id
int32 0
25k
| text
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| label
int64 0
3
| Generalization
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
5,310 |
For years I remember reading about this show "Trouble With Tracy" in the TV Guide. CFTO-TV Toronto every Saturday morning at 6 am! I lived about a two-hour drive north of Toronto and we couldn't get CFTO, but you know how it is - we always want what we can't have.<br /><br />Well, I knew what I wanted and what I wanted was to see what this "Trouble With Tracy" was all about. Did it have a beautiful girl in the starring role? Was there nudity? Was there suspense? Was it a comedy? It would've been fine if there was some promotion of the show. At least I could've known what I was missing. But, NO! The mystery drove me bonkers, until CTV affiliate CKCO built a re-transmitter in Wiarton, Ontario and began to broadcast "Trouble With Tracy" at the same time as CFTO....Saturday mornings at 6 am!! One Saturday morning I got up and turned the TV on at 5:59 and at last I got to see what "The Trouble With Tracy" was. Yes, the "Trouble With Tracy" was that it was Canadian content and stuck in the harmless 6 am spot so no one would ever see how awful it was.<br /><br />Talented Canadian Actor Steve Weston died a few years afterward, but many would argue he effectively "died" the first time he appeared on this show. When I saw it for the first time that cold Saturday morning and fell despondent back into my bed, part of me died, too.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
13,248 |
Throughout this film, you might think this film is just for kids. Well, it is mainly pointed towards them, but it's also well-rounded enough with the jokes pointed also at the adults in the audience. This time around, the Muppet gang try to get on Broadway, with the dire straits keeping them from getting it produced, leading them to splitting up. But Kermit won't stop, and his determination keeps things moving along until after getting the deal together he gets hit by a car and sent into amnesia! <br /><br />It's a send-up, in part, of those old starring vehicles from the 40s with musicals actually as the topic of a musical, only here there's the usual lot of zaniness and wonderful moments thrown into a pot of hysterically funny moments (Lou Zealand's boomerang fish; Gonzo's water-stunt display, the whisper campaign, among many others), but also with a lot of heart too. The Muppet writers aren't shy of the conventions, on the contrary, they embrace them to the point where it's almost refreshing to see such a 'lets put on a show' story where through thick and think the characters will meet their dream. <br /><br />While not as totally original in scope as the Muppet Movie, it's got many catchy and memorable songs, excellent locations all over Manhattan, and even some intonations of inter-species dating (and marriage)! Cameos include Liza Minneli ("a frog?"), Elliot Gould (as the cop), Brooke Shields (propositioned by a rat), Edward I. Koch, Gregory Hines and Joan Rivers. So get ready to sing-along, or just have a lot of big laughs and romantic (yes romantic) times with one of the best Muppet movies.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
20,585 |
Ah, McBain
The character name is immortalized and forever ridiculed by "The Simpsons" but it will also always to me personally, at least remain the name and title of a tremendously entertaining and outrageously violent early 90's action flick; directed by the cool dude who brought us "The Exterminator" and starring two of the most ultimately badass B-movie heroes Christopher Walken and Michael Ironside (the latter with a cute little macho ponytail). I guess "McBain" will largely have to be labeled as a guilty pleasure, because there's no way I can convince anyone this is an intellectual motion picture. The film is unimaginably preposterous (most action heroes take on a small gangster posse
McBain takes on an entire country) and yet takes itself way too seriously. The script is a non-stop and incoherent spitfire of clichéd situations, nonsensical twists, compulsory sentimental interludes, grotesquely staged action sequences and utterly implausible character drawings. It's a totally delirious movie; I loved it. <br /><br />Vietnam POW McBain's life is saved by fellow soldier Roberto Santos on the very last day of the war. They each keep half a dollar note as a symbol that McBain is in Santos' debt. Eighteen years later, Santos is a spirited rebel leading the revolution against the corrupt president of his home country Columbia. Santos initial attempt to take over the power fails and he's publicly executed on El Presidente's balcony. His sister travels to New York with the dollar note and turns to McBain for financial assistance and manpower. McBain and his former Vietnam buddies, who all coincidentally happen to be fed up with the injustice in this world, charter themselves a miserable little plane and fly to Columbia to open a gigantic can of whoop-ass. <br /><br />Okay, let's not fool each other here. The fact you're reading a user- comment on "McBain" already indicates that you have some sort of interest for low-budget B-movie action. One of my fellow reviewers spent quite some time composing a list containing all the main stupidities and insensible moments of "McBain". This list is totally accurate and I can only concur with it. Heck, I could even add some more senseless sequences to that list (like the preposterous and needless heroic self- sacrifice of a soldier who doesn't even have any affinity with the goal of the mission and the rest of McBain's squad), but what's the point? You definitely know not to expect a 100% coherent and plausible masterpiece. We know from beforehand this will be a silly and exaggeratedly flamboyant movie, and it's maybe even the exact reason why we want to check it out! This is a terrifically outrageous and exciting movie about a bunch of former Vietnam buddies turning into mercenaries and declaring war against the corrupt Columbian president and the national drug cartel. Please don't expect another "Apocalypse Now". This particular motion picture relies on the ruff 'n tuff acting performances of the macho leads, a whole lot of explosions and gunfights and last but not least a fantastic soundtrack in which Joan Baez sings a cover of "Brothers in Arms".
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
5,046 |
This is not an entirely bad movie. The plot (new house built next door seems to be haunted) is not bad, the mood is creepy enough, and the acting is okay. The big problem I had is that, being familiar with Lara Flynn Boyle (from Twin Peaks and other shows), I couldn't get over how different she looks with her apparently new, big lips. I kept staring at them. They look so out of place on her face! They make her look completely different (and not better).<br /><br />Mark-Paul Gosselaar, the actor who plays Kim the architect who designs and pours his heart and soul into the house, does a fine job. And Lara (as Col) is also quite good (but those lips!) as the owner of the house next door. Her husband, Walker (Colin Ferguson) is appropriately wooden. The various characters who live in the house were also fine. I particularly liked Pie (Charlotte Sullivan) and her husband, Buddy (Stephen Amell), the first people to move into the house. The attempt to involve us in the overall neighborhood vibe fails, unfortunately, as the other neighbors are not particularly likable.<br /><br />For some reason the director was unable to make the "haunted" house particularly ominous. Other movies (such as Amityville Horror, The Legend of Hell House) manage to achieve that spooky feel, but it just doesn't happen here. The closest is when Col paints a depiction of the house.<br /><br />Another thing that didn't work for me is the plot twist that occurs with Kim, the architect. Initially, he appears to be a victim of the house like the others (it has sucked him dry of inspiration), but later he seems to have joined forces with it in evil.<br /><br />Overall, not a bad movie for horror fans if you can take your eyes off those big lips!
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
11,412 |
The movie is about two stories: one is a political murder of a call-girl, the other an upper-class political party. The crossing point is the public relation character played by Al Paccino, as he is the witness of the crime and the instigator of the evening.<br /><br />If the script is terrible without any decent dialogs and the directing void of any sense of drama, the performance of Al is memorable: how many fellows can be as much convincing as a powerful and feared man (as "The Godfather") as here as a little servant (see also "Donnie Brasco").<br /><br />Actually, the big young lion has become a tired old one. This passing of ages is very moving, because it makes the audience ponders about getting old too.<br /><br />But his slowness is only a make-up because he can get back his energy in Church scene.<br /><br />Maybe it is a good thing that the movie is so awful because it put the starlight on Al's talent!
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
13,013 |
What a delightful romp a very competently made film that has so much charm and a feelgood factor that a lot of romantic comedies lack. Einstein is brilliantly acted by Walter Matthau, while Meg Ryan's Catherine is unforgettable better than I have seen her in those films opposite Tom Hanks as the young mathematician struggling to be recognized.<br /><br />You don't need to be a young woman to understand Catherine's struggle and feel sympathetic for her immediately, and as a young man it's easy to understand what must have gone through Ed's (Tim Robbins) mind in pursuing his true love. There's universal appeal in these emotions, even if I.Q. keeps it all light, fun and tied up nicely.<br /><br />Sure it's not heavy, but if you look there are some subtexts. People remember Albert Einstein as a scientist yet he was a great spiritualist; his sayings such as something along the lines of, 'If it is not impossible, then why do it?' suggest he is a believer in fulfilling higher goals beyond one's immediate grasp. In this film, there are questions of what an accident really is such as whether Albert and his whacky sidekicks' intervention in prying Catherine away from stiff-upper-lip, loveless James (Stephen Fry who gives this otherwise cardboard character life and you cannot help but feel for his lack of feeling) counts. How much intervention happens in our lives that we do not see, and comes across as serendipitous?<br /><br />And of course, we'd like to think in real life, despite what we often observe of the people we know, that we Edwards get the Catherines and Jameses have to learn how to defrost the icewater in their veins. How nice to know that it might work out in I.Q.'s innocent (and disturbingly, exclusively Caucasian) Eisenhower-era land of make-believe.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
18,286 |
There's a legion of Mick Garris haters out there who feel he couldn't direct a horror film of quality if he had to. And, SLEEPWALKERS(..screenplay written by Stephen King)is often used as an example of this. I like SLEEPWALKERS, though I fully am aware that Garris just says F#ck it and lets all hell break loose about fifteen or so minutes into the movie. Forget character or plot development, who needs them anyway. It's about violent mayhem and bloody carnage as a mother and son pair of "sleepwalkers"(..feline-human shapeshifting creatures who suck the lifeforce from virginal female innocents, moving from town to town, living a nomadic existence, truly powerful)set their sights on a teenager who doesn't surrender without a fight. Before all is said and done, many will be slaughtered as a mother shan't tolerate the possible death of her beloved son.<br /><br />Garris wastes little time setting up those to be executed, as a teacher(Glenn Shadix), suspecting handsome, All American charmer Charles Brady(Brian Krause)to be someone entirely different from who he claims, gets his hand ripped off and his neck torn into. Charles lures pretty virgins into his arms, drawing their energy, in turn "feeding" his hungry mama, Mary(Alice Krige). The fresh new target is Tanya Robertson(Mädchen Amick), and she seems to be easy pickens, but this will not be the case and when Charles is seriously injured in a struggle(..thanks to a deputy's cat, Clovis), Mary's vengeance will be reaped on all those who get her way. Mary, come hell or high water, will retrieve Tanya in the goal of "refreshing" her dying son.<br /><br />Like many teenagers, I had a crush on certain actresses I watched in movies. Such as Amy Dolenz, I was smitten with Mädchen Amick. She's simply adorable in this movie and I love how she bites her lower lip displaying an obvious attraction towards Charles, unaware of his ulterior motives. I just knew that Mädchen Amick would be destined to be a scream queen, but this would never be the case. Too bad because I would've welcomed her in the genre with open arms.<br /><br />Krige is yummy as the menacing, damn sexy, but vicious and mean bitch who wipes out an entire police force and poor Tanya's parents in one fail swoop, in less than ten or so minutes. She stabs one in the back with a corn cob! She bites the fingers off of poor Ron Perlman, before cracking his arm(..a bone protruding), knocking him unconscious with his own elbow! She tosses Tanya's mom through a window after breaking a rose vase over her father's face! A deputy is stabbed in his ear by Charles(Cop-kebab!), falling on the pencil for extra impact. Poor Tanya is dragged by her hair from her home by Mary, driven to the Brady home, and forced into an impromptu dance with the crippled monster! The sheriff is hurled onto a picket fence and we see how cats combat the sleepwalkers unlike humans. We see Mary and Charles' abilities to "dim" themselves and his car using a power of invisibility. Writer Stephen King even finds time to include himself and horror director buddies of his in a crime scene sequence with Clive Barker and Tobe Hooper as forensics officers, Joe Dante and John Landis as photograph experts.<br /><br />The film is shot in a tongue-in-cheek, let-it-all-hang-out manner with music appropriately hammering this technique home. It's about the ultra-violence, simple as that, with some deranged behavior and jet black humor complimenting Garris' direction and King's screenplay. The incestuous angle of the sleepwalkers is a bit jarring and in-your-face. Without a lick of complexity, this is closer in vein to King's own demented MAXIMIMUM OVERDRIVE than his more serious works.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
24,786 |
Quite simply the funniest and shiniest film-comedy of all time... it's certainly on my personal top-ten list. This one also gets a solid ten on the voting scale. Millionaire heir, Arthur Bach (Moore), is a middle-aged 'child' who refuses to take the mature path in life and avoids all requisite responsibilities. He also refuses to leave the bottle. One day he and his personal butler, Hobson (Gielgud), go shopping at Bergdorf Goodman's and run into petty larcenist, Linda (Minnelli). Arthur and Linda's chemistry adds electricity to the rest of the film. There are hilarious set pieces aplenty. In one such scene, Arthur (drunk throughout most of the story) knocks on the wrong apartment door and receives ear shattering threats from a human 'siren' ("My husband has a gun!!!!). Performances by everyone involved should be duly noted: Geraldine Fitzgerald plays Arthur's loving-yet-ruthless grandmother, Sir John Gielgud almost steals the entire show with his acidic droll-isms (He took home the Oscar for this one), and Christopher Cross provides the Main Theme song (Oscar winner "Best That You Can Do"). It's a shame the late Dudley Moore passed away last month (March 2002).
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
8,398 |
OK. I know that the wanna-be John Hughes movies of the 80s were all unilaterally flat, so the expectations for this film ran pretty low.<br /><br />Still, after sitting through this crap there's one key thing I can't seem to get out of my head:<br /><br />I just sat through an 80s Rob Lowe movie that had no nudity and only hints of sex in them.<br /><br />The acting is awful, the characters boring and flat, the portrayal of Oxford an absolute insult, and the rowing scenes unexciting, uneventful, and inaccurate.<br /><br />Unless you've got some wierd Ally Sheedy or Amanda Pays (or I guess, Rob Lowe) fetish, there's really no reason to see this one.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
8,999 |
I wanted to vote zero or lower. I loved the commentary. It IS the worst movie ever made and 'unendurable' is the perfect word for it, unless there is something worse that Roget never thought of. I am also at a loss to think of anything negative enough to accurately describe Bo Derek. The best that could be said of her is, she's consistent.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
401 |
It looks like the brilliant team of Shonda Rhimes outsourced the writing of this one somewhere offshore, maybe to the MediocreLand? "PP" reminds me any one of the many tedious, promising at first but predictable within 1 season David Kelly flicks (Picket Fences, Ally McBeal, and now Boston Legal). The crazy cases they get are so outlandish, they barely evoke sympathy or sadness. And that's what actually makes good medical dramas tick - dramatic situations you are afraid of, "This could be me" sentiment. They are not funny either.<br /><br />The actors are quite good, but the plot lines are dead and cannot be brought back to live. I'm a therapist, and let me tell you - Amy Brennan plays the most unbelievably incompetent, unethical, untrained therapist. Whoever writes her stuff flunked the ethics and the transference/counter-transference courses in Stanford. Somebody should give them a Code of Ethics to read (the episode with the nose-bleeding wife and the therapist's involvement in it). No therapists are that bad.<br /><br />Women yearning for men who have moved on - had been done to death, we've all graduated "Sex and the City". Addison in her youthful aggression towards the guy she likes - very age-inappropriate, looks so unnatural on a woman over 40, and this otherwise talented actress doesn't believe it herself and doesn't deliver it very well. The only successful/palatable developments are Addison struggling with her decision to move to LA, and the "Voodoo Dr" and his coping with widowhood.<br /><br />This concept might work with a whole new writing team.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
8,903 |
It's nothing more than a weird coincidence that I decided to watch STARLIFT on the 59th anniversary of the day in June 1950 when President Truman's ordered US forces into the Korean War. STARLIFT, you see, is set largely at Travis Air Force base in California in the years when it was being used as a staging post for soldiers being shipped out to fight in Korea. But you'd need to do your own research to know this because not once during the film is the name 'Korea' mentioned. We see transport aircraft flying out fresh troops and returning with wounded soldiers but there's no mention of where these men will be fighting or getting injured. Which is kind of weird for a film designed to wave the flag and salute America's men in uniform. Released in December 1951 by Warner Brothers, STARLIFT is a very obvious effort to replicate the success of the studio's star-studded World War Two home-front morale booster "Hollywood Canteen." This 1944 crowd-pleaser told the story of two soldiers spending their last three nights of leave hanging out at the famous armed forces nightclub in LA hoping to get a date with Joan Leslie. But really it was just an excuse for Warners to trot out every star under contract, from Joan Crawford, John Garfield, and Barbara Stanwyck to Peter Lorre, Bette Davis, Sydney Greenstreet and more. STARLIFT features two Air Force soldiers hoping to meet fictional starlet Nell Wayne (a mask-like Janice Rule) and persuading a bunch of Warner Bros stars to put on a show for the departing troops. But in place of Crawford, Garfield et al the best the brothers Warner could scrape up in 1951 were Doris Day, Ruth Roman, Gordon MacRae, Virginia Mayo, Gene Nelson and Phil Harris with fleeting appearances by James Cagney, Randolph Scott, and a clearly embarrassed looking Gary Cooper. This threadbare cast, whose combined star power would struggle to illuminate a standard lamp, is perfectly matched by the crummy production values. Presumably in an effort to save money several long scenes were shot using really really bad back projection. How bad is it? You can see the join where the screen meets the floor of the soundstage! To describe STARLIFT as a sloppy, lazy and third rate movie is to do a disservice to films which are sloppy, lazy and third rate. It's just terrible. Avoid it.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
2,929 |
I watched this movie as a preview of a Matthew Barney art exhibit. It certainly prepared me. I almost skipped the exhibit and, in retrospect, probably should have.<br /><br />Aside from the score being great (Bjork) and the photography rich and colorful, the content was mostly tedious and predictable. Gee, I really needed to see someone wearing pearls to figure out what the pearl-divers were up to. The film was mostly a silly mixture of Japanese cultural references and industrial shots of modern whaling technology being used in a mock-hunt/harvest. The film "peaks" with enough gratuitous shock-art to turn your stomach.<br /><br />What was the point of the movie? While others might argue that it is an anti-whaling piece, one could equally argue that it somehow also justifies whaling. Personally I think it was Barney's attempt at "flashing" the audience with his anal, fecal, self-mutilation, and cannibalistic fetishes.<br /><br />Bottom line: unless you really get off on Barney's sense of art, don't bother seeing this movie. The message is obscure, the pace slow, and the cultural references pretentious. If you're after shock-art, you'll do better at one of the many "Undead" movies or hunting down an old copy of Hustler and taking in a fecal-cartoon.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
21,685 |
I did not expect the performances of Gackt and Hyde to be as well done as they were, nor did I expect them to be cast in such an artistic well-developed movie with enough plot to keep you interested and enough diversity to make it original. This movie was an unexpected masterpiece for me, and I'll be on the lookout for the next movie like it. I especially like the fact that it is a vampire movie, but it wasn't a cheesy vampire flick, nor did it over embellish that fact. The characters all had human traits. The way it shows the growth of the characters was incredibly tasteful, and it makes you actually feel sorry for them throughout their lives. I give this movie two thumbs so far up. Definitely the best movie I have seen in the past five years.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
15,148 |
Let's cut to the chase: If you're a baby-boomer, you inevitably spent some time wondering at the fact that, in 1976, McCartney had the gumption to drop in on John's city hermit life and spend the day with him. You also certainly wondered how things went. I heard the exact same reports that the writer of this film heard, from John's and Paul's perspective, and I admit that I reconstructed the meeting in pretty much the same way this film does. But none of my imaginings could have bought tears to my eyes the way this incredible piece of work and acting does. I found it amazingly lifelike, perfectly plausible and 100 % saccharin-free. Now, can anyone explain why I didn't hear of this masterpiece before it was shown by the CBC last night? I mean it's already three years old, for goodness sake! And yes, if you're a Beatles fan, this is a must-see performance! Even the subtle paraphrasing of Beatles' melodies in the background is inspired.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
7,710 |
1914 was an amazing year for Charlie Chaplin. It was his first year in films and he appeared in more than 30 films! While most of these films weren't particularly good, they did give him a chance to slowly evolve his screen persona. However, by this film, the familiar "Little Tramp" character was still in development. Sure Charlie looked the part, but his character still lacked the sweetness and decency that he later developed. Instead, Chaplin often hit, kicked or did other nasty things to people for seemingly no reason at all.<br /><br />As for this very slight film, it is interesting to watch for the cast. While they are not familiar today, Chaplin stars along with Mabel Normand, Chester Conklin and Mack Swain--all exceptionally popular stars with Keystone Films. The problem with this film is that while it has a few nice scenes, the plot seems very vague and improperly developed. Chester and Mabel got to the race track (a very common theme in Keystone productions--it must have been located near a race track). Charlie and Mack show up and sneak in. Mack is chased by the police for doing this while Charlie slaps Chester around and steals his girl. In the end, for no apparent reason, the cops take Chester and Mack away--leaving Charlie with Mabel (who, oddly, didn't seem put off by Charlie's boorish behaviors).<br /><br />Unless you are a huge silent comedy buff or film historian, this is a very forgettable film that is only important in the evolution of Chaplin. What he and the other actors actually do on stage, while not unusual for a Keystone film, isn't particularly funny when seen today.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
1,476 |
I guess you have to give some points for the sheer courage of writing a musical around a history lesson but how about some decent music? <br /><br />Is the cartoonish acting of Howard DeSilva meant to pique the interest of otherwise jaded children? <br /><br />Is William Daniels' campy contemporary (for the time) acting style meant to appeal to a 1960s/70s demographic? <br /><br />Do we need all the "in-jokes" about NY & NJ? (I can hear the blue-haired Broadway audience guffawing on cue.) <br /><br />Sorry, I find the whole piece dated, boring & the acting far too strident for the screen
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
14,487 |
Skip McCoy is a three time loser pick pocket, unable to curb his instincts back on the street, he picks the purse of Candy on a subway train. What he doesn't realise is that Candy is carrying top secret microfilm, microfilm that is of high interest to many many organisations.<br /><br />Director Samuel Fuller has crafted an exceptional drama set amongst the seedy underworld of New York City. Communist spies and shady government operatives all blend together to make Pickup On South Street a riveting viewing from first minute to the last. Based around a Dwight Taylor story called Blaze Of Glory, Fuller enthused this adaptation with heavy set political agenda, something that many at the time felt was over done, but to only focus on its anti communist leanings is doing it a big disservice.<br /><br />Digging a little deeper and you find characters as intriguing as any that Fuller has directed, the main protagonist for one is the hero of the piece, a crook and a shallow human being, his heroics are not born out of love for his country, they are born out of his sheer stubborn streak. It's quite an achievement that Fuller has crafted one of the best anti heroes of the 50s, and i'm sure he was most grateful to the performance of Richard Widmark as McCoy, all grin and icy cold heart, his interplay with the wonderful Jean Peters as Candy is excellent, and is the films heart. However it is the Oscar nominated Thelma Ritter who takes the acting honours, her Moe is strong and as seedy as the surrounding characters, but there is a tired warmth to her that Ritter conveys majestically.<br /><br />It's a B movie in texture but an A film in execution, Pickup On South Street is a real classy and entertaining film that is the best of its most intriguing director. 9/10
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
24,805 |
This is the movie for those who believe cinema is the seventh art, not an entertainment business. Lars von Trier creates a noir atmosphere of post-war Germany utterly captivating. You get absorbed into the dream and you're let go only at the end credits. The plot necessarily comes second, but it still is a thrilling story with tough issues being raised. Just wonderful.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
8,795 |
This is probably one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Jessica Simpson not only lacks any acting skill, but the script is incredibly shallow and lame. You actually hear serious dialogue that goes, "I love you more." "No, I love YOU more." I stopped watching the movie (online) after the first half hour, I couldn't take it anymore. Her "southern girl charm" just doesn't work and is really quite annoying; her attempts at slapstick humor fall flat and she delivers lines like she is reading the script right off the page.<br /><br />Poor Luke Wilson. Did he not read the script before agreeing to do this, or did he fall for Papa Joe's (Jessica's dad and also the producer of the movie) promise of big profits? Hopefully he now knows better than to sign on to another movie like this. Luke Wilson is actually a good actor - I hate seeing the pained look on his face as he suffers through the bad dialogue.<br /><br />Also, I think the previous commenter giving this movie an 8 out of 10 was probably either involved in the movie somehow or hired by Papa Joe to give the movie a better rating. No one in their right mind would actually find this movie engaging.<br /><br />Jessica has lots of money, right? Maybe buy some acting lessons?
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
9,925 |
When i got this movie free from my job, along with three other similar movies.. I watched then with very low expectations. Now this movie isn't bad per se. You get what you pay for. It is a tale of love, betrayal, lies, sex, scandal, everything you want in a movie. Definitely not a Hollywood blockbuster, but for cheap thrills it is not that bad. I would probably never watch this movie again. In a nutshell this is the kind of movie that you would see either very late at night on a local television station that is just wanting to take up some time, or you would see it on a Sunday afternoon on a local television station that is trying to take up some time. Despite the bad acting, cliché lines, and sub par camera work. I didn't have the desire to turn off the movie and pretend like it never popped into my DVD player. The story has been done many times in many movies. This one is no different, no better, no worse. <br /><br />Just your average movie.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
19,365 |
Certain elements of this film are dated, of course. An all white male crew, for instance. And like most Pre-Star Wars Science Fiction, it tends to take too long admiring itself.<br /><br />But, still, no movie has ever capture the flavor of Golden Age Science Fiction as this one did, even down to the use of the "electronic tonalities" to provide the musical score. Robbie the Robot epitomized the Asimov robots, and was the inspiration for all that followed, from C3PO to Data.<br /><br />The plot line, of course, is Shakespeare's "The Tempest". Morbius is Prospero, and exiled wizard who finds his kingdom invaded by interlopers... It was a movie that treated Science Fiction as an adult genre, perhaps the first.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
13,196 |
Over Her Dead Body was a nice little movie.It was decent and entertaining, while still being pretty funny.There were a few cliché's, but I found most stuff fresh.At first I didn't think it was going to be good at all,when it started out.If you can get past the first 20 minutes though,the movie starts getting more interesting.This film wasn't burst out in laughter hilarious,and wasn't OH MY GOSH wonderful.It was just a movie that you can sit down and enjoy for how enjoyable it was.I don't see how this movie was bad.It's rating is just a bit too low.I could've dealt with a 5.5,but a 4.8?Also,giving this movie a 1 is disgraceful.It was pretty good,and there was nothing horrible enough about it to give it a 1,which is what most people gave it.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
9,060 |
"The Running Jumping & Standing Still Film" is not a film as such, but it is a short series of clips with a comical slapstick theme. This 'film' got Richard Lester recognised and paved the way for him to direct the first Beatles film: 'A Hard Day's Night".<br /><br />Richard Lester directed and wrote the music for his first film in 1959. This film was entitled The Running, Jumping, & Standing Still Film. It was intended to be viewed only by those who had aided in its production. Since the film was intended to be viewed by Lester and his partners alone, a small amount of money and time was invested. The sole purpose of this film is entertainment, but the main reason for its existence is the fact that it served as an experiment to work the camera. The film cost 70£ to make, and it was filmed in sepia-toned film stock in a field on a couple of Sundays. All of the shots that were filmed were included in the finished production; the finished production is eleven minutes in length.<br /><br />The Running, Jumping, & Standing Still Film is a comedy about English Sundays and the small hobbies that people do to pass the time. All of the events in this film take place in a field. A few of these comical events include a woman scrubbing a lawn, a man running around a tree stump with a needle to play a record, a photographer developing film in a pond, an artist aided in painting by the numbers on a model's face, a man building a tent, an athlete running over the tent, and a duel between a man with a knife and a man with a gun. Not only does the film poke fun at the hobbies that people do to pass the time away, but it also pokes fun at English culture when compared to American culture. Another one of several events in this film includes a group of men and a kite, which has been constructed out of the flag of the United Kingdom. One of the men jumps inside the kite while the other men attempt to fly it, and the kite breaks. According to Neil Sinyard, author of The Films of Richard Lester, this event symbolizes the United Kingdom as lesser in power and technology when compared to the United States during the space age. According to this scene, the British fly primitive kites while the Americans, the world-power after World War II, fly highly-advanced rockets and space shuttles.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
17,598 |
"What is love? What is this longing in our hearts for togetherness? Is it not the sweetest flower? Does not this flower of love have the fragrant aroma of fine, fine diamonds? Does not the wind love the dirt? Is not love not unlike the unlikely not it is unlikened to? Are you with someone tonight? Do not question your love. Take your lover by the hand. Release the power within yourself. Your heard me, release the power. Tame the wild cosmos with a whisper. Conquer heaven with one intimate caress. That's right don't be shy. Whip out everything you got and do it in the butt. By Leon Phelps" When Tim Meadows created his quintessential SNL playboy, Leon Phelps, I cringed. Hearing his smarmy lisp and salacious comments made my remote tremble with outrage. I employed the click feature more than once, dear readers.<br /><br />So When the film version of "The Ladies Man" came on cable, I mumbled a few comments of my own and clicked yet again. But there comes the day, gray and forlorn, when "nothing is on" any of the 100+ channels...sigh. Yes I was faced with every cable subscribers torment watch it or turn my TV off! There he was, Leon Phelps, smirking and ...making me laugh! What had happened? Had I succumbed to Hollywood's 'dumb-down' sit-com humor? Was I that desperate to avoid abdicating my sacred throne? The truth of the matter is I like "The Ladies Man" more than I should. A story about a vulgar playboy sipping cognac while leering at every female form goes against my feminist sensibilities.<br /><br />What began as a crude SNL skit blossomed before my eyes into a tale about Leon and his playboy philosophy, going through life "helping people" solve their sexual conflicts. "I am the Mother Teresa of Boning", he solemnly informs Julie (Karyn Parsons), his friend and long-suffering producer of his radio show, "The Ladies Man". And he's not kidding. Leaving a string of broken hearts and angry spirits, Leon manages to bed and breakfast just about all of Chicago. That he does so with such genuine good-will is his calling-card through life.<br /><br />Our self-proclaimed, "Expert in the Ways of Love", manages to get himself into a lot of trouble with husbands and boyfriends. One such maligned spouse, Lance (Will Ferrell), forms a "Victims of the Smiling Ass, USA" club, vowing to catch our lovable Don Juan. "Oh yes, we will have our revenge", he croons to his cohorts, in a show-stopping dance number.<br /><br />Plus it's such a total delight to see Billy Dee Williams as Lester, the tavern owner and smooth narrator of Leon's odyssey to find his "sweet thing" and a pile of cash. (Where has he been hiding?) But would I choose this movie as my Valentine's Day choice? Leon's search for the easy life changes him in so many profound ways - that I had to give the nod to our "Ladies Man". That he can, at the movie's close, find true happiness with one woman, while still offering his outlandish advice, is the stuff of dreams!
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
6,553 |
Once upon a time there was a director by the name of James. He brought us wonderfully, thrilling science-fiction such as Terminator and Aliens. These movies were the stuff blockbusters were made of and he looked to have a fantastic future ahead of him as the dawn of computer generated special effects landed upon the film industry. Terminator 2 showed gave us glimpses of what was possible in this new era.<br /><br />.......and then it happened...................1997........countless awards..........obscene amounts of money............outlandish barrage of advertising............maximum profit margin........Titanic was here!<br /><br />I have never (ever) been one to jump on the bandwagon and be overly critical for the sake of it, in fact I have often taken the opposite stance from the majority just to get an argument going. Titanic however was a film I only took one single positive out of - that of Kate Winslett being absolutely gorgeous throughout!<br /><br />Quickly - the dialogue was like something out of Beverly Hills 90210, the acting was more wooden than my nephew's tree house, images meant to terrify were actually comical (man falling from ship and hitting propeller), historically false (don't even get me started because there's too much), it had dire theme music (up there with the bodyguard for cheese) and the pointless love story was so tedious, self absorbing and pathetic that it disrespected the plight of everyone else involved (I was glad when he died and disappointed when she did not).<br /><br />It was plainly obvious from the word go that this picture was designed to appeal to MTV watching, bubblegum chewing, boy-with-car chasing, teenage girls (DeCaprio himself resembled something less heroic than the weedy member of a boy band) who would drag their sex-starved boyfriends out for a three and a half hour chick-flick hoping to get lucky later! The worst aspect was that it did not stop at that point. Millions of dumbed down, culture vultures went to see this expensive waste of celluloid because "it cost so much to produce it must be great" and "Steve and Barbara said it was good and they know their movies". <br /><br />The crowning glory arrived when Titanic swept the boards at the Academy Awards. King James of Hollywood had a serious moment of silence for the victims of the fatal evening on which his three and a half hour farce was based. It looked to me as if he was praying for forgiveness after making a fortune off inaccurately portraying the circumstances that lead to the death of a lot of people. <br /><br />However, if people are stupid and sentimental enough to buy into this kind of rubbish they deserve to get ripped off. Good luck to Hollywood if that is how they want to make money, I'd do it if I had those kind of chances in life!<br /><br />It is right up there on my all time worst movies list with other silly, historically false/human interest tripe like "The Patriot" and "Pearl Harbor".
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
11,690 |
This movie isn't worth the film it was photographed on. The dialog is flat, filled with cliché overused lines and delivered by amateur actors who sound like their reading a script for the first time. The choppy, shaky, film style is a cheap imitation of the "The Ring" style visual effects. The characters do not even act like a normal person would. For example, the character who is looking for her twin sister at her home forces her way through the front door, creeps around the house all frightened and sobbing and she doesn't even once call out her sister's name to see if she is home. What? You would think she had just buried her sister instead of searching for her. Way too many flashbacks to her childhood. Too many unnecessary flashbacks is a typical sign of an amateur director. It is actually funny watching the numerous shots of the woman driving her car down the street, up the driveway, around this corner, over here, over there, oh a side view, now a front view. Enough already. You would think you are watching a TV commercial for the Solaris! Terrible movie. 0 out of 100. I really pity anybody who spent money making this film or to watch it.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
1,537 |
In recent times I have been subjected to both this movie and "King Arthur", on DVDs chosen by others for an evening's "entertainment" and together they achieve nothing more than bearing out a growing notion I have that the modern movie-watching public totally lacks discrimination, and is content as long as they get "action". Both movies were utter rubbish.<br /><br />Whatever happened to character development? Whatever happened to meaningful dialogue? Whatever happened to ACTING? And, when watching something that vaguely purports to be "historical", whatever happened to attempting to capture some measure of accuracy, some realistic idea of the "political map" of the time, even some slight flavour of the era, especially in its social attitudes. Why do they all have to display the value set of 21st century America? I have read on the message boards of disclaimers that "little was known" of the dark ages. Not so. Considerable amounts are known, with much learned scholarship on the era, but these jokers simply couldn't be bothered to do any homework.<br /><br />I only wish I could vote 0/10
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
8,475 |
So, Steve Irwin. You have to admire a man who is not only willing to throw himself into a river that clearly is filled with crocs, snakes, lizards, tons of poop from the aforementioned reptiles, and mud, not only daily, but with enthusiasm. He was never able to make ME want to do it, but he managed to make his wife come close.<br /><br />This movie does not fall into my parallel universe of film category - the films for people who just had their teeth drilled, have a migraine, or have no film experience and therefore like quiet mediocrity (currently well populated by Disney films). It's too noisy. Well, Steve is too noisy. He's just so happy all the time, and would cut right through the blasé' teenager (I can hear it now: "that movie was so STUPID") or the Tylenol with codeine. I'd say his enthusiasm is catching, but if it was, I would own a room full of snakes, and that hasn't happened yet. I agreed they're beauties, but I'm still not going to pet them.<br /><br />Plot was indeed predictable. Bad guys were so bad, for a minute there I thought I was shopping at a consumer electronic superstore. But the movie was filled with animals, and Steve and Terri, which is why I watched it. That plot (if you could call it that) was really more of a reason to throw yet another croc in a truck. My expectations were low and stayed that way.<br /><br />I was hoping, though, that there would be a bit of a sequel, where Steve and Terri (having worked on their acting skills) have a movie with a real plot and more animals with fur. I still can't believe we won't see Steve anymore. I hope that Terri and the children continue to be involved in the Australia Zoo and the discovery channel, at least. I can't imagine seeing a crocodile without having some member of the Irwin family telling me forcefully how wonderful that croc is. Crikey!
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
16,933 |
Although some may call it a "Cuban Cinema Paradiso", the movie is closer to a How Green Was My Valley, a memory film mourning for a lost innocence. The film smartly avoids falling into a political trap of taking sides (pro-Castro? anti-Castro?, focusing instead in the human frailty of the characters and the importance of family. Filled with good acting, in particular from Mexican actress Diana Bracho, who plays Keitel's wife. A masterpiece, filled with references to classic movies, from CASABLANCA to Chaplin's CITY LIGHTS. Gael Garcia Bernal plays a small role which is critical for the dramatic payoff of the story. TV director Georg Stanford Brown, in a rare return to acting (remember THE ROOKIES?), plays a homeless bum who acts as Greek chorus, superbly. It is a pity that this movie, originally titled DREAMING OF JULIA, has been released in the States by THINKfilm with the atrocious title of CUBAN BLOOD, which has nothing to do with the movie.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
13,759 |
This movie deserved better It's great fun, has some wonderful jokes and sight gags, some in-stuff for the "Geeks" amongst us (And we know who we are), and the effects are indeed effectual. Watching Paul Reubens fart in the face of an Academy Award winner is worth the price of admission alone. I never read the comics series before I saw the movie, but have since. as good as they are, I still recommend MM the film. (Although having the Flaming Carrot as a character would have been cool, too) Greg Kinnear is, well,...amazing as Captain Amazing, and NO ONE ELSE could be The Shoveller except William H. Macy My favorite line in the film? "We've got a blind date with Destiny. And it looks like she's ordered the lobster." See this film. BUY this film! It's only 5 bucks and some change at your local Wal-Mart. You'll thank me. Really you will. Oh, and Ms. Garafolo is in it. THAT ALONE makes it watch-worthy
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
13,070 |
Here's another film that doesn't really need much of a recommendation. It's a classic comedy, very funny and entertaining and which, of course, ultimately inspired a successful television series which many would say was even better (I enjoy both, personally). <br /><br />For some, it's hard to warm up to Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau as Felix Unger and Oscar Madison when they were were weaned on the TV show starring Tony Randall and Jack Klugman (or perhaps vice versa). But what we've got there in both cases are four good actors who in real life seemed so much like their film counterparts that they managed to make these characterizations their own. It's Neil Simon's humorous material that's key, and where the laughs really originate from.<br /><br />For those who have somehow never heard of THE ODD COUPLE, it's the story of a neurotic and fussy neat-freak (Lemmon) who is thrown out of a 12-year marriage by his long-suffering wife and takes up residence in the Manhattan apartment of his sloppy and totally irresponsible buddy (Matthau). Pitting these two unlikely roommates together within the same four walls makes for some hugely funny predicaments.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
22,052 |
Jafar Panahi's comedy-drama "Offside" portrays some women trying to enter a Tehran sports arena from which women are banned. The official reason: lots of foul language, and the soccer players have their legs showing. But of course, it's really a case of sexism. So, most of the movie consists of mild comic relief as the women try to ask the men serious questions about why women are banned from the stadium, and one woman even comes up with her own scheme to defy the men.<br /><br />As I understand, all of Jafar Panahi's movies (this one included) are banned in Iran. The real tragedy is that the CIA's 1953 overthrow of the prime minister and subsequent backing of the brutal shah gave Ayatollah Khomeini an excuse to use his narrow interpretation of the Koran to establish a chauvinistic society, and that George W. Bush's current policy towards Iran gives Mahmoud Ahmadinejad an excuse to act the cowboy and tighten censorship.<br /><br />Above all, this is a neat look at people coming up with ways to challenge the system. Not a great movie, but worth seeing. Considering that all Jafar Panahi's movies are banned, I wonder how he's able to even make them.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
23,801 |
"Panic in the Streets" is a fairly unknown little movie from director Elia Kazan and was made before his classic masterpieces such as "A Streetcar Named Desire", "On the Waterfront" and "East of Eden". Kazan already won an Oscar in 1947, before this movie, so he was not a completely unknown at the time. Still "Panic in the Streets" is mostly a movie that passed under the radar.<br /><br />The great thing about this movie is the Oscar winning script. It has a very good concept and its excellent tense thriller material with a sniff of crime/film-noir elements. The dialog in this movie is also absolutely magnificent and gives the movie a feel of reality and credibility.<br /><br />The cast is fairly unknown (especially at the time it was released) but it still features Zero Mostel and Jack Palance in one of their first movie roles. Especially Palance impresses as the tough gangster boss, with a very powerful looking face.<br /><br />Still the movie drags a little at some points. The movie starts of very well but after the start the movie slows down and does not always makes the right decisions in terms of pace and the point of view the story is told from.<br /><br />Yet, "Panic in the Streets" remains a perfectly watchable movie, mainly due to its solid script and powerful dialog that makes the movie a believable one to watch. For fans of the thriller genre this is a great movie to watch.<br /><br />8/10
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
12,212 |
Oh Dear, Jerry may be the undisputed king of talkshow but the movies are a whole different ball game, and he's way out of his league. The script for this film is so poor it has to be seen to be believed and its sad to see such vaguely familiar actors as Michael Dudikoff (80's action B'movie king), Michael Jai White (Last seen in the Sci Fi flop Spawn') as well as Surviving the Games' William MacNamara (who is involved in the only half funny situation in the whole film!) stoop this low for employment. If you are a fan of Jerry then stick to his TV show as this is a total waste of and hour and a half. After I had finished sitting through this I managed to catch the last half an hour of Rocky 5 on TV, which looked like a cinematic masterpiece in comparison, I think that says more than enough!!!<br /><br />
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
21,908 |
Wendigo is a pretty good psychological thriller, the film has some great drama between the characters and some good creepy scenes. The acting is good, the characters act like a normal family. The Wendigo effects are good, the Deer Form reminded me a little of the Rabbit in Donnie Darko.<br /><br />The film sees a family going to stay at a house for a while but accidental hit a deer, a group of hunters arrives and one of the hunters named Otis starts to argue with the Dad George, after the car is lifted they drive off to the house. The Son Miles is a little shook up about the Deer but his Parents try to tell him that it's natural for things like that to happen. That night while he's in bed he starts to see weird things in bedroom, the next day they go into to town and Miles meets a man at the counter who gives him a little statue of the Wendigo, when Miles shows Kim the statue and tells her that a man at the counter gave it him the owner says the she only works there. Once returning home George takes his son sledding and while there sledding he's knocked off the board and Miles is chases by the wind, after gaining conciseness they go looking for George, they find him outside the house where he tells them he was shot, in the Hospital Kim tells the Sheriff that Otis may have shot him, the Shrieff goes to Otis's place where he's bashed over the head with a hammer, as Otis drives down the road he finds that the Wendigo is after him.<br /><br />Wendigo is a pretty good thriller that has some chilling moments. Check this out. 10/10
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
9,384 |
I was interested in the title and description of Big Rig while attending the SXSW Film Festival in Austin, TX. However, I was eager to get the heck out of the seats as soon as Big Rig ended. Big Rig is comprised of several "big rig" drivers who set out to deliver goods driven across the United States. The characters are all wonderful people, however the filmmakers never dug deep into the complexity of them as people. Instead, the story meanders as much as the maps in the film are meant to guide, but never do. At most, we get lost. We - the audience - end up going nowhere and, like the direction of the storytelling, end up somewhere but without direction, location, or plot. Why are we here? Where are we? How did we get here? The storytelling is sloppy and the directors' intent on "humanizing" a group of people who they regard as "overlooked" and "invisible" comes across as unconsciously and irritatingly condescending. The problem here here lies in the perspective of the directors instead of the truck drivers. The directors bring their own naive assumptions about truckers forward and then simply edit the film to confirm those assumptions. Overall, the story lacks any tension, the film is entirely too long (should have been a 15 min sketch), the big question of "So what" is never answered, and the entire film is one piece of see-through propaganda that does nothing to further "enlighten" (as the directors claim) the outside world about big riggers.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
7,773 |
Granted, I'm not the connoisseur d'horror my partner is, but a well put together, clever flick is worth the time. My quibbles, in brief:<br /><br />- Dialog often weak and at times unbelievable coming from the given character.<br /><br />- Unconvincing acting.<br /><br />- Storyline never really caught fire.<br /><br />The writers plucked choice bits from half a dozen mainstream films, tossed into a kettle, simmered not nearly enough and tried feeding us poor saps the resulting mess, al'dente.<br /><br />Long and short, while not absolutely terrible, it was definitely not worthy of absorbing one of my NetFlix rentals.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
14,058 |
This is the story of Australian commandos who are captured out of uniform after a raid. Since they are out of uniform, they are, justly, treated as spies. As such, they are tried, convicted, and sentenced to death. The Japanese court-martial, out of admiration for their heroism, authorizes that they be given a warrior's death. Of course, under the code of Bushido, this means that they are to be beheaded. A fate for which, as westerners, they are unprepared.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
1,613 |
Well...now that I know where Rob Zombie stole the title for his "House of 1,000 Corpses" crapfest, I can now rest in peace. Nothing about the somnambulant performances or trite script would raise the dead in "The House of Seven Corpses," but a groovie ghoulie comes up from his plot (ha!) anyway, to kill the bloody amateurs making a low-rent horror flick in his former abode! In Hell House (sorry, I don't remember the actual name of the residence), a bunch of mysterious, unexplained deaths took place long ago; some, like arthritic Lurch stand-in John Carradine (whose small role provides the film's only worthwhile moments), attribute it to the supernatural; bellowing film director John Ireland dismisses it as superstitious hokum. The result comes across like "Satan's School for Girls" (catchy title; made-for-TV production values; intriguing plot) crossed with "Children Shouldn't Play With Dead Things" (low-rent movie about low-rent movie makers who wake the dead); trouble is, it's nowhere near as entertaining or fun. "The House of Seven Corpses" is dead at frame one, and spends the rest of its 89 minutes going through rigor mortis, dragging us along for every aching second...
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
11,674 |
This movie has beautiful scenery. Unfortunately it has no plot. In order to have a plot there must be a conflict. This movie had none. It spent two hours painting a beautiful scene and failed to ever place any activity in it. The picture tries to be artistic but fails to pay attentions to the fundamentals of story telling.<br /><br />If you love Montana scenery and fly fishing you will find some value in this film just don't expect a story. There isn't one.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
1,749 |
First things first: I'm not a conservative. And even though I would never refer to myself as a liberal or a Democrat, I was opposed to the war in Iraq from day one. I think it's safe to say John Cusack and I would probably see eye-to-eye on politics, in fact, I'm sure we'd become drinking buddies if we ever got to talking about how great Adam Curtis' BBC docs are. My point is this: don't discredit this review by thinking I'm not a part of the choir Cusack is preaching to in War, Inc. There's no question WI's politics are tailored to appeal to my demographic, but the problem is, the tailoring is substandard and the the film Cusack co- wrote, produced and stars in, fits worse than a cheap suit.<br /><br />As they say "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." Cusack, his co-writers, director Joshua Seftel and even the actors involved, no doubt had every intention of making an anti- war film every bit as biting and funny as Robert Altman's M*A*S*H, unfortunately for the viewer, they ended up with one as unfunny and unintelligent as Michael Moore's Canadian Bacon.<br /><br />The current state of US politics, foreign policy and the war "effort" is already absurd and, as a result, tragic, pathetic and, regrettably comical -- just watch The Daily Show and see for yourself. The bottom line is: you can't write material as funny as what the Bush administration provides us on a daily basis, so why try to compete?<br /><br />The main problem with WI is that it feels it was put together in a hurry. To get it done, Cusack basically cannibalized Grosse Pointe Blank (one of his best films), changed the setting and crammed in a shopping list of ideas lifted from the collected works of Naomi Klein. Most of these ideas are rammed down your throat in the first twenty minutes of the film and what makes them so obnoxious is none of the jokes or gags or deliberately obvious references to Halliburton, the Neo-Cons and the US occupation of Iraq, are imaginative, clever or funny. The writers are so blinded by their own dogma they felt that by simply referencing these issues the film would be funny and subversive. The trouble is...it isn't. By now these ideas are yesterday's news and unless you've been living under or rock or are so blinded by ignorance, denial and sheer stupidity (read: a right-wing Christian), these jokes insultingly simple.<br /><br />Perhaps WI would work if it was more nuanced, subversive, offensive and fattened up with detailed research/insights into the Occupation. As it is, the jokes and sight gags are all surface and are so bad, with so little finesse, subtlety or satirical wickedness, they did little more than make me groan. Homer Simpson once said "It's funny 'cause it's true" and The Daily Show proves this every night; War, Inc. however proves that just because it's true doesn't make it funny. The bottom line: hyperbole isn't required when it comes to lampooning US/Neo-Conservative politics...it's already a big enough joke.<br /><br />http://eattheblinds.blogspot.com/
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
8,402 |
I don't believe there has ever been a more evil or wicked television program to air in the United States as The 700 Club. They are today's equivalent to the Ku Klux Klan of the 20th century. Their hatred of all that is good and sweet and human and pure is beyond all ability to understand. Their daily constant attacks upon millions and millions of Americans, as well as billions of humans the world over, who don't happen to share their bigoted, cruel, monstrous, and utterly insane view of humanity is beyond anything television has ever seen. The lies they spout and the ridiculous lies they try to pass off as truth, such as the idea of "life after death" or "god" or "sin" or "the devil" is so preposterous that they actually seem mentally ill, so lost are they in their fantasy. Sane people know that religion is a drug and shouldn't let themselves get addicted to that type of fantasy. However, The 700 Club is in a class by itself. They are truly a cult. While I believe in freedom of speech, they way they spread hatred, lies, disinformation, and such fantastic ideas is beyond all limits. I hope that one day the American Psychiatric Association will finally take up the study of those people who delude themselves in this way, people who let themselves sink so deeply into the fantasy land of religion that they no longer have any real concept of reality at all. Treatment for such afflicted individuals is sorely needed in this country, as so many people have completely lost their minds to the fantasy of religion. The 700 Club though, is even more horrible as it rises to the legal definition of 'cult' but due to The 700 Club's vast wealth (conned daily from the millions of Americans locked in their deceitful grip) they are above the law in this country. For those of you who have seen the movie "The Matrix" you know that movie was a metaphor for religion on earth: the evil ones who are at the top of each of the religions who drain the ones they have trapped and cruelly abuse for their own selfish purposes, and those millions who are held in a death sleep and slowly being drained of their life force represent those many people who belong to religions and who have lost all ability to perceive what is really going on around them.<br /><br />In less civil times, the good townsfolk would have run such monsters as those associated with The 700 Club out of town with torches and pitchforks. But in today's world where people have lost all choice in their choices of television that is presented to them, we have no way to rid ourselves of the 700 Club plague. <br /><br />The television ratings system and the "V" chip on TV's should also have a rating called "R" for religion, so that rational people and concerned parents could easily screen such vile intellectual and brutal emotional rape, such as presented by The 700 Club every day all over our country, from themselves and their children.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
2,456 |
College student Alex Gardner (Nicholas Celozzi) is plagued by nightmares of a cellar-dwelling ghoul at Alcatraz. He dreams of cutting off his own hand, spitting up a worm, a ghoul ripping open his chest and being roasted over an open fire. After his friends see him levitating "6 feet" over his bed, a helpful, occult-obsessed teacher (Donna Denton) suggests that they sneak into Alcatraz to face his fears. Of course they go in the middle of the night when no one is around to help when things get out of hand!<br /><br />The group become stranded, Alex's brother Richard (Tom Reilly) becomes possessed and starts killing everyone. Toni Basil of "Mickey" fame shows up as the helpful ghost of Sammy Mitchell, lead singer of the group "Bodybag". She teaches Alex how to levitate out of his body and does a rock music dance intercut with repeat nightmare footage to pad out the running time. All of the victims show up as wisecracking ghosts a la the Griffin Dunne character in AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON. The script is full of plot holes, cheesy dialogue and lame attempts at comedy. Good FX work and cool opening credits (both by Ernest D. Farino) are the only things gaining any merit. Basil and Devo ("Whip It") do some songs on the soundtrack.<br /><br />Score: 2 out of 10
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
19,357 |
This movie is SOOOO funny!!! The acting is WONDERFUL, the Ramones are sexy, the jokes are subtle, and the plot is just what every high schooler dreams of doing to his/her school. I absolutely loved the soundtrack as well as the carefully placed cynicism. If you like monty python, You will love this film. This movie is a tad bit "grease"esk (without all the annoying songs). The songs that are sung are likable; you might even find yourself singing these songs once the movie is through. This musical ranks number two in musicals to me (second next to the blues brothers). But please, do not think of it as a musical per say; seeing as how the songs are so likable, it is hard to tell a carefully choreographed scene is taking place. I think of this movie as more of a comedy with undertones of romance. You will be reminded of what it was like to be a rebellious teenager; needless to say, you will be reminiscing of your old high school days after seeing this film. Highly recommended for both the family (since it is a very youthful but also for adults since there are many jokes that are funnier with age and experience.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
8,468 |
"A trio of treasure hunters is searching the West Indies for a hidden fortune. The lure of gold makes for a rise in tension as the men come closer to the treasure's location. The deep-sea divers hope to track down the gold, but find that greed and hatred leads to murder," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis. "Manfish" is the name of their boat, not a monster. The skeleton who gives muscular Captain John Bromfield (as Brannigan) his half of the treasure map is very good. Old salt Victor Jory (as Professor) provides the other half of the map. First mate Lon Chaney Jr. (as Swede) plays dumb, and sexy Tessa Prendergast (as Alita) guards the rum (not very well, obviously). Serious editing and continuity problems mar the picture, which otherwise might have amounted to something.<br /><br />*** Manfish (2/56) W. Lee Wilder ~ John Bromfield, Victor Jory, Lon Chaney Jr.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
15,273 |
This is an Arnold movie. Now that you know that, I've saved a lot of you the time it would have taken to read this review. If you don't like Arnold, then you wont like this movie. If the case is the other, then you will very probably like it. It's as simple as that.<br /><br />Now, if you're still reading this I expect you like Arnold. Good for you! He is quite good isn't he. The Running Man is a very typical Arnold feature. It's got the usual retro-future we know so well from 80's B-Sci Fi, it's got a bunch of terrible one-liners, lots of violence and explosions, and a good-looking heroine and a happy ending.<br /><br />In this case, the evil opponent is the all-controlling 1984ish government, which uses television as an effective crowd-control with gladiator-type game shows. Arnold, of course, ends up in one of these shows and turns it all up-side-down, with a little help from his two confederates and the good-looking Amber.<br /><br />It's not a big budget movie, but it still managed to create a pretty good atmosphere of the future, with some nice matte paintings and sets to help it. It's hopelessly 80's, but I find that charming. Acting is varying, Arnold doing his usual grunt and shout thing, with a helping of stone-faced one-liners. Heroine Amber is, to put it lightly, a bit stereotypical, and the subtly named Damen Killian is a typical evil TV man.<br /><br />In spite of all it's flaws, the movie shows its message very clearly; television is an opiate of the masses, a good way to control people. It also features some at the time futuristic digital video editing, allowing the bad guys to change faces in a video to fool their audience. This does not seem futuristic at all today, which is a bit alarming.<br /><br />If you've seen Arnold movies before then you know when to watch this one. Enjoy.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
4,910 |
"Darkness" was entertaining to some degree, but it never seemed to have a plot, lacking one more so than other films that have been accused of this detriment; i.e. "Bad Taste". It started off really good, with a man running from something. It was very creepy for these first few minutes, but after a time the film just became entertaining on the level of gore, which was hard to make out at some points due to poor lighting and horrible recording quality anyway. The film was hard to believe because of the juvenile acting, which most of the time, seemed like some friends talking to a video camera, making lines up as they went. That, with a lack of any plot whatsoever, made it look like the film was started without, and ended without, a script of any kind. As said before, gore was this film's only drawing point, which much of the time was hard to make out.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
17,904 |
Like the Arabian Nights this film plays with storytelling conventions in order to make us feel that there's plot, plot and more plot: it opens with what appears to be the frame device of a blind man telling the story of his life, then plunges into a flashback which takes us right up to the blind man's present, where we discover that about half of the story is yet to come. (It must be admitted that the second half doesn't quite live up to the promise of the first.) Like the Arabian Nights it tries to cram as many Middle-Eastern folk motiffs as possible into the one work. A freed genie, a beautiful princess, a flying carpet, fantastic mechanical toys, sea voyages, a crowded marketplace, a wicked vizier, jewels ... I don't know why it all works, but it does. Everything is just so beautiful. The sets are beautiful. June Duprez is beautiful. Rozsa's score is especially beautiful. As usual, it sounds Hungarian; but somehow he manages to convince us that he's being Hungarian in a Persian way.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
21,525 |
An entertaining and substantive film, Non-Stop has drawn deserving comparisons with "Run Lola Run". The film quickly develops into a chase sequence, during which the viewers learn about the three main characters through flashbacks and daydream sequences. The chase serves not as as a fast-paced climax, but as a journey that makes up the majority of the film. During the "run" we see the characters grow and momentarily forget about their dreary lives, about the "macho" roles they've bought into, and eventually forgetting about why they started running in the first place. Much like fighting provided a "clarity" for the characters in "Fight Club," running provides this film's characters with a means to step away from the false values that we all allow society to create for us. Their running serves as way to truly taste life from an unclouded perspective, and all three find some level of clarity and joy in the process.<br /><br />My appreciation and enjoyment only wavered slightly in the ending of the film, where instead of learning from their experience, the characters seem to revert to acting out those false macho roles I thought they had escaped from through their journey.<br /><br />Still, the only true problem with this film is that it wasn't distributed outside Japan sooner.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
19,127 |
I don't understand why the reviews of this film are so universally bad, unless I'm just off my rocker. I found it sick, brilliant, twisted, and psychologically sophisticated. You won't get deeper into the mind of a criminal psychopath in a Hollywood film than this one. It has layers within layers, nuanced acting by Stone,and a plot that will keep you guessing even after it's over. People need to get over the fact that Sharon Stone is 48,and that Michael Douglas isn't in this one. I predict that this film will be a huge hit on DVD once people see it for themselves and stop paying attention to the drivel professional reviewers put out. Give it a shot, you might be glad you did!
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
3,623 |
i love horror films, low budget, 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's.. but how can anyone think this is a very good horror film? let's compare it to titles in a similar vein- haunted house films. the haunting, the changeling, the shining. or for a similar technology based horror film that was FAAAR better, (though still FAR from great) Demon Seed. OK, i'll be fair.. let's compare it to made-for-TV horror films! don't go to sleep.. waaay creepier and better done. salem's lot, the night stalker, night gallery, even don't go in the basement or crowhaven farm were far better. *SPOILERS* first of all, for as good a scene as the bloody shower scene was, you have a scene like the opening scene.. oh boy! the garden hose comes alive to hose down some frisky teenagers! TERRIBLE. also, just what we understand about the house.. it apparently needs to use its video cameras to see what is going on, and it's a very emotional house. not a spirit, or demon, or entity, it's a house thats "possessed", but by what? we are led to believe an inanimate object learned to love suzie/margaret, our protagonist? now that I'm on the topic of suzie.. another scene that totally bothered me, this poor old crazy lady comes, tells you she was your nurse, pours her heart out, falls in the boiling pool, struggling in agony for 45 seconds, and what does margaret do? does she risk her hands being burnt to save this poor elderly woman that came there to warn her's life? no, she stands there and watches! the acting for the most part was better than average for a horror film, but that's where the positives end. for at least a more interesting, and fun horror film about an inanimate object that kills people watch death bed: the bed that eats. i have a feeling the people who rated this so highly either haven't watched it since it originally aired, or remembered it scaring them as children. this film was pretty much merit less.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
9,687 |
I am terribly sorry, I know that Faßbinder still is called one of the greatest directors in post-war Germany and that most of his films are considered "master-pieces", but when I see "Lili Marleen" today, in 2004, I wonder what everyone is up and away about this movie! The acting is simply terrible - Hanna Schygulla is all the smiling like an idiot! -, the changings between Nazi-glamour and battlefields are ridiculous, the whole film looks as if it was made within two days in an attic. Probably it was exactly that way and many people seem to take this for "real art", but for me this movie is simply bad & cheap. Compare this to Viscontis "La Caduta degli Dei" and tell me again that "Lili Marleen" is a good movie...
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
22,033 |
as a sequel,this is not a bad movie.i actually liked it better than the 1st one.i found it more entertaining.it seemed like it was shot documentary style.at first this bothered me,as i thought it just looked too low budget.but it grew on me,and it made the movie seem more authentic.this movie has more dry one liners than the original,which is a good thing,in my opinion.i do think at times they went a bit over the top with some of the scenes and the characters.it almost becomes a parody of itself,which may be the point.this movie at least has some suspense,which the 1st one did not have,in my view.it has some of the same great music from the original,which is great.the acting again was pretty decent for the most part,though like i said,some of it seemed over the top.i also felt that the movie loses a lot of momentum towards the end and there are a few minutes which seem really slow and just don't seem to flow,like the rest of the movie.overall,though,i thought this was a pretty sequel.my rating for "Return to Cabin by the Lake" is 7/10*
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
9,216 |
I'm glad I rented this movie for one reason: its shortcomings made me want to read Allende's book and get the full story. <br /><br />Pros: the movie is beautiful, the period is depicted well and consistently (to the best of my knowledge), and Meryl and Glenn do good jobs.<br /><br />Cons: This is the worst acting job I've ever seen from Jeremy Irons--I kept wondering if something was wrong with his mouth. (And I hate the terribly English way he says "Transito.") Winona Ryder does nothing believable except look young and idealistic. Most of the other performances are OK, but so few things hang together in the character arcs and the relationship development that I was frustrated and angry well before the end. <br /><br />I'm very curious now whether this movie is typical of Bille August's work. I may have to drop another couple of bucks to rent Smilla's Sense of Snow.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
7,289 |
Now, I've seen a lot of bad movies. I like bad movies. Especially bad action movies. I've seen (and enjoyed) all of Jean-Claude Van Damme's movies, including the one where he's his own clone, both of the ones where he plays twins, and all three where he's a cyborg. I actually own the one where he plays a fashion designer and has a fight in a truck full of durians. (Hey, if nothing else, he's got a great ass and you almost always get to see it. With DVD, you can even pause and zoom in!) That's why you can trust me when I say that this movie is so bad, it makes Plan 9 look like Citizen Kane.<br /><br />Everything about Snake Eater is bad. The plot is bad. The script is bad. The sets are bad. The fights are bad. The stunts are bad. The FX are bad. The acting is spectacularly, earth-time-bendingly bad, very probably showcasing the worst performance of every so-called actor in the cast, including Lorenzo Lamas, and that's really saying something. And I'd be willing to bet everyone involved with this movie is lousy in bed, to boot. ESPECIALLY Lorenzo Lamas. <br /><br />It does manage to be unintentionally funny, so it's not a total loss. However, I recommend that you watch this movie only if you are either a congenital idiot or very, very stoned. I was able to sit through it myself because I needed to watch something to distract me from rinsing cat urine out of my laundry.<br /><br />It didn't help much, but it was better than nothing. One point for Ron Palillo's cameo as a gay arsonist.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
21,310 |
I have read over 100 of the Nancy Drew books, and if you are not bright enough to catch on yet, Nancy Drew the movie was of a YOUNGER Nancy Drew, not the 18-year-old that doesn't go to school that all of the books are about. This was when she was sixteen. So naturally, she would of not as been as smart as the one in the book considering she is only in the 10th grade. Other than that, I thought the movie was very cute. It was clean and appropriate for everyone. It was funny at times. I thought Emma Roberts did a great job. She was articulate, in character, and cute. I liked the awkwardness that Nancy and Ned had around each other because they obviously were not old enough to be in a serious relationship like they have in the books. It was a cute, PG movie that I throughly enjoyed because I, unlike most people my age, enjoy movies without sex, drugs, or profanity.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
8,277 |
Nick Cage is Gates, a treasure hunter (oh, excuse me... treasure "protector", whatever that means) who is descended from a long line of treasure hunters. One of his ancestors had been given a clue to the whereabouts of a huge treasure that our Founding Fathers, most if not all Freemasons, had decided to hide because they just didn't want to finance their Independence all that badly.<br /><br />The first clue turns out to be in a long-lost ship hidden in the Arctic. Gates and his crew, consisting of financier Ian (Sean Bean), Movie Dork Riley (Justin Bartha of the immortal "Gigli") and a couple of faceless lackeys, enter the cargo hold of the ship. They immediately spill out tons of gunpowder all over the floor, not that this is significant in any way. At last they find the clue (a skeleton is hovering over it) and it turns out to be a pipe with writing... on it. Sort of. Don't ask me to explain.<br /><br />It's a riddle, and despite the fact that his expedition is clearly miffed at not finding the actual treasure, Gates wanders around yammering to himself about the meaning of the riddle, in this frozen cargo hold, while the crew just stands around slack-jawed. I mean, come on. Someone should have been a little vocal in their disappointment of coming all the way to the freaking Arctic and not finding anything interesting, but they just stand there as Gates enters his own world, solving the riddle.<br /><br />The next clue turns out to be on the Declaration of Independence. Ian decides to steal it. Gates is appalled. Various characters deliver gratingly obvious exposition (get used to it). All this leads to Ian's lackey pulling a gun on Gates, and the gunpowder going off in a big explosion. (oh, that's why they spilled all the gunpowder! Huh!!) Ian and his henchmen make their escape, and Gates and Movie Dork Riley walk nine miles in subzero temperatures to an Inuit village in order to stop them.<br /><br />To stop them, Gates concludes after trying the FBI and Super Archivist Abigail Chase (Diane Kruger), Gates and Riley must steal it themselves. Riley then tells Gates in excruciating detail why they can not steal the Declaration, because it's so protected with metal and laser eyes and high tech security blah blah. Gates then tells Riley that there's an opportunity to steal it from the Preservation Room. Does Riley know what the Preservation Room is, Gates asks? "A place where they make jams and jellies?" I am not kidding; that's the actual line. Bartha doesn't deliver it like a joke, either. So Riley does all this research about the Library of Congress and the Archives and water and sewage, fercryinoutloud, but doesn't know what the Preservation Room is. This pretty much indicates what level this script is on.<br /><br />To make the rest of this short, Gates does in fact make off with the D of I, in a ridiculous break-in that could only happen in a movie. (I also hate the way they depict computer monitor technology in movies -- full of improbable and impractical graphics and fonts.) Abigail Chase ends up tagging along for convenience's sake, and as an obvious "love interest" angle. At one point, the three of them, on the run from the law, discuss all their plans really loudly in a clothing store, surrounded by people.<br /><br />A series of clues and the kidnapping of Gates' father, played by a dyspeptic Jon Voight, leads good guys and bad guys alike to a huge Indiana Jones fun-house located underneath New York City. Odd that the subway builders never found this thing. Gates and Gates Senior lead Ian off on a wild goose chase. Ian believes they're trapped in a cul-de-sac and leaves them there. However, after they're gone, Riley asks how they're going to get out. Gates...<br /><br />... oh boy ...<br /><br />... presses a button and a door opens. No, I'm serious. A button, like they might have on a vacu-flush lavatory in an office building. Good thing he knew where that was. Anyway, after some more knob-twiddling, they find this immense treasure room (remember, this is all underneath Manhattan!) full of all sorts of historyish golden things. Riley gets to deliver a really stupid line. Again. And FBI officer Harvey Keitel forgives them, arrests Sean Bean, and allows the two chemistry-less leads to get married.<br /><br />For any viewer, I think it would be hard to ignore all the exposition, the leaps of logic, and the stereotyped characters for very long. Though some of its exposition involves nice history lessons inserted into conversation at random moments. I'd like more conversations like that in my life.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
16,120 |
The final installment in the action thriller franchise is just that probably the hardest hitting of the three films. It goes further to play the anti-Bond theme. Bourne doesn't like what he is doing and wants to know about his blurry past. Everything about this film hits it on the nail from the cinematography to choreography/stunt work to the script to acting.<br /><br />The film starts out in a flurry as Bourne is running from the Moscow police. The story seems to pick up right where the first film left off. Or does it? The time is a little muddled here, but we get the fact that Bourne is remembering things. A sudden flashback while trying to clean himself up nearly gets him caught, but he makes it and doesn't kill anyone. They aren't his target. From there we get more of the intrigue of his past with a new player, Noah Vosen, who seems to know everything about Bourne and will protect it at all costs. Pamela Landy is back as well as Nicky Parsons who seems to have a past with Bourne as well.<br /><br />The cinematography is in your face following tight on practically everything. The car chase is even more intense if that seems possible than the ones from the first two. And the veteran cast chasing Bourne is superb with a nice part by Albert Finney. It also has slight political overtones in relationship to rendition and other government policies, but that is minor and integrated very well within the plot. All in all this is the best of the trilogy conclusions this year, if not the best action trilogy ever.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
8,113 |
I agree with the majority of the comments I have seen written. I grew up watching Seseme Street before a lot of the people who have written comments were even born. I was born in 1964, so I was 5-yrs-old when Seseme Street was introduced to television. The show taught me my numbers (The Count), spelling (the Muppet), and about life. I liked all the old characters (Big Bird, Oscar, Grover, and Cookie Monster) and don't quite understand why they had to change. I understand that everything has to change in some way, but to make Cookie Monster into a "veggie monster" to promote healthy eating. The show has introduced new characters and monsters since it's inception, why not make a separate "veggie monster" that talks/discusses the benefits of eating a varied diet with Cookie Monster. But, back to my point. I grew up watching the very beginning of Seseme Street, my now 20 yr-old daughter grew up watching SS with me along side her, and we discussed Mr. Hooper dying, although he had died prior to her being born, as well as other topics on the show. I saw the episode as a older child, and still remember how well they portrayed the event, much like real life. And I'm sure it hit the cast extremely hard as all deaths and losses effect families. You saw this on the show and it allowed parents and children to discuss very difficult events. The show has talked about traditional families, adoptive families and combined families. It's one of the few shows that actually discusses these scenarios. I now have a 5 yr-old daughter who really doesn't watch SS. I've tried to watch the show a couple of times, but, it really is not what it used to be. The Elmo 1/2 hr with Mr. Noodle is absolutely ridiculous. Like many people have said, it doesn't teach anything. It's geared for the less than 18 month old (maybe), and isn't even funny. I always prided myself on watching SS as a child, teen, and adult with my own child. Now on my second go-round, I really have a hard time watching SS. The topics that were discussed: death, marriage, non-traditional families, new to neighborhoods, moving away were related to children and adults in a manner easy for 2-99 year old to understand and relate to. Now, there are NO concepts taught, minimal counting, only the occasional mention of the alphabet. It is NOT the same SS, from an original watcher of the show. PLEASE if any producers from the show read these comments, return the show to its foundation. New concepts have never been a problem with SS, they just used to have a better way to incorporate them into the show.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
9,866 |
'SherryBaby' is quite a painful and sordid melodrama set in Jersey, the story of a young mother who is out of jail on probe after a drugs-related conviction and fights to stay clean, to find a place for herself in life and especially to win back the love of her kid daughter who is being taken care by her brother's family. The only reason the film is to be watched is Maggie Gyllenhaal, an actress at the top of her career, who fits very well in the role and carries the whole film on her shoulders. This is not enough however, as the story line is too simplistic and expected, and the emotional emphasis is put on the wrong place - I kept asking myself all over the picture whether I am supposed to be sorry about the ex and maybe future drug addicted mother as the director and script-writer wanted, or about the innocent kid who is in the middle. Even Maggie Gyllenhaal's acting could not convince me that I should not care more about the kid.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
12,101 |
I love Dracula but this movie was a complete disappointment! I remember Lee from other Dracula films from when i was younger, and i thought he was great, but this movie was really bad. I don't know if it was my youth that fooled me into believing Lee was the ultimate Dracula, with style, looks, attraction and the evil underneath that. Or maybe it was just this film that disappointed me. <br /><br />But can you imagine Dracula with an snobbish English accent and the body language to go along with it? Do you like when a plot contains unrealistic choices by the characters and is boring and lacks any kind of tension..? Then this is a movie for you! <br /><br />Otherwise - don't see it! I only gave it a 2 because somehow i managed to stay awake during the whole movie.<br /><br />Sorry but if you liked this movie then you must have been sleep deprived and home alone in a dark room with lots of unwatched space behind you. Maybe alone in your parents house or in a strangers home. Cause not even the characters in this flick seemed afraid, and i think that sums up the whole thing!<br /><br />Or maybe you like this film because of it's place in Dracula cinema history, perhaps being fascinated by how the Dracula story has evolved from Nosferatu to what it is today. Cause as movie it isn't that appealing, it doesn't pull you in to the suggestive mystery that for me make the Vampyre myth so fascinating. <br /><br />And furthermore it has so much of that tacky 70ies feel about it. The scenery looks like cheap Theatre. And i don't say that rejecting everything made in the 70ies. Cause i can love old film as well as new.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
23,857 |
This is a film.., not porn.<br /><br />This is a wonderful film!!! Full of tender moments and memories!! A beautiful piece of work!!! Excellent!!! For intelligent, viewers only!!!<br /><br />If you are a film lover. A romantic. A person who has loved deeply, this is your film!!!!<br /><br />It has a beautiful surreal quality. Fine acting and directing. Watching this film made me remember my first love.<br /><br />Thi is a film for those who want to reflect on life, love and the meaning of loss.<br /><br />Highly recommended for all film lovers.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
11,488 |
Yeah, Madsen's character - whilst talking to the woman from the TV station - is right: the LAPD IS a corrupt, violent and racist police. And this movie changes nothing about it. Okay, here are the good cops, the moral cops, even a black one, whow, a Christian, a martyr. But this is a fairy tale, admit it. Reality is not like that. And most important for the action fans: The shoot out is boring. It's just shooting and shooting and shooting. Nothing more. Play Counter Strike, then you will at least have something to do. The only moral of this film is: The LAPD is good now. No more bad cops in it. If you like uncritical, euphemistic commercials for police and military service, watch this movie. It's the longest commercial I've ever seen. (2 Points for camera and editing).
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
13,342 |
A great gangster film.Sam Mendes has directed this beautiful movie showing another father-son camaraderie.Brilliant star-cast leading with Tom Hanks(Michael Sullivan) has done a terrific job.Great acting by him again.He is an acting legend.Great acting too from Paul Newman,Jude Law and Daniel Craig.Casting is just too good.The plot is quite good.You will enjoy the movie.A great portrayal of the gangster of the 1930's.Set in the 1930's,this will surely stand out as the zenith of all gangster movies of that era.Soundtrack is pretty good an apt to the movie.A great flick in totality showing what a father does to protect his son.Way underrated for my liking.Deserved a fully deserved 10.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
20,251 |
That Certain Thing is the story of a gold digger (Viola Dana) from a tenement house. Her mother uses her to take care of her two brothers, but they are a loving family. Although Dana's character has the opportunity to marry a streetcar conductor, she refuses and holds out for a millionaire. Everyone makes fun of her for her fantasy, but are surprised when one day she really does meet a millionaire, son of the owner of the popular ABC restaurant chain. The two marry hastily, but the girl's dreams of wealth are shattered when the rich father disowns his son for marrying a gold digger. However, she truly loves her new husband and the two are unexpectedly successful at making it on their own.<br /><br />A rare glimpse of movie star Viola Dana, this film is a lot of fun. Dana's role is accessible, natural, and entertaining. She displays a knack for comedy as well as an ability to do drama.<br /><br />The mechanics of the film are a lot of fun too. The camera displays sophisticated late silent techniques like mobility. The title cards are also incredibly clever.<br /><br />If you like films like My Best Girl, It, or The Patsy, you will enjoy this film.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
22,786 |
The Lady From Shanghai is weird even by the standards of its eminent director, Orson Welles, whose last Hollywood film this was for many a moon. It's a kind of post-modern film noir made during the period when more conventional films of this type were quite popular, and it concerns a happy go lucky Irish sailor (played by Welles) who falls in with a mysterious lady (Rita Hayworth, who was married to Welles at the time), and her crippled, and probably impotent husband, played with a brainy, malevolent gusto by Everett Sloan. A long sea voyage follows, with Welles in tow as bodyguard, and the plot thickens when Sloan's law partner (Glenn Anders) turns up and starts making trouble by giving odd speeches about suicide and other morbid topics that suggest that the man is on the verge of mental breakdown. A murder plot ensues, and all sorts of calamities follow for Welles and his employers, and at this point the story, fuzzy and told at a leisurely pace thus far, goes off the deep end, and the last part of the film consists of brilliant directorial set-pieces that seem to have been thrown in to give the movie some of the drive and urgency its story does not, by itself, possess, and the result is a very watchable and often pleasing at all times incomprehensible mess.<br /><br />It's hard to know what Welles was trying to do with this film aside from maybe resurrect his career in Hollywood by making a vehicle for his wife. But self-destruction intervenes, as it often does with Welles, and Miss Hayworth has never looked less fetching. That she is also cast as a femme fatale seems peculiar, as aside from her beauty her most appealing trait as a screen personality was lovableness, a quality she does not possess in this picture. The director himself is strangely unappealing and hammy at O'Hara, the (presumably) easygoing sailor, since Welles, for all his many gifts, was not known as an easy man to work with. This is a role that twenty or thirty years later Sean Connery or Robert Shaw might have been able to breath life into. Welles does not. The most interesting performance in the movie is Glenn Anders' as Grisby, Sloan's loony, treacherous law partner. Anders works wonders with the part, and is photographed to look bizarre, while his scenes end on odd, sour notes, and are often choppily edited; but for all this he manages to make Grisby's derangement palpable and disturbing, and anticipates, in a genteel way, the more flamboyant Method actors of the fifties, such as Timothy Carey.<br /><br />There is a question that nags me about this film: what was Welles trying to say? He was a highly talented and intelligent man, and tended to make statements in his movies, which, whether one agrees with his world view or not, were brilliantly put forth. I think I have an answer, or a partial one: Welles was summing up his movie career. He had reached the end of his rope in the Hollywood studio system he despised, and he knew it. The Lady From Shanghai isn't exactly a nose-thumbing at the studio moguls of the day, but I suspect that it is, in its portrait of amoral, rival big shot lawyers (read: producers) expressing Welles' opinion of the power brokers of Hollywood. That he presented himself as a rootless sailor is telling. Welles himself was certainly an inveterate traveler, and he rarely lived in one place for long. He was hired by a studio to provide it with a big, prestigious film (Citizen Kane), which caused a firestorm of controversy from which he never fully recovered. This may be the issue that dares not speak its name in this film, which is to say Welles' personal failure in not getting over the shock of his newness in the movie colony, and his inability to deliver the goods, as promised. The mere fact of him turning up in Hollywood, like his mere presence in the film, could not forestall disasters well beyond his control. That he presented himself in the movie as an amiable, naive outsider shows a lack of self-knowledge on Welles' part. He was much more of an inside player than he let on, and I imagine that he despised his knowledge of the worldlier aspects of life, and himself for knowing so much.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
21,469 |
Cracking good yarn with all the actors giving great value. Michael Curtiz at his best. Lots of nice twists and turns and probably the best of the Philo Vance series. William Powell looks wonderfully relaxed and at his debonair best. A forerunner to the Thin Man series. Recommend to everyone. Did you figure it all out?
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
2,859 |
If movies like Ghoulies rip off Gremlins, then Hobgoblins sinks to the new low of ripping off garbage like Ghoulies. These barely-animated furbies have some kind of scheme to fulfill fantasies (which involve basically groteque characters' sex dreams - oh joy), but what that has to do with anything is anybody's guess, except to let the director indulge his kinky penchant for erotica. They show this down in the 8th circle of Hell, one suspects. There's no real plot - just "goblins - kill!" and feeble attempts at humor and a mild attempt to arouse the viewing audience.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
3,538 |
This is perhaps the worst attempt at a Zombie film I have ever had the misfortune to see. Terrible, terrible, terrible. Any review found on this site is obviously the work of either the filmmaker, the filmmakers family, or a friend of the filmmaker. How does this film suck? Let us count the ways...<br /><br />The plot? Incoherent. Dialogue? Atrocious. I will not slam the effects/gore, as I understand that this is low budget. But was there even one zombie that was not obese? C'mon! And for a film set in Rhode Island, why did that truck sport a Massachusetts plate? Continuity, find some.<br /><br />The Girl dancing while the soldier "Stands at attention". Please, don't put your ex-girlfriend or buddy's sister in your movie naked. This was an ugly movie filled with ugly people, and has no business even mentioning Romero on the cover. Next time you decide to make a movie, don't.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
3,595 |
Spanish horror icon Paul Naschy stars in this, one of his weakest werewolf films... but bear with me for a moment. Most people will be familiar with it under its most common television title, THE FURY OF THE WOLF MAN, and there have been many home video versions of it over the years. If you want to be serious about giving it a fair shot though, the most workable edition I've seen of it goes by the title THE WOLF MAN NEVER SLEEPS, and it's an unedited and complete European version which restores a couple of disturbing scenes and contains the original nude shots which are missing from FURY's print. It is also letterboxed.<br /><br />Naschy plays Waldemar Daninsky, returning home from a trip to Tibet only to find out that he's contracted a werewolf curse and that his wife has been having an affair. He takes care of her and her lover while in animal form, but then becomes a guinea pig for a sexy woman doctor and her female assistant. Apparently, the doc attempts to "tame" the werewolf, and there is a very strange sado-masochistic love scene between her and the hairy and fanged Daninsky who is under her trance, at least in the original version. Ultimately we get two werewolves for the price of one as Daninsky battles a she-wolf! <br /><br />The biggest problem with the movie is that the director (according to Naschy's claims) was often drunk, and the results are indeed rather incoherent. When watching THE WOLF MAN NEVER SLEEPS copy, it's not quite as difficult to make out what's going on, though the editing remains atrocious in spots. Worst of all is occasional non-matching footage of Naschy's ravenous werewolf swiped straight from another previous film (LA MARC DEL HOMBRE LOBO, aka "FRANKENSTEIN'S BLOODY TERROR") and mixed into this one without any sensible reason! The wolf's clothing changes from black shirt to white and back again, as does his demeanor; one moment the wolf is walking around lethargically in a hypnotic trance from FURY, next he is growling and running around savagely from BLOODY TERROR. Really bizarre.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
20,126 |
This movie was a fantastic comedy. It had a lot of comedians star in it like Akshay Kumar,Rajpal Yadav,Paresh Raval and John Abraham.<br /><br />Rimi Sen was good at playing Akshay Kumars wife and so were all the air hostesses. Mr Hot as Mac (Akshay Kumar) and Mr cool as Sam (John Abraham) are two fashion photographers who like the same girl Maggie (Neha Dupia). When John Abraham cheats on his work he becomes Akshay Kumars senior and Akshay Kumar gets really jealous because his flat has to be given to John Abraham and Neha Dupia starts liking John more. Akshay Kumar wants to be better than John Abraham so he finds a flat and he is going out with three different girls (Nitu Chandra,Nargis Bagheri,Daisy Boppana).
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
16,500 |
I'm a fan of Crash and Blade Runner and this movie explores some of those highway death and 80s film noir themes that I like to see, so I enjoyed it.<br /><br />In general though, the essential stupidity of the film noir protagonist is not pulled off well by the female lead and her hero is nearly a neanderthal, hence the kitch warning.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
6,734 |
I love sharks. And mutants. And explosions. Theoretically, with those parameters in mind, HAMMERHEAD: Shark Frenzy should have been the best movie ever.<br /><br />It is not.<br /><br />The monster looks like a villain from Power Rangers, and has approximately the same range of rubbery movement. This might be okay if the makers weren't quite as proud of its design as they seem to be. That is to say, for a guy in a big rubber suit in an action/scifi/horror flick that could benefit from some mystery, the shark gets a lot of screen time. Granted, it is usually shaky and erratic. I guess you're supposed to assume that it's so scary that even the camera guy freaks out.<br /><br />The camera goes to a person about to get eaten, the camera goes to the shark. The camera goes back to the person about to get eaten, only now they are screaming and armless. And so on.<br /><br />The costuming is bad, the acting is poor, and the special effects are sub-par, but the writing is by far the worst. Things happen completely randomly so that more people can be eaten, or so something can explode. Because LET ME TELL YOU, the people who made this movie definitely went in with a more explosions = more better mindset. Characters shoot cars and there is a massive explosion. They shoot helicopters, there is a massive explosion. Barrels, rocks, trees, WHATEVER, they all explode, so much so that the freaking shark even explodes at the end.<br /><br />Speaking of which, I don't care how crazy a person is, I find it hard to believe that anyone would think trying to make a giant half-person half-shark have sex with a woman in order to make freaky shark people babies is a good idea. That is, UNLESS that person is the mad scientist in this movie.<br /><br />The bad thing is, the movie is so random (and at times, boring) that even its badness is not really enough to hold a person's prolonged interest. It might be a good one to MST3K with your friends, but past that, if you happen to catch this bad boy on, do yourself a favor and change the channel.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
11,667 |
CQ could have been good, campy fun. But it commits the only unforgivable sin: it is b-o-r-i-n-g! The pace is deadly slow and the plot is fairly confused and so artificial that it's next to impossible to care where it's going. The story would have been acceptable in a creative writing class from a thoughtful and sensitive eighth grader but this video should have carried a warning label: "CAUTION: Student film. Fit for viewing only by relatives of the film maker."
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
16,218 |
A brutally depressing script and some fine low-key performances by Peter Strauss and Pamela Reed and some good location shooting in Ohio power this fine TV movie about hard times in the rustbelt. As the mills close and the union jobs disappear, the blue-collar workers are threatened by everyone: management, owners, their wives and children. Strauss is completely believable in his role, and Pamela Reed is, as always, wonderful. See if you can recognize John Goodman before he put on weight.<br /><br />The heavy metal score -- was someone making a pun? -- is, at times, obtrusively annoying, but the cinematography by Frank Stanley is knockout, particularly the mill scenes.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
6,556 |
Average viewers looking for any sense of internal coherence in a film should probably give this one a pass. It generates the same feeling as staring at a curious array of individual images that seem to have some relationship one to another, but never coalesce into a totality.<br /><br />While this isolative approach to creating a kind of cinematic montage may appeal to a few students or critics steeped in the inside language of contemporary filmmaking, it is flatly irritating and condescending to us commoners who just fell off the haywagon. An overt avoidance of accessibility may be the intentional hallmark of auteurs like Kar-wai Wong and Tarantino, but to me it comes across as Andy Warhol warmed over. The only redeeming characteristic I find is in the production values, and them there just ain't going to cut it all by themselfs.<br /><br />This is one of those productions in which you watch and listen and wait anxiously and in vain for some clever development of an idea or thought to sustain all the remarkable and beautiful individual scenes. Sorry. The calligraphic credits unexpectedly begin to roll just as your interest begins to stir. I get the same big yawn and let-down reading what I guess are very knowledgeable and thorough comments about this film that never lead to anything truly comprehensible. Ideas and images without some external context are not my idea of fun.<br /><br />Call me a philistine roaming the streets of Hong Kong looking for a bowl of chop suey.<br /><br />
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
8,213 |
Style but no substance. Not as funny as it should be. Not as deep as it wants to be.<br /><br />This is another in the genre of films about the difficulties of filmmaking. A young filmaker is hired to finish a campy 60s sci-fi movie called Codename:Dragonfly. Think Barbarella, or Danger Diabolique.<br /><br />But Jeremy Davies is an angst-ridden filmmaker. He's no hack he's an artist. The movie he wants to make is a diary of his life. Hardly original.<br /><br />All the characters outside of Jeremy Davies filmmaker are as thin as rice-paper. Characters that might be interesting, such as his father, his doppelganger, or Jason Schwarzmann as a hack director are introduced and then shown the door without adding a thing.<br /><br />This movie is full of eye candy but when compared to other films about filmmakers such as Stardust Memories or 8 1/2 it pales in comparison. Those movies are funny, provocative with well-developed characters. Those movies have lessons that apply outside<br /><br />The movie wants to be comic and campy but its just derivative and there is not one funny scene. The filmmakers describe it as a send-up but what's the satirical target? The actors say it's an homage but I think I would rather a full-length version of Codename:Dragonfly.<br /><br />Coppola is clearly amused by the setting as is evident by the visual humor of the sci-fi movie within a movie. But he fails to share why we should be amused.<br /><br />Outside of the sci-fi movie its just a mess. There are continuity errors, the filmmaker chooses a sci-fi weapon after its already been chosen. What?<br /><br />Just because he has a scene were the filmmaker is confronted by the critics complaining about the lack of story, lack of a point, a scene where he admits empty cleverness does not mean that he has addressed those criticisms.<br /><br />I guess if your Roman Coppola you can get away with making a movie about an angst-ridden idealistic filmmaker who doesn't know what he wants to say and so ends up saying nothing. In that sense it may be considered autobiograhical.<br /><br />I would watch it at Circuit City on a wall full of TVs if I had a choice. Watch the 15-minute Codename:Dragonfly movies included on the DVD as extras and then send it back.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
4,909 |
Title: Zombie 3 (1988) <br /><br />Directors: Mostly Lucio Fulci, but also Claudio Fragasso and Bruno Mattei <br /><br />Cast: Ottaviano DellAcqua, Massimo Vani, Beatrice Ring, Deran Serafin <br /><br />Review: <br /><br />To review this flick and get some good background of it, I gotta start by the beginning. And the beginning of this is really George Romeros Dawn of the Dead. When Dawn came out in 79, Lucio Fulci decided to make an indirect sequel to it and call it Zombie 2. That film is the one we know as plain ole Zombie. You know the one in which the zombie fights with the shark! OK so, after that flick (named Zombie 2 in Italy) came out and made a huge chunk of cash, the Italians decided, heck. Lets make some more zombie flicks! These things are raking in the dough! So Zombie 3 was born. Confused yet? The story on this one is really just a rehash of stories we've seen in a lot of American zombie flicks that we have seen before this one, the best comparison that comes to mind is Return of the Living Dead. Lets see...there's the government making experiments with a certain toxic gas that will turn people into zombies. Canister gets released into the general population and shebang! We get loads of zombies yearning for human flesh. A bunch of people start running away from the zombies and end up in an old abandoned hotel. They gotta fight the zombies to survive.<br /><br />There was a lot of trouble during the filming of this movie. First and foremost, Lucio Fulci the beloved godfather of gore from Italy was sick. So he couldn't really finish this film the way that he wanted to. The film was then handed down to two lesser directors Bruno Mattei (Hell of the Living Dead) and Claudio Fragasso (Zombie 4). They did their best to spice up a film that was already not so good. You see Fulci himself didn't really have his heart and soul on this flick. He was disenchanted with it. He gave the flick over to the producers and basically said: "Do whatever the hell you want with it!" And god love them, they did.<br /><br />And that is why ladies and gents we have such a crappy zombie flick with the great Fulci credited as its "director". The main problem in my opinion is that its just such a pointless bore! There's no substance to it whatsoever! After the first few minutes in which some terrorists steal the toxic gas and accidentally release it, the rest of the flick is just a bunch of empty soulless characters with no personality whatsoever running from the zombies. Now in some cases this can prove to be fun, if #1 the zombie make up and zombie action is actually good and fun and #2 there's a lot of gore and guts involved.<br /><br />Here we get neither! Well there's some inspired moments in there, like for example when some eagles get infected by the gas and they start attacking people. That was cool. There's also a scene involving a flying zombie head (wich by the way defies all logic and explanation) and a scene with zombies coming out of the pool of the abandoned hotel and munching off a poor girls legs. But aside from that...the rest of the flick just falls flat on its ass.<br /><br />Endless upon endless scenes that don't do jack to move the already non existent plot along. That was my main gripe with this flick. The sets look unfinished and the art direction is practically non-existent. I hate it when everything looks so damn unfinished! I like my b-movies, but this one just really went even below that! Its closer to a z-level flick, if you ask me.<br /><br />The zombie make up? Pure crap. The zombies are all Asian actors (the movie was filmed in the Philippines) so you get a bunch of Asian looking zombies. But thats not a big problem since they movie was set in the phillipine islands anyway. Its the look of the zombies that really sucks! They all died with the same clothes on for some reason. And what passes for zombie make up here is a bunch of black make up (more like smudges) on their faces. One or two zombies had slightly more complex make up, but it still wasn't good enough to impress. Its just a bunch of goo pointlessly splattered on the actors faces. So not only is this flick slowly paced but the zombies look like crap. These are supposed to be dead folks! Anyhows, for those expecting the usual coolness in a Fulci flick don't come expecting it here cause this is mostly somebody else's flick. And those two involved (Mattei and Fragasso) didn't really put there heart and souls into it. In fact, when you see the extras on the DVD you will see that when Fragasso is asked about his recollections and his feelings on this here flick, he doesn't even take it to seriously. You can tell he is ashamed of it and in many occasions he says they "just had a job to do and they did it". And that my friends, is the last nail on this flick. There's no love, and no heart put into making this film. Therefore you get a half assed, crappy zombie flick.<br /><br />Only for completest or people who want to have or see every zombie flick ever made. Everybody else, don't even bother! Rating: 1 out of 5
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
1,143 |
The two things are are good about this film are it's two unknown celebrities.<br /><br />First, Daphne Zuniga, in her first appearance in a film, young and supple, with looks that still encompass her body today, steals the very beginning, which is all she is in, and that is that. She is obviously just starting out because her acting improved with her next projects.<br /><br />Second, the score by then known composer Christopher(Chris) Young is what keeps this stinker from getting a one star...yeah, I know one star more is not much, but in this movie's case, it is a lot.<br /><br />The rest is just stupid senseless horror of a couple a college students who try to clean out a dorm that is due for being torn down, getting offed one by one by an unsuspecting killer, blah, blah, blah...we all know where this is going.<br /><br />Watch the first eighteen minutes with Daphne Zuniga, then turn it off.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
12,276 |
This 1973 TV remake of the Billy Wilder classic is inferior to the original. Surprise!<br /><br />First, the good things. Lee J. Cobb makes a terrific Barton Keyes. He's not as good as Edward G. Robinson, of course, but he's the only reason to watch this. This remake's only improvement over the original is that it cuts down the role of Lola Dietrichson, the step-daughter of the femme fatale, Phyllis Dietrichson.<br /><br />And that's it for the good things.<br /><br />The bad things are many. The director records everything in an indifferent manner: if you watched the film with the sound muted you'd hardly get the impression that anything especially interesting was happening. Because of modern bad taste, the film must be in color instead of black and white. Because of 1970s bad taste, all the sets are distractingly ugly. Walter Neff's expensive apartment, in particular, is hideous.<br /><br />The modern setting hurts in a lot of small ways. Train trips were a bit more unusual in the 70s than in the 40s, so Mr. Dietrichson's decision to take a train seems more of a contrivance. Men stopped wearing hats, which prevents Walter from covering up his brown hair while posing as the white-haired Mr. Dietrichson. Women in mourning stopped wearing veils, which robs Samantha Eggar of a prop Barbara Stanwyck made splendid use of in a key scene. (Oddly, Lola still has the line where she reveals that her stepmother was trying on a black hat and veil before she had need of them.)<br /><br />Stephen Bochco keeps much of the Billy Wilder-Raymond Chandler script the same. But he makes a lot of tiny, inexplicable changes to the dialogue which leave the script slightly flabby where once it was lean and muscular. Outrageously, the famous motorcycle-cop banter is gone, but look closely and you'll see what looks like a post-production cut where those lines should have been. Bochco may not be to blame.<br /><br />Richard Crenna is passable as Walter Neff. What might have made this version tolerable is a really splendid Phyllis Dietrichson. Instead we get Samantha Eggar, who comes off like a standard-issue villainess from "Barnaby Jones." But who can blame Eggar? With a director who barely seems interested in what's happening in front of the camera, how could Barbara Stanwyck herself have come off well?
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
1,773 |
I actually paid to see this movie in the theater.<br /><br />It would get a 1-rating, but the fight scenes between the robots are okay, and there's a surprise.<br /><br />I realize that some movies have larger budgets than others. I don't have a problem with that. Unfortunately, science fiction movies probably suffer the most on a small budget for obvious reasons. But, one way this movie fails is that just about every piece of each set looked cheesy and cheap. I mean, couldn't they even make it "look" good?<br /><br />The other major reason this movie is horrible is the acting If I watched the movie now and knew what to expect, I might just enjoy it for the cheese-factor, but at the time, I was expecting a good movie and had no clue as to how horrible it would actually end up being.<br /><br />Thankfully, the experience was over in only 85 minutes.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
22,616 |
Taking over roles that Jack Albertson and Sam Levene played on Broadway, Walter Matthau and George Burns play a couple of old time vaudeville comics, a team in the tradition of Joe Smith and Charles Dale who seem to have a differing outlook on life.<br /><br />Walter Matthau can't stop working, the man has never learned to relax, take some time and smell the roses. He's a crotchety old cuss whose best days are behind him and his nephew and agent Richard Benjamin is finding less and less work for him. <br /><br />What hurt him badly was that some 15 years earlier his partner George Burns decided to retire and spend some time with his family. A workaholic like Matthau can't comprehend it and take Burns's decision personally.<br /><br />Benjamin hits on a brain storm, reunite the guys and do it on a national television special. What happens here is pretty hilarious.<br /><br />The Sunshine Boys is also a sad, bittersweet story as well about old age. Matthau is on screen for most of the film, but it's Burns who got the kudos in the form of an Oscar at the ripe old age of 79.<br /><br />Burns brought a bit of the personal into this film as well. As we all know he was the straight man of the wonderful comedy team of Burns&Allen who the Monty Python troop borrowed a lot from. In 1958 due to health reasons, Gracie Allen retired and George kept going right up to the age of 100. Or at least pretty close to as an active performer.<br /><br />The Sunshine Boys is based on the team of Smith&Dale however and if you like The Sunshine Boys I strongly recommend you see Two Tickets to Broadway for a look at a pair of guys who were entertaining the American public at the turn of the last century. The doctor sketch that Matthau and Burns do is directly from their material.<br /><br />And I do think you will like The Sunshine Boys.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
12,040 |
They changed the title of this atrocity to An Unexpected Love. The only thing worse is the film itself. The script contains dialogue that would be laughed out of a third grade play recital. At one point when the wife leaves the husband, a bad cover of All by Myself plays over the soundtrack! No kidding. The actors try but are defeated by the inept, unbelievably terrible script. Direction is staggeringly bad. No wonder Lifetime has such a bad reputation. How do things like this get made. I'm turning off the television before it's over!
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
396 |
i don't know what they were thinking.by they,i mean anybody even remotely connected to this disaster.i've seen so bad movies,i've seen so really bad movies,and then there's this.but i will say one thing.whoever wrote the script has manged to put what could possibly the most inane dialogue over written,onto the screen.there is nothing good about this movie,either from a technical standpoint or any other standpoint.whoever allowed it to be made and then released should have been fired immediately.there are a few fairly well known names in this movie.actually i hesitate to use the word movie.it's more like a collection of random scenes that have no relation to another and make less than 0 sense.anyway,i fail to see why anyone with any dignity would appear in this.i got it really cheap,and i still got ripped of.even if i had gotten this movie for free,i would still have been ripped off.this is an absoluter 0/10
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
5,873 |
Yes, CHUNKY, this is the nick-name that Donna Reeds' romantic lead played by Tom Drake tags her with! So lets get this clear right away. From her first ingénue role in THE GET-AWAY (1941) too her last, DALLAS (1984-1985) Ms. Reed could NEVER be described as CHUNKY. Not this attractive and slim actress. Whose roles at M.G.M. seldom lived up to her talents.<br /><br />Ms. Reed is supported by a cast of competent character actors, who unfortunately must flounder through this alleged 'screw-ball' comedy. Clearly M.G.M. was out of their depth making this type of film. A type better produced over at COLUMBIA, PARAMOUNT, RKO and even UNIVERSAL. Neither the 'touch' of Ernst Lubitsch nor the wit of Preston Sturges could save this film. A rather conventional romantic comedy that had all the markings of a pre-war (WWII) effort.<br /><br />If Irving Thalberg had still been alive the screen-play would have either gone through a significant rewrite or never seen the light of day. It did fit into Louis B. Mayer's 'safe-zone' of none challenging family entertainment. A form that could not stand up to the post-war challenges of the 'DeHavilland Decision', loss of their theater chains, television and would contribute to M.G.M.s decline. Fortunetly for Donna Reed her best days are ahead of her culminating in FROM HERE TO ETERNITY (1953) and her Oscar win as Best Supporting Actress.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
23,272 |
I've seen this movie about 6 times now. And each time I view it, I'm more impressed by the story and the acting. Its like watching a train wreck being set in motion. Its subtle in its approach, but very effective in reaching its goal. <br /><br />Spoilers-> At the center of the story is a very nice dichotomy. On the one hand we have Deputy major, Eddy Calhoun (Cusack) unknowingly tearing at the old boys network that forms the hart of major of New York's Administration and on the other hand we have the mob boss Zappati who's deliberately trying to maintain the status quo through all means necessary. This situation nicely culminates in the end when Zappati orders Alselmo to make it easy on himself by killing himself and Calhoun ordering Pappas to do the same, politically speaking.<br /><br />The movie also contains some really great one-liners such as (a personal weakness of mine): - You don't sum up a man's life in one moment - The only thing new in this world is the history you don't know<br /><br />All in all, a great movie that deserves a much higher rating.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
19,171 |
This early sci-fi masterwork by Herbert George Wells with music by Arthur Bliss is a powerful piece of film-making. Adapted from Wells' somewhat different work by the author, it presents a look at the human future with the subject of periods of war as versus periods of 'peace'. The structure is that after a contrasted-pair of episodes of normalcy and gathering clouds of war, the script allows the war to happen. Two families, the Cabells and the Passworthys disagree about what may happen; Passworthy takes a hopeful view of civilization's "automatic" progress; Cabell is the thinker, the doubter. Their city Everytown--obviously London-- becomes wrecked by a war featuring tanks, a magnificent war march by Bliss, and the end of civilization. The second portion finds people living in the wreckage of what had been the city under a "Boss", played with bravura by Ralph Richardson, whose woman, lovely Margaretta Scott, is as fascinating a dreamer as he is a concrete-bound dictator type. He is trying to rebuild old WWI airplanes so he can attack a nearby hill tribe to complete his petty kingdom; a young scientist complains about having his work continually interrupted demands for planes--etc.--everlastingly; this is Wells' comment on war versus progress. The survivors are subject to a plague called "The Wandering Sickness" also. Enter a modern flying machine piloted by the Cabell of the first section of the film, now part of Wings Over the World, an International Scientists' Coalition, who are planning to end warfare forever. This flight-suited modernist has fascinating conversations with the Boss and his woman, their attraction being evident; then Boss sends up his aircraft against them, the Scientists come with huge numbers of planes and drop the "Gas of Peace" onto the ruins of Everytown. Only the Boss dies, fighting too hard against the pacifying. The film then shows ore being mined and by slow steps being made into the girders of a magnificent new futuristic city of towers. In section three, a future Cabell argues with a future Passworthy over the morality of human science. Passworthy wonders if they have a right to send men to the Moon; Cabell champions man's right to advancement and the need to expand his horizons. The son of Passworthy and Cabell's daughter, are the astronauts being sent. Theotocopulos, a religious-minded Luddite, makes a fiery speech on a huge screen in the city's Forum and leads an attack on the 'space gun' that is to fire the new rocket free of Earth's gravity. The climax of the plot is the firing of the space gun successfully; the denouement and ending is a speech by Cabell praising worth and science that is universally considered to be the most profound defense of the mind ever penned. "It is all the universe--or nothing!" Cabell tells Passworthy. "Which shall it be?" As Cabell, Raymond Massey gives perhaps his greatest screen performance; he is thoughtful, compassionate, and reasonable, a true scientist. As the rabble-rouser who wants to end the Age of Science, Cedric Hardwicke is perfect and powerful. Edward Chapman playing Passworthy does admirably impersonating the voice of convention and fear. The storyline is logical, frequently beautiful and always interesting. Given the near-extinction of mankind, the idea of a civilization run by rebuilder scientists is rendered plausible and credible to the viewer. This is a triumph for the director, William Cameron Menzies, for Bliss and for all concerned. Listen to the dialogue with someone you love; within its constructed limits, this is a thinking man's drama debating two possible human futures--progress or its reactionary opposite.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
16,793 |
Ya know when one looks at this Brian DePalma film today, I'm sure there has been allot of criticism about how dated it is. Also, about the violence. When I looked at this film on VHS when I was 20, I thought it was ulta-violent and gritty as well. But I didn't get 'it'.<br /><br />A few decades go by and man, how I know how much I didn't get in this film!! This is a remake of an excellent film which was done back in the 30's/40's. How can you improve upon a classic? Ya don't. But you tell a tale that is brought up to date through the eyes of the "new immigrants" during the most greed ridden decade, the over indulgent 80's. DePalma, Stone and the gang present an ambitious, disturbing and darn right good film.<br /><br />Yes....Disco was dying and New Wave/Punk were taking over but these immigrants from Cuba who had to make a new home in Florida couldn't tell the difference. It was exciting, it was what they wanted but how to get it???? To these immigrants, there was only one way to get it in Florida where they were..by having lots of money and to get the money, you had to take over running a drug empire.<br /><br />Al Pacino was fantastic to me as Tony Montana, the "little train that could". What an amazing way to have your lead character look at America: to fight, kill, steal. lie, cheat all to get -- "the money, the women and the power."<br /><br />That's what Tony saw as the American dream.<br /><br />He wanted it, he wanted to live it and in his circle saw nothing wrong with how he went to get it. Tony Montana's command of the English language was heavily saturated with the "f" word but what did you expect, Emily Post's finishing school for him and his co-horts? Look at how they CAME to America, what they knew, what they were exposed to. This is the way Tony and his crew chose to "be all they can be in America." It was all about the power. Tony Montana would and did ANYTHING to achieve it..it all its violent, lying, stealing, crooked, thieving glory.<br /><br />The part of the film that personified the 1980's to me, is the money laundering. Tony's crew bringing sacks of drug money to the bank. Did those around Tony and his crew care? At the clubs where he spent and drank? Nope. Money was money and with money, you get the power. Tony was living high off the hog. He and his pretty blond American trophy he married played well by Michelle Pfieffer.<br /><br />After Tony Montana's rise to power, he finds out its really crappy up there. He's riddled with doubt, he's drug addicted, he's paranoid, he's surrounded by those who want to take him on in a bloody take-over, his trophy 80's American blonde drug addicted wife he finds out is a bore, he needs to keep atop of his empire because...he's going down. And down he goes in a horrific violent fashion, but again I ask, what do you expect?<br /><br />This is the quintessential 1980's film telling you a warped tale of how some misunderstand the American Dream...to obsession. It's violent, bloody, overly so..but it drives the point disturbingly home. Not all Cubans thrown out of Cuba who landed in Florida in the 80's were anything like Tony Montana. Give me a break. But the showing of how miserable the 1980's were with its emphasis on greed and money as the only measures in the USA to "be somebody" and have power took its tool on these poor characters and their lives in America.<br /><br />Makes you wonder -- has anything from then -- been learned today?
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
24,343 |
Steve Carrel Proves himself to be a great leading man in this wonderful, original, raunchy breath of fresh air. I about wet myself at how geniusly hilarious it was.<br /><br />Basically the movie's title says it all: Andy Stitzer is a 40 Year- Old Male who works at an electronics store. He is a bit of a nerd who loves videogames and Comics, and has the biggest collection. His Peers that work in the store with him find out that he's a Virgin during a rather sex dialogue filled poker game, and then Andy has to go through a rather funny as hell Odyessy of rude sexual awakenings, but always screwing up which leads to him not losing his virginity, but he eventually gets lucky in the very end.<br /><br />Leave the little ones at home, But Take the entire family to see This awesome Romantic Adult Comedy. It will have you hooked and cracking up from the very beginning, and by the time it is over, you will be wishing you wore your extra thick absorbent undergarments. Only other thing I can say about it is Too bad Steve Carrel wasn't recognized as a leaving man 20 years ago. He is definitely gonna win best breakthrough male performance in next years MTV movie Awards. You can bet your hard earned dollar on that, people!<br /><br />I Give this one a perfect 10!
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
15,202 |
Father of the Pride was the best new show to hit television since Family Guy. It was yet another masterpiece from the talented people at Dreamworks Animation. Like The Simpsons, the show centers around a nuclear family (of white lions, in this case). It also contains many memorable supporting characters including Roger the surly orangutan, Vincent the Italian-American flamingo, the eccentric white tigers Blake and Victoria, the faux patriotic Snout Brothers and Chutney the elephant. The other stars of the show are the Sigfreid and Roy. They are incredibly eccentric and do everything in a grandiose manner, making the most mundane activities entertaining. The combination of cute animal characters with very adult dialog and controversial issues (drugs, prejudice, etc) is the source of the program's brilliance.<br /><br />The blame for this show's failure lies with NBC. They opted to broadcast the episodes in no particular order (perhaps being influenced by which guest stars they could promote) rather than the more logical production order. Several times, the show was preempted for an extra half-hour of such dreck as The Biggest Loser (as if 60 minutes of that was not enough)! It is indeed an ill omen for the future of television as art if an original and daring show like this fails while Fear Factor and American Idol dominate.<br /><br />Luckily, the complete series was released on DVD and the show now has an opportunity to gain a larger following. 10/10
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
2,361 |
"Iowa" wants to be "Requiem for a Dream" for Midwest meth, but it comes across as a hard R rated "Reefer Madness". <br /><br />Yes, drugs are bad, and meth is horribly pernicious, as an addiction and how it destroys people, families and communities. But these characters who are either dumb or ridiculous and the eye-rolling plot won't teach that lesson to anyone. <br /><br />While writer/director/star Matt Farnsworth has some charisma on screen, his partner Diane Foster plays a wincibly silly wide-eyed innocent corrupted by drugsas was already satirized by Susan Sarandon in "The Rocky Horror Picture Show". I really felt sorry for her for all the totally unnecessary nudity she was put through. It wasn't until the end of the film that I realized I was supposed to think these two were recent high-school graduates to explain some of their naiveté, as we are bombarded by their school photos, but if so, they even looked older than the folks on "The O.C.". While they have good chemistry on screen, they are a pale imitation of a "Badlands"-type couple. <br /><br />The guest stars are badly used. Michael T. Weiss, who was so good in TV's "The Pretender", is completely ludicrous as a corrupt parole officer and his brutal violence is just plain crazy, as his character pretty much ruins any social significance for the film. Rosanna Arquette has to be even sleazier than she rolled around for David Cronenberg as a very low rent Livia Soprano. John Savage even has to mouth the old baby boomer excuses about I did pot but this is worse. A Goth chick shows up, with the odd explanation that she's a stripper from Des Moines. The obligatory Latino drug dealer appears - in Iowa? <br /><br />With a limited budget, the interior view of meth use is portrayed quite vividly, with quite scary hallucinations. We certainly see them go crazy. <br /><br />While the Iowa locations are used very well (including an amusing scene of a propane gas robbery), the accents and church references are confusingly Southern Baptist. Guns seem to be used by law abiding and law breaking citizens here more than in any inner-city drug-dealing movie.<br /><br />The songs of Iowa's best known bard Greg Brown are used throughout, but oddly are not listed in the credits. I hope they were used with permission.<br /><br />I caught this at its commercial run in NYC because I missed it at the Tribeca Film Festival where it got considerable-- and inexplicable-- buzz.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
13,662 |
I am of "the Christopher Reeve Generation" it is fair to say that he was the best actor to play Superman yet, but that doesn't stop me from enjoying other actors in the role, and George Reeves makes a pretty good bid to knock Chris off the top, though he just barely falls short. That doesn't stop me from enjoying this film, it has a lot going for it. It has all that a movie needs, a plot with beginning, middle, and end, plus all those parts are intelligently written. The film is edgy both in acting and storyline, something a film-noir but with tights. The story is both exciting and meaningful, this is a movie with a message that isn't too preachy. I am still amazed this was shot over 12 days, oh the glory days of Hollywood, when we didn't have to wait 5 years just to see if the movie would fall into development hell... The film is polished and expertly made, directed by Lee "Roll'em" Sholem, best known for directing with both speed and efficiency. It never lets the constraints of technology slow it down, in fact there is some creative things done to create the effect of flight, including putting a camera on a boom on a truck and shooting high and traveling fast to make it look like we are seeing it from Superman's point of view, also a few closeups of George in process work, and a long shot of an animated Superman. <br /><br />This is now available on DVD as an extra feature on the first season of the George Reeves Television series. A DVD worth owning in its own right, the inclusion of the film as its original whole, is icing on the cake.<br /><br />Give Blood Today God Bless!
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
22,036 |
As many reviewers here have noted, the film version differs quite a bit from the stage version of the story. I have never seen the stage version of the story, and therefore I have a more favorable review of the film than many other reviewers. Perhaps Richard Attenborough was not the best choice for director of the film, but the film is still an entertaining account of several dancers trying to make the big time in choreographer Michael Douglas' show. The film does right by not selecting any famous actors or performers to wind up in the final try-out group. This way our attention is focused on the dancers' movements and individual stories and struggles as they unfold during a marathon day of try-outs. Douglas is also probably not the best choice for the part. Apparently some songs were cut out in favor of a new one, and the backstage cliché-ridden story of a romantic liaison between a dancer and the choreographer was added. I have to say in all fairness this was the weakest part of the film. The repeated intrusions Cassie made during try-outs appear to mirror the almost desperate pleas one often has to make when engaging in the artistic professions in the absence of talent and/or luck. However, this aspect of the film has been done to death in the past, and it's curious to see this tired old shoe kicking its heel up once again. The revelations of the dancers themselves began promisingly enough with the "I can do that" number, but then it plodded a little at various points while the dancers were telling their stories. Frankly, their stories differed little from real life folks who never get a chance like this. *** of 4 stars.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
19,190 |
This movie was excellent. A sad truth to how culture tends to clash with the sexes. This is just one big warm fuzzy type of movie. You have the master who is steeped in tradition and kind hearted in his own way, Doggie despite being a girl thing to win his affections and you top it off with one cute monkey with a thousand facial expressions. This equals on big happy movie in the end. This movie does a good job at showing how steeped in tradition one can be, so steeped that they are willing to die without sharing their secrets. You see sides to a culture never seen before which helps enhance the drama that unfolds near the end of the picture. The cinema-photography is excellent, in particular the opening parade sequence with all the sparkers. Bound to be in Oscar contention for best foreign film.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
18,973 |
"Moonstruck" is a movie that I liked the first time I watched it. I really liked it the second time. I loved it the third time. Now it is one of my all time favorites.<br /><br />The humor is subtle but really good. The film offers a lot of warmth humor. the story takes place in a old school Italian neighborhood in NYC. Cher's search for love is enjoyable to watch. This film is, by far, the best job Nicholas Cage has done on film. The old man character is fantastic. He lights up the screen without saying a word. The scene with his dogs howling at the moon was fantastic. But, perhaps the best character is the one played by Olympia Dukakis.<br /><br />The film's climax is a scene where the main characters have it out over a breakfast of oatmeal in the family kitchen. Exceptional direction and wrap up.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
4,842 |
It was a good story, but not very well told. I liked the themes and the main story line, which wasn't as clear as it could have been. Maybe there was too much going on and a lack of ability to reign it all in. The acting was okay to cheesy, some were stronger than others and even the stronger actors had their moments of lesser quality acting. It took me a couple of months to get through the entire movie because it didn't keep my attention and the flow was just bad. I only just finished watching it and I'm glad I did as the movie finally gets moving and has some continuity toward the end. Again, a good story, but the delivery was sub par. Would recommend it for the story line and maybe a little eye candy, and I do mean, a little.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
22,815 |
I enjoyed The Night Listener very much. It's one of the better movies of the summer.<br /><br />Robin Williams gives one of his best performances. In fact, the entire cast was very good. All played just the right notes for their characters - not too much and not too little. Sandra Oh adds a wonderful comic touch. Toni Collette is great as the Mom, and never goes over the top. Everyone is very believable.<br /><br />It's a short movie, just under an hour and a half. I noticed the general release version is nine minutes shorter than the Sundance version. I wonder if some of the more disturbing images were cut from the movie.<br /><br />The director told a story and did it in straightforward fashion, which is a refreshing change from many directors these days who seem to think their job is to impress the audience rather than tell a story and tell it well.<br /><br />Do not be sucker punched by the previews and ads. It is not a Hitchcockian thriller. See The Night Listener because you want to see a good story told well. If you go expecting Hitchcock you will be disappointed.<br /><br />My only complaint with the movie was the ending. The director could have left a little more to the audience's imagination, but this is a minor quibble.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
5,076 |
I say 'I'd figure' in that line because, frankly, I've not seen a Hal Hartley movie until now. It's not that I haven't heard of him though, as he was seen as one of those small NY filmmakers (when I say small I mean even smaller than Jim Jarmusch), who made ultra-personal projects on limited budgets. In an ironic way, much as with Pasolini's Salo, though in a slightly different context, Fay Grim interests me to see some of Hartley's more acclaimed features, because there seems to be at least present some semblance of talent behind it, as if Hartley *could* be a very good filmmaker who may be so good he's just taken a big experimental blunder. Or, on the other hand, he could just be someone far too impressed with his own idiosyncrasies and would-be Godard-like cinematic collisions.<br /><br />I can't quite explain the story, which may or may not be a problem I suppose, however it's not really in due to not having seen the film that preceded Fay Grim, Henry Fool. I think even if I had that experience it wouldn't make too much of a difference based on the final results. There's a lot of international espionage, a double plot wrapped inside of another that's fallen through the fake pockets of the title character, played in an aloof way by Parker Posey (not sure if that's good or bad either, maybe both), and also involving a CIA operative (Jeff Goldblum, as usual a solid presence amid the mania, even conjuring some laughs), not to mention an orgy-laden picture box, and author Henry Fool. It's not that the script is totally impenetrable, however much it goes into over-extended loopholes just for the sake of it, because there are some touches of witty or affectingly strange dialog.<br /><br />Quite simply, the direction just sucks. Harltey is in love with the Third Man, which is fine, but he imposes a consistently headache inducing style of everything being tilted in angle, with characters having to get into frame equally oddly. Not since Battlefield Earth, in fact, has a director come off so annoyingly in trying to make the unnecessary choice of titled angles for some bizarre dramatic effect, only this time Hartley isn't amid a cluster-f***, he's mostly responsible for it. This, along with the crazy wannabe Godard title-cards that pop in here and there, some a little amusing and some just totally stupid, and the montage segments all in still shots, AND a couple of moments involving action that almost call to mind Ed Wood, undermine any of the potential that is in the script, which is already fairly hard to decipher. In a way, it's fascinating to watch how bad this all goes, but a kind of fascination that comes in seeing the flip-side to total creative control on a sort-of small-scale story.<br /><br />But let it be known: you'll likely not come across a more wretchedly pretentious example of American independent film-making this year.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
23,704 |
I first saw Enchanted April about five years ago. I loved it so much that my husband surprised me with a copy the following Christmas. It's about two women who decide to rent a castle in Italy for the month of April, leaving their humdrum lives behind them. They are very sad women at the outset of the film, and you can't help but root them on as they plan this get-away with two other women they invite along to share the expenses. This is perhaps the most feel good movie I have ever seen. It' pure and simple, with no car chases, no animosities and no deaths. It was made with care and in very good taste. You cannot help but smile all through it -- except when you're crying happy tears!
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.