id
int32 0
25k
| text
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| label
int64 0
3
| Generalization
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
547 | I'm a big mark for the music of Neil Young, and with that and the glowing praise the film received in many alt-indie press circles, hit the first showing of Greendale I could find. My excitement was short-lived, as this turgid storyline and weak lyrical momentum left most filmgoers either asleep or disappointed.<br /><br />Neil says the film started as a soundtrack, and the characters came to life so much that they just filmed the soundtrack. Not the best way to craft a story. No character really has an arc, and when "significant" events do happen, the viewer doesn't cared, because film technique annoyance levels are so high by that point. The film is all song, and to that end, the characters on end mouth the lyrics as they're sung...the technique works for the first stanza it is done, and is grating on the nerves after that. It doesn't feel real or fake, it just feels unwelcome.<br /><br />Terrible acting, with characters finding one mood and playing all of it. Poor lighting at times. The only kudos I can give the film are in regard to several scenes shot as newscast, but the technique is so used in cinema today that this film did little to further it. An alright soundtrack, but nothing I'm quick to buy. A bad film. | 1 | trimmed_train |
22,835 | Tarzan and Jane are living happily in the jungle. Some men come looking for ivory and to take Jane back to civilization. But Jane loves Tarzan and refuses to leave. One of the men falls in love with Jane and is determined to take her back...even if that means killing Tarzan.<br /><br />This is a rarity--a sequel that's better than the original. "Tarzan, the Ape Man" of 1932 was good but had some dreadful special effects and sort of dragged. This one has MUCH better effects and is a lot more adult. There is tons of blatant racism (a black man is shot to death point blank--and no one really cares) but this was 1934. There's also plenty of blood, gore and violence (for a 1934 movie) and uncut prints have Jane doing a lengthy underwater swim totally nude! There's also obvious sexual content and Tarzan and Jane are wearing next to nothing and (it's implied) they sleep together and have sex--without being married. This wouldn't bother anyone today but in 1934 this was pretty extreme.<br /><br />That aside, the movie is well-directed, very fast-moving and full of adventure and excitement. Seeing Weissmuller in that skimpy lion cloth is certainly a treat for the eyes and Jane's outfit is pretty revealing too. I still think Maureen O'Sullivan is bad as Jane but Weismuller is perfect as Tarzan. Everybody else is OK.<br /><br />This is easily the best Weismuller--O'Hara Tarzan out there. WELL worth seeing but not for kids! | 3 | trimmed_train |
15,515 | A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away.....There was a boy who was only two years old when the original "Star Wars" film was released. He doesn't remember first seeing the movie, but he also doesn't remember life before it. He does remember the first "Star Wars" themed gift he got...a shoebox full of action figures from the original set. He was too young to fully appreciate how special that gift would be. But years later, he would get what to this day goes down as one of the best gifts he's ever received: another box full of action figures, ten of the final twelve he needed to complete his collection. It's now legendary in this boy's family how the last action figure he needed, Anakin Skywalker, stopped being produced and carried in stores, and how this boy went for about ten years (until he got into college) trying to track one down and finally bought it from someone on his dorm floor for a bag of beer nuggets (don't ask...it's a Northern Illinois University thing).<br /><br />I can't review "Star Wars" as a movie. It represents absolutely everything good, fun and magical about my childhood. There's no separating it in my mind from Christmases, birthdays, summers and winters growing up. In the winter, my friends and I would build snow forts and pretend we were on Hoth (I was always Han Solo). My friends' dad built them a kick-ass tree house, and that served as the Ewok village. They also had a huge pine tree whose bottom branches were high enough to create a sort of cave underneath it, and this made a great spot to pretend we were in Yoda's home. I am unabashedly dorky when it comes to "Star Wars" and I think people either just understand that or they don't. I don't get the appeal of "Lord of the Rings" or "Star Trek" but I understand the rabid flocks of fans that follow them because I am a rabid fan of George Lucas's films.<br /><br />I feel no need to defend my opinion of these movies as some of the greatest of all time. Every time I put them in the DVD player, I feel like I'm eight years old again, when life was simple and the biggest problem I had was figuring out how I was going to track down a figure of Anakin Skywalker.<br /><br />Grade (for the entire trilogy): A+ | 3 | trimmed_train |
13,724 | just saw this exquisite 1982 movie Return of the Soldier, based on Rebecca West's novel. Its about a shell-shocked fortyish Captain who doesn't even tell his wife he has returned to British soil, but remains in a hospital in London. He's lost his memory and is a boy again, with a lingering yen for the lower class sweetheart he pursued 25 years earlier. Its a delicate story. He is lingering in his boyhood, while the reader discovers his wife is an unbearable, aspiring socialite who wants him to resume his place in society. Living with them is his cousin Jenny, who loved Chris Baldry the soldier, when they were growing up as playmates, but has settled into spinsterhood. The lower class woman, played by Glenda Jackson, is Margaret Gray. It is SHE who is notified that Chris is back in England. Chris' wife Kitty is shocked when Mrs. Gray comes to tell her that Chris is in a hospital in London. Kitty (Julie Christie) is vacuous and snobbish. Why, she asks herself, was this other woman sent a telegraph about Chris rather than her? Chris has forgotten totally about Kitty. He wants to renew his relationship with Margaret. The now married Margaret is reluctant to meet him, but then does and continues to meet with him. There is a psychiatrist (Ian Holm) who warns Kitty and Jenny that Chris' temporary happiness with Margaret will disappear if he 'cures' him. Jenny realizes how empty Kitty is for Chris and forms a secret loving alliance through Margaret. They both are in love with him. Jenny wants to help. Late in the film Kitty reveals that Chris and she had a boy who died five years ago. Telling Chris this, weighs the Shrink, will certainly restore him to 'normal.' But is this a good idea? Chris, barely aware that he and Kitty were ever married, is unaware of his child and the child's death. The psychiatrist, just learning of the child, believes such knowledge will restore Chris. Jenny and Margaret have Chris all to themselves because Kitty believes he is faking and refuses to accept Chris's illness in reverting to his youth in his forties. The film leaves her mostly out of consideration concerning whats to be done with Chris.<br /><br />But Jenny and Margaret, in the child's perfectly maintained bedroom- with Kitty too in the novel, but not in the screenplay- discuss what they believe should be done about Chris from their separate perspectives. Margaret is the critical one here, because, though married, she has half fallen in love with Chris again. Jenny's social stature, Jenny believes, will be threatened if Chris does not right himself. She does not reveal this to Margaret, however. Margaret decides, looking ahead, that Chris cannot maintain his fantasy over time, but must return to something like a real life. While Kitty and Jenny look on from the window of the house, Margaret approaches Chris outside and tells him of his lost son. The buoyant war victim's head sinks, his shoulders slump, he looks away. He walks dejectedly toward the house. Fin<br /><br />I read some criticism of this first novel of Rebecca West. The novel was written something after the first war. The movie is never quite clear who Jenny is, his cousin or his sister. It would be more rousing if she were his sister, of course. The criticism doesn't make it clear either. I'm sure West in her novel, makes sure Jenny is her cousin, not her sister. West is no Henry Miller nor an Anais Nin, whose book Incest (about her relationship with her father as an adult to get even with him for molesting her as a child) I considered reading, but then decided against. Rebecca the author has a need to restore Chris too. She too has outposts in her head for the Society her novel excoriates first but finally embraces once more. | 3 | trimmed_train |
6,371 | As has been stated countless times, "The Hills Have Eyes 2" is NOT a remake of the (generally disregarded) mid-'80s sequel to Wes Craven's 1977 original. But wishing to give this postmodern sequel-to-a-remake the official stamp of Diminishing Returns, Craven himself (a double threat alongside his son, Jonathan) has decided to pen a film that is of the same quality--in plain English, HORRIBLE. Former music-video director Martin Weisz takes the reins from Alexandre Aja, and is clearly in way over his head--yet one wonders how anyone could have created a watchable film from the Cravens' Screen writing 101 scrawl. Not only are the characters (in this case, a gang of goofball National Guards(wo)men sent to investigate the turbulent hills of the original remake) completely obnoxious and prone to really annoying genre pitfalls (played without a lick of irony, mind you), but they are constantly cracking jokes that aren't funny. After viewing their total ineptitude during a training exercise, their fate against the repulsive, roaming cannibals is painfully obvious. Only this time out--as in the original '80s sequel--the script is so simplistic (barely existent, actually) that any potential subtext is jettisoned in favor of upping the ante in repulsive shocks (we're treated to a combo childbirth-murder during the opening credits, plus a gratuitous rape for those who haven't ejected the DVD by the midpoint!). Even the mutants in this outing are personality-free freaks of no memorable stature--the tacky, rubbery-looking makeup FX seems, like the rest of the film, to be trying to hide its face from embarrassment. I really groaned at the lame 'surprise' at the end of Aja's otherwise excellent film, and the producers quite literally go for broke at the end of "Hills 2," setting the stage--VERY lamely setting the stage--for a third installment...yet the Cravens and Weisz have created a film that is such a cynical bastardization of what made the 1977/2006 versions work that they'd be hard-pressed to find an audience after this insulting slap in the face. | 2 | trimmed_train |
138 | It's been a looooonnnggg time since I saw this comedy, and I'd forgotten just how idiotic it is. I'd place this easily in the lower two or three of Elvis Presley's very worst movies. Presley plays Joe Whitecloud, a half-breed Indian bull rider who returns home to Arizona and the broken-down shack where his family lives, and where his friends love to party all night long. His parents are played by Burgess Meredith and Katy Jurado, and his old Indian grandpa is Thomas Gomez. None of the three offer anything of substance , comically or otherwise. The government has invested in the family's cattle, but they're lacking a bull. Elvis gets to sing just a few utterly worthless songs, and is pursued by a young boy-crazy gal and her gun-toting mother. This is just a real slapdash of a mess, and the dilapidated surroundings practically stink of manure and don't make this much easier. The one thing that puzzles me, however, is that Elvis actually seems to be having a good time in the film. Hard to believe, considering he got so upset about being stuck making so many mediocre movies. | 1 | trimmed_train |
5,893 | one of the worst films i have seen to date. Pathetic action scene and really bad acting also do not help. The only good point is Gary busey's parts but this does not lift the film very much. it lives up to its B film ranking and passes the test with flying colours. A waste of my money although i found entertaining to begin with its gets annoying after a few watches. i do not recommend this film unless you watch it for free or its a gift. ( a gift you can ask for the receipt and send back for a complete refund).<br /><br />Really BAd.<br /><br />1/10. | 2 | trimmed_train |
8,060 | That's what I found myself saying time after time in the remarkably inept 3rd act of this sorry excuse for a film. First off, the computer effects are absolutely mind-blowing! Those computer wizs' really deserve a pat on the back. The rest of the movie, though...<br /><br />None of the characters act in a realistic manner, especially in the aforementioned, despicable 3rd act (I promise I won't give it away, but trust me, it's not worth keeping a secret!). A lot of laughs in the film come unintentionally, like when they try to explain that an invisible man's eyelids don't work. Please, give the viewers more credit than that!!!<br /><br />Some of the sexual aspects of the film were interesting. What would you do, after all, if you were invisible? No one could catch you! These issues were dealt much more intelligently in the classic The Invisible Man from 1933. There is one scene of violence in particular that is so incredibly ambiguous, and is not mentioned once later on. If more attention had been paid it, Kevin bacon's mad scientist might have made a little more sense. <br /><br />The movie would actually be much more successful as a porno, since the premise could actually be carried out in a unique and interesting manner. But this piece of work... go see something else. Or don't, and live with the consequences!<br /><br />3/10 | 1 | trimmed_train |
1,854 | It's a bad movie, it seems like there is only 5 police in HK, they were not using there gun and this makes me feel like a Jacky Chan's movie. All the time they were using their gun to point at the suspect only. When they finally use their gun is when they kill each other, what a funny movie. In The movie, it's like all the good guys died without a reason.<br /><br />They story line of the movie also sucks, the story jump here and there and bored people. But if you wanted to see a bloody movie, I think this is only a OK type of movie, I think U.S. made zombie movie is more bloodier than this one | 2 | trimmed_train |
11,206 | Gloria Victor and Dolores Reed in space girl costumes.<br /><br />I love 50 sci fi, I even love cheesy 50s sci fi, but this film is really, really bad. And not in a MST3K kinda way.<br /><br />Virtually unwatchable as a couple of bozos do their best "hip cat" impression of Abott & Costello.<br /><br />Chessecake can usually save cheesy sci fi, such as in "Cat Women On The Moon" but it can't in this case. This film requires a mute button and fast forward feature.<br /><br />That said, I could watch Gloria and Dolores walk around the space ship for about an hour or so. | 1 | trimmed_train |
4,498 | Want a great recipe for failure? Take a s****y plot, add in some weak, completely undeveloped characters and than throw in the worst special effects a horror movie has known. Let stew for a week (the amount of time probably spent making this trash). The result is Corpse Grinders, a movie that takes bad movies to dangerous and exotically low places.<br /><br />The movie utterly blew. My words cannot convey how painful it was to watch. This is not one of those bad movies that you and your friends can sit around and make fun of. This is not Plan 9 From Outer Space. This is a long, boring, sad waste of time. Corpse Grinders II is the biggest waste of energy and talent I have ever seen. I depresses me when I realize that people actually took time out of their lives to act in this shit, if you can call it acting. But than again, when you have poor direction, poor storywriting, poor everything, acting is the last thing to criticize.<br /><br />This movie is like a huge, disgusting turd that you yearn to quickly flush out of existence, fearful that a friend or loved one might somehow see it. I really with I could somehow destroy every copy of this film, so it will not pollute the minds of aspiring filmmakers. Thank you, Ted V. Mikels, for giving me new found respect for every movie I have ever seen. You have shown me what is truly awful, and why I should appreciate all those movies that are merely crappy or boring. | 2 | trimmed_train |
12,581 | First off, I'd like to make a correction on another review of this film which said that the last musical to win the Best Picture Academy Award was 'Gigi' in 1958. That is misinformation as 'West Side Story' won in 1962, 'My Fair Lady' won in 1965 and 'Sound of Music' won the year after that. That said, this film is absolutely fantastic! The story from the novel has been somewhat altered, but that's more because of the limitations that they had on a stage that they just didn't change back for a filmed version. However, I don't mind. In fact, I rather think the whole production flows better than the novel does. I like Nancy bringing Oliver to the bridge with her and being killed there instead of later in the apartment. The subtle things in this film are the ones that make me laugh. I love the moment Mr. Bumble and Mrs. Bumble start coming out at the beginning from the governors office. The underscore for that moment is brilliant. My three favorite actors for this film were Jack Wild, who plays the best Dodger in any film version of the story, Ron Moody, a playful and humorous Fagin (this character is worked out much better than he is in the book), and Shani Wallis, who is the strongest, most distressed version of Nancy. The only reason I'm giving this film a 9 instead of a 10 is because of the two big production numbers which are 'Concider Yourself' and 'Who Will Buy.' I always hate when the choreography in musicals in meant to look like people doing everyday chores and jobs. It looks awful and cheesy, especially when they're dancing at the London Meat Co. They should've just done regular choreography for these scenes. However, this film is a rare treasure that will stay with us, hopefully, forever. | 3 | trimmed_train |
13,098 | <br /><br />Ok the film wasn't going to win any awards and it is pure bubblegum, and it is a modern update on "It's a wonderful life". But it's just come out as a cheap release on DVD and there are a lot worse ways of blowing $13. You get a film that has a surprisingly strong cast but for most they were still a year or two from becoming B list celebs. However it's an enjoyable way of passing an hour and half just don't think too much in it. | 0 | trimmed_train |
8,682 | Hybrid starts as water treatment planet security guard Aaron Scates (Cory Monteith) is involved in an accident which leaves him blind. Luckily it just so happens that brilliant scientist Dr. Andrea Hewitt (Justine Bateman) who works for Olaris has developed an operation to transplant organs from one species to another, Hewitt decides Aaron would be perfect for her first human experiment. Hewitt & her team transplant the eyes of a Wolf into Aaron & he miraculously regains his sight. Brilliant, right? Well, no not really since Aaron starts to go mad as he sees random images of Wolves & starts to develop a lust for blood. Aaron escapes the Olaris building & goes on the run but he is too valuable to just let go & a full scale search is mounted to capture him...<br /><br />Directed by Yelena Lanskaya this is yet another Sci-Fi Channel offering that is quite simply put terrible in every possible way, I think it probably started out life as a straight 'Creature Feature' but ended up as one of the most boring & dull Sci-Fi Channel films I have seen that doesn't even feature any sort of monster or creature. Hybrid is awful, the script is terrible & I am not even sure who it was meant to appeal to. The initial set-up is OK with Aaron getting Wolf eyes but then Hybrid ditches the sci-fi elements & becomes some sort of horrible drama as it focuses entirely on Aaron's mental state as he wonders around doing nothing in particular with some Native American woman. Yep, you don't think the Sci-Fi Channel could make a film about Wolves & put loads of rubbish about Native American mythology in there as well do you? The dynamics of the character's is bizarre, Aaron is shown as the persecuted hero yet he is the only character to kill anyone in the film & is a fairly unlikable, ungrateful & annoying person while Dr. Hewitt is shown as the evil scientist yet she gives Aaron back his sight & does nothing but try to help him. I mean Aaron is given back the gift of sight yet Hewitt is the villain? Also the regular Sci-Fi Channel staple of US military intervention is present, the problem is why do they want Aaron so badly? He isn't a soldier & while he has Wolves eyes to help him see in the dark he's utterly unremarkable. The script can't make it's mind up whether it's all in Aaron's mind or it's real, the ending is hilariously bad with a half naked (rememeber this was made for telly) Aaron running through a forest with a pack of Wolves set to some horrible music that I think is supposed to be emotional but makes it even more funny. There are so many things wrong with Hybrid, it's slower than hell, there's virtually no action, there's no Werewolves & the film goes round in circles trying to get into Aaron's mind yet it's all so ridiculous, silly & boring you won't care one bit & there's never any explanation as to why despite just having Wolves eyes transplanted Aaron starts to develop other Wolf senses.<br /><br />As a diabetic I have problems with my eyes, hell I have had major surgery on my right eye & I can guarantee you that after an operation your eye would be puffed up, you wouldn't be able to open it & it would hurt like hell yet despite having eye transplants as soon as Aaron wakes up in bed his eyes are perfect with no swelling or even redness. There are no special effects, no blood or gore or violence & nothing to excite you. In fact now I think about it there's nothing even remotely horror or sci-fi feeling about this, it feels like a drab film of the week.<br /><br />Filmed in Manitoba in Canada the film looks OK but is bland & forgettable. The acting is poor from all involved none of whom I have seen before & hopefully never again.<br /><br />Hybrid is a terrible film that is obviously marketed as some Werewolve 'Creature Feature' but is far from that & most people will really struggle to get to the awful ending which will probably have you in stitches. | 2 | trimmed_train |
22,158 | At first, I hadn't read the novel so far and I hadn't hear anything about the author yet. But as I casually saw this movie, I was totally captive by the story. Already as the Jewish watchman primary said, that he knows no one, who have a bad conscience about the war except from Howard W. Campbell Junior, was such amazing objective and dissociates from simply moralizing the war. Terrific! And the fictitious story about "the most effective spy for the USA in WWII", who have lost everything, that was important for his life, is wonderful emotional transcribed. This is the best story about the duality of humanity, I've ever heard about! The questions, this movie is introducing, are in my opinion very important for our society: When does someone bear the guilt of something? What is guilt? Who is a hero and who is a felon? What is important in our life? Can you live without paying attention to the political changes? Is the protagonist guilty or not? These questions are more up to date than in the last 60 years. This is a must see for everyone, who have to think about the acception of war! This movie is a must see for everyone, who meditate, what matters in life and what doesn't... | 3 | trimmed_train |
17,028 | Everyone in the cast, from Sugiyama to Aoki and Toyoko is someone we know in everyday life. They were so natural, and Sugiyama's transformation is incredibly believable. The score is so moving, it brought me to tears. The choreography was beautiful without seeming athletic. Mai's graceful dancing and charm gave me goosebumps. Tamako is such a wonderfully delightful character. You can almost see the charmed schoolgirl in her face as she reminisces about seeing "The King and I". Aoki's character is both hilarious and pitiful. Masako is so overwhelmingly natural as the bewildered wife, you almost want to hug her to reassure her that everything will be all right.<br /><br />This film is truly a keeper. | 3 | trimmed_train |
5,400 | Ooof! This one was a stinker. It does not fall 'somewhere in between Star Wars and Thriller', thats for sure. In all actuality, it falls somewhere between the cracks of a Wham! video and Captain EO, only with not as big of a budget, and a lot more close ups of ugly teenagers crying. Simon Le Bon preens front and center, while the rest of the band gamely tries to hide the fact that they stole their whole career from Roxy Music's last 3 albums. Brief clips from Barbarella add nothing. Avoid at all costs. (However, I liked the part when they played 'Hungry Like The Wolf' but why was there a tiger lurking in the audience changing into a woman painted with tiger stripes? I mean, they aren't singing 'Eye of the Tiger' or 'Hungry like the Tiger' it's a Wolf! Whatever.) A DVD of Duran Duran's '80s videos is probably worth a look for nostalgia's sake | 2 | trimmed_train |
22,879 | Another Pokemon movie has hit the theaters, and again, I'm hearing the same old, "Pokemon is dead, blah blah blah." The franchise's detractors couldn't be more wrong. Kids are still playing the trading card game, they're still watching the TV series, they're waiting for the Game Boy Advance games, and they want to see "Pokemon the 4th Movie."<br /><br />That said, "Pokemon The 4th Movie" introduces us to two more "legendary" Pokemon: Suicune, the "north wind" of lore, and Celebi, guardian of the forest (and star of the show). Celebi transports itself and a boy named Sam 40 years into the future, to the present day, where Pokemon trainer Ash, his faithful Pikachu, and his friends Brock and Misty are traveling through Johto. Sam and Ash become fast friends, once they discover the other's mutual love for Pokemon (Sam's vintage Pokeball with screw-on top is a great moment). Together, they decide to protect Celebi from the villain of the story, the Team Rocket agent aptly named Vicious, who is hell-bent on capturing Celebi for his own ends. Will Ash and Sam be able to protect Celebi from Vicious' Dark Balls? Where does Suicune fit into the picture? Will Jessie, James, and Meowth have bigger parts in this movie than before? And just who is Sam, really?<br /><br />Like with the first 3 movies, if you go into the movie deciding that you're automatically going to hate it no matter what simply because it's Pokemon (or just because your child/niece/nephew/younger sibling/et cetera "dragged" you into it), then you're going to hate it because you've decided that you want to hate it. That may be, but to blindly trash "Pokemon The 4th Movie" simply because it is a Pokemon movie, and especially without having seen it, is just plain stupid. Even non-fans can enjoy this movie without having to know every last detail of the world of Pokemon. I'm not saying that you WILL become a Pokemon fan because of this movie, but you CAN indeed enjoy it, if you'll let yourself.<br /><br />Unlike the first 3 Pokemon movies, "Pokemon the 4th Movie" is being distributed by Miramax, who I've heard is also working on securing the rights to the 5th Pokemon movie, which was released this past summer in Japan. Miramax claims to have some boffo-aggressive marketing strategy for "Pokemon The 4th Movie," but all I've seen so far is a feeble limited release, which doesn't include the usual Pikachu short in the beginning, which I was really looking forward to this time. I hope that Miramax will see fit to put the Pikachu short, called "Pikachu's Exciting Hide-and-Seek," onto at least the DVD/VHS release, if not with a future wider release of "Pokemon The 4th Movie." I hope that the current release is just the tip of the iceberg for this very entertaining film. | 0 | trimmed_train |
20,502 | Never having seen this movie, based on the entertaining novel by Nicholas Katzenbach, and taking into consideration the first rate cast assembled for the production, we decided to take a look. "Just Cause", while not a horrible film, takes too many liberties with the original material that Jeb Stuart didn't quite succeed in his treatment. Arne Glimcher directed.<br /><br />The first thing we think when a young black man is hauled to the local precinct for interrogation is police brutality. After all, sheriff Tanny Brown, and police officer Wilcox, show no mercy in beating Bobby Earl, who is accused of killing a young white girl. We feel horrified by what the officers do to the prisoner.<br /><br />Then, the scene changes. Evangeline, Bobby Earl's grandmother is sent north to ask a distinguished Harvard professor, a retired lawyer, the young man wants Paul Armstrong to defend him. She old woman is convincing enough for Armstrong to take a look at the case. He is also convinced of the young man's innocence.<br /><br />Things are not exactly what we thought they were. When Blair Sullivan, a man who is serving time in the same facility as Bobby Earl, comes forward to tell about how he is connected to the young girl's murder, and changes the dynamics of the case. The way it plays in the movie, it serves to confuse the viewer and distract Armstrong from arriving at the truth.<br /><br />This thriller is made enjoyable by Sean Connery, who plays Armstrong. Laurence Fishburne, an intense actor, makes a fine impression as the Sheriff who, as far as we can see, is guilty of abusing his prisoner. Ed Harris has a wonderful opportunity to show why he is one of our best actors. Blair Underwood, Kate Capshaw, Ruby Dee and the young Scarlett Johansson are seen in supporting roles.<br /><br />The film, even with its faults, will not disappoint. | 0 | trimmed_train |
16,323 | Four teenage girlfriends drive to Fort Laurdale for spring break.Unfortunately they get a flat tire in Medley,Georgia and one of the girls witnesses a brutal murder deep in the woods.The local sheriff is behind the crime and the nightmare begins..."Shallow Grave" is a pleasant low-budget surprise.The cast is likable enough,the direction is steady and the violence is particularly nasty and misogynistic.Especially the second murder is pretty grim.The murderous sheriff isn't one-dimensional character-in a couple of scenes it seems that he feels remorse for what he's done.The subplot involving the two boys they meet in the diner goes nowhere,but the stalking scenes in the woods are tense and exciting.7 out of 10. | 0 | trimmed_train |
6,872 | I have to admit that i liked the first half of Sleepers. It looked good, the acting was even better, the story of childhood, pain and revenge was interesting and moving. A superior hollywood film. But...No one mentioned this so far (at least in the latest 20 comments), when it came to the courtroom scenes and Brat Pitt´s character followed his plan to rescue his two friends, who are rightly accused of murder, i felt cheated. This movie insulted my intelligence. <br /><br />Warning spoilers!!<br /><br />Why did anyone accept their false alibi, witnessed by the priest? If these two guys had been with him, why shouldn´t they tell this during the investigation? Amnesia? If you were the judge or member of the jury, would you believe it? Is it wise to give the motif of the murderers away?<br /><br />I am sorry, but in the end, the story is very weak, and this angers me. This movie had great potential. 4/10 | 1 | trimmed_train |
273 | NOTHING in this movie is funny. I thought the premise, giving a human the libido of a randy ram, was interesting and should provide for some laughs. WRONG! There is simply nothing funny about the movie. For example, the main character making a pass at a goat in heat in the middle of a farmer's yard is not funny, it borders on obscenity. They are toying around with bestiality in this film on one level, and it just aint funny.<br /><br />We all know that dogs will eat anything, anywhere, anytime. The main character doing this with everything, everywhere, everytime is also not funny. It becomes a cliche.<br /><br />Rob Schneider is, I guess, acceptable in the role. By this, I mean that he's not a bad actor, but with rotten material it's difficult to comment on quality. However, Coleen Haskell, the other half of the HUMAN-romantic leads (does one count the number of animals that the main character has interest in as romantic leads too?), seems embarrassed by the whole thing, as well she should be. She seems to be acting in some kind of vacuum, detached from all the other actors in the movie. <br /><br />See this film only if you wish to be bored by tasteless, dull, repetitive material. | 2 | trimmed_train |
24,737 | This is undeniably the scariest game I've ever played. It's not the average shoot-everything-that-moves kind of fps (which I usually don't care much for), but the acceptable gfx, interesting weapons and magic, great surround soundeffects ("Scryeeee, scryeeee..") and above all incredible atmosphere. I love the Scrye, which enables you, at certain places in the games, to see or hear events that happened there in the past. The only game I've had to take regular breaks after a few minutes of playing just because of the intensity of the atmosphere. I'm a great horror fan, escpecially of Clive Barker's stories and movies, and participating in a horror story like this makes me yearn for more games that emphasizes atmosphere and a more involving story. 9/10 (-1 because I'm no fps fan, and perhaps the game was a bit short?) | 3 | trimmed_train |
6,145 | Jared Diamond made a point in the first episode that other peoples of the world didn't have animals to domesticate but Europeans did, and that accounts for why we were able to make steel and invent complex machines.<br /><br />But then in the third episode he says that when the Europeans in South Africa got too far north they ran into Zulu people and other tribes that *herded cattle and planted crops*. So what explains their lack of technological, economic, and artistic achievement if they had the key things the author claims are needed for success?<br /><br />Diamond also claims germs in the form of smallpox (brought to North America by black slaves) were our biggest weapon. Well, if 150 Europeans can defeat 20,000 native warriors and 400 non-military South Africans can defeat 10,000 Zulus *without a single casualty* in either case, then I think you have to conclude that germs are irrelevant. With or without germs, we were going to succeed.<br /><br />He says Malaria stopped Europeans from colonizing further North, killing "thousands" of Europeans while not affecting Africans. (I'd like to know real numbers but he doesn't say.) Then at the end he says today Malaria is killing thousands of Africans and that is why they can't catch up with us. So which is it, Jared? Did Malaria help the Africans by halting Eurpeans or hurt them? And how come Europe did okay despite massive plagues throughout our history? <br /><br />He also seems far too eager to say that the reasons Europeans succeeded was because of dumb luck. At times when the evidence threatens to overwhelm his rickety theories he's reluctant to admit that maybe Europeans were successful because they worked for it. It's sad watch this obvious neo-Marxist contort reality to try to prove his point. | 2 | trimmed_train |
6,636 | I don't know why, but when I am asked about bad movies I have seen, I often think of "The Air Up There". I know that technically, lots of movies are horrible compared to it, and I have seen worse acting. it's just that it's so bland, so predictable. In a word: mediocre. | 2 | trimmed_train |
15,039 | Many reviews here explain the story and characters of 'Opening Night' in some detail so I won't do that. I just want to add my comment that I believe the film is a wonderful affirmation of life.<br /><br />At the beginning Myrtle Gordon is remembering how 'easy' it was to act when she was 17, when she had youth and energy and felt she knew the truth. Experience has left her emotionally fragile, wondering what her life has been for and, indeed, if she can even continue living. A tragic accident triggers a personal crisis that almost overwhelms her.<br /><br />Almost - but not quite. At the eleventh hour she rediscovers the power of her art and reasserts herself ("I'm going to bury that bastard," she says of fellow actor Maurice as she goes on stage). It seems almost sadistic when Myrtle's director prevents people from helping her when she arrives hopelessly drunk for her first performance. He knows, however, that she has to have the guts to make it herself if she is to make it at all.<br /><br />Some critics wonder if this triumph is just a temporary pause on Myrtle's downward path. I believe this is truly her 'opening night' - she opens like a flower to new possibilities of life and action, she sees a way forward. It is tremendously moving.<br /><br />Gena Rowlands is superb. The film is superb. Thank you, Mr Cassavetes, wherever you are. | 3 | trimmed_train |
7,686 | You know all those letters to "Father Christmas" and "Jesus" that are sent every year? Well, it turns out that they are not actually delivered but dropped off in a half-forgotten corner of the post office to rot unless some bright spark figures out a way of posting them. As bizarre settings go, it's a winner and one which perfectly fits the strange movie that is "Dead Letter Office". Having said that, this is obviously an Australian film as opposed to a British one. If it was Royal Mail, most letters get this sort of treatment anyway. I haven't been in this flat for two years and we're still getting letters for a Mr Wang, some female priest of the Church of Latter Day I've-Never-Heard-Of-You and various catalogues for industrial equipment addressed to a plumbing company.<br /><br />"Dead Letter Office" (the name given to the place where undeliverable mail ends up) follows the story of Alice (Miranda Otto) who grows up in a seriously divided home. Writing to her absent father, she only learns in adulthood that her letters haven't been delivered for one reason or another. So, logically, she gets a job at the D.L.O. and finds herself working alongside other social rejects including the brooding Chilean immigrant Frank Lopez (George Del Hoyo). Slowly, she finds herself drawn to him but can she find out where her dad is without bringing the self-contained world of the Dead Letters Office to its knees?<br /><br />Nothing against this film but I was reminded of the god-awful Heather Graham film "Committed" while watching this. However, this is so much better than that pile of horse crap but then again, that ain't difficult. For a start, this film is much more logical. True, the metaphors are somewhat blatant and the underflowing symbolism quickly becomes a flood. But at least this is cohesive and quirky without being complete drivel. It is also well acted. Both Otto and Del Hoyo are very good as the lovers looking for something they know they'll never find while other characters are peripheral at best. Part of the trouble is that it seems to wrap up far too quickly, leaving this viewer somewhat disappointed. The other part is that when you consider Australia's draconian immigration policy (i.e. if you don't speak English, rack off!), such a story is unlikely to take place in reality. The other characters, sadly, also help to destabilise the realism by proving to be little more than odd-ball stereotypes.<br /><br />Despite that, "Dead Letter Office" is certainly something a little different. It might not be to everyone's taste but I liked it. Yes, it was hackneyed and predictable but sometimes, it's nice to watch a film without guns or violence or heavy-duty swearing and nudity (no chance of that in an Australian film). There ain't any major laughs, there's no Bullet Time and the characters are usually one-dimensional. But it's the story that counts here and while it's not earth-shattering in its magnificence, it's a pleasant enough way of passing the time. It's the movie equivalent of a Sheryl Crow CD - nice to listen to now and again but you wouldn't really miss it if it wasn't there. | 1 | trimmed_train |
18,136 | I like this presentation - I have read Bleak House and I know it is so difficult to present the entire book as it should be, and even others like Little Dorrit - I have to admit they did a very good show with the staged Nicholas Nickelby. I love Diana Rigg and I could see the pain of Lady Dedlock, even through the expected arrogance of the aristocracy. I am sorry, I think she is the best Lady Dedlock... I am not sure who could have made a better Jarndyce, but I am OK with Mr. Elliott. It is not easy to present these long Dickens' books - Oliver Twist would be easier - this is a long, and if you don't care for all the legal situations can be dreary or boring. I think this presentation is entertaining enough not to be boring. I just LOVED Mr. Smallweed - it can be entertaining. There is always a child - Jo will break your heart here... I think we should be given a chance to judge for ourselves...<br /><br />I have to say I loved the show. Maybe if I read the book again, as I usually do, after seeing the movie, maybe I can be more critical. In the meantime - I think it is a good presentation. | 0 | trimmed_train |
17,293 | Rene Clair's groundbreaking musical. If you want to see where songs first drove a story this is the place. This is the story of a starving young artist who finds he's won the lottery just as his creditors come calling. Unfortunately his ticket is in his coat, which is in his girlfriends apartment and has been given to an on the run convict who then... oh but that would be telling.<br /><br />This is a light and frothy story where much of the dialog is sung (most people think this didn't happen until Oklahoma or Andrew Lloyd Webber). Its the sort of movie that they don't make any more, and rarely did when they did. Its sound a film from the early days that plays like a movie from five or six years later. Clair moves his camera around in ways that not even Busby Berkeley was doing (though to be honest comparing the two film makers is unfair since Berkeley was doing essentially stage bound dance numbers and Clair was moving the camera through "the real world"). Its an amazing little movie. and its a charming movie that will just make you smile. Its just a fluffy piece of enjoyment.<br /><br />I'm sorry I can't say more. Its just a nice little movie and thats really all you need to know. | 0 | trimmed_train |
11,258 | 60 minutes in the beautiful Christina Galbo tries to escape the isolated boarding school she's brought to at the beginning of the movie. Is she running from some kind of fate too horrible to contemplate, a monster, black-gloved killer, or supernatural evil? No, she's running from a bunch of bullies. For the OTHER 40 minutes that follow, various figures walk around the school in the dark holding candelabras and looking alarmed or distraught, which doesn't say much in itself perhaps because great movies have been made about just that but if you're going to have characters walking around corridors and staircases you better be Alain Resnais or you better know how to light that staircase in bright apple reds and purples like Mario Bava. We know a killer stalks the perimeters of the school but his body count is pitiful and sparse and in the absence of the visceral horrors one expects to find in the giallo, we get no sense of sinister mysteries/unspeakable secrets festering behind a facade of order and piety and rightness which is the kind of movie La Residencia wants to be but doesn't quite know how to do it. We know something is off because girls are reported missing but we never get the foreboding mysterious atmosphere that says "something is seriously f-cking wrong here, man". When Serrador tries to comment on the sexual repression of the female students, he does so with quick-cutting hysterics and detail closeups of eyes and parted lips while high pitched "this-is-shocking" music blares in the background. None of the aetherial beauty and longing of PICNIC AT HANGING ROCK to be found here. It's all a bit clumsy and aimless, with no real sense of urgency or direction. A number of people are presented as suspects but there's little reason to care for the identity of a killer that goes unnoticed by the characters inside the movie. I like the first kill, the image of a knife hitting target superimposed over the anguished face of the victim as a lullaby chimes in the background, but the rest is too inconsequential for my taste. I have to say Serrador did much better with the killing children and paranoia du soleil of WHO CAN KILL A CHILD? | 1 | trimmed_train |
5,870 | OK, I have been a huge fan of the Black for a long time and was DISGUSTED after seeing this film. Let's name the problems...First this film has much of the same crew that the first two had. It has also been called the PREQUEL to the original Black Stallion. Why is it that they can't get Shetan's dam's name correct or her color?? In The Black Stallion Returns, we learn the Sagr was the Black's CHESTNUT mother and in this film she is a gray mare name Jenny?!?!?!?!? WTF? And it's set in Africa in 1946 and 1947...I could be wrong but the first one was set in the 1940's as well when the ship wrecks. Time line doesn't sound quite right to me. Also, as a goof, there is a friesian in the beginning of the movie that is supposed to be Shetan's father...upon further notice it appears to be a gelding. Ben Ishaak is the only character that remained to even make this film appear to be related to the previous two in any way. Might be a cute family film to some but it's my biggest movie disappointment of the year. | 2 | trimmed_train |
9,744 | Salvage: 4 out of 10. Groundhog Day meets a Christian Coalition horror film. Okay maybe it's not that bad. But it is close.<br /><br />Claire (played by Alicia Silverstonesque Lauren Currie Lewis) is stalked and possibly killed by a serial killer (Chris Ferry who is quite menacing and brutal). I say possibly because she wakes up and it was all a dream
.. Or was it? (Cue music)<br /><br />The basic problem with the film is that these fifteen minutes of plot (Done quite well the first time) is repeated over and over again. And since Claire wakes up every time and every scene is clearly a dream or alternate reality I just stopped caring what happened to Claire and started wondering what lame twist at the end was going to pull this together.<br /><br />I was rooting for a séance (which honestly would have made more sense) but instead got one of those too obvious by half surprise endings (Think the Village or Below) Yup the film collapses faster than Donnie Darko's directors cut. All the great twist endings in horror movies The Sixth Sense, the original Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Happy Birthday to Me worked because the audience wasn't expecting a left field explanation. (Heck even the canoe ending in the original Friday the 13th was worth a jolt)<br /><br />Salvage on the other hand screams twist ending with every scene change. Other nagging faults is the one note piano soundtrack (Though the featured songs were decent) the obvious time padding (Claire doing the dishes, Claire's mother's subplots), the way Claire says "hello is anyone there" every time she thinks there is a serial killer around.<br /><br />Also some of the secondary acting roles (In particular Claire's mother played by Maureen Olander who resembles a Mary Kay zombie) shows the first time actor low budget roots.<br /><br />Both too clever by half and not nearly clever enough Salvage keeps your interest if only to see how they are going to fix this mess. Problem is they really don't. | 1 | trimmed_train |
22,908 | The season finale sent mix messages, I felt feelings of joy, and also feelings of being lied to and deceived. Roseanne tells all her viewers that the entire season nine was a lie because her husband, Dan, had died. She also admits the family never won the lottery, and what season 9 was a lie just being how she wished or wanted it to be. I'm still confused about when she said Becky ended up with David, and Darlene with Mark because Becky and Mark admit to being pregnant. So I believe that is just how she wanted it to be, but it wasn't. So the season finale was good, but sent mixed feelings. I will always be a fan of the show. :) | 3 | trimmed_train |
20,432 | Perfect cast for a few-person drama. Simon is dead but somehow resurrects from outside. What he had seen there is displayed in form of blank spots orchestrated to a magnificent score by German avant-garde composer Werner Henze. Simon is haunted by his death, comforted by support of death people he'd seen on the other side. His girlfriend tries to hold him to life but failing to, decides to follow him after his finally occurring death. Very touchy and moving, deeply psychological, but a bit slow and somewhere even boring. | 0 | trimmed_train |
21,636 | MGM were unsure of how to market Garbo when she first arrived in Hollywood. Mayer had a lot of faith in her and her appearance in "Torrent" justified that. She did not speak a word of English so she must have found it difficult to work, also Ricardo Cortez did not make it very easy for her.<br /><br />The torrent of the title is the river Juscar that winds through a sleepy little village in Spain. Leonora (Greta Garbo) hopes someday that her voice will bring great wealth and happiness to her struggling parents. Leonora and Don Rafael (Ricardo Cortez) are in love but he is under his mother's thumb and cannot get her to consent to his marriage. Meanwhile Dona Brull (Martha Mattox) has evicted Leonora's parents from their home and they send Leonora to Paris hoping to give her a chance to further her singing career. Leonora sends a note to Rafael, urging him to remember his promise and come with her. His mother is enraged and forbids him to go - so of course he caves in to her request.<br /><br />Years pass. Leonora has a new identity - she has become La Brunna, the toast of the Paris Opera. Rafael has turned out just as his mother wished - he is running for office and is courting a "safe" young girl, Remedios (Gertrude Olmstead) who is a "hog" heiress. Mack Swain plays her father. Leonora decides to visit her old home, and I agree - why hasn't she helped her mother out. Her mother is still living at the family home, working as a skivvy and taking in washing. Leonora and Rafael meet but Leonora is full of ridicule. Garbo is so enchantingly beautiful, it is hard to believe that he could be happy with Remedios.<br /><br />The dam is bursting and the torrent is flooding the town. Leonora's house is in the path of the raging river but when Rafael attempts to rescue her he finds she is quite safe. They then re-kindle their romance. There is a "horizontal" love scene in this film, very similar to the one in "Flesh and the Devil".<br /><br />Dona Brull goes spreading gossip about how Leonora really got her wealth and Leonora's mother believes her and tells Leonora to go. Rafael meets Leonora just before she is about to tour America. Again he intends to go with her but again he lets her down. He spends so much time listening to other people destroy her reputation - "what will she do for you but drag you down". The irony is she has just secured a top government job for him if he comes with her. They meet again, years later - she is as fresh and vibrant as ever - he looks older than his years, bowed down by mediocrity.<br /><br />It is certainly a good film with a positive message to follow your heart.<br /><br />Lucien Littlefield does a good job as Cupido, the barber and Leonora's old and faithful friend.<br /><br />Highly Recommended. | 0 | trimmed_train |
6,538 | Townies is the laziest movie I have ever seen, and I saw the Blair Witch movies (parts one and two). It seems confused in what it wants to be. It's not funny enough for comedy, it's not tragic enough for drama, it's not bloody enough for horror, and it's not good enough for watching. It has scenes of a man doing "slapstick/bloody" karate so I think, oh this movie will be in the vein of Toxic Avenger and Street Trash. Then it leaps without warning into a drama about a missing girl, a retarded (mentally handicap) woman and a trusting mother. Then it slaps itself into the ONLY good part in the movie which seems to be set up like a sitcom without the laugh tracks. The part I'm speaking of is a lonely TOWNIE who is so lonely he finds comfort in a rotting corpse. That was the ONLY part of the movie that gave me ANY feeling. The rest was a waist of my life. Then, just to show how CRUEL Wayne is there is a kind of DOCUMENTARY at the end of the film of Wayne (the Director) making fun of Toby (the star) in public. It made me sick. Even though Killer Nerd and Bride of Killer Nerd (two other movies by Wayne) aren't the best, they at least are thought out enough were you can stay entertained until the ending credits. I even like Killer Nerd a bit, it had some great lines I still use to this day.<br /><br />If you like underground films, if you like overground films, and if you like to watch your feet, just resting were they are, you will not like TOWNIES!<br /><br />*1/2 (out of ****)<br /><br /> | 2 | trimmed_train |
9,570 | This movie is one of the most unintentionally bad action films ever put to film. Dolph Friggin' Lundren with a Japanese accent is funny enough, but add really corny buddy-buddy action to the mix, an eccentric and over-the-top villain, a clichéd love interest subplot and one of the worst endings of all time, and you've got yourself quite the little suicide-inducing cure for people who enjoy their life and, up till watching "Showdown," had never contemplated killing themselves with a blowtorch.<br /><br />I don't know if it's just me but the whole homosexual subtext is none too subtle. There are constant references to male genitalia, and not by females, either. Brandon Lee and Dolphin talk about each other's manly parts, and in fact before going on a suicide spree, Brandon says to Dolphy, "In case we don't make it, I want to tell you, you have the biggest d--- I've ever seen."<br /><br />Now, is this what a normal man would say to another man? In an ACTION film no less? And would you want those to be your _dying words_??<br /><br />Later, there's this gem:<br /><br />Dolph (regarding the villain): "I would like to cut off certain parts of his anatomy." Brandon: "Man, you've got a fixation." <br /><br />As the guy at RuthlessReviews.com pointed out, "Unfortunately, Dolph doesn't respond with, 'I've got a fixation? I've got a fixation?! You're the one who decided that his last words should be about my privates! I was just gonna chop of his ears and his nose, man."<br /><br />This is relentlessly silly stuff and great fun if you're someone who enjoys receiving root canals from unlicensed dentists, without novocain. It's about on par. Great fun for the whole family! | 2 | trimmed_train |
17,730 | Robot Jox doesn't suffer from story or bad effects. I mean, this was 1990 if you know what I'm talking about. RoboCop 2 still used the stop animation as most of the movies did throughout the '80s. If you look at your biggest blockbusters during this period, most of them did what they could with the special effects shots that was available to them at the time. It wasn't until Terminator 2: Judgment Day was released the following year that a breakthrough in technology was realized, and story boarders began to use that motive. But you'll have fond memories of Transformers, Gundam Wing, even Power Rangers, if you watch this film. The enemy robot is very menacing. It makes you not want to face the man without a really good back-up plan. And there are some great moments within this film. A traitor/spy is working within their midsts. Who you think is on your side, backing you up all the way, could be the person you didn't expect him/her to be. And that's very troublesome to think so, don't you agree? | 3 | trimmed_train |
10,527 | I just finished watching this movie. It wasn't ridiculously bad, but I'm really disappointed with it. I'm not really sure why someone would make a movie like this. It was marginally entertaining, but I feel like the people making it had a lot of disagreements on what they were making. Monday, the writer was in charge; Tuesday, the director; Wednesday, the guy who gets the coffee; etc. It almost seems like they really wanted to make a couple different movies, but only had the time and money to make one.<br /><br />Someone else commented that the acting was really good, but I'd have to disagree. Then again, if the actors were able to keep a straight face during the filming, perhaps they're better actors than I give them credit for.<br /><br />The back of the DVD gives the impression that the movie would be a mystery... something along the lines of a historical Law and Order or National Treasure. It starts off like that, but then, out of nowhere it takes a turn towards a bad episode of the Twilight Zone, or... what was that other show that wasn't as good... A bad episode of The Outer Limits.<br /><br />My main complaint about the movie is that it is just so played out. There's the evil guy with spiked white hair. There's the love interest, who, when she first appears, the wind actually blows through her hair. Seriously. Once you realize it's a Christian movie, the end is also pretty easy to spot.<br /><br />The cinematography was poorly done, especially in the opening scenes - way to put your best foot forward. It wasn't atrocious for most of the movie, but there was the occasional ridiculously bad shot of an old lady, praying, arms up in a dark room while lightening is striking - the sort of thing that just makes you a little bit embarrassed to be watching the movie. | 1 | trimmed_train |
14,491 | Citizen X tells the real life drama of the search for a serial killer dubbed "The Rostov Ripper" This great film shows the long journey it took to try to apprehend a killer. The film shows how politics may haver helped the killer to continue his rampage for over 12 years. (Possibly over 50 victims, mostly women and children) The performances of Stephen Rea as the lead detective and Donald Sutherland as the overall investigation lead was superb. Jeffrey DeMunn as the Ripper Andrei Romanovich Chikatilo. This is the type of film which will mesmerize you and immediately have you on the internet researching the real case. This a film not to be missed. It debuted I believe on HBO and never did get a theatrical release to my understanding. Great film | 3 | trimmed_train |
7,372 | Three writers made a valiant attempt to adapt Jane Stanton Hitchcock's novel for the tube, yet this television movie has ultimately been injected with too much melodrama and just doesn't know when to quit. Struggling artist Meg Tilly suddenly finds herself employed by wealthy, enigmatic Ellen Burstyn, who desires a mural painted on the walls of her unused ballroom. After learning about the last gathering held there--Ellen's daughter's coming-out party--Tilly decides on her artistic theme, never dreaming the daughter died mysteriously before the function even began, nor that she and the deceased bore a striking resemblance to one another! Two superb actresses lend their services to an incredible yarn which doesn't bear close scrutiny, one that fails to match either lady in emotional intensity. Burstyn's role teeters on camp, while Tilly gets stuck doing the dreamy-eyed-waif routine. Only one sequence late in the film (the morning after the mural is finished) is charged with honest feeling, anger and betrayal. The rest is piffle. | 1 | trimmed_train |
22,413 | I fell in love with this silent action drama. Kurt Russell and only Kurt Russell could have played this so well. Raised from childhood to know nothing but war and fighting, Todd (Kurt Russell) is dumped on a planet after being made obsolete by genetically engineered soldiers.<br /><br />The stage is set and another classic icon of action movies was born - SOLDIER. Not Rambo, not Schwarzenegger, not Bruce Willis, not Mel Gibson, not Jason Statham - Kurt Russell owns this role and made it entirely his - original, daring, and all too human. I miss the fact that sequels were never made.<br /><br />10/10<br /><br />-LD<br /><br />_________<br /><br />my faith: http://www.angelfire.com/ny5/jbc33/ | 3 | trimmed_train |
19,331 | In 1943, a group of RAF Officers, including Eric Wiiliams, decide to escape from a POW camp using a Gymnastic Vaulting Horse in the courtyard. In 1950, it was decided to film his account, and it kick-started a peculiar British Film Genre- the Military Prison Camp story that reached its apogee in Danger Within (1959).<br /><br />The Wooden Horse is one of the quietest films I have ever watched. There are no great dramatic moments, but a steady storyline eventually builds to a climax that has more tension because the story doesn't give way for unlikely drama, jump cuts or jacked up (somethings about to happen!) music. It is utterly of its time and works beautifully.<br /><br />Leo Glenn, Anthony Steel and David Tomlinson lead a curiously low key cast of extras and (I suspect) non-actors. Without exception, all are constantly mono-tonal and quiet. They keep emotion out of their roles. As so many were, until recently, ex-service, I suspect they recreated their war time roles as 'Officers and Gentlemen'.<br /><br />This unemotional approach does not detract from any dramatic tension. On the contrary, unlike most Wartime Escape Films, the story doesn't end at the barbed wire: and that fact alone keeps me glued to the end. | 0 | trimmed_train |
13,773 | Uggh! I really wasn't that impressed by this film, though I must admit that it is technically well made. It does get a 7 for very high production values, but as for entertainment values, it is rather poor. In fact, I consider this one of the most overrated films of the 50s. It won the Oscar for Best Picture, but the film is just boring at times with so much dancing and dancing and dancing. That's because unlike some musicals that have a reasonable number of songs along with a strong story and acting (such as MEET ME IN ST. LOUIS), this movie is almost all singing and dancing. In fact, this film has about the longest song and dance number in history and if you aren't into this, the film will quickly bore you. Give me more story! As a result, with overblown production numbers and a weak story, this film is like a steady diet of meringue--it just doesn't satisfy in the long run. <br /><br />To think...this is the film that beat out "A Streetcar Named Desire" and "A Place in the Sun" for Best Picture! And, to make matters worse, "The African Queen" and "Ace in the Hole" weren't even nominated in this category! Even more amazing to me is that "Ace in the Hole" lost for Best Writing, Screenplay to this film--even though "An American in Paris" had hardly any story to speak of and was mostly driven by dance and song. | 0 | trimmed_train |
15,921 | Letters with no destination end up in another world found in the back rooms of the post office. Here, Alice manages to land a job in hope of finding her lost father. What she does discover is the tormented soul of her boss, Frank. A quiet little Aussie flic that came and went at the cinema. Now you find it in the deep dark corner of the video shop, overshadowed by fifty copies of that dreaded GODZILLA film. It's a shame because this turned out to be a satisfying film telling a brave tale with strong simple images and effective performances from the two leads. This film succeeds where Garry Marshall's other dead letter office flic DEAR GOD (1996 - USA) failed, and comes close to the brilliance of, not the Kevin Costner turkey, but He Jianjun's POSTMAN (1995 - China). | 0 | trimmed_train |
24,083 | I don't care how many bad reviews purple rain gets, this movie rocks! Excellent movie, has it all, great music(Prince of coarse!), romance, and drama.<br /><br />This is really a very sad movie, very moving. I don't want to say TO much more, I;m not into giving away the plot, but I will say this-the film is VERY realistic, there are so many romantic relationships that go through these problems, so many familys similiar to the one depicted in the film. I see this as being very realistic and being so real, makes the movie that much more moving. My generation loved this movie growing up, so many of us loved Prince and there is alot to relate to for any teenager who has gone through similiar problems.<br /><br />That said, it's definetly NOT just a movie for teens, Id recomend it to all age groups. And it's not all so dark, the movie has some great music, band performance scenes, and sexy fun scenes between Prince and Appelonia. | 3 | trimmed_train |
17,370 | The selection of Sylvester Stallone to perform the protagonist by Renny Harlin is commendable since Stallone is that sort of tough and craggy person who had earlier rendered the requisite audaciously versatile aura to the characters of Rocky Balbao and Rambo. But to compare Die Hard series with Cliffhanger is a far-fetched notion.<br /><br />The excellently crafted opening scene introduces the audience to the thrill, suspense and intrigue which is going to engulf them in the ensuing bloody and perilous encounter with the outlaws. The heist and the high altitude transfer of hard cash in suit cases from one plane to the other is something not filmed before.<br /><br />The biting cold of the snow capped Alps and the unfolding deceit and treachery among the antagonist forces makes one shiver with trepidation. The forces of awesome adventure and ruthless murder kicks the drama through to the end.<br /><br />Good movies are not made every year and people don't get a feast for eyes to watch every now and then. Apart from the filthy language/parlance which endows brazen excitement during certain scenes, the movie can be regarded as one that is not going to fade its captivating appeal even watching it after so many years. | 3 | trimmed_train |
4,265 | I can't believe anyone thought there was anything original or interesting about this movie. I'm a fan of science fiction as much as the next guy, and I can enjoy even old movies with ridiculous premises as long when they are written by someone other than a monkey. (See, for example, my glowing review of Altered States [1980].)<br /><br />A monkey could have explained better exactly why I should for a second take seriously the basic idea behind this movie. The problem is not that the producers had a low budget--it's that they didn't care.<br /><br />Now, to publicly humiliate the worthless magazines whose glowing reviews appear on the box:<br /><br />Chicago Tribune<br /><br />San Francisco Chronicle<br /><br />San Francisco Bay Guardian<br /><br />(Actually, I enjoy reading the latter two. Still, their movie reviewing credibility has gone through the floor. But I know if I ever make a movie with handheld camera, a cheesy plot and stupid effects, I'll show it to these journalists and remind them what they said about Conceiving Ada.) | 2 | trimmed_train |
4,800 | Jet Li, is one of the best hand to hand combat fighters in the world. He has been for over 20 years and he puts others in the genre to shame. While he is big in Asia, he is almost unknown here in the US.<br /><br />Black Mask is supposed to be a breakout movie for him, but it fails horribly. First of all, it is dubbed. While it may have camp value (the dubbing isn't even close and it is flat in tone), it seems inappropriate for the ordinary movie viewer. Secondly, the director in this movie, Daniel Lee, does a horrible job. He cuts scenes so fast, at times, you don't know what's going on. Other times, the camera shakes and wobbles. Fans see Jet Li's movies for the fantastic martial arts. However, the director edits the scenes so fast that you don't even know who's who half the time! Other times, a scene is left hanging (ie Li is beginning to cut a hole in the floor of a jeep, while the badguys arm their guns, two seconds later, both Li and the love interest are already under the car!) Other scenes are so improbable, that they cross over the point of being completely ridiculous (killer CD roms? Just give him Throwing Stars!!!!). Li, needs a director who is less prone to machine gun cutting and more to creating a cinematic mise-a-scene. The added rap/techno music goes from being okay to intrusive. The plot has possibilities but are all squandered by cartoonish characters that take away from any credibility that this movie strives for. And are we really to believe that the love interest would not recognize Simon, because he has a half mask on? Wouldn't the hair, lower jaw, or voice give it away?<br /><br />If you want to see a Jet Li movie, try Iron Monkey or his classic Shaolin Temple. This disjointed mess is a complete waste of time.....2/10 | 2 | trimmed_train |
19,478 | As a fan of Paris Je'Taime, I went to see New York, I Love You with very high expectations. I gladly walked out with all my expectations met. It was funny, sweet, fast-paced, and entertaining. The film starts out with two cab hoppers (Bradley Cooper & Justin Bartha) trying to get to the same area but arguing which way to go. That was funny, and then the film goes into some of the best skits I have ever seen anywhere. There were four amazing ones out of all the good ones. Those four I will start talking about. One features Shia LaBeouf as a bellhop at a hotel who finds love in an old lady. The next one features Orlando Bloom as a music maker who is doing business with a woman played by Christina Ricci. Another one features Anton Yelchin and Olivia Thirbly as two people going to prom, Thirbly's character being handicapped. The best one features Eli Wallach and Cloris Leachman as a bickering old couple. I will bring to your attention that Nataile Portman makes an impressive directorial debut directing, and writing a skit about a caretaker, and Ethan Hawke and Maggie Q are excellent as a flirting man and a hooker. New York, I Love You is definitely as good, if not better than the 2006 Paris Je'Taime. The skits are well-paced, and the film shows how indie films should really be. The film, however, does not have as many famous directors as Paris Je'Taime, which is why it was fantastic to live up to its excellence. If you want to laugh, see some great dramatic effects, see an amazing amount of great performances, and just plain be entertained then definitely go see New York, I Love You. | 3 | trimmed_train |
20,463 | The movie was excellent, save for some of the scenes with Esposito. I enjoyed how it brought together every detective on the series, and wrapped up some plotlines that were never resolved during the series (thanks to NBC...). It was great to see Pembleton and Bayliss together at their most human, and most basic persons. Braugher and Secor did a great job, but as usual will get overlooked. It hurt to see that this was the end of Homicide. Memories, tapes, and reruns on CourtTV just aren't the same as watching it come on every Friday. But the movie did its job and did it very well, presenting a great depiction of life after Al retired, and the family relationship that existed between the unit. I enjoyed this a lot. | 3 | trimmed_train |
464 | Let's hope this is the final nightmare. This is the epitome of a good thing gone bad. Okay, there is still some enjoyment to be had, but only in the most mundane sense. Rachel Talalay had been there for the duration of this franchise, had been on the production staff and produced even. I don't know what she was thinking, but this debacle comes complete with the human video game boy and a guest appearance by<br /><br />Tom and Roseanne Arnold! I wish I had a clue what she was thinking when she wrote/directed this disappointing piece of garbage. She even tried to distract her audience from the fact that this movie was nothing more than an over-glorified popcorn movie instead of bearing any resemblance to horror, with the contrived use of a 3D ending. Aren't those glasses nifty? And you get to KEEP them! It's the equivalent of, you just spent $9.00 making me rich. Here's 10 cents. Now, don't you feel special!? Sorry, but for me, it just did not make me feel special. <br /><br />And Freddy's had yet another face-lift. This one was for the worst, I think. All the beautiful artistry that went into his "look" in the earlier films has been replaced by an obviously cheaper, less detailed set of prosthetics. He looks ... less like the burn victim he is supposed to be, and more like he has a skin disorder. Changing the lead's makeup like that so far into a series is about on the same level as changing the lead actor. But wait! They've done that, and done that. So I guess it doesn't matter. But it mattered to me. Freddy is no longer SCARY. He's just ... another low-rent monster like the Leprechaun. <br /><br />It's more...a dark comedy than the horror classic this series promises; riddled with what you can only hope the writers thought were witty one-liners and clever repartee (sadly, it fell short on both accounts). <br /><br />So there's nothing more to say than grab the popcorn and get ready to laugh, because there was not one scary or suspenseful moment in this entire film. <br /><br />It rates a 3.2/10 from...<br /><br />the Fiend :. | 1 | trimmed_train |
21,332 | This is the final episode we deserved. At the end of the last season, things were left in a 'life goes on' mood, which was hardly the wrap-up that this realistic series deserved. While not a happy show, this series was always one that made you think (a rare thing on television), and this is no exception. 'Is death justified by reasoning?' 'Are morals reflective of society, or is society shaped by the morals that are selected by the few in power?' 'What is a just death, and can it exist?' All of these questions, and more, are posed by the writers of this show every week, and this is their final thesis. Fine acting, great writing, wonderful camera-work, brilliant editing, clean direction. If you have seen the series and you missed this when it first ran, then get a hold on a copy somehow. If you never watched the series when it ran, then this will stand up on its own, but it may be heavy going trying to keep up with who all the characters are and what they are alluding to in their varied pasts. For those of us who were avid viewers of the series in the last two seasons, this is very satisfying viewing. | 0 | trimmed_train |
15,729 | Sharp, well-made documentary focusing on Mardi Gras beads. I have always liked this approach to film-making - communicate ideas about a larger, more complex, and often inscrutable phenomenon by breaking the issue down into something familiar and close to home.<br /><br />I am sure most people have heard stories about sweatshops and understand the basic motives behind profit and capitalism, and globalism's effect on poorer nations (however people feel about it). Rather than expound on these subjects and get up on a soapbox (not that there's anything wrong with that, other than such documentaries typically preach to the converted), this documentary simply shows Mardi Gras beads, how they are manufactured, by what people, and under what conditions, and then how they are utilized by consumers at the end of the process. It openly and starkly investigates the motivations of everyone involved in the process, including workers, factory management, American importers, and finally, the consumer at the end of the chain.<br /><br />I felt a little sickened by this; equally by the Mardi Gras revelers, but also by the way the workers in China have accepted their situation as normal and par for the course (even if they have some objections to the details of how they are managed). The footage of the street sweepers cleaning up the beads off the streets at the end, made a particular impression. But that was just my reaction; I can see how someone else might read this documentary a little differently.<br /><br />Unlike other documentaries on this subject, I don't think you have to have any specific political opinion to be affected by this. This is ultimately a story about human beings and our relation to the goods we produce and consume. If you have ever bought a product made in the Far East, this should give you something to think about.<br /><br />Outstanding and highly recommended. Need to see more documentaries like this. Kudos to all of those involved in the making of this film. | 3 | trimmed_train |
15,650 | The image of movie studios being financially-driven instead of creatively is not without truth (in fact, it's more true than false). This begs the question why Castle Rock Entertainment allowed Kenneth Branagh to create a full-length, uncut version of "Hamlet" with his complete creative control among other things. Of course, Branagh had to agree to some concessions (a star-studded cast, and a 2.5 hour version for wider release), but why would the film studio allow Branagh to spend money on a 4 hour version that they knew few would see? Could they have, at least in this case, had enough respect for the material and Branagh's vision to create something for only a few people? That is not a question that I can answer. Whatever the reason, this is a glorious vision for those who are willing to spend four hours watching "Hamlet." Everyone knows the story, so I will not spend much time on that. However, unlike other productions of the play, stage included, this is a completely uncut production, which has never been done before. According to some, Shakespeare never intended for the play to be produced uncut, leaving the decision of what to include to the director's discretion. That being said, I have no doubt that had he been able to see it, the Bard would have been overjoyed with Branagh's production.<br /><br />The film is top-heavy with film stars, although most have mere bit parts. All play their parts equally well. I would have thought Branagh too old to play the part of Hamlet, and while he still may be, his performance more than makes up for it. Hamlet is a complex part, displaying every emotion from grief to anger, happiness to madness, and everything in between. Branagh nailed it. Derek Jacobi is terrific as the wily Claudius, whose deception and treachery sets all these things in motion; his unique voice is perfect for the role. Julie Christie is also very good as Gertrude, Hamlet's caring mother who doesn't realize what is going on until late in the game.<br /><br />The classical actors are cast in bit parts (Judi Dench is on for all of 60 seconds and has no lines), but at least they're in it. Surprisingly, no one takes this to heart; everyone gives it their all, and it shows. Special mention has to go to Jack Lemmon and Billy Crystal, who are excellent. Robin Williams is a little too silly, but he's not bad (his part is pretty small anyway).<br /><br />Yet, this is undeniably Branagh's show. He adapted one of the most famous plays in history, and in so doing, he took on a whale of a project; it's impressive that he got it done, but the fact that the film is this good is a monumental achievement. What I really liked about this film is that you don't have to be a Shakespeare scholar to enjoy it. As most people know, Shakespeare is difficult to digest, but Branagh and his cast understand this. "Hamlet" is still immensely enjoyable to just sit and listen to the actors deliver the brilliant dialogue and excellent acting.<br /><br />This is a must see for anyone and everyone. It may be four hours long, but it's definitely worth it. | 3 | trimmed_train |
24,549 | This one is quite a nice surprise. Cute little story of the heroine's quest, very surprising metamorphosis of the four-eye prissy soon-to-be-spinster type into a raunchy DD-cup sex queen. <br /><br />Visually a sight for sore eyes, not only for two quite stunning actresses but also for (most of) the costumes and make-up of the actors. An unnecessary bit of cheapness came in some ridiculous castle imitation.<br /><br />Back to the positives: The movie is spiced with some unusually explicit camera-shots which you would not expect in a soft core. Loved that scene with the icicles, absolute classics potential. A slight minus only for (very) few odd scenes where bad acting by minor casts shortly suspended the suspension of disbelief. <br /><br />9/10 including an extra credit for the serious drooling effect. | 3 | trimmed_train |
20,756 | A noted cinematic phenomenon of the late eighties and early nineties was the number of Oscars which went to actors playing characters who were either physically or mentally handicapped. The first was Marlee Matlin's award for "Children of a Lesser God" in 1986, and the next ten years were to see another "Best Actress" award (Holly Hunter for "The Piano" in 1994) and no fewer than five "Best Actor" awards (Dustin Hoffman in 1988 for "Rain Man", Daniel Day-Lewis in 1989 for "My Left Foot", Al Pacino in 1992 for "Scent of a Woman", Tom Hanks in 1994 for "Forrest Gump" and Geoffrey Rush in 1996 for "Shine") for portrayals of the disabled. Matlin, who played a deaf woman, is herself deaf, but all the others are able-bodied. <br /><br />This phenomenon aroused some adverse comment at the time, with suggestions being made that these awards were given more for political correctness than for the quality of the acting. When Jodie Foster failed to win "Best Actress" for "Nell" in 1994 some people saw this as evidence of a backlash against this sort of portrayal. My view, however, is that the majority of these awards were well deserved. I thought the 1992 award should have gone to either Clint Eastwood or Robert Downey rather than Pacino, but apart from that the only one with which I disagreed would have been Hanks', and that was because I preferred Nigel Hawthorne's performance in "The Madness of King George". In that film, of course, Hawthorne played a character who was mentally ill. <br /><br />"My Left Foot" was based upon the autobiography of the Irish writer and painter Christy Brown. Brown was born in 1931, one of the thirteen children of a working-class Dublin family. He was born with cerebral palsy and was at first wrongly thought to be mentally handicapped as well. He was for a long time incapable of deliberate movement or speech, but eventually discovered that he could control the movements of one part of his body, his left foot (hence the title). He learned to write and draw by holding a piece of chalk between his toes, and went on to become a painter and a published novelist and poet. <br /><br />Life in working-class Dublin in the thirties and forties could be hard, and the city Jim Sheridan (himself a Dubliner) shows us here is in many ways a grim, grey, cheerless place, very different from our normal idea of the "Emerald Isle". (Sheridan and Day-Lewis were later to collaborate on another film with an Irish theme, "In the Name of the Father"). Against this, however, must be set the cheerfulness and spirit of its people, especially the Brown family. Much of Christy's success was due to the support he received from his parents, who refused to allow him to be institutionalised and always believed in the intelligence hidden beneath a crippled exterior, and from his siblings. We see how his brothers used to wheel him round in a specially-made cart and how they helped their bricklayer father to build Christy a room of his own in their back yard. <br /><br />The film could easily have slid into sentimentality and ended up as just another heart-warming "triumph over adversity" movie. That it does not is due to a number of factors, principally the magnificent acting. In the course of his career, Day-Lewis has given a number of fine performances, but this, together with the recent "There Will Be Blood", is his best. He is never less than 100% convincing as Christie; his tortured, jerky movements and strained attempts at speech persuade us that we really are watching a disabled person, even though, intellectually, we are well aware that Day-Lewis is able-bodied. The other performances which stand out are from Fiona Shaw as his mentor Dr Eileen Cole, from Hugh O'Conor as the young Christy and from Brenda Fricker as Christy's mother (which won her the "Best Supporting Actress" award). <br /><br />The other reason why the film escapes sentimentality is that it does not try to sentimentalise its main character. Christy Brown had a difficult life, but he could also be difficult to live with, and the film gives us a "warts and all" portrait. He was a heavy drinker, given to foul language and prone to outbursts of rage. He could also be selfish and manipulative of those around him, and the film shows us all these aspects of his character. Of course, it also shows us the positive aspects- his courage, his determination and his wicked sense of humour. Day-Lewis's acting is not just physically convincing, in that it persuades us to believe in his character's disability, but also emotionally and intellectually convincing, in that it brings out all these different facets of Christy's character. His Oscar was won in the teeth of some very strong opposition from the likes of Robin Williams and Kenneth Branagh, but it was well deserved. 8/10 | 0 | trimmed_train |
18,362 | Kay Pollak's 2004 heart-warmer Så som i himmelen/ As it is in Heaven contains every stereotype of Swedish humanity and inhumanity yet manages to be a crowd-pleaser. It contains plenty of ammunition for cynical critics, continuity error-spotters and for saccharine-debunkers, yet manages to depict the colours of life in a small community evocatively. The film also runs the gamut of proverbial messages about 'finding one's own voice' and 'just doing it despite one's fear', without completely removing the lump from the throats of the cynics.<br /><br />Its success as a crowd pleaser comes from two facts. Firstly, small films about strangers bringing new life to rural Christian communities provide plenty of scope for the exposure of hypocrisy while at the same time allowing repressed characters to break out of their hairshirts. The same year and with a similarly Swedish breeze, The Queen of Sheba's Pearls did it, and Babette's Feast also comes to mind. Secondly, any film about small communities taking on the whole wide world will strike a human chord in our increasingly individual/self- focused and impersonalized world. This film's structural similarity with the likes of The Full Monty, Brassed Off, Calendar Girls and On a Clear Day shows its indebtedness to the formula. But it is a formula with life left in it yet, and this seems to be because people need positive- message films that evoke a sense of community almost in spite of themselves.<br /><br />The stranger is burned-out maestro Daniel Daréus on a quest for self-rediscovery. The town he visits, or rather revisits, is, unbeknownst to the townsfolk, the place of his childhood. He was bullied mercilessly by classmates here, supposedly because he was a sensitive musician without aspiration to drive a truck. Here, he takes the job of cantor/choirmaster, despite the usual suspicions of artists and outsiders. The place is, of course, populated by a wide range of recognizable types whose character arcs can be predicted: the broken-hearted, fair-haired girl so beautiful she nearly glows; the cellphone-ringing local businessman; the woman whose beauty is lost amidst domestic abuse; the steely pastor and his less austere wife, who at first seem right out of Ingmar Bergman. Also present: jealous, uptight spinster (Siv) (check); geriatric whose soul still sings (check); elderly couple who may have repressed desires for each other since kindergarten (check); obese person whose function is to point out we should not laugh and say 'fatty' (check); intellectually handicapped boy who proves able to sing a good 'A' (check).<br /><br />Pollak's film is not all warm fuzzies, however. It diverts from the 'let's put on a show despite setbacks and moral opposition' sub-genre. It contains violence and an ending that might well be a metaphor for dying after achieving creative nirvana. The violence of the film is mostly a function of male anger and repression, but in never delves deeply into why the school bully who grows up into a wife beater is like this. Similarly, the small town Pastor so closely adheres to the moralistic, black-wearing super-Protestant stereotype, that his secret indulgence in girlie magazines is hardly surprising. His repressions and hypocrisies are just there, dangling unrelated to psychological reality. Perhaps the unexplained photograph of a young boy, a lost son perhaps, glimpsed once over his shoulder, holds the secret.<br /><br />Perhaps these holes are functions of the editing, like several inconsistencies and continuity glitches that can be spotted, such as Siv's unexplained reappearance in the choir (twice) after moralistic outbursts. In fact none of the hitches in the film last very long and all seem resolved within a scene. Apart from in some awkward love scenes, the film's 127 minutes seldom drag, but there is a feeling that things may have been left on the cutting room floor.<br /><br />The film remains solid three-star-fare despite the holes that can be picked in it. This is simply because in a world of technology-focused flicks and materialistic self-seeking, any glimpse of human community is, deep down, welcome for anyone, even the cynical. | 0 | trimmed_train |
8,431 | When Rodney Dangerfield is on a roll, he's hilarious. In My 5 Wives, he's not on a roll. The timing of the one-liners is off, but they're the best thing going for the movie. The five women who play the wives don't add up to one whole actress between them. The plot is very weak. Even the premise is pretty weak; there are a few jokes about having multiple wives, but the situation has little to do with anything else in the movie. Most of the movie could play the same way even if Rodney's character had only one wife, so the premise seems more like an old man's fantasy than a key part of the comedy. Another old man's fantasy: we're supposed to accept that Rodney's character is an athletic skier.<br /><br />Jerry Stiller seems to be phoning in his role just to do a buddy a favor, and the rest of the name actors must simply be desperate for work.<br /><br />The odd nods to political correctness later in the movie don't really do anything for the movie. For those who like their movies politically correct, the non-PC humor is still there in the first place, and the seeming apologies for it still don't get the point. For those who hate seeing a movie cave in to political correctness, the PC add-ins are just annoying digressions.<br /><br />This has to be the mildest R-rated movie I've ever seen. There are some racy jokes, and the bedroom scenes would have made shocking TV 40 years ago, but that's about it. Maybe it was the topless men (kidding).<br /><br />The DVD features interviews where the cast members seem to find depth and importance in this movie and in their roles. I kept wondering if they were serious or kidding. They seem to be serious, but I kept thinking, "They must be kidding!" There's also a peculiar disclaimer suggesting that since the movie never actually names the Mormons or the Church of Latter-Day Saints, that somehow it's not about them. Never mind that the movie features a polygamous religion in Utah, and makes reference to Brigham Young.<br /><br />In short, My 5 Wives was a disappointment. I was hoping for Rodney on a roll, but the best I can say for the movie is that Rodney was looking pretty good for a guy who was pushing 80 at the time. | 1 | trimmed_train |
17,737 | I really wonder how this show plays in the U.K. and the rest of Europe. IT IS SO SELF-LOATHING ABOUT BEING AN American(particularly white Americans). That could be a big reason for some of the venom and vitriol expressed here on this board. I love the show but it is with some reservations and I feel it took the easy way out by Spoiler Spoiler:<br /><br />Crashing and burning everything at the end of the second season. Julie slammed the door shut on any hope of reviving the show unless her character lands on a haystack in the middle of some farm. Who knows? It was a funny, raunchy and on occasion, kinda scary show. | 0 | trimmed_train |
5,585 | Cannon pulled off a real visual beauty of a medieval epic that appears fascinating (except for the dragon prop). Now just how did the long-gone studio known for Chuck Norris movies ever come up with a complete lack of knowledge in the first place? Case in point: the amateurish acting and horrible plot is a sign that reviving the medieval legend is no cure for some lousy execution. They actually went on and made another cheap exploitationer featuring hundreds of lusty bimbos, just to make this look even better. For the two "Barbarian Brothers", they sure know how to make weird noises than becoming brave warriors so strong and bold enough to save their native land. This is the single greatest waste of potential I've seen from an "expensive" low-budget movie, and worse enough to let an axe strike through the gorgeous print without mercy. All of this followed an advertising campaign that sold T-shirts based on THE BARBARIANS! The movie alone makes a great souvenir! | 1 | trimmed_train |
7,359 | Overall this movie is dreadful, and should have never been made. One of the problems with this movie is that there is no link to the audience and the characters, for example, if she is about to be attacked, you want to feel, "Oh My God, No!", but you don't in this case, you don't care because there is no link that has been made to know the character. In the trailer, it seemed as though the movie would be great, yet there is no suspense what so ever really. There could have been maybe some mystery but there is not. "All she has is a toolbox." was said on the DVD's back, you would think that it was carefully planned this movie, and cleverly made, but it is not, The ending, was just awful, very straight forward, and pointless too. The acting is either average or below average, maybe even lower. In my opinion it was a waste of an hour of my life. The "Special Effects" and sets were average too, nothing special what so ever. There is not much gore, or bloody violence, not much blood is shown. This movie was advertised to make it sound quite amazing, yet really, its not even worth looking for, I do not recommend this to anyone, unless they are easily satisfied, by a few fights and a boring story. | 2 | trimmed_train |
7,005 | Don't bother. A little prosciutto could go a long way, but all we get is pure ham, particularly from Dunaway. The plot is one of those bumper car episodes... the vehicle bounces into another and everything changes direction again, until we are merely scratching our heads wondering if there were ever a plot. Gina Phillips is actually good, but it's hard playing across from a mystified Dunaway playing Lady Macbeth lost in the Marx's Brother's Duck Soup. Ah, the Raven...now there's an actor. And there is the relative who just lies and bed and looks ghostly. Or Dr. Dread who's filled with lots of gloom and no working remedies. I'm one of those suckers who just has to see a movie to the end. Quoth the Raven, "Nevermore." | 2 | trimmed_train |
3,959 | This movie was promising: my favorite actor in a historical drama during the Independence war. It had memories from "Dances With Wolves" for the big prairies, Indians, military fights & from "Barry Lyndon" for the British & candles lights atmospheres...<br /><br />Unfortunately, the script is awful: the continuity of the story is lacking (cuts with "5 months later"; "3 years later") & the romance is so ridiculous that it's hard to believe in it: America is a big country but the characters kept bumping at each other; Above all, wait for the ending & you understand how to kill a story (imagine the same in "Titanic").<br /><br />Sometimes, a bad script is saved by a brilliant filmmaker. Unfortunately bis, Hudson is a poor one. He has already committed "Greystoke" and i find again the same flaws: no dynamic in scenes, in editing, in scoring: it is long, dull, flat....<br /><br />I knew that this movie was a disaster for Pacino's career: now i understand. Finally, this last movie for 2006 is in the vein of this year for me: A painful one... | 2 | trimmed_train |
9,665 | You have to figure that when the star's name is listed wrong in the opening credits, you are not in for a good time (the credit reads "Cuba Gooding, J.R."). Some nice car chase, shoot 'em up, blow 'em up action if ALL you want is action, because the relationship to what plot exists is tenuous at best, and completely unbelievable. The motivations of the characters, especially that of Gooding's at the end, are worse then unbelievable, they are irrational when they are not hopelessly muddled. All I can think is that Andy Cheng must be a really nice guy to get this many good actors into this foul a project (he can't have something on all of them, can he?). | 2 | trimmed_train |
3,681 | The summary pretty much sums it all up. This is nowhere near as good as the original. With a script co-written by both Stallone and James Cameron (at the same time he was also writing Aliens). Most of the action was written by Cameron and the political aspects were written by Stallone.<br /><br />Sly was in the best condition physically as he was making this and Rocky 4 and he does look in great shape or jacked up to the eyeballs on steroids, depending on your own viewpoint or opinion.<br /><br />Rambo starts off in prison and is visited by Colonel Trautman who asks him to go on a special mission that could earn him a Presidential pardon. He eventually agrees and goes off to the briefing camp run by Charles Napier playing a Washington suit trying to pass himself off as former ex-forces to placate Rambo.<br /><br />The mission is to find out if there are any missing POWs still alive in camps in Vietnam. Rambo was chosen as the camp he was checking was somewhere he had previously been a prisoner himself. He is told it's not a rescue mission and he is there to take recon photos only.<br /><br />After a bad attempt at parachuting from a plane he loses most of his kit, meets his contact (who turns out to be a cute woman) and travels down river with pirates to the camp.<br /><br />He finds there are still prisoners and rescues one. As the 3 flee from half the Vietnamese Army on their river boat they are betrayed by the pirates but Rambo kills them all and they are forced to carry on to the pick-up point on foot after their boat is rammed and blown up with Rambo almost on board.<br /><br />Rambo is betrayed again and abandoned as Napier orders the recall of the rescue helicopter. It is clear as Trautman returns to base to berate him that no survivors were expected to be found.<br /><br />Steven Berkoff turns up as a Russian Spetznatz Colonel and Rambo is tortured and eventually escapes only to be pursued by more Vietnamese troops and Spetznatz. Killing many of them, Rambo finally steals a chopper and rescues most of the prisoners to return to his base.<br /><br />He resists the urge to kill Napier for abandoning him but destroys the Ops Centre.<br /><br />A weak plot and very weak ending as Rambo walks off into the sunset as a free man. | 1 | trimmed_train |
22,400 | By submitting this comment you are agreeing to the terms laid out in our Copyright Statement. Your submission must be your own original work. Your comments will normally be posted on the site within 2-3 business days. Comments that do not meet the guidelines will not be posted. Please write in English only. HTML or boards mark-up is not supported though paragraph breaks will be inserted if you leave a blank line between paragraph.We sent an e-mail to when you registered. You must click on the link in that e-mail to complete your registration and enjoy the full benefits of being registered at IMDb.com. Whilst you wait for that e-mail, you can still update some of your registration details by using the links below. Don't forget to keep checking your e-mail though! | 3 | trimmed_train |
10,449 | Robert Altman's downbeat, new-fangled western from Edmund Naughton's book "McCabe" was overlooked at the time of its release but in the past years has garnered a sterling critical following. Aside from a completely convincing boom-town scenario, the characters here don't merit much interest, and the picture looks (intentionally) brackish and unappealing. Bearded Warren Beatty plays a turn-of-the-century entrepreneur who settles in struggling community on the outskirts of nowhere and helps organize the first brothel; once the profits start coming in, Beatty is naturally menaced by city toughs who want part of the action. Altman creates a solemn, wintry atmosphere for the movie which gives the audience a certain sense of time and place, but the action in this sorry little town is limited--most of the story being made up of vignettes--and Altman's pacing is deliberately slow. There's hardly a statement being made (just the opposite, in fact) and the languid actors stare at each other without much on their minds. It's a self-defeating picture, and yet, in an Altman-quirky way, it wears defeat proudly. ** from **** | 1 | trimmed_train |
12,554 | this independent film was one of the best films at the tall grass film festival that i have ever seen there i loved it there are so many things that was great about the film on top of all that the cast and crew that i had the opportunity to meet were absolutely phenomenal.I thought that Avi did a great job in his role. and Ricky Ullman was absolutely true to his role for a Disney actor i was amazed at his talent to be able to go from cheesy teen comedy to such an adult role with no problems the talent in the film was just amazing the cinematography was just great if you want to see an independent film this is one really that you should see.I think that Mr Gruver would have been so proud to have such a submission in his festival and his parents loved the movie so much when it won the audience favorite they went and saw it again. this truly was a great film it was dark and funny and sad and truly emotional it was just fabulous. I am honestly just so enthused by this film and i really don't want to spoil it for any one just see it and truly be amazed at it i think that these film makers really have what it takes to go places and I hope to see more work from them in the future. | 3 | trimmed_train |
21,104 | Dragon Hunters has to be the best-looking animated film I've ever seen. It was jaw-dropping. The film is about a couple rogues in search for some cash, their weird furry blue dog that pees fire, and a girl who dreams about becoming a knight, and they are sent on a quest to go to the ends of the earth to kill the world gobbler, an impossibly immense dragon. But honestly, it doesn't even matter what the film is about. Because, it is jaw-droppingly gorgeous. The gravity in this fantasy world is different, so blocks of architecture and spheres of land float around amidst cathedrals and castles and villages alike, and there are forests of floating lily pads. The world is so creative, so uniquely beautiful, with a sort of muted storybook look to it. The world looks like a set of gorgeous paintings. The monsters are visually stunning as well, like a fire dragon comprised of a swarm of evil red bats. Some of the plot isn't too original, like the main protagonists wanting their farm a la Of Mice and Men and never seem to be able to make it in the world; but the gorgeous graphics, some seriously sinister scenes, and emotion-evoking dialog makes this film spectacular. | 3 | trimmed_train |
12,409 | This movie can be labeled as a study case. It's not just the fact that it denotes an unhealthy and non-artistic lust for anything that might be termed as caco-imagery. The author lives with the impression that his sanctimonious revolt against some generic and childishly termed social ills ("Moldavia is the most pauper region of Europe", "I don't believe one iota in the birds flu", "Romanian people steal because they are poor; Europeans steal because they are thieves") are more or less close to a responsible moral and artistic attitude - but he is sorely off-target! <br /><br />What Daneliuc doesn't know, is that it's not enough to pose as a righteous person - you also need a modicum of professionalism, talent and intelligence to transpose this stance into an artistic product. Fatefully, "The Foreign Legion" shows as much acumen as a family video with Uncle Gogu drunkenly wetting himself in front of the guests. The script is chaotic and incoherent, randomly bustling together sundry half-subjects, in an illiterate attempt to suggest some kind of a story. The direction is pathetically dilettante - the so-called "director" is unable to build up at least a mediocre mise-en-scene, his shots are annoyingly awkward, and any sense of storytelling shines by total absence. (Of course, any comment is forced to stop at this level; it would be ridiculous to mention concepts as "cinematographic language", "means of expression" or "style"). The acting is positively "Cântarea României" ("Romania's Chant") level, with the exception of... paradoxically, the soccer goal-keeper Necula Raducanu, who is very natural, and Nicodim Ungureanu. Oana Piecnita seems to have a genuine freshness, but she is compromised by the amateurish directions given by Daneliuc.<br /><br />The most serious side of this offense to decent cinema is the fact that the production received a hefty financing from the national budget, via C.N.C. (the National Cinematography Council). The fact that long-time-dead old dinosaurs like Daneliuc are still thirsty for the government udder is understandable (in a market-driven economy, they would be instantly eliminated through natural selection). But the corruption of the so-called "jury" that squanders the country's money on such ridiculously scabrous non-art, non-cinema and non-culture belongs to the criminal field. | 2 | trimmed_train |
14,775 | I'm a 53 year-old college professor. I went with my wife and 12 year old daughter. We all enjoyed the movie. The film is original, witty, fast-paced and totally charming. The plot was easy enough for a 10 year old to follow, but twisty enough to keep an adult interested. I thought Emma Roberts did a superb job and the rest of the cast was just fine. My only criticism is that the Los Angeles sets were not as interesting as they should have been. They were functional, but nothing stood out. On the other hand, make-up, costume, lighting, cinematography, editing and directing were excellent. Altogether, I thought it was a totally enjoyable experience. I am disappointed that the professional critics (almost all adult males) savagely attacked the film. Apparently, they have something against films that portray strong, intelligent and independent young women. Their writings reveal more about their own sexist natures than anything about this wonderful family film. I recommend it strongly to every child and every parent. | 3 | trimmed_train |
10,539 | Designed only to annoy (or amuse) any self-respecting intelligent person. If the director's intention had been for the viewer to dislike the title character, then it would have been okay, but I know that there is no such thing as a Hollywood director who'd make a critique of America's pro-Marxist 60s movement, especially not a filmmaker from the 70s. There is so much idiotic dialog going on here, that sometimes I wondered if I wasn't actually watching a comedy. You wouldn't be at fault for thinking that this is a satire that's how naïve the movie appears. Spacek has been in her share of Leftist movies which brings me to the obvious, inescapable conclusion that the redhead hick is one of those Hollywood liberal morons. But, I mean, aren't they all? Nice boobs, but s**t for brains. | 2 | trimmed_train |
2,974 | Really, truly, abysmally, garishly, awful. But actor Clayton Moore (the movie Lone Ranger) acquits himself competently as an actor. He's the only one.<br /><br />A rare treat, for five minutes, if you want to plumb the depths of grotesquely transparent special effects, southern California as "the moon" (again and again and again), and acting so woodenly inept that it may be a spoof . . . except that it's clear that it isn't--no humor here, except unintentionally.<br /><br />The dialogue may be worse than any of these other aspects, and the costumes . . . well, enough said. Plot? What plot? Bad guy (well, head bad guy) and his henchmen, including his earthly agent called Krog (listen carefully or you'll suspect it's a spoof on the name of McDonald's founder Ray Kroc)and his unbelievably inept gunsels (who, however, have handguns that never need reloading; as does Commando Cody, so there are numerous firefight standoffs).<br /><br />Enjoy. | 2 | trimmed_train |
2,005 | When it comes to horror movies, I am more than willing to suspend disbelief, ignore sub-par production values, and overlook plot holes in the interest of a good scare. This movies simply has no good scares to offer. It can't even be enjoyed as camp. Bad dialogue, bad acting, bad direction, the kills were predictable and poorly staged, the music was annoying, the camera work was wretched, even the costumes were bad. I felt really bad for the actors, who were obviously trying, but who had to deal with terrible, contrived dialogue and an obvious lack of direction. I doubt they got any rehearsal, either. It's embarrassing to watch, and so boring than making it through to the contrived "surprise" ending requires tremendous endurance. It's quite easily one of the worst movies I've ever seen.<br /><br />I don't normally write reviews, but this one was so bad that I felt compelled to warn others. This movie is a complete waste of time. If you must watch this movie, don't miss the "Making of"-featurette. The writer/director seems to be under the impression that making the killer a woman was kind of bold, daring move. (Seen it.) He and the cast spend half an hour deconstructing this film as if it's a new-age "Citizen Kane." It's like listening to a group of third-graders take you behind the scenes of their Christmas pageant. They truly think they've created something of substance. It's sad, really
The only reason I gave this movie a "2" is because I think "1" should be reserved for true atrocities, like "Manos: Hands of Fate" and "Space Mutiny." So "American Nightmare" isn't the WORST movie I've ever seen, but I'd have to say that it's somewhere in the bottom fifty. | 2 | trimmed_train |
20,330 | Ecstasy (1933) (USA 1940) Starring Hedy Lamarr (as Hedy Kiesler)<br /><br />The world's first glimpse of a 19 year-old Hedy Lamarr occurs in the early moments of this 1930's treasure as she sweeps across the screen in an angelic wedding gown. This was to be the start of a legendary career. This was our glorious introduction to the most beautiful woman ever to grace the silver screen.<br /><br />It is Eva's (Lamarr) wedding night and her older husband seems uninterested in her romantic advances. She retreats to the lonely bed and, in a beautiful scene, she fiddles with her wedding ring as the realization of her marital mistake overcomes her. The husband seems more interested in neatness and order than he does in love. Gustav Machaty uses gorgeous camera angles and pristine shot framing to capture Lamarr's considerable talent and beauty. With no words spoken in the early part of the film, she is able to grasp our sympathy, our hearts and our support. It is that combination that prepared the 1930's audiences for what they were about to see as the film unfolded. 'Ecstasy' was considered shocking for its time... Some thought it to be scandalous.<br /><br />She returns home to her father's estate and files for divorce. The next day, she wakes with a complete sense of freedom and happiness. She just has to go outside and feel the freedom of the countryside and fresh air. Eva goes for a horseback ride and happens across a beautiful lake. And in one of the most famous scenes in film history, Hedy Lamarr became the first person to ever appear nude in a major film. Her frolic in the woods and her skinny-dipping adventure in the lake were legendarily scandalous. But the audiences couldn't stay away. As with many of today's movies, the controversy made it a must-see film.<br /><br />Eva's mischievous adventure introduces her to a handsome young man who helps her find her horse, who had run off with her clothes. After an awkward meeting, they eventually fall for each other. Their first romantic rendezvous was almost as controversial as the nude scene, with its blatant waves of eroticism. However, Machaty does beautiful work in these romantic moments. Machaty creates one delightful moment, when Eva literally seems to sink into her new lover, using a gorgeous early camera trick.<br /><br />It cannot be overstated how brave this performance was on Lamarr's part. Many might have presumed it was career suicide. Instead, it gained her worldwide fame and caught the eye Louis B Mayer, who signed her to a contract with MGM. There are some truly erotic moments in this film, even by today's raunchy standards. It is impossible to imagine how they were received in the 1930's. Again, Machaty was very clever with his imagery, leaving a lot to the imagination. But we all understand very well what we are seeing and it is supremely well done.<br /><br />The meeting of Eva's former husband and her current lover is perhaps inevitable. However, the consequences of that meeting are not. The film takes a few unexpected turns in its final act and it all makes for a great story and a lovely debut on the grand stage of movie stardom for Hedy Lamarr.<br /><br />I highly recommend this once controversial, now tame film and urge you to seek it out in its restored form on DVD. It is easily worthwhile, if only for the pleasure of seeing Hedy Lamarr. But the story is compelling too and the direction is ahead of its time. 'Ecstasy' is a memorable early treasure.<br /><br />www.tccandler.com - TC Candler's Movie Reviews!!! | 3 | trimmed_train |
8,673 | This can be one of the most enjoyable movies ever if you don't take it seriously. It is a bit dated and the effects are lame, but it is so enjoyable. There are giant crabs that attack a girl. oh, and the crabs sing Japanese. It is amazingly bad. And the ending, which has been telegraphed throughout the entire film is hideously awesome. Predictable, but seeing the final fight will leave you rolling in your seat. Don't even give this film a chance and you will love it. Susan George is fun to watch and yes, she does appear naked. Her daughter isn't quite worth putting up with, but she does get attacked by giant crabs. They are the size of large cats. This is a 2, but I love it. As a movie, my God, but for entertainment, I give it a 7. Did I mention there are giant crabs? | 2 | trimmed_train |
13,050 | Maria Braun is an extraordinary woman presented fully and very credibly, despite being so obtuse as to border on implausibility. She will do everything to make her marriage work, including shameless opportunism and sexual manipulation. And thus beneath the vicey exterior, she reveals a rather sweet value system. The film suffers from an abrupt and unexpected ending which afterwards feels wholly inadequate, with the convenience familiar from ending your school creative writing exercise with 'and then I woke up'. It is also book-ended at the other end with the most eccentric title sequence I've ever seen, but don't let any of that put you off. | 0 | trimmed_train |
4,810 | do not ever watch this film...it is the biggest pile of sh*te i have ever come across in my whole life. and thats saying something. the acting, storyline and filming were absolutely dire this is THE WORST FILM IN THE WORLD!!! seriously doesn't it even give you a hit seeing as it cost my 99p from sainsburys and it was only made in 2005? hahaha this film is like a cheap college movie you can even see the camera in the corner of the screen....although if u really wanna watch it you gotta watch the "scary shark scene"...possibly the best piece of acting i have seen in my life...ha ha. i mean seriously this is the biggest waste of 2 1/2 hours EVER!! | 2 | trimmed_train |
2,786 | Well, the big money machine has done it again! Disney very shrewdly takes advantage of morons like myself who feel we must own every video (good or bad) stamped with the Disney moniker. Why is it that I continue to look forward to these "sequels" which make Don Bluth on a bad day look like Leonardo DaVinci? Cinderella 2 consists of three storylines (already a poor choice!) Doesn't one of the most endearing Disney creations at least deserve a linear story? Of these three, only the last comes anywhere near the quality of animation and storytelling that I would expect. The music is atrocious and modern (meaning in 2 years it will already be dated) and adds nothing to the story. Why does everything have to be updated? You know, the original cartoon is still popular because of its timelessness, so why not be respectful and true to the original with songs that reflect the same style? Gee, I can't wait for a sequel to Sleeping Beauty. Instead of music based on the themes of Tchaikovsky, we'll get music inspired by Britney Spears!!! So Disney, if you're listening, remember we're not all indiscriminate children out here. How about throwing a bone or two to the fans who've been around long enough to know the difference between craft and crap? | 1 | trimmed_train |
24,123 | This movie is fun to watch , doesnt have much of a plot (well, there isn't a plot), but there are good jokes and situations that you will laugh at. The basic storyline is Cheech is trying to have a nice date, while Chong is partying with Cheech's cousin (They smoke dope , go in a music store, a massage parlor, a comedy club, and even go into someones house they don't even know! Rated R | 3 | trimmed_train |
10,970 | Sadly, it's true. "Legiunea sträinä" exposes with absolute clarity the parameters of Daneliuc's irreversible failure.<br /><br />As it was already said, the author lost the faculty to coalesce his content factors and artistic intentions in a coherent form. Maniacally concerned with the mechanic trick of picking at random news subjects and join them together without any legitimacy, he only gathers a disordered pile of events, unable to follow the least story-line. The script's level is similar to a "Cântarea României" amateur play about the glorious feats of socialist realism - only, turned upside down: while the communist line dictated a narrow concern only with positivism and sugary festivism, now Daneliuc is as perniciously obsessed only with negativism and disgusting scatology. The ideas content is zero, and the "message", infantile and didactic, at a kindergarten level.<br /><br />Unfortunately, he also forgot the most elementary professional tenets. He isn't able anymore to organize a dramatic situation, to order it in a correct movie scene, to frame it right and to edit it following the simplest rules of cinematographic grammar. His level of story-telling in film-images is similar to phrasing something like: "Holy sheet man it ain't nuthin right 'ere, and all da people is asses!" What a huge distance from the impressive artist of 1976-1984, who had created unique works as "Cursa", "Proba de microfon", "Vânätoarea de vulpi" - and even "Croaziera" and "Glissando"... Sic transit gloria mundi... | 2 | trimmed_train |
13,935 | It appears even the director doesn't like this film,but for me I think he's being a bit harsh on himself.<br /><br />Sure it's not perfect, but there are some atmospheric shots,and the story is good enough to keep you interested throughout.<br /><br />It's shot in what appears to be quite a pretty village which adds to the atmosphere as well.<br /><br />If you like horror films shot in England, give it a go.<br /><br />I have just seen a trailer for this directors latest film 'The Devil's Chair' which looks quite amazing.<br /><br />There aren't enough English horror films for me, so any that come along deserve our attention, and this one isn't as bad as you may think | 0 | trimmed_train |
22,804 | Pecker is a hilariously funny yet twisted film about a small town in Baltimore whose daily, humdrum routine is broken by Pecker, a young photographer who takes pictures of "real things." No pretty models, no gorgeous men, just hard living. This wonderful film pokes fun at the plasticness of the urban art chain. There is one particular scene when a homeless woman who shops at Pecker's mom's thrift shop buys the same exact coat as one of the Whitney art junkies for only 25 cents instead of five hundred dollars. This just goes to show you that no matter what kind of money you have, you might not always have taste. Yet again John Waters sends you into a never-ending spiral of laughter and raw reality. You can have your mainstream Hollywood movies with special affects and mountains of celebrities, but give me a "Pecker" or a "Hairspray" (another excellent John Waters film) over a "Titanic" or a "Godzilla" anyday!! | 3 | trimmed_train |
11,148 | this became a cult movie in chinese college students, though i havnt watched it until it is broadcasted in channel4, UK.<br /><br />full of arty giddy pretentions, the plot is mediocre and unreal; the 'spirit' it wants to convey is how independent artists 'resist the commercisliation of music industry' and maintain their' purity of an artistic soul' and wouldnt 'sell themselves for dirty money'. that is really giddy and superficial; the diologue are mainly pathetic. acting is poor. sceenplay is full of art pretention. it is a fantasy movie for kids and that;s all<br /><br /> | 2 | trimmed_train |
8,209 | Somebody needs to send this Uli Lommel guy back to MOVIE SCHOOL. Who ever told him HE knew HOW to make a movie? Can just ANYBODY make movies these days? In the past, it always REQUIRED TALENT before someone could make a movie. After watching this lame BTK movie and the others he's made, it seems blatantly obvious that the poor guy has about as much business making movies as I DO. Actually I think even I could make better movies than Uli LAME-ALL. This movie has absolutely NOTHING to do with the BTK Killer, other than the names of the victims and the killer. THAT'S IT. Where did this guy get the big idea that BTK killed people with rodents and all the other preposterous crap that's in the movie? This is a classic example of someone trying to lure people into watching their movie based on the term "BTK" because of the fame it has achieved. Absolutely pitiful. The only serial killer movie I would consider WORSE is that lame "DAHMER" movie. That kid smoked so many cigarettes it made me nauseous. Whoever made that one needs to be shot. | 2 | trimmed_train |
21,342 | "Maléfique" is an example of how a horror film can be effective with nothing more than a well-executed plot and a lot of heart. Its cast doesn't have recognized names, it doesn't have a big budget and it certainly lacks in the visual effects aspect; but it compensates all that with an intelligent and well-written script, an effective cast and the vision of a director focused more on telling the story than in delivering cheap thrills. Eric Valette may not be a well-know name yet, but with "Maléfique", his feature length debut, he proves he is at the level of contemporaries like Jeunet, Gans or Aja.<br /><br />The film is the story of four prisoners in a cell, four different men with very different backgrounds but with one single goal: to get out. Carrère (Gérald Laroche) gets imprisoned after being declared guilty of a multi-millionaire fraud; his cell-mates, the violent Marcus (Clovis Cornillac), the intellectual Lassalle (Philippe Laudenbach) and the mentally challenged Pâquerette (Dimitri Rataud), are all convicted for murder and give Carrère a cold welcome. Their personalities will clash as Carrère discovers an ancient book detailing how a former prisoner escaped using black magic.<br /><br />Written by Alexandre Charlo and Franck Magnier, "Maléfique" is a great mix of dark fantasy and horror in a way very reminiscent of Clive Barker's stories. The movie's strongest point is the way it builds up the characters, they are all have very complex and different personalities and a lot of the tension and suspense comes from their constant clash of personalities. The story's supernatural element is very well-handled and overall gives the film the feeling of reading a Gothic novel. Despite being a movie about four men locked in a room, the movie never gets boring or tiresome and in fact, the isolation of the group increases the feeling of distrust, claustrophobia, and specially, paranoia.<br /><br />Director Eric Valette makes a great use of atmosphere, mood and his cast to give life to the plot. Despite its obvious lack of budget, he has crafted a brilliant film that feels original, fresh and very attractive. His subtle and effective camera-work helps to make the film dynamic despite its single location, and the slow pace the film unfolds is excellent to create the heavy atmosphere of isolation and distrust the movie bases its plot. The very few displays of special effects are very well-done and Valette trades quantity for quality in the few but terrific scenes of gore.<br /><br />The characters are what make this film work, and the cast definitely deserves some of the credit. Gérald Laroche is excellent as Carrère, a man at first sight innocent, but who hides a dark past. Philippe Laudenbach and Dimitri Rataud are very effective too, specially Rataud in his very demanding role. However, is Clovis Cornillac who steal the show with his performance as Marcus, a violent and disturbed man who deep inside only wants to be himself. The characters are superbly developed and the cast makes the most of them.<br /><br />The movie is terrific, but it is not without its share of flaws. Of course, the most notorious one is its the low-budget. Some of the CGI-effects are a bit poor compared to the effective make-up and prosthetics used in other scenes, however, it is never too bad for it. Probably the bad thing about "Maléfique" is that it seems to lose some steam by the end when it focuses on the supernatural black magic rather than in the characters, not too much of a bad thing but the ending may seem weak from that point of view.<br /><br />Anyways, "Maléfique" is another one of those great horror films coming out from France lately, and one that deserves to have more recognition. Valette is definitely a talent to follow as this modest (albeit complex) tale of the supernatural is prove enough of his abilities. Personally, this film is a new favorite. 8/10 | 0 | trimmed_train |
10,412 | I tried to remove anything that might be considered a spoiler. I also assume that you've seen the first movie or at least know the general gist, so if you haven't some of this might not make sense.<br /><br />Plot: This movie beats the audience over the head with tired philosophical ramblings again and again in an attempt to get the theme across. We are bombarded again and again by questions of purpose, and destiny, and choice, and forced to endure the long, torturous platitude sessions that contain them.<br /><br />Neo, awakened from a dream in the last movie, now begins a period of realization about his own existence. There are a lot of revelations in this movie, which I'll be vague about so they won't seem like spoilers.<br /><br />*If you're still worried vague references will spoil the movie, don't read the paragraph below.*<br /><br />The strength and weakness of faith is revealed. The strengths and weaknesses of love, and its temporary nature, are also revealed. The interdependence of humans and technology, and our faith in technology, are also revealed. The importance of choice and experience is revealed. Explaining further things that are revealed would go into too much detail, so I will refrain (as the guidelines for writing a commentary asks). Btw, by "revealed" I mean pounded through our ears and eyes like nails.<br /><br />Storyline: So how does Neo and the gang get from the end of the last movie to the beginning of the next one? In short, they keep the faith, and use and abuse overly-stylized action and bullet-time like it's going out of style (and after this display, I'm hoping movie-goers and makers alike learn to appreciate subtlety and originality a bit more). More on that later. To not spoil anything, I will say no more than the promo material already did: Neo is still trying to figure out the Matrix, and he is looking for answers while trying to save the humans, and Zion, all while baddies are going after him and his cohorts. The movie pretty much picks up where the last one left off.<br /><br />Action: While martial arts action and gunplay peppered its predecessor in somewhat equal parts, this movie focuses much more on martial arts than gunplay, adding swords, sais, etc. to the mix. Special effects are so often used and waved in the audience's face that it becomes really tiresome. I've discussed this movie with friends and coworkers alike, and nearly all of them found some of the action sequences--especially the "Smith fight" we all heard would be in the movie--to be too long and tedious. This is a huge red flag for action fans, because the end of an action sequence should either leave you wanting a slight bit more, or completely content with the awesomeness that just occured.<br /><br />These fights scenes do neither. They are over-stylized, over-the-top sequences that are wooden and uninspired. In the first movie, there was a real sense of desperation to some of the action, a sense that fighting was for survival, not just looking good (which I honestly don't think they manage in Reloaded anyway) in black and leather. Go watch Drunken Master or Iron Monkey after this movie to remind yourself of what good fighting sequences are--you won't regret it. In addition, the "Matrix abilities" people have in Reloaded is not consistent, and what they actually do is not consistent. The first movie had its inconsistencies here, but they weren't too glaring--unlike Reloaded.<br /><br />Special effects are poured on and on and on. Every little thing someone does, be it just jump, somersault, spin, and in many cases just pose, are<br /><br />slow-moed, bullet-timed, or over-accentuated by some sort of destruction. It's evident the W Bros had a ton of money to throw at this movie, and boy did they throw it, with no real restraint. Sharp editors could have really helped this, but the first movie was such a hit that free reign was obviously given, which brings us to. . .<br /><br />Character and dialogue: I have already more or less said the dialogue was tired and full of philosophical platitudes. Actors can't really bring a lot of depth to their character when the script and direction is shoving character progression audience's face, or neglecting it altogether. The audience is at no time given nuance and substance so they can contemplate the character on their own.<br /><br />Keanu's acting performance is stiff at best. Keanu is good at acting confused, and that's about all he does in this film. He makes a decent attempt to show passion between Neo and Trinity, but it falls flat.<br /><br />Lawrence tries to make Morpheus everything from Moses to Henry V, and be as cool as a cat throughout. With the script he is provided, he makes a noble attempt, but it also falls flat.<br /><br />Moss isn't very believable either. Her look of concern is always the same, much like Keanu's, and the chemistry isn't there, although in their very physical scenes they fake it well enough.<br /><br />Hugo once again brought his weird sense of being an Agent program, but he too suffered from the script's hand. I actually find him to be the most interesting character of the bunch, but instead of development they just make him an excuse for a huge, drawn out fight scene.<br /><br />All in all, this movie is beyond disappointing if you had good expectations, and on its own, as a stand-alone movie (which is not how it's supposed to be taken), it's still horrible. I don't see The Matrix as deep, but I at least see it as an enjoyable scifi romp that has some interesting ideas, good action, a few funny lines, and enough restrained symbolism and elusions to amuse the attentive. Reloaded fails on all these counts, and I really hope the W Bros will give us a better experience in the 3rd installment. Granted, I don't have a lot of hope left for that after this film. | 2 | trimmed_train |
5,925 | I really must watch a good movie soon, because it seems every other entry or so is something that I despise. However my history speaks, I must not tell a lie. Bobby Deerfield and everything about it sucks big green banana peels. I never thought that I would see a film thud as thunderously as this one did. Al Pacino isn't acting in this film: he's posing. There are many, many scenes of his character, who is a race car driver, just staring at the camera. He's perfectly awful. Marthe Keller is just as bad. These two are supposed to be in a love affair, and there is simply no chemistry whatsoever. Sydney Pollack directed this film? There's no trace of the genius behind Tootsie here. Is this the same man I cheered for in Eyes Wide Shut? I can hardly believe it. Save yourself a horrible movie experience. Run, don't walk, away from Bobby Deerfield. | 2 | trimmed_train |
16,929 | Unlike Tinseltown's version of HELLO, DOLLY!, Jay Presson Allen's screen adaptation of Ira Levin's hit Broadway thriller couldn't wait for it's stage incarnation to shutter before putting it up on the silver screen, so producers wisely decided to make the most of it's lengthy White Way run! The film's opening and closing scenes are shot inside New York's intimate Music Box Theater where DEATHTRAP played for nearly five years. Even the film's final fadeout on the theatre marquee is a version of the stageplay's famous logo. (Although marketeers decided to go with a more fun Rubik's Cube icon for the movie.)<br /><br />Now on a low-priced DVD release, DEATHTRAP seems just as fresh and inventinve as ever. The cast is just right (better than their stage counterparts) and location scouts should be applauded for finding a suitably spooky house for our "one room, two act thriller" to take place in. Opened up in surprisingly simple and innovative ways, director Sidney Lumet wisely tags any "new" material onto the beginning and end of the film and leaves Levin's wickedly twisty center alone.<br /><br />The film's last scene is a major Hollywood departure from the boards, and slightly undermines one of Levin's plot points from earlier in the film [Helga (about a dagger): "Will be used by another woman BECAUSE of play."]. Like Robert Altman's THE PLAYER, however, our new finale helps the film fold in on itself once again and blurs the lines between stage, screen, and (could it be?) real life! | 0 | trimmed_train |
17,516 | One of the very best Three Stooges shorts ever. A spooky house full of evil guys and "The Goon" challenge the Alert Detective Agency's best men. Shemp is in top form in the famous in-the-dark scene. Emil Sitka provides excellent support in his Mr. Goodrich role, as the target of a murder plot. Before it's over, Shemp's "trusty little shovel" is employed to great effect. This 16 minute gem moves about as fast as any Stooge's short and packs twice the wallop. Highly recommended. | 3 | trimmed_train |
16,246 | The late, great Robert Bloch (author of PSYCHO, for those of you who weren't paying attention) scripted this tale of terror and it was absolutely one of the scariest movies I ever saw as a kid. (I had to walk MILES just to see a movie, and it was usually dark when I emerged from the theater; seeing a horror movie was always unnerving, but particularly so when it was as well-executed as this one.) When I had the opportunity to see this one several years ago on videotape (which should always be a last resort), I was surprised at how well it held up. Take the terror test: watch it at night, alone, and THEN tell me it's not scary... | 3 | trimmed_train |
23,210 | The basic hook here is: Lincoln Is Slow. It is his slowness that represents his thoughtfulness and deliberation, making him a Great Leader who is here engaged in single-handedly civilizing the American frontier through the grand instrument of Law. All that John Ford hooey and more, including one lurking slave and extraneous Death By Injun. However! The 'slow' conceit is also at the center of one brilliant piece of movie-making, funny and moving at extremes. The history may be bunk, but the telling of it suggests a view of history as process that inspires some excitingly true-seeming moments. Check out Henry Fonda's big introductory stroll across the deck, his shockingly beautiful second visit with his girl by the river, his dalliance with Mary Todd on the porch, and the priceless business that follows 'Ma'am, we've got to hurry!' Things do thin out once we settle into the big courtroom drama; but Fonda is priceless throughout. | 3 | trimmed_train |
6,512 | Basically, take the concept of every Asian horror ghost movie and smash it into one and you get this movie. The story goes like this: a bunch of college kids get voice mails from their own phones that are foretelling their deaths. There's some s*** going on with ghosts, which if you've seen any Asian ghost movie, isn't scary by now. This movie was quite upsetting because it's very clichéd. It's the same bullcrap, different movie.<br /><br />The acting was pretty good. Unfortunately the actors are put into a very Ring-esquire situation, so it's nothing we haven't seen in the past. The two lead acts did a solid job though.<br /><br />As far as gore, there's not much going on. We get a cool sequence that includes an arm twisting a head off (I don't know how else to explain that), but it was cut away so you don't see anything except the final result. You see some blood at times, including decapitated arms and a zombie (that looked really cool I might add), but this movie isn't too bloody.<br /><br />The scares in the movie are few and spread out, and it's really not that scary. You'll get some creepy images at times, but it's not enough for me to consider scary. It's nothing different from Ringu, Ju-On, or Dark Water, and none of those scared me either. That's really the downfall of this (and most Asian horror movies) is that if it doesn't deliver the scares then it's just not that good.<br /><br />As far as directing, Takashi Miike still did a pretty good job. He seemed a little tamed in this movie compared to his past movies, but he still portrays a lot of his messed up style he's become famous for. A lot of images were a lot like Miike (including a scene with a bunch of jars of dead fetuses), and the last 15 - 20 minutes seemed far more Miike then the rest of the movie. Still, the movie is flawed by its unoriginality.<br /><br />I would recommend this only to people who are huge on Asian horror movies (even if you are, I can recommend much better) or big Miike fans. Warning to those who want to get into Miike, this is NOT his best work.<br /><br />I'm giving it a 4 because it's just mediocre. Perhaps if this was released 4 or 5 years ago it might be worth a higher rating.<br /><br />Also, I'd like to b**** about Asian horror movies real quick. How come if it's an Asian horror movie it's automatically suppose to be good over here (US)? A LOT of these movies are the equivalent in Japan to what Scream, Urban Legends, and I Know What You Did Last Summer were over here in the 90's. If you've seen one you've seen them all. And a lot of these movies rely way too much on scares and imagery that if it doesn't deliver the scares they set out to do then they're just not that good, and nothing would change that. More Asian horror films need to be more like Audition and A Tale of Two Sisters, two movies that if they don't frighten or scare you, at least they have great stories, acting, direction, cinematography, and much more to back them up. Two movies that aren't just great horror movies, but great movies in general. More Asian horror movies need to be like these instead of the cliché, "A ghost just wanted to be found so it went around killing people through their phone/video tape/house/electric appliance/water pipes/google search engine/vibrator/groceries/etc." | 1 | trimmed_train |
4,060 | You have to respect this movie. It may be "just a dumb kid's movie" but it's the #1 most frequently requested film title in online movie forums, requested by people who remember the story but can't remember the title. Therefore what follows is a much-needed, detailed plot description, since I haven't been able to find such a description anywhere else on the Internet.<br /><br />A typical 2-story house is shown in suburbia. 7-year-old Bridget narrates about suspecting something is going on since she and her 11-year-old brother Andrew are getting presents from their parents for no apparent reason. Bridget's present is a stuffed penguin that she immediately names Sweet William. Bridget describes her relatives: Aunt Ruth, a bossy nurse taking care of grandmother, Grams the hugging grandmother who makes dolls out of socks, and her brother Andrew, who's into electronics and is grumpy. Grams accidentally hangs up on the lieutenant-governor, which indicates she's getting in the way while living with the family. The two children eat breakfast while the adults discuss moving Grams to a retirement home. Bridget makes an awful-looking pancake sandwich containing cereal, eggs, bacon, strawberries, and syrup, as Andrew looks on incredulously. The two kids then discuss Grams, and Andrew says bluntly that Grams is being "put out to pasture." Bridget talks with Grams in the attic, has a play tea party with Sweet William in her bedroom, then a living doll unexpectedly pops out of her bedroom closet mirror.<br /><br />Bridget and the living doll become acquainted. The curly-haired living female doll is named Huggins and lives in Huggaland. Bridget gives Huggins a baseball cap from Andrew's room. Huggins hides under some laundry when Bridget's mother comes by, then the mother throws the laundry into the washing machine with Huggins in it. Bridget rescues Huggins and dries her off with a hair drier. They discuss the problem with Grams getting old and having to move away, Huggins says Bridget could talk to the bookworm in Huggaland about it, since he knows everything. They step through the mirror to visit Huggaland, but one of Bridget's tennis shoes becomes lodged in the mirror.<br /><br />Rather than walk around with one shoe, Bridget goes without shoes in Huggaland. They immediately meet Hugsy, a curly-haired living boy doll in Huggaland. Huggins gives Hugsy the baseball cap. They also meet Tickles, Bubbles, Impkins, and Tweaker, and all the dolls sing a song while sitting on a bridge. Hugsy takes Bridget and Huggins in his hugwagon to see the bookworm, who lives atop a stack of giant books. The bookworm consults "the old encyclopedia" and finds that old age can be cured by eating the fruit of the "youngberry tree." However, only one such tree exists, and it's in the country of Shrugs, ruled by the mad queen of quartz. The only way to travel to Shrugs is to jump down a deep hole that is located inside a nearby giant book.<br /><br />Bridget and the two dolls gulp three times, jump down the hole, and tumble out. Soon they walk down a sideways sidewalk, hear the sea of glass breaking, and fall off the sidewalk when the sideways gravity ends. They encounter "the hairy behemoth," which looks like a mastodon, has four tusks, and breathes fire out its trunk. But Hugsy boldly goes over and hugs the behemoth, who thereby turns into a baby elephant whose name is Hodgepodge. Hodgepodge had been under a spell by the queen, and owes Hugsy a favor, so they all ride on Hodgepodge's back to the castle. They enter the castle, are surrounded by troll-like beings, the queen (Queen Admira) comes, and Bridget asks for a few youngberries. The queen refuses, then eats one for herself, and brags about her own youthful good looks while looking in a hand mirror. Hodgepodge faints when the queen says he should be "digested." The queen is upset when Bridget mentions that wicked witches should have warts, so the queen freezes Bridget and orders the three others to be taken to the dungeon. But the queen carelessly leaves the key to the youngberry tree's dome by the lock to the dome-lifting apparatus.<br /><br />Hodgepodge wakes up in the dungeon and uses his "noodle" (trunk) to pull the jail's door down, thereby freeing himself and the two dolls with him. They find Bridget standing petrified, the dolls hug her, which causes Bridget to be revived. Before they flee, Bridget finds the left-behind key to the youngberry tree dome, lifts the dome off, and they pick some glowing youngberries and put them in a jar. The queen catches them, but the queen's arm is trapped under the descending dome while reaching for the key that Bridget left on the ground. The queen suddenly turns very old since she is deprived of the youth-giving berries, and appears to die. Soon Bridget steps back through the mirror into her bedroom but trips on the bottom of the mirror, spilling the berries onto her floor, and the berries quickly vanish into smoke, one by one. Her mother calls for her and Andrew to say goodbye to Grams, who is leaving for a retirement home. Andrew drops his usual grumpy, standoffish facade and hugs Grams, telling her he loves her and that he doesn't want her to go away. Their father is moved, and decides to keep Grams there after all, and everybody hugs and cries, including Aunt Ruthie, who had been the main person pressuring Grams to move out.<br /><br />Andrew asks Bridget for his St. Louis Cardinals cap, Bridget starts to explain how she gave it to Huggins of Huggaland, but Andrew doesn't want to listen to what he believes are her fantasy stories, so he turns around to look for it in her bedroom. One of the dolls secretly hands the cap back through the mirror to Bridget, Bridget puts the cap on Andrew's head, Andrew is mystified, and leaves her bedroom without saying anything. Bridget cheerfully waves at the mirror. | 1 | trimmed_train |
16,265 | This early Sirk melodrama, shot in black and white, is a minor film, yet showcases the flair of the German director in enhancing tired story lines into something resembling art. Set in the 1910's, Barbara Stanwyck is the woman who has sinned by abandoning her small-town husband and family for the lure of the Chicago stage. She never fulfilled her ambitions, and is drawn back to the town she left by an eager letter from her daughter informing her that she too has taken a liking to the theatre (a high school production, that is). Back in her old town she once again comes up against small-mindedness, and has to deal with her hostile eldest daughter, bewildered (and boring) husband (Richard Carlson) and ex-lover. The plot is nothing new but Sirk sets himself apart by creating meaningful compositions, with every frame carefully shot, and he is aided immeasurably by having Stanwyck as his leading lady. It runs a crisp 76 minutes, and that's just as well, because the material doesn't really have the legs to go any further. | 0 | trimmed_train |
21,306 | Lillian Hellman, one of America's most famous women playwrights, was a woman with a mission. Her leftist views were not well regarded at the time in the country. In her memoir, she recounts her trip to the then, Soviet Union, as she was intrigued with the so called successes achieved by that system. "Watch on the Rhine" must have come as a result of those years. The left wing in America, as all over the world had an issue with the rise of fascism, not only in Europe, but in Japan as well.<br /><br />"Watch on the Rhine" was a play produced on Broadway eight months before the Pearl Harbor attack by the Japanese. In it Ms. Hellman was heralding America's entrance in World War II. The adaptation is credited to Ms. Hellman and Dashiell Hammett, her long time companion. As directed for the screen by Herman Shumlin, the film was well received when it premiered in 1943.<br /><br />We are introduced to the Muller family, when the film opens. They are crossing the border to the United States from Mexico. They are to continue toward Mrs. Muller's home in Washington, D.C., where her mother, Fanny Farrelly, is a minor celebrity hostess. The Mullers, we realize are fleeing Europe because of the persecution there against the opponents of the advancing totalitarian regime in Germany. In fact, we thought, in a way, the Mullers could have been better justified if they were Jewish, fleeing from a sure extermination.<br /><br />We find out that Mr. Muller has had a terrible time in his native land, as well as in other places because his outspokenness in denouncing Fascim. Little does he know that he is coming to his mother-in-law's house that is housing one of the worst exponents of that philosophy.<br /><br />The film offers excellent acting all around. It is a curiosity piece because of Bette Davis' supporting role. Paul Lukas, repeating his Broadway role, is quite convincing as Kurt Muller, the upright man that wants to make a better world for himself and his family. Mr. Lukas does a great job portraying Kurt Muller, repeating the role that made him a stage luminary on Broadway.<br /><br />The other best performance is by Lucile Watson, who plays Fanny Farrelly, the matriarch of this family. Geraldine Fitzgerald is seen as Marthe de Brancovis, a guest of the Farrellys, married to the contemptible Teck de Brancovis, a Nazi sympathizer, played by George Coulouris. Beulah Bondi, Donald Woods, and the rest of the supporting cast give good performances guided by Mr. Shumlin.<br /><br />The film should serve as a reminder about the evils of totalitarian rule, no matter where. | 0 | trimmed_train |
1,146 | OK this movie had a terrible premise. Be serious according to the movie they had just been through an apocalyptic war yet they have money to buy huge robots and pit them against each other. Each country decides instead of investing into rebuilding their country they would rather fight with robots no one could afford. Here's a better idea, lets rely on our most inept resource,jocks, to fight our battles. <br /><br />Everyone says what about the director, what about him. He makes a good movie, he makes a bad movie. There is no reason to give this movie some credit just because of the director, maybe he was asleep? I thoroughly enjoyed this movie, because it was so cheesy and ridiculous I had to laugh. I actually had a good time watching it, well except for the cowboy mentor who turns out to be an assassin(trust me no one would see this guy as an assassin, so it is a surprise, however lame) What kind of training exercise is a jungle jim anyway. I was sad to see Mst3k had not done this one. I am giving a two star rating however because nothing could be as bad as "manos the hands of fate."<br /><br />The budget does not matter either, I have seen plenty of reasonable movies that had nothing for budgets like cube. The storyline was not even plausible and I have seen better acting in school plays. Surly they could have afforded an eleven year old from any middle school play.<br /><br />Anyway pick it up, it is a fun movie to watch. | 2 | trimmed_train |
17,659 | Gregory Peck's brilliant portrayal of Douglas MacArthur from the Battle of Corregidor in the Philippines at the start of the Pacific War largely through to his removal as UN Commander during the Korean War offers reason to believe all three of the above possibilities. Certainly the most controversial American General of the Second World War (and possibly ever) MacArthur is presented here as a man of massive contradictions. He claims that soldiers above all yearn for peace, yet he obviously glories in war; he consistently denies any political ambitions, yet almost everything he does is deliberately used to boost himself as a presidential candidate; he obviously believes that soldiers under his command have to follow his orders to the letter, yet he himself deliberately defies orders from the President of the United States; he shows great respect for other cultures (particularly in the Philippines and Japan) and yet is completely out of touch with his own country. All these things are held in balance throughout this movie, and in the end the viewer is left to draw his or her own conclusions about the man, although one is left with no doubt that MacArthur sincerely and passionately loved his country, and especially the Army he devoted his life to.<br /><br />Peck's performance was, as I said, brilliant - to the point, actually, of overshadowing virtually everyone else in the film (which is perhaps appropriate, given who he was portraying!) with the possible exception of Ed Flanders. I though he offered a compelling look at Harry Truman and his attitude to MacArthur: sarcastic (repeatedly referring to MacArthur as "His Majesty,") angry, frustrated and finally completely fed up with this General who simply won't respect his authority as President. Marj Dusay was also intriguing as MacArhur's wife Jean, devoted to her husband (whom she herself referred to as "General," although their relationship seems to have been a happy enough one.) I very much enjoyed this movie, although perhaps would have liked to have learned a little more about MacArthur's early life. I have always chuckled at MacArthur's reaction to Eisenhower being elected President ("He'll make a fine President - he was the best damn clerk I ever had" - which seems to sum up what MacArthur thought the role of the President should be, especially to his military commanders during wartime.) Well worth watching. 8/10 | 0 | trimmed_train |
21,128 | Great drama with all the areas covered EXCEPT for screenlay which was too slow and should have shown more relevant scenes like Pitt's character interviewing the President,or Pitt getting murdered instead of just having it described to us.Scenes like those would have kept the audience awake.Cutting away some useless minutes could have made more room for more heartpounding scenes like those.The dragging of the film kept this one from all time greatness although to see Pitt here makes the film so worth watching.Also,big fans of fising,early 20th century styles and Montana will really like this as well........ | 3 | trimmed_train |
Subsets and Splits