id
int32 0
25k
| text
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| label
int64 0
3
| Generalization
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
889 |
'Chances Are' a big mistake to see. You could know director Emile Ardolino from 'Dirty Dancing' and 'Sister Act' and should expect something amusing from him. But I guess I have to disillusion you. He made a really, really bad movie.<br /><br />According to the story Christopher McDonald dies to reburn as a baby. The baby grows up Robert Downey Jr, and Jr returns his former home town where she meets his former daughter, Mary Stuart Masterson (complicated, huh?).<br /><br />They fall in love with each other. Then appears Jr former wife, Cybill Shepherd, and Jr falls in love with her too. I guess I don't even have to mention that she loves Ryan O'Neil.<br /><br />In one of his first roles Robert Downey Jr's on his worst. He copies Michael J Fox.<br /><br />After the 'Moonlighting' Shepherd proves that she's not suitable for acting in movies.<br /><br />Anyway, there's one thing this unfunny comedy can be used: as antidote to insomnia.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
680 |
The Twilight Zone has achieved a certain mythology about it--much like Star Trek. That's because there are many devoted lovers of the show that no matter what think every episode was a winner. They are the ones who score each individual show a 10 and cannot objectively evaluate the show. Because of this, a while back I reviewed all the original Star Trek episodes (the good and the bad) because the overall ratings and reviews were just too positive. Now, it's time to do the same for The Twilight Zone.<br /><br />While I have scored many episodes 10, this one gets a 3 simply because it was bad. The writing was in fact embarrassingly bad. Two people from opposing sides in a great war are seen wandering about through the entire episode. After a while, it's apparent that they are the only two people left on Earth--as you learn in the really stupid and totally unconvincing conclusion. Usually the twist at the end makes the episode great--this one killed it!
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
14,553 |
In Holland a gay writer Gerard (Jeroen Krabbe) gives a lecture. He stays overnight with a beautiful woman Christine (Renee Soutendijk) and has sex with her (by imagining she's a boy). He plans to leave the next day, but gets a look at a picture of Christine's hunky boyfriend Herman (Thom Hoffman) and decides to stay to have a try at him. Then things get strange.<br /><br />A big X-rated art house hit in the US in 1983. Why was it X rated? Let's see...there's strangulation, full frontal male and female nudity, castration, mutilation, simulated sex, a scene in a church with a cross that will shock most people, a gay sex scene in a crypt...and it's all a comedy!!!!! Paul Verhoeven made this after "Spetters". "Spetters" was attacked by the critics for it's extreme sexual sequences and denounced as trash. So, Verhoeven filled this film with very obvious symbolism thinking the critics would think it was art and praise it. He was right! Critics loved the film not realizing that Verhoeven was playing a big joke on them. Still, it's a great film. <br /><br />It's beautifully shot by Jan de Bont (now a director himself) and there's so much symbolism and obvious "hidden" layers in the dialogue that you're never bored. All the acting is great--Krabbe plays a thoroughly despicable character but (somehow) has you rooting for him; Soutendijk is just stunning to look at and plays her part to perfection--the little smile she gives when Gerard agrees to stay with her is chilling; Hoffman is extremely handsome with a great body--he deserves credit for doing the church sequence and going at with Krabbe in the crypt.<br /><br />This is not for people easily offended or the weak of heart, but if you like extreme movies that playfully challenge you (like me) this is for you! A 10 all the way.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
2,481 |
This is one of the worse cases of film drivel I have seen in a long while. It is so awful, that I am not sure where to begin, or even if it is worth it. The plot is the real problem, and I feel sorry for 'Sly' as he puts in a decent performance for his part. But that plot ... Oh dear oh dear. I particularly love the way near the end he manages to pop from the foot of a mountain to the top, whilst the helicopter is on the way. A climb of a day or two takes him all of five minutes! I could go on: but it isn't worth it. Apart from the grim opening (which even a five year old would be able to predict the outcome of) the rest is drivel. Sorry folks, but this is about as bad as film making gets.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
8,075 |
I've rarely been as annoyed by a leading performance as I was by Ali McGraw's in this movie. God is she bothersome or what?! She says everything in the same tone and is horrible, so horrible in fact that, by contrast, Ryan O'Neal is brilliant. <br /><br />There is not much of a story. He's rich, she's wooden, they both have to Sacrifice A Lot for Love. His father is Stonewall Jackson, hers is called by his first name, in case you didn't notice the Difference in The Two of Them that They Overcame in the Name of Love. <br /><br />The Oscar nominations for this movie indicate it had to have been a bad year. John Marley is fine as Wooden's father, but a Supporting Nomination? At least Ali didn't win. <br /><br />I still think Katharine Ross should have played Jennifer, but then again, if it were up to me, Katharine Ross would have been in a lot more movies. She's certainly a better actress than McGraw. <br /><br />I didn't even cry when she got sick, never occured to me to even feel sad. <br /><br />It was nice to see Tommy Lee Jones looking like he was about 15, and the score is good. But this one is so old by now it has a beard a mile long, and the sin of that is its not that old, but it feels it.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
1,439 |
Discovery Channel/Animal Planet must be ashamed of themselves. This Fantasy is modeled after the "Walking with Dinosuars" series. Even though this is 100% fantasy it is presented in the same factual and archaeological way. Even mixing the fantasy dragons with T-rexs and the extinction of the dinos. Added to being shown on an educational channel instead of say Sci-Fi it gives an air of factual authenticity to this show.<br /><br />On its own the show is about an 7.5/10 far as entertainment goes. But the way in which it is presented I have to give it a 1/10. Don't get me wrong I have no problem with fantasy but they way they put this out is so wrong. I can really see young kids and slow adults believing that they did find a dragon and that this is real.<br /><br />I also think this weakens the great "Walking with Dinosuars" series because now you have to view that with a mind of how much is fantasy on that mini-series.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
13,031 |
There seems to be only two types of reviews of this film on the net. Those who hate it and curse Ralph Bakshis name and those love it and call it work of genious. I'm inclined to be in the middle. I'am forced to agree with most of the criticisms of this film (e.g.the cruel cutting of the story, badly rotoscoped charecters, over acting etc...) But dispite this I still love this film. The rotoscoping (when done properly)adds an eerie lifelike dimension to the charecters and the final battle scene at the end of the film is fantastic. The surrealistic scenes when the nineriders chase Frodo are stylish and well executed and the musical score... magic. Sadly the bad points outweight film but if you can bring yourself to ignore them it is a great film.<br /><br />(No doubt I'll be lynched by an angry mob of people who hate this film after writing this review, ah well, such is life)
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
8,397 |
In my life I have seen many great and awful movies. I am not an expert in professional reviews, but I have definitely something to say about this one. Firstly, these actors are the worst I have seen... Their acting is so unreal that you even want to throw away the DVD in the first 2 minutes. I think that these actors were not interested in the quality. <br /><br />Another awful thing is about these dialogs - they are so lame. You sometimes feel uncomfortable when you hear them. It seems that your 14 year old son could act better. I feel that this movie had a budget similar to the cost of my 14 year old European car...<br /><br />Please, if my message reaches you - save your time and money.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
2,396 |
I hate this movie! It was NOTHING like the book, and just thinking about it makes me mad. If you watch the movie before reading the book, then yeah, it's a good movie. But King's book was AMAZING and this movie was nothing like it. I mean, the general meaning might be sort of similar but most aspects of the movie are completely different. The ending for example! So in the book it is extremely intense and Danny and Wendy escape seconds before the hotel explodes. but in this horrible movie version jack like takes them through a stupid maze... yeah, there is no maze in the book and there is no reason for it. Another part that made me angry was that jack just kills Mr. Halloran! what the heck, he is basically the hero of the book and they just kill him off like he wasn't important. Overall, it was just bad that the movie was so extremely off.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
11,263 |
Airport '77 starts as a brand new luxury 747 plane is loaded up with valuable paintings & such belonging to rich businessman Philip Stevens (James Stewart) who is flying them & a bunch of VIP's to his estate in preparation of it being opened to the public as a museum, also on board is Stevens daughter Julie (Kathleen Quinlan) & her son. The luxury jetliner takes off as planned but mid-air the plane is hi-jacked by the co-pilot Chambers (Robert Foxworth) & his two accomplice's Banker (Monte Markham) & Wilson (Michael Pataki) who knock the passengers & crew out with sleeping gas, they plan to steal the valuable cargo & land on a disused plane strip on an isolated island but while making his descent Chambers almost hits an oil rig in the Ocean & loses control of the plane sending it crashing into the sea where it sinks to the bottom right bang in the middle of the Bermuda Triangle. With air in short supply, water leaking in & having flown over 200 miles off course the problems mount for the survivor's as they await help with time fast running out...<br /><br />Also known under the slightly different tile Airport 1977 this second sequel to the smash-hit disaster thriller Airport (1970) was directed by Jerry Jameson & while once again like it's predecessors I can't say Airport '77 is any sort of forgotten classic it is entertaining although not necessarily for the right reasons. Out of the three Airport films I have seen so far I actually liked this one the best, just. It has my favourite plot of the three with a nice mid-air hi-jacking & then the crashing (didn't he see the oil rig?) & sinking of the 747 (maybe the makers were trying to cross the original Airport with another popular disaster flick of the period The Poseidon Adventure (1972)) & submerged is where it stays until the end with a stark dilemma facing those trapped inside, either suffocate when the air runs out or drown as the 747 floods or if any of the doors are opened & it's a decent idea that could have made for a great little disaster flick but bad unsympathetic character's, dull dialogue, lethargic set-pieces & a real lack of danger or suspense or tension means this is a missed opportunity. While the rather sluggish plot keeps one entertained for 108 odd minutes not that much happens after the plane sinks & there's not as much urgency as I thought there should have been. Even when the Navy become involved things don't pick up that much with a few shots of huge ships & helicopters flying about but there's just something lacking here. George Kennedy as the jinxed airline worker Joe Patroni is back but only gets a couple of scenes & barely even says anything preferring to just look worried in the background.<br /><br />The home video & theatrical version of Airport '77 run 108 minutes while the US TV versions add an extra hour of footage including a new opening credits sequence, many more scenes with George Kennedy as Patroni, flashbacks to flesh out character's, longer rescue scenes & the discovery or another couple of dead bodies including the navigator. While I would like to see this extra footage I am not sure I could sit through a near three hour cut of Airport '77. As expected the film has dated badly with horrible fashions & interior design choices, I will say no more other than the toy plane model effects aren't great either. Along with the other two Airport sequels this takes pride of place in the Razzie Award's Hall of Shame although I can think of lots of worse films than this so I reckon that's a little harsh. The action scenes are a little dull unfortunately, the pace is slow & not much excitement or tension is generated which is a shame as I reckon this could have been a pretty good film if made properly.<br /><br />The production values are alright if nothing spectacular. The acting isn't great, two time Oscar winner Jack Lemmon has said since it was a mistake to star in this, one time Oscar winner James Stewart looks old & frail, also one time Oscar winner Lee Grant looks drunk while Sir Christopher Lee is given little to do & there are plenty of other familiar faces to look out for too.<br /><br />Airport '77 is the most disaster orientated of the three Airport films so far & I liked the ideas behind it even if they were a bit silly, the production & bland direction doesn't help though & a film about a sunken plane just shouldn't be this boring or lethargic. Followed by The Concorde ... Airport '79 (1979).
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
10,368 |
This film differentiates itself from the run-of-the-mill "wonder of the human body" documentaries by bravely, if bizarrely, opting to elicit disgust in the viewer. In one scene, the camera closes in on a gigantic 50-foot zit as a teenager squeezes pus and fluid out of it. In another, the camera is semisubmerged in a swamp of half digested food and stomach acid as parts of a pasta salad drop in from the esophagus and plop into the goo. In a final tour de force, the camera takes the viewer on a harrowing ride through a forest of...teenage armpit hair. Unfortunately, I'm not making any of this up. See this film if you must, but: bring your vomit bag, and don't have pasta salad beforehand.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
20,133 |
I don't know why I picked this movie to watch, it has a strange title and from the description it just looked like something different. Every once in a while its good to try a film that's slightly different from the mainstream Hollywood hero/thriller flick and this film certainly was different. Right from the beginning this film had me intrigued but I couldn't figure out why until the end if the film when I realized that the movie was great because the characters were so real. I thought the acting was superb and the character development really makes you care about them and hope things turn out well for them in the end. I think that everyone who watches the film could in some way relate to one of the characters and this makes for great viewing and some good laughs at the sheer ordinariness of the actors. <br /><br />At the culmination of the movie you definitely get a sense of well being, and are left with the 'things are going to be OK' type of a feeling. I'm sure this will have wide appeal and should be given a chance.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
12,771 |
I was up late flipping cable channels one night and ran into this movie from about 10 minutes into the start - every time I even thought going to bed, something kept on telling me to keep on watching it even though it was way way way past my bedtime.<br /><br />This movie could have been another easy slam dunk anti-gun film, but instead they chose to examine the aftereffects of the shootings. And even better, the movie kept on with the real life - just when you think they are going to take the easy and obviously contrived way out, a twist comes along and changes the whole outlook of the movie. This film not only doesn't follow the formula, it shows how other events often lead up to and/or affect what happens afterwards.<br /><br />I only wish the filmmakers had explored the issues around anti-depressant drugs more - the kids from Columnbine who did the shootings were on them for years and it was frightening to watch the way Deanna popped them every time the nightmares started. Up until recently they were dispensing the stuff like candy and only now do they even begin to understand what long term effects the drugs have. It was very refreshing to see that the mental illness aspect of the story was given quite a bit of film, having a relative who suffers from a mental illness, I can say that the movie was dead nuts on in every aspect of mental illnesses. Bravo to the director and writer who obviously did their homework on those issues. And for those who think certain things couldn't happen in a hospital (I don't want to tell any particulars), you're dead wrong on that too - I've been there. The script was so real it was amazing.<br /><br />Go BUY this film and show it to your teenage kids before it's too late. Someday they'll thank you for it.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
22,275 |
This is probably the best television show I've ever seen. I first saw it on Comedy Central several years ago. At the time I was unaware that it had been dramatically edited and was shown out of order, and having just watched all three series in order and unedited (thank you internet and your wondrous "series of tubes") I am SO GLAD I rediscovered it! I think Comedy Central sort of picked and chose their way through series one and two to make a "season"......and I tried to get friends and family to watch it, but nobody really seemed to like it (I need new friends). So, on my own, I made the best out of it that I could. Even when I felt like it was waning a bit, I still felt compelled to continue watching. Years after when I discovered Little Britain, I immediately recognized Pauline from LoG as having influenced Marjorie in Fat Fighters. Also, I love the idea of writers who act the entire show....(not new, but done impeccably here). LB has nothing on LoG! (No offense, Matt & David....Love you)! This is indeed a darkly comedic piece of genius. Serial murder, implied cannibalism.....you name it and it's probably found in this wonderful, unique piece of TV art. The location shots from the very first scene themselves are chilling and seem to beckon you to the town of Royston Vasey.....You'll Never Leave! I think my favorite character would have to be Tubbs, but each character as portrayed has it's own "charm". My least favorite was Papa Lazarous, that was until he re-surfaced in series three (clever and wholly unexpected)! It's best to watch several episodes in a row as it drives the continuity and as I said before, becomes so compelling (while repulsing) that you really CAN'T stop watching. This is not for those with weak stomachs, kids, conservatives or Grandma (unless you've got one saucy granny)! I have always loved British TV, particularly comedies, from Monty Python to Benny Hill, Red Dwarf to Keeping Up Appearances, Absolutely Fabulous and the British originals Coupling and The Office (but not their US counterparts....sorry). This is unlike any of those in that it completely redraws the line between what's funny and what's just sick and twisted. Nothing, NOTHING on US TV has ever come close to this level of entertainment. US broadcast TV is so sad and lame, I can barely stand to watch ANY of it. It's kind of sad that even our cable channels don't have the guts to show unedited versions of this gem (your loss, Comedy Central). Thankfully there are shows like this one that come from the "across the pond" that redeem the entire medium every decade or so. Basic cable here in the US has been making tiny steps the last few years in confidently "crossing lines" with more graphic sexual content, drug use and adult language, but they are still years away from just deciding to be Adults about showing real life, adult behavior (instead of just murder obsession and blowing things up, sheesh, it's like the same basic show format for the past 35 years)! Don't even get me started on US sitcoms! Waste of time and lots of wasted money......did you know that "According to Jim" has been on the air for 10 years??? 10 YEARS?? Anyway... Watch this show, get it on DVD, do what you must and then make your friends watch it as well! You've never seen anything like it. There are three specials that I have not watched yet....I'm saving them to spring on my best friend next time he visits. He'll watch them, even if I have to chain him up and paint him with Excrement! Lines and lines and lines and lines! Note that series three departs from one and two....the greater town seems to fall away to concentrate on newer characters, the laugh track is gone (thank bloody hell), the theme is more band and less orchestra and a bit of the story takes place outside of Royston Vasey. Don't be thrown by any of that as by the end, the series has preserved the quiet perversity first demonstrated in series one and two. I think these four guys have created something sort of undefinable. Brilliant, confident and absolutely demented. You will want to re-watch it again and again. It's amazing that in 5 seconds of screen time they can go from cheap sight-gag to horrifying blasphemy then end with a single actors close-up facial expression. If ever I were to meet any of the writer/performers, I'd implore them not to recreate it or try to top it.....I'd just say "Can I help you at all?" (Then they'd probably slap me, so I'd ask them to sign the slap-mark)! 10 out of 10
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
14,210 |
"The Last Wave" is one of those movies that relies heavily on the mind. The title refers to the Aboriginal doomsday theory: there will be one last wave that wipes out everything.<br /><br />David Burton (Richard Chamberlain) is a Sydney lawyer hired to defend some Aborigines accused of murder. Around this time, there has been unusually heavy rainfall in Australia. While defending the Aborigines, David learns the last wave theory, and begins to wonder whether it's just mythology.<br /><br />The movie's last sequence is a metaphor for descending into the depths of one's mind. Peter Weir created a perplexing, but thought-provoking, movie. Aboriginal actor David Gulpilil (whom you may have seen in "Walkabout", "Crocodile Dundee" and "Rabbit-Proof Fence") provides an interesting supporting role as one of the defendants.<br /><br />If you get a chance, watch the "making of" feature on the DVD. Peter Weir explains some of the film's undertones, some of which relate to Richard Chamberlain's background.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
13,257 |
Very good except for the ending which was a huge disappointment.<br /><br />The script was very good as was the acting. The visuals were often very grainy but this in a way added to the film as the snowy features were in good places that helped create a mood towards the film. This affect was ruined by the extremely unbelievable ending. <br /><br />I was going to give this film an 8 out of ten but the ending knocked it down a point to 7 because it seemed to depart radically from the first 75 minutes of the movie and seemed quite forced at the end to make the film makers look clever. <br /><br />This movie though was much better than films with quite a lot larger budgets and seemed to be filmed like a home movie with some extra equipment. Not much in the way of special effects as these go but for suspense it was very good.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
10,697 |
When I was at the movie store the other day, I passed up Blonde and Blonder, but something about it just seemed like it could possibly be a cute movie. Who knows? I mean, I'm sure most people bashed Romy and Michelle before they saw it, Blonde and Blonder might have just been another secret treasure that was passed up. But when I started watching it: Executive Producer Pamela Anderson, wow, I knew I was in for something scary. Not only that, but both of what were considered the pinnacle of hotness: Pam Anderson and Denise Richards, not to offend them, but they were not aging well at all and they're playing roles that I think were more meant for women who are supposed to be in their 20's, not their 40's. The story was just plain bad and obnoxious.<br /><br />Dee and Dawn are your beyond stupid stereotypical blonde's, they really don't have a clue when it comes to what is going on in the world, it's just really sad. But when the girls are somehow mistaken for murder assassins, the cops are on their tale and are actually calling the girls geniuses due to their "ignorance is bliss" attitudes. They are set up to make a "hit" on a guy, and they think they're just going to "show him a good time", but the real assassin is ticked and wants the case and to kill the girls.<br /><br />Denise and Pam just look very awkward on the screen and almost like they read the script the day before. I know that this was supposed to be the stupid comedy, but it was more than stupid, it went onto obnoxious and was just unnecessary. Would I ever recommend this? Not in a million years, the girls are just at this point trying to maintain their status as "sex kittens", it's more a sign of desperation and Blonde and Blonder is a huge blonde BOMBshell.<br /><br />1/10
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
8,476 |
This may be the worst film adaptation of a Broadway musical ever. Even the music has been destroyed. Attenborough knows nothing about theater - almost every shot and moment ring false. I will say, though, that it is almost bad enough to be funny.<br /><br />The hairstyles are remarkably dated. I can not for the life of me understand what is meant (conceptually) by opening the film with an exterior of the theater where "A Chorus Line" is playing. Are we to think that these people are auditioning for "A Chorus Line," which contains the stories about the people who are auditioning? Oh no, the show is collapsing on itself.<br /><br />I saw the original production, and have listened to the album hundreds of times. Why, oh, why, did they do this?
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
22,379 |
Not only do the storylines in "The Sopranos" engage audiences from all over, but I think (for me at least) what brings the viewers back is the acting. (Not even you, Gary, can dispute that claim) James Gandolfini, who plays the lead-man, Tony Soprano, has become (in this viewer's opinion) one of the "Hollywood Elites" as far as acting in a television series goes. I wouldn't go ahead and compare him with Robert DeNiro or Al Pacino, or at least, not just yet. He, however, does do a hell of a job playing the part of Tony Soprano. In the years since 1999, Gandolfini has risen so much so as an actor (mainly thanks to his role in The Sopranos) that today he is considered to be among the best in the business. And it's not just him. "The Sopranos" fields a great supporting cast including that of Lorraine Bracco, Edie Falco, Michael Imperioli, Dominic Chianese, and the late Nancy Marchand who played Tony's dreadful mother. At this point in the show's existence, it's being considered a cult-classic and rightfully so. The first two seasons were extraordinary. Violent and quite gruesome in a pretty frequent manner, but without a doubt, extraordinarily done. The third season was great, but didn't quite live up to the hype of seasons 1 and 2. Season 4, which wrapped up right before new-years, was the weakest season yet (or at least, in my opinion it was). Despite a dry-spell, I still found it (season 4 of "The Sopranos") to be more entertaining than most of its competition and that's saying a lot because lately I've been noticing a trend in good new television shows. Examples of this: Six Feet Under, The Shield, Curb Your Enthusiasm, and OZ (which is not technically a new show but ended with an unforgettable final season this year). To get back to my point though, to consider a show better than all the competition during a particularly bad year, no less, is quite an accomplishment on the part of the writers. "The Sopranos" ranks above and beyond all other television shows in its era and its writers deserve a lot of credit. To close, I'd like to say, "The Sopranos" is the real deal folks. For the average mature viewer (17 and above) who enjoys drama and doesn't mind a mixing of a little violence and profanity, you might want to check out "The Sopranos" if you get the chance. Trust me in that it will be well worth the time.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
19,175 |
This is a comedy based on national stereotypes, no doubt. If you leave away pretending you know or you care what Communism was about and how real Russians or Brits are, if you accept and are not hurt by the conventions, you can have fun with this film. Nicole Kidman is at her best, sexy, moving and funny. Ben Chaplin succeeds to avoid being completely out-shadowed by Nicole, and the rest of the cast does good work as well. The final is moving, and logical - movie logics, of course. Worth watching, if you accept the rules of the game.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
12,717 |
This film, as low budget as it may be, is one of the best psychological thrillers I've ever seen. If you accept that it's low budget from the start, you can appreciate just how good of a story it is, how very well written the script is, and how great the filmmaker was to produce something so wonderful with so little money.<br /><br />All the elements of a great film are here. The visuals, though shot on digital, were gorgeous in places. The bizarre, dreamy feel of the film is captured particularly well in the scene with the talking dog, that scene was just amazing. It's such a trippy piece of work, but not done in a pretentious way, and because of that I have a whole lot of respect for this film. It comes highly recommended to anyone looking for something unique and captivating, and different from much of the repetitive films that are out there.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
7,013 |
This movie was horrible. I watched it three times, and not even the whole thing. It's just impossible to watch, the story line sucks, it's depressing, and utterly disgusting. I don't write spoilers for anything, so if you want to know why it's so disgusting, see it for yourself. The only good thing about this movie was John Savage, his dialogue at the beginning, and some funny parts in the movie. The little kid in this movie is annoying, and the whole situation is bullshit. I saw this movie at movie stores around America, so I assumed it would be a good movie. Jesus Christ, was I wrong!!!! The acting is all horrible, and the nudity itself is lame and nasty. Another thing is, Starr Andreef, the other main character, hasn't been in such bad movies in the past, in fact, she was in some pretty good ones. Same with John Savage. This movie SUCKS!
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
11,301 |
I rented this movie because I was browsing through the horror movie section for those movies that no one's heard of and could be a possible gem. I saw this and, since I'm a fan of violence and gore, I got it. It got the rating of EM which means: Extremely Mature. Thinking that this rare and high rating was totally meant for violence and everything else, I got it. The warning on the box said: Extreme Violence, Extreme Langauge, and Nudity. The "extreme violence" struck my fancy. The movie ended being a pretty tame slasher flick. It had one or two gory scenes but I've seen worse in a PG-13 movie. Of course the amount of gore in a movie isn't all that counts, right? You have plot also. Well, the plot was boring and there nothing really special about it. Don't rent it. I speak the truth. I can't imagine how someone could really enjoy it to the point where they say: "I'm gonna rent that again." It had it's moments where it kept you going but I'm never going to see that film again.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
12,434 |
This was awful. Andie Macdowell is a terrible actress. So wooden she makes a rocking horse look like it could do a better job. But then remember that turn in Four Weddings, equally as excruciating. Another film that portrays England as full of Chocolate box cottages, and village greens. I mean that school, how many schools apart from maybe Hogwarts look like that? The twee police station looked like the set from Heartbeat ( a nauseating British series set in the 60s).This film just couldn't make its mind up what it wanted to be- a comedy or a serious examination of the undercurrents in women's friendships. If it had stuck to the former then the graveyard sex scenes and the highly stupid storming of the wedding might just have worked( i say just). But those scenes just didn't work with the tragedy in the second half. I also find it implausible that Kate would ever speak to Molly again after her terrible behaviour. A final note- what is a decent actress like Staunton doing in this pile of poo? Not to mention Anna Chancellor. Macdowell should stick to advertising wrinkle cream.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
22,124 |
In all truth, this really isn't a "movie" so much as an extended final episode; by this I mean that, had you NOT followed the TV series (Homicide: Life On The Street) I suspect that you would have a hard time following this made-for-tv movie. Having said that, "Homicide: The Movie" is still a great watch. I think it says a lot about a television production that EVERY single cast member would return, many after years of absence, to once again portray their characters and bring closure to an incredible program. The movie brings out that sense of "family", not only amongst the characters, but amongst the actors, as well. It's all very bitter-sweet knowing that this will be the LAST time we will see them all together again under the title of HOMICIDE. Story-wise, I found this film somewhat lacking. Giardello's mayoral candidacy seems particularly contrived, and I felt his shooting could've been dealt with within the parameters of his regular position, as Leiutenant. Also, Det. Bayliss's extreme plot twist, which was left hanging at series end, is finally resolved, but I, for one, NEVER felt that it needed to be; I enjoyed being left with a mystery (let us recall that the very first episode's first case also went unsolved for the entire series run!). As a DEVOTED fan of the TV series I can love this movie, and the fact that it even got made after H:LOTS had been canceled, but I would not recommend it to anyone who hasn't had the slightest exposure to the series. Now, if they'd just release it on DVD...
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
11,008 |
The original "les visiteurs" was original, hilarious, interesting, balanced and near perfect. LV2 must be a candidate for "Worst first sequel to a really good film". In LV2 everyone keeps shouting, when a gag doesn't work first it's repeated another 5 times with some vague hope that it will eventually become funny. LV2 is a horrible parody of LV1, except of course that a parody should be inventive. If you loved LV1 just don't see this film, just see LV1 again!!
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
13,103 |
I wouldn't be surprised if Soderbergh was pressured to avoid making pre- revolution Cuba as graphically corrupt as it was. Merely reciting a few statistics isn't going to make it with the younger crowd. Still, part one, which is almost entirely shot in the jungle, does capture the feel of that place, especially when traversing the mountainous areas of Cuba. I liked Del Toro's interpretation of Che Guevara's personality. And the actor who plays Castro, Bichir, also did a great job, against all odds. It's clear Soderbergh doesn't look down on these people, but it's also clear he's not going to plea their case to 'yanquis' far removed from the recent past. Some of the more important historical aspects contradict what I've read. To my knowledge Castro did not court the Soviet Union until all attempts to gain acceptance from the United States were exhausted. But on other aspects he is right on, especially as to the looting by the expatriates as the island went other rebel control. The country's treasury was left empty.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
2,783 |
I had high hopes for this movie, because I enjoyed the book so much. However, I don't think I would have understood the premise of the movie if I hadn't already read the book. The movie is a noble attempt to show the despair of people trying to break the bonds of overpowering government rule, but the book portrays the suffering much more thoroughly. The corrupt government officials have comfortable, almost luxurious lives, while the common people struggle to obtain the bare necessities for survival. Perhaps most people feel this way toward their leaders and rulers regardless of whether or not they are actually oppressed or repressed. Orwell's dystopia seems as if it could exist in many places in our modern world. It has been several years since I've read the book, but one hears references to Big Brother, the Thought Police, and Newspeak frequently in the media and casual conversation. Probably many people using these terms don't realize where the terms came from. I strongly recommend that you read the book.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
15,243 |
There is a story (possibly apocryphal) about an exchange between Bruce Willis and Terry Gilliam at the start of Twelve Monkeys. Gilliam (allegedly) produced a long list (think about the aircraft one from the Fifth Element) and handed it to Butch Bruce. It was entitled "Things Bruce Willis Does When He Acts". It ended with a simple message saying: "please don't do any of the above in my movie".<br /><br />There is a fact about this movie (definitely true). Gilliam didn't have a hand in the writing.<br /><br />I would contend that these two factors played a huge role in creating the extraordinary (if not commercial) success that is The Twelve Monkeys.<br /><br />Visually, the Twelve Monkeys is all that we have rightly come to expect from a Gilliam film. It is also full of Gilliamesque surrealism and general (but magnificent) strangeness. Gilliam delights in wrong-footing his audience. Although the ending of the Twelve Monkeys will surprise no one who has sat through the first real, Gilliam borrows heavily from Kafka in the clockwork, bureaucratic relentless movement of the characters towards their fate. It is this journey, and the character developments they undergo, which unsettles.<br /><br />I love Gilliam films (Brazil, in particular). But they do all tend to suffer from the same weakness. He seems to have so many ideas, and so much enthusiasm, that his films almost invariably end up as a tangled mess (Brazil, in particular). I still maintain that Brazil is Gilliam's tour de force, but there's no denying that The Twelve Monkey's is a breath of fresh air in the tight-plotting department. Style, substance and form seem to merge in a way not usually seen from the ex-Python.<br /><br />Whatever the truth of the rumour above, Gilliam also manages to get a first rate (and very atypical) performance out of the bald one. Bruce is excellent in this film, as are all the cast, particularly a suitably bonkers - and very scary - Brad Pitt.<br /><br />It's been over a decade since this film was released. When I watched it again, I realised that it hadn't really aged. I had changed, of course. And this made me look at the film with fresh eyes. This seems to me to be a fitting tribute to a film that, partly at least, is about reflections in mirrors, altered perspectives and the absurd one-way journey through time that we all make. A first rate film. 8/10.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
8,226 |
I honestly can't believe what passes for entertainment now. Death (and making fun of death), violence, sexual innuendo, adults threatening children, crudeness, alcohol abuse by minors, drug theft, dysfunctional parents, babysitter from hell, stereotypical jokes about African Americans, police and fat people, and kids sneaking out of the house in the middle of the night - yup, sure sounds like a kids movie to me - NOT!!! Add to that the dark and scary elements - a dead woman possessing and turning into a house and keeping her loving husband a prisoner inside for over 20 years, and also terrorizing an entire neighborhood - how sweet for kids. PARENTS - is this really what you want your kids to be watching - is this what you want to teach them about life?!<br /><br />This movie is too scary for young kids, and i'm afraid that teens today may be living some of this movie scenario - so why rub it in their faces? As for an adult audience - you won't find it scary or amusing - just boring, contrived and predictable. And the characters are just wrong - clueless parents, ignorant police, stupid and annoying friends, nasty and manipulative babysitters, and beer drinking/womanizing boyfriends. What great material for kids - does this really sound like a children's movie to anyone? Even the computer animation and good voice work aren't enough to redeem this terrible flick. Save your money, save your time, and save your children's minds - go rent Ice Age, Monsters Inc., the Incredibles, Shrek, A Bug's Life - ANY of them are way better than this horrid film. Spielberg and Zemeckis - shame on both of you for making such a disaster and then billing it as a children's/family movie!!
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
15,536 |
I thought this had the right blend of character, plot, futuristic stuff and special effects without going over board. It will take a while to get going, but the acting was good and I was intrigued by the angel who is not to hard to look at. I like the attitude too! Certainly not like other attempts at futuristic stories.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
1,757 |
Didn't care for the movie, the book was better. Does anyone know where it was filmed? *** this was my first visit to your site...just found the answer to my question. so now I look like a dummy, but I think I'll still submit my comments. and yes, British Columbia is lovely ***Or why they took it from its South Carolina Coastal setting?(this question stands) The place was essential to the fabric of the book and its change was part of my disappointment with the movie. Oh, I just read where I need to write at least ten lines. Here's my other main issue with the film. Kim Bassinger was too vapid and not at all what I pictured from the book. I know, the book was the book and the movie; well not so good. I found the character in the book much more empathetic. Also the book evoked rustic, almost primitive images of the monastery. While the "castle" in the film was much more visually impressive, it distorted the feel of the story and seemed at odds with the characters.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
3,148 |
When I look back on my college days at Ohio University, there will always be one event in which I will remember with fond memories. Channel 23 is OU's local access channel and until the last few years, pretty much played anything they were sent. This included many DIY movies ranging from a guy microwaving marshmallow Peeps and then scanning pictures of them online, to a version of Macbeth starring 8th graders who had apparently just learned how to make squibs.<br /><br />However, the king, in my opinion, of the channel 23 lineup was Midnight Skater. The first time I watched it was around 2AM. I should have been studying. Or sleeping. Or watching regular TV. But no, all that is for pussies. My roommate and I watched Midnight Skater, and when it was complete, I don't think either of us believed that any of the movie had just happened. But sure enough, it was on a few nights later, and we had to come to grips that this movie did, in fact, exist.<br /><br />I could go on and on about how awful it is, but its the sort of awful that makes life worth living. The plot is disjointed, the acting terrible, the everything soul scarring, but by god, if there are others watching with you, its impossible not to have a good time watching it. Its sort of like the first time you hear "Guts" by Chuck Pahalniuk. You hear it, you're disgusted and shaken, but five minutes later, all you want and desire is to make someone else experience the abject horror you just endured.<br /><br />Long story short, Midnight Skater, for all of its epic flaws, makes for some very late night fun. Plus, I desperately want the Theme to Midnight Skater. Kudos to whoever wrote it and sang it. Sweet God I love that song.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
5,843 |
At the end of "Dragon Heat," all I could think of was why I bothered sitting through the whole thing.<br /><br />The film's premise is interesting and that - as well as Maggie Q - is what attracted me to the film in the first place. But was I ever disappointed. Writer-director Daniel Lee can't hold a candle to the likes of John Woo, Ringo Lam and Corey Yuen.<br /><br />This has to be one of the most annoyingly-directed films I have ever seen. Lee is so wrapped up in his visual style - and I use that phrase incredibly loosely - that he fills the film with completely needless black-and-white stills, freeze frames, slow-motion, fast-motion and other visual nonsense. I suppose he did all that to make up for the lack of a good story or dialogue.<br /><br />The action scenes are nothing special and play out like some hopped-up music video more than anything else. There is little to care about any of the characters - including two supposedly professional snipers who couldn't hit the broad side of a barn from the inside! - who are then laden with some of the cheesiest dialogue I have seen in one of these Hong Kong actioners.<br /><br />The plot is devoid of any twists and turns - from the initial set-up, everything unfolds in predictable fashion - and Lee feels the need to keep reminding us of the characters' back stories in case we didn't get it the first several times. This is awfully amateurish writing and film-making and wastes the talents of Sammo Hung, Michael Biehn and Maggie Q. Though, to be frank, I am hard-pressed to remember Biehn being in any good film that was not directed by James Cameron.<br /><br />If you really are in the mood for a great Hong Kong actioner, you are much better off sticking to some of the staples - John Woo's "The Killer" (1989) and "Hard-Boiled" (1992), Ringo Lam's "City on Fire" (1987) - which Quentin Tarantino stole for "Reservoir Dogs" (1992) - or his "Point Blank" (1967) remake, "Full Contact" (1992). Or, even check out Yuen's "So Close" (2002), a supremely entertaining, yet preposterous, popcorn flick. And there's always the terrific French police actioner, "The Nest" (2002).<br /><br />True, most, if not all, are a bit over-the-top, but they were films that remain exciting, thrilling and even suspenseful. They have characters we care about and mind-blowing action sequences.<br /><br />"Dragon Heat," on the other hand, is just terribly mediocre. The trouble is that Lee has not made a bad action film, he has made a dull one.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
24,466 |
i really in enjoyed watching this movie. like most of the people that watched it. i wasn't sure that i was getting. Whoopi Goldberg is a very funny comedian and she has done a lot of funny movies; i.e. sister act.<br /><br />however this was not really comedy. it is a drama with comedic moments. so if your looking for a laugh riot then keep looking.<br /><br />this movie is about a black family moving up from a nice neighborhood in the city to an upper middle class neighborhood. i would say more but it think it would spoil the movie. this movie does not just deal with race relations between whites and blacks, but also about relations with in the black community. i do think that it is worth a chance. if your not really interested in see another movie about race relations then this movie isn't for you
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
4,423 |
Scary Movie 3 is such a stinkfest its hard to put it in words. It makes movies like Malibu's Most Wanted look like Oscar material, lets just say that.<br /><br />The original Scary Movie was great fun, one of the better 90s spoof movies, coming from a great team who previously rocked our world with Dont Be A Menace to South Central Whilst Drinking Your Juice in the Hood. But what the hell happened?! After the tragedy that was Scary Movie 2, i thought the cast and crew change would help matters, but its even worse.<br /><br />Within 20mins i'd smiled twice. Not one laugh, the jokes were recycled and originality was obviously no factor. The fact that at this point in writing, the majority of people on this site have voted it 10/10 has made me feel physically ill. When there's great flicks like School of Rock out, which actually have jokes that are *gasp* funny, anyone wasting their money on tripe like this needs their head examined.<br /><br />no stars/****
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
16,424 |
I want to warn you that there is a very bittersweet quality to this comment. Also, this comment will be much more meaningful to you after you have seen the movie.<br /><br />Although it is tragically sad to say, that movie bears a resemblance to my life that is so striking that it is truly scary. The rest of you will never know how accurately that movie depicts how persons who have been in situations like that act and react in their later lives.<br /><br />This could not have been a work of fiction; it had to be based on personal experience.<br /><br />My testament to the how good the movie was is shown by the fact that, although it was one of the best movies I've ever seen, watching my life portrayed on the silver screen was such a searingly painful experience that I will never be able to see it again.<br /><br />But I endorse it heartily to all others as a chance to peer into the soul of another human being to the extent that you probably never experienced before or will ever again. I know that for a fact, because that's my soul you will be observing.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
21,611 |
I have seen all the films directed by Robert Redford and appreciated his love of the American people and the land. In A River Runs Through It, Redford displays the lyric romanticism and visual splendor of the high Rocky Mountains of Montana as if he were a 19th century landscape painter of the ilk of Thomas Moran or Albert Bierstadt. This film makes love to the visual and the word with text by author Norman Maclean, and stunning camera work by Phillippe Rousselot (Serpent's Kiss, Reigne Margot).<br /><br />Redford's cast is perfect. Tom Skerritt is the Rev. MacLean, a man whose methods of education include fly fishing as well as the Bible, Brenda Blythen, the mother, and his sons, Craig Schaffer and Brad Pitt create a family whose interactions reflect the same problems all encounter with growing teenage sons, and later, complex young men. Both Schaffer and Pitt are totally believable as the brothers whose love of fly fishing and each other will tie them together forever. It is the relationships between men, father and sons, brothers, and their women to the outside world that grounds A River Runs Through It to a vein of storytelling that is missing in so many of Hollywood films produced in recent years.<br /><br />What makes these relationships special however, is the attention Redford gives to the language as spoken in dialogue. This is a literate script, beautiful to hear and unforgettable when coupled with the stunning Montana rivers and mountains. The words and setting are equal to performances by a cast that rises to their material. While the idea of fly fishing may seem an odd device to center a story, it is not so implausible in Redford's directorial hands. Given the material, Redford's ode to a simpler time and life is worth revisiting again and again.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
4,473 |
... You can't exactly shove her out of the way, because she's old; and if you were being charitable you might say that the ponderous gait she ambles along with isn't really her fault. Nevertheless, in these circumstances it's often difficult not to become irritated when you find yourself dragging your heels in her wake. So it is with "The Pallbearer", an attempt to do something 'different' with a romantic comedy that in this way is chiefly hamstrung because the venue is all wrong; sort of like showing off your 'breakdancing' skills at a grandparent's funeral.<br /><br />To further extend the metaphor (perhaps unwisely!); like the old lady, one starts to feel with the set-up of the film that its demise cannot be far away. Sure enough, this particular 'death' is agonizingly protracted, slowly chipping away at our reserves of empathy in tiny little increments, as depressingly we come to the realisation that the proceedings are only headed in one direction: Downhill. Its laboured attempts at 'humour' can be seen coming a mile off - again, not unlike the grim inevitability of death!<br /><br />Returning once again to the image of 'dragging heels', the main character, Tom, is shown to ceaselessly repeat this action throughout his life. If there are indeed degrees of 'pathetic', then this sap is possibly a good few notches ahead of Schwimmer's other - more famous - role. To find oneself in the awkward position of having to align audience sympathies with a character even MORE 'clueless' than Ross is certainly a tough ask even for as 'able' a comic performer as Schwimmer, but I guess he can find fault with himself for signing on to some seriously 'echoing' situations in the first place.<br /><br />How will he ever escape his most famous portrayal if he's picking scripts where the characters could almost be 'interchangeable', even if the situations aren't? A man with a longstanding high-school crush on someone he hasn't seen for years. Sound familiar... ? Paltrow is nothing else if not bland in her 'Rachel' role, but all of this going over old ground would perhaps be forgivable if the noticeable DIFFERENCES present weren't so incongruous as well. Unfortunately, the romantic element is so well-worn it's threadbare, and the 'backdrop' is so inappropriate that it seems the best way to describe the resultant film is as something of a 'stiff'... ! 2/10.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
21,854 |
The movie was very moving. It was tender, and funny at the same time. The scenery was absolutely beautiful! Peter Faulk and Paul Reiser gave award winning performances. Olympia Dukakis was great. I understand due to the story line her part had to be brief, but I did wish I could have seen more of her-she is a true pro.You will be able to recall experiences from your own life , hopefully in a positive way after seeing this movie. We were fortunate to see Paul Reiser at a Q and A after the viewing. He is a wonderful man, clever, eloquent and a "real Person". It was truly an enjoyable night out!This is a must see movie. You will be so grateful you went.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
8,186 |
I, too, was fooled by the packaging. I, too, fell for the gory packaging and the DVD casing that claims "grieved fans as every copy was pulled from shelves". Though it was inexpensive ($6.99), it wasn't really all that worth it - no scares, and very limited gore. The ending was very cheesy and didn't deliver the punch it should have. I really don't even know how it became a "Video Nasty" with how very tame it is. The story drags, the characters are obvious amateur actors...it doesn't live up to the promise. The DVD bonus feature (the "interview")is very strange as the director appears very incoherent and not all there. The lead actress talks like she's appearing in a Shakespearean production. It's a great laugh.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
3,162 |
I saw this film at its premier at Sundance 09.<br /><br />Since American Beauty is a movie that had something to say, I had hopes for Towelhead. Unfortunately, it was a disappointment. In fact, of countless movies I've seen in almost a dozen Sundance festivals, Towelhead is the only Sundance movie I've ever wanted to walk out early from.<br /><br />The worst problem with Towelhead is that it so obviously originates with a collection of "provocative" concepts concerning cultural stereotypes, rather than with an organic human drama. The screenplay derives from the novel of the same name by Alicia Erian. The famous Edith Wharton quote comes to mind: I have never known a novel that was good enough to be good in spite of its being adapted to the author's political views. That observation is especially devastating for Towelhead because its political views are so stale and simplistic. If there ever was a time when Towelhead's white male villains, condescending portrayals of blacks, ironic treatments of foreign cultures, etc., were fresh, it's long past.<br /><br />For a more detailed review, please look up any of the many professional reviews available online. Almost all rate this movie poorly and expose the shallow and manipulative tissue it is based on.<br /><br />On the other hand, the amateur reviewers seem more easily bamboozled. As you read through the reviews in this and similar sites, you'll frequently come across superlatives: "stunning," "breathtaking," "profound," "shocking," ... It embarrasses me to read them, but it does not surprise me. Indeed, I've encountered many people who seem to regard any book or movie dealing with racial, cultural, gender, or sexual issues as deeply moving, thought provoking, full of profound insight. If you are such a person, by all means, rent Towelhead and be moved by it. On the other hand, if you set your standards higher, you can safely pass on this one.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
7,705 |
This movie masquerades as a social commentary, when in fact it is every bit as ridiculous as the very racism it condemns. The premise of this movie: African-American = Strong... any other race = weak. The worst part is when Rapaport pulls a gun on Omar Epps and a Jewish guy. The Jewish guy, in stereotypical fashion, crumbles in fear and starts pleading for his life... but the big, strong, defiant Omar Epps stands strong with no fear. We also have the condemnation of every fraternity member as being a arrogant preppie drunk or rapist. The raped white girl, of course, begins considering lesbianism since she's just a weak white girl after all. When the nerdy white guy is rejected by the fraternity members he of course must fall in with the skinheads, who are incredible cowards; especially the big muscular guy who is beaten down quickly by the strong black men. Wait... BUSTA RHYMES BEAT UP A GUY TWICE HIS SIZE??? Yeah, right.<br /><br />Of course the black men NEVER reject their own people and Omar Epps moves in with them easily. The scenes where Ice Cube threatens his white roommates and keeps them in line are just stupid -- of course he is the dominating one while his weak white roommates sit in fear of him and eventually move out. This movie was just terrible and the ending made me actually laugh out loud. The overly long slow-motion between Epps and Banks gets hilarious with the faces they make -- it's like watching my nephew and cousins making faces at each other (and they're all under 5). Do yourself a favor and skip this crapfest.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
15,594 |
My 2 year old likes the Doodlebops show, it seems to keep his attention for awhile. The characters are interesting, vibrant with primary colours and all. There's not much educational content that the intended target audience could benefit from, but they do seem to have a theme each show and try to teach kids about sharing and respect and other basics, so I like it for that. It's well produced with high production values. But it's really just an average show like most of the shows on TV these days. We don't buy into the merchandise angle and have our son wearing everything Dooblebop. I don't think we'd spend money to go to a live show, if they ever came to town. Going to The Zoo or the Science Centre is a far better experience for everyone involved and in my opinion is money better spent.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
806 |
I had to register for IMDb just to post a comment on just how awful this movie is...my cats and a ball of string have a better storyline than this. Not the worst acting I've ever seen, but when you wipe out almost the entire cast of the movie within 5 minutes, it leaves a bit to be desired. There wasn't a single 'scare' moment in the movie, with the exception of when they were watching the movie 'Halloween' on the TV. All around, it seems like it could've been a good story, rolling the credits and saying that Chasey Lain was in it was a bit of a loss as I didn't recognize her right away and her scene was already over before I could've said 'oh yeah, there she is'. I'm so glad I saw this in a hotel and didn't pay for it as I'd be real ticked if I had payed a cent to see this. I normally like or can at least find a redeeming factor in a movie, but this one is an exception. It's so bad that it's not even that amusing so-good-it's-bad....it's just plain bad.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
15,338 |
This is the moving tale of Scotland's legendary hero, Rob Roy, and his battles with the feudal landowners. Like Braveheart to which it is frequently compared, it is not very historical. Despite their primarily fictional nature, I rate both of these movies highly and would be hard pressed to choose between the two. The 13 Century William Wallace is, as others have noted, a larger than life national figure, while the early 18th Century Rob Roy comes across as an honourable but ordinary Scotsman.<br /><br />The story revolves around a clan chieftain, Robert Roy McGregor, who lives in a Scottish highland cottage with his wife Mary and their two young sons. As the movie begins, he and his fellow clansmen are hunting down some thieves who have stolen the local lord's cattle. Rob Roy then wishes to improve the living conditions of his people so arranges to borrow one thousand Scottish pounds from a local noble, the Marquis of Montrose, in order to buy cattle to herd to market. He temporarily entrusts this money to his friend, Alan McDonald. When both McDonald and the money turn up missing, Rob Roy finds himself in conflict with Montrose as well as his despicable protégé, Archibald Cunningham, and his sleazy factor, Killearn. Rob Roy's honour is also tested when Montrose seeks to involve him in false testimony against his rival, the Duke of Argyle, whom he wishes to accuse of being a Jacobite.<br /><br />The charismatic Liam Leeson is brilliant as the kilted highlander Rob Roy, an intelligent, virile, and noble hero and a man whose sense of honour is pivotal to this tale. Personally, I feel that this is Neeson's best performance, his brogue (albeit Irish) adding authenticity for the average viewer. Rob Roy is a stubborn, proud, courageous, and honest man whose word can be trusted. He is a loving husband & father, and also touchingly loyal to his friend, McDonald, who is accused of robbing him. <br /><br />Tim Roth masterfully portrays his major adversary and surely one of the most heinous and sadistic cinematic villains, Archibald Cunningham, an egotistical, ruthless strutting peacock. He is very effeminate for someone who makes it his major business to ravish the local women, whether willing or otherwise. The pathetic Cunningham himself constantly refers to the fact that he is a bastard unaware of his own father's identity, though this hardly justifies his horrendous misdeeds of murder, rape, and thievery. Also, he mercilessly casts aside the young servant girl, Betty, after she becomes pregnant with his child, resulting in her suicide. John Hurt plays the arrogant and foppish Montrose, who is eventually implied to be Cunningham's father.<br /><br />The movie is essentially the very believable love story between an ordinary man and his wife, beautifully depicting the passionate relationship between Rob Roy and Mary. Those who question the presence of passion within marriage should watch this husband and wife! I think the phrase used by this pair, 'How fine you are to me...' is surely one of the most beautiful expressions of love in all cinema. <br /><br />The most compelling performance is possibly by Jessica Lange as Rob's wife, Mary McGregor. Lacking make up, she has the pretty but natural look of a sturdy peasant wife and mother. The actress brings great courage and dignity to her role when she is brutally raped by the despicable Cunningham, while the disgusting Killearn looks on. Her dialogue is plain spoken but filled with pride and grace. I give Hollywood its due that for once they showed just enough in the rape scene to reveal its cruelty as well as Mary's pain and humiliation, but nothing intended to sensationalize. Their kinsman, Alastair McGregor, shows emotional anguish when he learns of Mary's rape, and further torment when she swears him to secrecy never to reveal to her husband her violation by Cunningham. <br /><br />Of course this film features the beautiful scenery of the Scottish highlands, also lavish period costumes and appropriate musical scoring. There are no grand battle scenes as in Braveheart, but continuous engaging action and a particularly gripping sword fight in the final duel between Rob Roy and Cunningham. This is a captivating movie featuring both tense action and a beautiful love tale.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
17,186 |
Here is the example of a film that was not well received when it was made, but whose standing seems to be raising in time. 'The Tenant' is quite an interesting work by Polanski, one of the first of his European exile. It is set in Paris, and as in so many other exile films the city, its streets, the Seine and especially the building where the action takes place play an important role. It is just that Polanski chooses his principal character not to be an American (as in 'Frantic' for example) but a Pole, as himself was when going West. There is actually a lot of personal commentary in this film, made at what must have been a time of crisis in the director's life, and the fact that he decided to play the lead role (and does it masterfully) may also be seen as some kind of exorcism.<br /><br />It's in a way a circular story. The hero named Trelkovsky rents an apartment in old Parisian building, inhabited by what seem to be first a well assorted team of grumpy old or just ridiculous neighbors. The previous tenant tried to commit suicide by jumping out of the window of the flat, and Trelkovsky has just the time to visit her in the hospital before she dies and meet there her young and beautiful friend Stella (a spectacled Isabelle Adjani in her first role after Truffaut's 'L'histoire d'Adele H.'). Soon the neighbors do not seem to be what they are, it's a conspiracy to make him crazy, or to make him enter the life and role of the dead girl. He fights, tries to run, enters the game and ends by entering the circle and slowly becoming her. The circle is closed.<br /><br />It's not the most believable story we may have seen or heard, but the strength of the film does not reside in the story but in the details of the psychology, in the slow degradation of the mental state of the hero, in the permanent balancing game between reality and delusion. To a certain extent it is not what happens on the screen that matters, but how it happens, reminding the classical 'Knife in the Water' made more than a decade before, at the end of the Polish period of Polanski. There are many details that are never explained, but then this is how mystery films must be and this is actually how life is sometimes. The feeling of claustrophobia slowly contaminates the viewer. Unfortunately some of the graphical details in the last part of the film are not too well executed and the English spoken dialogs (the film was made in English) almost neutralize the overall atmosphere. However, waiting for the final punch scene is very worth the patience.<br /><br />It's not the best film that Polanski made, yet has many good parts, it shows the hand and the style of the director, and was a significant step in the building of his career.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
5,755 |
CRIME BOSS is directed by Alberto De Martino; an Italian crime drama partially filmed in Hamburg, Germany. An easily forgotten movie. Even in spite of a good car chase sequence, this flick seems to lumber on almost aimlessly. A new Don takes over a powerful Mafia family and finds himself fighting for his own life. Unwritten laws and ethics of the Mafia code make it hard to trust in anyone especially when millions of dollars are at stake. Brutality and violence breed the same in return. This can not be put on a shelf with the real gangster epics. Just the look of the film brings back memories of American drive-in fare. Even the popular American actor Telly Savalas can't boost the calibre of this crime drama. Antonio Sabato also stars with:Paola Tedesco, Guido Lollobrigida, Serio Tramonti and Piero Morgia.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
15,601 |
On the 28th of December, 1895, in the Grand Café in Paris, film history was writing itself while Louis Lumière showed his short films, all single shots, to a paying audience. 'La Sortie des Usines Lumière' was the first film to be played and I wish I was there, not only to see the film, but also the reactions of the audience.<br /><br />We start with closed doors of the Lumière factory. Apparently, since the image seems a photograph, people thought they were just going to see a slide show, not something they were hoping for. But then the doors open and people are streaming out, heading home. First a lot of women, then some men, and one man on a bike with a big dog. When they are all out the doors close again.<br /><br />Whether this is the first film or not (some say 'L'Arrivée d'un Train à la Ciotat' was the first film Lumière recorded), it is an impressive piece of early cinema. Being bored by this is close to impossible for multiple reasons. One simple reason: it is only fifty seconds long. But also for people who normally only like the special effect films there must be something interesting here; you don't get to see historical things like this every day.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
4,502 |
I can't believe they got the actors and actresses of that caliber to do this movie. That's all I've got to say - the movie speaks for itself!!
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
4,087 |
Did the movie-makers even preview this before they released it? The script jumps from place to place without giving much explanation. The beginning doesn't clarify if its a prequel or not. It starts with Superman's beginnings on Earth and then jumps to a point after the last movie - but doesn't really alert the viewer of this. VERY confusing! Superman himself is weak and in need of Prozac. He is portrayed as a potential home-wrecker, a stalker, and someone who is clearly depressed and confused. This type of character rarely makes for an interesting hero. The ending is absolutely ridiculous. Superman ending up in a hospital just made me want to kill him off myself. I'm seriously waiting for a SNL skit where Superman appears on Maury Povich and Maury says, "The results are in - in the case of the child, Superman, you ARE the father." To sum up - OK acting by this Superman and Kevin Spacey, but HORRIBLE script. The movie is basically unwatchable.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
24,995 |
About a year ago I finally gave up on American television. I thought of giving up television completely until a friend who had lived in England showed me some programs that included The Office, Extras, Blackadder, and The League of Gentlemen. It was then that I decided to switch to British television. Among all the shows listed above, The League of Gentlemen is easily the most dark and twisted of them all, providing guilty laughs and material not found in any other comedy I've seen yet. Characters included are the most unhappily married couple, a butcher that puts ingredients in the meat that go unsaid (probably for the best), a deranged couple that look over a local shop that only caters to local people, and the worst veterinarian ever. This program is one of the best I've seen.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
7,063 |
I have seen a lot of movies in my life, but not many as bad as this. It is a movie that makes fun of fat people, has no real story, has bad actors, is not funny and much more. Is this a movie that you would like to see? I guess not!<br /><br />I guess that the makers of the movie was trying to be original and creative, but it looks like it was made by a 12 year old child with absolutely no cinematic skills at all. The so called funny parts is as funny as throughing pies in the faces of people, or breaking wind. Of cource if this is the kind of humour that you like, then this is the movie for you!!<br /><br />Dont waste your money on this movie!
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
17,571 |
Tressa's vocal performance was Outstanding!! Tressa played the female singer role, while Richard was in the club. When she first step out on stage, and started to riff and strut her stuff, it made my soul shake. Her voice is platinum. She needs to make a CD. She has more fans then she realizes. I loved her show stopping performance in the five heart beats, which she also starred with Leon when she was younger. How can a little girl have a voice so big. She is truly amazing.Good voice Good Good Good Good voice voice voice voice excellent voice fantastic voice , back shaking , tear crying , uplifting, take you back in the days voice. Tressa if you read this commit, please take my advice and start recording a CD. If not just for the love of singing, but for your fans. I believe you can truly make it. Look at these other one hit single studio singers, lol.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
7,934 |
I saw this movie when I was really little. It is, by far, one of the strangest movies I have ever seen. Now, normally, I like weird movies, but this was just a bit too much.<br /><br />There's not much of a plot to the movie. If anything, it starts out like Toy Story, where toys come to life, and Raggedy Ann and Andy go on an adventure to rescue their new friend, Babette. From there, craziness ensues. There's the Greedy, the Looneys, a sea monster named Gazooks, and a bunch of pirates singing show tunes, all of which just made the movie weirder. Also, I can't help but feel that Babette is annoying and a bit too whiny. She definitely didn't help the movie.<br /><br />Now, even though I didn't like this movie, there were a few cute parts. I liked the camel's song. Even though it was a song about being lonely, it had a friendly feel to it. Then, there was Sir Leonard. While most of the Looneys were just plain nuts, Sir Leonard was the most interesting and probably the funniest. King Koo Koo was just a little dirtbag that made Dr. Evil look like a serious villain. Also, there was Raggedy Andy's song, No Girl's Toy. It was definitely good song for little boys who wanted to act tough. But, honestly, even these things didn't make the movie any better. (But remember, this is just my perspective.) <br /><br />While I personally wouldn't recommend this movie, even I have to admit, it does have its charming moments. See it if you're interested, but only if you're in the mood for something "really" out of the ordinary.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
7,288 |
Screenwriter Lisa Lutz began writing the screenplay at the age of 21 in 1991 <br /><br />Is she even in business? If someone gave her another chance after this piece of crap, she's up for the most Fortunate Person Of Ever award.This movie sucks to no END...It never ceases to amaze me what the turn into movies...and the fact that they made this writer put it off for a bit? Seriously? I can write better crap than this in my sleep.<br /><br />OK, so how many lines to I have to type? I don't get this at all. I guess I"m a newbie. I guess I don't understand why there should ever be a limit to what anyone has to say...or a quota? Seriously, I don't care if you have a one word sentence...or even a one word response. I mean, c'mon? <br /><br />Thanks...is this enough, finally?<br /><br />This movie is worthless.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
21,444 |
Normally I don't like series at all. They're all to predictable and they tend to become boring and dull very fast.<br /><br />These series however, are well played, the story follows through all episodes and even if you miss one, the story will still be catching your mind.<br /><br />The episodes are all filmed on a hospital and takes you further and further in to the mysteries of dark and old secrets that lies just beneath the surface of the mighty hospital.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
6,187 |
Let me start out by saying that I used to really like Betty Grable, particularly from "Down Argentine Way", but by the time she got around to this disaster, she had also got "round" and frankly the whole film was an embarrassment. Costarred with Douglas Fairbanks JNr (who must have been fairly desperate) the story was bad, the colours good, and the film far too long. It had some of the old standbys in it like Harry Davenport and Reginald Gardiner to try and stimulate interest but with no success. The music score was woeful, and I have to say not one tune was memorable in any way....as I was such a fan of Miss Grable, I always wish I had never seen this one!
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
14,312 |
This wonderful little film has all of the elements that made the Spaghetti Western so exciting and fun: GREAT music (by one of the few..if not the only..female composer to work in the genre, Nora Orlandi), EXCITING action sequences (and very vicious ones for the day!), and BEAUTIFUL scenery and sets (all in Almeria, Spain, of course). It also has a very good story with a nice tragic romance edge to it. The actors do marvelous jobs--with truly standout performances from Lawrence Dobkin and Rosalba Neri (in the most vital role for a female in a Spaghetti Western..outside of Cardinale in Leone's "Once Upon a Time in the West"). Without posting any spoilers, let me just say that this movie contains one of the best endings of any film I have EVER seen!
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
24,358 |
A LAUREL & HARDY Comedy Short. The Boys arrive to sweep the chimneys at the home of Professor Noodle, a mad scientist who's just perfected his rejuvenation serum. Stan & Ollie proceed with their DIRTY WORK, spreading destruction inside the house and on the roof. Then the Professor wants to try out his new potion...<br /><br />A very funny little film. The ending is a bit abrupt, but much of the slapstick leading up to it is terrific. Especially good is Stan & Ollie's contest of wills at opposite ends of the chimney. That's Lucien Littlefield as the Professor.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
18,401 |
Everyone is surely familiar with this most famous of stories a heartless businessman is visited by the ghost of his dead partner on Christmas Eve and warned that if he continues in his uncaring ways then he will be doomed to an afterlife in chains. So that he can avoid his partner's fate he is visited by three spirits who show him visions of Christmases past, present and yet to come, so that he will hopefully see the error of his ways before it is too late. A rather morbid tale one might think, but it is classic Charles Dickens, and also one of the most famous and popular Christmas stories of all time.<br /><br />To me this is the definitive version of Dickens' timeless story; it's the one I always remember watching in school, and I remember being absolutely terrified by it! The ghost of Jacob Marley, the final scene with the ghost of Christmas present under the bridge, and the ghost of Christmas yet-to-come especially I found very frightening. How on earth did the film gain the 'U' certificate? (For non-UK readers 'U' is the lowest classification, it means family friendly and children welcome, nothing to scare them etc... This is certainly not the case though, as some smaller children will undoubtedly find the final segment positively terrifying with the grim reaper-like spectre of Christmas future.<br /><br />Be that as it may, from the many versions of this classic story I have seen adapted for film, this is possibly the most faithful to the book. Most notably included is a segment rarely seen in film adaptations of the original text - that of the ghost of Christmas present showing Scrooge the two children hidden under his robe (you'd never get away with a scene like that nowadays!). The two children represent Ignorance and Need (although changed to Want in this film).<br /><br />Criticisms for me however become apparent having watched it again with more objective and trained eyes, the main one of which being that George C. Scott's portrayal of Scrooge seems simply not cold enough. He laughs too much. I don't want to use the word jolly because of course Ebeneezer is anything but, but he does seem to be merely a grumpy old man, rather than the positively unkind, cold and uncaring man that he is in the book and other films. Patrick Stewart portrayed him excellently in one of the most recent versions filmed, and Michael Caine, despite acting alongside the Muppets, was positively cold. Further, the development of the character over the course of the film as he learns more about the error of his ways and grows towards redemption is unconvincing and appears inconsistent. He appears to have changed little by the time he reaches the third spirit's final lesson.<br /><br />But ignoring this one (albeit major) quibble, it is still a spellbinding and ultimately heart-warming Christmas tale, as all Christmas films should be. London of course looks like the perfect picturesque quaint snow-covered English town that many Americans probably imagine it still is (the truth is that even then that London was grey and grimy and any snow would never have been so white!) And everyone is so impeccably dressed too, even the poor people look rather dapper. But of course it's a Christmas film, so why shouldn't everything look nice? Perfect holiday season viewing; coupled with copies of It's a Wonderful Life, Miracle on 34th Street and The Snowman and you've got everything you need.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
21,737 |
First off, consider that this film is nearly fifty years old! Yet, it still stands up as one of the great films of all time. I wonder how many of todays throwaway celluloid productions will still be talked about in 2050?<br /><br />The story is simple, yet solid enough and the effects are nothing short of phenomenal for the day. I can still recall the first time I watched this, as a kid, when the monster enters the force-field protecting the ship and you got to see its outline for the first (and only) time. Had me shivering in fear, I can tell you. Looks dated today, but still more than effective enough.<br /><br />The scenes with the tiger show their age now. You can see the outline where the tiger was matted into the shots with Altaira, but they are only just visible.<br /><br />Likewise, the effect whereby the creature melts its way through the Krell doors are wonderfully done.<br /><br />It's also amazing to see Leslie Nielsen (better remembered for the Airplane and Naked Gun movies) as a young, but still mature man. He was 30 when this film came out! Nearly 80 now!<br /><br />All in all a good movie that is sure to continue being a favourite for years to come. Timeless.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
103 |
I went to see this movie at our college theater thirty years ago because I liked Bruce Dern in Silent Running and Family Plot. To this day (sorry Jack Nicholson), it is still the dullest movie I've ever seen. It just went on and on with no discernible point and then - it just ended. The lights came up and I watched everyone looking around in confusion. Had the projectionist missed a reel? I've never had the urge to find out. All I remember about the movie is that it was a non-drama about some annoying college basketball players and their coach. The most enjoyable part of the movie was watching the totally mystified audience afterwords. Fortunately, this was just an exception for Jack, Bruce, and Karen Black.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
899 |
Welcome to movie 17 on the chilling classics 50 pack. Where we'll see, That's right. Another movie that makes absolutely no sense. Seriously, this movie had me so confused at the end, i thought i was rewatching "At Dawn they Sleep." The plot seems simple enough....well that is until 3 seconds into the movie where a girl supposedly killed a cat and then...um.. explodes? i have no idea what happened. and that was BEFORE THE TITLE SCREEN. That's really sad when i can't even tell what happened in the first 3 minutes.<br /><br />Anyway it stars a photographer with a big mustache who finds this girl after dumping his other girlfriend on the way to take pictures of something somewhere. so we get there but not before somebody steals their jeep to drive it 200 feet out of the way towards a town. suspicious? nah. so they decide to stay at this deserted village with one old lady. and then blah blah stuff happens and blah blah talking. The guy with the mustache goes out in the fog for some reason even though the old lady tells him not to. He gets lost and then finds his way back.<br /><br />Oh, i forgot to mention this is all after an incredibly pointless 20 minutes of them staying in the house of a guy who looks like that buggy eyed guy from casablanca. Then they leave. There's really no point to this scene. It's really just padding. if you cut it out no one would have noticed or cared.<br /><br />But sadly, that was actually the best part of the movie. wait. let me rephrase that. REALLY sadly that was the best part of the movie. because the rest is so confusing that i had to look on IMDb to find out what happened. But of course no one else knows so i'm SOL. <br /><br />Seriously, the last 30 minutes of the movie were some of the most mindscrewing moments i've ever seen on film. They dressed her up in a dress, he gets kidnapped, then released, he runs back to the house, then at the end the witches are in the house and it ends? seriously. i have hardly ever been so confused in a movie. i mean, as bad as movies such as "War of the Robots" are, at least they MAKE SENSE. this movie doesn't even make the ATTEMPT to be coherent. the ending was as confusing as the end of "At dawn they sleep" and the plot was much more boring. This movie gets a 1 just for its sheer "i have no idea what happened in this movie"ness. "Witches mountain" gets 1 confused movie watcher out of 10.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
16,010 |
Men of Honor has many great aspects to it. Good action sequences, plenty of "feel good" scenes, a good musical score, but the part that really makes the movie is the great acting. Mostly by Robert Deniro. The story of Men of Honor is focused about Carl Brashear played by Cuba Gooding Jr. who wants to be the first African American deep sea diver in the navy. It chronicles his rough struggle from being a poor farmer to getting into diving school and even further. It is a good story, but it seems like it has been done many times before. A person, against all of the odds, won't give up until they accomplish their goals that they set for some sentimental reason many years ago. It could happen, but a lot of the struggles the Brashear faces in the movie are questionable including the C.O. of the diving school tampering with his final test. However, all of that is made up for the scene when Robert Deniro finally enters the movie. Deniro plays Mater Chief Sunday who is the teacher at the diving school Brashear is attending. As soon as Deniro come in he omits this vibe of extreme arrogance that you can't hate unless you have incredible wilpower. Before the movie ends, Deniro gives off multiple speeches that would have you laughing at how cool he is but you are too stunned at the way he punches them out. In the end you must doubt some of the aspects of the film, but admit it, if it was all the truth, it would have you snoozing it your seat by the first twenty minutes.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
10,018 |
NOTE TO ALL DIRECTORS: Long is not necessarily good. This movie is incredibly long. However not good. The scenes were drawn out way, way, way, way, way too long. The sex scenes were unnecessary, and often too long. The movie edited down to 2 hours and 10 minutes or so would have been exceptional, but alas it became so boringly long that I can only give it a 2 of 10. It is way below average.<br /><br />Some other problems also exist in this marathon. <br /><br />1) Ralph Fiennes plays a whole family tree. The guy who played the Great-grandfather looks nothing like him, but the Grandfather, Father and the son (who gives us constant unneeded voice over) are all Ralph Fiennes with different facial hair and the same basic bull-headed personality. No one seems to notice that each of these children look like a clone of the last, even though photos of them are being snapped at every turn. This one is minor, but if the movie hadn't been 3 weeks long it wouldn't have been so annoying.<br /><br />2) The fact that no news from Germany was even whispered for the longest time about Jews being rounded up and sent off is ridiculous. Some word would have gotten to them and the thought of trying to run off would probably have been discussed. The uncle in France would surely have sent warning to try and get them to leave.<br /><br />3) The love stories in this movie are totally wrong. You are spending forever telling us this thing and the development of relationships between main characters is extremely short. Suddenly... people are in love and almost instantly... married. Then having children. Then we draw things out for 6 centuries and forget about developing relationships. This again would not have stuck out so much in a 2 hour movie, but with time spent nothing was given to us.<br /><br />4) The ending was just bad. I don't want to spoil it for anyone, but you won't like it either...unless you are sadistic.<br /><br />The director/writer should be tortured with having to watch this bloated garbage on a weekly basis, I mean endless loop, oops they are the same thing. <br /><br />I wonder if Robert Redford did anything for this movie, I mean I think Istvan Szabo must be modeling his directing career after him. Long drawn out movie which totally ruins any substance in the movie. A short description of 'The Horse Whisperer', and Sunshine.<br /><br />Sunshine, perfect title. If you start watching while the sun is shining it will quite possibly be well after dark when you leave.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
728 |
I wouldn't normally write a comment on-line, but this is the worst movie I've ever seen. Not only that it's filmed just like a soap series ("The young and the restless" is really filmed by professionals compared to this), but it also has awful cuts. It has no action. It is full of useless garbage.<br /><br />Here's an example: a guy wants to kill the main character as he got fired because of him. So (after loads of crap) here they are: the guy puts a knife at his throat and says something like "You're dead now". Then the main character says: "If you kill me you're dead. I've told the police you're threatening me". So the (killer) guy goes like (just about to cry): "Oh no... the cops are following me!?!! Oh... my God".<br /><br />Remember: this is just an example. I really cannot believe this movie actually exists. So: IF you want to see the WORST movie ever... go ahead, I recommend it :)
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
4,127 |
First off, I have to say that I loved the book Animal Farm. I read it with my 9th grade class, and it was great. We also decided that watching the movie would be beneficial. The movie was so disappointing to me. The movie cuts out some characters, and misses a lot of the main points of the book. It skips around a lot, and doesn't explain anything in detail. If someone was watching this movie without having first read the book, they would be confused. The most disappointing thing in this movie to me, was the ending. The ending in the book was the most powerful, and in the movie, they changed it! It was supposed to be the pigs and men in an alliance and sort of "melting" together, but instead, the movie made it seem like the animals were going to rebel against the pigs. To sum up, I don't think that this movie captured the real meaning that Orwell portrayed in his book.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
9,646 |
If this movie as meant to discourage people from doing drugs, it fails. I was ready to start using them I got waiting for something to happen and nothing ever really did. This movie is neither horror or drama. It's just the paranoia of meth users. This movie may win an award for the using the "F" word so many times and so uselessly. It was not well stated, but I felt like they were making Meth to replace Meth they owed to someone. Hector just got worse and more paranoid as the movie went on and the girl just got more hopeless. The ending really made no sense. The movie made no sense unless it was just showing how annoying is is to be stuck in a house in the middle of nowhere with a meth-head. I relied on the other feedback when I decided to watch this movie and the rating on this movie should be a much lower average.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
4,214 |
The first noticeable problem about this awkwardly titled film is its casting. Ann Nelson plays the grandma here. Three years after this, she would star in "Airplane!" as the woman who hangs herself while listening to Robert Hays pine for Julie Hagerty. I could not get that image out of my head.<br /><br />Matt Boston is a fifteen year old with problems. He has headaches. His mother had a nervous breakdown. His grandfather had a massive heart attack. A chain smoking psychiatrist decides to find out what the devil is going on with this family. First she hypnotizes Grandma Nelson. Nelson tells a tale in flashback that fills the entire first half of the film.<br /><br />She and Grandpa bought an RV, cheap, and drive it around to all the tourist traps in desert California. The RV soon has a mind of its own, going off the road and such. Then, large boulders begin hurling themselves at it. The elderly couple are appropriately afraid, but stay in the vehicle in order to move the plot along.<br /><br />Eventually, Grandpa has a heart attack after being stranded on the RV roof when it goes for another unplanned ride.<br /><br />Boston's mom begins talking to some Native American mummies she has lying around the house. She fancies herself an author, and makes copious notes about the musty corpses. The psychiatrist reads the detailed notes, and uses her imagination to fill in the blanks. We see the mother semi-flip out, but her mental breakdown occurs offscreen, much like Gramps' heart attack.<br /><br />Finally, the patient de resistance, little Matt. Matt goes under the hypnosis gun and tells his own tale. He thinks mom is wigging out (this was made in 1977). Apparently, mom is making the astral bodies of the Native American mummies sort of fly through the air. One hits Matt like a bee hits a windshield, and Matt begins acting all crazy.<br /><br />The psychiatrist takes Grandma and Matt into the desert. Matt is inexplicably in a wheelchair now, and the trio confront the unseen (and unexplained) forces.<br /><br />Flocker has no sense of scene construction. The one pro here involves the RV stranded in a salt flat in the desert. In the distance, the couple notice some boulders rolling toward the RV. This is a pretty creepy little scene that is eventually overplayed. As the boulders begin hurling themselves toward the vehicle, the special effects become obvious.<br /><br />The scenes where the RV runs off the highway, then back on again, take forever. The scenes where Grandpa is trapped on the RV roof as it careens down a dirt road takes forever. Mom's conversations with the mummy take forever. Matt's out of body experiences take forever. This film takes forever.<br /><br />I was tempted to hit the fast forward button at least a dozen times. As scenes dragged on, it was obvious Flocker was padding. Cut the fat here, and this would have clocked in at an hour. The final "explanation," that the mummies' spirits were trying to kill those close to Matt never holds water. Did they inhabit the RV? The film maker never brings up the fact that the spirits are no good at their murderous ways, they never kill anybody!<br /><br />As I kept thinking of Nelson in "Airplane!," I also thought of other movies. Anything to keep me from falling asleep during this one. Boston is terrible as the kid, playing a fifteen year old as a cute ten year old who has a smart alecky line for all these adults who fall over themselves loving him.<br /><br />In the end, Flocker has written and directed a mess. The title is just the beginning of this exercise in making the audience feel ill at ease. This is not scary, and like the ghosts, you too can still walk...away from this tape at the video store.<br /><br />This is unrated, and contains some physical violence and mild profanity.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
4,061 |
I am the guy who usually keeps opinions to himself, but I just got back from this movie, and felt I had to express my opinions. Let me start by saying that I am a HUGE horror fan. But what makes a horror movie? I sure like to see even a tiny bit of a good script and character development. I know they often lack in horror movies, but Prom Night looked like it didn't even put forth ANY effort in that department. Next, we all love suspense. That on the edge of your seat suspense with unpredictable surprises. Yeah, Prom Night had none of that! Of course, we like a terrifying killer. Prom Night have that? Nope, it has a pretty boy with a cute lil' knife. And when all else fails...at least horror has its guilty pleasure to make it enjoyable like gore gore gore, and the occasional nude scene! Yeah, well when you have a horror movie rated PG-13 like Prom Night, they leave that stuff out too. So with all of these elements missing, I ask....does this still count as a horror movie? Nope. I'd call it more of a comedy. People in my theater were laughing more at this then they were when I saw "Semi-Pro" that was supposed to actually be a comedy (which also sucked, but thats another story!). I think I am just going to have to give up on new horror. All the good horror movies of the good ol' days have been remade into garbage so movie studios can make money. The people I went to see it with didn't even know this was a remake! Which made me mad! I wonder what will happen when there's no more movies to remake??? Where will horror go next???
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
15,532 |
Being a big fan of the romantic comedy genre, and therefore having seen a large number of these films, it is rare that one strikes me as totally unique. For that matter, it is equally rare that I am gasping for breath through the laughter during several scenes. The love story is a little thin on the ground, but I'd say that's probably for the best, as this romantic comedy has the emphasis firmly on "comedy", and in any case it stretches the bounds of credibility just a little more than I like most rom com's to do. The four scientists provided some of the funniest moments not just in this film, but in any film I've seen in a long while. I hesitated for the briefest of moments before finally choosing a "10" over a "9" as a rating, as I believe that far too many people use it indiscriminately, and therefore the maximum rating loses some of its impact. I'm also a big Meg Ryan fan, which helps, but this is one of the few films I've seen in which I'd say she is comprehensively overshadowed. She and Tim Robbins are cast as the leads, but for me play second fiddle to the antics of the bumbling intellectuals. A genuine laugh-out-loud type film.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
1,688 |
This is a film that belongs firmly to the 50's. Very surprising that American Film Institute has chosen this one for one for the best 100 American movies of all-time. I have seen practically all of the movies on that list, and this one is by far the most disappointing one of those. Musical numbers (and there many, many of them) are VERY overlong and boring, and have absolute no connection with the story. The end of the movie has horribly over-long ballet sequency, which naturally has no real relation to the story of the movie. It must be admitted, that it is very well made, the music is OK, and the dancing done with the highest professional standard - but there is no real reason why the sequence is included in the movie.<br /><br />The main character of the movie is extremely childlish and unlikeable and behaves in unpolite way. His mental age is about 14. If you want to see a good musical made on the "golden age" of musicals, go and see "Singing in the Rain".
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
2,048 |
This film aka "the four hundred blows" is a mistranslation.Faire les 400 coups" means"to live a wild life. As a French,I'm stunned when I see the popularity of this good ,but by no means outstanding film. 1.It's not the first film of the "nouvelle vague" move;check Agnes Varda's "la pointe courte",(1956)Alain Resnais's "Hiroshima mon amour"(1958),Claude Chabrol's "le beau serge"(1958) are anterior .Historically,"les 400 coups " comes after. 2.The "nouvelle vague" was sometimes ponderous and hard on their predecessors:Overnight,Julien Duvivier,Henri-George Clouzot,Claude Autant-Lara ,Yves allégret and a lot of others were doomed to oblivion.THis selfishness and this contempt is typically "nouvelle vague".You 've never heard (or read) the great generation of the thirties (Renoir,Carné,Grémillon,Duvivier already,Feyder) laugh at ,say,Maurice Tourneur or Max Linder.So,thanks to Truffaut and co,some people will never discover some gems of the French fifties or forties(Duvuvier's "sous le ciel de Paris",Autant-Lara's "douce",Yves Allégret's "une si jolie petite plage " and "manèges").THe novelle vague clique went as far as saying that William Wyler,Georges Stevens and Fred Zinemann were worthless! 3."Les 400 coups " is technically rather disappointing:it's very academic ,the story is as linear as it can be,the teachers are caricatures,and the mother Claire Maurier delivers such memorable lines as (you've got to be a French circa 1960 to understand how ridiculous it is): Well ,your father 's got only his brevet (junior school diploma)and,as for me ,I've got only my high school diploma!You've got to know,that circa 1960,hardly 10%of the pupils had the HSD in France! Antoine Doinel should have been proud of his mother after all!She wants him to have diplomas,who can blame her? 4.Compared to the innovations of "Hiroshima mon amour",which features a brand new form,and a new "fragmented " content,"les 400 coups " pales into significance.Truffaut will master a new form only with the highly superior "Jules and Jim", helped by the incomparable Jeanne Moreau. 5.The interpretation is rather stiff;Jean-Pierre Léaud ,arguably listenable when dubbed in English ,is still decent,but he will soon degenerate into the most affected of his generation. 6.The topic=stolen childhood had better days,before (Julien Duvivier's "Poil de carotte" ,Luis Bunuel's "los olvidados") and will have after (Maurice Pialat's "l'enfance nue",Kenneth Loach's "Kes") I do not want to demean Truffaut,his movie is not bad,but,frankly,French movie buffs,prefer "Jules and Jim" "l'enfant sauvage" (a film honest ,true and commercially uncompromizing to a fault)"l'argent de poche"(as academic as "400 coups" but much more funny)or his nice Hitchcock pastiche "vivement dimanche".<br /><br />
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
220 |
WARNING: REVIEW CONTAINS MILD SPOILERS<br /><br />A couple of years back I managed to see the first five films in this franchise, and was planning to do an overview of the whole Elm St. series. However, just two years on and I find I can't remember enough about them in order to do it I guess they couldn't have made much of an impression. From what I do recall, some of the sequels Dream Warriors in particular weren't as bad as is often made out, though even the original was no classic. Generally, the predictability of the premise (if people fall asleep they get murdered in their dreams) doesn't lend itself to narrative tension. But while I cannot recall much of the first five films, I do know they never plumbed the depths of Freddy's Dead.<br /><br />An indication of how sick of Freddy the public was at this point can be judged by the fact that the film was promoted solely on the character's demise. The fact that the movie's conclusion is not even hidden, but in fact the entire purpose for the film's being goes to illustrate how vacant, soulless and cynical this venture was.<br /><br />Taking the morally questionable idea of having a child molester as the charismatic villain, Robert Englund's in-no-way-scary interpretation booms with laughter. I always thought Freddy's mockery of the teenage victims was less aimed at the characters than at the teenage audience that could ever watch this tripe. It's like Englund's crying out "we know this is garbage but you're paying to see it, so who's the one laughing?" And I'm sure victims of child abuse would be disheartened to see such an insensitive depiction of their plight. Was Freddy's appearance in the films always so rudimentary? All he gets to do here is a few "haaaaaaaaaaaaaarr har har hars" and that's it. If this was the only Elm St. film you'd ever seen you wouldn't get to know the character at all. Even as the character pre-death in a flashback Englund plays him as a boo-hiss pantomime villain with a slop of Transatlantic (ie. overstated, misplaced and not at all funny) irony.<br /><br />Acting is almost universally poor. Just look at how many times Breckin Meyer overacts with his hand gestures and body language. Only Kananga himself, Yaphet Kotto, keeps his dignity. And when Roseanne, Tom Arnold and Alice Cooper show up, you can almost visibly see the film sinking further into the mire. The script, too, is absolutely lousy, almost wholly without merit. Carlos (Ricky Dean Logan) opens a road map, upon which the Noel Coward-like Freddy has wittily written "you're f**ked". When prompted for the map, Carlos responds "well the map says we're f**ked". Who wrote the screenplay, Oscar Wilde?<br /><br />Or how about the scene where Carlos is tortured by Freddy, his hearing enhanced to painful levels? So Freddy torments him by threatening to drop a pin a potentially fatal sound, given that all sounds are magnified. Oddly, the fact that Carlos shouts at the top of his voice for him not to drop it seems to have no effect. "Nice hearing from you, Carlos", quips Freddy, hoping some better lines will come along. It's also worth noting that dream sleep doesn't occur instaneously, so being knocked unconscious wouldn't allow instant access into Freddy's world. Though as part of the narrative contains a human computer game and a 3-D finale plot logic isn't that high on the list of requirements.<br /><br />The teenagers heading the cast this time are really the most obnoxious, dislikeable group in the whole series. Tracy (Lezlie Deane) is the only one who gets to greet Freddy with "shut the f**k up, man" and a kick in the scallops. And was incongruous pop music always part of the ingredients? Freddy's Dead. No laughs. No scares. No interest. No fun.<br /><br />
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
22,237 |
This hard-hitting, often violent western in the Peckinpah/Leone tradition is surprisingly directed by Andrew V. McLaglen, whose previous westerns (particularly those that starred John Wayne) were mainly in the John Ford mode. It is both surprisingly traditional (good guys/bad guys) and incredible up-to-date as well.<br /><br />Heston portrays a former captain of the Arizona territorial police who has been in retirement for a year, having turned over the law enforcement reins to a reform-minded sheriff (Michael Parks) and finding his ways of enforcing the law being taken over by autos, telegraphs, telephones, and the railroad in the first years of the 20th century. But soon he is confronted with a menace from his past--a half-breed outlaw (Coburn) that he put away more than a decade before for a train robbery that killed four guards. In a subsequent shootout, Coburn's wife was killed; and so Coburn is out for a most nasty sort of revenge. It involves the kidnapping and, eventually, the rape of Heston's daughter (Hershey) by him and his gang. The result is a taut and violent pursuit through the mountains and deserts of southern Arizona.<br /><br />THE LAST HARD MEN, based on Brian Garfield's novel "Gun Down", is violent in many places, including the showdown between Heston and Coburn, and the rape scene involving Hershey and two members of Coburn's gang (Quade, Paull) is probably every bit as questionable as similar scenes in STRAW DOGS and DELIVERANCE. But that doesn't detract too terribly much from the film's psychological approach to the western genre. McLaglen is able to handle the bloody story with significant panache, and Heston's performance as an aging lawman was probably the best one he ever gave in any of his 1970s films. Coburn makes for an especially cold-blooded heavy, and both Parks and Chris Mitchum (as Hershey's intended husband) do good turns as well. The music here is cribbed from Jerry Goldsmith's scores to 100 RIFLES and the 1966 remake of STAGECOACH, but it still works here.<br /><br />Wisely filmed totally on location in southeastern Arizona, and utilizing the Old Tucson set, THE LAST HARD MEN needs to be released by Fox on VHS and/or DVD soon. It is a western that deserves nothing less.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
5,539 |
An awful film! It must have been up against some real stinkers to be nominated for the Golden Globe. They've taken the story of the first famous female Renaissance painter and mangled it beyond recognition. My complaint is not that they've taken liberties with the facts; if the story were good, that would perfectly fine. But it's simply bizarre -- by all accounts the true story of this artist would have made for a far better film, so why did they come up with this dishwater-dull script? I suppose there weren't enough naked people in the factual version. It's hurriedly capped off in the end with a summary of the artist's life -- we could have saved ourselves a couple of hours if they'd favored the rest of the film with same brevity.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
4,271 |
Gregory Peck's acting was excellent, as one would expect, and the cinematography quite stunning even when playing directly into some melodramatic "moment." But, the rest of the film was overacted and hard to watch, for me anyway. I tried to like it, but had to fast-forward through the last thirty minutes or so. I feel I wasted a couple of good hours. Had it not been for Gregory Peck, I wouldn't have lasted fifteen minutes. 4/10.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
17,021 |
I thought this was an excellent and very honest portrayal of paralysis and racism. This movie never panders to the audience and never gets predictable. The acting was top-notch and the movie reminded me of "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest".
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
21,051 |
Sure, Titanic was a good movie, the first time you see it, but you really should see it a second time and your opinion of the film will definetly change. The first time you see the movie you see the underlying love-story and think: ooh, how romantic. The second time (and I am not the only one to think this) it is just annoying and you just sit there watching the movie thinking, When is this d**n ship going to sink??? And even this is not as impressive when you see it several times. The acting in this film is not bad, but definetly not great either. Was I glad DiCaprio did not win an oscar for that film, I mean who does he think he is, Anthony Hopkins or Denzel Washington? He does 1 half-good movie and won't do a film for less than $20 million. And then everyone is suprised that there are hardly any films with him in it. But enough about, in my eyes, the worst character of the film. Kate Winslet's performance on the other hand was wonderful. I also tink that the director is very talented to put a film of such a magnitude together. There is one lesson to be learned about this movie: there are too many love-stories as it is, filmmakers shouldn't try to add a crummy romance in to every single movie!!! Out of a possible 100% I give this film a mere 71%.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
11,120 |
I usually try to construct reasonably well-argued critiques of films, but I can not believe this got past the script stage. The dialogue is appalling, the acting very dodgy, the accents just awful, and the direction and pacing is scrappy at best.<br /><br />I don't remember the last time I saw a film quite this bad. Joseph Fiennes, pretty as he is, might just have killed his career as quickly as it started.<br /><br />The Island of Doctor Moreau was no worse than this garbage.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
4,735 |
This film takes what could have been a good idea, a mummified 2000 year old witch and completely destroys it. Nora and Jim are alcoholics who go to Ireland to dry-out. They go to stay with her Nan and Uncle. The uncle has discovered a 2000 year old witch preserved in the peat. He revives her and she takes the form of Nora. She cannot be killed conventionally,(more is the pity). Nora, however, works out a way to do so.<br /><br />This is a Gothic horror movie that has been done on the cheap. It is a sprawling mess. I have to ask why anyone would want to make such a bad film. I am tempted to learn witchcraft in order to make it disappear.<br /><br />AVOID AT ALL COSTS
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
12,142 |
This movie was not made by Who fans. Most of the great moments that fans will look forward to in the half-hour Tommy medley are simply missed or glossed over: In Christmas, they didn't show Daltry's screams after the line "Tommy doesn't know what day it is...", they showed almost *no* Townsend guitar shots in Pinball Wizard, there were excess crowd shots during the best moments of Go to the Mirror, and worst of all, in the second half of We're Not Gonna Take It (Listening to You), they robbed us of almost every shot of Pete's blazing guitar chords. Huge chunks of the film are shot from in back of the band. It's a very frustrating film to watch, and doesn't deliver the goods. I don't know if director Murry Lerner is just not a Who fan, or worse, for him at least, if he *is* a Who fan and this is all the *eight* cameras could deliver for him. To its credit, there are some rare numbers before Tommy, as well as some faves, that are very well shot, and sometimes the editing is brilliant. This might be enough to make some viewers happy, as long as you're not anticipating Tommy. The sound overall was mediocre in the transmission I watched from DirecTV; it may be different on video or DVD.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
15,641 |
Well I gave this movie a 7. It was better than "Thirdspace" but not as good as "In the Beginning" as far as the B5 movies go. I really think the television series did a much better job overall with the special effects and character portrayal. Let's hope the producers and cast get the next series "Crusade" up to the standards of B5.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
1,903 |
WARNING! This review will reveal the ending of the movie, "Scoop." If you don't want to know how the movie ends, don't read this review!<br /><br />"Scoop" is so bad you'll think "Annie Hall" was a fluke.<br /><br />It gets one star because you get to see Hugh Jackman's naked chest. That's the only thing "Scoop" has going for it.<br /><br />Woody Allen's misogyny, and his fixation on women young enough, at this point, to be his granddaughter, has crippled any ability to make movies he may have had at any point.<br /><br />The plot seems promising: a ghost, Ian McShane, directs a fluffy headed student, Scarlett Johansson, to investigate whether or not an English Lord, Hugh Jackman, is the notorious Tarot Card Killer of prostitutes. A magician, Woody Allen, helps the girl.<br /><br />Promising plot notwithstanding, the movie completely lacks charm, or humor, or atmosphere. It's an amazingly leaden, amateurish effort for someone who has made even one previous film, never mind dozens. Perhaps Allen has had a stroke that has gone unreported in the press.<br /><br />Much is made of the fact that unlike in his previous films, Woody Allen, now a septuagenarian, has FINALLY allowed a younger male lead to get the girl.<br /><br />Not so. In fact, the plot is constructed in such a way so that the girl gets no one.<br /><br />There is an early scene where Johansson, for no reason central to the movie, allows herself to be gotten drunk, and seduced, by a powerful, older director. "Seduced" is a euphemism for what happens. It's a "slam, bam, I've gotta go" kind of moment. It bears no relation to the plot whatsoever, and it cheapens Johansson in the viewer's eye. Why did Allen add that unnecessary scene to the movie? Because it shows a powerful director - like Allen - having sex with the female lead. Allen gets to have his cake and eat it, too.<br /><br />Johansson is not yet an actress. She doesn't know how to command the screen except by wearing a tight, low cut top. She imitates Allen in a couple of scenes, and that just looks weird and sad.<br /><br />It doesn't help that her character is scripted as a doll who can't function without a ghost, or an elderly and less than awe-inspiring magician, telling her what to do at every turn.<br /><br />She is approximately half Jackman's age, and she comes across as a very vapid screen presence in their scenes together.<br /><br />Audience members not obsessed with breasts deserve better in their heroines, and Jackman deserves better, too -- a script that gives the heroine some intelligence and agency, and an actress who can convey those qualities.<br /><br />Hugh Jackman is similarly cheated by the script. Allen apparently can't stand it that Jackman is so stunningly good looking and young, and so he gives Jackman nothing to say or do. Like Johansson, he is used merely for his good looks. This is a shame, because, as Jackman has shown in any number of productions, from "Oklahoma" to "X Men," he CAN act.<br /><br />Here's the big plot twist -- Jackman, suave, charming English Lord, really is a killer. So, though the movie says it is all about letting someone else, other than Allen, get the girl, she doesn't get anyone. Jackman, the man she's been making love to, is a man who murdered a prostitute. Nice, Woody. Nice way to punish your heroine for being beyond your grasp.<br /><br />In a passive aggressive touch, Allen deprives his heroine of his own presence, as well, killing off his character, the magician, leaving Scarlett Johansson all alone at the end of the film.<br /><br />A final note: at my screening, not a single audience member laughed at any point during the film. Always a bad sign when a film is advertised as a comedy.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
2,851 |
The movie has only one flaw, unfortunately this flaw damages all credibility of the piece.<br /><br />It starts with the condemnation of the Israeli occupation of disputed territories. It fails to address the reason Israelis are there. Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Jordan attacked Israel. This is why Israel "occupys" their land, because those countries lost it in a war they started.<br /><br />The film also claims that Israel has defied the U N by not complying with Resolution 242. Problem is, 242 was rejected immediately upon it's inception by.....the palestinians, making it void.<br /><br />Many films are put together well, and can really show footage that changes minds, but remember, when watching anything, believe none of what you hear, and only half of what you see.<br /><br />All participants in this film are known critics of Israel, and some have made many antisemitic public comments, removing any possible credibility to their words.<br /><br />All participants are in dire need of a actual history lesson taught objectively, not by some palestinian sympathizer.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
21,191 |
Brilliant film, the next best film to The Drunken Master (Jackie Chan). I recently bought it on an original VHS and i haven't seen this film for 15 years but still as good as it was back then. The acting was terrible and the dubbing was even worse but it those features that make this film (and many other old fashioned Chinese kung-fu movies) great. The choreography is awesome and the storyline is basic. I have never seen the 36th chamber of shaolin but know it is the same film but Gordon liu plays San Te but San Te in Thr Return To The 36th Chamber is played by a different character. It has a lot of comedy value and brilliant kung-fu.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
5,084 |
There is no possible reason I can fathom why this movie was ever made.<br /><br />Why must Hollywood continue to crank out one horrible update of a classic after another? ( Cases in point: Mister Magoo, The Avengers - awful! )<br /><br />Christopher Lloyd, whom I normally enjoy, was so miserably miscast in this role. His manic portrayal of our beloved "Uncle Martin" is so unspeakably unenjoyable to be almost criminal. His ranting, groaning, grimacing and histrionics provide us with no reason to care for his character except as some 1 dimensional cartoon character.<br /><br />The director must have thought that fast movements, screaming dialogue and "one-take" slapstick had some similarity to comedy. Apparently he told EVERY ACTOR to act as if they had red ants in their pants.<br /><br />Fault must lie with the irresponsibly wrought script. I think the writer used "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World" as an example of a fine comedy script. As manic as that 1963 classic is, it is far superior to this claptrap - in fact - suddenly it looks pretty good in comparison.<br /><br />What is most sad about this movie is that it must have apparently been written to appeal to young children. I just am not sure whose children it was made for. Certainly no self-respecting, card-carrying child I know!<br /><br />If they HAD to remake "My Favorite Martian", why didn't they add some of the timeless charm of the original classic? <br /><br />Unfortunately, IMDB.com cannot factor in "zero" as a rating for its readers, that is the only rating that comes to mind in describing this travesty.<br /><br />One good thing did come from this movie, the actors and crew were paid - I think.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
22,491 |
The early career of Abe Lincoln is beautifully presented by Ford. Not that anyone alive has seen footage of the real Lincoln, but Fonda, wearing a fake nose, is uncanny as Lincoln, with the voice, delivery, walk, and other mannerisms - exactly as one would imagine Lincoln to have been. Ford, in the first of three consecutive films he made with Fonda, is at the top of his form, perfectly evoking early 19th century America. The story focuses on a pair accused of murder that Lincoln defends and the courtroom scenes are quite well done. The supporting cast includes many of Ford's regulars. This was Alice Brady's last film, as she died months after its release.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
13,060 |
Since I watched it for the first time, "Piedras" is a personal favorite and one of the few pictures I actually could watch over and over again. The great screenplay depicts the lives of a bunch of women (all of them somehow interconnected) with deep understanding and sensibility. Ramón Salazar achieved a compelling film in his directorial debut, and proves himself as an efficient actors' director. <br /><br />Not that all performances are excellent, though. Of all leading ladies, they range from average (Najwa Nimri) to very good (Vicky Peña), but the standing ovation should be directed to newcomer Mónica Cervera, who convincingly plays Antonia San Juan's retarded daughter. Enrique Alcides is irresistibly charming as the girl's male nurse, and there are nice small turns from Andrés Gertrúdix, Geli Albaladejo and the director himself, Ramón Salazar.<br /><br />"Piedras" is beautifully written and filmed, when I watched it I got so moved that I couldn't stop thinking of it for days. I highly recommend it.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
12,766 |
Finally got to see this classic TV movie on an unofficial disc recorded from an old VHS, it is a classic piece of horror. Its a pity more of this neglected corner of horror in terms of official releases on DVD and VHS ... the TV horror movie. Recommended for all fans of the 70's TV movie much like trilogy of terror. Those interested should get the book on the subject by David Deal - Television Fright Films of the 70's. Email me for a chance to see it.....its fabulous to see it again.<br /><br />It does have it problems like many TV movies they have to be rather inventive in the effects dept and even at 70 mins it can seem to drag possibly we are all used to more modern editing but still great stuff and far better than many theatrical frights released today.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
9,386 |
He only gets third billing (behind Arthur Treacher & Virginia Field), but this was effectively David Niven's first starring role and he's charmingly silly as P. G. Wodehouse's dunderheaded Bertie Wooster, master (in name only) to Jeeves, that most unflappable of valets. As an adaptation, it's more like a watered-down THE 39 STEPS than a true Wodehousian outing. And that's too bad since the interplay between Treacher & Niven isn't too far off the mark. Alas, the 'B' movie mystery tropes & forced comedy grow wearisome even at a brief 57 minutes. Next year's follow-up (STEP LIVELY, JEEVES) was even more off the mark, with no Bertie in sight and Jeeves (of all people!) forced to play the goof.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
2,341 |
Now look, I won't lie to you, but I only got this movie for $3.99 from a friend because it had Danni Filth, the lead singer of the ever popular death metal band "Cradle Of Filth" in it. I expected of course violence and gore at its finest, as that is what Mr Filth can be portrayed as, amongst a plot line.<br /><br />But dear god, I was oh so wrong. This movie seriously bites, big time. Being a low budget film (haha, wait, make that ZERO BUDGET), this obviously lacks the beautiful Howard Stern orchestra musical scores and the Spielberg special effects. Nope, it's all one camera, bad angles, and bad blood scenes.<br /><br />Take for example when our star and violent fiend, Mr Filth, violently kills a mugger. A grab at the throat, and blood spits out, but oh my, it looks like there's a juice packet filled with fake blood in the man's shirt.<br /><br />To you Cradle Of Filth fans: You'll hear two songs throughout the movie, but with the camera angles and shoddy filming, they drag the overall pleasure of the song DOWN.<br /><br />My final comment: Steer well away from it. It's blood, gore, breasts, and hey, even a shoddy story to go with it. So if you like appalling violence, near no voices (yes, there's hardly any words in this movie), then by all means, buy it. But if shoddy movies isn't your thing, then avoid it. Don't waste your money.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
17,083 |
"Dressed to Kill" is surely one of the best horror/thriller movies ever made.It's taut,stylish and extremely suspenseful mixture of sex and violence.The acting is pretty good,the orchestral score by Pino Donaggio is unforgettable and there's plenty of surprises to keep thriller fans intrigued."Dressed to Kill" is a murder mystery that involves a sexually frustrated housewife(Angie Dickinson),her teenage son(Keith Gordon),her psychoanalyst(Michael Caine),and a high price call girl(Nancy Allen).The murderer in the film is a transsexual named Bobbi who is also one of Caine's patients.The film is full of breathtaking moments:the infamous elevator murder scene is extremely stylish and pretty gory as well.Highly recommended.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
21,645 |
I appreciate movies like this: smart and well-crafted, entertaining, absorbing, well-acted and nicely directed. Nobody -- even Pacino -- is chewing the scenery*, trying to stand out; one of the film's most effective moments (Aielo pulling over at his beloved off ramp) is chilling precisely because of its restraint.<br /><br />Not as good as, say, QUIZ SHOW, CITY HALL is of a similar cloth: engaging the mind as well as eye, ear, and heart. Why such well-hewn entertainment flops at the box office is anybody's guess.<br /><br />*You know, Pacino does chew it up in one particular scene, but precisely because it's required. Great scene, too.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
784 |
This is a total waste of money. The production is poor, the special effects are terrible. In my country they had the courage to put this film on video named as "The Mummy" because of the success of Brendan Fraser`s film. I`m sure that you can find better horror movies.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
23,739 |
Indian Summer is a warm, multi-character film, that would make a fine afternoon film (with a bit of editing).<br /><br />The film begins in the past with a group of children being shown a moose, which sets the tone perfectly before cutting into the present, when a group of adults from the "golden age" of the camp are invited back again to spend a few weeks holiday by the head of the camp, Uncle Lou. The film then allows the viewer to spend time with these characters as they remember their times at the camp, and form new memories in their latest stay.<br /><br />The film succeeds in the great way it brings across its characters in this gorgeous setting, and allows them room to develop without having to worry about plot developments. Watching these people reminisce, and their relationships with each other is what the film is all about and why it works so well. It never goes to over the top and melodramatic, always keeping its warmth, charm and realism. I've never seen a film where nostalgia is captured so well, and found myself getting drawn in despite never having been to one of these camps as a child myself.<br /><br />For a warm, nostalgic character movie, I sincerely recommend.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
9,047 |
please save your money and go see something else. this movie was such piece of crap. i didnt want to go, but i had to so i thought i'd laugh at least once, NOPE. not a single laugh, it was that horrible! chris kattan will never get a good comedy role after this and "a night at the roxbury." this movie is completely obvious, has no smart humor at all, and just repeats itself over and over again. listen to me, and stray as far away from this movie as you possibly can!
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
1,207 |
I watched about 30 minutes into this film before I finally got sick of getting bludgeoned over the head with this movie. The soundtrack, the so-called 'plot', and each and every actor. It's like they all think they're the main part of the movie and scream "NOTICE ME!" over and over again. The bad guy has his bad-guy music going on and says sinister bad-guy-like things, just in case you didn't quite catch on. The good guy does brave and noble things just in case you didn't know he was the good guy. And oh lord, the plane scene. "MY HUSBAND IS MISSING! OH MY GOD! IT'S IMPOSSIBLE THAT HE GOT UP TO STRETCH HIS LEGS OR GO TO THE TOILET OR ANYTHING, HE MUST BE MISSING!" (And yes, I know, his clothes were still there, but honestly, she woke up and started to panic before she even had time to look at the damn seat he'd been in.)<br /><br />As a religious girl, I want to apologize to the world for wasting the film this was printed on.<br /><br />And I want my 30 minutes back.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
15,856 |
I don't remember ever seeing this one before tonight, probably the title sounded so ordinary it kept passing me by. But it is a well crafted b Western, with an interestingly brooding storyline complimented by acting veering from the good to corny.<br /><br />Robert Mitchum slopes into wide open town looking for his wife and news of their daughter, and stays for a time as town-tamer. As usual the good business folk have mixed emotions - they want to get rid of the baddies but like the business they bring. It still applies: relax drink and gambling laws and encourage the industries but pretend to deplore the seedy effects it can have on ordinary people. What's fascinating about this film is Mitchum's cynically intense portrayal in going about cleaning the town of baddies, and the townsfolk's acceptance that his violent methods were the only ones. Favourite bit: the sudden demise of 2 of the baddies in the Red Dog saloon. The firing of the main saloon bordered on nasty, but it was an effective way to combat the spread of poison.<br /><br />Overall a very good film with its only fault tending to be a little hokeyness - not so good for Do-Gooders who would probably prefer a lifetime of negotiation with Evil rather than end it.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.