id
int32 0
25k
| text
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| label
int64 0
3
| Generalization
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
10,443 |
This "film" attempts to follow the genre of low budget, hand-held camera flicks that have proved to be very effective and successful.<br /><br />This one, fails, and HOW.<br /><br />It's amazing how many so called "awards" this piece of garbage has got plastered on the cover..... it makes you wonder what these critics were on when they actually submitted this....<br /><br />Words fail to describe just how absolutely appalling this movie really is. Seriously, it's THAT BAD.<br /><br />I watched it in 20 minutes flat, on almost continual fast forward.<br /><br />From rubbish lighting to dreadful directing, grainy visuals to muffled sound, and of course not forgetting the ABYSMAL acting, this was one completely and utterly pathetic piece of so-called film making.<br /><br />It seriously, has NO redeeming qualities - whatsoever. Save your cash and watch a decent low budget horror flick, there are plenty out there - Dead End, The Blair Witch, REC, to name but a few.<br /><br />AVOID this rubbish at all costs. DO NOT waste your money or time on this piece of trash pretending to be an actual film.<br /><br />Take heed of all the other comments! You've been warned!
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
12,889 |
I gave this film 10 not because it is a superbly consistent movie, but for it's pure ability to evoke emotions in its audience. The story of one-woman's-struggle-against-all-odds is an old cliché by now, but very few films have carried it off with so much warmth and sincerity as The Color Purple.<br /><br />It also showed a different side to the African-American experience - showing that after slaves were granted freedom many fell into the ways of the hated 'white man' and were abusive of their own people. I find this an important point as it goes against the portray-white-on-black-violence-and-win-an-Oscar trend.<br /><br />Also the acting performances are superb - especially Oprah who I now have a new found respect for.<br /><br />Well worth watching - but keep some tissue handy.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
373 |
This 1973 remake of the classic 1944 Billy Wilder film, "Double Indemnity," is a textbook example of how to destroy a great script. This grade-B TV fodder also illustrates the folly of remakes in general. While Hollywood has gone after greedy executives that colorize black-and-white films and sought disclaimers on wide-screen movies that are shown in pan-and-scan versions, the industry has ignored the hacks that insist on taking a classic film and diminishing it with a shoddy remake.<br /><br />The first step in producing a bowdlerized version of a classic is to edit the script. The Billy-Wilder-Raymond-Chandler work was cut by a half hour to fit the finished film into a specified time-slot with room for commercials. Then update the production with bland, color photography, smart, upscale sets, and TV-familiar actors. Thus, the brand-new "Double Indemnity" eliminates the atmospheric black-and-white film-noir cinematography that enhanced the mood and characterizations of the original. Gone are the dusty, shadowy, claustrophobic sets that explained the protagonists' desires to escape their situations at whatever cost. Gone are the close bond between Keyes and Neff and the erotic attraction between Neff and Phyllis.<br /><br />The look of Jack Smight's take on "Double Indemnity" is more "Dynasty" than film noir. Phyllis Dietrickson has a designer home to die for, and Neff's comfy pad would be hard to afford on an insurance salesman's salary, not to mention the sporty Mercedes convertible that he drives. Neither character has any apparent motive to murder for a paltry $200,000. If not money, then perhaps murder for love or lust? Not in this version. Richard Crenna shows little interest in Samantha Eggar, and their kisses are about as lusty as those between a brother and a sister. Crenna fails to capture the cynicism of Neff, and his attempts at double-entendre and sexual suggestiveness fall horribly flat. Eggar is little better and lacks sensuality and the depth to suggest the inner workings of a supposedly devious and manipulative mind. Only Lee J. Cobb manages a creditable performance as Keyes. Director Jack Smight and his three principals have all done much better work.<br /><br />There was no conceivable reason to produce this wretched remake except to fill time in a broadcast schedule. There was no conceivable reason to resurrect this dud on DVD and package it with the original film except to fill out a double-disc package. The only lesson that can be learned from this misfire is that even a great script and great dialog can be ruined with poor casting, lackluster direction, and TV grade production values. The 1973 "Double Indemnity" should be titled "10% Indemnity," because viewing it only underscores the 100% perfection of the original movie.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
3,185 |
MABEL AT THE WHEEL is one of those movies with a behind-the-scenes story that's more interesting than the movie itself. This was Chaplin's tenth comedy for Keystone during his year of apprenticeship, and his first two-reeler. Here he played one of his last out-and-out villain roles (although the feature-length TILLIE'S PUNCTURED ROMANCE was yet to come), and it also marked one of the last times he would work for a director other than himself. In fact, Chaplin's conflicts with director and co-star Mabel Normand almost got him fired from the studio.<br /><br />Chaplin hadn't gotten along with his earlier directors, Henry Lehrman and George Nichols, but according to his autobiography having to take direction from a mere "girl" was the last straw. Charlie and Mabel argued bitterly during the making of this film. Chaplin was still a newcomer at Keystone and his colleagues didn't know what to make of him, but everyone loved Mabel. Producer Mack Sennett was on the verge of firing Chaplin when he learned that the newcomer's films were catching on and exhibitors wanted more of them A.S.A.P., so Chaplin was promised the chance to direct himself in return for finishing this movie the way Mabel wanted it.<br /><br />Unfortunately, none of that drama is visible on screen in MABEL AT THE WHEEL, which looks like typical Keystone chaos. The story concerns an auto race in which Mabel's beau (Harry McCoy) is scheduled to compete, but wicked Charlie and his henchmen abduct the lad, and Mabel must take the wheel in his place. For all the racing around, brick hurling and finger-biting the film is frankly short on laughs, but there are a few points of interest. There's some good cinematography and editing in the race sequence, though there aren't really any gags, just lots of frantic activity. Chaplin himself looks odd, sporting a goat-like beard on his chin and wearing the top hat and frock coat he wore in his very first film appearance, MAKING A LIVING, but the outfit suits the old-fashioned villainy he displays throughout. At least it's novel to watch him play such an uncharacteristic role. Visible in the stands at the race track are such Keystone stalwarts as Chester Conklin, Edgar Kennedy in a strangely dandified get-up, and a more characteristic Mack Sennett, spitting tobacco and doing his usual mindless rube routine. As a performer, Sennett was about as subtle as the movies he produced, but you have to give the guy credit: he knew what people liked. These films were hugely popular in their day. Mack's performance doesn't add much to MABEL AT THE WHEEL, but he probably had to be on hand for the filming of this one to make sure his stars didn't kill each other.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
2,767 |
How can you gather this respectable cast of young British actors and come up with such a pile of filmic manure? Horrible script, annoyingly hectic camera, awfully edited, gruesomely badly acted. Only Rhys Ifans tries to fill his role with life. Another painful proof that "different" sometimes equals "dreck". Why do the money people fail to read the scripts beforehand? Do yourself a favour: spare yourself and do something else - like hitting a mallet onto your knees. It's less painful and more fun than this movie!
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
3,575 |
After the overrated success of Amenabar and Balaguero, Spanish Horror Movies spread like a disease in the increasingly sad world of horror movies. The result is all in films like El segundo nombre, a TV-like production bad written, but acted and directed even worse. I didn't read the Ramsey Campbell book, but I'm sure that the author of The Doll Who Ate Its Mother didn't have much in common with this terrible production. Avoid it at any cost, unless you're searching for a quiet sleepy night in a fresh movie theater. 2/10
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
18,016 |
Four teenage girls in a suburb of Los Angeles get into all kinds of trouble: parties, drugs, cops, mixed-up parents, older boyfriends. Jodie Foster, sort of the mother hen of the pack, tries keeping everyone together like "a family" (like the family unit she's never had), and the heartbreaking thing about the movie is that she can't. Slowly, everyone grows up and goes away. THAT precise plot point, though underscored throughout, is unfortunately tampered with. Did we really need a long sequence with Scott Baio outracing a car full of thugs on his skateboard? Or an even longer sequence--also with Baio--where Foster has a strange soliloquy about the "pain of illusion". Some of the dialogue in fact is downright loopy, and I didn't much care for an edit late in the film that segues clumsily from a death to a wedding. But these are nitpicks in what is basically a very sensitive story about the loss of a tight bond. And Jodie's face at the ending speaks volumes. If viewers do get choked up at the end, the movie has earned this. It doesn't pander for tears or ask for sympathy. It shows us an example of friendship and hopes we understand. *** from ****
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
7,537 |
I think "The Best of Times" was a lost cause from the get go. The initial premise (guy drops the winning touchdown pass against a rival high school team, can never seem to get over it and then tries to reunite the two teams to play again) is one of the dumbest I have ever heard. Since Ron Shelton went on to write much better sports films I wonder if there was more to it then that. I hope this film wasn't green lit with Shelton pitching the story as I wrote above.<br /><br />So we have the premise. Going from there you would think, or hope, that there might be a few twists along the way to keep things lively. No such luck. This script follows every predictable cliché you can think of. There isn't a moment in this film you won't see coming a mile away before the film reveals it and the ending.... well if you can't figure out the ending by the end of the first reel then you haven't paid attention or seen any other sports movie in your life.<br /><br />Robin Williams and Kurt Russell star (and bore) in the leads. Williams is the poor schmo who dropped the big pass and Russell is the quarterback who threw the fateful pass. Gee, do you think Russell will suit up just once more to see if he and Williams can right a wrong that the town has never forgotten? This is such a lame duck comedy with a lame duck script that one can only shake their heads wondering what might have been. Sure there are a few chuckles and, to be honest, there is one truly funny scene. Williams and Russell have marital problems and the wives invite them over for dinner to resolve things. Neither guy realizes that they have been invited over on a Monday and, yes, Monday Night Football is on. Keeping in mind that the two teams playing have a combined one victory, the men (Williams especially) try to resist the temptation to find out how the game is going. The scene dissolves into some hilarious bits as Williams goes to check the score by using a bathroom visit as a ruse. When he returns he coughs the score to Russell. Later as Russell is starting to make the moves on his wife Williams wheels the television into their view from another room.<br /><br />It's an inspired and funny scene in a mostly uninspired and stupid movie.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
4,319 |
I like Fulci films, i really do and not in some boring ironic way either but i recognise that they appear hopelessly inept and garbled to lots of people.<br /><br />Conquest is where Fulci tries his hand at the epic fantasy genre and doesn't really succeed. Structurally, it's like most Fulci films you've seen. Some stuff happens, some more stuff happens and occasionally one scene might be tangentially related to another. Really it's like Conan with no sets, no script, no real actors (yes, Arnold Scharzenfartz is hardly an actor either), no budget, stupid looking dog soldiers and a bunch of gore.<br /><br />This one was a hard one to get through and i could've lived without the inch of vaseline smeared on the camera to give it that Hair Metal music video look.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
7,472 |
Attack Force has a horrendous title, and can almost certainly be judged by it's awful cover, because the film is horrible! A mish-mash of plot lines, a choppy mess, and a horribly stagnated pace, make the film hard to watch start to finish. I managed this and I'm proud. As a fan of Seagal's work (mostly of his old days), it's painful to see him star in such tripe. True Seagal's last half dozen movies or so, have sucked a lot, but some of them at least had some redeeming features. Attack Force is a mess. From conception to delivery this film has undergone many changes, from an alien plot line, to the current one about a highly addictive super drug, about to be unleashed on the Romanian (the film has several settings, none of which are Romanian, but all look like Romania because they are in Romania!) populace. The film is tacked together with little regard for whatever state the original shooting script was. Plot-holes and loose ends are abound in the film that's for sure. That's been a problem in Seagal's last few films as well, but never has the result been so boring. There's a whole plot line about the water supply being poisoned with CTX (that's the drugs cool name) that is never resolved! <br /><br />Of course in recent years the plot's haven't been the main draw in the Seagal canon so there was a big onus on the other departments, especially the action. Before I regard the action though, all the other departments are poor. The direction is poor, or perhaps better put, made to look poor. Who knows how director Michael Keusch originally intended this film? Between him finishing his job, the re-shoots by stunt man Tom Delmar, and the editing, a coherent auteur vision is completely lost. The best way to describe the film is that it's just all over the shop! The cinematography is dull, nearly inducing sleep, while the droning score (sounding like it was produced on the cheapest of cheap synthesizers) does nothing to excite matters. The cast too are poor, unable to salvage anything here. Seagal looks bored beyond recognition, and is dubbed through much of the picture, clearly when plot-points are being changed. He looks tired and overweight, and lethargic, unlike he's looked in previous pictures too (remarkable as the aforementioned have been key complaints in Seagal's recent pictures). The only redeemable cast member is Adam Croasdell as one of the villains, doing a slimy Brit routine. He seems to be a throwback to the alien plot line, because he's playing it inhuman. He seems like a cross between a body snatcher and a vampire (ditto to the lead villain played by some hot chick who appears on occasion, seemingly waiting for her husband
Dracula).<br /><br />Finally the action. Well it's poor. Poorly conceived, poorly shot. There's not much either, and there's even less featuring Seagal. Stevo doesn't really bring out the stunt double here, because there's so little to do. There's even a lengthy (repetitive and boring) action scene on the hour mark that inter-cuts occasionally with little flashes of Seagal's stand in because clearly Seagal wasn't there while the scene was being shot, and they wanted to have him feature in the action scene. Seagal eventually appears in person to shoot two guys in the head. Seagal has a producers credit here and a script credit, but from what I understand the film has been altered behind his back to the current state it's in. Seagal will apparently not be working with these people again, or with Castel Studio's who continue to deliver horrifically sub-Nu-Image (that's saying something), material.<br /><br />Overall this is one to avoid if you are not a Seagal fan. Seagal fans can also be safe in the knowledge that the big man probably won't want to do anything this bad again. Unfortunately his next film which has already been shot, with the same people, promises to be even worse than this. *
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
12,930 |
Based on Christy Brown's autobiographical novel, this endearing film tells the story of his life, him being affected by cerebral palsy and being considered basically not a person by everyone including his mother. Amazingly, he teaches himself to draw and write using his foot, which is the only part of him he can control. An amazing story of courage with a truly amazing and unforgettable oscar winning performance by Daniel Day Lewis. 9 of 10
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
8,087 |
I was staying in one night and got extremely bored around 2:00 a.m. so I flipped aimlessly through the channels and happened upon H.B.O. where this "classic" was playing. Initially I was happy to have caught something at the beginning, but my happiness faded about two minutes into the movie. The whole movie centered around an unattractive man who had a fear of females, four beautiful but empty minded women who worked as waitresses at his uncle's diner, and his enormously fat and extremely miserable cousin who also works at the diner. There are a few strange twists in this movie that make it somewhat interesting, but certainly not worth watching. Basically, if you have nothing to do some night or just can't sleep medication works much better. However guys there is a lot of skin so it may be okay to watch with no sound, but even that can get annoying
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
18,633 |
This movie does a great job of explaining the problems that we faced and the fears that we had before we put man into space. As a history of space flight, it is still used today in classrooms that can get one of the rare prints of it. Disney has shown it on "Vault Disney" and I wish they would do so again.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
13,945 |
.......Playing Kaddiddlehopper, Col San Fernando, etc. the man was pretty wide ranging and a scream. I love watching him interact w/ Amanda Blake, or Don Knotts or whomever--he clearly was having a ball and I think he made it easier on his guests as well--so long as they Knew ahead of time it wasn't a disciplined, 19 take kind of production. Relax and be loose was clearly the name of the game there.<br /><br />He reminds me of guys like Milton Berle, Benny Hill, maybe Jerry Lewis some too. Great timing, ancient gags that kept audiences in stitches for decades, sheer enjoyment about what he was doing. His sad little clown he played was good too--but in a touching manner.<br /><br />Personally I think he's great, having just bought a two DVD set of his shows from '61 or so, it brings his stuff back in a fond way for me. I can remember seeing him on TV at the end of his run when he was winding up the series in 1971 or so.<br /><br />Check this out if you are a fan or curious. He was a riot.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
18,423 |
To my surprise I quite enjoyed 'Spacecamp', i remember seeing it about 13 years ago, and recently I hired it again. I was quite impressed. Obviously the special effects in todays space films such as Armageddon and Deep Impact are far superior to those in SpaceCamp. However, this film had a story- a very stereotypical eighties story where you could almost recite the next line of dialogue before hearing it. But thats what I liked about it- they don't make films like this anymore, so it was a refreshing change. It was interesting to see Kelly Preston, Leaf Phoenix and Lea Thomson in early roles, with Tom Skerrit and Kate Capshaw to add substance to the light & fluffy plot. Absolutely loved the robot named Jinx, it was very cute, but it unfortunately had more emotion than some of the main characters. The film was almost inspirational in its own way, and it was interesting to note that it was filmed at the NASA Spacecamp in Alabama (i think).
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
12,689 |
Hickory Dickory Dock was a good Poirot mystery. I confess I have not read the book, despite being an avid Agatha Christie fan. The adaptation isn't without its problems, there were times when the humour, and there were valiant attempts to get it right, was a little overdone, and the events leading up to the final solution were rather rushed. I also thought there were some slow moments so some of the mystery felt padded. However, I loved how Hickory Dickory Dock was filmed, it had a very similar visual style to the brilliant ABC Murders, and it really set the atmosphere, what with the dark camera work and dark lighting. The darker moments were somewhat creepy, this was helped by one of the most haunting music scores in a Poirot adaptation, maybe not as disturbing as the one in One Two Buckle My Shoe, which gave me nightmares. The plot is complex, with all the essential ingredients, though not as convoluted as Buckle My Shoe,and in some way that is a good thing. The acting was very good, David Suchet is impeccable(I know I can't use this word forever but I can't think of a better word to describe his performance in the series) as Poirot, and Phillip Jackson and Pauline Moran do justice to their integral characters brilliantly. And the students had great personalities and well developed on the whole, particularly Damian Lewis as Leonard. All in all, solid mystery but doesn't rank along the best. 7.5/10 Bethany Cox
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
23,668 |
This was the second of the series of 6 "classic Tarzan" movies featuring Johnny Weismuller in the title role and Maureen O'Sullivan as Jane.<br /><br />As usual, this was a wonderful film in this series; and perhaps stands out as an "in between" film in a progression that could almost exemplify the development of cinema from the early 1930s into the 1940s. As such, it displayed good pace, though not as good as subsequent films. Likewise, the cinematography is less accomplished than later Tarzan films in this series. The stock I saw was of uneven quality, containing some grainy scenery and some under-exposed and over-exposed scenes. The crisp display of later Tarzan films is lacking here. On the other hand, there is one scene, very early on, in which the jerky movements of a camera with foliage swishing in front of it as the camera backs up, showing safari men forging ahead into the jungle, was really almost modern in its style, and stands in strong contrast to the stationary shots that make up the rest of the movie.<br /><br />Regarding plot, one interesting feature here was Jane's near-fickleness and inconstancy, when she was being subject to Martin's flirtations. The kiss and Jane's stunned, and partly guilty, reaction foreshadow something of the Jane we see in the future as well in these films. Compare, for example, in Tarzan Finds a Son! Jane's duplicitous actions tricking Tarzan and delivering Boy to his family. Later she admits to Tarzan that she was wrong. Here, nothing quite so explicit, but we have Jane "returning" to the Jane Parker of yesteryear, and in an almost repentant series of actions, stripping herself of the evening gown brought by Martin and Harry to entice her away from Tarzan.<br /><br />There were a whole series of depictions and sequences that especially struck me in this viewing.<br /><br />For one thing, the picture we get of the domestic life of Tarzan is here, as later, a combination of sensual idyll with always the nearby possibility of violent death. This to me is very much at the core of the Tarzan experience.<br /><br />I was really surprised by some quite violent scenes even by today's standards.<br /><br />There were a whole series of scenes that gave me special pleasure: Tarzan leading the elephants into the Valley of the Elephants' Graveyard; Tarzan being rescued from watery death by the hippo, and then nursed to health by the apes; Cheetah going to find Tarzan when Jane and the other men are trapped at the foot of the escarpment; Cheetah in particular crossing the river on the log. The final battle scenes of savages & lions on the ground and savages & apes in the trees. Jane, showing us that she is truly of Tarzan's world now, quickly displaying her enterprising woodcraft to work up a line of fire to keep the lions away.<br /><br />The final series of scenes is splendid: suddenly Tarzan is on the scene, flinging savages from the trees and taking charge of the lions, and summoning the elephants to the rescue! That final cry of Tarzan in triumph, holding a happy Jane in his arms, with a dancing and delighted Cheetah beside them, is a memorably picture and really a fine summation of the story of Tarzan and Jane.<br /><br />All in all, this is another wonderful classic Tarzan movie. I would recommend this movie strongly to anyone.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
6,164 |
This film is pure 'Hollywood hokum'. It is based upon a novel called 'Not Too Narrow
Not Too Deep' by Richard Sale, which may or may not have been interesting; it would take research to find out! The story in the film takes for granted many incidents and much background which obviously existed in the novel but are nowhere to be seen in the film, so either the film was savagely cut or the screenplay was a mess from the start. There is not one millisecond in this film which is remotely realistic, either in terms of events or characters. It is pure Hollywood fantasy in every respect. Two well-known actors, Paul Lukas and Peter Lorre, are so under-used and wasted that there was no point in their being in the film at all. They must have been thrown into the mix in the manner in which one adds a sprinkling of chopped chives to an omelette, hoping that the flavour will be enhanced. The film is a ponderous attempt at producing a 'morality tale', and is so corny that it is laughable. The story concerns some hardened criminals imprisoned in French Guiana who want to escape from their French colonial prison through a jungle (very much a Hollywood set jungle, with a rubber snake). Naturally there has to be a woman in the story, so Joan Crawford hams it up as a down-on-her-luck tramp who for some reason becomes irresistible to Clark Gable, one of the escaped criminals. Crawford in escaping through the jungle wears high-heeled shoes and keeps her makeup fresh. Gable flirts and grimaces and makes mawkish expressions, crinkling his brow as was his wont, smirking and looking suggestively at everybody, which was his manner of acting. It is hard to treat such a character as a hardened criminal when he is always trying so hard to be Clark Gable that surely he hasn't any time left to be a thief. (Attention-seekers are by definition too busy to steal and unsuited to a task which requires that people NOT see them.) The whole escapade is so ridiculous that it can only be regarded as light entertainment. An attempt at religiosity and 'depth' is made by injecting into the story a mysterious 'angel of mercy' who voluntarily walks into the prison and pretends to be an inmate. He helps in the escape and accompanies all the criminals and ministers to their various deaths, helping them to find 'peace' in their last gasps. This character is played very well by Ian Hunter, who retains throughout a convincing air of secret knowledge, smiles enigmatically, makes cryptic prophetic remarks, and has a small spot trained on his face to give him a heavenly glow. The theme is meant to be redemption. You might call it the Donald Duck version of 'Hollywood Goes Moral and Gets Heavy'. For real depth, Hitchcock's 'I Confess' of 1953 shows how it should really be done. By contrast, this piece of trivial nonsense shows just how bare the cupboards of Meaning were in Tinsel Town, and that when they went rummaging for something that might mean something, all they could come up with was, you guessed it, more tinsel.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
23,323 |
I think if you were to ask most JW's whether they expect a miracle cure because of their faith, you will find they do not. I know I do not. What you will find instead is that they believe the promises Christ made of a resurrection. So, even even if the worst were to happen and we die while holding onto our integrity, Jehovah can, and will correct this.<br /><br />It really gets down to a simple question: is God real to you or is this all just make believe? If he is real, and you trust him, you will follow his directions no matter what the short term outcome may be.<br /><br />I had a heart attack about a year and a half ago. One in my family was horrified when she saw the words "NO BLOOD" written in large letters over my chart. I reasoned with her that if I were in a position that only a blood transfusion would save my life, would that be a good time to anger the only one could return me to life when the time came? She didn't get it -- God just isn't real enough to her. Too bad. I wish she could have the comfort a strong faith gives.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
22,609 |
If you like Jamie Foxx,(Alvin Sanders),"Date From Hell",'01, you will love his acting as a guy who never gets an even break in life and winds up messing around with Shrimp, (Jumbo Size) and at the same time lots of gold bars. Alvin Sanders has plenty of FBI eyes watching him and winds up getting hit by a brick in the jaw, and David Morse,(Edgar Clenteen), "Hack" '02 TV Series, decides to zero in on poor Alvin and use him as a so called Fish Hook to attract the criminals. There is lots of laughs, drama, cold blood killings and excellent film locations and plenty of expensive cars being sent to the Junk Yard. Jamie Foxx and David Morse were outstanding actors in this film and it was great entertainment through out the entire picture.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
22,214 |
This was a wonderfully clever and entertaining movie that I shall never tire of watching many, many times. The casting was magnificent in matching up the young with the older characters. There are those of us out here who really do appreciate good actors and an intelligent story format. As for Judi Dench, she is beautiful and a gift to any kind of production in which she stars. I always make a point to see Judi Dench in all her performances. She is a superb actress and a pleasure to watch as each transformation of her character comes to life. I can only be grateful when I see such an outstanding picture for most of the motion pictures made more recently lack good characters, good scripts and good acting. The movie public needs heroes, not deviant manikins, who lack ingenuity and talent. How wonderful to see old favorites like Leslie Caron, Olympia Dukakis and Cleo Laine. I would like to see this movie win the awards it deserves. Thank you again for a tremendous night of entertainment. I congratulate the writer, director, producer, and all those who did such a fine job.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
4,884 |
A lot of people seemed to have liked the film, so I feel somewhat bad giving it a bad review. But after sitting through 96 minutes of it, I feel I have to do so. Where the heck is the plot in this film?! I must have missed it, I was waiting for the storyline to unfold and nothing happened. Sure the ending was "somewhat shocking" but they didn't build up to it. I forgot who was who half of the time, so they didn't really develop the characters. The acting was so-so, most of the time it was believable, but I was able to see through it most of the time. So... without giving anything away, I must say that unless you like the actors in the film, there is no real reason to watch this movie. I could be mistaken, but I just didn't understand why there was so little, or too much of the film. I can't decide which one that would be, so I say judge for yourselves. I don't even know if renting it would be a good idea, the cost and all... <br /><br />Plot: 0/10 Characters: 1/10 Acting: 2/10 Overall: 3/10 I feel like that's too high really, I am staying with my vote up at the top.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
19,268 |
Of all the British imperialist movies like Four Feathers, Charge of the Light Brigade for example, this movie stands out as the cream of the crop. It reflects a time when "the sun never set on the British Empire." Get over it. I won't go into why because so many others have expressed the many reasons that makes this film great. I have visited the Alabama Hills and have photographed the pass through which the British marched and it remains as it was, unchanged by time and encroachment by man and vandals. And even though I know it's coming, seeing Din lying dead on a stretcher and when these lines are read <br /><br />"Yes, Din! Din! Din!<br /><br />You Lazarushian-leather Gunga Din!<br /><br />Though I've belted you and flayed you,<br /><br />By the livin' Gawd that made you,<br /><br />You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din" <br /><br />I still, at 54 years of age, get misty eyed and anyone who says they don't is a liar. The range of emotions within it is the mark of a great movie. Like the ending of another great film, Of Mice and Men.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
799 |
What starts out as an interesting story quickly disintegrates into nothing. Don't bother watching to the end hoping for an explanation of what is stalking the visitors, there is no ending. No explanation, no resolution, zip. This could have been a good movie it they had purchased an entire script.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
22,881 |
After playing a nymphomaniac in WRITTEN ON THE WIND, Dorothy Malone finally said good-bye to her sweet sister/wife roles and demonstrated an ability to play mantraps with the best of them. She and Gloria Grahame played the same sort of tramps--and for her efforts here in a very manipulative role, Malone won a Best Supporting Actress Oscar.<br /><br />The film she's in is not quite up to Oscar standards, but it is a strong enough melodrama under Douglas Sirk's capable hands. There's an almost noirish look to the explosive opening scene and it sets the tone for the rest of the sudsy fireworks in a story that has ROCK HUDSON, LAUREN BACALL, ROBERT STACK and DOROTHY MALONE as its headliners.<br /><br />Domestic squabbles among the inhabitants of a wealthy family with an oil background are the primary focus of the drama, with the accent on the strong supporting players, Stack and Malone. Both of them seize the opportunity with both hands and Stack, too, should have been awarded for his sterling job as the weak, alcoholic brother driven to desperation by his own wild motives.<br /><br />The nominal stars have less impressive work to do, but do it with their usual skill and conviction--Hudson and Bacall. They play their more sympathetic roles with quiet authority and understanding.<br /><br />The use of color is particularly striking (as it usually is in a Sirk film) and yet it doesn't preclude me from thinking of the film as a Technicolor film noir in the vein of LEAVE HER TO HEAVEN.<br /><br />Well worth watching with some interesting performances from the entire cast.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
4,881 |
Not too keen on this really. The story is pretty horrid and unconvincing. I enjoyed the first 10 minutes, bill nunns good. After that it was pretty appalling. Tim doesn't fit the role, he comes across as a smug self inflated ass & Pruitt taylor vince is entirely unconvincing as a trumpet player. It's a idealist film and as a musician, feel slightly offended after watching it. There's no scenes of 1900 practising or playing with his fellow band mates, he's completely self indulgent. I find it hard to build any relationship with this kind of character, maybe i'm watching the wrong film. If you have no real passion for life or sense of what musics all about then happily indulge in the suspension of disbelief and watch this waffle.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
1,157 |
The name of Nick Stahl, the young cast and the attractive cover of the VHS made me buy and watch this flick, expecting to see a good teen slash movie. What a crap! The full of clichés screenplay, the dialogs and the performances are awful, dreadful, very bad, terrible, horrendous summarizing, a complete waste of time. There is no horror, black humor, only an absolutely boring story, with shameful plot points. The film begins with six characters, indeed three couples, together like a group of friends, but indeed very nasty persons that seems to be enemies, playing a ridiculous senseless game called "Taboo", and with each one of them writing yes or no for certain taboo issues. That is it: no previous development of the characters, the viewer does not know who they are, their motives and relationship. Then, there is an ellipsis to one year later, and the same group is gathered together in a New Years Eve party, insulting each other in a very sordid way. But the plot and the twists are so ridiculous, predictable, mediocre and unbelievable that do not deserve any additional line in my review. One advice only: do not waste your time or money on this garbage, you will certainly regret. My vote is one (awful).<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Taboo Jogando Com o Assassino" ("Taboo Playing With the Killer")
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
5,887 |
Unlike others, I refuse to call this pitiful excuse for a movie a triumph of style over substance (I don't want to give style a bad name). Still, it's the most apt description that comes to mind.<br /><br />A pointless, unpleasant and ultimately meaningless assault on the eyes and ears, "Wonderland" leaves one wondering only why the film was made in the first place and who in their right mind gave the greenlight to this dreary and tangled mess. A biography of porn star John Holmes? A study of who the man was, why he went into the business and how it affected him? Great. Bound to be compelling, bound to be entertaining. Bound to be enlightening and fascinating on about a million levels (and I have zero interest in porn).<br /><br />But a confusing, violent, Rashomon-style study of a series of murders Holmes was connected with after his career ended? Who in hell cares? What insights do we gain? This film completely ignores the most interesting aspect of John Holmes's life -- that he was a porno star! "Wonderland" might as well have been about anyone: the fact that the main character is the most famous male adult film star in history is almost irrelevant.<br /><br />To make matters about a thousand times worse, the picture is loaded down with jerkoff gimmicks -- annoying machine gun editing, sloppy Dogme-95 camerawork, unnecessary split-screen graphics and animation, etc. etc.<br /><br />In the absence of a compelling story and unique main character, the director (and I use the term loosely) has thrown together a dozen or so techniques from other films and decided to call the resulting mess a movie, among these: the trendy, bleach-bypass look of "Narc" or "Traffic" or "Minority Report;" the frantic, often incomprehensible, throw-the-pieces-of-film-in-the-air cutting style of "Natural Born Killers" or "28 Days Later;" the fill-every-moment-of-silence-with- an-old-song-to-evoke-the-period soundtrack of "Goodfellas" or "Blow;" the groovy, retro title sequence of "Velvet Goldmine" or "Autofocus" or "Catch Me If You Can." The list goes on and on and on. Pathetic.<br /><br />I wanted to like this movie. I had real hopes for it. "Wonderland Avenue" had been around for years; had the context of the murders been emphasized rather than the murders themselves, I think it could have worked. Had the murders (and Holmes's growing involvement with seedy L.A. types) signaled the end of a career, or the end of the swinging '70s, I think the film could have had meaning; it could have served a purpose. As it is -- meaningless. Pointless. Who cares how many perspectives exist on a series of murders generally unknown by the public? The case isn't famous enough to merit such painstaking examination.<br /><br />This film should have been the third act of "The John Holmes Story." That's it. Period. And it could have worked. What's that? Oh, right, right, they didn't want to tell a traditional rise-and-fall story. They didn't want to make "Boogie Nights" or "Goodfellas" or "Star 80" or "Autofocus." They wanted their film to be different. Right?<br /><br />Well, in one sense, they succeeded. There's a big difference between those films and "Wonderland." The difference is those films are good.<br /><br />
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
18,904 |
What i like about you is one of those series you need to see but aren't sure you would see, the beginning is cool and its sucks you into the series just for fun, the second part i season 2-3 which are more stale, they come and go in what you want. what happens with many series is that they don't end with something special because the second part of the series always goes down into the drain, this one also somewhat did, the third part is the one to spoil and ruin the whole series, usually, but it doesn't, this ending is perfect for the series, it fits perfect, actually i was pretty angry about all these guys in Val's life, actually i wanted to end with Jeff in the end, but later on it changed, they chose to take Vic into the series after almost 3 seasons without him, and that was the biggest surprise and also what made the series go on top.<br /><br />see it many times the series is actually very cool just don't expect the second part to be that good it isn't but the third part does what was needed and made the series to one that was worth the whole thing, i am happy to say i was glad and happy about the series and now i will go over to see two guys a girl and a pizza place, when i have seen the whole series i will be back...
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
17,821 |
Poor geeky Marty (Simon Scuddamore) gets horribly burned due to a cruel April Fool's day stunt gone very wrong. Flash forward a decade and those involved (including Caroline Monroe, known to horror fans for her turns in Maniac, Faceless & the Last Horror Film) in the prank are psyched for the upcoming 10 year high school reunion not aware that a court jester-masked killer is hiding out in the (now closed down) school and out for revenge.<br /><br />Chaulk this one up to being a guilty pleasure, I knew it's a bad film. It has all the characteristics of one. Yet there's just something about it that makes me feel compelled to watch it from time to time (preferably with beer in hand). I'm even willing to overlook the absolutely horrid ending (which, I do have to say, I hate) I guess I like it because it has a fun atmosphere about it and some pretty cool kills.<br /><br />Eye Candy (for the men): Josephine Scandi & Donna Yeager both get topless <br /><br />Eye Candy (for the ladies): a gratuitous cock shot of Simon Scuddamore at the start of the film <br /><br />My Grade: B- <br /><br />Lionsgate DVD Extras: Optional trivia track; trailer for this film; and trailers for My Bloody Valentine (1981), Monster Squad, Dirty Dancing
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
12,298 |
This Movie had some great actors in it! Unfortunately they had forgotten how to act. I was hoping the movie would get better as it went along but the acting was so robotic it was doomed from the very start. It actually appeared that maybe the actors were reading from a script the whole time. Maybe it was the Musical score or the Director himself, but one thing is for sure the Make-up artist needs to get another job ! The Facial Powder was so thick you could see it caked on the actors faces ! Would not recommend this movie to anyone, no wonder it never hit the Theaters. Cuba Gooding Jr. / James Woods shame on you guys for not giving it your all. The Plot was great just needed a whole lot more.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
10,283 |
I heard many stories about this film being great... Well, I took my chance when I saw it for a cheap price at Ebay last month.<br /><br />I watched it, and I have only a few comments about it:<br /><br />1) Terrible story-line, 2) Terrible acting, 3) Bad fighting-scenes...<br /><br />I never seen any worse movie in my life so far!! When the storyline is bad, than at least make the fights something more interesting. But BOTH are done ridiculously bad...<br /><br />* The only positive thing about this movie (in my opinion) is Nikki Berwick. God, she looks nice in this movie.<br /><br />That's about it...
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
16,116 |
I must admit - the only reason I bought this movie was because I am a big fan of Gackt and a *huge* fan of Hyde. I was expecting a good movie with a lot of shots that were, shall we say, pleasing to the feminine eye but a slightly cheesy story. I mean, the synopsis sounded really out there. And now that I have just finished watching it - I feel the need to tell the world of its brilliance! Hyde and Gackt both gave heart-wrenching performances, and my eyes are still hot from the crying that lasted throughout the last half of the movie. You get sucked into the story, and you really feel for the characters by the end. The element of vampirism - which I love, but is very easy to overdo or to ruin a movie with - is subtly mixed into the storyline as to make it something merely exotic, normal to this setting, rather than a random unnecessary addition to the story. I ranked it at a 9 out of 10 at first...and then I went back and tried to think of why I wasn't giving it that last point. Came up with nothing. So a ten out of ten it is. After all - I'm not much of a critic - the fact that I'm bothering to write a review at all means I either really hate the movie or really love it. You can tell what side I'm on with Moon Child.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
1,286 |
This is absolutely the worst movie I've seen all year.<br /><br />First, I will say that the acting was very good, and by all of the cast.<br /><br />This was apparently meant to be very offbeat, and in that regard it succeeded. By the same token, the story revolves around a self-centered wannabe, who is a clueless, talentless chronic liar, whose source of self confidence comes from a pair of leather slippers.<br /><br />This was worse than watching a car wreck.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
20,235 |
My dog recently passed away, and this was a movie I loved as a kid, so I had to see it to try to cheer up.<br /><br />(Beware of Dog, I mean Spoilers.) This movie isn't just for kids and it's far from ordinary. It was set in New Orleans in 1939. First and foremost, the dog was not portrayed as an extra family member in this film, but as an adult with his own complicated life to deal with.<br /><br />In the beginning, Charlie is not too different from his dishonest and brutal business partner, Carface. He is money driven, greedy, and just escaped death row, as he states in the start of the feature. The difference between Charlie and Carface is that Charlie can learn and is willing to listen to others; Anne Marie and his sidekick, Itchy. Carface will not even listen to the fat, ugly dog with the big glasses who happens to be closest to him.<br /><br />Carface attempts to murder the hero, because he wants 100% of the profits in their business and won't settle for only 50% - a highly unusual way for a German Shepherd mix to die. Also, being eaten by a prehistoric sized alligator who ends up sparing your life because you can sing is highly unlikely whether you are a dog or not. This is a cartoon, and that's why it is logical here.<br /><br />Carface's method of revenge is through murder, while Charlie believes success is the best revenge, financial success that is. After surviving death, he starts a business by taking Carface's source of financing, a highly talented girl who possesses the ability to communicate with animals. They win a whole bunch of races, and Charlie tells her he'll give the money to the poor - hint hint: Charlie and Itchy live in a junkyard, and are therefore poor. He uses the money toward his casino/bar/theatre, and not the other "poor." The reason why Anne Marie has the ability to talk to animals is that she has compassion, and she listens carefully. She teaches Charlie ethics by pointing out his gambling, lying, and stealing. Charlie tries to make up for it by buying her dresses. She added the ethics that his business needed, while Charlie did management, and Itchy provided construction.<br /><br />Carface uses violence and property damage to tear down Charlie's business, which is unprotected by the government. Charlie loses everything and all he has left is this little girl. In the end he had to choose between her life and his own. He first grabs the watch out of self preservation, and sets it down when the girl started to sink. Both the girl and the watch were sinking, and he had to choose which one, and he chose the girl.<br /><br />The great part about this movie that focuses on a person's ability to learn right from wrong over time, and a child's ability to cope with the natural occurrence of death of their pet, is that it never shows anyone dying! The watch symbolizes his life, and the watch is shown being submerged and stopped. All the deaths were suggestive, even for the villain. I didn't cry during this movie until now, and I have gotten so much more out of it, that I had to write it down and share it with you.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
19,609 |
I don't know if I'd consider it a masterpiece of not, but it's damn near close; it's extremely well made, artistic, suspenseful, intricately plotted, thematically challenging and full of bleak foreshadowing and sexual-religious imagery. There's also some great camera-work from Jan de Bont, an atmospheric score from Loek Dikker and outstanding acting from Jeroen Krabbé and Renée Soutendijk, the latter giving one of the most sneaky, subtle 'femme fatale' performance I've ever seen. Like many other European movies, this movie has an unashamed, non-judgmental attitude toward sex, nudity and the complexities of sexuality and has zero reservations about mixing it all up with religious and/or surrealistic (some would say blasphemous) images. In other words, if you can't bear the thought of seeing a lust-driven homosexual envisioning the object of his carnal desire as Jesus crucified on the cross before the two of them go at it inside a cemetery crypt then this might not be the movie for you. What surprised me more is how this bizarre movie managed to completely dodge being a pretentious mess. It mixes the abstract/surreal/parallel fantasy-reality scenes and somehow makes it all work. Like any good mystery, you can see the pieces slowly falling into place as the movie progresses. There is NOT an out-of-left-field resolution here. The movie has direction, there's no needless filler and once it concludes, you begin to understand the purpose of what may have confused you earlier. If you like the work of Ken Russell and David Lynch, I can almost guarantee you will love this movie. Hell, if you have no idea who they even are, you still might like it.<br /><br />I'm not going to spoil the plot by getting too detailed, but the film's opening shot - through a web as a spider catches its prey - sets the stage as Krabbé, as unshaven, smug, bisexual writer Gerard Reve (interestingly, also the name of the writer whose novel this is based on) crosses paths with a wealthy, mysterious, sexy woman named Christine (Soutendijk, melding androgynous stylings with Simone Simon-like innocence/cuteness that's pretty unnerving), who may be a literal 'black widow' responsible for the deaths of her three previous husbands. The two become lovers and move in with one another, but we're led to believe (through Christine's bizarre behavior and the frequent appearances of another woman - played by Geert de Jong - who may or may not actually exist) something terrible is boiling under the surface. When another of Christine's lovers, the young and "beautiful" Herman (Thom Hoffman), shows up at the house, things take an unexpected turn. And that's all you need to know.<br /><br />THE 4TH MAN was a huge art-house success in much of the world, but didn't make it over to the US until 1984, where it was awarded the Best Foreign Film of the year from the Los Angeles Film Critics Association. The most common video is the Media release, which has been horribly dubbed. Try to avoid that one and head straight for the newer subtitled Anchor Bay DVD release. Since coming to America, Verhoeven's career has had its ups and downs. He has made a few decent films (Flesh & Blood, RoboCop) and some lousy ones (Showgirls). In fact, Verhoeven's big hit Basic Instinct is almost like a less interesting, junior league version of The Fourth Man. Soutendjik also tried her hand at acting in America and since GRAVE SECRETS (1989) and EVE OF DESTRUCTION (1991) were the best offers she was getting, she headed right back home to the Netherlands.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
3,739 |
I've given up trying to figure out what version of this I'm watching. The copyright at the end indicates 1983. And though this is not the important bit of my objection to this film, I will say that watching a film obviously made in the Aquarian Age (including long haired hippie chicks and odious station wagons) but with a 1980s synth soundtrack is unsettling. Extremely unsettling.<br /><br />My main objection here is HOW DARE THE FILMMAKERS BURY CUTE-AS-A-BUTTON PAMELA FRANKLIN ALIVE. HOW DARE THEY.<br /><br />Seriously she's all like adorable and stuff but in the two movies I've seen her in - this crapfest and the otherwise excellent Legend of Hell House - they kill her off.<br /><br />I would like to put the film industry on notice. Pamela Franklin has apparently retired from the business but if she ever decides to do another film and some blasted cur of a director attempts to kill her off I SHALL ASK HIM TO STEP OUTSIDE.<br /><br />NO ONE BEATS UP ON PAMELA FRANKLIN AND GETS AWAY WITH IT. I AM QUITE CROSS. THE FURY HAS BEEN UNLEASHED.<br /><br />For B-movie fans seeking out a crapfest, you could do much worse than this. On the plus side, this is not a film which involves Satanism in a peripheral and circumspect way - this movie is a hardcore satanic film.<br /><br />Wall-to-wall satanic ceremonies, baphomets, hallucinations, a ludicrous rat attack - what else could you ask for.<br /><br />This excellent stuff is quite nearly ruined by the baffling grafted-on 1980s synth soundtrack, which is about as mismatched to a film as it is possible to be. The soundtrack reminded me of something you'd hear on The Equalizer. It's really bad.<br /><br />Also, they made Pamela Franklin squash her charming English accent, which was also quite rude, if not a cruel atrocity (against the viewer) such as you might find covered by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I say that we have a right to hear Pamela Franklin speak in her own voice. Who's with me? I could forgive everything else about this film if they didn't abuse Pamela Franklin. And so I throw the gauntlet down, sirs -- ANYONE WHO MESSES WITH PAMELA FRANKLIN MESSES WITH ME.<br /><br />EVEN IN A FICTIONAL CONTEXT.<br /><br />GOOD DAY, SIRS.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
5,707 |
The film is pretty confusing and ludicrous. The plot is awful...but on the plus side the acting is pretty good, with a few good shouts and rants. Sharon stone is OK this time...not even half as good as the original mind you. The murders aren't as gory as the first one either, which is a shame. Its not the unpredictable mess everyone say it is though. The sex is pretty graphic at times while others it is clear it is fake (they are fully clothed). The script is weak most of the time, but the scenes with banter and arguments between Dr.Glass and Washburn are highlights. The plot twists a few times, but the ending is awful. The tension is always constant with a huge dollop of 'Oh my god!'. The chase sequences are brilliantly directed, and shots and camera angles are impressive and bring a bit of class to an otherwise, rush-felt film. Sharon stone is a bit old for this too. The bits where we see her breasts were, in the first one, delights. This time around, they are too horrid to describe. The films its self is rather average, but it is worth a go. Mainly because the film does deserve some good buzz...with the opening sequence being a highlight. Not to be critical, but if you liked the first one - leave this one. Don't ruin the run. You'll be glad you left this stone unturned.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
14,115 |
1933 seemed to be a great year for satires ("Duck Soup" for instance) and this one fits in well even though it is about the obsession with contract bridge. The tone is like a humorous piece from The New Yorker, appropriate, since the film begins with the "Goings On About Town" page of that magazine. The only thing odd is the casting. Made a few years later William Powell and Myrna Loy would have been perfect. However, after 1934, you wouldn't have had adultery handled in such a sophisticated fashion, the young and beautiful Loretta Young in some shear and slinky outfits, or a group of prostitutes listening to a bridge contest on radio. Even if you know nothing about bridge, you may still want to check out a rare example of Hollywood satire.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
803 |
Alas, poor Hamlet. I knew him, dear reader, and let me tell thee, THIS VERSION SUCKS! I don't know who of all people put up the money for this flotsam, but I hope that they're proud of themselves. They took THE classic play and turned it into the most boring melodrama imaginable. This version is quite literally so bad, that not even the presence of a great thespian like Maximilian Schell in the title role can save it. This movie's only redeeming quality is that it made great fodder for "MST3K"; Mike, Servo and Crow had a lot of fun with this one.<br /><br />But either way, I'm sure that Shakespeare, had he been alive when they made this, would not have wanted his name associated with it. This "Hamlet" is not even so bad that's it good; it's just plain bad. Absolutely dreadful.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
16,966 |
I couldn't believe the comments made about the movie.<br /><br />As I read the awful opinions about the movie I actually wondered if you had actually viewed the same movie that I did.<br /><br />What I viewed was incredible! I think the actresses and director did a fantastic job in the movie.<br /><br />I hadn't had the pleasure to see either actress previously and I couldn't have been more set back by the incredible job that they did I'd have to say its the most believable movie that I've seen in a long time. <br /><br />What I don't see is why everyone has such a problem with Deanna's choice of drug in the attempt of suicide scene, from the comments made you sound like it was the actresses choice and her stupid choice. That I don't understand, its a movie written by someone else and directed by someone else so how it can be the actresses error I fail to see. I think it was a real believable movie that I would see again and recommend. Opinions are what the are and its too bad that so many are so close minded. I hope to see any of the actors soon I think that all played great roles.<br /><br />Busy Philipps will be the highest paid actress someday and I hope she can laugh in the face of everyone that criticized her! You Go Girl!
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
11,960 |
A friend of mine gave me this movie. A friend of mine is now in a hospital were a team of doctors are trying to surgically remove a DVD casing from his ***. <br /><br />I got quit excited by the prospects of an other Michael Chabon movie. After all his novels have brought me much entertainment and previous screenplay adaptations were great, but boy, was I wrong.<br /><br />First off the people that did the casting must have been asleep whilst doing so. I imagine the castings went something like this. "Tell me, do you like fish?" "Yes I enjoy fish very much." "Wonder full, you're hired. Have some money." <br /><br />Than there is the script. I have read Chabon, who I hope went blind before he could see this piece of dong, and it has absolutely nothing to do with his novel. I'm not quit sure why it annoyed me like it did, but it might have something to do with the fact that listening to a speech impaired 90 year old drunk duck hunter with a right cranial lobe dysfunction would have been a treat in comparison to the one-liners these 2nd degree model massacre kids spat out.<br /><br />This is an actual line from the movie; "If you tell me something that you've never said out loud to anyone before, than this moment becomes unique!" Unique? Does it? Does it really? Off course not you plank. Please pass me the Imodium. I'll have a whole ****ing strip. <br /><br />The directing is... well. I've got nothing. Maybe Rawson Marshall Thurber just got word his grandmother exploded or something. Stick to directing comedies. No stick to directing commercials. <br /><br />This movie is so horrible it left me banging my head against a wall so hard it brought me back to the stone age. I give it 2 stars because I don't wanna be the guy that watched a 1 star movie.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
13,372 |
Listening to the soundtrack at the moment, the images come back with a vividness that makes my longing for a dry eye very strong (in order to be able to type this). I've seen it twice thus far, and I should be ashamed for having seen it *only* twice.<br /><br />I've seen all Miyazaki & Studio Ghibli films, and they are invariably nothing less than masterpieces (except maybe for Nausicaa which was, even in the non-cut up version too premature compared to the nec-plus-ultra manga). Still, their strength sometimes becomes their weakness, as they tend to get too naive/positive (Chihiro), or, with more nuance, a bit too explicit/moralist (Mononoke). At least, compared to for example the other Ghibli master Takahata (Grave of the Fireflies / Only Yesterday / Raccoon Wars). But not this one.<br /><br />In Laputa, Miyazaki pours all the brilliant storytelling that tellers of tales have gathered and perfected over the ages, combined with a bit of morale, but nicely interwoven with not only a completely transcendental atmosphere, but also with the humor and amusement of for example Totoro. Every single main character is perfectly portrayed with their doubts and fears and their qualities that help them overcome difficulties. The pacing is so perfect that I know of nothing except a black hole that would be able to exert such a gravitational pull on your whole being. The story sets out as an action flic with mysteries hinted at, but when the girl falls from the sky, unconscious, floating with the stone, and the main theme kicks in, you get a glimpse of the grand mystery you're about to uncover, but the story then settles and gradually, over a number of carefully selected scenes of action and serene beauty, builds to an unforgettable climax of melancholy, hope, beauty - like, following days of sombre gloom, finally seeing the horizon on a clear morning, knowing the path walked, seeing the distance ahead, but smiling at the mere fact of being able to catch a glimpse of it.<br /><br />It is so like an exploding white light in your skull that if by the time the credits start rolling you have kept your eyes dry and your mind numb, you should see a therapist.<br /><br />Despite the fact that technically-image-wise some more recent Miyazakis might be more overwhelming, this to me remains his undisputed masterpiece. If you take a fraction of a second to realise that this was made back in 1986, you can only come to the conclusion that Hayao Miyazaki is a genius like a star that appears only once every 200 years. This of course has been suggested before, but to me this is his only film that can, on its own, fully illustrate that simple fact. If you miss this during your lifetime, you'll die with a huge gap - which would be a pity, as the coffin costs the same.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
19,042 |
Playwright Sidney Bruhl (Michael Caine) has had a series of flop plays after a huge hit. He receives a play written by a student of his, Clifford Anderson (Christopher Reeve) which is fantastic. It's so good Sidney says he would kill for it. Will he?<br /><br />A thinking man's thriller. It was originally a play...and it shows. It's mostly on one set and all talk but I was never bored. It's very well-written with plenty of twists and a good cast working full force. Caine is just great as Bruhl--another one of his great performances. Reeve is, surprisingly, very good. I never thought much of him as an actor, but he's really good in this role. Dyan Cannon does wonders with an underwritten role as Bruhls' wife. Irene Worth is also good (and quite funny) as Helga ten Drop, a psychic. However, her accent did get on my nerves. Director Sidney Lumet does very well with his one set. The camera is always moving and keeps your attention going.<br /><br />EXTREME SPOILER DEAD AHEAD!!!!! My only complaint is that two gay characters in this movie turn out to be raging sociopaths and it also contains one of the most unromantic kisses I've ever seen--but these are mild complaints.<br /><br />A very good thriller. Critics hate this movie (for some reason) and it seems to have completely disappeared since it premiered in 1982. That's too bad--it deserves better.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
19,737 |
A nice Shirely Temple short. Child actors screaming their lines seemed to be the norm for that day and time. Perhaps being "seen and not heard" needed to be made up for. Aside from that this is fun. Given the films era there are certain aspects of the thing, from a social viewpoint, that strike me as both very progressive and liberal. I won't go into those here, I'd rather not spoil it for you but let you watch it for yourself and see if you spot those elements. As early on as it was its easy to see from this short the fascination that was already developing for Temple. That makes it worth watching if you're a Temple fan. For others its a cool way to kill ten minutes while you're waiting for your good night glass of milk to warm up on the stove.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
17,479 |
This is a very entertaining film which follows the rehearsal process of a NY production of Macbeth. Although it has a lot to say about power, jealousy and ambition (the themes of Macbeth) in our modern world, the film works best when it is not taking itself too seriously. Recognizable actors such as John Glover, Gloria Reubens and David Lansbury do nice jobs in the main roles, but the highlight for me was the hilarious scene where the "murder" of Banquo (John Elsen) is rehearsed. Probably a more entertaining film for those involved in theatre, but anyone who enjoys Shakespeare should enjoy this film.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
20,392 |
I noticed that A NEW HOPE and THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK are in the TOP 10, but that this one isn't even in the TOP 100.<br /><br />This movie has a bad reputation because of Ewoks, but there are so many reasons to love this movie:<br /><br />-The Rescue of Han Solo from Jabba: This official wraps up the Han Solo in debt sub-plot that was established when we first met the character in A NEW HOPE.<br /><br />-The Emperor was Finally Revealled: Well alright this might not work as well now that the prequels are out but this was the first time we saw The Emperor as kids.<br /><br />-The Speeder Bike Chase: Alright, so this was a special effects moment. But it was definitely one of the most memorable and exciting moments in all the films!<br /><br />-The 3 Part Climax: 1) The Battle of Endor (Led by Han and Leia) 2) Luke Confronts his Father & The Fall of the Emperor 3) The Destruction of the Second Death Star (Lando's Moment)<br /><br />-The Final Celebration with Our Heroes: Like I said, this movie gets a lot of crap because of the Ewoks but I think it's kind of cool that while the entire galaxy celebrates the FALL OF THE EMPIRE, our heroes are having their own private party in the woods with each other.<br /><br />All in all this was a great final chapter for our heroes and a fitting end to the STAR WARS story.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
23,958 |
The Bourne Ultimatum - Jason Bourne (Matt Damon in his best role ever), the newest spy kid on the block, brings his quest for his identity to a close as he also seeks to end the CIA's latest program "Blackbriar" to make super assassins like himself.<br /><br />I was so psyched for this one that I watched it's predecessors yesterday and today. Identity was as brilliant as I recall and Supremacy remains the weak (but still enjoyable) link in the chain for the weakest plot and, aside from a car chase which this film's chase easily tops, slight lacking in action and suspense.<br /><br />Hoo boy, does Ultimatum have suspense! Even when you know Bourne will escape the authorities (and boy do these films spotlight the police as inept), it's still brilliant watching him do it. It's mind-boggling to think that two guys with handguns and mopeds can create 10x more suspense than anything those $150 million giant robots did in Transformers.<br /><br />Chalk it up to Paul Greengrass, who has this idiosyncratic style of shooting stedicam a la documentary, even though he's filming characters that are far from ordinary, in places like CIA headquarters where no one within 10 miles would be allowed with a camcorder. He seemed to listen to my various complaints with Supremacy, as the action in Ultimatum is nothing less than awe-inspiring, with various implements used as weapons being a candlestick, a hardcover book (I'll never look at those the same way again) and an electric fan (Don't ask). The music also helped generate much suspense, and there was hardly ever a moment to not nail-bite over.<br /><br />The acting is good, and the evolution of Julia Stiles' character "Nicky" put her situation into a new highly sympathetic light. Damon plays his signature role with reserve but competency (which sounds minor but that it genuinely looks like Matt Damon could evade the CIA and Interpol is something), but noticeable moments of poignancy as he still struggles to find his humanity. This longing of his for a real life could get boring, and almost did in Supremacy, but just works better in Ultimatum (better script). <br /><br />I am reminded of a scene in "Goldeneye" (the only good Pierce Brosnan Bond film) in which Sean Bean's character asks James if the martinis ever silence the screams of all the men he's killed. Bourne regrets all the people he killed, and he considers (or at least made me consider) the meaning of action without purpose, life without meaning, and how the government has transformed men into resources. Albeit, resources that know Krav Maga and can make weapons out of anything.<br /><br />Sidenote: it's always bothered me that, despite being a superspy and hunted by the CIA, Interpol, and the police nearly ANYWHERE he goes, that Bourne never thought to make even the smallest attempts to disguise his features or forge some new passports. Sunglasses maybe? <br /><br />If you have a pulse and love action movies, than Bourne Ultimatum is for you. Hell, it's probably the best action film to come out this year. Of course, you'd be a fool to see it without watching the others first. It kind of drags a touch near the end, but I almost feel tempted to overlook that. This is the first "3" movie this summer to at least match, if not exceed, the original and that is saying something.<br /><br />A-
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
9,950 |
I am generally more willing to be open minded about rom coms than many, but this was simply not a very good attempt. Its got nothing to do with comparisons with the British original -- have not seen, and doubt I will. It has a whole lot to do with a meandering plot, lack of chemistry between the leads and a godawful performance/character from its supposed male lead (Jimmy Fallon).<br /><br />Fallon walks onto the screen wearing the clothes and hairdo of a 15 year old and acting a decade younger than that. He's supposed to be a teacher you see, and of course its well known that school districts the world over love to hire individuals less mature than the children they purport to teach. The character is so extremely disturbed and irrational that I have my doubts whether any actor could have made him likable, but old reliables like John Cusack or Adam Sandler might have been able to give it a shot. Not Fallon, who is neither funny, nor an actor, but appears to think he is both. Not once in the entire course of the movie do you either believe Fallon in his role, or believe that there is any way these two people should, or would be together. Near the end of the movie there is a scene where Barrymore (who was cute as usual but could not carry this one alone -- its hard to have a one person romance) tells Fallon that its over, too much has happened, and she's moving on. And rather than feeling bad about the scene, or sorry for Fallon, you are actively cheering her on -- finally she does what she should have done months ago. But of course the plot mechanics won't allow that to be the end of it (an end which actually might have made a statement out of this mess), and instead we get to see the rational career girl throwing it all away to chase after this childish idiot and encourage his delusions. Its of course meant to be gooey and satisfying, but it actually made me more disgusted than anything else.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
24,317 |
Of course, by any normal standard of film criticism, Soldier is a very poor film indeed. Kurt Russell is a futuristic super soldier raised since birth to kill but then made obsolete after being bettered by a bunch of really super soldiers at a dangly hoop ruck that looks a bit like a Gladiators contest without the crash mats.<br /><br />Abandoned on a junk planet, he's befriended by a community of naff space hippies that teach him about gardening, family life and, um, breasts. Kurt doesn't talk much. Finally the really super soldiers turn up and kill the hippies by shooting them in the back while they're running away. Kurt gets angry and kills everyone. A planet gets totalled. The end.<br /><br />Unless the Academy start a new category for "Best Explosion", Soldier is not going to win any awards. However, as ludicrous as it is, it remains an enjoyable experience. The military hardware is the coolest since Aliens (the APC's especially) and, at 90 minutes long, it doesn't outstay its welcome. Please note that the below mark is only a guide. Knock five points off if you intend to take it seriously and discount one more if you don't like miniguns.<br /><br />7 out of 10
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
18,019 |
Riding Giants<br /><br />This documentary traces the history of surfing and follows three other well-made and acclaimed surfer films, Dana Brown's Endless Summer, its follow-up Endless Summer II by Bruce Brown, Dana's son, and Step into Liquid (IMAX). I saw the first, not the others. <br /><br />While the surfing footage is spectacular, I valued most the film-maker's historic perspective. He takes us back to the sport's origins almost a hundred years ago, and shows how it evolved to its present form. This includes extensive interviews with leading personalities and performers, how surfboard designs changed over time, which beaches in Hawaii and California were most frequented by the world-class surfers, and what an incredible adrenalin rush the sport provided them. The athletes lived for months at a time on beaches, surfed from dawn to dusk, camped on rudimentary bunks, fished for food, and went back out on their boards the next day. What a euphoric way to spend your youthful days. <br /><br />We see how the media discovered and promoted the sport after a slow start. What was the biggest boost to the sport? Believe it or not, it was the movie Gidget, although I suspect copyright issues may prevent crediting the Beachboys' surfing songs like Surfer Girl and Surfing USA. The Surfing magazine and Encyclopedia of Surfing (who knew there was such a tome) are mentioned for their contributions. We also see commentaries from the pioneers of the sport, their families, and how the current generation benefited from the originators in the 1960s. One such story is how 40-year old Laird Hamilton, considered today's greatest surfer, bonded with an earlier leading surfer, introduced him to his single mom, who he married before becoming his step-dad. <br /><br />A rousing musical background of contemporary music from all eras accompanies the story. Have I whetted your appetite? Wonderful. Have a great ride.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
5,051 |
I am a huge Willem Dafoe fan, and really sought out this film (I had to get a Region 5 Chinese DVD of it!). But, it is truly one of the worst that I've seen in quite a while.<br /><br />The acting (except for Dafoe) is horrible. Dafoe and Colagrande BOTH wrote and directed this ( though he isn't credited as a director), and they have NO discernible talents for writing or directing. (Stick to acting Willem; Giada get out of the business, PLEASE!)<br /><br />Absolutely nothing happens. Except a series of completely unconvincing, totally without believable motivation, acts by these two people (that just met) in this house. Colagrande's sleepy, I couldn't care less expression practically NEVER changes. And the sex scenes are downright lame. I actually cringed twice at one of them. Yuck! They're definitely not the least bit erotic, and yet are the only time the film isn't putting you to sleep. Then, it's busy repulsing you.<br /><br />Just awful.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
2,965 |
A very young Ginger Rogers trades quick quips and one liners with rival newspaper reporter Lyle Talbot in this 1933 murder mystery from Poverty Row film maker Allied Productions. The movie opens with a wealthy businessman taking a header from the roof garden of a high rise apartment house, or was it from a lover's apartment? Rogers actually has two identities at the film's outset, that of Miss Terry, the dead victim's secretary, along with her newspaper byline of Pat Morgan. Mistakenly phoning her story directly to Ted Rand (Talbot) instead of her paper's rewrite desk, she gets fired for her efforts when her boss learns he's been out scooped.<br /><br />Here's a puzzle - it's revealed during Police Inspector Russell's (Purnell Pratt) investigation of Harker's death that Terry/Morgan had been employed as his secretary for three weeks. Why exactly was that? After the fact it would make sense that she was there for a newspaper story, but before? Clues are dropped regarding Harker's association with a known mobster conveniently living in the same apartment building, but again, that association isn't relevant until it's all linked up to janitor Peterson (Harvey Clark). And who's making up all the calling cards with the serpent effecting a HSSS, with the words "You will hear it" cut and pasted beneath? Apparently, the hissing sound of a snake was the sound made by the apartment house's radiator system, which Peterson used to transmit a poisonous gas into the rooms of potential victims, such as Mrs. Coby in the apartment below Harker. But in answer to a question posed to Inspector Russell about Mrs. Coby's death, he replied "apparently" to the cause of strangulation.<br /><br />It's these rather conflicting plot points that made the movie somewhat unsatisfying for me. The revelation of janitor Peterson as the bad guy of this piece comes under somewhat gruesome circumstances as we see him stuff the unconscious body of Miss Morgan in the building's incinerator furnace! However, and score another point against continuity, we see Miss Morgan in a huge basement room as Peterson ignites the furnace; she made her getaway, but how? And still pretty as a picture. And who gets to make the collar off screen if none other than milquetoast police assistant Wilfred (Arthur Hoyt), who in an opening scene fell over his own feet entering a room.<br /><br />Sorry, but for all those reviewers who found "A Shriek in the Night" to be a satisfying whodunit, I feel that any Charlie Chan film of the same era is a veritable "The Usual Suspects" by comparison. If you need a reason to see the film, it would be Ginger Rogers, but be advised, she doesn't dance.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
10,630 |
The original movie, Man From Snowy River, is one of the best I've seen, nearly perfect. A Lady and the Tramp storyline in two senses--rich girl/poor boy, and ability vs. bloodline. The sequel, however, is not only a shameless attempt to capitalize on the good name of the original but also a ridiculous, overblown Disneyfied mess best summarized as "Rambo Meets the Black Stallion." Without the charm of The Black Stallion. The young hero comes back from a 3-year absence, and suddenly he's Superman on horseback; in the original, good film, he was real and believable, but sadly reduced to a caricature in the sequel. I've hardly been as disappointed in a movie, and at times this thing made me quite angry--they missed hardly a cliché. Brazen audience manipulation--do studio heads think that all you have to do with a horse-loving audience is put pretty horses in front of them, to make them happy? A mess of a movie.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
5,691 |
This, and Immoral Tales, both left a bad taste in my mouth. It seems to me that Borowczyk is disgusted by sex, and these two films are cautionary tales about what will happen if you do have sex. As a film, it's not very well done -- some of the acting is truly epically bad (such as the "American" woman with the French accent). The young woman's sudden flip-flop from being anxious about the marriage to being interested (when it seems like it should have been the other way around), and the aunt's sudden realization of the young man's secret don't make sense -- they're not explained at all. I also didn't like how the daughter's relationship with a black man was presented as a sign of her family's perversion or predilection for bestiality. The central idea, the idea that there's this "sexy beast," if you will, that lives in the woods, could have been a foundation for a perverse but fun story, but instead is just used as a basis for a nasty, sex-negative, morality play.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
20,947 |
I love this show. I watch all the reruns every day even though I have seen all of them like 6 time s each.<br /><br />It's about two sisters, Holly (Amanda Bynes) and Val (Jennie Garth), who live in New York. Holly goes to live with Val when their dad is transferred to Japan. Val has the perfect life, she has a boyfriend and a perfect apartment of the Upper East Side.<br /><br />The show basically shows all the problems Vall and Holly go through. the main problem is guys but also is about being responsible and other life choices.<br /><br />Holly is 16 and is a total free spirit while Val is the complete opposite. She is the organized has to have a plan to do anything kind of person.<br /><br />The other characters are Henry, Vince, Gary, Lauren, and Tina.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
12,709 |
i liked this film a lot. it's dark, it's not a bullet-dodging, car-chasing numb your brain action movie. a lot of the characters backgrounds and motivations are kinda vague, leaving the viewer to come to their own conclusions. it's nice to see a movie where the director allows the viewer to make up their own minds.<br /><br />in the end, motivated by love or vengeance, or a desire to repent - he does what he feels is "right". 'will god ever forgive us for what we've done?' - it's not a question mortal men can answer - so he does what he feels he has to do, what he's good at, what he's been trained to do.<br /><br />denzel washington is a great actor - i honestly can't think of one bad movie he's done - and he's got a great supporting cast. i would thoroughly recommend this movie to anyone.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
11,483 |
'The Curse of Frankenstein' sticks faithfully to Mary Shelley's story for one word of the title, which wouldn't be so bad if the changes were any good at all. The tragedy of the creature destroying Frankenstein's family has been completely excised and replaced with... nothing. The heart and moral centre of the story is gone. It doesn't help that this Frankenstein is a conniving, devious murderer; he deserves everything he gets. The plot is basically a shallow checklist of Frankenstein clichés. Even taken on its own terms, this is rubbish: a bland, rambling film featuring a shite-looking creature with a pudding bowl haircut. As it's the first of Hammer's horror films, directed by Terence Fisher and starring Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee, its place in horror history is secure. But it's crap.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
9,004 |
I happen to have bought one of those "Legacy of Horror" 50 movie pack collections and would you believe I'm still looking through them to find a good HORROR movie in it. Sometimes you find an enjoyable yet campy one like The Devil's Messenger or The Devil Bat, or one of the great Alfred Hitchcock's films (some aren't horror however and are only on there because Hitchcock directed some horrors and suspense) but other times it seems that they put movies like The Island Monster and this on because they can't accept the fact they would easily be forgotten and should be for that matter.<br /><br />So we open up to sort of a Westing game idea. The rich yet cruel and abusive father played by Carradine (the one standing feature of this) has died and left his inheritance to his children and servants who he still hates. Carradine gives a good enough performance as always, but he's left mainly in a voice recording and flashback sequences leaving us to sit through the mediocre/terrible performances. The rest of the cast either overacts or underacts in scenes. Given this was an independent film of the 70's the lighting and effects are pretty limited. It's hard to build a lot of tension when the viewer can't see what's happening that well in some scenes. Some actors like the servants Igor and Elga give an effort at least and I'm ashamed to admit kind of left me chuckling at the end mainly for the sheer stupidity but still with some very minor happiness that they pulled some version of a twist to an otherwise pretty obvious who-done-it but not enough to enhance the quality of the film. You aren't meant to like the characters as they are either selfish and cruel or psychotic, but it takes it to a whole new level and makes many unwatchable. The death scenes are pretty bad and the suspense is not really there. It proves that you would probably enjoy the 20 movie pack "Chilling" containing films like House on a Haunted Hill, Little Shop of horror's with Jack Nicholson, and Night of the Living Dead over it. This is best avoided.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
13,018 |
I thought this movie was stunning, with completely outstanding performances by Valentina Cervi (Artemisia Gentileschi).<br /><br />Cervi portrays Artemisia so beautifully, with tentative yet confidant mannerisms, her hands mapping out an idea before moving her models into place. The passion to which Artemisia gives to her art is just spectacular to watch.<br /><br />Although not each character was overtly beautiful, this made the film more realistic as the facial hair and clothing was perfect for that point in time.<br /><br />Overall i thought this film was fantastic.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
20,016 |
I was a fan of the book ever since third grade, so of course I had watched the movie, read the sequel, and then watched the television show. It was a good show in itself, and now as an adult I still enjoy the show. My only real problem with it was that it didn't follow the book. The first time I saw it, I was so disappointed that I turned it off. But that's coming from a girl who owns a first addition of the book. But after time I decided to give it a try again and ignored the book (kind of like what you have to do with the Harry Potter movies). I found the series wonderful! It was clean cut and something that everyone could enjoy, just the right amount comedy to keep everyone going. It is truly enjoyable! Clean and wonderful!
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
18,204 |
The snobs and pseudo experts consider it "a far cry from De Sica's best" The ones suffering from a serious lack of innocence will find a problem connecting to this masterpiece. De Sica spoke in a very direct way. His Italianness doesn't have the convoluted self examination of modern Italian filmmakers, or the bitter self parody of Pietro Germi, the pungent bittersweetness of Mario Monicelli, the solemnity of Visconti or the cold observation of Antonioni. De Sica told us the stories like a father sitting at the edge of his children's bed before they went to sleep. There is no attempt to intellectualize. Miracolo A Milano and in a lesser degree Il Giudizio Universale are realistic fairy tales, or what today we call magic realism. The film is a gem from beginning to end and Toto is the sort of character that you accept with an open heart but that, naturally, requires for you to have a heart. Cinema in its purest form. Magnificent.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
5,975 |
This movie portrays Ruth as a womanizing, hard drinking, gambling, overeating sports figure with a little baseball thrown in. Babe Ruths early life was quite interesting and this was for all intents and purposes was omitted in this film. Also, Lou Gehrig was barely covered and this was a well know relationship, good bad or indifferent, it should have been covered better than it was. His life was more than all bad. He was an American hero, an icon that a lot of baseball greats patterned their lives after. I feel that I am being fair to the memory of a great baseball player that this film completely ignored. Shame on the makers of this film for capitalizing on his faults and not his greatness.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
2,819 |
"Valentine" is another horror movie to add to the stalk and slash movie list (think "Halloween", "Friday the 13th", "Scream", and "I Know What You Did Last Summer"). It certainly isn't as good as those movies that I have listed about, but it's better than most of the ripoffs that came out after the first "Friday the 13th" film. One of those films was the 1981 Canadian made "My Bloody Valentine", which I hated alot. "Valentine" is a better film than that one, but it's not saying much. The plot: a nerdy young boy is teased and pranked by a couple of his classmates at the beginning of the film. Then the film moves years later when those classmates are all grown up, then they're picked off one-by-one. The killer is presumed to be the young boy now all grown up looking for revenge. But is it him? Or could it be somebody else? "Valentine" has an attractive cast which includes Denise Richards, David Boreanaz, Marley Shelton, Jessica Capshaw, and Katherine Heigl. They do what they can with the material they've got, but a lackluster script doesn't really do them any justice. There are some scary moments throughout, however. <br /><br />** (out of four)
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
10,218 |
I'm a fan of Matthew Modine, but this film--which I stumbled upon on cable--is absolutely witless. I see that the screenwriter and director were one and the same, so there was no one around to check her worst instincts. There are no surprises, no original lines, and no original characters. The goldfish was basically the most sympathetic character. What a waste of all this acting talent. Given how expensive it is to film in New York these days, I have to wonder how this got made in the first place. And if you're wondering why I watched it at all, it came on after a film that I like on cable and I left it on while I worked at the computer. It's not a very demanding picture!
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
4,181 |
Capt. Gallagher (Lemmon) and flight attendant Eve Clayton (Vaccaro) are a supposedly hot item in this death trip; a luxury 747 airliner decked out to look like a nightclub-slash-hotel
there's even a blind piano player who falls in love. Karen Wallace (Grant) is the hysterical b!$3& who'll do anything to get attention from henpecked husband Martin (Christopher Lee) and, later, the rest of the people on board.<br /><br />Memorable Moments: Boeing 747 doing a belly flop in the Atlantic Ocean, Karen getting her chops busted when she goes too far, and furniture (and screaming people) who become 'ball bearings' in a sinking 'pinball machine.'<br /><br />The action and rescue sequences here are relatively phenomenal, but not much goes on in between. Hitchcock was supposed to have directed this sequel, but I forget the reason why not
He would've done wonders for the 1970 original, on which this sequel is partly inspired ('77 also got inspiration from `The Flight of the Phoenix'). <br /><br />Actors Cotten and de Havilland reunite from their days on `Hush, Hush, Sweet Charlotte' (apparently here they are not playing heavies, just reunited Autumn Years' lovers). And isn't the actress playing Emily's companion the same one who played the hammered-to-death maid on `Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?'<br /><br />TV actors include the girlfriend from `Mayberry RFD' (her character's daughter wins a drawing contest, or something lame like that), `Buck Rogers' Gil Gerard and `Dynasty's' Pamela Bellwood.<br /><br />
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
7,813 |
This movie is just plain terrible!!!! Slow acting, slow at getting to the point and wooden characters that just shouldn't have been on there. The best part was the showing of Iron Maiden singing in some video at a theater and thats it. the ending was worth watching and waiting up for but that was it!! The characters in this movie put me to sleep almost. Avoid it!!!
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
4,064 |
I think this cartoon is one of the worst cartoons I have ever watched. I would recommend this cartoon to people who are under 5. I did used to like this show when I was 4 and 5, I still only watched it when there was nothing on. Now I am other 5 and I would rather do my homework than watch it. The cartoon used to be a bit funny but they were not enough to make me burst out laughing. Now I am older I am interested in show witch are not rated Us. I have started to watch Doctor Who (12A), Torchwood (15) and Sarah Jane Adventures (PG). I am interested in things to do with Doctor Who so I am not interested in 5 year old cartoons. This cartoon didn't last very long it only had 6 seasons, it got cancelled because of it was low on viewers but some people say it was because the writers ran out of ideas but for most other shows they have at least 8 seasons.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
2,730 |
Max had the V-8, Trace (Wheels of Fires last and only hero) has a jet engine on the back of his car allowing him to make unintentionally humorous faces as he rockets around the halfway desolate wasteland. Be amazed as Mad Max 2 (aka The Road Warrior) is dissected and spliced back together as a new movie albeit filmed in a lackluster manner with bad actors and lousy stunt work.<br /><br />Why is WoF set in a post-apocalyptic wasteland? Simple, The Road Warrior was! Actually any questions can be answered by: it was that way in the Road Warrior! Except for the out of work mutant actors from the original 60's The Time Machine film that make a cameo appearance for sake of giving the audience some non-vehicular action to chew on for a few minutes.<br /><br />In typical 80's fashion, all cars driven by bad guys that are bumped or slightly jostled explode in a huge billowing explosion. Inevitably all car chases will happen near convenient cliff sides and cars will unavoidably fall off of them. Along with this 80's cinematic wild ride is the general rampant misogyny in this style of cheapie film. Generally I waited for Trace's rocket powered car to accelerate and shoot flames so there would be another shot of him scrunching up his face like he is supposed to be tough, which comes off more as him looking constipated. Badly choreographed action coupled with bad acting makes this film a true sinker. The unintentional humor value even manages to wear thin.<br /><br />Rats: Nights of Terror by Bruno Mattei is superior. And that in and of itself is saying a lot! By this count 2020 Texas Gladiators is a cinematic masterpiece compared to Wheels of Fire. A poor Road Warrior knock off that doesn't have near enough cheese factor to make the film watchable.<br /><br />
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
7,499 |
"They Are Among Us" is poor science fiction at best. Mediocre acting bogs down this film. The plot holes are numerous. Aliens that somehow came to earth on a meteor and have been hiding among us for over 100 years, but need a plastic surgeon to make them appear human. In their alien form they supposedly have exo-skeletons (which is why they need the plastic surgery) but when you see them they have teeth and fingernails. The heroine's father "disappeared" after Project Blue Book closed, but was supposedly an F-16 pilot. And on and on. If you want to see an alien invasion movie, pick "Invasion of the Body Snatchers", and see how it is done right.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
14,222 |
Holes is an awesome movie. I love it a lot and it's one of my favorite films. It's one of the few flicks produced by Disney that isn't cheesy. Holes is generally a very cool motion picture. I wish Disney would make more pictures like it. Holes is indeed a rare breed of Disney flicker shows that is cool. Don't get the wrong idea, I don't mean to bad mouth Disney but most of it's stuff is aimed towards kids and THAT'S OKAY. Children deserve to have their entertainment too. But Disney has been guilty of trying to appeal to the teen audience and they usually fail. But not with Holes. It's the type of movie anyone of any age can watch and enjoy and not once think it's corny. Really, it's the kind of movie that even a lot of young hoods might enjoy since there are characters in it that they can relate to.<br /><br />Holes does a good job of being a mix of good family entertainment but not being too cheesy and living a little on the edge. I hope Disney takes more risks and makes more edgy flicks like this.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
645 |
This bogus journey never comes close to matching the wit and craziness of the excellent adventure these guys took in their first movie. This installment tries to veer away from its prequel to capture some new blood out of the joke, but it takes a wrong turn and journeys nowhere interesting or funny.<br /><br />There's almost a half-hour wasted on showing the guys doing a rock concert (and lots of people watching on "free TV"--since when does that happen?) Surely the script writer could have done something more creative; look at how all the random elements of the first movie were neatly tied up together by a converging them at the science presentation. Not in this film, which pretty much ended the Bill & Ted franchise. The joke was over.<br /><br />The Grim Reaper is tossed into the mix, for whatever reason. This infusion, like the whole plot, is done poorly and lacks sparks for comedy or audience involvement. There's a ZZ Top impression, hammered in for no reason. There's lights, smoke, mirrors, noise. But nothing really creative or funny.<br /><br />Skip this bogus thing.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
14,486 |
A new creative team emerged in 1950 when brilliant actor James Stewart teamed with the equally-brilliant director Anthony Mann to make a series of westerns that helped define that genre for the future. Until that time Stewart was mainly noted for an aw..aw..aw approach to family oriented comedies, dramas, and romances. Not that he wasn't already a multi-talented Hollywood star. One of his best screen performances ever and one of the best for anyone on celluloid was as Macaulay 'Mike' Connor, a sarcastic writer for a scandal rag in "The Philadelphia Story." He had even done westerns before. His portrayal of gun shy yet expert shot Thomas Jefferson Destry Jr. in the comedy western "Destry Rides Again" helped make that film a classic. But to most movie goers he was the all-American boyscout type Mr. Smith or George Bailey. Seldom was there a dark side to any of the characters he played. <br /><br />Anthony Mann was associated with B flicks in the film noir mode. "Raw Deal," "Side Street," and "T-Men" caught the eye of James Stewart. So the two gifted men combined their resources to produce some of the greatest Hollywood westerns ever made. "Winchester '73" and "The Man from Laramie" were the best but the others were almost as effective. Mann became a successful director of A films as a result going on to direct what some critics believe to be the greatest western of them all Gary Cooper's "Man of the West." Stewart became fabulously wealthy as a result of the partnership because he signed for part of the royalties in return for a fraction of the salary he was usually paid, a wise move indeed followed by many other actors from then on.<br /><br />Winchester '73 was also one of the first films, maybe the first, to tell a story from the standpoint of a traveling gun. Each owner is part of the tale being told and it all comes together in the exciting showdown at the end of the movie, which also holds a surprise for the viewer. Based on a story by Stuart Lake, the tale centers on revenge and the ownership of the Winchester '73. The year is 1876. Custer and his 7th cavalry have been annihilated by the Sioux and Cheyenne at Little Big Horn. The whites want revenge. The native Americans want their land and their way of life back. This conflict leads to a confrontation between native Americas led by Young Bull (young Rock Hudson showing his potential as an actor) and a small cavalry group pinned down in a canyon and joined by civilians Lin McAdam (Stewart), his partner and life-long pal High Spade ( the underrated actor Millard Mitchell), and a couple trying to find themselves, Steve Miller (Charles Drake) and Lola Manners (Shelley Winters), a soiled dove with a kind heart. Among the horse soldiers are newcomers Tony Curtis and James Best (late of the "Dukes of Hazzard"), whose part is cut short by a bullet.<br /><br />Wyatt Earp was in Dodge City in 1876. The movie has him as head marshal. The fine actor Will Geer (later of the Waltons) looks like an older Earp. In reality Wyatt was assistant Marshal in Dodge at the time just cutting his teeth on being a lawman. Lin McAdam wins the Winchester in a shooting contest, but has it taken from him not long afterward by outlaw Dutch Henry Brown (Stephen McNally) and his henchmen. McAdam and High Spade are after both Dutch Henry and the Winchester for the remainder of the movie. An even more sinister character emerges along the way, Waco Johnnie Dean, played as evil personified by Dan Duryea who threatens to steal the show from the other members of a stellar cast.<br /><br />The Winchester passes through several hands during the course of the film, each time the transfer is intense. One involves a gunrunner played to perfection by John McIntire. Other swaps are intermingled with the scenario above. All this plus the action keeps the viewer glued to the seat throughout the entire show.<br /><br />As noted above, the cast is first rate down to the smallest role. Look for other familiar faces in uncredited parts, including the future sheriff of "Bonanza" Ray Teal and B western reliable Panhandle Perkins (Guy Wilkerson).
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
1,219 |
A Cinderella story made for adults who live in dreamland. The romance is very unrealistic, fluttery, lovey dovey, perfect etc. The Cinderella plot till the very end and Shahid Kapoor is the only reason for my stars. If you're looking for a dreamy romance with a twist, this is definitely you're movie, but for the rest of us real world people, I'd highly recommend saving your three hour watch time. Wake up people!<br /><br />Four out of the five people that saw the film with me would not recommend the film. We had a great time bashing majority of the unrealistic scenes. Maybe I'm missing something.. I just can't believe a movie like this can beat a classic like HDDCS!!
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
23,658 |
Its about time that Gunga Din is released on DVD. I cannot accurately say how many times I have watched this fine film but, I never tire of it. The lead actors worked so well together. Victor Mclaglen (Sgt McChesney), Cary Grant (Sgt Cutter) and Douglas Fairbanks Jr (Sgt Ballentine) are an unbeatable team.<br /><br />I just cannot get over their exploits in India. Your first glimpse at the Sergeants Three, is when you see them engaged in fighting with other soldiers over a so-called treasure Map. The three Sergeants are sent on an expedition to find out what happened to the communications line an they enter a mostly deserted town- or so they think.<br /><br />They engage in the necessary repairs and soon find a few "residents" in hiding. Soon after they get attacked by a group of madmen and barely make an escape back to base.<br /><br />Later they are sent on another mission which gives Sgt Cutter a chance to go hunting for the Gold with Din. They find the temple of gold and are trapped by the evil Kali supporters. Din is sent to fetch help and Cutter gets captured. Soon McChesney and Ballentine arrive with Din, and they are too captured.<br /><br />Faced with being killed, they watch helplessly as their Regiment comes to rescue them. The evil doers watch and are about to spring their surprise attack when a wounded Din climbs onto the golden dome and blows his bugle which then alerts the British to the ambush. In doing this, Din is shot dead.<br /><br />The Soldiers attack the evil ones and soon defeat them. At the end, Din is honored as he is made an honorary Corporal in the British Army.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
8,464 |
A charming boy and his mother move to a middle of nowhere town, cats and death soon follow them. That about sums it up.<br /><br />I'll admit that I am a little freaked out by cats after seeing this movie. But in all seriousness in spite of the numerous things that are wrong with this film, and believe me there is plenty of that to go around, it is overall a very enjoyable viewing experience.<br /><br />The characters are more like caricatures here with only their basis instincts to rely on. Fear, greed, pride lust or anger seems to be all that motivate these people. Although it can be argued that that seeming failing, in actuality, serves the telling of the story. The supernatural premise and the fact that it is a Stephen King screenplay(not that I have anything specific against Mr. King) are quite nicely supported by some interesting FX work, makeup and quite suitable music. The absolute gem of this film is without a doubt Alice Krige who plays Mary Brady, the otherworldly mother.<br /><br />King manages to take a simple story of outsider, or people who are a little different(okay - a lot in this case), trying to fit in and twists it into a campy over the top little horror gem that has to be in the collection of any horror fan.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
3,692 |
Probably New Zealands worst Movie ever made<br /><br />The Jokes They are not funny. Used from other movies & just plain corny The acting Is bad even though there is a great cast<br /><br />The story is Uninteresting & Boring Has more cheese then pizza huts cheese lovers pizza kind of like the acting Has been do 1,000 times before<br /><br />I watched this when it came on TV but was so boring could only stand 30 minutes of it. <br /><br />This movie sucks<br /><br />Do not watch it, <br /><br />Watch paint dry instead
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
16,406 |
I was not expecting the powerful filmmaking experience of "Girlfight". It's an Indie; low-budget, no big-name actors, freshman director. I had heard it was good, but not this good.<br /><br />Placed in a contemporary, ethnic, working-class Brooklyn, Karyn Kusama has done an extraordinary job of capturing the day-do-day struggles of urban Latinos. Diana, the protagonist, is seething with anger and lashes out at her high school peers, getting in trouble with the school and her friends. She is being raised by her single father, who appears to love her and her brother, but applies a strict, sex-based double standard on his children. The father's double standard is illustrated by the fact that Tiny, the brother, is taking boxing lessons at the local gym, but Diana is denied similar pursuits. On an errand to the gym to meet Tiny, Diana is captivated by boxing. Tiny doesn't like boxing, so he and Diana trade places; he gets the money from Dad then gives it to Diana to take the lessons in his place.<br /><br />This is actually a feel-good movie, as Diana grows and learns about herself through boxing, meets a guy, and addresses some very serious issues head-on. There's no giggly, 'everything that can go right does go right' resolution a la "Bend It Like Beckham". The reality and attendant personal issues are too big for pat resolutions, but in my opinion, "Girlfight" is a better and more satisfying film for it.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
9,137 |
Deep SH.. is more like it! The eels are just cartooned in over the film. Think "The Incredible Mr. Limpet" meets "Leviathan". Very tacky.<br /><br />No character or relationship development. So called "romantic" scenes very corny and predictable. An interesting idea, but a poorly written script and LOUSY special effects make this a definite must-miss!
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
732 |
If you want to see a retarded homosexual Karate expert beat up a bunch of try hard wannabe Mexican gangsters repeatedly for an hr, then this is the film for you. if not then choose another DVD from the 20c bin which is the only place this film belongs. the acting was so horrible that i had to force myself to watch it to the end. The cover makes it look so cool but its just another cheap, b grade gangster film along the lines of 2 g's and a key, bloody streetz and menace. I would not buy or rent this film unless you are planing to get stoned and plot , editing and acting really don't matter to you. it is truly the worst film in the history of humanity!!!
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
9,153 |
This is a terrible production of Bartleby, though not, as the other reviewer put it because it is "unfilmable," but rather because this version does not maintain the spirit of the book. It tells the story, almost painfully so. Watching it, I could turn the pages in my book and follow along, which is not as much fun when dealing with an adaptation. Rather, see the 2001 version of Bartleby featuring Crispin Glover. That version, while humorous, brings new details to the film while maintaining the spirit of the novel. What's important is the spirit, not the minutiae of things like setting, character names, and costumes. The difference between these film versions is like night and day, tedious and hilarious. This version is a lesson as to what can go wrong if an adaptation is handled poorly, painful, mind-numbing schlock.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
8,526 |
What a muddled mess. I saw this with a friend a while ago and we both consider ourselves open-minded to the many wonders of cinema, but this sure isn't one of them.<br /><br />While there very well could be some good ideas/concepts and there are certainly some good performances (under the circumstances), it is all buried under random nonsense. Sir Anthony draws way too heavily from the same gene pool as Natural Born Killers, U Turn and similar films as far as the editing is concerned, or maybe he watched himself in Nixon for inspiration. Say what you want about David Lynch, but at least he more often than not has a method to the madness.<br /><br />His quote of stating that he made the film as a joke says it all. It's not worth your money, bandwidth or time.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
19,893 |
Spoilers!<br /><br />From the very moment I saw a local film critic trash this movie in a review on the 10:00 news, I wanted to see it. I don't remember who it was, or which local Omaha newscast carried the review, but the critic was very insistent that this film was way too sleazy for the average church-going Nebraskan. They showed a snippet from the scene where John Glover is about to kidnap Ann-Margret when she's swimming in the pool. Glover's character is commending her on how nice her body is and so forth, using many words that the local station felt necessary to edit out. I was hooked. There was one problem, though. I was only 13 years old at the time, and I had to wait a year until it came out on cable. Let's just say, it was worth the wait!<br /><br />If ever there was a guilty pleasure of mine, this movie is it. To call this film sleazy would be a huge understatement. The film centers around a successful businessman who is blackmailed by three small time scumbags after an affair with a young woman. Roy Scheider, who is as effective as ever, plays the poor guy who just wanted a little fling and now finds himself at the mercy of three terrific villains. John Glover's character is one of the most memorable scumbags of all time. He's sleazy, funny at times, and always on the brink of doing something crazy. Then there's Robert Trebor's (nice name, by the way!) character Leo who is clearly in over his head with this blackmail scheme. He is a whimpering, sweating, coward who runs a peep show place with live nude models. Then, you have Clarence Williams III as Bobby Shy, a brooding sociopath who everyone is afraid of with good reason. Who could forget the wake-up call he gives Vanity with the giant teddy bear?<br /><br />After dealing with the initial shock of realizing what he's up against, Scheider turns the tables on these creeps and takes control of the situation, that is until Glover goes after his wife! The conflict is played out brutally, with virtually the entire cast getting shot, raped, or blown up. <br /><br />I don't know why I love this movie so much. It really should creep me out, but it doesn't. Maybe it's because these characters are all interesting, and the story takes plenty of chances that most films today would never try. It's scary to think that the adult film industry probably has more than a few characters like Glover's running around out in L.A. looking for trouble. Just thinking about his voice is enough to make me chuckle. "Hey sport, have a nice day!"<br /><br />This film has plenty of shootouts, cool cars, great dialog (like the line in my opening statement), and decent acting. Plenty of cameos by real life porno stars. Look for Ron Jeremy frolicking around in a hot tub with two chicks in a party scene at Glover's place. <br /><br />Another thing I must add: How hot are the women in this film??? Wow! Travolta did right by marrying Kelly Preston. Yum! We also see Vanity get nude in a time before she became a born again Christian. And Ann-Margret. What else could you say about her except that she is the quintessential American Beauty. <br /><br />9 of 10 stars.<br /><br />So sayeth the Hound.<br /><br />Added Feb 14, 2008: RIP Roy Scheider!
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
2,594 |
The Incredible Melting Man plays like an extended episode of The Six Million Dollar Man, but with violence and some nudity. I know this film is a bit crummy but I found it impossible not to kind of like it.<br /><br />The acting and script are not the best. But the effects are good for a 30 year old movie with a budget of $50 - the title character takes quite a while to actually melt but when he does it's reasonably impressive; we also have one inventive death scene involving electrocution. Of note too is the music, it's insane - a cheese-tastic medley of nonsense.<br /><br />Notable highlights: <br /><br />* Marvel at the slow-motion nurse who jumps through a pane of glass for absolutely no reason whatsoever.<br /><br />* Be amazed by a day in the life of a severed head.<br /><br />* Beware of the psychotic cannibalistic melting humanoid. Called Steve.<br /><br />* Be astonished when our hero takes a break from hunting the melting lunatic to have a bowl of soup and complain about insufficient crackers in the kitchen.<br /><br />This film is just too 70's for me to hate it. It's tacky and trashy but I thought it was a lot of fun. You could do a lot worse.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
20,100 |
I have only managed to see this classic for the first time a few weeks ago. Being made almost 30 years ago I thought the scary moments would be rather tame. Boy was I wrong. There are some great moments that sent shivers down my spine. Even the acting was great, Jamie Lee Curtis was fantastic and Donald Pleasance was superb.<br /><br />On the downside it can be rather slow to start but once it gets going there is no stopping it. It makes all the copycats, e.g. Nightmare on Elm Street, Scream look very tame. I can't really say it is Carpenter's best because I have not seen many of his, the only one I can remember of his is Starman (I think he made it). Halloween is the crowning achievement of the horror genre.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
22,145 |
Believe it or not, Inspector Gadget's Last Case is what got me hooked on the whole Gadget thing.<br /><br />My name is Miriam and I am twelve years old, so obviously I wasn't around when Inspector Gadget was at the top of his career. Sure, I'd heard of him, but I didn't really know him.<br /><br />While reading, note that I NEVER SAW THE ORIGINAL SERIES (I would if it came on!). This is just about the only Gadget thing I've ever watched (even though I am now obsessed) and I will be focusing on what I liked about it since everyone else is so negative. For all you pessimists, I've got some cons down there, too. =P First off, for a childish sense of humor, you could deem this movie pretty funny. I thought it was, so sue me. I also thought the animation and character designs were good, and I'm also happy there was more Gadget in it, since he's my favorite character. (I do NOT like Penny.) Then there was Claw (his voice was awful, though) and the Madcat; I thought they were done fairly good too. Gadget's idiocy seemed pretty well in place, if not a bit exaggerated (i.e. sucking his hat-hand thing's thumb. Would make a good screen shot, though. =P) Oh, and I liked the song that ran in the credits. Yes, I am strange.<br /><br />And, like all movies, there are some negatives, too.<br /><br />Talking cars? What's up with that? You can tell this was aimed at younger boys. That wouldn't bother me quite so much if there wasn't the fact that the cars basically saved the day. I would have much preferred if Penny and Brain had taken their place. And, apparently, Gadget loved his car more than would be called natural. A bit weird, to say the least.<br /><br />Oh, and the Chief was downright mean to Gadget. I mean, sheesh, yeah, he wasn't always the most cheerful of people, but he didn't HATE Gadget, from what I've read. Like the Inspector, his personality was exaggerated.<br /><br />Well, that's pretty much all I have to say about this movie. I thought the animation made up for the car-centered plot and that it was overall pretty decent; more so than the live-action Gadget films (butchered, butchered, BUTCHERED!) at least. Maybe I'm just biased because this is what got me into Gadget in the first place, or maybe my mind is twisted, or maybe I'm just odd, but I really liked this movie, even if I'm the oldest it's recommended for.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
15,864 |
I didn't approach "Still Crazy" with any real anticipation. Just another rock'n'roll picture, I figured... good nostalgia for the baby boomers. This film is partially that, but so much more. Brian Gibson, the director, previously helmed a biography of Tina Turner, and is quite successful in his style. I suppose it is fitting that this was his last film.<br /><br />The cast is well-chosen. Bill Nighy is perfect in his role as the band's frontman. Actor-turned-director Bruce Robinson appears as the band's washed-up guitarist. He does a superb job, even though he hasn't appeared on film since the late 70's. If you're looking for an touching and funny film (with some great songs), you've found it.<br /><br />7.4 out of 10
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
8,377 |
Director Warren Beatty's intention to turn Chester Gould's famous comic strip into a live-action cartoon (with Beatty himself cast in the lead as the square-jawed detective) had sweet overtures of innocent nostalgia--quite unusual and intriguing coming from Warren Beatty. Unfortunately, the picture is requisite ham, fun for awhile but eventually tiring. Dick Tracy attempts to bring down mobster Big Boy Caprice, aided by loving Tess Trueheart but tripped up by evil Breathless Mahoney. For the first half-hour or so, the Oscar-winning art direction and set design are wonderful to absorb but, as the plot creaks along predictably (with no real sting in the writing), things begin to congeal. Al Pacino got a surprise Supporting Oscar nomination as bad boy Caprice, and Madonna (who is mostly used as a decorative prop) gets to sing Stephen Sondheim's "Sooner or Later (I Always Get My Man)", which copped the award for Best Original Song. Lots of heart, thanks to Beatty--who was dedicated to his vision--but the picture is too cool and calculated. It lacks heat. *1/2 from ****
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
21,449 |
George Raft as Steve Brodie, the carefree, dancing gambler who can never refuse a dare, is pitted against the lumbering, sentimental, Chuck Connors (Wallace Beery).A soft touch for every panhandler, Connors impulsively adopts waifs and strays, notably runaway orphan "Swipes" (Jackie Cooper, complete with kittens!) and the homeless Lucy Calhoun, an out-of-town innocent with ambitions to become a writer. <br /><br />In this male-dominated culture, communication takes place mostly in the form of violence (one sees why THE BOWERY is a Martin Scorsese favorite). Exploding cigars provide a running gag. "Swipes" enjoys throwing rocks through windows in Chinatown, on one occasion setting a laundry alight. (The simultaneous arrival of both Brodie's and Beery's volunteer fire companies leads to a brawl, during which the building burns to the ground.) Beery casually saps a troublesome girl, and thumps anyone who disagrees with him, including Brodie, whom he defeats, in a night-time fist fight on a moored barge, to regain control of his saloon, lost on a bet that Brodie wouldn't have the courage to jump off the Brooklyn Bridge. (Brodie does make the leap, but only because a subterfuge with a dummy fails at the last moment.)<br /><br />As usual, Walsh fills the frame with detail, illustrating with relish the daily life of the tenderloin; singing waiters, bullying barmen, whores from Suicide Hall being hustled into the Black Maria, tailors collaring hapless hicks off the street and forcing them to buy suits they don't want. A minor but admirable little film.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
3,022 |
About 4 years ago, I liked this movie. I would watch it over and over and over. But now... I don't. Actually, I think this movie would have been great for Mystery Science Theater 3000. It has a bunch of comment-heavy actors (Macaulay Culkin, Christopher Lloyd, Patrick Stewart, Whoopi Goldberg), and a pretty cheesy plot. My favorite part is when Culkin is riding his bike and he comes across a gang and a gang member says, "Hey, Tyler! Where ya goin'? The MOON??" Also look out for the classic line, "Do you have feeling in your toes?"<br /><br />On the other hand, it's better than "The Good Son".
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
2,315 |
I saw this back in '94 when it was finally released. Apparently because Orion pictures was in bankruptcy, I think, the movie had not been released a couple of years earlier.<br /><br />I have problem remembering details partly because I haven't seen it in a long time, but I do remember it as a very dull movie. I kept debating whether to walk out of it. The store was not at all interesting or engaging. Was a 3rd rate America Graffiti imitation. <br /><br />None of the performances make it worth watching either. One of the biggest disappointments since a local newspaper reviewer gave it a high rating.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
16,798 |
One thing about Hollywood, someone has a success and it's always rushed to be copied. And another thing is that players give some of their best performances away from their home studio.<br /><br />Rock Hudson got such accolades for his performance in the Texas based film Giant that Universal executives must have thought, let's quick get him into another modern Texas setting.<br /><br />Similarly Robert Stack got great reviews for The High and the Mighty as the pilot who was cracking under the strain of flying a damaged aircraft that it was natural to give him another crack up role.<br /><br />Both of these ends were achieved in Written on the Wind. Before Hudson was the big ranch owner, now he's the son of a hunting companion of Robert Stack's father who took Hudson under his wing. In other words the James Dean part without the James Dean racism from Giant. <br /><br />Lauren Bacall is the executive secretary of an advertising agency that Stack's Hadley Oil Company uses. Hudson likes her, but she's dazzled by Stack's millions and when he woos a girl he's got the means to really pursue a campaign. She marries Stack.<br /><br />And last but not least in the mix we have Dorothy Malone who's Stack's amoral sister who has a yen for Rock, but Rock ain't about to get tangled up with this wild child. <br /><br />Dorothy Malone spent over 10 years in a whole bunch of colorless film heroine roles before landing this gem. She got a Best Supporting Actress Award for her part as Marilee Hadley and it was well deserved.<br /><br />If you like splashy technicolor Fifties soap opera than this is the film for you.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
23,502 |
Bill Paxton, of Aliens, Near Dark, and Terminator fame, surprises me with his debut as director for Frailty. He hits on all cylinders, but there is one implausibility near the end that involves the FBI agent (Powers Booth) which deducts a point from this otherwise chilling and thought provoking thriller. Other than that, this movie was just fine.<br /><br />Bill Paxton plays Dad. He's never given a first name, but that is not a weakness of the film. It in fact strengthens the film, allowing the viewer to see him as a sort of symbol of some kind. He has a vision one day which he says was sent from god telling him that the world is coming to an end and both he and his two sons Fenton Meiks(Matt OLeary) and Adam Meiks (Jeremy Sumpter) must fine the demons and kill them. The demons look like normal people which they kill, and this makes the viewer wonder if Dad has just lost his mind, or is he really doing god's work. There are scenes that reflect both points which adds to the confusion and gives the film more suspense.<br /><br />The story is told in flashback by one of the sons who is now grown up (Matthew McConaughey) and is speaking with FBI agent Wesley Doyle (Powers Booth) who is very skeptical and rightfully so. After all it's not everyday that someone comes in to your office to tell you that he knows who the killer is.<br /><br />The film has many twists, and Bill Paxton directs splendidly by keeping us guessing without losing interest. The acting is incredible. The two young leads and Paxton work great together, looking like a normal family even though they are all involved in murder. Like I said there is the one implausibility involving Powers Booth's character, but it really isn't a big thing. This was an extremely well made film involving faith and family.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
3,075 |
It's 1978, and yes obviously there are too many black players on the teams as well! Fans will be upset and certainly the 75,000 seats will be full, only less happy there are so many black players on the field! This made for TV Super Bowl movie is watchable. It's not much more, but it's really surprising the cast of talented actors that make an appearance (for the time), probably most notably Tom Selleck. Unfortunately any goodness Selleck brings to the screen, is quickly trumped by "actors" like Dick Butkus.<br /><br />It's a silly story about super bowl betting. PJ Jackson is charged by "New York" (read mafia) for ensuring the game ends for their favor, in this case a $10,000,000 bet. PJ is innocent enough, and seems to have a loose grasp by buying off a few people here and there. But things seem to fall apart for him. Another person, the unsuspected Lainie, takes charge. For a while, the mystery of murders isn't known for certain, but is revealed rather plainly at the final murder that Lainie is the new antagonist.<br /><br />It's a bad movie, but is watchable. The acting is decent, and the filming is OK. At least there weren't any silly typical 70s car chases (they have their place just not here). Just keep an open mind about past stereotyping and the cocaine era and you'll survive.<br /><br />2/10 (maybe a 2.5)
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
7,184 |
How can a movie with Amy, Posey and Raechel have NOTHING funny in it? Believe it or not 'House Bunny' did this better and funnier. Hopefully the principals had a good holiday and got some money - this movie is an embarrassment to all of them. It is a cliché from beginning to end. Clichés can work well with a script, or at least an idea. This movie does nothing but use cliché after cliché rather than ideas or script. It uses the preexisting persona's of the actresses rather than develop characters. Bad, sad, and rubbish. Now I apparently have to have ten lines of text for a comment. Really? Why? As an IT ops manager this is another example of sloppy coding.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
8,645 |
As a kid I did think the weapon the murderer wielded was cool, however I was a kid and so I was a bit dumb. Even as a dumb kid though the movies plot was stupid and a bit boring when the killer was not using his light knife to kill people. What amazes me is that the movie has a really solid cast in it. What script did they read when agreeing to be in this movie as it is most assuredly boring and only a means to show off a light saber on a very small scale. The plot at times is incomprehensible and the end is totally chaotic. The whole film seems to rotate around aliens and the one weapon. The plot has two kids and some dude having an alien encounter, flash years later and there seems to be a return as it were in the mix. Dead animals and such to be explored and for some reason the one dude gets the weapon of the aliens and proceeds to use it to go on a very light killing spree. Seriously, you just have to wonder why this movie was made, if you are going to have a killer have some good death scenes, if you are going to have alien encounters show more than a weird light vortex thing, and if you are going to have light sabers then call yourself star wars.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
7,756 |
I only watched this movie because I was so impressed with Olivier Martinez in SWAT. But this is no SWAT. SWAT had a plot and some likable characters and made sense. Bullfighter had none of these. <br /><br />I should have realized that it couldn't possibly be any good, after all, the always painfully bad Michelle Forbes had a starring role.<br /><br />One poster here called the movie incoherent. Another called it the worst movie ever. Both gave the movie far too much credit. I am so glad I got it from the library for free, yet I still feel ripped off.<br /><br />IMDb needs to include a "0" in the "rate this film" vote, just for movies like this one.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
17,886 |
I first saw the film when it landed on US cable a year after it came out. It blew my little head away, I was only 16 and it was the first new wave music I'd heard, having been a strictly folky, classical kid growing up. The music mesmerized me, as did Hazel O'Connor's amazing look and charismatic vocal performances, and Phil Daniels' tough but soft Cockney manager just stole my heart. But I think my favorite character was Jonathan Pryce's drugged out sax player. He was so out of place in the band and so harmless and pathetic, he just begged for sympathy. Favorite scenes, the performance when the lights went out, and the love scene on the train.<br /><br />Okay, so the movie isn't the Rose! But it was really excellent for its limited budget and for its portrayal of the Britain of the early 80's, exploding with rebellious youth, looking for a way out of the dole queue. I went to Britain only a couple of years later and found the movie to have been very reflective of the atmosphere I found when I was there.<br /><br />If you get a chance to, see it. It is a great movie, with some wonderful performances, and the music will blow you away.<br /><br />
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
8,327 |
Bette Davis brings her full trunk of tics to this miserable flop which is another variation on the "hilariously mismatched" lovers theme. Sadly, Cagney and Davis are truly mismatched in acting styles and the mix is not simply unpalatable but distasteful. The only distinction in the film comes from Eugene Pallette who, literally, phones in his usual part as the deb's misunderstood dad. Jack Carson's performance can only be described as an act of mayhem on the audience
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
10,565 |
Very bad acting, and a very shallow story. Not even a decent B-Movie<br /><br />Events that were suposed to be shocking like humans geting on board an alien ship were boring and very lame.<br /><br />This is one of the worst sci-fi I've ever seen. I saw the 5.0 stars and decided to watch it since i like the genre, but it sucked so bad.<br /><br />Now there's really very few good movies on ALIEN subject, I think because most of them are low budget<br /><br />I give it 3/10
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.