut version.<br /><br />To sum up, The Nostril picker is the most unentertaining thing i've seen since Richard Hammond's 5 O' Clock Show. Dismal performances made worse by a terribly tinny soundtrack and bad dubbing. Don't be fooled by the box label, this is NOT a cult classic unless it qualifies for the lets-use-shitty-horror-dvds-for-coffee-coasters cult. Which i think it does. Unless re-edited to 30 minutes stay away from this coma inducing mess." ]

[ "\"Capitães de Abril\" is a very good. The story isn't a documentary about the 1974 revolution in Portugal. But it gives us an idea of how it was like. The fiction of the story isn't of great interest, but it doesn't spoil the movie. The heroic actions of Captain Salgueiro Maia aren't exaggerations and the film is also a tribute for his deeds. Captain Salgueiro Maia remains one of the greatest heroes of the 25th of April Revolution.<br /><br />All the actors are very good and even the smallest roles are played wonderfully. Lisbon looks beautiful as ever. Don't miss it! I liked this film very much." ]

[ "Paul Lukas played a Russian intellectual making his living as a waiter in<br /><br />\"Grand Slam,\" directed by William Dieterle (1933). It is a surprisingly funny satire of the building up of celebrity. The waiter and the Russian restaurant's hat-check girl played by Loretta Young become America's sweethearts as bridge partners who do no squabble. With the aid of publicist and ghost-writer 'Speed' McCann (the wonderfully deadpan Frank McHugh) they become walking advertisements<br /><br />for the \"Stanislavsky system,\" a \"system\" of bidding whatever one feels like<br /><br />(since bids are not rational, there is no basis for recriminations about their stupidity).<br /><br />A duel with displaced bridge guru Cedric Van Dorn (sounds close to Goren, no? and I suspect the choice of the character's name \"Stanislavsky\" was also a slam at another kind of system), a puffed-up charlatan played very well by Ferdinand Gottschalk, is broadcast on radio stations across America like a prize-fight by Roscoe Karns (another great fast-talking deadpan comic actor of the 1930s).<br /><br />The bridge players are even in a roped-off square, though the audience is<br /><br />above them, unlike in boxing \"rings.\"<br /><br />The wide variety of American types prefigures the comedies of Preston Sturges, though for manufacturing celebrity, \"Grand Slam\" most calls to mind two better movies from the same (pre-Code) era with Lee Tracy playing fast-talking<br /><br />publicists: \"The Half-Naked Truth\" and \"Bombshell,\" but \"Grand Slam\" has its<br /><br />moments, especially for anyone who has played bridge with serious point<br /><br />counters.<br /><br />Loretta Young was already a clothes horse. (To me, her face seems a bit long<br /><br />and horsey, too. Another era's notion of beauty, I guess...) The movie<br /><br />unfortunately all but drops Glenda Farrell, who plays McHugh's forgetful<br /><br />girlfriend." ]

[ "The subject notwithstanding, this is an amateur, exhibitionist movie--or an effort at one--which is about as interesting and daring as a moody high school student's composition book full of death \"poetry\". To be sure, it will disturb viewers who are hell-bent on being disturbed, but the success will be attributable to themselves, not to the director. To genuinely get under somebody's skin requires sensibility, discipline, technique, and talent, as well as an eye and an ear. The film does contain one evocative image, shown as a still (and also used on the video case), but with no development leading up to or away from it. If the director had had an eye, he would have seen it as a possible starting point for an interesting movie--that is, a movie." ]

[ "The Revolt of the Zombies is not the worst movie I've ever seen, but it is pretty far down on the list. When an expedition is sent to Cambodia to discover the trick to making zombies after World War I, one of the members decides to use the knowledge for his own evil ambitions. And he succeeds, at least at first. A love triangle complicates the story some.<br /><br />This really was a tedious movie, with horrible acting that made it difficult to tell who were zombies and who weren't. The dialog was little better and the plot was unbelievable (not the zombie part of it but parts related to the \"romance\"). And while I am not any student or expert on cinematography, the camera work didn't seem to help the film much either.<br /><br />While I have seen a few movies that are worse, this is unlikely to please anyone. It's bad, and NOT in a so-bad-that-it-is-good kind of way." ]

[ "Besides being boring, the scenes were oppressive and dark. The movie tried to portray some kind of moral, but fell flat with its message. What were the redeeming qualities?? On top of that, I don't think it could make librarians look any more unglamorous than it did." ]

[ "Wow what an episode! After last week seeing Mellisa constantly making cameos about the friendship of Annie and Brandi I almost puked. But that was nothing until seeing Mellisa's tirade after being fired. Seeing her hobble around on her cast spewing out obscenities and screaming for someone to get her purse was absolutely the most hilarious thing ever on reality TV. She continued to scream at people off set to get her clothes \"all of them\" like someone else would wear one of her hideous outfits. Mellisa you are like 40 years old and you still throw temper tantrums? Then Joan starts calling Annie and Brandie every name in the book, and gets up and quits the show! Both Rivers are spoiled brats who were only left on the show this long to keep ratings up. Mellisa crying and refusing to do an exit interview, just proves to America what everyone thought, you are a spoiled baby. WAH WAH I can't get my way! I love how Annie told the cameras she could manipulate Mellisa to think her way, and then did exactly that. Mellisa is by far the smartest contestant and clearly deserves to win the whole game." ]