Sentence
stringlengths 52
10.4k
| class
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
If you're after the real story of early Baroque painter Artemisia Gentileschi, you'll be disappointed- however if you're after a reasonably crafted bodice ripper with an art theme, you've found you're movie.<br /><br />This film is such a foundationally inaccurate depiction of Artemisia Gentileschi's life that it almost made me weep. (Type in Artemisia inaccuracies in Google and check out some of the fact vs. fiction articles.) From a purely technical point of view though, the film was alright: the sets, costumes, and especially the chiaroscuro lighting helped create an immersive early 17th century experience; although the above mentioned GLARING FACTUAL INACCURACIES let it down a bit.<br /><br />I wonder how the director/co-writer Agnès Merlet defended her film at the time? Perhaps she refused to portray Artemisia as a victim, which would've been unfortunate, because lets face it, she was. | negative |
This is the first movie I've seen from Singapore and it's great. If you don't know a lot about Asia, its languages and its culture, then this film may be a bit confusing for the non-informed people. As an Asian-American who's double majoring in two Asian languages (one of them being Mandarin) and has taken some Asian American Studies classes, this film was easier for me to understand, but even without that kind of knowledge, I believe this movie is still accessible to its foreign audiences as long as you keep in mind that it's a coming-of-age type of movie. The film is definitely worth seeing just so that you get the chance to see what kind of issues Singapore's young teenage boys are struggling and having to deal with. This is an awesome coming-of-age movie, but filmed and shown in a more artistic and original way. The actors are outstanding. | positive |
As far as horror flicks go, this one is pretty darn good. While it may not be a classic tale of horror and suspense, it does provide many quality chuckles that make this movie a must see if you're into the horror/comedy genre. | positive |
Whilst I have loved haunted house movies such as Amityville and Poltergeist, this made for TV adaption of Susan Hills book packs a huge punch on the horrors of Hollywood.<br /><br />With a brilliant cast (many of which star in Heartbeat and other TV dramas), great acting, and fantastic setting (which portrays 1920's life convincingly), it has all the right ingredients to entice the viewer into what is a powerful ghost story.<br /><br />Herbert Wise did not need blood, violence, or gore to send chills down the spines of an audience. Using your own imagination, the Woman In Black is a figure of fear and dread, and whose presence is never absent once she first appears.<br /><br />The main character Arthur Kidd, a solicitor, learns about his unseen spectre on his mission to settle the estate. The widow dies and Arthur spends few nights inside her dreary home in which he notices many oddities, which may haunt him for some days. Some of the scenes are very unsettling and claustrophobic, particularly the locked room which opens itself, which turns the generator off and closes Arthur in darkness. The film becomes more harrowing the more you put yourself in Arthurs shoes, and his efforts to shake this ghost off. The writer puts many chilling additions into the story, an example being the tin soldier's re-appearance. One is eager to learn the meaning of it all. The fact we never really learn that much about the widow, leaves more to the imagination and makes it all the more unsettling.<br /><br />The widow for the most part, looks vicious and intimidating. The scene after winding the generator sent the chills down me, a woman who appears out of nowhere on isolated marshy land with a howling wind having been on such properties myself I can appreciate how isolating this is. And the scene in the inn was perhaps the most horrible things I've seen, one I don't wish to watch in a hurry or show to elderly relatives. I have often woken up at night thinking she was behind me in my sleep.<br /><br />The Woman In Black is a great TV movie and a lost gem. I agree to some extent the Internet hype for this film has been totally overblown and can see why people were disappointed after spending the best of £50 on it, but I think the net has defeated hidden gems because it makes films like these over-exposed. I think it's still brilliant and fantastically acted and I consider it the greatest ghost story of the last century. | positive |
The title refers not to a questionable poker hand, but to six comic players. They come in twos: Charles Ruggles and Mary Boland as a couple driving to California for a second honeymoon, George Burns and Gracie Allen as another couple who go along to share expenses, and W.C. Fields and Alison Skipworth as a sheriff and a hotel-owner in a tiny Nevada town. No attempt is made to fashion a coherent narrativeit's a collection of comic bits strung together. All the first couple want to do is spend time together, but Burns and Allen's characters aren't married, so the men bunk together, as do the women. There is a bit of a plot: a bad guy plants $50k in the suitcase Pinky (Ruggles) is taking out of town, but because the expedition is being guided by Gracie, the loot cannot be found. The bad guy shows up in Nevada and Fields accidentally captures him. A bunch of pleasant bits, Ruggles' confused expression, Gracie's batty, breakneck talk, and Fields playing billiards with a corkscrew cue and doing a fluttery, craven, backwards-stepping double-take when he's threatened, and his wonderfully distinctive way of lingering over words. And trying to remember the name "Gracie," he tells Skipworth, "Hmm. Starts with a K... McGonigle." She answers, "Oh no, no, no, no..." "Mmmm. Wangahanky!" "No, no, no, no no. Oh, Gracie." "Yes, that's right." | positive |
I watched this movie with no idea what it was about beforehand. I was intrigued for the first whole hour. It was shaping up to be a great thriller. A very talented cast and good dialogue.Then it all fell apart for me at the sight of the first vampire. I couldn't believe my eyes.A great thriller was flushed down the toilet. The rest of the movie from that point was totally awful.<br /><br />I gave it 4 stars for the brilliant beginning alone. I think that's a little generous, but I was entertained for a while. I'm not a fan of vampire or zombie movies at all.If you are, then you may disagree with my opinion. | negative |
Forget every spy movie you've ever seen - this is what life was like in the USSR, and still is in many places in Russia and the ex-Soviet countries. Vera dreams of life of leisure, as she imagines the West to be; her reality is very different, with a bitter mother, a violent father, and the ever-present alcohol. And her prospects for the future are not much better. She finds a man and they try to patch up a life together, but he is afflicted by the same environment, both socially and physically - the scenery in this movie is brilliant, sitting comfortably in the company of post-apocalyptic movies but obviously done with no special effects; they have just walked in and shot whatever happened to be in front of the camera.<br /><br />Forget your stereotyped, cold Russians of spy movies. This is the Real Deal: people are passionate, vibrant, and present in a way you'll never see in a drama from the West. | positive |
Come on! Get over with the Pakistan bashing guys. Bollywood can not only make brilliant movies- but can seriously affect a generation of viewers.<br /><br />I am a HUGE Bollywood fan- but anti-Pakistan movies just make me wince too much to enjoy screenplay, cinematography, action sequences- everything.<br /><br />I'm really happy to see that viewers on both sides of the border are rejecting propaganda, and there are movies like Main Hoon Na out there that have done brilliantly not only because they deserved to because of the quality of its Bollywood masala- but also because it tries to say: give peace a chance and shows that there are crazies out there on both sides who do not represent the masses. | negative |
Scenarist Frederick Fox's sometimes memorable dialogue and a study cast of old-pros cannot save this lukewarm western about whites pinned down in the desert by a band of bloodthirsty Cheyenne Indians. Other than his occasionally catchy dialogue, you won't find any surprises in Fox's screenplay about this run-in between whites and Indians. The characters in "Dakota Incident" generate only minor interest, certainly not enough to make them stand-out as much as some of Fox's choice dialogue. Unfortunately, good dialogue is Fox's only contribution because this conventional little sagebrusher withers with a lackluster ending that contradicts its previous 80 minutes. The ending is as contrived as they come and lacks credibility. Most of the characters are sympathetic, but some just plain lack common sense.<br /><br />Dale Robertson is appropriately tough and leathery as outlaw John Banner, one of three bank robbers who has to shoot it out with his low-down, no-account partners. Veteran western character actor John Doucette (Rick Largo) fares the best of the badmen, while Skip Homeier, wasted in an inconsequential role as Banner's brother Frank Banner, later dies from an Indian arrow. Doucette tries to gun down Banner at the outset of in the action, but our left-handed gun-toting hero fakes his own death, tracks down Largo down later and slaps leather with him in a town called Christian Flats. Naturally, Largo bites the dust this time, but Banner makes an interesting discovery. One of the passengers on a stagecoach from Christian Flats to Laramie turns out to be none other than the bank teller from whom he stole the money. Not only is John Carter (John Lund) on a quest himself to find Banner, but also he wants to clear his own good name with the bank that has issued wanted posters for his arrest. Evidently, the authorities have mistaken and enlarged Carter's role in the robbery. Carter is prepared to take Banner to Laramie and turn him over to the law, but Banner has other ideas about Laramie. Banner's ideas change when he crosses paths with Amy Clarke (former Twentieth Century Fox beauty Linda Darnell) who wears a bright red dress and still packs quite a bosom. As everybody else here has mentioned in their reviews, Republic Studio's Truecolor brings out the RED in everything, from Darnell's fetching outfit to the blood spilled on the ground. The problem with director Lewis Foster's handling of this run-of-the-mill oater is that everything bogs down after the stagecoach loses a wheel and our heroes hole up in a dry wash to defend themselves against the Cheyenne. The good guys and the Cheyenne eventually run out of ammunition, but "Dakota Incident" never runs out of clichés. Ward Bond has several interesting moments as a politically correct politician who defends the way of the redskin. By the time that this 88 minute dust-raiser concludes, you'll feel like you've been trapped in a gulch and menaced by marauding Cheyenne yourself. | negative |
Girlfight is like your grandmother's cooking: same old recipe you've tried a million times before, yet somehow transformed into something fresh and new. Try and explain the story to people who haven't seen it before: a young women from the wrong side of the tracks attempts to improve her situation by taking up boxing whilst dealing with a bitter, obstructive father and her growing attraction to a male rival. Watch them roll their eyes at the string of clichés, and they're right: it *is* clichéd. Yet I was hypnotized by how well this film works, due to the frequently superb acting and dialogue, and sensitive direction that makes it 'new'. I avoided this at the cinema because it looked like complete crap but don't make the same mistake I did. Definiately worth a look. | positive |
I read the book in 5th grade and now a few years later I saw the movie. There are a few differences: <br /><br />1.Billy was oringinally suppose to eat 15 worms in 15 days, not 10 worms in one day by 7:00pm.<br /><br />2.Billy is suppose to get 30 dollars after he's eaten all the worms. In the movie after Billy eats all the worms, Joe has to go to school with worms in his pants.<br /><br />3. Joe is suppose to fake some of the worms but in the movie, he doesn't at all.<br /><br />Even though there are changes,this movie is still one that kids will enjoy. | positive |
When I saw this movie I was stunned by what a great movie it was. This is the only movie I think I would ever give a 10 star rating. I am sure this movie will always be in my top 5.<br /><br />The acting is superb. Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslett are at their best. I don't think anyone could have a better job than Kate. <br /><br />If it is a rainy day and you can't decide what to rent, well, this is the one. You will love all the acting, special effects, and much much more.<br /><br />If you have not seen this movie go rent or buy it now!!! You won't regret it.<br /><br /> | positive |
To "Bend It Like Beckham" may not mean much to us Americans who know very little about the other football (soccer), but to English sports fans, it is equivalent to "Hit it Like Bonds" or "Dunk it Like Jordan." Any young soccer player dreams of bending a soccer ball around one player and into the net for a goal, much like star player David Beckham does, much like the young Indian girl, Jess (Parminder Nagra), does in the film Bend It Like Beckham. Jess loves to play pick up soccer games, the kind forbidden by her traditionalist mother. However, while playing one day, a passing friend named Jules (Keira Knightley) sees her play and invites her to try out for a traveling, all girls soccer team. After satisfying the coach Joe (Jonathan Rhys-Meyers), she makes the team, something she knows her mother would not approve of. The movie is not about disobeying parents, but rather a girl doing what she wants to do, even if that goes against culture, not just the parents. There is humor thrown throughout the movie, especially when Jules' mother thinks she's a lesbian. The movie does resort to a bit of a cliché moment, as the big soccer game is the same day as Jess' sister's wedding, but it does not come off a cheesy, but rather fun and light. The soccer action looks good, so sports fans will enjoy it, and a story about girls growing up in a boy's world, the world of soccer will inspire some in the audience. Bend It Like Beckham is not just about soccer, but rather a girl trying to find herself and please her parents at the same time, something that proves to be rather difficult. | positive |
I'm not at all picky about horror movies, and I'm willing to watch pretty much any of them. That doesn't mean that I'm willing to re-watch many of them, or that I won't have criticism for them. This movie is creepy, and is very well done. In fact, I think this movie would make an excellent double-bill with Session 9.<br /><br />I should specify, before I get to my comments, that I watched this alone. I started watching it before going to bed, and got about 15 minutes in before I realized that it was too effective, so I saved the rest of it for the morning. Even while watching it in broad daylight, it was still creepy. However, I can't vouch for how effective it would be when watching in a larger group.<br /><br />After the death of their daughter, a couple move to a remote cabin as a means of trying to come to terms with this death. Let me make note of this death - this is one of the rare movies that doesn't shy away from the death of a child. This is much more important, as it both sets the tone, as well as explains much of the acting that permeates the movie.<br /><br />The couple is not doing well. The wife has distanced herself from the relationship, and the husband is doing what he can to try to bring her back. While some of the comments have complained about their acting - one specified that they act more like a father and daughter than husband and wife, and that's legitimate. He's trying to give her more direction. It's a role that men sometimes take on.<br /><br />There are a variety of scares in the film, and most are fairly non-violent, though grotesque in some ways. The story itself feels very straightforward for most of the film, and takes an odd turn near the end. While the turn is not absurd, it is certainly not what you expected from the way things had been progressing.<br /><br />Moody, atmospheric, and very well done for something that appears to have been shot on video. | positive |
This movie is extremely funny and it also contains the best looking girl, this young man has ever seen. Tiffani-Amber Thiessan is a great actress and she has the looks that stop traffic. Tiffani completes this movie, which contains funny scenes put on by Shore. | positive |
I watched this movie the other night, and I have to admit, it was quite possibly the best film of this generation. Turns out I wasn't born until 1988, but I can relate to this motion picture like Cary Grant can relate to having an STD, or Burt Reynolds to being a burnout. Marky Mark did not decline in awesomeness after his brief stint in New Kids on the Block, which I will from here on refer to as "the best band in the world (aka BBW). Like, it's totally a morality tale about fargin' trannies an' poop, so pay attention! I love all y'all, and continue to support Marky Msrk because he needs us now more than ever. He's the only boyee who survived the De-sharted. | positive |
Christopher Smith is an obvious horror fan and this is made clear in his debut horror flick 'Creep'. 'Creep' although a little bit loose on information, proves itself worthy of a true gory classic. A little less glossy than recent US horrors (Amityville Horror remake, House of Wax remake) this dark and gruesome tale follows Kate (Franka Potente) through the labyrinth of underground tunnels and disused railways as she, and a number of others along the way, try and flee a murderous attacker. Though some bad reviews have slated this film, I truly believe that on a tight budget and for a UK production from first time director Smith that 'Creep' truly does live up to its name. It delivers fast-paced gory action more or less from the beginning, sometimes too fast as the story is patchy in some areas, but with a perfect location and the best character-reaction-at-the-end I've seen in a while, 'Creep' delivers some scenes that are definitely the stuff of nightmares. | positive |
This is one of the most overlooked gems Hollywood has ever produced. -- A young WWII British fighter ace whose plane is about to crash, has radio contact with a young American woman who comforts the brave pilot, knowing that within minutes he will be dead. For some reason the man who should certainly be dead walks away from the wreckage and eventually learns that he was meant to report to heaven. When a messanger is sent to ask the pilot to accompany him to heaven, the man refuses and demands to have his "day in court" to argue his case. The man argues that his situation had changed during the final moments of his earthly life, that he had fallen in love and therefor had become a different person, one who deserved a chance to live on. <br /><br />The "heavenly court" is a cinematic delight! The "announcement of the jury of peers" is a definite highlight. The story, as fantastic as it seems, is an engaging one and will keep you spellbound for the nearly 2 hours play time. The final scene is simply beautiful and will require a "Kleenex treatment" for most viewers. This film is in my personal all-time favorite top 10, it has my highest recommendation! | positive |
Opera was filmed in synchronization with a variety of other mass media productions (start point for Opera is the initial appearance of the raven eye):<br /><br />The Wizard of Oz (synch start points are third MGM lion roar, Dorothy's third knock on Tin Man's chest in the orchard, and Dorothy's third heel click; synchs with Gone With The Wind)<br /><br />Prince of Darkness (synch start point is the music score start point)<br /><br />Electric Ladyland (original release version songs and sequence only)<br /><br />Rocka Rolla (original release version songs only)<br /><br />Sad Wings of Destiny (original release ...)<br /><br />Sin After Sin (original release ...)<br /><br />Stained Class (original release ...)<br /><br />Hell Bent For Leather (original release ...)<br /><br />Point of Entry (original release ...)<br /><br />Screaming For Vengeance (original release ...)<br /><br />Defenders of the Faith (original release ...)<br /><br />Turbo (original release ...) | positive |
I wonder what audiences of the day thought when first laying eyes on Walter Jack Palance (Blackie). Certainly he looks like no one else of the time, that skull-like face, flattened nose, and elongated body-- even now he remains an unsettling presence. And what could be more appropriate than his emergence out of those dingy New Orleans slums that appear to fester like the plague Blackie is loosing on the city. I'm just sorry he didn't have more scenes.<br /><br />The movie itself is very skillfully assembled the morgue's black humor, the Widmark- Douglas interplay, the un-touristy locations, the battles among officialsall are woven into a tensely realistic thriller with a menace unlike others of the time. Even Widmark's domestic scenes that put a woman (Bel Geddes) on the marquee manage not to be too disruptive. Director Kazan certainly shows his aptitude for helming a studio (Fox) product, no matter how he may have felt about the commercial aspect.<br /><br />Widmark does a solid low-key job as the public health officer. But my money is on the one- and-only Zero Mostel. Was there ever a sweatier performer who could squeal louder or get pushed around more than the bulky fall guy (e.g. The Enforcer, 1950). That scene with Mostel, where Palance argues with Mostel's shrewish wife (Liswood), is a gem of frantic subservience as Mostel tries to pacify each like some berserk pinball. Too bad he lost so many years to the blacklist. (I wonder if it was the voluble Kazan who named him.)<br /><br />But it's not only the professionals that add color. The locals add both character and authenticity, especially the two Asian guys interviewed by the cops. That whole scene has an improvised air, as if Kazan recognized their potential and fashioned a nifty little scene on the spot. Then too, that colorful hiring hall with all the deck hands is pure inspiration. And what about those flea-bitten coffee shops that have me running to the nearest Denny's.<br /><br />Anyway, the movie is still a well-staged, riveting thriller with an apocalyptic air that oddly foreshadows many of today's mega-hits. | positive |
Patty Chayevsky was years ahead of most successful screenplay and drama writers in tackling sticky subjects. In this 1971 film he followed Sinclair Lewis and A. J. Cronin (in respectively ARROWSMITH and THE CITADEL) in looking critically at the world of medicine, although his target is centered on a special stage: a modern hospital in Manhattan. Chayevsky's point of view is quite direct: are hospital's places for people to go to to get well, or are they money making organizations where people frequently die due to incompetence.<br /><br />As a person who has recently been to a hospital too many times (and will shortly have to return again) I find THE HOSPITAL a very timely and rewarding satire. George C. Scott is Dr. Block, one of the heads of the Manhattan Surgical Center, a major teaching hospital. He has just started his day when he is told that one of the second year residents has died during the night in an apparent mix-up. It seems he was sedated and drugged while sleeping on a bed (he'd been having a tryst with a nurse), and someone tampered with an i.v. that should have contained water with glucose in it (later it turns out he got an overdose of insulin in the i.v.). Soon Scott finds that whenever he turns around some other member of the staff dies of a heart attack or of a botched operation. The key to all this appears to be one patient who came to the hospital ten days before for a regular check-up, and has since lost one kidney, nearly lost his other kidney, and is now in a comatose state (Barnard Hughes). <br /><br />Hughes' daughter (Diana Rigg) wants to bring the comatose dad back to his home on an Apache Indian Reservation in Mexico. Scott is not totally opposed to the idea - after all, hospital errors almost killed Hughes. Also, Scott is suffering a mid-life crisis with the collapse of his marriage and family, and his growing doubts about what his chosen profession really accomplishes. It is not only looking at a case like Hughes'. The hospital is in a constant state of chaos wherein the regular staff (Scott, Stephen Elliot, Nancy Marchand, Stockard Channing) is overworked and overtaxed, and is at war with the business staff (typified by Frances Steenhagen in a really chilly performance). The local community is hostile because of the expansion plans of the hospital - but when they meet to "discuss" matters with Elliot they prove to be as divisive among themselves (militant Black Panthers versus local clergy versus birth control seeking women and pro-abortion clinic types). Rigg (who falls in love with Scott in the course of the film) becomes more and more certain that leaving the insanity of the city makes sense, and Scott also toys with the idea.<br /><br />Scott was at his acting height in this film, what with ANATOMY OF A MURDER, THE HUSTLER, DR. STRANGELOVE, and PATTON under his belt before THE HOSPITAL was made. His angst registered when he and Rigg get to know each other (she prevents him from killing himself due to his despair). He can't tell if anything done in the hospital is worthwhile, and screams out the window the words in the "Summary Line". Though he does later relax a little about how good his teaching has been for doctors studying with him, Scott really never fully is sure about it all - he does, however, fully accept his own sense of responsibility that others just dump. Rigg too was at the height of her international fame (if not her acting abilities) - her stint as Mrs. Peel on THE AVENGERS was a few years old, but she was recognized as a leading stage talent in Britain at the time, as well as one of the sexiest women performers of that period. <br /><br />The supporting actors are good too. Besides the chilling Steenhagen (demanding Medicare/Medicaid/insurance information from comatose patients in the E.R.), there is Hughes as a religious maniac who wins, and Elliot as the fed up head of the hospital. There is also my favorite caricature: Richard Dysart as Dr. Elwell. Elwell is a butcher who has found a real home for himself on the Big Board of the Stock Exchange, having incorporated himself for tax incentives. Anyone recalling his performances as ethical types such as the head of the law firm in L.A.LAW or as the friend and physician to Melvin Douglas in BEING THERE, upon seeing his greedy Dr. Elwell see another facet to this underrated actor's talents. | positive |
Its very tough to portray a Tagore novel along cinematographic lines.And if you forget an obscure production of 1967 then its the first time that chokher bali has been done on a grand scale. Overall the sets looked fantastic with the right touches for making a successful period drama.Prasenjit,so used to doing crass commercial stuff made a good effort.I saw the Bengali version and found that Aishwariya's voice was dubbed,which made her dialog delivery a bit poor. While the director did a good job portraying each of the characters with finesse,yet there was very little in the way of meaningful plot,probably a lack of the story itself.However the development of the characters including those with minor roles seem to be the strongest point.Its tough to make some Tagore stories into films,as only the visual parts seem to get realized. | positive |
The back of the DVD box says Ellen Page co-stars in this movie. She does not even appear until two thirds of the movie is over and then its in minor role. I don't consider it a supporting role either, but rather a "bit" part. Also the plot has many unexplained elements. Some examples are: why does the main character reject her oldest son? Why does her youngest son drive head on into the train? He says its for a "sucker" bet which doesn't explain anything. Obviously the screenwriter doesn't know the definition of a sucker bet. This film is not worthy of the rental price in my opinion. Save your money and view it for free on TV if you think it needs to be seen. | negative |
Seriously, I can't imagine how anyone could find a single flattering thing to say about this movie, much less find it in themselves to write the glowing compliments contained in this comment section. How many methamphetamines was Bogdonovitch on during the filming of this movie? Was he giving a bonus to the actor that spat his lines out with the most speed and least inflection or thought? The dialogue is bad, the plot atrocious, even for a "screwball" comedy, and claims that the movie is an homage to classic film comedy is about the most inane thing I've ever heard. The cinematography is below the quality and innovation of that exhibited by the worst made-for-TV movies, the acting is awful (although I get the feeling that the fault for that lies squarely in the lap of the director), and speaking of which, did I mention the direction is so haphazard and inscrutable that it defies the definition of the word? The whole thing is a terribly unfunny (even in the much-beleaguered world of so-bad-it's-funny clunkers), soul-sucking, waste of two hours of your life that you'll never get back. Be afraid, be very afraid... | negative |
I think part of the reason this movie was made...and is aimed at us gamers who actually play all the Nancy Drew PC games. There's been a lot of movies lately based on video games, and I think this in one of them.<br /><br />So this movie does not follow any book. But it does follow parts of the games. I buy and play every Nancy Drew games as soon as it comes out. And the games are from HerInteractive and are for "girls who aren't afraid of a mouse!" And some of these games actually won Parents' Choice Gold Awards. They are not only fun but you can actually learn a thing or two while playing.<br /><br />I took two of my step children with me to go see it and they loved it! The 10 yr. old had started playing her first Nancy Drew game a day before I took her to see the movie, and she was having so much fun playing the game I thought she would enjoy the movie as well. And I was right...she not only loved this movie but couldn't wait to get home to finish her first game and start another one.<br /><br />My other step daughter is only 7 and she also loved the movie but she is still a little to young too play the games yet, but she enjoys watching her sister play at times just to see what's going on.<br /><br />The games are based for children 10 yrs and older. All the games usually get pretty descent reviews and are classified as adventure games. For more information on the games just check out HerInterative Nancy Drew games. So personally I thought the movie was pretty good and I will buy it when it comes out on DVD. | positive |
That movie was awesome! I can't get over it's songs. I think I'm a little too old for musicals, but that movie deserves some credit here, guys! My especial favorite was Jack Wild. Me, being a British actor lover, you can't restrain me from all those nice-looking fresh faced, young men. I never knew that when Jack was doing that movie he was sixteen! He looks like an eleven- year old. He's short, that's what helps. Try posting up your replies, fellow posters, so I can relate to your experiences. Oh, and about Oliver Reed, that guy, Bill Sikes, I think that drone look is really familiar. Any idea where he's starred in before? If so, post it up, I'd really like to know. | positive |
I love movies, all genres, and from big dollar spectacles to small indie projects. But even making allowance for this piece of junk being 25 years old and its attempt at homage to the 1950's it just suffers in almost aspect, by which we judge films.<br /><br />Throughout the movie, I was reminded of several "student films," I've had a chance to watch, efforts where creativity is required to fill gaps where funds are needed. <br /><br />All in all, chances are there are much better uses for 90 minutes of your life.<br /><br />2/10 | negative |
You know, this is one of those "Emperor's New Clothes" films. It's like, so off the wall and strange that you're SUPPOSED to like it if you're really into film. Well, I think that's a bunch of bologna. Films like this which hide under the cloak of Dada or surrealism make me nuts. Some person has this bad dream, perhaps brought on by eating the aforementioned bologna right before going to bed, remembers most of it (unfortunately) and then puts it on film and we're all supposed to marvel at their creative genius. I have bizarre dreams too, sometimes, that make absolutely no sense but I don't feel the need to put them on film, expose everybody else to them and call it art. Weirdness does not, in of itself, mean something is interesting. True Dada or surrealistic expression has SOME intent and intellectual thought behind it. If other people don't get it, that doesn't make it profound, it just makes it incomprehensible. Bizarreness for bizarreness sake, for me, is not good, let alone great, art. And comparing "Tuvalu" to "Delicatesen" is like comparing "The Godfather I & II" to "The Godfather III"---same genre, NOT in the same league. | negative |
One of my favourite "domestic" movies. I don't know if there is any person in our country who hasn't seen this movie! It's funny, and sad at some moments...I don't know how did people around the world (who had opportunity to watch it) accept this movie, because you have to know some moments in our serbian history and character of Serbs in the first half of the 20th century, to be able to understand it! But as I see here, there is somebody from Canada who watched it...and he liked it.<br /><br />I think that I'll try to put all good quotes from the movie on this site, but first to find out how to do that...<br /><br />Cheers. | positive |
I am a fan of slasher movies, especially of Scream 1-3, but this one is just one killing after another. To my astonishment: Part II is far better and you get the whole story of part one summarized! So don't waste time on this one and move right on to part II, you won't regret it cause Part 2 actually has a PLOT and is quite self-ironical. First Part: 1 out of 10 Second Part: 4 out of 10 | negative |
When I first saw this film, I thought it should have come from the children's section - It's very fun and at times humorous, and is actually quite a good story, but it severely lacks the "romantic chemistry" that actors like Meg Ryan and Tim Robbins are capable of delivering. I must note that Walter Matthau is perfect for the part of Albert Einstein, and his performance is extraordinary, but that's the sole exception. This film appears a bit forced, the directing lacks substance, and oh yeah...the music is ridiculously awful, it didn't put me in a very good mood. But if you are not expecting a smart, well-crafted comedy/romance tale, then this certainly can be entertaining, like I said..it should be in the children's section. Einstein and his buddies are a good relief from Tim Robbins' boring, almost tense quest to steal Meg Ryan's heart. A very conflicting film, but as long as it's not taken seriously this can be an alright movie. | negative |
Back in the 70's, a small-time Texas filmmaker named S.F. Brownrigg directed a handful of surprisingly decent low-budget drive-in horror flicks which seem to have developed a small cult following over the years. Before viewing his first film, Don't Look In The Basement, I wasn't too sure what to expect, but I sure as hell didn't expect it to turn out to be the only Texas horror I thought was better than the Chainsaw Massacre. I don't know, this might actually be my all-time favorite horror movie.<br /><br />We begin in an isolated insane asylum. At first, it seems like a rather laid-back place to get mentally healthy, considering all the patients are allowed to roam around freely and whatnot, as if it were their house (I guess it is). none of them seem all that dangerous, only delusional. The residents include a love-nympho, a 700 year old woman, a man-child, a spaz, a guy who thinks he's in a war, a woman who thinks she has a baby, and a guy who thinks he's a judge. One day, out of nowhere, Judge kills the doctor with an axe, shortly thereafter, the wanna-be baby mama kills the nurse. Ten minutes into the movie, and things are looking really ugly. Perhaps the new nurse will know what to do, then again, perhaps not. Giving away more would do more harm than good. It's best to plunge head first into this one, knowing as little as possible. If you can appreciate honest-to-God, untampered with horror, then you will not be disappointed. <br /><br />If you liked Scream, if you liked Wrong Turn, if you go for that unoriginal, over-produced, over-scored digital Hollywood garbage, then chances are high you just wont see the beauty in this one. Don't Look In The Basement, being a first attempt makes the quality all the more shocking. The atmosphere and the graininess fit into the location and the score like a glove. Unfortunately, good ol' S.F. used up most of his good ideas on his first movie, although, the next entry in his Texas-sized quadrilogy, is somewhat of a masterpiece, that is, if you're into extra sleazy, mean-spirited, Hixploitation like someone I know. If you fall in love with Brownrigg's first two, and absolutely must find out what else he had to offer, check out Don't Open The Door, and The House Where Hell Froze Over. Don't Look in The Basement has everything that successful horror needs, no stars, no budget, no digital effects, just an original story brought to life in an insane asylum, with a dozen cast members, and a somber, subtle score, and of course, the twist. This is real horror for the real horror fan. 10/10 | positive |
Pretty amusing spoof with great attention to detail re: the look of the 1960s spy films and the way the action was staged back then. The fight sequence in the hotel room was a hoot and the casting was perfect with a Peter Lorre lookalike added to the mix of villains. A big plus: Jean Dujardin is hot and the scene in which he is tied up without a shirt was a highlight. Plus his eyebrows deserve some sort of recognition for doing a great job. <br /><br />Funny aside: the people behind me in the theater kept gasping after every plot twist as if they were watching a 'real' spy thriller.<br /><br />Before the movie started, a trailer for "Get Smart" was screened. The preview made the movie look embarrassingly bad with lame attempts to incorporate the jokes and gags from the TV series. Looks like a bomb and quite a contrast to the comparatively sublime jokes and gags of OSS 117, though, of course, OSS had its share of misfires. The overall tone of OSS, however, was not an insult to the audience's intelligence, and the material didn't feel as it had been 'dumbed down.' I did get the distinct impression that if I understood the language, I would have caught more of the jokes, and one in particular (the pistol gag) was mishandled in the interpretation for the subtitles. | positive |
There are people claiming this is another "bad language" ultra violence Mexican movie. They are right, but more than that this film is a call to create awareness of what we have become. The awful truth hurts, or bores when you already have accepted the paradigm of living the third world as the only possible goal. One of the most important things of "Cero y van cuatro" is the open invitation to profound reflexion over our current identity. Is that what we all are? Is that all that we want to be? I am abroad and I realized how spoiled is the Mexican society when the Tlahuac Incident came to light. I still cannot understand viewers witnessing a mass broadcasted murder. I nearly puked when I saw some of the images. It was not Irak or Rwanda, just a tiny village near Mexico City when rampage was carried out with the indulgence of media and government. The recreation of a similar situation in this film shocked me deeply. The other stories were good portraying other situations of corruption, dishonesty, betrayal and violence, but I consider "Tamales de Chivo" the best one.<br /><br />The movie is deeper than some "cabrón" and "pendejo" screams. Those are meaningless compared with the actions of the people. With a few exceptions they are all perfect examples of human rubbish. Just like in real life honesty is becoming more the exception than the rule in our country. Moreover, honesty is only rewarded miraculously. | positive |
You can generally ask two questions concerning 80's low-budget horror films. and this `Demon Wind' in particular. 1. Is it a good film? No.. 2. Is it a fun film?? You bet! Demon Wind is a gruesomely filthy and nauseating tale, filled with cheesy make-up effects and nasty violence. The story is pretty much non-existent and involves a group of young people revealing the horrible secrets of one of the groups' ancestors. Apparently, his grandparents used to live in a devil-worshiping neighborhood, and evil (in the form of demons and fog) still dwells around there. But, I got to hand it to this film.from start to finish, it breathes morbidity! The diabolical undertones, the playful gore and the (relatively) decent acting all together make this film raise high above the mainstream, uninspired 80's slashers for sure. It shows some creativity and guts (literally) where other productions from this decade fall into routine and oblivion more easily. This creators clearly got inspired by the success of `the Evil Dead', and perhaps even Lamberto Bava's `Demons, but what the heck! It's fun and made with lots of enthusiasm. Although.this film does have a pretty high `what the f***'- standard at times. Especially near the end, when flashbacks and laser shows are happily being mixed. And what the hell is the story on those two wannabe magicians? Nonetheless, `Demon Wind' gets my recommendation if your likes aren't too high concerning crap horror! | negative |
Mishima - a life in four chapters is in my opinion the best Paul Schrader film to this day. Mesmorizing cinematography, accompanied with Philip Glass mystical musical score added a completely magical aura to the story of one of the Japan's greatest novelists, whose originality and picturesque narrative are beautifully portrayed in this picture. As any gifted character, Mishima was troubled with severe self conflicts, the main of them being the conflict between the "pen and a sword" as the director puts it in his final chapter, or the struggle between the sensitive poet with homosexual feelings, living in a notoriously masculine society with centuries long warrior traditions, thus widening the gap between the sensitive and the militantly traditional side of Mishima himself.<br /><br />All Schrader's films (and the ones he wrote scripts for) are basically stories of the inside conflict within a man that doesn't belong in an environment he lives in. That also goes for Mishima, who, apart from Japanese military school upbringing is brought up with love for theater and words. His demise consisted of both of these key points in his life, it was about words and theatrical ending in a life long play. Film like this comes along once in a long while, and most will have to wait a lifetime to reach this beauty. 20 out of 10!! | positive |
'Ninteen Eighty-Four' is a film about a futuristic society in which the government controls everything and no one can be trusted. It is a very dark film, and it is one that will not make you feel good about yourself. It is about a romance taking place in this society and the betrayal of the lovers and about human nature being self-centred. The film has some very good ideas and is done well in portraying this society with the dark tones in colours (contrasting with happiness and bright colours in the dreams) and a general feeling of loneliness through objects and people and places. However, despite the film's cleverness at portraying this idea, the film was very slow and did not seem to quite get the idea across. It seemed to spend too much time being clever rather than telling a story. | negative |
In 1967, mine workers find the remnants of an ancient vanished civilization named Abkani that believe there are the worlds of light and darkness. When they opened the gate between these worlds ten thousand years ago, something evil slipped through before the gate was closed. Twenty-two years ago, the Government Paranormal Research Agency Bureau 713 was directed by Professor Lionel Hudgens (Matthew Walker), who performed experiments with orphan children. On the present days, one of these children is the paranormal investigator Edward Carnby (Christian Slater), who has just gotten an Abkani artifact in South America, and is chased by a man with abilities. When an old friend of foster house disappears in the middle of the night, he discloses that demons are coming back to Earth. With the support of the anthropologist Aline Cedrac (Tara Reid) and the leader of the Bureau 713, Cmdr. Richard Burke (Stephen Dorff), and his squad, they battle against the evil creatures.<br /><br />In spite of having a charismatic good cast, leaded by Christian Slater, Tara Reid and Stephen Dorff, "Alone in the Dark" never works and is a complete mess, without development of characters or plot. The reason may be explained by the "brilliant" interview of director Uwe Boll in the Extras of the DVD, where he says that "videogames are the bestsellers of the younger generations that are not driven by books anymore". Further, his target audience would be people aged between twelve and twenty-five years old. Sorry, but I find both assertions disrespectful with the younger generations. I have a daughter and a son, and I know many of their friends and they are not that type of stupid stereotype the director says. Further, IMDb provides excellent statistics to show that Mr. Uwe Boll is absolutely wrong. My vote is three.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Alone in the Dark O Despertar do Mal" ("Alone in the Dark The Awakening of the Evil") | negative |
The original Trancers is not by any means a great movie. It had massive plot holes and very little in the way of internal logic. However, it was entertaining, better done than most low-budget B-movies, and could be surprisingly witty. Unfortunately, Trancers II is none of these.<br /><br />Trancers II suffers from many of the same problems of most flop sequels. The plot is thin enough to see through and the writing is insipid. It seems that the people behind this movie felt that bringing the familiar faces of the first movie back would be enough, and didn't bother with anything else. Not even veteran B-grade actors like Tim Thomerson and Jeffery Combs were able to drag this film out of the muck.<br /><br />A brief plot overview: Jack Deth (Thomerson) is a cop from the future who was sent to 1985 to save the ancestors of members of his government. Trancers II takes place six years after the events of the first Trancers. Jack Deth is married to Lena (Helen Hunt), the woman he met in the first movie, and both live with Hap Ashby, the man Deth was sent into the past to protect. It is discovered that the brother of Whistler (the bad guy from the first movie) has traveled back in time to create an army of Trancers, people turned into mindless killing zombies, to kill Ashby. Complicating Jack's mission is the fact that his first wife, who had died long before Jack traveled to the past, was also sent back to stop Whistler's brother, and now Jack finds himself working with her.<br /><br />I have two real problems with this movie. One is that the method of creating Trancers in this movie is radically different from the methods used in the first movie. What makes it annoying is that, in a rather poor example of Soviet Revisionism, they act like it was always the technique.<br /><br />The other thing that annoys me is that the love triangle between Deth, Lena, and Alice Stilwell (Jack's first wife) is given very little screen time. This bothered me particularly because it was much more interesting than the actual plot of the movie. It felt like it was just something that was thrown in to fill space in the movie. Alice's character in particular seems very unconcerned with the fact that she is reunited with her husband only to find he's re-married, making her either very shallow or very poorly written.<br /><br />The only reason I can think of for watching this movie is if you're interested in watching the entire Trancers series (currently totaling six movies). Otherwise, even if you're a fan of the original Trancers, stay away from this tepid sequel. | negative |
As a true Canadian, I always avoid Canadian movies. However now and then I get trapped into watching one. This one is better than most, which is to say mediocre. It has many of the usual flaws of Canadian films...self-conscious acting...an excess of cinematic gimmicks and, above all, the self-effacing Canadian habit of using Canadian cities as stand-ins for American ones. I mean using the historic metropolis of Montreal as a stand in for Harrisburg Pennsylvania is just short of obscene. I was in a generous mood. I gave it a 4.<br /><br /> | negative |
For long time I haven't seen such a good fantasy movie, magic fights here are even better than in LOTR, even considering that it's a 1987 movie and haven't computer special effects. This movie have good plot, good acting and interesting ideas. Recommend everybody to see it. | positive |
This is short and to the point. The story writing used for Star Trek: Hidden Frontier is surprisingly good. Acting is all over the map, but the main characters over the years seem to have worked at improving their skills. It is hard to believe that this series has been going on for almost 7 years and will be coming to end mid-May 2007.<br /><br />I will not rehash what has already been said about the sets and graphics. Considering this is all-volunteer, for no profit, it is pretty amazing.<br /><br />If this was being ranked as a professional production, I would have to give it a 5 for a good story but terrible sets. However, as a fan-based production I have to give it an excellent rating as with the exception with a few other efforts, this is in a league of its own. For sheer volume, I don't think this has been matched. Congratulations to the cast and crew for an effort that many admire. | positive |
WOW, finally Jim Carrey has returned from the died. This movie had me laughing and crying. It also sends a message that we should all know and learn from. Jeniffer Aniston was great, she will finally have a hit movie under her belt. If you liked liar liar you will love this movie. I give it 9/10. | positive |
Let me get this out of the way before I trash this film: I love Park Chan-Wook's work as a director. While I disagree with the masses saying he's is the best director working in our time, I can't deny that he understands how to use a camera very effectively. I really liked one of his other films, Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance. Also, Min-sik Choi's acting was the only thing that allowed me to take this film seriously . . . for 1/5 of the runtime, that is.<br /><br />Now the bad: The plot is simply the oldest cliché used in cinema/literature. I'll never understand how critics can trash a Hollywood blockbuster for being cliché, then hail movies like Oldboy which are just as unoriginal and clichéd if not even more so. Regardless, Oldboy is flat-out one of the most generic, unoriginal movies ever conceived. *Spoilers* Man is held captive, man seeks revenge, man finds out he had sex with a family member, man's life is over. *End spoilers* Simply put, this plot line has been used in everything from Greek plays to modern melodramatic soap operas and countless movies/books in between. It is so melodramatic and unoriginal when the major reveal happens, I laughed out loud. Does that mean I'm a desensitized freak without emotions as some reviews of this film say about people like me? No. What it means overdone plots make people laugh. The Scary Movie franchise proved that, and Oldboy proved it as well. Why can't people think of something that is truly disturbing instead of just spewing out tried clichés masked with fancy camera-work and classical music? That brings up the issue of blood/gore. Simply put, it isn't there. The director is too timid to even point the camera at the screen when something "gory" happens, as if we're watching a children's movie or something. Maybe we were. Anyway, I've heard Oldboy called the "most brutal movie of all time" and "the most disturbing movie ever" but when I watched it I failed to see ANYTHING even remotely gory or disturbing. All the "gore" is off-screen, and even then the violence level is nothing you haven't seen in PG-13 movies like The Dark Knight or Casino Royale before. Why this even got an R-rating confuses me, much less "the most brutal movie of all time". Seriously, I've seen movies that just make Oldboy look cute on every level when it comes to violence/gore.<br /><br />The other huge glaring, cheesy flaw is the main villain. The majority of his screen time he's showing his bare butt off for the audience in comedic American Pie-style, but I'm supposed to think he's oh-so-evil? When he's wearing clothes, his hair is slicked back like a bad Asian mix of the cheesiest James Bond villain mixed with something out of Austin Powers. He talks like a brain-dead teenager recovering from an acid overdose, and his dialogue is so bad it had me laughing yet again. Seriously, Oldboy had me laughing more than any comedy this year . . .<br /><br />In the end, Oldboy is for those of you who sip fine wine, have no sense of humor, and talk about how boring your lives are at dinner parties. It's for those people who are so stuck up in their own ego they forgot how unoriginal they are, and consequently forgot how unoriginal and boring the "films" (never "movies") they enjoy are.<br /><br />To those people all I can say is this: I like "films" and also like "movies". I like thoughtful dramas that actually say something about the human condition, and I also like pointless action movies that thrill me into a coma. But the thing is, for me to like both "films" and "movies", they have to be original. They have to be something I haven't seen so many times I lost count of the number of times the plot has been used. When something isn't original, it's expendable. If it does exactly what everyone else does, it's forgettable and boring. Before you give Oldboy yet another perfect rating because it "touched" you, maybe you should think about something: wouldn't a movie equally as touching, but at the same time original make you think more? I just wish someone other than me would understand this.<br /><br />Overall: Oldboy is forgettable and cheesy.<br /><br />1/10 | negative |
This movie gets both a 6/10 rating from me, as well as a 9/10. Here is why: As a standard horror movie for the standard horror crowd, where action and gore and scares are taken into consideration, this movie WILL bore you. It's basically a family drama similar to what you'd see on the Lifetime channel, but put in a horror universe. The story and formula are age-old, retreaded hundreds of times. If you're looking for any originality in the plot structure or the minimal conflicts, you'll be disappointed. Take away the zombies and you'll have something just as melodramatic as A Beautiful Mind, tripping on cheese. This is the 6/10.<br /><br />However, the basic synopsis and idea is pretty original and over-the-top. It's literally something you and your friends would joke about when you're half-drunk . . . but that joke actually got a theatrical release. The idea gets a 9/10 from me. The only reason it isn't perfect is because they could have taken it even further, but they didn't.<br /><br />The mix of both is mixed. I thought it was funny, but as with most all comedies, it wasn't THAT funny. I had my mom and little sister watch it with me and the jokes we made about it were funnier than the jokes scripted. There were moments of utter genius, but there were also moments of pure boredom.<br /><br />I sincerely hope that other movies take this kind of over-the-top risk and original ideas. I just can't say it was perfect, or even near it, because of the lack of originality to the plot.<br /><br />A GREAT family movie. A great movie to watch with a bunch of guys (or girls). A great movie to watch with anyone . . . but if you watch it alone, it will be a bit boring. Other people always make this kind of movie funnier and richer.<br /><br />4/10 | negative |
The tragedy of the doomed ship Titanic has inspired many books and movies. The battle between nature and technology always caught man's imagination. The latest film concerning this tragedy in the Atlantic Ocean was written and directed by famous action movie filmmaker James Cameron. The story of "Titanic" involves two fictional characters (Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet) from different backgrounds (one is a hobo-artist, the other is an aristocrat) and how their love triumphs over societal barriers and the tragedy of a sinking ship that they happen to be on.<br /><br />First of all, although using a historical name, this movie had little regard to history. The plot was built around two fictional lovers, French diamond, and treasure hunters. The deaths of over a thousand of people on the greatest luxury ship of its time became a mere background. Many historical facts were simply forgotten. Where was the radio operator that ignored the iceberg warnings? Why was there no mention of the ship that was only 5 miles away from the Titanic but did not come to the rescue because its captain failed to identify the distress signal? Omitting these facts is an insult to the tragedy. And what was the point of flavoring this historical disaster with fictional cheesy romance when the story is already as sad as it is.<br /><br />The overall plot was rather shallow; rich equals greed and corruption, poverty equals compassion and heroism. It is very ironic to spend $200 million to make a movie about how money corrupts. There was absolutely no human side shown in anti-heroes. It seemed like Billy Zane was playing a part of the devil. Casting was also very poor. If DiCaprio was 2 inches shorter than Winslet, you could swear she was his baby-sitter. The length of the movie was unnecessarily stretched to over 3 hours. First hour and the half was wasted on establishing the relationships between the characters that were known to audience long before they went to theater and the dialogue that was used to do so made it even worse. Hearing corny pick up lines such as "I see you" and "This is my side of the ship" generated more pain than the screams of drowning people. Also, jokes were too abundant and rather lame.<br /><br />"Titanic" did involve some moving scenes such as the part when the musicians were playing while the ship was sinking but they were no way near anything original. The best thing about this film were its special effects, and that is the only thing that truly deserved an award.<br /><br />Although this film lacked artistical value in overall sense, the public could not resist a sentimental story starring Romeo (DiCaprio), and so the movie became a success. Now it is safe to say that the industry will be less hesitant to invest large amounts of money in a single motion picture, so it seems that "Titanic" did achieve something after all. | negative |
There is not much to add to what others have already commented, the movie fails hard where it shouldn't, it has no depth in the planning of the heist and the characters are so unbelievable.<br /><br />One thing that got me thinking, was that although the rest of the gang is trying hard to remove the pins from the doors of an armored truck, because there is supposed to be no other way of opening it, the guy inside the truck, with great ease manages to remove the floor of the truck which happens to have a hole in it so he can get out, and then get back in, without being noticed by anyone, because no one else could think that he could get out from there or even better, that they could have gotten into from there.<br /><br />Promising but not quite there. | negative |
Here we go with other slasher movie, Good looking people and Acting from everyone was really good!<br /><br />Few kids playing pranks phones calls and there parents are killed by the killer in front of the kids! 20 Years after they are still friends, They go to huge house, have fun, Drugs and Sex (no nudity) for least half a hour of the movie! Again they start making pranks phone call all over again! and then killer comes back kills them off one by one and killer is in BIG BLACK COAT with axe just like Urban Legend movie,<br /><br />Deaths scene really weird, really odd times too.<br /><br />Nice slasher movie at this part would gave 7/10 but the twist at the end of the movie made the whole movie kinda of pointless<br /><br />The twist killed the movie for me so I going to give it 4/10 | negative |
"Masters of Horror" has proved itself a poor arena for 'message episodes,' and while a definite case can be made for Joe Dante's 'Screwfly Solution' (one of the best episodes of the series, period), most efforts to do so have come across as anvil-heavy and unimpressive (nothing defuses horror more than a soapbox). And 'Pro-Life' simply fuses reactionary viewpoints with ultra-violence; young Angelique (Caitlin Wachs), seen running through the woods, is nearly hit by 2 doctors (Mark Feuerstein and Emmanuelle Vaugier) who just happen to be driving in to work at the local (and isolated) abortion clinic. Angelique's father, Dwayne (Ron Perlman), is a stone-cold, far-right holy roller who will do anything to prevent his daughter from getting an abortion. If for nothing else, 'Pro-Life' accumulated some buzz for its controversial issue, but John Carpenter treats this whole venture with startling indifference--he seems even less interested in making a movie than the script itself (which is admittedly poor); the slow pacing builds no tension, and simply brings the already ambling plot to a crawl. Even when Dwayne and his sons storm the clinic, guns blazing, it is a stunning non-event; later, when a doctor is tortured with a 'male abortion,' the scene comes off as gratuitous and unnecessary--an effort to pad out the underwritten film. The poor performances (Perlman is sadly wasted here) become an outgrowth of the script, and Carpenter's direction feels exhausted, as if 'Pro-Life' is the source of his next hot meal. By the time a spider-creature with a human head and a guy in a latex monster suit are prowling the hallways, you just have to wonder what the minds behind this mess were thinking... | negative |
Well, how to start? I saw The Italian Job for the first time some years ago and visiting a rental shop I couldn't quite remember why I had a bad feeling about it. Now I do.<br /><br />After voting for the ratings for this film I saw the statistics. Apparently this film appeals most to under 18 girls. No wonder. They didn't pay enough to Charlize to flash and I guess some girls magazine has rated Mark Wahlbergs abs "AWESOME".<br /><br />Other than that this film is completely predictable, the actors are mainly forever B-stars and even the good ones are being misused horribly, the film is filled with obvious product placement and imagine this: it even manages to repeat itself without doing a sequel! The first 15 minutes are the best part of the film and it's all downhill from there and once they figured this out they decided to use the finest hour again in the end repeating-to-detail their gold heist. All in all, lots of noise about nothing.<br /><br />I think Charlize Theron is good and Ed Norton could be more as he's been before. Apart from Donald Sutherland's "look, I'm here too" appearing in the beginning I'd say this movie ought to have a "pass if you're above 18" all over it. | negative |
Slick, tidy, and well-made old school version of how a great international thriller should be made. Determined to nail a feared global terrorist who is known as "Carlos the Jackal", Jack Shaw (Donald Sutherland, "Without Limits", "Space Cowboys"), a CIA operative and his Israeli counterpart, Amos (Ben Kingsley, "Gandhi", "Sexy Beast") get a noble Naval officer, Annibal Ramirez (Aidan Quinn, "Music of the Heart"), to become Carlos and use him in a daring plot to get the KGB to kill the real Carlos, because he took an offer from the CIA. Sutherland and Kingsley are both good here, but the movie really belongs to Quinn here, who embodies himself here (in a dual role). Director Christian Duguay and cinematographer David Franco provide another great asset of the film here with Hitchcockian-like suspense and great sights of the world. | positive |
When Ritchie first burst on to movie scene his films were hailed as funny, witty, well directed and original. If one could compare the hype he had generated with his first two attempts and the almost universal loathing his last two outings have created one should consider - has Ritchie been found out? Is he really that talented? Does he really have any genuine original ideas? Or is he simply a pretentious and egotistical director who really wants to be Fincher, Tarantino and Leone all rolled into one colossal and disorganised heap? After watching Revolver one could be excused for thinking were did it all go wrong? What happened to his great sense of humour? Where did he get all these mixed and convoluted ideas from? Revolver tries to be clever, philosophical and succinct, it tries to be an intelligent psychoanalysis, it tries to be an intricate and complicated thriller. Ritchie does make a gargantuan effort to fulfil all these many objectives and invests great chunks of a script into existential musings and numerous plot twists. However, in the end all it serves is to construct a severely disjointed, unstructured and ultimately unfriendly film to the audience. Its plagiarism is so sinful and blatant that although Ritchie does at least attempt to give his own spin he should be punished for even trying to pass it off as his own work. So what the audience gets ultimately is a terrible screenplay intertwined with many pretentious oneliners and clumsy setpieces.<br /><br />Revolver is ultimately an unoriginal and bland movie that has stolen countless themes from masterpieces like Fight Club, Usual Suspects and Pulp Fiction. It aims high, but inevitably shots blanks aplenty.<br /><br />Revolver deserves to be lambasted, it is a truly poor film masquerading as a wannabe masterpiece from a wannabe auteur. However, it falls flat on its farcical face and just fails at everything it wants to be and achieve. | negative |
First off let me say that this movie is nothing spectacular. The cast is like the saved by the bell reunion, the monster is a guy in a bad outfit and like always; the military is useless. It would seem that the more training you have and the bigger your gun, the more likely it is that you will die if you're in a cheesy low budget horror movie. Apparently the people in the movie business have little respect for the navy seals, the marines and ninjas, who get it the worst. The plot is thin, a nutcase cryptozoologist by the name of Dr. Peña traps the Chupacabra. He then smuggles it aboard a cruise ship where two members of the crew let it loose. You can do your taxes and watch this movie and not miss a beat. The most noteworthy part that really makes it all worthwhile revolves around the captains daughter. Toward the end she goes all martial arts on the monster and kicks his butt. Let me get this straight, the monster wipes out the entire navy seals unit, while they are using ARMOR PIERCING ammunition!! OK, its a movie it can happen right? But here comes the captains daughter who can't be older than 19 and kicks the crap out of the chupacabra with front and side kicks. It was hilarious. They should get a medal for coming up with that. | negative |
Standard rise to fame tale that has a few high points. Number one, Lonette McKee as Sister who gives a stunning, star making performance. The fact that she never became a huge sensation after this is beyond me. Sadly, she is a supporting character and we are forced to focus on Irena Carter's bland character, Sparkle, whose rise to fame is easy, boring, and unconvincing. However, whenever the girls go on stage and perform, the movie comes back to life. The original music by Curis Mayfield must be praised. The copy I saw was a very old VHS tape. The picture quality was pretty low, as well as the production values I'm guessing. All in all, its worth a gander. | positive |
I can't believe that I let myself into this movie to accomplish a favor my friends ask me early this April 14, 2007. This movie certainly a pain in your ass in theater and sickly boring, I haven't even felt the gory impact of its "daunting scenes" which I deem to be complete failure to attract its audience. The worst even trampled me, cause my friend failed to come on time at the theater because she was busy assisting her boyfriend in looking for an appropriate lodge to stay in for one night. I wasn't really disappointed with that matter, but this movie is a matter indeed for me, poor plot, useless storyline, naively created and I don't know what to say anymore.<br /><br />The title doesn't suggest anyway the creeps and horror it failed to overture us viewers, maybe the beating of the animals could get more the creeps if they show it in theaters the real situational play. Good luck to anyone who attempts to watch it anyway. | negative |
While essentially a remake of the original Chinese Ghost Story, this third installment has higher production values and greater subtlety in both the acting and the story. Tony Leung is particularly good. CGS III is a gorgeous, moving film. | positive |
IN LOVING MEMORY OF DAVID TOMLINSON (1917-2000)<br /><br />When I watched this movie for the first time I was 4 years old and I got fascinated by this story of witches in the 2nd World War. The scene, which impressed me the most, was the fight between the Nazi soldiers and the medieval army. It was exceptional to see this army without a body walk to fight the astonished singing their march. This movie is fantastic, from the trip to Portobello Road (which became to me the most fantastic place of London) to the journey to Naboomboo. Angela Lansbury and David Tomlinson are really a fantastic couple. She is always great, it seems the good aunt of a family and David with his always astonished face is her great co-protagonist. we'll miss him a lot. | positive |
This movie gives golf a high mark, it was well acted and well directed. Giving you a view of history that some non-sports fans will enjoy. The historic factor alone gives it a high rating, the Brookline golf course was really done well. I am in the northeast and have seen Brookline as a fan, and as someone who loves the game. The movie was well done on all levels. A MUST SEE 5 stars. The acting was superb, Disney has another winner in its bag of Great movies. If for no other reason watch the film to give hope and encouragement to young people whom may not see the hope in their life. I would tell you that the setting, while in the late 1800's and early 1900's is very realistic. The costumes and dialect were right on the mark as well. Above and beyond the call of duty for a golf film. A Must see for fans and non-fans alike. | positive |
Yes, he is! ...No, not because of Pintilie likes to undress his actors and show publicly their privies. Pintilie IS THE naked "emperor" - so to speak...<br /><br />It's big time for someone to state the truth. This impostor is a voyeur, a brat locked in an old man's body. His abundance of nude scenes have no artistic legitimacy whatsoever. It is 100% visual perversion: he gets his kicks by making the actors strip in the buff and look at their willies. And if he does this in front of the audience, he might eve get a hard-on! Did you know that, on the set of "Niki Ardelean", he used to embarrass poor Coca Bloss, by telling her: "Oh, Coca, how I wanna f*** you!"? She is a great lady, very decent and sensitive, and she became unspeakably ashamed - to his petty satisfaction! And, as a worrying alarm signal about the degree of vulgarity and lack of education in Romanian audiences, so many people are still so foolish to declare these visual obscenities "works of art"! Will anyone have ever the decency to expose the truth of it all? | negative |
As spectacle, it's hard to fault Nihon chinbotsu. The Japanese people have benefited from their intimate relationship with the sea, and the concept of the film implies that an entire world and way of life at risk - thanks to its volcanic heritage. From the standpoint of reality it's rather silly to have a drama wherein the entirety of Japan vanishes under the waves; why just Japan? <br /><br />So, presume instead that we have movie reality, fueled by spectacle (and popcorn), and some may find this quite affecting. Compared to adventures with Japanese radioactive monsters, this comes off as more mature and better paced. The emotional element is underplayed, and it really works. (It loses a bit with the overblown theme song at the climax, however.)<br /><br />Is Nihon chinbotsu credible? Probably not, but the thrilling eruptions, and the relaxed pacing make for a more pleasing entertainment that one night expect. | positive |
this movie is about people living at a trailerpark. later in the movie it gets obvious that those people are out-of-work comedians, mainly old males. well, more or less they sit around the whole movie and talk about f***ing. but never there is any action, just those people talking. in the beginning I thought it's some cool perverted redneck-stuff, but after a while it got boring. I mean, how many versions can you think of saying f***ing, d**k & c**t? for sure, this can be funny - for half an hour maybe, not 80 minutes. but it was funny to watch those people trying to act. I'm pretty sure that they often were reading their text on some sheet when playing. but it does not disturb the movie, it's cool like this. because those individuals seem so poor, f***ed-up, crestfallen a***oles that the style totally fits. their wooden, helpless reading of the texts makes quite good atmosphere, I fell in love with the characters a little.<br /><br />***SPOILER AHEAD*** later in the movie the f***ers do some comedy-shows (rhymes about f***ing) with just themselves as audience and imagined applause. then one gets an eviction-advice and so they decide to defend the trailer park and enter their roofs - armed with some weapons. then they got shoot. fin. sounds like action, but it's not. just some trashy home-camera takes. ***SPOILER END***<br /><br />but the movie is totally consequent in it's style and I'm pretty sure it's just what the movie-maker wanted to have. it's the portrait of those f**k-ups in an groggy home-camera style with characters who can not act but seem interesting personalities so they are nice to watch. but the texts about - you know what - the whole time get boring after a while.<br /><br />pretty young director who also seems an interesting person, as he played some teenager-stuff in popular movies/TV-series but now got in more horror-movies which is more his cup of tea I guess. and this, his first direction-effort will be distributed by troma now. don't know anything about a release, I got this one as an "advance screener" from this years cannes which says "for bootlegging purposes only". | negative |
After seeing the 1996 remake, I thought it was the funniest way to see Cruella De Vil getting her punishment for torturing animals just for their skin. The whole movie was quite funny, and on my view, better than the animated one. But there was actually no need for a second one. First of all, if Cruela is returning, don't cure her and make her insane again. Just make her break away from jail and that's a rap. I thought it was not very funny. It's supposed to have only one original puppy returning. I'd expected that it should be Lucky, since he was the most appealing, and besides, having Roger and Anita back too. However, they decided to have a complete recasting and adding not really one hundred, not even one hundred and two, but only THREE puppies, and a parrot that thinks he's a dog (clever). Gerard Depardieu's part was pointless. At the end, Cruella suffers way too much, way too humiliating and way too exaggerated to be true. She gets baked inside a giant cake. That was a desperate attempt of physical humor, trying to imitate the same effect from the first one. That just didn't work. It was too much over the top, and not too funny. I actually felt sorry about Cruella. | negative |
Some things need to be clarified. The picture of Mark Ferris is not the Mark Ferris who starred in this movie. I know that because he was my dad. Please remove that picture. Also, Mark Ferris was the writer, at least one of them. I have been trying to find a copy or a way to see this movie again. It has been years and if someone can point me in the direction of obtaining a copy, that would be great. The movie wasn't all that bad, and trying to compare it to todays world of Star Wars and other high tech sci fi's it futile. If you watch it, just enjoy it for the rediculousness and humor it possesses. Lighten up on being movie snobs and enjoy some less creative and innovated films. | negative |
Emanuele Crialese did a fantastic job with one of those films that linger in the back of your mind for years. It was Respiro (see comments and synopsis here in IMDb).<br /><br />Now, carrying the magnificent young talents he had for the first time on screen then, he takes the audience into a dark void. A literal plunge into dangerous waters. The subject is migration. In this case, from Italy to the New World (the name of the film). A big deal calling it for its American release "The Golden Door".<br /><br />The story of a family that leaves everything and risks the rest -that is, their lives, for a dream.<br /><br />I hate to spoil the show telling the story, so I'll dwell a bit in the work Crialese and all his team did so brilliantly.<br /><br />First of all, choosing to stick to what he knows: direct sound as much as possible. This means, the whole film. The textures, the pain, the nuances of reality are always mingled with the smells, the heat or the cold, the sweat and the blood, life and death, as vibrantly as it is in real life.<br /><br />The squeaks of bent metal and grinding wood, the infamous drone of the wind and the ominous sounds of big engines and ship horns are among the points that make this film so involving.<br /><br />Cinematography is in the hands of a French couturier. The symbolism of light is present from the very first shot (again, almost the very first shot from Respiro) and pervades throughout the film with intimacy and a terrible sense of desperation. The subdued tones and the very gray and grim depictions of people suffering the cramped and filthy boat they sail to hope is mesmerising.<br /><br />Light is used sparsely, almost to discover every character in the dark. The beauty of every shot, and every scene is accentuated by the period costumes and the perfectly selected physical features of the actors.<br /><br />Again, as he usually does, Vincenzo Amato is definitely on his own. He plays the father of two sons (the same actors who were fifteen and twelve and now are nineteen and sixteen) with all the power he always conveys to his very complex characters.<br /><br />Charlotte Gainsbourg is so-so. I guess she's never achieved again the perfection she reached in The Cement Garden and in her very first film: L'Effrontée.<br /><br />Maybe it's just that she seems a bit awkward in her role.<br /><br />The locations and sets are harsh and compelling, almost playing a character on their own.<br /><br />Maybe the most remarkable character is the one played by Filippo Pucillo, the mute younger son. The contrast here with his first role is complete. Then, he played a supercharged kid that was as relentless as anything around him. Now, his character is all expression. And just that: no words at all. His eyes tell the whole story with sublime power.<br /><br />Maybe this is one of those films that will not be very well received in the States. It's absolutely Italian in everything. It's so Italian that most of the time, the language is one of the many dialects that is much older than Italian itself. In the USA this film may be a bit too much for Americans because of the subject. But anyone who remembers the story of their families when they arrived in the States, will see this films with awe.<br /><br />And, again, the minimalism that goes hand in hand with Crialese's ideas is back with a closing scene in the water. Only this time it goes from underwater photography to aerial.<br /><br />All in all, another great and very well told story from this filmmaker that only this year (2006) has collected 6 prizes and was nominated for the Golden Lion. Not a small deed! | positive |
Pretty darn good for a French film. I have not seen any of Catherine Breillat's previous films, and so have no opinions about this compared to her previous work. French cinema usually sticks to the ultimately arty films, and leaves the shoot-em-ups and star vehicles to Hollywood. That is probably a good business strategy, as no other nation's film industry will likely have the resources to compete on those sorts of projects. Films about film-making are often a bore, as it has little resonance for people not in the business. But this one held my interest much more than I thought it would. In spite of the title, (oddly in English) it really isn't much of a comedy, in spite of a few droll moments. I've only seen a few of Anne Parillaud's films, but she shows a generous amount of talent and range, from the action/psychological drama of "La Femme Nikita" to the wry comedy of "Innocent Blood". This film also extends her range as she plays a more or less ordinary woman, yet is still compelling on the screen. Kudos also to Roxane Mesquida, with whom I was unfamiliar. She plays a very inexpressive actress for most of the film, whose talent is drawn out at the end. If you don't HAVE to have car chases and explosions to be entertained, check this one out. | positive |
Origins of the Care Bears & their Cousins. If you saw the original film you'll notice a discrepancy. The Cousins are raised with the Care Bears, rather than meeting them later. However I have no problems with that, preferring to treat the films as separate interpretations. The babies are adorable and it's fun watching them play and grow. My favourite is Swift Heart Rabbit. The villain is a delightfully menacing shapeshifter. I could empathise with the three children since I was never good at sports either. Cree Summer is excellent as Christy. The songs are sweet and memorable. If you have an open heart, love the toys or enjoyed the original, this is not to be missed. 9/10 | positive |
The real star of the last of the Airport films is that big supersonic carrier the French created called The Concorde. If you bear in mind that the whole film is dedicated to showing what that needle nosed plane could do in the sky, than the whole film kind of makes sense.<br /><br />But if you're expecting some serious drama here, than by all means take some of the evasive action the Concorde shows here when some nasty folks try to shoot her down.<br /><br />Susan Blakely plays a television news reporter who also happens to be the mistress of military industrial tycoon Robert Wagner. One of Wagner's aides just happens to bring her information on some of Wagner's dirty business dealings, selling arms to folks not friendly to the USA. When the source, Macon McCalman, is killed in front of her and she's nearly done in by a hit-man whom she escapes from of course she confronts Wagner with the information. And of course he denies it. But right before Blakely boards The Concorde, McCalman's widow Kathleen Maguire hands her the necessary documents. <br /><br />But on the way to Moscow with a stop in Paris, Wagner and his minions try to put the big bird down. But the fearless crew of Alain Delon, David Warner, and George Kennedy is up to all their tricks. It's quite a bag full as you'll see if you want to watch the film.<br /><br />If you're an aviation enthusiast, you absolutely won't care about the plot. It's like the film Le Mans with Steve McQueen which has a legion of auto racing fans who have made it a cult item. Maybe Le Mans is better at that because they just didn't bother with any kind of story.<br /><br />Among the passengers is a pot smoking saxophonist played by Jimmie Walker, a distraught mother accompanying a new heart for her child, played by Cicely Tyson and Martha Raye a woman with a weak bladder who spends the entire trip from Washington to Paris in the loo. She's actually the best one here.<br /><br />Robert Wagner must have been psychic though because I'm sure on the strength of this film he got the part of Doctor Evil's number two in the Austin Powers series.<br /><br />I'm sure all concerned got a big pay day out of this film, but it seems to have killed the Airport saga of movies. | negative |
This adaptation for TV was a wonderful vehicle for Bill Irwin to show his ability to perform physical humor. With the backdrop of a struggle between an actor and his writer/director, Bill uses his clowning antics to showcase a variety of skills including hat tricks, pantomime, dance and various physical devices.<br /><br />Although it takes a big swipe at the entertainment industry and his craft, it is engrossing for people of all walks and ages.<br /><br />This work was televised as a PBS special. Bill performed a piece of it on the Tonight Show, but out of context it did not go over well. | positive |
After completing the lackluster novel, Heart of Darkness, I moved on to watch the movie, which was a complete and absolute disappointment. At the onset, I expected that the movie would help put together the jigsaw puzzle of a book. However, even though I had read the novel, the movie still made no sense at all, so I can't imagine how lost I would be if I had skipped the book altogether. It seemed as though the writers picked out their favorite parts and put them in the movie, and left out anything that may assist the viewers in comprehending the meaningless plot. This dreadful movie made no sense at all, and I would strongly recommend against watching it, as it will do nothing more than leave you completely baffled and bewildered. | negative |
I am quite a fan of novelist/screenwriter Michael Chabon. His novel "Wonder Boys" became a fantastic movie by Curtis Hanson. His masterful novel "The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay" won the Pulitzer Prize a few years back, and he had a hand in the script of "Spider Man 2", arguably the greatest comic book movie of all time.<br /><br />Director Rawson Marshall Thurber has also directed wonderful comedic pieces, such as the gut-busting "Dodgeball" and the genius short film series "Terry Tate: Office Linebacker". And with a cast including Peter Saarsgard, Sienna Miller, Nick Nolte and Mena Suvari, this seems like a no-brainer.<br /><br />It is. Literally.<br /><br />Jon Foster stars as Art Bechstein, the son of a mobster (Nolte) who recently graduated with a degree in Economics. Jon is in a state of arrested development: he works a minimum wage job at Book Barn, has a vapid relationship with his girlfriend/boss, Phlox (Suvari), which amounts to little more than copious amounts of sex, with no plans other than to chip away at a career for which he has zero passion.<br /><br />One night at a party, an ex-roommate introduces Jon to Jane (Miller), a beautiful, smart violinist. Later that night they go out for pie, and she asks Jon a question that begins to shake him from his catatonic state of existence, "I want you to tell me something that you have never told a single soul. If you do, it will make this night indelible." Jon then tells her a reoccurring dream of his in which he wanders about town looking at the faces of strangers passing him by, yet none of them look him in the eye. "I imagine it must be what death feels like," he says.<br /><br />The next day Jane's wild boyfriend Cleveland (Saarsgard) kidnaps Jon from work and takes him out to a hulking abandoned steel mill, and soon Jon, Cleveland and Jane are spending every waking moment together going to punk rock concerts, doing drugs and drinking lots of alcohol. This doesn't sit well with Phlox, who pushes Jon for a more personal relationship, namely letting her meet his new friends and his father. The film then attempts to take us on Jon's journey as he shakes off the shackles imposed on him by his father, Phlox and his dead-end job as he finds freedom and expression through his relationships with Cleveland and Jane.<br /><br />There is a problem having us follow Jon throughout the film: he's completely uninteresting. He has no ambitions, passions or goals. He walks through life like the invisible wraith he described to Jane the night they met. At the outset this isn't a problem. But he never gets any more interesting. He's a completely passive character. He simply follows along the bohemian Cleveland and Jane, but he never once gives us any inkling as to what he cares about or wants to to do with himself.<br /><br />Consequently, the film and its supporting characters have nowhere to go and little to do other than party, have sex and get in arguments. In other words, much ado about nothing. What we have here is the shallow skin of a good movie without anything on the inside. Sweeping cinematography, ponderous voice-over with characters staring off into the distance, lots of sex scenes both straight and gay, big arguments, more angry sex, a chase scene and a tragic death... but it doesn't seem to matter. Ironically, at one point Jane, confused at a number of Jon's aimless actions, asks him, "What's going on, Jon? What is this all about?" Yes, Jon, do tell. We in the audience are dying to know, too.<br /><br />The title "The Mysteries of Pittsburgh" must refer to the characters themselves, because that's what they are. They are all facades, one-dimensional stand-ins for actual people. The film never lets us in. We never know what makes any of them tick. We see them do lots of things, but we don't know why. And the absence of "why" is one of the worst things a movie can have. | negative |
White Fire has so much going for it. With Larry Bird look-alike Robert Ginty leading the charge blazing away with his fabulous hair and super macho mustache, the movie soars above other low-budget actioners. The charisma he has in this makes Tom Selleck look like a putz. With Ginty beating up everyone, the movie only rises in awesomeness when a story of diamond intrigue enters into play. Then add in Fred Williamson, some frontal bush, chainsaw attacks and some awesome incest themes....this flick ends up delivering on all cylinders. If you're looking for some awesome B-Action, this is where it's at. Now, if I can just get my hands on that soundtrack. | positive |
I don't know about the real Cobb but I got the distinct impression that the filmmakers' aim was to try to soften his jagged edges and reputation, not give us a true portrait of the man himself. In the movie, besides a few racist remarks, he's shown to be just another hard-nosed, cantakerous old coot (he's so full of life!) with a heart of gold(more or less). This is also the worst acting I've seen T.L.Jones do(he brings nothing new or subtle to his stereotyped character). He just doesn't flesh out Cobb in a way that pulls me into the movie. Not for one minute did I forget that it was Tommy Lee Jones on the screen pretending to be Ty Cobb. Robert Wuhl didnt impress either. The "comedic" elements in this movie were just distracting and didnt ring true at all. A bloody waste of time, it is | negative |
So, this movie has been hailed, glorified, and carried to incredible heights. But in the end what is it really? Many of the ways in which it has been made to work for a hearing audience on the screen do not work. The fairly academic camera work keeps the signing obfuscated, and scenes that are in ASL are hard to follow as a result even for someone who is relatively fluent. The voice interpretation of Matlin's dialogue, under the excuse that Hurt's character "likes the sound of his voice", turns her more and more into a weird distant object as the film goes on. Matlin does shine in the few scenes where her signing is not partially hidden from view. But nonetheless, most of the movie, when this is a love story, is only showed from a single point of view, that of the man. As Ebert said, "If a story is about the battle of two people over the common ground on which they will communicate, it's not fair to make the whole movie on the terms of only one of them."<br /><br />The idea that an oralist teacher who uses methods that have been imposed in many deaf schools for decades would be presented as "revolutionary" is fairly insulting in itself. His character becomes weakened as a credible teacher as the movie goes on. Drawing comedy from a deaf accent is, quite honestly, rather low. And his attitude towards the male students of his class is pretty symptomatic of how he seems to act with women: as an entitled man. A party scene involving a number of deaf people including a few academics meeting together leaves him seemingly isolated, in a way that's fairly inconsistent with his credentials: I have seen interpreters spontaneously switch to asl between each other even when they weren't aware of a deaf person being in the area, and yet somehow he feels like a fish out of the water in an environment his education should have made him perfectly used to. As a lover, he seems like a typical dogged nice guy, including his tendency to act possessively afterwards. And yet the movie is, indeed, only really seen through him, as everything his lover says is filtered through his voice. <br /><br />The scenes involving the other deaf kids are, in general, wallbangers. The broken symbolism fails, the dance scene, the pool scene, even the initial sleep scene which is supposed to carry some of it - all these scenes that try to hint at the isolation of the deaf main character are broken metaphors, at best: many hearing people I know do dance on the bass beats that deaf people feel (instead of squirming like copulating chihuahuas), and going to take an evening dive for a hearing person is rarely an excuse to make a deep statement on the isolation of deafness (no, seriously, when I go swim, I go swim)...<br /><br />It also fails at carrying the end of the play, instead making it a story of a deaf woman who submits to a strong man. Even though the original play ended with a more equal ground, where both have to accept each other as they are, and where he has to finally recognize her real voice is the movement of her hands, not the vibrations in her throat.<br /><br />And for all the breakthrough that it may have seemed to be, Marlee Matlin remains Hollywood's token deaf woman to this day. | negative |
An excellent movie about two cops loving the same woman. One of the cop (Périer) killed her, but all the evidences seems to incriminate the other (Montand). The unlucky Montand doesnt know who is the other lover that could have killed her, and Périer doesnt know either that Montand had an affair with the girl. Montand must absolutely find the killer...and what a great ending! Highly recommended. | positive |
Intense actors like Bruce Dern, Jason Patrick and Rachel Ward combine to make this modern-day film noir a winner. Of the three, I don't know who was most interesting as all offer good performances and intriguing characters.<br /><br />Patric does the narration in this noir, playing an ex-boxer and mental patient. Wow, that alone makes for an interesting guy! He looks dumb, but he isn't. Ward is the slinky, attractive, cynical, intelligent and compassionate co- conspirator of a kidnapping plan that goes bad. Bruce Dern also is in the mix and Dern never fails to fascinate in about any film.<br /><br />The movie could be considered kind of downer to the average viewer, but I found it fascinating....and I don't like depressing movies normally. What I found was a kind of quirky crime film. Take a look and see if you agree. This is pretty unknown film that shouldn't have that status because it's simply a good story and well-done. | positive |
I enjoyed the film very much, especially the performance of the exceptionally beautiful Gong Li as the concubine.<br /><br />It was a little distracting, however, to have Chinese dialogue PLUS English subtitles PLUS American-accented voice-over, even though the voice over was very well synchronised.<br /><br />Qin shi huiang di's (The First Emperor of Qin's)family name was Zheng, and his given name Yiong so in the English he should have been referred to as "King Zheng" or "Emperor Zheng", and NOT as "King Ying Zheng" as in those days the two family/given names were not used together.<br /><br />The State of Qin is pronounced "Chin" not "shin" - a pity the researchers didn't get this right.<br /><br />I forgave this but was dismayed at the end when the commentary announced that he was buried at "Zai-an" together with his terra cotta warriors. The town Xi'an is pronounced "See-an" , never "Zai-an"- surely the American voice-over speakers could have got that right ! | positive |
Fado is a sad almost bluesy style of Portuguese Gypsy music that is heard repeatedly trough the movie. As explained by one of the main characters (Igor) it also means fate.<br /><br />Indeed it's fate that bring the two main characters Paco and Alex together and triggers the problems that ensue.<br /><br />On the whole I enjoyed it quite a bit. It starts out as an 'on the down and outs' drama/road movie an builds into a suspenseful thriller / road movie.<br /><br />There were two things that I found unrealistic that kept me from giving it a higher rating (I gave it an 8). The first is the major point of why did Alex give the stuff away. She was so desperate for cash that she sold her passport for a paltry sum and then she gives away things worth thousands to a stranger? Her explanation was unconvincing. Also how did they get through the gate, where were the cops? | positive |
This is my first movie review on IMDb. I was forced to register after watching this movie. I cannot in good conscience allow this movie to be unreviewed by me. The people must be warned!<br /><br />First of all, my rating is: 0 (as in "zero")<br /><br />I love Jack Black, Ben Stiller, Rachel Weis, and Christopher Walken, and yet, I hated this movie. There is a plot, but who cares when there's no script. The dialogue is unreal and plain boring, the situations are contrived, the flow of events is slow and somewhat arbitrary, the characters are unsympathetic and uninteresting, and the story, although based on a good premise, is stupid. This movie is a piece of poo.<br /><br />Never mind wasting MONEY on this movie, it's not even worth your TIME spent watching it. Please do not see it... I beg of you! | negative |
Eight Legged Freaks is a modern monster movie, like a remake of any of the old 'Attack of the giant [INSERT ANIMAL HERE]'-movies of the 50s, 60s and 70s. Or rather, it should have been more like a remake of the, instead of what is was. So, how is a monster movie done in the year 2002? Well, from the typical opening with some chemical making the spiders grow to huge proportions, they mix movies like Gremlins, Jurassic Park, Starship Troopers and flavor it with some parody like Scary Movie. Gremlins is probably the best comparison, but Eight Legged Freaks was so full of parodies and stupid jokes that it was sometimes more like Scary Movie. It was way too much, at least if you're looking for a monster movie and not just another parody movie filled with jokes.<br /><br />For a movie like this you don't expect much of the acting, and that is just the way it was. The story though was extremely thin, with just a bunch of loosely connected events to show off some action mixed with all of the jokes, leading up to an easily spotted and corny ending.<br /><br />I rate Eight Legged Freaks a 4/10, and that includes the fact that the special effects where pretty good and that the noises the spiders made where hilarious. | negative |
I really like Star Trek Hidden Frontier it is an excellent fan fiction film series and i cant wait to see more I have only started watching this film series last week and i just cannot get enough of it. I have already recommended it too other people to watch since it is well worth the view. I have already watched each episode many times over and am waiting to see more episodes come out. I rated it a ten but i think it deserves a 12 loll My compliments to the staff of the Star Trek Hidden Frontiers on an excellent job. If u like Star Trek i highly recommend checking out this star trek fan fiction film. The detail associated with this series of films is excellent especially the ships and planets used in it | positive |
This demented left-wing wipe-out trivializes Dante's great work, distorts the genius of the author out of all recognition, inserts hateful ideology, incompetent satire and moronic political commentary in every imaginable place, and itself deserves a place in the Eighth Circle, Tenth Bolgia with the rest of the falsifiers. Sandow Birk has reserved himself a spot next to it.<br /><br />Stocking Hell with Republican political figures, Fox News helicopters and Christian conservatives is a work of literary sacrilege, to say nothing of extreme liberal bias. It is, however, unoriginal, tedious and trite. Nothing in Birk's unworthy and heretical revision is in the least relevant to the original text or is in any way entertaining, humorous or enlightening, despite his smug pretension to the contrary. <br /><br />I could have eaten a reel of video tape and PUKED a better movie. I regret the two hours of my life that I lost watching this insult to the very concept of poetry. Calliope will weep forever. | negative |
This movie is obviously low-budget & filmed in British Columbia,Canada. The obstacles that had to be overcome to make this movie convincing(set in California & late 60's-80's)were well conceived.I believe this is the best & most accurate version of the Zodiac killings that plagued the town of Vallejo & the Bay area from 1968-19? (he was never caught).Edward James Olmos(Det. Dave Toschi) & George Dzundza(Zodiac-at the time believed to be Arthur Leigh Allen, since cleared by DNA & fingerprints)play a game of cat & mouse re-visiting crime scenes together, each one trying to trigger the other into an emotional revelation.Olmos dying from some type of terminal disease & knowing Dzundza did it,still totally obsessed to the point of losing his family & becoming a full blown alcoholic along the way.Dzundza totally oblivious & self absorbed(like all serial killers) to the carnage left in his wake.The only disappointment was the"over the top" ending otherwise pretty accurate.If you tire of the typical Hollywood fluff or have an interest in the Zodiac case,check it out. | positive |
This film is a great rampage of action and comedy, it gets right in to it right from the start, there's no boring build up. The chemistry of the leading roles adds to the excitement and anticipation of the ending, even though my suspicions were not satisfied. The special effects worked brilliantly and were believable! Would have liked a different ending but it still had me reeling in emotions. The story line unfolds well however it is a film you have to watch from start to end carefully to pick up on all the details, to fully understand and get maximum enjoyment.<br /><br /> | positive |
I feel extremely sad for some of the people who have been reviewing this film. It is apparent that their standards are so high that they will never be able to enjoy a film just for enjoyment sake. Or, perhaps, their enjoyment is derived from the act of picking films apart; looking for any reason at all to dislike them?<br /><br />The Long Kiss Goodnight is an action film, in every sense of the word. Sure, there are holes in the plot big enough to drive a semi through, but none of them are enough to stop the flow of the film itself. I have never been a big Geena Davis fan, but I was impressed with how she was able to create two very different characters, Samantha Cain and Charlie Baltimore. In my opinion, it wasn't even necessary to have changed her physical appearance to differentiate between the two...her acting was more than enough to do the trick.<br /><br />More than anything else, though, this film was Craig Bierko's. In another's hands, the character of Timothy could've been just another interchangeable villain. His decision to play him with a more casual approach was just the right counterpoint to all of the action scenes. It isn't often that you find an actor who can express himself so well with just his facial expressions...point in case: the scene in the freezer with Charlie and her daughter. Where most films would've cluttered the moment of "revelation" with unnecessary dialogue, Bierko's eyes told the whole story.<br /><br />The basic plot? Thin, to be truthful. A seemingly average housewife who suffers from amnesia slowly discovers that she had been an assassin. As her memory returns, so do the people who want the assassin dead. Is she really Samantha, the cookie baking housewife, or Charlie, the cold blooded assassin? Or maybe a little bit of both? For me, The Long Kiss Goodnight was an enjoyable journey to find out. | positive |
Ed Harris and Cuba Gooding Jr. where cast perfectly in this film. It's a heart-warming story that reaffirms the belief that we can all make a difference if we just care. I think there was a lot of realism with the characters. The screenwriter didn't incorporate racism in the film in a way that most films do, which I thought created a more realistic story line.<br /><br />Writers tend to inject incidents of racism in an attempt to create realism but usually go overboard. <br /><br />There are so many towns like this one where people of different races live harmoniously. Ed Harris should have been nominated for an Academy Award because he was great as a leader and coach, realistic as a father and showed a warm caring side when helping Radio. | positive |
By today's standards The DI might seem a little hokey. Lee Emery's version is more accurate. I graduated boot camp in Parris Island, SC in 1964. Jim Moore is as close to the real thing as you could put on the screen in 1957. I can't comment on the plot but I thought the ending was unrealistic for MCRD. PVT Owens is like many who found himself in a lot more difficult situation than he bargained for. Like so many he joined the Marine Corps for all the wrong reasons. My Drill Intructors were more like GySgt Hartman than TSgt Jim Moore. A lot more. The DI is more Korean Era and Full Metal Jacket is more Viet Nam Era. Today's movies allow that sort of thing on the screen. I have the DI in my collection. I only recently found it on DVD. | positive |
Wow, where do I begin? After suffering through this wretched $1.00 rental (thanks a LOT, Family Video) I just had to make a few comments. I did not bother to write down the names of the 3 actors in the film, but hopefully you will know who I am talking about.<br /><br />A monster truck terrorizes the countryside and chases two college-aged buddies to their doom. They encounter a hot girl wearing slutty clothes. I mean, this just sounds fantastic in theory. I was laughing hysterically at the DVD box while I walked it up to the girl behind the counter at the video store.<br /><br />Acting: the hot girl, played by Aimee Whatever, is visibly laughing through many scenes where she is supposed to be scared. The other two major actors in the film, the fat prankster and the vanilla straight-guy are both terrible. The fat guy thinks he's Jack Black. He's not. The other actor, our hero, over-emotes and misses all his cues and comes across as some generic character you might see in a made-for-Nickelodeon movie about skateboarding in the early 90's. Look: I don't expect great performances in movies like these, but at least the actors can make an effort to not be annoying. You can be an incompetent actor but still be agreeable (i.e. John Wayne). At least that Aimee gal is attractive.<br /><br />Script: Holy ****, who thought this dialogue was funny? I wouldn't have the nerve to play this out in front of my grade school drama class, much less pitch it as a film script. Unfathomably bad. More on this later.<br /><br />Production: OK, this is the one place where the film definitely succeeds. Production quality is amazingly high. The look of the film is very good. Apparently the only talented person who worked on the movie was the director of photography.<br /><br />OK, here are my biggest gripes: 1) The guy driving the car never drives faster than 25 miles an hour.<br /><br />2) The guy driving the car is well out into the country before he realizes there is a fat man in a mask in his back seat. He is supposedly meticulous about recording gas mileage and keeping his antique car in good condition but he does not notice a 300lb Jack Black impersonator in the back? Come on.<br /><br />4) Characters never change their clothes. There are two hotel scenes. Presumably, showers are available to our characters yet over the 3 days this movie takes place, none of the characters bothers to change their clothes.<br /><br />5) Comedy. Lighthearted, slapstick comedy does not mix with horror. Period. You can't have our characters running away from a monster truck one second and the next second have them verbally jousting one another with some dopey light/comedy music playing. This kind of pacing virtually ruins any tension in the movie. Movies like Evil Dead 2 which mix comedy and horror understand that tension can be loosened yet never completely eliminated with humor. Monster Man doesn't get it.<br /><br />I'm irritated that what could have been a VERY funny horror movie was ruined by a director who thought he was a lot more clever than he really was. Oh well. | negative |
This joins the endless line of corny, predictable 50's sci-fi shlock out there. As usual, it's pretty bad. There isn't much of a plot that I could detect and the over-exaggeration of the leads only adds to the unintentional laughs. The title is misleading also. Catching this on MST3K is probably the only way for it to be viewed, and it's better left that way. | negative |
I've never understood this type of spoof movies. You get some serious/semi-serious movie that everyone knows about and takes the seriousness out of it through immature fart-jokes and such. We've seen it many, many times, and it's never really been funny. It's just an easy way to laugh at something you don't understand, in my opinion. This seems to be one of the more obscure and less liked of the genre, though I honestly don't see anything in this that is much worse than that of Spy Hard or Hot Shots. This movie, as is clearly understood simply from the title, concentrates on making childish fun of Pulp Fiction. That's the main reason I decided to watch it, as I found that film to be overly indulgent of Tarantino's sick mind and powerfully overrated. I had hoped for one or two good jokes, making fun of the overly violent and pointless type of movie that Pulp Fiction was in every aspect, in my (anything but) humble opinion. I was sorely disappointed. The plot is pretty much a rip-off of Tarantino's film, with a few scenes spoofing other, often better, films, in the same childish and humorless fashion. The pacing is poor, and often you'll sit there, being able to guess the outcome of every scene, predicting every joke, often thinking of a better one at the spot, bored out of your mind. The acting is bad. The characters are clichés and stereotypes, and are intentionally paper-thin in order to make fun of the characters they're based on... problem is, it doesn't work. It just makes the movie that much harder to sit through. The humor is juvenile and lame. The only positive thing I can say about this film is that they managed to find some actors that looked like the people they were supposed to look like. The film is an awful waste of the actual real actors involved. Possibly slightly entertaining to fans of the typical spoof movies of the same kind. I recommend this only to people who truly loathed Pulp Fiction, or fans of the Zucker parody films. Everyone else: avoid. 1/10 | negative |
When John Carpenter's masterly version of "The Thing" was released in summer 1982, it was panned by critics and bombed at the box office. The audiences couldn't handle another 'bad' alien, they wanted ET. Their loss in the long run.<br /><br />I would kill to be able to see this great movie on the big screen. This is a movie that was way ahead of it's time; now it has influenced a new generation of filmmakers, showing it's trail on things like "Se7en", "Alien 3", and even "The X Files", which unceremoniously ripped it off page by page. And the structure, which eschews character development in favour of incredible SFX, is commonplace in today's blockbuster flicks.<br /><br />Carpenter shows the same skills he honed in "Halloween", using the camera to create an unsettling and claustrophobic atmosphere. The performances are all fine, and the ending is terrific - still unique today.<br /><br />A paranoid masterpiece. | positive |
After watching a dozen episodes, I decided to give up on this show since it depicts in an unrealistic manner what is mathematical modeling. In the episodes that Charlie would predict the future behavior of individuals using mathematical models, I thought that my profession was being joked about. I am not a mathematician, instead a chemical engineer, but I do work a lot with mathematical models. So I will try to explain to the layman why what is shown is close to "make-believe" of fairy tales.<br /><br />First, choosing the right model to predict a situation is a demanding task. Charlie Eppes is shown as a genius, but even him would have to spend considerable time researching for a suitable model, specifically for trying to guess what someone will do or where he will be in the near future. Individuals are erratic and haphazard, there is no modeling for them. Isaac Asimov even wrote about that in the 1950's. Even if there were a model for specific kind of individual, it would be a probabilistic (stoichastic) one, meaning it has good chance of making a wrong prediction.<br /><br />Second, supposing the right model for someone or a situation is found, the model parameters have to be known. These parameters are the constants of the equations, such as the gravity acceleration (9.8 m/s2), and often are not easy to determine. Again, Charlie Eppes would have to be someone beyond genius to know the right parameters for the model he chooses. And after the model and the parameters are chosen, they would have to be tested. Oddly, they are not, and by miracle, they fit exactly the situation that is being predicted.<br /><br />Third, a very important aspect of modeling is almost always neglected, not only by Numbers, but also by sci-fi movies: the computational effort required for solving these models. Try to make Excel solve a complex model with many equations and variables and one will find doing a Herculean job. Even if Charlie Eppes has the right software to solve his models, he might be stuck with hardware that will be dreadfully slow. And even with the right software/hardware combination, the model solution might well take days to be reached. He solves them immediately! I could use his computer in my research work, I would be very glad.<br /><br />As a drama, it is far from being the best show. The characters are somewhat stereotyped, but not even remotely funny as those in Big Bang Theory are. The crimes are dull and the way Charlie Eppes solves them sometimes make the FBI look pretty incompetent.<br /><br />For some layman, the show might work. For others, the way things are handled makes it difficult to swallow! | negative |
Evocatively directed and slickly photographed psychological mystery thriller with an exceptional lead performance by a sombre Donald Sutherland, and potent support roles from Donald Pleasence and David Hemming. The material decides to keep it all glum, and moves from the investigation period into the back-story of the victim. The seldom, and quite sullen nature of investigation pulled me in, but when it flashback to the victim's side showing her final days weren't as compelling, and became somewhat stodgy and stock-like. While the script is strongly detailed and to a certain degree complex in stringing us along, however the final and surprising revelation should have been more bone-jarring and it's not helped out by its sloppy execution. Howard Blake's music score has an emotional sting to its cues that simply linger, and director Claude Chabrol's capable handling (well for most part) has a strong stylistic and tight manner, which gets the best out of moody locations and flexible cast. The young faces Lisa Langlois and Aude Landry do an incredibly good job as well. | positive |
I watched The Babysitter as part of BCI Eclipse' Drive-in Cult Classics (featuring Crown International Pictures releases) on DVD. I think it is a very good film.<br /><br />This movie packs a lot of story into a very short time. You have hippies, rock music, bikers, lesbians, sexual impropriety, blackmail, and murder, all in one spot! <br /><br />The lead actors do a credible job. And, I found the intricately woven plot to be believable and interesting.<br /><br />However, the supporting cast, primarily the bikers, delivers a stilted performance, particularly when asked to deliver lines with more than just a few words. Perhaps they used real bikers, instead of actors. A couple of the characters, in particular, were exceptionally believable.<br /><br />The musical score is absolutely spot-on, for the times, the tempo, and for moving the story forward. I found the music a real treat. I noticed in the opening credits that the movie featured the music of "The Food," I googled them; but, couldn't find anything...<br /><br />In any case, George E. Carey who wrote, produced and starred in this movie liked the idea so much (of a wayward married man brought to redemption through trials and tribulation; and, a little help - of course) that he wrote, produced and starred in "Weekend with the Babysitter." | positive |
The first two movies of this series excelled for their footage of the natural world and ordinary people stuck in the midst of society. This movie doesn't have any of that natural footage, which I understand is part of the point, but it really makes the entire video component of the film seem like random images stuck together-- ones and zeroes flying around, computer models of human skeletons, and so forth. Occasionally the stock footage is put to good effect (the nationalism/finance segment around 35:00), but usually it makes the video appear to lack any meaningful content, and demands you accept the context of the stock photographers rather than the context of the director. It's no better than the video displayed on a karaoke machine. Three stars added for the Philip Glass soundtrack. | negative |
One of two movies I have actually thought about asking for money to stay until the end. Most movies have at least one thing that is worth staying for, even if it just to laugh at how bad it is. I never found it for this movie. Nothing was good, from the script, to the very bad effects. The worst movie I have ever seen. | negative |
This BBC series is astonishingly good fun. I'd only seen a few minutes before I knew I had to own it and watch it again with all my friends. I wouldn't recommend this to anyone prudish, but almost anyone else is going to enjoy it--from the cinema snob to the entertainment-hungry masses. The lead character is a lesbian, but it's still worth watching if that's not your thing.<br /><br />Rachael Stirling is incredible in a lead role that stretches her into a dazzling assortment of emotions and situations, some of a bizarre nature. No one who saw this series would ever say she can't act. She makes us laugh, cry, get turned on and slap our foreheads in amazement.<br /><br />You can't really compare this story to anything else. It's not a rehash of style or plot. It's entirely it's own beastpart comedy, historical drama, erotica, coming-of-age tale, musical and more.<br /><br />Gotta praise the BBC for making this story. I can't imagine anyone in the (overly prudish and formulaic) U.S. ever doing it. So, stop reading about it and go buy it. | positive |
Great cult flick for MST-3K types: Richard Boone is a mess -- bad hair, arthritis, even his dark glasses aren't right; about as good as a bad dino-flick can get... actually, that charging saber-toothed Styracosaurus was pretty cool -- maybe Spielberg should take a couple of notes from that one. | positive |
This is Jackie Chan's best film, and my personal favourite. After the disappointing U.S made 'The Protector' directed by James Glickenhaus, Jackie took the concept and placed it slap bang into Hong Kong. This is also probably Jackies most violent movie, with the audience cringing at the bone breaking stunts.<br /><br />The action is fast and furious, Jackie and his crew really did put max effort into the fight design. Bones were broken and blood spilt in the process of making this film as you'll see in the credits.<br /><br />The script is a simple cops and robbers affair, nothing special, after all it was written around the action. I must say that the english version has some dodgy dubbing, but it shouldn't put you off too much.<br /><br />So, get the lads round, crack open the beers and enjoy. By the way, the film was nicknamed 'Glass Story' by the stunt crew. Why? I'll let you find out for yourself!! | positive |
If you enjoy films like American Pie, Road Trip & Van Wilder; avoid this cinematic refuse at all costs. It is an unamusing, mean-spirited, insipid waste of resources that should never have been discussed aloud; much less actually recorded and sold to unsuspecting consumers. Easily the worst film I have seen in the past 18 months; mind-numbingly bad for the entire 86 minutes of it's runtime. Had it been much longer, I would not have been able to write this review without using profanity. Consider yourself warned! | negative |
You gotta love the cheesy low budget movies. This one comes complete with bad effects, props and bad acting (really bad). Plus, every time I see Mercedes McNab (the sister) I keep thinking 'Watch out! She's a vamp!"- for those that know Buffy/Angel.<br /><br />A perfect example of what happens when someone with bad taste and wants to waste money making a flick, the little that was spent of course. I don't know if I feel more sorry for the writer of the movie or the producer who didn't make back any money.<br /><br />I'd say it's good for little kids in it's simplicity, but I don't know if I'd want to subject a kid to it...<br /><br />umm...1/10 because that's the lowest it will go. | negative |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.