id
int32 0
25k
| text
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| label
int64 0
3
| Generalization
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
19,766 |
I love this movie!!! Purple Rain came out the year I was born and it has had my heart since I can remember. Prince is so tight in this movie. I went to a special showing of Purple Rain last night and it was like a concert i was glad to see some true fans cause this movie is so undervalued, it is really one of the greatest movies of all time. The music is untouchable. The movie is about "The Kid", played by Prince, his family is dysfunctional, his band is the hottest act in town, and he has his eyes on the Apollonia, an aspiring singer. There is no question why purple is my favorite color I can thank "The Kid" for that. So if you have not seen this then you are need to asap. This is a classic - 4ever!
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
733 |
this movie, i won't call it a "film," was basically about nothing and functioned mostly for the popular acts of the time. yeah the war was on full swing (pun intended), and this movie gave the troops and our audiences a treat.<br /><br />but let's have something with a bit more substance.<br /><br />loved seeing a young Buddy Rich on the drums. the music was good throughout.<br /><br />but one cameo after another gets old fast.<br /><br />i didn't even recognize Zero Mostel! so if you're one from the "greatest generation," as they say, you'll definitely enjoy this...<br /><br />movie.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
11,099 |
This movie is horrible if you pay attention to it. It's a perfect movie if you just watch the colorful images dance across the screen - each one with no apparent connection to the next. I rented this movie because I'm a David Bowie fan, and I really appreciate musicals. In finality, Bowie was in the film for a total of ten minutes and the songs and dance sequences were sparse and left something to be desired. The moral of the story was really befuddling. I couldn't tell if it was about racial issues in London in the 1950s or about not selling out. For the first half of the movie I was chuckling at how cheesy it was but I liked the campiness of the "no selling out" message. When blacks started being murdered I thought my tape had gotten messed up. Maybe I rented half of two different movies? Nope, there was a "Keep Britain White" song and dance sequence. I'm sorry, but WWII is not something you can write a musical about. At least not a musical that could conceivably be described as "campy" as I have several times in this review. Overall I'd say this movie could do a whole lot better if it made up its mind and cast better actors. (And put David Bowie in it for longer goddammit!) My grade: C-
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
16,417 |
Just like wine, "Johnny Dangerously" gets better and better with every day. This clever, witty, well-acted film could very well stand on its own - but as a parody of the gangster genre, it's truly outstanding. In fact, it's quite obviously the best film of its kind... the funniest spoof of mob movies and even the respective period - although, admittedly, this position is probably easier to achieve when its main competitors are such primitive, vulgar and dull pseudocomedies as "Jane Austen's Mafia".
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
20,120 |
There has been a political documentary, of recent vintage, called Why We Fight, which tries to examine the infamous Military Industrial Complex and its grip on this nation. It is considered both polemical and incisive in making its case against both that complex and the war fiasco we are currently involved in in Iraq. Yet, a far more famous series of films, with the same name, was made during World War Two, by Hollywood director Frank Capra. Although considered documentaries, and having won Oscars in that category, this series of seven films is really and truly mere agitprop, more in the vein of Leni Reifenstal's Triumph Of The Will, scenes of which Capra recycles for his own purposes. That said, that fact does not mean it does not have vital information that subsequent generations of World War Two documentaries (such as the BBC's lauded The World At War) lacked, nor does that mean that its value as a primary source is any the less valuable. They are skillfully made, and after recently purchasing some used DVDs at a discount store, I found myself with the opportunity to select a free DVD with my purchase. I chose Goodtimes DVD's four DVD collection of the series.<br /><br />Rarely has something free been so worth invaluable. While there are no extras on the DVDs, and the sound quality of the prints varies, these films provide insight into the minds of Americans two thirds of a century ago, when racism was overt (as in many of the classic Warner Brothers pro-war cartoons of the era), and there was nothing wrong with blatant distortion of facts. The seven films, produced between 1942 and 1945, are Prelude To War, The Nazis Strike, Divide And Conquer, The Battle Of Britain, The Battle Of Russia, The Battle Of China, and War Comes To America.<br /><br />Overall, the film series is well worth watching, not only for the obvious reasons, but for the subtle things it reveals, such as the use of the plural for terms like X millions when referring to dollars, rather than the modern singular, or the most overused graphic in the whole series- a Japanese sword piercing the center of Manchuria. Yet, it also shows the complexities of trying to apply past standards to current wars. The lesson of World War One (avoid foreign entanglements) was not applicable to World War Two, whose own lesson (act early against dictatorships) has not been applicable in the three major wars America has fought since: Korea, Vietnam, nor Iraq. The fact that much of this series teeters on the uncertainties of the times it was made in only underscores its historic value in today's information-clogged times. It may not help you sort out the truth from the lies and propaganda of today, but at least you'll realize you are not the first to be in such a tenuous position, nor will you be the last.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
2,212 |
A comparison between this movie and 'The Last Detail' is made by some, but 'Chasers' is flatter than a stretch of Interstate highway in west Texas. And like the scenery in the desert, there's nothing much to distinguish it, not even the fact that a female prisoner is being transported by two navy escorts this time around. No one in the cast comes off too well; with this lame script that's not surprising. Dennis Hopper, the director, won't give much space to this one if he ever writes a memoir, I don't think.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
366 |
This film was bad. Bad acting, bad directing, bad writing. But it wasn't bad in a funny way. It was bad in a boring way. I watched "Surface to Air" because I thought it might be a laugh. It wasn't. Don't make the mistake I did. There are plenty of more enjoyable ways to spend an hour and a half such as watching paint dry or reading the dictionary. Seriously.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
15,841 |
I really think that this movie is great, personally. But, in every movie there is a downer. Now, some of you may not have watched Hilary Duff's 'Raise Your Voice', but If you think about it, those two shows are very very similar, if you know what i mean. In 'Brave New Girl', Holly wants so bad to get into Haverty Conservatory. In 'Raise Your Voice', Terri wants to go to a conservatory in L.A.(don't remember the name of the conservatory there). They are both in the music field, and they both have to sing at the ending of the semester. It's really funny how these two films are alike. I personally like 'Brave New Girl' better than, 'Raise Your Voice' though.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
23,180 |
When I first heard about the show, I heard a lot about it, and it was getting some good reviews. I watched the first episode of this "forensic fairy tale", as it so proclaims itself, and I really got hooked on it. I have loved it since. This show has a good sense of humour and it's fun to see a good show like this. The cast is excellent as their characters, and I wouldn't want to change them in any way.<br /><br />For those unfamiliar with this show, Pushing Daisies centers around a man named Ned (aka The Pie Maker, played by Lee Pace) who discovered a special gift when he was a boy: He could bring the dead back to life with the touch of a finger. He first did so with his dog, Digby. However, there is the catch: If he keeps a dead person alive for more than one minute, someone else dies. He learned this when he brought his mother back to life, and his childhood crush's father died in Ned's mother's place. The other catch is if he touches the person again, they're dead again, but this time for good. He learned this when his mother kissed him goodnight. His father took him to boarding school, and when he left, Ned never saw his father again.<br /><br />Almost 20 years later, Ned owns a pie bakery, cleverly titled "The Pie Hole." A co-worker of Ned's, Olive Snook (Kristin Chenoweth) has a crush on Ned, but Ned rejects her moves, trying not to get close to anyone, learning from past experiences. Private Investigator Emerson Cod (Chi McBride) discovered the gift that Ned has, and decides to make him a partner in solving murders. Ned touches the victim, asks who killed them, and when the minute is up, he touches them again, and they solve it. That's how they usually solve it. Throughout the episodes, the murders have very interesting plots and be what people least expect.<br /><br />One day, Ned discovers that his next murder to solve is his childhood sweetheart, Charlotte "Chuck" Charles (Anna Friel). He brings her back to life and decides to break the rules and keep her alive. In her place, the funeral director, who stole jewelery from the corpses, died. When Emerson finds out, and when Chuck wants to help with solving the murders, he doesn't agree a bit--for a while, we hear him call Chuck 'Dead girl'. This is all kept in secret from Olive, Chuck's aunts Vivian and Lily (Ellen Greene and Swoosie Kurtz, respectively), and everyone else for that matter, in case anyone recognized her from obituaries, the news, etc. Vivian and Lily, formerly synchronized swimmers, hadn't left the house in years. Emerson, Ned, and Chuck agree to work together. Ned and Chuck grow to love each other, though they can't touch each other ever again.<br /><br />This show is funny, has terrific characters, contains great plot twists, and will definitely get your spirits up. I hope it doesn't get cancelled at 13 episodes.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
24,076 |
i was greatly moved when i watched the movie.how jonny could keep such hope and faith was amazing. so many people only care about what they want , and fuss about all the things they don't have . and they are such small things ,like chothes,money a new car . i've seen people in tears because of a blemish. this movie brings everything back to the basics . love,hope the beauty of the simple but so important things in life.it makes our everyday problems seen for what they are Small and really unimportant. you watch this boy and you realize as long as you have been blessed with food ,a roof over your head and your loved ones around you .you are truly blessed.and the saying stop and smell the roses truly has a new meaning.and i know jonny will see this and i want to thank him so much for sharing such faith,strenght,and humor with me .thank you jonny i know you soar the heavens and bring much love and laughter to the heavens above.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
10,057 |
Who likes awful "comedy" shows like Little Mosque on the Prairie? The only two kinds of people I can think of who watch this are: One, Muslims and self-proclaimed Liberal defenders of every ethnic group who are so thrilled there is a show about Muslims that it doesn't even matter if the show is good or funny at all (which it is not). Two, old people and people whose idea of comedy is incredibly predictable, badly written, stale jokes.<br /><br />CBC needs to really take a look at what they are doing and who their audience is. If they keep only writing comedy for really old people then guess what will happen, their audience will die off soon and they will have no audience left. I'd be curious who even writes for this show? Do you think it's actually Muslims, or hip, funny young people? No, I bet it is old white guys who have been writing the same jokes for the same kind of bad CBC shows since the 1960's.<br /><br />When you look at the CBC comedy shows there are, Air Farce was only finally just taken off the air (thank goodness!) but we still have lame ducks like This Hour Has 22 Minutes and Rick Mercer that we are paying for, not to mention this poor excuse for "comedy" Little Mosque on the Prairie. It is supposed to be offencive and funny? Only the CBC would think this lame show is at all offencive or funny. Shame on the CBC for squandering our tax dollars on shows only a few people would bother watching.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
3,208 |
I got this film from a private collector and was very curious about it. It had a 7,8 in IMDb (9 votes only) and some external comments were pleasant. But I have to say that it is a very usual and uninteresting giallo. Yes, great cinematography, the film is well directed, but it never freaked me out. It starts well, but although it not bored me at all, the story is so ordinary and the things that occur so normal, that I didn't like it very much.<br /><br />You can make a few laughs. And you can see some little tits. But if you like the kind of giallos I like (bizarre, surreal, nonsenseful, gory, atmospheric, brutal murders...) you won't appreciate much this film.<br /><br />I give it a 4 for the good directing and editing, and the final twists, that make the film entertaining. But it could be much better.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
8,473 |
Why? Because for one reason, there has never been a more adorable scene in any film than Ann Margret singing "Bye Bye Birdie" at the opening. She reprises it again at the ending, too (in a different mood!). Both wonderful. Rent it and see. Even if that's all of it that you watch. You'll agree, I'm sure.<br /><br />Everything about the original was so excellent it just didn't need a remake, sorry! Jason and Vanessa gave commendable performances, as well as Tyne and Chynna. In fact, all the actors and singers in this new version were giving their 'all,' but it's like trying to improve on "Casablanca" -- it just can't be done! It's even annoying finding yourself comparing the two mentally as you try to appreciate the remake, and it just falls short, through no fault of the actors.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
19,525 |
Neatly skipping over everything from the coup in Cuba to his undercover entry into Bolivia, part two of Soderbergh's portrayal of Che Guevara is that of the tragic hero. As with Che Part One, this rather rambling guerrilla warfare escapade through the colourful mountains of Bolivia is probably destined to disappoint more people than it will satisfy, so why was the film (and particularly Benicio Del Toro's performance) so loudly praised at Cannes?<br /><br />James Rocchi, for instance, called it, a work of art that's, "not just the story of a revolutionary," but, "a revolution in and of itself." The Guardian's Peter Bradshaw called it a "flawed masterpiece." I return to my original contention for Part One that the value lies particularly in depiction of a hero figure. And in an age when there is a surfeit of poor hero role-models, could it not be salutary to see a strongly honourable one, even if stripped of some of the less endearing episodes of his life? This is the psychological hero enshrined by the great Scottish essayist, Thomas Carlyle, in his seminal book, Heroes and Hero Worship. Heroes can be real or imaginary (or somewhere in-between). But should genuinely inspire us to higher goals, a higher purpose. Compare this with the unrealistic 'heroes' of standard Western storytelling: where a person undergoes trials and tribulations before obtaining a barely-believable reward usually everlasting love or material wealth as if by divine studio intervention. Real heroes have an excess of moral courage not Lost Ark dare-devilishness or James Bond super-toys. They rise, and empower others to rise, to be the best that they can be. In Part One, Che succeeds. In Part Two, he fails. It is not for want of moral courage but since a) not all good plans can succeed and b) being human, mistakes are inevitable.<br /><br />Guevara's intellectual clarity is flawed when he equates conditions that justify armed struggle with conditions that make that armed struggle able to succeed. It is a serious miscalculation.<br /><br />High in the mountains from La Paz, the colours are breathtaking. There is an air of mise-en-scene authenticity that was occasionally lacking in Che - Part One (The U.S. would not allow Soderbergh to film in Cuba.) Visual treats are heightened by maximising natural light and the extreme flexibility and realism offered with groundbreaking RED cameras. This is a high performance digital cine camera with the quality of 35mm film and the convenience of pure digital. Designed for flexibility and functionality, the package weighs a mere 9 lbs. "Shooting with RED is like hearing the Beatles for the first time," says Soderbergh. "RED sees the way I see . . . so organic, so beautifully attuned to that most natural of phenomena light." If Che had stopped with the successful Cuban revolution it would have enshrouded him with an almost mystical invincibility. That he fails in Bolivia shows not only that he has human limitations but that it is his moral virtues that are remembered, not the political triumph. Critics will say and with some justification - that his armed struggle inspired much less noble characters to achieve tin-pot dictatorships. His development of guerrilla fighting tactics are not good or bad in themselves (and have since been used for both).<br /><br />But for all its praiseworthiness, the film often seems to lack dramatic and narrative tension. We stumble from one escapade to another, knowing that he will eventually meet his death. I found myself glancing at my watch and thinking it could have been shorter. But the work that has gone into this interviews with people from all sides and even getting one of Guevara's ex-comrades to coach actors on the minutiae of the Bolivian operations make the film a commendable achievement. It might not be top-flight entertainment, but it demonstrates integrity in documenting a significant slice of history.<br /><br />There is also another very important point in the Che 'hero' figure here. It's about failure. That if you try your utmost, even if you fail, your effort will not have been in vain because it may give others hope and moral courage. One could cynically call it a 'martyr' complex, and it is found, of course, in many religious figures as well. But Che does not 'sacrifice' himself. He does what he does best, to the best of his not inconsiderate ability, and so provides an example. Success or failure in any particular instance become mere details.<br /><br />With the U.S.'s longstanding and illegal blockade of Cuba (all in the name of 'freedom'), I am tempted to write that Che Parts 1 & 2 are too good to be wasted on the U.S. But that would be to invite a contention that the film has sought so earnestly to avoid. One must hope that many viewers will have the skill to view Che without politics and the bias that inevitably engenders. Whatever its faults, it rehabilitates Soderbergh from the populist nonsense of Oceans 11.<br /><br />But if you haven't heard of Che Guevara or seen Part One, or if you can't get past the phrase 'murderous Marxist' without frothing at the mouth, I might struggle to imagine what you would get from this film. The same can be said for many who have, and can.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
10,897 |
Another case of a decent DVD case betraying the shot-on-video quality of the film. <br /><br />It wasn't that bad. Rochon does a serviceable job and Damn! the cast is good looking. I've never seen that many musclebound guys hang out together on a regular basis. This movie really wanted to make you think Rochon was the killer, but it was not to be. My biggest problem with the film was that by the end, I didn't much care who was the killer, and the real killer made little sense, since it was out of the blue and the filmmakers were thinking 'ha, betcha didn't see that one coming, sucker!'. Yeah, there were continuity errors about (mainly with ms. Rochon's ever-changing wardrobe), but for an indie slasher it's not that bad. I was pretty sure at the beginning it was just a thinly veiled excuse for girls to go topless, but that was just a gimmick. The dialog was overly think and painful at times.<br /><br />Just don't have high expectations going into this, and it won't be that bad. And Lloyd Kaufman's cameo is wonderfully understated.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
13,361 |
Like A Streetcar Named Desire (also directed by Gadg both on stage and screen) Panic In The Streets depicts a New Orleans in which its major claim to fame - the birthplace of Jazz - doesn't even rate a mention. It was Richard Widmark's seventh film and arguably went a long way to establishing him as the fine actor he really was rather than merely a psychotic killer. Gadg himself appears in an uncredited small role as a morgue attendant but the film is rich in talent beginning with Jack Palance (still being billed as Walter Jack Palance)as the local Mr 'Big' followed side-kick Zero Mostel, Barbara Bel Geddes, Emile Meyer, Tommy Rettig plus the rock-solid ever reliable Paul Douglas as the cop who comes round to doc Widmark's point of view. It's a very rewarding movie more so for being little seen. Catch it if you can.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
21,439 |
I watched this on an 8 hour flight and (presumably because of the pressure and the altitude) I actually found it mildly entertaining (emphasis on the "mild").<br /><br />The actual idea behind the film was brilliant: a woman dies, her fiancé falls in love with someone else, she decided to make sure they don't get together, but eventually she lets them do it. Sadly the actual film wasn't as good. OK, there were a few laughs and the actors all worked well. But from the beginning the plot was about as predictable as the destination of the flight I was on. I think the whole gay-but-not-gay friend part of the story could have been worked a lot better. The talking parrot was a nice idea but to be honest: it wasn't really very funny.<br /><br />In summary the film was more interesting than staring at the seat in front of me, but it was a close call.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
441 |
Drones, ethnic drumming, bad synthesizer piping, children singing. The most patronizing "world music" imaginable. This is a tourist film, and a lousy one. What really kills it is the incoherent sequences. India, Egypt, South America, Africa, etc, etc. No transitions, no visual explanation of why we're suddenly ten thousand miles away, no ideas expressed in images. Just a bunch of footage of third-worlders with "baskets on their heads" as another reviewer said. Walking along endlessly as if that had some deep meaning. If these guys wanted to make a 3rd World music video, all they had to do was head a few hundred miles south of where the best parts of Koya were shot, and film in Mexico. That would have been a much better setting for "life in transformation."<br /><br />But no. What they decided on was a scrambled tourist itinerary covering half the globe and mind-deadeningly overcranked filter shots. The only thing to recommend this film is that it doesn't suck quite as much as Naqoyqatsi.<br /><br />RstJ
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
7,712 |
Lynn Hollister, a small-town lawyer, travels to the nearby big city on business connected with the death of his friend Johnny. (Yes, Lynn is a man despite the feminine-sounding Christian name. Were the scriptwriters trying to make a snide reference to the fact that John Wayne's birth name was "Marion"?) Hollister at first believes Johnny's death to have been an accident, but soon realises that Johnny was murdered. Further investigations reveal a web of corruption, criminality and election rigging connected to Boss Cameron, the leading light in city 's political machine.<br /><br />That sounds like the plot of a gritty crime thriller, possibly made in the film noir style which was starting to become popular in 1941. It isn't. "A Man Betrayed", despite its theme, is more like a light romantic comedy than a crime drama. Hollister falls in love with Cameron's attractive daughter Sabra, and the film then concentrates as much on their resulting romance as on the suspense elements.<br /><br />This film might just have worked if it had been made as a straightforward serious drama. One reviewer states that John Wayne is not at all believable as a lawyer, but he couldn't play a cowboy in every movie, and a tough crusading lawyer taking on the forces of organised crime would probably have been well within his compass. Where I do agree with that reviewer is when he says that Wayne was no Cary Grant impersonator. Romantic comedy just wasn't up his street. One of the weaknesses of the studio system is that actors could be required to play any part their bosses demanded of them, regardless of whether it was up their street or not, and as Wayne was one of the few major stars working for Republic Pictures they doubtless wanted to get as much mileage out of him as they could.<br /><br />That said, not even Cary Grant himself could have made "A Man Betrayed" work as a comedy. That's not a reflection on his comic talents; it's a reflection on the total lack of amusing material in this film. I doubt if anyone, no matter how well developed their sense of humour might be, could find anything to laugh at in it. The film's light-hearted tone doesn't make it a successful comedy; it just prevents it from being taken seriously as anything else. This is one of those films that are neither fish nor flesh nor fowl nor good red herring. 3/10
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
13,135 |
do you still love woody allen's humor and sense of the absurd? do you wait patiently for movies that get the plot going in the first five minutes instead of making you wait around? if so, you will adore this comedic murder mystery. it has all the elements of a good mystery: sharp plot, a handsome suspect, romance, and intrigue, mixed together with enough laughs and winks at fate to keep even the most jaded of movie goers happy.<br /><br />with beautiful people and gorgeous homes and landscapes to ogle, this frothy movie is just the thing to take your minds off your troubles. as woody might say, what's not to like?
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
20,793 |
At first I wasn't sure if I wanted to watch this movie when it came up on my guide so I looked it up on IMDb and thought the cover looked pretty cool so I thought I would give it a try expecting a movie like Elephant.<br /><br />Once I got past the fact that I am supposed to dislike the Alicia character played excellently by Busy Phillips, I realized what a good job this movie was doing toward setting up the relationship between Alicia and Deanna. Alicia is so mean to Deanna played by Erika Christensen almost throughout the entire movie but we eventually find out that they despite being polar opposites they have one thing in common besides being present at the shooting. They share loneliness and to what extent is revealed as the film progresses.<br /><br />I've just got to say how much I loved this movie and was glad to see all of the positive comments about it. I couldn't even get through Elephant because it just seemed to be exploiting the Columbine tragedy. This movie on the other hand was compelling and realistic. Busy Phillips acting is OFF the CHAIN!!! That is a good thing and I would love to see her progress into some more mature roles.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
22,295 |
As with most Rosalind Russell movies, this one is very entertaining -- it's fun all the way through. It's definitely one of the last of this genre of film -- just good wholesome entertainment. Give it a try - I don't think you will be disappointed.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
12,736 |
I've read a lot of comments about the film and how it's so hard for people to believe that it is a sequel to Henry Fool, and even though it technically is, I think that Fay Grim needs to be looked at as an entirely different film. Just because it is the sequel doesn't mean that it has to be a direct continuation of the first, and I enjoyed that so much about it. The whole point of the film was to change direction from the first, which makes sense because the movie isn't called Henry Fool 2, it's Fay Grim. All that aside, the film, I thought, was so well made and thought out that it actually surprised me. I was expecting to rent another nearly-released-straight-to-video film and have to endure 2 hours of bad editing and an almost hard to follow story-line (aka parker's last direct to video feature the Oh in Ohio) but this was so surprisingly well focused that it almost doesn't seem so, which I absolutely loved. There are so many nuances in the film making and writing that I crave to see in films, but never do. The cinematography was brilliant due to it's simplicity and truly making the film seem 'Grim' throughout - in terms of setting. The writing was so well put together as well, whoever said this movie isn't as witty as Henry Fool needs to watch again and actually listen; I almost can't even begin to explain how actually hilarious it was, and pertinent. And well, Parker Posey, who could complain? The scene in which Fool and Jalal were talking in the dark was so captivating and emotional. And I thought the spy-ness throughout the film was just so hilarious and spot on (in hindsight because i do agree that at times during you kind of felt lost). The main thing that struck me so powerfully about the film, and i believe the point of the film, was Parker's love and naivety about Fool, which was so endearing and turned, yes very quickly, from denial to outright passion. The last five minutes of the film were perfect. Obviously there were things that weren't excellent, but nothing is perfect; some of the acting was poor, and at times I did think that some of the new back story and dialogue about terrorism got a little hard to follow and out of hand, but in the end you got it and didn't even mind that at the time it may have slipped from your comprehension. (This may also have to do with Goldblum's tendency to talk extremely fast) On the whole I would say that it was probably one of the best films I've seen this year; stylistically pleasing, clever and witty writing, performances that were so impressive I now have gained new respect for some of the actors, and a truly touching film, and don't forget, a complete departure from Fool. Which was the point.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
15,922 |
I enjoyed the cinematographic recreation of China in the 1930s in this beautiful film. The story is simple. An older male performer wants to pass on his art to a young man although he has no living children. The faces of the actors are marvelous to see. The story reveals the devotion and gratitude of children to those who treat them well and their longing to be treated well. The operas in the film remind me of FAREWELL MY CONCUBINE, which was more sophisticated and intricate. The story here reminds me of a Dickens tale of days when children were almost chattel. The plot is a bit predictable and a bit too sentimental for me but well worth the time to view for the heroism, humanity, and history portrayed.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
4,624 |
There are lots of extremely good-looking people in this movie. That's probably the best thing about it. Perhaps that even makes it worth watching.<br /><br />"Loaded" tells the story of Tristan Price (Jesse Metcalfe), a young man who's about to make his mark on the world. He's the son of a well-to-do family with a good reputation, and he's on his way to law school. But like so many such settings, things aren't quite as perfect as they appear. The expectations in this family far outweigh the love. Except for school, Tristan's father rarely lets him leave the house. This seems to be the result of some past traumatic event that shook the family, which is partially revealed through flashbacks but isn't spelled out until the very end. Tristan's claustrophobic environment causes him to let loose in very extreme ways at the first possible opportunity, when his friends take him out to a strip club to celebrate his graduation. The celebration soon follows some strippers back to a beach house party, and from there, Tristan befriends Sebastian Cole (Corey Large), who pulls him into a drug dealing underworld.<br /><br />While technically well-made, this movie suffers from a lackluster script and a storyline that isn't very engaging. Also counting against this film are some constant camera tricks that generally seemed annoying and out-of-place, such as slow-motion, fast-motion, freeze-frames and echos. These are the types of effects a director might normally utilize to show a character's perspective while on drugs, except in this case they seem to have been sporadically tossed in at random points, in some cheap attempt at style.<br /><br />Despite its cast of relative unknowns, performances were good all around, most notably with respect to the main antagonist (Corey Large). I suspect we'll be seeing at least a couple of these people in bigger and better projects in the future.<br /><br />Of course, when mentioning the actors, I must mention their looks. Rating based on hotness, this movies scores an 11. The women in this movie are incredible-looking and almost distract you from what a boring movie you're watching. I'm sure the male characters are also quite attractive, but you'll have to ask someone else to comment on that.<br /><br />Overall, I can't recommend this movie, not for buying, renting, or even seeing for free. It's unfortunately just not worth the effort it takes to sit through.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
11,536 |
I just couldn't stop laughing!! This movie is incredibly funny and stupid! But, never mind that, it is very entertaining! In this film, you don't need to pay attention to anything! The acting is the same - LAME! The dinosaurs are the same - RUBBER (Oh, my I could see the stick that holds T-Rex head for a moment.) The raptors are the same from the Carnosaur 2, T-Rex is also the same, but... in some scenes his head looks kinda stuffed and it looks like some kind of project failure from kindergarten. Action is fast, sometimes too fast, actually I talk about fast editing, they edited it so fast, so that we cannot see the rubber dinosaurs, but OOPPS! to late, they are rubber! Well, only things interesting here is to see Rick Dean in this sequel.<br /><br />What can I say... don't rent it... watch it on TV, with friends, it is much more entertaining!
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
7,878 |
As a Mystery Science Theatre 3000 fan, I can withstand ANY motion picture that can be foisted upon me, but there is absolutely no reason for this.<br /><br />Rated "Super Action" in the Blockbuster Video section and given the dreaded "Restricted Viewing Sticker" I'm assuming these are the only methods that film maker (HA!) Robert Napton could use to get at least 4.50 from one unsuspecting person.<br /><br />Shame on you Robert Napton! Shame on you for exploiting these poor Mexican actors who you probably promised hopes for making it big in American cinema. You are a disgrace!<br /><br />There isn't one moment in this movie that holds the slightest bit of action. Did you use snot on these people? Oh, look, they're having a rave in a field! Like all 6 of them. And isn't that an Asian guy in the background? Why is it always daytime? Why did it take 1/2 of the movie to show anything.. and more importantly why did we watch the other 1/2?<br /><br />PS: You owe me 4.50.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
21,296 |
This movie is one of the funniest, saddest and most accurate portrayals of the mentality that seems to have pervaded the Balkans yet again, 45 years after the time depicted. All the usual characters and conflicts are presented with such anger, sadness and love combined that it is impossible to decide whether crying or laughing would be the more appropriate response. The accuracy of portrayal and the timelessness of the types, however, make it for a great film to watch if one wants to understand a little bit of what drove ex-Yugoslavia to its madness. In fact, no diplomat dealing with the region should attempt anything until they saw this movie, and its twin, *Maratonci trce pocasni krug.* Did I mention it is one of the funniest movies I've ever seen?
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
1,450 |
Fot the most part, this movie feels like a "made-for-TV" effort. The direction is ham-fisted, the acting (with the exception of Fred Gwynne) is overwrought and soapy. Denise Crosby, particularly, delivers her lines like she's cold reading them off a cue card. Only one thing makes this film worth watching, and that is once Gage comes back from the "Semetary." There is something disturbing about watching a small child murder someone, and this movie might be more than some can handle just for that reason. It is absolutely bone-chilling. This film only does one thing right, but it knocks that one thing right out of the park. Worth seeing just for the last 10 minutes or so.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
8,118 |
First of all, I am not a huge fan of contemporary Turkish cinema, which is because, the usual pattern of creating a box office success is by hitting below the waistline. This movie is nothing of an artistic masterpiece that deals with taboos, as the director and marketing ads imply. In my mere opinion, the sole purpose of this movie is make money by touching a sensitive morale(in fact it is mostly considered taboo in the native country) Cheap populism might provide with a brief definition of what I meant.<br /><br />However, the acting is near perfect. In fact, most of the cast has theatrical background and tried hard to compensate for what Altioklar lacked; talent! All members of the cast were perfectly fit in their roles and well qualified for the job, even the less experienced ones. (Like Janset) At least, Altioklar deserves a small word of appreciation , just because he knows well how to choose the cast. Other than that, he is just a media monkey, who presumes himself a director with an artistic talent. Come on, art is not something that solely consists of dealing with naked/half naked women. And just because media boasts off, no director becomes a milestone in the history of Turkish cinema. Just close your ears and o something real artistic, I am waiting eagerly to applause your next work. Hope, this time you manage to achieve an artistic approach.<br /><br />In short; Pros > Good acting, hot women (just kidding!) :) Cons> Each and every single thing, other than the cast
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
20,965 |
It must have been several years after it was released, so don't know why it was at the movies. But as a kid I enjoyed it. I just found a VHS tape of Superman and the Mole Men at the flea market and decided to watch it again (it's been a lot of years). I wasn't expecting much, now knowing how the B movies were made at that time. But I was pleasantly surprised to find the movie very watchable and the acting by all outstanding. Usual acting in these type movies leaves a lot to be desired. Surprisingly, the writing wasn't bad either. Forget the fact that Superman went from sequence to sequence and could have kicked all their butts in the beginning, because then the story would have ended, right?! OK, the mole men costumes were hokey and not very scary (they didn't even scare me as a kid). However, making allowances for the probable low budget for background and costumes, it was a job well done by all. I recognized the sheriff right away as The Old Ranger from Death Valley Days and plenty of supporting roles in TV westerns. J. Farrell MacDonald played old Pop and was always a great supporting actor in more movies than I can count. Walter Reed and Jeff Corey were familiar faces as well from other movies. Did you recognize the old doctor as the captain of the ship that went to get King Kong? Did you recognize the little girl rolling the ball to the mole men as Lisbeth Searcy in Old Yeller? Some of the mole men were famous too. Jerry Maren has played Mayor McCheese for McDonalds, Little Oscar Mayer, was the Munchkin that handed Dorothy the lollipop, was on a Seifeld episode and a wealth of other work. Billy Curtis played an unforgettable part with Clint Eastwood in High Plains Drifter, was one of the friends met by the star in Incredible Shrinking Man, he had a part in a movie I just luckily grabbed at a flea market titled My Gal Sal with Rita Hayworth, Wizard of Oz and plenty of other parts - great actor. John Brambury was also a Munchkin. Phillis Coates, who played Lois Lane in this movie, was without question wonderful in the part and George Reeves as Superman/Clark Kent WAS Superman. He did a great job of playing the strong man. Bottom line to all I've said is that this movie is worth watching because of the cast and writing in dealing with a pretty flimsy idea for a movie. But it was the 50's and anything was possible from intruders from outer space to mole men from inner space. It is definitely worth seeing, there isn't a bad actor in the group. Whomever put the cast together was very, very fortunate to get so many gifted actors into a B type film. Some already had a wealth of experience and some were about to obtain a wealth of experience - but all were gifted. So if you get a chance to see the film, forget the dopey costumes and just enjoy the excitement and acting. Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, just a good, old fashioned movie to enjoy!
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
6,248 |
<br /><br />This movie sucks big time. It reminded me of the movie Resurrection (Christopher Lambert), which i also found extremely boring. And "Semana Santa" is in every way an even poorer movie.<br /><br />Only fine one in the cast doing something for this movie is Alida Valli. Alida is one of the grand old ladies in european movie history. I loved her maniacal looks in "Suspiria" and "inferno" (Dario Argento). I will not spend more time dealing with this movie. I will say another good thing about this movie...use it if you want to fall asleep very quickly...
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
7,483 |
Is it a remake og the Thing (1982/1951), i think it is, there are so many factors from det previous movies do deny it.<br /><br />So the acting is bad, James Spader does a superlow stargate re-enactment of himself, with his coffy mug and his somwhat strange thinking/movements but that's about it, the other actors i did't even notise. You don't get the feeling of getting to know anyone of the main characters. And the plot evolvement is slow, boring and, yah i know what is about to happend in 30mins. Score/music is ultraboring, imean there are alot of ubertallented people out there that would make scores for a coke and a credit, but this is major crap. Some of the special effects are nice, if it was made in early 90's. If you like Slimy Aliens, chills and thrills, don't whatch this movie. its a dull combination of the Thing, Alien 3, Outbreak and some Jerry Bruckheimer/Michael Bay production gone really really bad. Now this combination would be cool if somone knew what they where doing, and the only ones on this production that knew that was, no one.<br /><br />Though i have seen far worse, i would not recomend this movie to anyone, but if you are up one cold night, and just wanna glanse at something, it will pass the time, slowly.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
11,515 |
I've read some of the comments about this film and can only surmise that some people are easily entertained. This movie is nothing. It's so badly written, directed and acted that it barely makes an impression. The characters speak in cliche-ridden dialogue and the situations are completely implausible. While that might make this campy and fun, it doesn't because everything is so lifeless the film becomes dull. It's as if Lee Rose decided to write a drama about a woman struggling with her sexuality but then she either wasn't allowed by studio execs to give the story some true-to-life gusto or didn't have the cojones. This movie could go in the enyclopedia as the standard-issue bad Lifetime TV movie.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
6,288 |
This movie is most possibly the worst movie I have ever see in my entire life! The plot is ridiculous and the whole "Little Man" crap is just so stupid. The entire movie is unrealistic and dumb. Let's face it, It's just a "Black Comedy". This is just a pointless horrible piece that should have never made it to theaters. The jokes are not funny and the acting is horrendous. Please, I beg of to you save your money than see this worthless piece of crap. I had to endure sitting through Little Man for an hour and a half wishing my eyes would bleed. I am disgusted that something like this would even be thought of! Who writes this crap? The actors have NO talent what so ever, how do these people get into Hollywood? They are making money off this junk!
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
20,023 |
Reading the various external reviews of Roger Ebert and other well-known film critics makes me hesitate to admit how much I love this movie, even though I only have a dubbed-into-Japanese video version of it.<br /><br />Apparently, many critics seem to take it as a minus that the story premise has been used before, most famously in the very great "It's a Wonderful Life." To me, a great premise is a great premise no matter how many times it's used, and I'd be happy to see more movies using this particular premise--the discontented man who gets a chance to gain a fresh perspective on his own life through a bit of "divine magic."<br /><br />I suppose folks and critics of a more intellectual bent are not as pulled into the story, but I don't go to movies to critique them with notebook in hand--I go to movies to throw myself into them and let them take me where they will. <br /><br />If you are sentimental sort like myself, you'll be well rewarded by seeing this picture. The performances are excellent throughout, and the movie was very well cast. Wonderful choice of music, too. Michael Caine is superb as the sympathetic bartender. Jim Belushi does a great job as an "average Joe" kind of guy who wonders if his life hasn't gone as it should. Linda Hamilton, always excellent, is again right on target here as the loving wife. Jon Lovitz entertains as usual, and even has some surprisingly moving moments in "Mr. Destiny."<br /><br />No, "Mr. Destiny" is not "It's a Wonderful Life," but who says it has to be? Taken on its own terms, "Mr. Destiny" is an enjoyable, well-made, funny, and moving film. I've seen my Japanese-dubbed video of it numerous times, and I'm sure I'll see it several more times. If that somehow makes me a "lowbrow," so be it! I'm just glad that I hadn't read any reviews of "Mr. Destiny" before seeing it.<br /><br />I suppose I should have the courage of my convictions and give the movie nine or ten stars, but I couldn't help but doubt myself after reading all the critical reviews!
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
1,038 |
In the autobiographical coming-of-age tale "Romulus, My Father," Eric Bana, of "Munich" fame, plays an impoverished German émigré struggling to raise his son, Raymond (Kodi Smit-McPhee), in rural 1960's Australia. The major obstacle to the family's stability and happiness is his wife, Christina (Franka Potente), who flagrantly violates her wedding vows by shamelessly shacking up with other men. Despite her highly unconventional behavior, Romulus refuses to grant her a divorce, masochistically torturing himself in the vain hope that she will one day return to him. It is, unfortunately, the good-hearted and good-natured Raimond who must bear witness to all this marital turmoil - and it is his memoir that serves as the basis for the movie (Raimond Gaita would later grow up to be an author).<br /><br />Even though I admire "Romulus, My Father" for what it is trying to do, I can't honestly say I enjoyed it, for while the film has some fine performances and serious intentions going for it, these simply aren't enough to counteract the dour storyline and funereal pacing, which leave the audience as despairing and depressed as the people on screen. A serious slice-of-life drama is one thing, but this unremittingly downbeat wallow in adultery, insanity and multiple suicides (let alone attempted suicides) is something else again.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
16,084 |
I saw this pilot when it was first shown, and I'm sure countless "Spirit" fans hate it, because, like Batman, the Green Hornet etc., it took the character in the direction of "camp". But I evidently never got enough of Batman, because I thought it was entertaining, in some of the same ways as that show. There are two parts that stay with me. First, when Denny's partner has been fatally wounded, and he makes a dramatic speech about how he always stood for the law, and obeying the exact letter of it. Then, he says something like, "Boy, was I stupid!" Which is his way of telling Denny to become a vigilante instead, which he does (though the TV Batman kind). Then, there's the scene where he tries to seduce the villainess into letting him go by kissing her, but she isn't fooled, because he's too honest to kiss her convincingly ! This was a great example of "camp", that was also "underplayed", by both the actor and actress.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
16,849 |
This is the kind of picture John Lassiter would be making today, if it weren't for advances in CGI. And that's just to say that he'd be forgotten, too, if technology hadn't made things sexy and kewl since 1983. _Twice..._ has got the same wit, imagination, and sense of real excitement that you'd find in a Pixar flick, only executed under the restrictions of the medium c. 1983. Innovative animation techniques combine with a great script and excellent voicing to produce a movie that appeals on lots of levels. It should be spoken of in the same breath with _Spiritited Away_ and _Toy Story_.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
280 |
WWF Survivor Series 2001<br /><br />This was among the worst events of 2001. Perhaps its biggest flaw was the fact that it didn't follow suit to most of the previous Survivor Series'. There was only ONE survivor series match. And that Survivor Series match went on for 45 minutes. What's more, anyone with a working brain would know that it would end with The Rock versus Austin and The Rock prevailing for his team. And don't get me started on the preview before the event. No matter who won it was obvious that no one was going to f***ing die. There was no need for all of that pointless hype. Whatever the storyline, it was just a wrestling event.<br /><br />And as for the rest of the matches: the first match was Christian defending his European title against Al Snow. It was a good fast paced match and its good to see a heel winning a match fairly. William Regal versus Tajiri was boring and we've seen it 2 or 3 times before. Edge versus Test was good but nothing great. The tag titles steel cage match was the best match of the evening. The battle Royal went on for 10 minutes and no one really cared who'd win in the first place. The Women's title match wasn't great. No, not in the slightest. The main event must have been the most hypocritical match in history. The Alliance lost but guess what, after 5 months every single Alliance superstar returned. The match itself was poor. The Rock eliminated 3 of them and Jericho eliminated 2. The Rock was too caught up with his acting to be there when the invasion began. Jericho was the one that jeopardised the whole match. If I wanted any 2 to be eliminated in the early going it would be them. Everyone knew that Kane, Big Show and Undertaker were just fall guys. 7 matches isn't enough for a Survivor Series. If there's ever a Survivor Series as bad as this again I'll
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
2,941 |
This movie was crap with a capital "C." The opening scene showed promise. But that "promise" was broken shortly after the viewer learns where the plot is going.<br /><br />And the wooden statue, Morty, who was rather creepy in the original film, looks plain goofy in this one. It was so obviously just a guy in a cheap plastic costume. (And by the way, who else thinks "Morty" is one of the most un-scary names on planet earth? It ranks right up there with "Jimmy" or "Fred" when it comes to horror value. Or why not just name the wooden statute Henry-freakin'-Kissinger. "Run, it's Dr. Kissinger!" That'd be about as scary as "Morty.)<br /><br />And then there's a scene where the "hero" hits his father's tombstone with---"a sledgehammer?" you might guess--"a two-by-four?" someone might venture. No, he angrily beats his father's tombstone with a twig---a freakin' twig. But worse than that, once the characters walk away, the tombstone actually, and inexplicably, bleeds. Oh brother!<br /><br />There's also a Native American guy who lives with the main character's grandparents, but apparently, does nothing except Morty-maintenance. He perpetuates creepy Morty-legends, warns those who scoff, and even fixes Morty's arm when it becomes damaged during a childish prank. But for all his respect for and tenderness toward Morty, does Morty give a rat's hairy behind? No.<br /><br />The movie drags on, and eventually several people die in ways that correspond to their worst fears (sort of). This film is a real yawner. Don't rent it.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
13,295 |
As has been well documented by previous posters, the real stars of Rockstar: INXS - and, indeed it's sequel, Rockstar: Supernova - are Paul Mirkovich, Rafael Moreira, Jim McGorman, Nate Morton and Sasha Krivtsov. Don't know who they are? They are the awesome, tight, rockin' House Band whose music savvy and talent made this show something more than a sad American Idol clone.<br /><br />Remember the "strings" night? That was musical precision and perfection if ever I've seen it. Suzie McNeil's epic rendition of Queen's 'Bohemian Rhapsody', Ty Taylor's memorable cover of the Stones' 'You Can't Always Get...', JD Fortune singing "Suspicious Minds". The common denominator here is the awesome House Band.<br /><br />As good as INXS were in their prime, they are sadly a shadow of their former selves, though JD's live performance has somewhat breathed new life into their music, this show is all about the HB.<br /><br />Memo to producers: Season Three (if we're blessed enough to have it happen) should be Rockstar: House Band. Get those boys a good lead singer and they are going places.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
4,947 |
This is quite possibly the worst film I have ever seen. Worse than the most abhorrent American dross; worse than Glitter - Mariah Carey in American dross par excellence. I can only imagine that the writer and producer were taking huge amounts of recreational pharmaceuticals, and when discussing the plot actually thought it was a good idea. it's not. It is abject rubbish from very bowels of Satan himself (who could probably have written a better script had he put his mind to it). Robert Jones as Exce Producer, spending our tax payers money (lottery money folks) on this piece of nonsense, should be accountable. Who on earth thought it would be a good idea to re-make Deathline??? I ask you - camp as a Christmas Tree, Deathline ... 'Mind the doors' is classic of really bad British film, we really don't need a reminder. And we certainly don't need a poor, second rate, badly scripted, badly developed and badly piece of rubbish like this. All this this from the UK funding agency that brought us Sex Lives of the Potato Men... I rest my case.<br /><br />Do Not Pay ANY money to see this. It is absolute and utter crap - the one saving grace for the producers is that they got a huge wedge of cash... our cash... for making it. They should hang their heads in shame.<br /><br />I am staggered at the low, low standard of this film. It makes me Mgr that our national body for the support of film actually thought it was worth supporting. There is no hope for the British film industry whilst idiots are running the show. Harvey Wienstein where are you? Come back, we forgive you!!!
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
19,241 |
The Invisible man is a show everybody s gotta love! It reminds me of the old school 80's series(a-team,airwolf,knightrider) The special effects are small but very effective!! but what is most important is the fun they had shooting this series. It really shows! the entire cast fit perfect in there roles and it looks like they can do whatever they want!! especially Paul Ben Victor and Vincent Ventresca. Ventresca really shines in this one! for me its unbelievable that an actor with so much sarcasm is his acting style Doesn't get a shot in a big movie (mr Tarantino this was the show you should have directed! instead of that major boring grave danger(c.s.i)) Get this show if you can. well worth it!!!
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
9,204 |
This film's kind of like Conan the Barabarian, but with more sex, rape and murder. There is a plot somewhere underneath all this debauchery but the filmmakers don't do a good job showing it, which is a shame because it 'could' be a decent story. Richard Hill gives a solid performance in the lead role, as does the villain - who sadly didn't appear in anything else of note. The fight scenes aren't too bad either - I love the way Deathstalker lets his sword 'drink' the blood of his victims - and there's plenty of nudity and sex to temper the general level of machismo throughout. <br /><br />All in all, not good - but not necessarily that bad either...
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
5,436 |
I usually don't walk out of a movie, but halfway thru I did. This movie promised something different, but I kept thinking haven't I seen that before? Spoiler Alert! Back in 1, the spaceship crashes and lands on earth, well, all these years later, with a super adult on board no less, this thing still manages to burn up and crash! What, this advanced civilization can't seem to develop landing gear? For an industry that's so liberal, we get to see another Woody Allen movie, no blacks please! Superman runs around saving people, making sure he sticks to Europe and the US, don't go into darkie areas please. Maybe I could stomach this about 30 years ago, but now now.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
176 |
A young man kills a young woman for no reason. The man's brother is jailed on charges that he was an accomplice, but soon escapes. Upon escaping, the seemingly innocent man kidnaps three victims and soon he ropes his girlfriend in on the plot. If this isn't bad enough, the situation quickly makes a downward spiral.<br /><br />This film had some good aspects and many bad ones. Its strongest aspect was lead actress Emily Haack. Setting aside the fact she's nude in a fair amount of this film, she presents herself as a decent actress and a very strong character. I see no reason she cannot take this experience and somehow turn it into a career in some way. I was convinced she was a ruthless individual.<br /><br />Also, the makers of this film were very bold and pulled no punches. Graphic nudity (both male and female), coprophagia, and extreme anal violence are not shied away from. I like my horror films to push the boundaries a little bit, and this one ignored them altogether, gladly skipping towards Gomorrah. Maybe it was too much, but I think they achieved what they were looking for.<br /><br />But now the negative aspects. First, and most noticeable, this film is very low budget and the film quality shows this. I can excuse that -- the plot was decent, the acting fine and in some scenes the lower quality film actually made the movie more disturbing (a more realistic feel). So, I won't scold them for having low-grade equipment. What I will scold them for is the use of poor choices in shots. For no reason I can ascertain (besides plumping the movie), there is a large amount of footage of a cemetery. I don't really know why, and I frankly started dozing off at this point because it was so long and pointless.<br /><br />I also take issue with the title. The idea here was to deceive people into thinking this film had some connection to the classic "I Spit on Your Grave". Now, there is a line that seems to imply the main character is the daughter of the woman from this other film. And the themes are very loosely the same (a woman getting revenge on men). But there is no firm connection and the reason this title was chosen was for the video store customer to think they were getting a sequel. This was deceptive and dishonest.<br /><br />My last major complaint is that this plot makes no real sense. Not even a little bit. A woman is killed in the beginning for no reason. A prison escapee finds time to kidnap people to torture them, for no reason (because they wronged his girlfriend?). The same man goes from good to very evil without explanation. Likewise, the female lead (Haack) turns fro ma normal person to someone who is overly cruel and sadistic, for no reason at all, and against people who for the most part were only marginally mean to her (a neighbor offering drugs for sex is wrong, but by no means worth getting tortured for).<br /><br />Don't let this title fool you, or the claims that the film is incredibly shocking. Yes, some scenes were shocking, but the vast majority of the film is dull and makes you want to take a nap. If you see this in the video store or on Netflix, just keep browsing. Or rent it, and we can sit around and vent about it for hours. You have been warned.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
5,427 |
I suppose bad Laurel and Hardy is better than no Laurel and Hardy at all, but just barely. It's sad that the Fox films are the ones getting a big release on DVD, exposing people who may not be too familiar with L&H to their WORST stuff rather than their classic comedies.<br /><br />Once again the boys are saddled with a dumb romantic plot about a guy who's invented an invisible ray. He's in love with the bosses' daughter, who hates him and prefers some slick guy. It's incredible to think the geniuses at Fox thought THIS is what L&H needed in their films.<br /><br />Without their pancake makeup the boys look tired and old. The only scenes that work for them in this picture is when they try to sneak out of a bedroom window at night and the rather bizarre scene where Robert Mitchum, being a classic noir bad guy tries to sell Oliver Hardy "insurance" on Stan.<br /><br />Otherwise, this script is just a mess. Forget this and see if you can find a copy of "A Chump at Oxford" or "Bohemian Girl" or "Sons of the Desert" instead.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
1,473 |
If you want to watch a real 'quality' movie get hold of The Eden Formula. This wondrous film must have cost all of $50 to make. It features a wafer thin script, pathetically bad sets, lighting and camera work, and a stop motion, paper-mache monster that is utterly laughable (it looks like they sometimes used a guy in a rubber suit and/or a glove puppet for the monster - but all were equally dreadful). <br /><br />The actors all speak their lines as though they've never seen them before and are reading off a teleprompter. The special effects are way beyond lousy. And the only sad thing is that they dropped the really nifty original title 'Tyranasaurus Wrecks' which sums up exactly what you get for the full 90 minutes.<br /><br />This is what happens when you scrape the bottom of the barrel so hard you break through to the crud that lies underneath. <br /><br />I loved every minute of it.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
6,935 |
BE WARNED. This movie is such a mess. It's a catastrophe. Don't waste your time with this one. I warned you!<br /><br />The acting, story, dialogue, music... basically everything is so over the top, it's absolutely annoying and ridiculous. It made me want to throw up (if the dialogue/acting/story wasn't doing it, it's everyone being shot crooked). You'll feel like you're watching a comedy. The problem is, the parts that are supposedly funny isn't even funny. The acting, story, cinematography, you can feel everything is just trying WAAAAY too hard -- but it never succeeds. Practically every shot is canted, but so what?! This movie just feels like a student film. No wonder they shot this in HD because it would be a waste to spend more money to shoot this on film.<br /><br />If you're easily amused or like poor acting, writing, editing, directing, full of clichés, everything that's forced in your face, oh and did I mention poor acting? (well, actually, it's not all the actor's fault - it's the director!) then I guess you'll like this movie.<br /><br />I had to watch this for a class. I would have turned it off right away if I could. If you still can't tell by now, I HATED this movie. It made me want to throw up and get my time back... at least I didn't have to pay for this garbage.<br /><br />Jeff Goldblum, you know... the guy from Jurassic Park/Independence Day, is in this movie but he sure went downhill from then -- accepting roles for movies like this catastrophe.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
21,614 |
Kate Beckinsale steals the show! Bravo! Too bad Knightly ins't as good looking as Jeremy Northam. Mark Strong did a fabulous job. Bernard Hepton was perfect as Emmas father. I love the end scene (which is an addition to the novel-but well written) when the harvest is in and Knightly dines with his workers and high society friends. Emma must show that she accepts this now. She is a changed woman. That is too much too quick, but OK. I'll buy into it. Samantha Bond plays Emma's ex-governess and confidant. She is wonderful. just as I would have imagined her. I believe that when the UK does a Jane Austen its the best. American versions of English literature are done for money and not for quality. See this one!
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
23,364 |
I am not a huge fan of camp kitsch and the "so bad it's good" type of viewing. However, I really like this film for its fun factor and - believe it or not - it's innovation.<br /><br />The whole thing has a ring of John Waters and is boundlessly enthusiastic, but with some superb actors and considered direction making the most of the slapstick and styalised movements. Billy Zane moves with incredible expression (see the scene on the bus for a text-book lesson in how to use movement) and is framed by some unexpected stars.<br /><br />You may not like this film, you may not enjoy it, but if you get the chance to watch it, then spare the time because chances are you will end the film with a confused smile on your face, and a new perspective on the sense of humour of some big stars. Highly reccomended.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
14,344 |
"De vierde man" (The Fourth Man, 1984) is considered one of the best European pycho thrillers of the eighties. This last work of Dutch director Paul Verhoeven in his home country before he moved to Hollywood to become a big star with movies like "Total Recall", "Basic Instinct" and "Starship Troopers" is about a psychopathic and disillusioned author (Jeroen Krabbe) going to the seaside for recovering. There he meets a mysterious femme fatale (Renee Soultendieck) and starts a fatal love affair with her. He becomes addicted to her with heart and soul and finds out that her three previous husbands all died with mysterious circumstances...<br /><br />"De vierde man" is much influenced by the old Hollywood film noire and the psycho thrillers of Alfred Hitchcock and Orson Wells. It takes much time to create a dark and gripping atmosphere, and a few moments of extreme graphic violence have the right impact to push the story straight forward. The suspense is sometimes nearly unbearable and sometimes reminds of the works of Italian cult director Dario Argento.<br /><br />The cast is also outstanding, especially Krabbe's performance as mentally disturbed writer that opened the doors for his international film career ("The Living Daylights", "The Fugitive"). If you get the occasion to watch this brilliant psycho thriller on TV, video or DVD, don't miss it!
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
20,625 |
Criminals Perry Smith and Richard "Dick" Hickock believe Mr. Clutter of Holcomb, Kansas keeps a large supply of cash on-hand in a safe.On November 15, 1959 at two a.m. they end up murdering Mr. and Mrs. Clutter and their teenage son and daughter.After a little police investigation the two men are found and sentenced to be hanged.In Cold Blood (1967) is directed by Richard Brooks.Now, I haven't read the Truman Capote novel this movie is based on, so I can't make any comparisons.The movie does a brilliant job telling of those horrific events that actually took place.Robert Blake is excellent as Perry.Of course, Blake had the murder case of his own a few years back, being accused of murdering his wife.He's free now, but we still don't know the truth.What ever that may be, he's still a very fine actor.Scott Wilson does remarkable job as Hickock.John Forsythe is terrific as Alvin Dewey.Paul Stewart is very good as Jensen.Jeff Corey is marvelous as Mr. Hickock.Same thing with Charles McGraw who plays Tex Smith.John McLiam portrays Herbert Clutter, Ruth Storey is his wife Bonnie, Brenda Currin is the daughter Nancy and Paul Hough is the son Kenyon.Great job by each of them.There is much to remember from this film.Let's start from the lighter side.It's pretty great when Perry wants to go hunting for gold in Mexico and says to Hickock: Remember Bogart in Treasure of the Sierra Madre?" And Blake himself was in that movie as a boy! And it's a fun moment when they, giving a ride to that boy and his granddad, collect bottles and turn them in for refund money.Those darker moments are the most haunting ones.The flashback sequence, where you see the murders happening, is extremely terrifying.When Perry goes to kill the girl, Nancy last, and she says "Oh, please, don't"...The brutality of man, it's impossible to explain.Then the hanging scene.First there goes Hickock and then Perry, first talking to the minister.In the last image of the movie we see Perry hitting the end of the rope.Sure movies,and books may try to sympathize these villains.Especially Perry's character is someone you could feel sorry for.He thinks of his mom, and dad who he hates, but still loves.But it doesn't change the fact both of these men these actors portray are brutal murderers, who don't feel sorry for anybody.They go to this house and murder an entire family, in cold blood.How could you sympathize these people?
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
9,292 |
As a Hammer completist I was dreading the time when I would have to raise the courage to watch this film and the one following it, Holiday on the Buses. I had seen One the Buses the film and thought it one of the worst films I have ever seen. It was full of all the awful comedy that plagued British TV screens around the early 70's.<br /><br />I am ashamed to say that there were actually parts of this film that I laughed at. I don't know if it was because I was now familiar with the characters and enjoyed some of the situations, knowing how they would react. I found Blakey particularly funny, although I could swear at no point in the trilogy does he say his catchphrase, "I'll get you Butler".<br /><br />Having watched Holiday on the Buses the jokes were starting to wear thin and these three films could be compared to an early Hammer trilogy, Dick Barton, in that the second film made is the best (although this is probably the only way they could be compared).<br /><br />The only people who would want to watch this film are probably fans of the TV series, who will no doubt enjoy this, and Hammer completists like myself. To the completists I would say that this film isn't that bad and I can certainly think of worse Hammer comedies.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
1,665 |
The Invisible Maniac starts as a young Kevin Dornwinkle (Kris Russell) is caught by his strict mother (Marilyn Adams) watching a girl (Tracy Walker) strip through his telescope... Cut to 'Twenty Years Later' & Kevin Dornwinkle (Noel Peters) is now a physics professor who claims to have discovered a way to turn things invisible using a 'mollecular reconstruction' serum. However during a demonstration in front of his fellow scientists it fails & they all laugh at him, Dornwinkle goes mad kills a few of them & is locked away in a mental institute from which he escapes. Jump forward 'Two Weeks Later' & a group of summer college students discuss the tragic death of their physics teacher when the headmistress Mrs. Cello (Stephanie Blake as Stella Blalack) says that she has hired a replacement, yes you've guessed it it's Dornwinkle. The student don't take to him & treat him like dirt, however Dornwinkle has perfected his invisibility serum & uses it to satisfy his perverted sexual urges & his desire for revenge...<br /><br />Co-written & directed by Adam Rifkin wisely hiding under the pseudonym Rif Coogan (I wouldn't want my name to be associated with this turd of a film either) The Invisible Maniac is real bottom of the barrel stuff. The script by Rifkin, sorry Coogan & Tony Markes is awful. It tries to be a teenage sex/comedy/horror hybrid that just fails in every department. For a start the sex is nothing more than a few female shower scenes & a few boob shots, not much else I'm afraid & the birds in The Invisible Maniac aren't even that good looking. The comedy is lame & every joke misses by the proverbial mile, this is the kind of film that thinks someone fighting an invisible man or having Henry (Jason Logan) a mute man trying to make a phone call is funny. The Invisible Maniac makes the Police Academy (1984 - 1994) series of films look like the pinnacle of sophistication! As for the horror aspect that too is lame. It's also an incredibly slow (it takes over half an hour before Dornwinkles even becomes invisible), dull, predictable, boring & has highly annoying & unlikable teenage character's.<br /><br />Director Rifkin or Coogan or whatever does absolutely nothing to try & make The Invisible Maniac an even slightly enjoyable experience. There's no scares, tension or atmosphere & as a whole the film is a real chore to sit through. He does nothing with the invisibility angle, just a few doors opening on their own is as adventurous as it gets. There is very little gore or violence, a bit of splashing blood, a few strangulations & the only decent bit in the whole film when someone has their head blown off with a shotgun, unfortunately he was invisible at the time & we only get to see the headless torso afterwards.<br /><br />The budget must have been low, & I mean really low because this is one seriously cheap looking film. Dornwinkles laboratory is basically two jars on his bedside cabinet! When he escapes from the mental institution he has all of one dog sent after him & the entire school has about a dozen pupils & two teachers. The Invisible Maniac is a poorly made film throughout it's 85 minute duration, I spotted the boom mike on at least one occasion... Lets just say the acting is of a low standard & leave it at that.<br /><br />The Invisible Maniac is crap, plain & simple. I found no redeeming features in it at all, there are so many more better films out there you can watch so there is no reason whatsoever to waste your time on this rubbish. Definitely one to avoid.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
18,231 |
Personally, I think Sayonara was the greatest movie he ever made. It touched every emotion from anger to romance to complete tragedy. And Brando should have won for best actor. Anyway, the movie is awesome, the man is attractive to BOTH MEN AND WOMEN and now you have no reason not to see it! Do so, and fall in love.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
13,950 |
Big splashy film of the Broadway music. Nathan (Frank Sinatra) loves to roll the dice and organize illegal crap games. Blonde loving Adelaide (Vivian Blaine) wants to marry him IF he gives up craps. He decides on one last game when Sky Masterson (Marlon Brando!), who bets big, is in town. He bets Sky that he can't get mission worker Sarah Brown (Jean Simmons) to go with him to Havana. That may sound like a strange plot summary but so is the movie!<br /><br />This is a real mixed bag--there's some wonderful stuff here. The songs are all good and the dancing is incredible. The real show stopper is at the crap game at the end. Also Brando is really quite good here--it might seem strange to think of him singing and dancing but he pulls it off. I have to admit seeing big, bulky Brando pulling off some difficult dance moves was a lot of fun! Also Sinatra is pretty good and Blaine is just wonderful as his long-suffering girlfriend. Her song and dance numbers are definite highlights here.<br /><br />Now for the bad parts--Jean Simmons is a wonderful actress but she's stuck with a drab colorless role and can't do much with it. The movie is far too long at 150 minutes--the scenes between Brando and Simmons really drag and should have been shortened. Also most of the characters speak in very precise English--contractions are never used. Maybe it's trying to be amusing coming out of the mouths of gangsters but I found it jarring and it kept throwing me out of the movie.<br /><br />It's worth catching for the songs and dances but the over length of it does get to you after a while. I give it a 7.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
20,596 |
Nothing new is this tired serio-comedy that wastes the talents of Danny Glover and Whoopi Goldberg. Considering that this was produced by the stars and Spike Lee, it's pretty tame and tired stuff. And how come the Whoop never changes her hair or glasses over the many years this film covers? Blah!
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
1,966 |
Perhaps the biggest waste of production time, money and the space on the video store shelf. If someone suggests you see this movie, run screaming in the other direction. Unless, of course, you're into self-abuse.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
5,426 |
Ah yes the 1980s , a time of Reaganomics and Sly , Chuck and a host of other action stars hiding in a remote jungle blowing away commies . At the time I couldn`t believe how movies like RAMBO , MISSING IN ACTION and UNCOMMON VALOR ( And who can forget the ridiculous RED DAWN ? ) made money at the box office , they`re turgid action crap fests with a rather off putting right wing agenda and they have dated very badly . TROMA`S WAR is a tongue in cheek take on these type of movies but you`ve got to ask yourself did they need spoofing in the first place ? Of course not . TROMA`S WAR lacks any sort of sophistication - though it does make the point that there`s no real difference between right wing tyrants and left wing ones - and sometimes feels more like a grade z movie than a send up . Maybe it is ?
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
8,230 |
Wow, I love and respect pretty much anything that David Lynch has done. However, this movie is akin to a first filmmaker's attempt at making a pseudo art video. <br /><br />To give you a couple of examples: <br /><br />1. David Lynch is typically a visual filmmaker, however, this had little visual artistic content (blank walls, "up shots" with ceiling in the background) <br /><br />2. David Lynch typically takes great pride in audio, however, in this you could even hear the video camera's hum. <br /><br />In fact, it is very hard to swallow the idea that he had anything to do with this movie. unless...<br /><br />...this is a joke, on David's part, to force fans search his website (for hours) only to find this drivel. I hope so, because at least that idea is funny.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
3,897 |
Left Behind is the kind of "we know what we know cause we know it" movie that Christians (and most any other naive person) needs to help them feel like what they "THINK" and "BELIEVE" (not "KNOW") is right. But, at the same time I feel bad for the little guys, because this is not a well made film. It does not help ANY message. I work at a video store, and I KNOW the ONLY reason people went to see this movie was because they were religious and they thought it was. ANYBODY on this earth who THINKS they know what will happen in the future is wrong, unless they think they know that they don't know. I've had about enough (but only after I've had too much) of these people walking around with their noses in the air thinking that a movies starring a semi-talented TV actor means something above me.<br /><br />Please, if you love yourself you'll stay away. I refuse to go into any detail about this movie (not because A-I didn't see it (because I did), B-it was too shocking for my atheist-self to handle (because it wasn't), or C-I really don't have anything to say bad about it (because I do). The Reason, (which is a word nobody who helped make this movie understands) is that I want this movie out of my head, I want that it was made out of my head, I want that I watched ALL OF IT WITH AN OPEN MIND out of my head, I want the message that Kirk so proudly and coachly gives at the end of the movie out of my head. I only want all the things that were in my head BEFORE viewing this movies there, anything directly connected with this movie that's floating in my head GET OUT! My peaceful rage is ending. I'm sorry that somebody in this world went to the theater to see this movie about what could happen in the future (but won't) when they could have given that Seven Dollars Plus to any number of Human, Animal, or Rain Forest charity. But if they did that then they wouldn't be able to "BELIEVE" in the fact that it's real, they might have to fact what is. LEFT BEHIND ZERO (out of ****)
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
8,801 |
If you are wondering where many of the conspiracy theories and paranoid ideas about the the UN, Israel, and international affairs come from, look no further.<br /><br />This isn't a supernatural Hollywood film loosely based on some biblical passage. Instead, this movie was made by a company (Cloud Ten Pictures) with a political and religious agenda. As a movie, the end result at times more looks like clips out of a televangelism program (complete with family prayers and light breaking through church windows while harps are playing).<br /><br />For mainstream viewers, it may be hard to believe, but many people believe in this stuff literally, as presented in the movie. And that, perhaps, makes the movie important. You probably won't find a more concise exposition of the bizarre views of a significant number of your fellow citizens. So, if you view it, view it as a social/cultural document. If you are at all media savvy, you don't need to be warned about the unsubtle attempts at propaganda and manipulation in the movie.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
14,237 |
This is a really old fashion charming movie. The locations are great and the situation is one of those old time Preston sturgess movies. Fi you want to watch a movie that doesn't demand much other then to sit back and relax then this is it. The acting is good, and I really liked Michael Rispoli. He was in Rounders, too. And While You Were Sleeping. The rest of the cast is fun. It's just what happens when two people about to get married meet the one that they really love on the weekend that they are planning their own weddings. I know... sounds kooky... but it is. And that's what makes it fun to watch. It will make your girl friend either hug you or leave you, but at least you'll know.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
1,974 |
I, like many people, saw this film in the theatre when it first came out in '97. It was a below average film at best, defiantly not the "masterpiece" that all these "Titanic" fanboys like to make it out as. First off, DiCaprio is a terrible actor no matter which way you look at it. People just like him because of his looks. His acting "skills" essentially consist of saying a lot of cheesy lines and trying to act sexy. Second, the film itself had a rather boring and simple plot: girl falls in love with guy, ship they're on sinks, lots of crappy love scenes thereafter. Anyone with an IQ above 50 will realize this isn't ingenious in any way whatsoever. Nor is it original. Plus the director felt the need to drag it out for 3+ hours. I could compress it into a 1 hour block without losing any of the plot. In conclusion, "Titanic" is the most overrated movie to date. Why it got so much attention and money is beyond me.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
19,811 |
The Power of Kangwon Province is director Hong Sang-Soo's second feature effort and clearly much of what he started with in his previous film returns in this film, including the multiple connected narratives (in this case, two), and stories of troubled or troubling relationships, as well as a potent dosage of irony.<br /><br />One thing that's clearly reduced from his previous work is the flights of fancy that included elements of surrealism. However, this film also contains a single moment of surreal that strikes a contrast against the otherwise rather realistic depiction found therein. The two stories follow a young woman who goes on a trip to Kangwon Province with her friends, only to find herself drawn to a stranger, the second about a man who also goes on a trip to Kangwon Province with his friend and struggles with his relationship woes.<br /><br />Again, Hong shows a strong understanding of irony and of the flaws in human nature and yet I don't think he's entirely unsympathetic when it comes to his characters, drawing in just enough compassion to offset the criticism he draws with his irony. I think the think I've come to love about Hong's films is that they just feel so real, especially the complex and conflicted characters. Not to say that every person is a hypocrite or suffering from confused feelings, but rather, that these characters he and the actors present, feel fully developed and believable.<br /><br />This is not a fast moving film. There's a lot of lingering and like the previous film, things don't always connect immediately so patience does pay off and in surprising ways. There doesn't appear to be any element of the film that isn't intentionally placed in the film and it's made my a little hyper-aware of various seemingly extra characters as they get dragged into the mix as the film progresses.<br /><br />Power is an excellent film that manages to inject a level of personal emotion, regret, longing into a story that highlights irony and the fallibility of human decision-making. It's a rather hard balance to keep and it's surprising how Hong manages to pull it off twice in a row. Technical production values have gotten much better since the first film and direction has gotten steady and clear. This film doesn't pack the same emotional wallop that the first does, but gains a lot in its assured exploration and the refinement really helps tighten the overall vision. Great viewing for art cinema lovers. 8/10.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
2,062 |
Margret Laurence probably didn't intend on having any of her novels adopted for film, let alone the Stone Angel. Hagar, as a character, was one who constantly challenged the social norm (Gainsay who dare, anyone?), and ended up nearly sacrificing her humanity in the process. The symbols in the book (the Stone Angel, Silver Thread, etc, etc.) are constant reminders of this struggle of the old and new, and the carnage (so to speak) along the way.<br /><br />While the film is reasonably faithful to the plot of the book (but it isn't really a plot kind-of storytelling, is it?), I think it missed the point on capturing the spirit of the film. Hagar's defiance (for the sake of defiance) was not there. Bram could have been a lot more crude than portrayed, and Hagar's father could have been played more "traditionally", so to speak. If the filmmaker would insisted on stronger portrayals, the film would drive the point straight to home.<br /><br />Along the same vein, why should we see cell phones, organic produce, and other modernizations? Are we trying make some points for the sake of making some points (e.g., the Muslim girlfriend and the Native people). Hagar and co. are everything but politically correct in the book, so why should we see that in the film version. Modernization may be an excuse for a low-budget operation, but using that as an excuse to send subliminal politically-correct messages that are totally irrelevant to the novel (and the film) seems like throwing punches below the intellect.<br /><br />There is also the audience. It seems that we have been conditioned to see bitter old people as cute and lovable. Why should be laugh every time Hagar is at her tantrums? I doubt Magaret Laurence wanted her readers to laugh at, or with, Hagar. These people are frustrated and are full of angst, and all we do is to laugh at them. I don't think it did Hagar and other folks in her situation any justice.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
1,000 |
From everything I'd read about the movie, I was excited to support a film with a Christian theme. Everything about the movie was very unprofessionally done. Especially the writing! Without good writing a movie doesn't have a chance. The writer/director said in an interview that he didn't want to give away how the title relates to the story. Believe me, it was NO big surprise. I kept waiting for the teenage/young adult back-story to unfold, but it never did. As someone who has gone through a divorce, I was very disappointed. This movie would have been NO comfort to me when I first went through the emotional turmoil that divorce can bring to your life as a Christian!
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
17,327 |
The costumes and make-up were grand, there were some exceptionally funny lines, and the role was made for Jim Carrey. Carrey did as good a job as could be done given the rather disappointing script writing. Sure this was mostly a movie for kids, but if you are going to spend this much money making a movie you really ought to at least give the story enough body to go beyond that of Dr Seuss. I expected more from Ron Howard. It's worth a see, but it lacks the necessary qualities to become a major classic, by any measure.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
10,851 |
I bought this video at Walmart's $1 bin. I think I over-paid!!! In the 1940s, Bela Lugosi made a long string of 3rd-rate movies for small studios (in this case, Monogram--the ones who made most of the Bowry Boys films). While the wretchedness of most of these films does not approach the level of awfulness his last films achieved (Ed Wood "classics" such as Bride of the Monster and Plan 9 From Outer Space), they are nonetheless poor films and should be avoided by all but the most die-hard fans.<br /><br />I am an old movie junkie, so I gave this a try. Besides, a few of these lesser films were actually pretty good--just not this one.<br /><br />Lugosi is, what else, a mad scientist who wants to keep his rather bizarre and violent wife alive through a serum he concocts from young brides. They never really explained WHY it had to be brides or why it must be women or even what disease his wife had--so you can see that the plot was never really hashed out at all.<br /><br />Anyways, a really annoying female reporter (a Lois Lane type without Jimmy Olsen or Superman) wants to get to the bottom of all these apparent murders in which the bodies were STOLEN! So, she follows some clues all the way to the doorstep of Lugosi. Lugosi's home is complete with his crazed wife, a female assistant and two strange people who are apparently the assistant's sons (an ugly hunchbacked sex fiend and a dwarf). Naturally this plucky reporter faints repeatedly throughout the film--apparently narcolepsy and good investigative journalism go hand in hand! Eventually, the maniacs ALL die--mostly due to their own hands and all is well. At the conclusion, the reporter and a doctor she just met decide to marry. And, naturally, the reporter's dumb cameraman faints when this occurs. If you haven't noticed, there's a lot of fainting in this film. Or, maybe because it was such a slow and ponderous film they just fell asleep!
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
2,886 |
I respect the fact that this is a very popular show. However, in comparison with Robert Altman's ingenious, hilarious, zany, and groundbreaking 1970 movie classic, this show was probably destined to be less-than-mediocre... even if it did run for 11 years, that doesn't necessarily make it any good. This show formed an all-too-integral part of my early childhood (it was on re-runs every night, and guess whose parents were watching it and laughing it up), but it's one of the memories I don't miss. And now that I actually have seen the movie, I can give this series an accurate critique. On its own, it's not nearly "2 out of 10" bad. However, the characters on this show are nothing like those in the movie. Some of them technically are the same, but they're only similar in name. For instance, since when is Alan Alda anything like Donald Sutherland? His style of humor is totally different, as are his characterization and outlook. The new characters are not that great; they just serve to make you miss the ones that they're replacing. It's the same with the new actors (including Jamie Farr). The only thing that actually transfers to the series is Radar, who's still (even though played by the same actor) merely a pale imitation of the original. What else? Oh, yeah. With a laugh track (it didn't matter whether it was used in surgery scenes or not), it comes across as creepy, due to what's going on in the other settings. And because it lasted nearly four times longer than the actual Korean War, it takes viewers into this bizarre temporal rift that doesn't work outside the world of cartoons. I've never liked this show, and I never will.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
12,208 |
Unless you are an Evangelical Christian then make like an Egyptian and avoid like the biblical plague.<br /><br />Awful - why oh why does IMDb list the most favourable reviews at the top of the list - it was due to one of these that I have just wasted the end of what started out as good evening on this claptrap.<br /><br />The plot premise started out strong enough - I was drawn into the film and was interested right up to the point where the Bible sermons took over. What a waste.<br /><br />This film has so incensed me that I have registered with IMDb for the first time just to complain about it - I hope at least that by doing so I save someone else's evening.<br /><br />Hay - what a Christian act on my part ;-)
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
6,346 |
"The Bubble" is an effort to make a gay Romeo & Juliet type of story with an Israeli and a Palestinian, although it seems to come at it by way of "Friends" or "Beverly Hills 90210." The characters are shallow and trite as are the dialog and plot line. The movie seems torn between fluff and depth. On the one hand there is a pointed effort at being shallow as (in one example of many) some minor characters even ask questions that invite development of insight into the conflicts at hand, and get answers like, "Hey, we're here to make a poster for a rave against the occupation. Don't get political!" Beyond the obvious absurdity of such a line, it's just one of many ham-fisted signals that the movie is just as hollow and insubstantial as its title suggests. On the other hand, the movie's main pretension to depth follows the lovers to a presentation of "Bent" a play about gays in a Nazi labor camp. The scene on stage is awkwardly rushed, undermining its erotic power (understandable given the constraints of film-time, but still this could have been edited to much better effect.) and comes off as flimsily as the rest of the film. Too bad. This play deserves much better.<br /><br />The characters are so one-dimensionally cartoony some even have names that telegraph their entire (though the word seems inappropriate here) substance. The aggressive soldier from the crack Golani brigade is named "Golan." The militant Palestinian is named "Jihad." The striving-for-chic faghag roommate is "Lulu." Anyone familiar with the checkpoints and life in Palestine, whether from real life or documentaries will find the checkpoint scenes as absurdly unreal as
well, the rest of this fluffy fantasy. When a Palestinian woman goes into the fastest labor on record Israeli soldiers are solicitous and helpful, an ambulance shows up in minutes. (The outcome of the birth serves to show the Palestinians as unappreciative of Israeli beneficence and even downright paranoiac.) Altogether the checkpoint is shown as a mere nuisance, not the series of bone-numbing, soul-crushing, humiliating obstructions with no regard for medical care or necessity in cases of birth, death, or severe illness. Ashraf, the Palestinian lover, seems to get through from Nablus to Tel Aviv with no problems, no papers, no hassles. He just shows up whenever he likes. When the Israelis want to get through it is much more of a challenge involving a scheme worthy of Lucy Ricardo.<br /><br />Against the backdrop of nice, supportive Israelis and surly homophobic Palestinians we move to a resolution that is utterly lacking in motivation or purpose except as a painfully obvious dramatic device to milk sympathy for the forbidden lovers.<br /><br />Gay Israeli-Palestinian romance has been handled on stage with much more skill and depth as in Saleem's "Salaam/Shalom" so this film is hardly even as groundbreaking as some people would like to think.<br /><br />Gloriously bad films like the works of Ed Wood -- at least have some striking idiosyncrasy to distinguish them. This one doesn't even have that going for it. Most of the sound track sounds like Simon and Garfunkel on quaaludes, and even with the weird oedipal touches to the gay sex scenes, the general incompetence that pervades this movie plays out like a mediocre TV-movie-of-the-week.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
6,890 |
I can't come up with appropriate enough words to describe the horror I felt sitting in that cinema watching Ramgopal Varma Ki Aag, the director's half-hearted attempt to pay tribute to that classic Bollywood western, Sholay. The biggest problem with Varma's remake is that he doesn't even try to make a credible film. It's evident in every single frame of this movie that Varma's heart is just not in it. What you see on screen is a bad joke at best, a gimmick on the part of the filmmaker, and it pains you to see what little regard he actually shows for a film he claims he's been a fan of all his life.I've seen several bad films over the years, but I can't remember one that's been as much of a torture to sit through as this one. Consider yourself very brave if you're able to survive the entire film, because it tests your patience like few films have before.Varma may borrow his plot and characters from the original film, but his version is trite and hollow and doesn't have any of the spirit and energy of Sholay. Ramgopal Varma Ki Aag is actually a mockery of that timeless gem because it turns out to be everything that the original film was not - way-over-the-top, too-long-too-boring, and entirely mindless. Much-loved moments from Sholay are parodied by Varma and for that you want to wring his neck. One of the most memorable scenes in Sholay in which Dharmendra as Veeru climbs up the watertank and threatens to jump down to his death is turned around in this film with Ajay Devgan playing Hero, pulling a pistol to his head threatening to shoot himself. How you wish he'd pulled the trigger and spared us all the agony.Not only does Ramgopal Varma Ki Aag fail as a remake of Sholay, it's a pretty bad effort even as a stand-alone film. The eardrum-damaging background score sounds more like someone clanging vessels in the kitchen, and the camera-work alternates between dramatic and head-spinning. Partners in this terrible crime of bringing this ridiculous film to screen are the film's mostly dead-as-wood actors. Sushmita Sen as Devi the widow takes both her role and the film too seriously, punctuating her lines with pauses, staring into camera for effect, and generally performing like her life depends upon it. Mohanlal as Narsimha, struggles with his Hindi dialogue and looks embarrassed to be delivering some of the stupidest lines in his illustrious career. Newcomer Prashant Raj playing Jai-equivalent Raj has no acting chops to speak of and can't strum up any of the brooding intensity Amitabh Bachchan brought to the part in the original film.As Hero, the new-age Veeru, Ajay Devgan is entirely hopeless, failing miserably in his attempts at comedy. But the film's weakest link, easily the most shocking casting decision is Nisha Kothari as Ghunghroo, who steps into the shoes of Hema Malini as Basanti, the endearing airhead from Sholay. Nisha Kothari is not only the worst actress in this country, but possibly the worst actress in this whole wide world, she gives the word annoying a whole new meaning, and she makes you want to slit your wrists every time she's on screen. And then, there is Amitabh Bachchan playing Babban Singh, Ramgopal Varma's version of Hindi cinema's most popular villain Gabbar Singh. The only actor in this ensemble who recognises the film's over-the-top tone and plays along accordingly, Bachchan constructs a menacing character who is a treat to watch. He's meant to be a comic book villain who snarls and sneers and hisses and hams, and he does all of that to good effect. But because he's trapped in such a doomed enterprise, his performance doesn't really help elevate the film in any way.No surprises here, I'm going with zero out of ten and two thumbs down for Ramgopal Varma Ki Aag, it one's of those painful movie-watching experiences you wouldn't subject even an enemy to. It's not like Varma hasn't handled a remake before. With Sarkar he gave us a smart, gripping take on The Godfather, and it's a pity he's made this Sholay bhature out of such a much-loved classic. Ramgopal Varma Ki Aag is his worst career decision ever, it's also a dark spot on his resume he'll be embarrassed of forever. I suspect this film will go down in movie history as Ramgopal Varma Ka Daag.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
10,598 |
Well this is a typical "straight to the toilet" slasher film.<br /><br />Long story short, a bunch of teenagers/young adults becoming stranded in the middle of creepy woods and get hacked down by naked nymphomaniac demons.<br /><br />This movie has all the basics for this slasher fromage:<br /><br />-Naked women, -teens or young adults being marooned in someplace spooky, -gory death scenes, -the last survivor being a well built young woman who will always show off her midriff, but never bra less, -a creepy, crazy man who knows about the evil, -lesbian kiss scene, -sex being a killer, -no plot<br /><br />Even then for a cheesy slasher film, it was really terrible. The atmosphere is totally dead. Nothing, not even the sexually explicit scenes and nudity, was enough to keep the male and lesbian female audience interested. Watching it felt like it was being watched with a nasty head congestion or a nasty head cold.<br /><br />Give the demonic ..... 0/10.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
20,584 |
First, what I didn't like. The acting was not really up to the Hamlet standard. Branagh was really over-the-top, doing a lot of yelling mostly. In my opinion, those actors who were not big-name celebrities generally did a better job; though I would except Billy Crystal and Robin Williams. (And Charlton Heston, too, but I wasn't sure if he was playing at being a hack.) A lot of the ambiguities in the play were clearly resolved one way in the flashbacks.<br /><br />What I think speaks very much in this play's favor is that it is accessible. Shakespeare is hard to understand for the vast majority of people nowadays; many people are not even inclined to try, because of its reputation as Serious Literature and its archaic English. If they see this film they will understand clearly at least one man's interpretation of the play. They will be seeing it more as Shakespeare's audiences saw it: a play with sword fights and battles, and mighty kings and nobles, murder and incest and evil schemes and ghosts--and great art, if one cares to look for it, but in Shakespeare's day most didn't, any more than most people do now. Branagh's overacting, and his forcing of his interpretation of the story on the viewer, may detract from Shakespeare's art somewhat, but it is better that modern audiences get a piece of it, rather than nothing.<br /><br />I've got to say one more thing though. Some people are complaining that "it's set in the 19th century and that wasn't Shakespeare's time". Well, in Shakespeare's time their costume and scenery was that of their own day for all of their plays. Shakespeare may have SAID it's in the days of ancient Rome or medieval Denmark or whatever, but he didn't dress his characters up like they were, he used the costumes of his own time. For the same reason his plays are full of anachronisms. For example, in King John the English and French have cannons--in Robin Hood's day. In Julius Caesar they talk of chimneys, which wouldn't be invented for another thousand years, and in Henry IV they talk about Machiavelli, who wasn't even born yet then. So I think this objection is silly--you might as well complain that the play isn't in Danish (after all they live in Denmark don't they?).
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
6,253 |
Where do I start? Per the title of this film I expected some degree of authenticity, in the end I was severally let down. This is not the story of Lale Andersen or the song Lili Marlene, rather it is a Hollywood (or pick your film making hub) story loosely based on some real life characters. I should have had a clue when I heard a heavy English accent giving the intro to the movie in German; the blood red text (title, artists) should have been the 2nd clue. The story line is contrived (Lale was not tricked out of Switzerland Rolf Liebermann's parents, there is no info that Liebermann helped smuggle Jews from Germany, the original song had been recorded outside of the control of the NS regime not while under control, the record played at the station was picked up in Vienna while a Lt. was there on leave, etc, etc) the costumes are poor and incorrect for the time frames (SS black uniforms used every where from border guards to staff positions, these went away from daily use once the war started, etc), the characters are stereo types (SA bullies in a club once they were essentially out of power). Don't waste your time.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
16,786 |
Although I really enjoyed Jim Carrey's latest "serious" performances ("The Truman Show", "Man on the Moon"), I've always thought his real genious lies in physical comedy. This is not to say he is a fantastic, talented actor: those bozos at the Academy Awards seem to dislike him so much, he has never had a (truly deserved) nomination or award. Well, any "institution" that nominates for 11 Oscars a bore such as "Titanic" shouldn't be taken seriously.<br /><br />On with the review. "The Grinch" is the sweetest, best looking, best acted, more enjoyable seasons film since "The Nightmare before Christmas". Both movies seem very similar, too, with their highly stylized sets and the premise of someone stealing Christmas. Both make their principal actors seem like the villains (one in a higher degree than the other), both pack a strong moral lesson, and both are truly enjoyable.<br /><br />That is, until you realize that Jack Skellington is a doll, and The Grinch is a human being. But a human being that is so incredibly expressive, so fluid in his movements, so cartoon-like, so unreal, that never gets in the way of the movie. He can be hilarious, he can be a sad soul, he can be angry. He lives in a 3-dimensional world, where 3-dimensional people live. He jokes, he laughs, he cries, and ultimately he saves the Christmas. I loved this film to bits, and cannot wait for it to come out on DVD. This is one of those films you will really enjoy 10, 20 years from now. As timeless as they come.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
12,907 |
Creature Comforts in America should have been released on a different network, or at least been given the chance to have its full run of episodes. Unfortunately, this was not the case. Given that American audiences (seemingly) have the attention spans of a gnat when it comes to the humor that does not consist of profanity laced diatribes, or has a preoccupation with scatological functions (both sound and smells), shows like this will be few and far between. One of the main problems was that however brilliant it was, it was made for a rarefied audience who knew what to expect but was viewed by an audience and board rooms that did not have a clue at to what they were watching. Which is sad, but not unexpected. I would have liked to have seen at least three more seasons of this show even if it was produced for direct DVD release. The material and the interactions between the creatures were rich with sub context and there were other conversations just waiting to be had under the surface. But thanks to Political Correctness, such conversations take place only in my mind.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
23,657 |
I thoroughly enjoyed this movie, but it is nothing new.<br /><br />Everyone here is grouping it with other war movies, this movie has been miscategorized! Its not a war movie any more than "One flew over the cuckoos nest" is a asylum movie or "Cool Hand Luke" is a prison movie. This is a movie about individuality, nonconformity, self-confidence and the costs of that personality type.<br /><br />The plot is the same as "One flew over the Cuckoos nest" and "Cool Hand Luke", its in GOOD company, and it holds its own. Its these movies it should be held up against and compared, not "Apocalypse Now" or "Platoon".<br /><br />Eric
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
16,428 |
New York I Love You just like its predecessor (Paris Je T'Aime) is a compound of various stories that reflects the different kinds and aspects of love but unlike it the rhythm is much faster and the stories much shorter. The movie offers a unique view of the city of New York with its various and different landscapes. New York, I Love You offers a first class cast, featuring such great actors like Shia LaBeouf, Natalie Portman, Ian McKellen, Hayden Christensen, Chistina Rcci and Orlando Bloom, Ethan Hawke, James Caan and Robin Wright Penn among others and some excellent writers and directors like Brett Ratner and Anthony Mingella.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
15,102 |
Another episode from childhood that, as an adult, I look back on with a different perspective. This was one of my favorite childhood episodes, one that really cemented my adoration of this show. However, on viewing this episode after 20 years, I'd say it is definitely one of the lighter ones, played for laughs and amusement, instead of the dramatic and well-constructed story lines in previous episodes in this, their first and best season. Perhaps this episode was written for a little fan R&R too! As Mr. Spock would say, the story just isn't logical but there are some amusing lines like, of course, Mr. Spock's final one at the end--when he asks the Captain, McCoy et al whether they enjoyed their R&R and they answer in the affirmative, he raises an eyebrow and says "Fascinating..." in only the way Mr. Spock could do that. An interesting story line, of course, the idea of an amusement park being actually amusing (instead of the fake and often annoying "amusement" of Disneyland, for example), being able to have one's wishes actually come true. Really, a great idea but not that well executed. And coming from Theodore Sturgeon, another of the great SF short story writers they used in the first season, one wonders how much tinkering was done to the script that Sturgeon turned in.<br /><br />Now, here is a little trivia I learned on this very site: In 1987, James Gunn established the Theodore Sturgeon Award for best short science fiction story. And I'll quote the rest from this site: In 1968 he {Sturgeon} wrote "The Joy Machine", a third script for the Star Trek TV series {Amok Time the other}, that was never shot. The main reason that it wasn't used in the series is that it contained expensive special effects sequences that would be too much for their budget. However, the script was adapted into a book by Sci-Fi writer James Gunn (Star Trek #80, The Original Series) and published by Pocket Books in 1996.<br /><br />I'd sum this up to say this episode is still very enjoyable, especially if one doesn't think too much about it. Just laugh and enjoy it and next episode we can get back to the serious stuff of protecting the universe.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
20,456 |
I love the newer episodes with CJ and Grandad - I also liked the storyline with Kate falling for the principal. I want to find out what happens to Rory and Kerry and Bridget and the family next. I think CJ is very funny and I love his scenes with Grandad. I have always loved James Garner in everything he does, and it is a credit to his acting that I never think of him as James Garner or Rockford in this series and totally believe in him as Kate's Dad. This family is so real and funny. It was terribly sad when John Ritter / Paul Hennessey died, but as in real life these things happen and the way it was written into the series and dealt with was both funny and sad and always extremely sensitively and lovingly dealt with. But generally a very funny show with lots of laughs and fun.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
1,299 |
I'll keep the review of this program as short as possible. Skip it. Low budget, not funny, lousy script. Acting not quite as bad as the writing, but still bad. That's all you need to know, but I will continue for the sake of writing more than necessary.<br /><br />This is a film with three segments, each one parodying some other type of movie. A MUCH funnier film with this same exact idea is "Movie Movie," with George C. Scott. Very obscure, but worth searching out. MM parodied films of the 1930's, and did it with elegance, precision and dry wit.<br /><br />This movie did not. It parodies three types of films, supposedly from the late 70's, early 80's era, only it is parodying films I've (almost) never heard of. The first is, I guess, a parody of "Kramer Vs. Kramer," in a way. Peter Reigert does his best with a dirt poor script. The second is a parody, of, I don't know what...a Danielle Steele novel? I mean, you might see a story like this on Lifetime TV, but in a movie theater? I mean, I remember the 70's, I was there. This is a soap-opera type parody about a fetching young woman who sleeps her way to power. These type of things usually parody themselves, so I don't see how this was even necessary.<br /><br />We are on somewhat easier ground with the third segment, "The Municipalians," which parodies cop movies. I noted elements of "The New Centurians" and some "Dirty Harry", both of which were almost 10 years old when the film was created. Yeah, nice and current. Robby Benson plays the idealistic young rookie (over-the-top wimpy) while Richard Widmark plays the grizzled veteran cop who drinks whiskey while sitting in the police car (OH! Stop! My sides! He's actually drinking booze in the Police car! How irreverent!) Note that this was the first film after "Animal House" to have the "National Lampoon" name attached. Wow. To go in five years from that classic flick to this pile of dung is nothing short of shocking. I could go on for hours about the sad decline that caused one of the most cutting-edge and original voices in American humor (that would be National Lampoon, the original magazine for about its first 10 years or so) to sell out and begin a long, slow slide into a world of crap, where now the magazine is long gone and it only exists as a brand name to slap on low-budget "comedy" films for a fee. Yet another reason why capitalism (and cocaine) sucks so bad.<br /><br />Anyway, this movie is a serious time suck. Don't waste your 90 minutes. I want mine back. On the positive side, Fred Willard's in it!
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
17,024 |
The biggest surprise in this movie was the performance of Daryl Hannah. Rather than playing the stereotypical ditzy blonde roles that she usually does she plays a street-smart, intelligent, world-weary character. She doesn't have a huge role but she does a great job portraying Lois Harlan as a woman tired of, although used to, covering up for her boss' indiscretions.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
930 |
My first attempt at watching this ended in 8 minutes, roughly after the TV report scene, which I couldn't handle. It went approximately like this:<br /><br />Reporter 1: Hmm, there's a pyramid in our skies. Reporter 2: I think it's aliens. *awkward silence* Reporter 1: In other news...<br /><br />A few days later I watched it to the end, and it wasn't as horrible as I've imagined, but there are serious problems with this. About half of the plot can be easily discarded. And the other half should be expanded to explain the background story or something.<br /><br />What use are the detective, the eugenics people, and the monsters which are disposed of momentarily by Horus? More amusing was the monopoly scene. "We're all powerful "Gods", who have lived for aeons, and of all the games in the multiverse we happen to play monopoly." Monopoly? Monopoly?! Even Erich von Dainiken looks coherent, compared to that.<br /><br />The other half is terribly lacking. What did our protagonist do to get himself cryo-frozen? Why was there no big event when he was released at the end? He had those pesky followers, remember? What happened to normal humans? What's the deal with the masked guy? How did the blue-haired girl appear? What's with her eyesight? Etcetera, etcetera.<br /><br />Visually it's OK, more or less, if you disregard the Egyptian Gods looking like walking turds with rotweiller heads.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
6,747 |
I thought I was going to watch a scary movie.. and ended up laughing all the way throughout the movie. In the scene where the human transformed to a werewolf I thought they was kidding. Todays computer games have ten times better animations. Low budget, is a fitting comment. I would recommend Wolf (1994) with Jack Nicholson for a good werewolf movie. It has good special effects as they should be (human transforming to werewolf). Unless you wish to have good laugh I would not recommend you to watch this movie. This movie is a joke.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
1,701 |
Hi, Everyone, If you saw "Singing in the Rain," you remember the scene of Gene Kelly dancing in the rain. You also remember the dance number of Donald O'Connor, "Make 'em Laugh." If you saw "Royal Wedding," you will remember Fred Astaire dancing on the ceiling. If you saw "Jailhouse Rock," you will even remember the title dance number choreographed by The King himself.<br /><br />That is what is missing here. There could have been some blockbuster dance numbers in this presentation. The closest was Chuck McGowan's "I Can Do That." the mere fact that you have some talented people on stage moving together does not make a great dance film. Richard Attenborough was to blame for this failure. He pointed the camera at the stage and thought that would be a good thing.<br /><br />Yelling at people auditioning for a part in a Broadway production is not entertainment. Michael Douglas would be just as badly cast if he were in a Western or a comedy. He is OK when he is in a Michael Douglas movie where we see him yelling at someone we would like to yell at. It does not work here.<br /><br />The cast was good except for Michael, of course. A good movie could have been made even using the songs that were in the stage production, but someone should have thought about how to film it.<br /><br />Next time they do one of these I hope they call me first.<br /><br />Tom Willett
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
17,139 |
I was pleasantly surprised I quite liked this movie. Witty writing (some "inside" jokes I got, others I didn't - maybe due to actors speaking on top of one another), great acting (notably John Cassini), great cameos, interesting and unique directing. I rented it to see Jeffrey Meek (very disappointed he was in it such a short time, blink and you'll miss him!) but found the movie remarkably entertaining. I'll actually watch it again before I send back to Netflix. I think actors and wanna-be actors will thoroughly enjoy this movie. The ending is somewhat expected but wish they'd done something different (and more positive). Too bad the movie wasn't better received except for in the "festival" market. I suggest it to anyone who loves the acting biz.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
17,211 |
To many people, Beat Street has inspired their lifestyle to something creative concerning the hip hop culture.<br /><br />The young Lee is living in NY in the 80's when hip hop was at its beginning. His a crew member of "Beat Street" -a b-boy crew. The movie follows Lee in his average day, dancing, graffitiing, etc.<br /><br />The director has succeeded in making a movie with a plot and at the same time presenting hip hop to the rest of the world. The movie has old school features such as<br /><br />Afrika Bambaataa & the Soul Sonic Force, Grandmaster Melle Mel & the Furious Five, the Rock Steady Crew, the New York City Breakers, and many more....<br /><br />Neither the movie Beat Street nor the Beat Street spirit will ever die.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
9,470 |
I just watched this horrid thing on TV. Needless to say it is one of those movies that you watch just to see how much worse it can get. Frankly, I don't know how much lower the bar can go. <br /><br />The characters are composed of one lame stereo-type after another, and the obvious attempt at creating another "Bad News Bears" is embarrassing to say the VERY least.<br /><br />I have seen some prized turkeys in my time, but there is no reason to list any of them since this is "Numero Uno".<br /><br />Let me put it to you this way, I watched the Vanilla Ice movie, because it was so bad it was funny. This...this...is NOT even that good.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
15,795 |
With a simplistic story and an engaging heroine, this was the horror movie that started it all. John Carpenter brings to life a nail-biting nightmare on Halloween night, when Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis in her debut, career defining role) and her mischievous friends plan a night of sneaky fun- only to cross paths with a relentless psychopath from hell. <br /><br />Michael Myers has escaped from a nearby insane aslyum...having slaughtered his sister fifteen years earlier, he is now back in Haddonfield, the sleepy Illinois town where his murder took place. Once he sets his eyes on Laurie after she drops off a package to the abandoned house where he lived, he begins to stalk and terrorize her, turning her night of fun into terror as he picks off anyone in his path to get to her.<br /><br />Beautiful cinematography and lighting really make this moody horror flick scary... with the long gloomy shots it constantly feels as if you're being stalked by the maniacal serial killer himself. Myers is hidden well until fully revealed at the exciting conclusion.<br /><br />Although "Halloween" is certainly outdated, it is by no means less chilling. The idea alone is goose bump inducing, and this little shocker is one of the most famous and memorable horror movies ever made to this day... it spawned seven sequels and eventually Rob Zombie's equally scary remake, and it set a new standard for horror that still exists today.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
19,222 |
"Fear Of A Black Hat" is everything the (much weaker) "CB-4" SHOULD have been. Rusty Cundieff's satirical eye is ruthless, as he folds, spindles, and mutilates every aspect of hip-hop trends and culture. Does "FoaBH" resemble Spinal Tap? Yes, a bit. Is it derivative of Spinal Tap? No, not really. The aim is more focused, the satire is better focused, and to be honest, it's funnier.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
268 |
A killer, wearing a plastic white mask and black overcoat, is killing the friends of Hollywood producer Shawn Banning(Danny Wolske)who inherited his position when someone sliced open his former employer from crotch to chest. Perhaps the psychopath is newly hired Maddy(Dabbie Rochon), an attractive, raven haired beauty with a troubled family past, plagued with nightmares. Shawn and his friends play a practical joke on Maddy, concerning a supposed Murder Club they started where each member randomly selected a victim to kill. When Maddy accidentally murders a woman in a parking garage because of a dent put into her car by this person, she finds that Shawn's pals were jerking her chain. But, Shawn and his comrades are concerned about Maddy's admittance towards committing the murder and contemplate turning her into the proper authorities. Deciding to wait on a definite decision, each member fall prey to the white-masked psycho with Maddy a suspect considering the fact that she already has killed before. Or, is someone else behind these murders? Low budget slasher, executive produced by Charles Band, with gore murders that fail to convince. Plenty of tits on display and Allen Nabors goofy character Chris might entertain those with low expectations. The murders include a stomach being opened with intestines showing, a neck sliced, an electrical cord thrown into a pool frying a female victim who had all day to escape, an ax buried into the back of a male victim, and, to top it all, a couple are strangled by a rope during their sexual climax(..for added effect, the killer uses the breaker bar of a socket wrench as extra leverage to twist the rope as tight as possible snapping their necks). There are enough plot holes to drive a truck through, such as why Maddy has nightmares of murders she didn't commit, how she could murder someone so violently(..with blood all over her)winding up waking in her bed without leaving something at the scene of the crime that would easily implicate her, and how Shawn could go so long, allowing her to continue working at the company despite what she told regarding the murder she committed, and a continual desire to join the supposed club that doesn't exist.<br /><br />What bothered me the most was the film's desire for having us somehow sympathizing with this female protagonist who wanted to join a club after killing someone, later proclaiming it to be an accident. The film builds Maddy as the potential psycho throughout because of her past. Her family disowned her for an abortion. She has black-outs and always appropriately winds up at the scenes of crimes after the fact. In a lot of slashers, the one who seems the most likely killer is often the red herring, but this film goes out of it's way to point the finger at Maddy. When the twist occurs, we're left rooting for Maddy, yet we know she's not right in the head. It's a tough sell caring for this chick. She does look great in a man's Army shirt, though. And, Rochon isn't afraid to let her puppies breathe, either. Low budget horror fans will get a kick out of seeing cult favorite Brinke Stevens as a religious fanatical mother who preaches against what Maddy did, calling her a murderer as beloved Troma producer Lloyd Kaufman is the aloof father who can not get in a word edge-wise to protect the daughter he truly cares about. Cult siren Julie Strain has a minor cameo, showing her tits(of course)as the opening murdered male's girlfriend getting her head crushed by a hammer. Oh, and check out the office for which Shawn works, you'll see a lot of Full Moon posters and art-work spread throughout the walls.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
7,116 |
The fact that this movie has been entitled to the most successful movie in Switzerland's film history makes me shake my head! It's true, but pitiful at the same time. A flick about the Swiss army could be a good deal better.<br /><br />The story sounds interesting, at the beginning: Antonio Carrera (Michael Koch) gets forced to absolve his military training by the army while he is in the church, wedding his love Laura Moretti (Mia Aegerter).<br /><br />The Acting in some way doesn't really differ from just a few recruits getting drunk and stoned in the reality. Melanie Winiger plays her role as the strong Michelle Bluntschi mediocre, personally i found her rather annoying. <br /><br />The storyline contains a comedy combined with a romance, which does not work as expected. The romance-part is too trashy, and the comedy-part is not funny at all, it's just a cheap try and does not change throughout the whole movie whatsoever. It's funny for preadolescent 12-13 year olds, but not for such as those who search an entertaining comedy. The humor is weak except for some shots.<br /><br />Dope? Cool! Stealing? Cool! If you want a proper comedy about the Swiss RS, make sure you did not absolve your military training yet, and even then don't expect too much!<br /><br />I'll give it 4 out of 10 stars, because Marco Rima is quite funny during his screen time. Not a hell of a lot screen time though
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
24,643 |
This one grew on me. I love the R.D. Burman music and in spite of the cruder elements of the story I found much to be moved by as I kept re-watching the movie. The brother-sister plot line is powerful, I thought; there's also more probably obligatory stuff, like bar fights, a loony crime story, etc. that are just distracting. (Though not unfunny from a certain point of view.) Also the English translation is definitely by someone for whom it was a bit of a stretch, and as loony as it is I am grateful to him for doing it.<br /><br />Like many of the Bollywood movies I've seen, this one is melodramatic and opera-like, including here notably a song sung first by a little boy to cheer up his abused and unhappy sister, and then the same song sung 12 or so years later by the man who has travelled to Kathmandu seeking to re-connect with this girl, grown up and troubled (she had been told her brother and mother were dead), numbing her pain with drugs.<br /><br />A super thing about this 1971 movie is that it is about the hippie movement, which brought hordes of seekers to India, from an Indian point of view, that sees them as people driven to India by a spiritual hunger aroused by the failings of their own societies, but nonetheless, in India, living only for the pleasures of the moment. The hippie singing-dancing-drugging scenes are truly wonderful, and accurate in their tone (I'm old enough to remember), and I feel pretty sure that the masses of young white zoned-out kids are actual hippie extras, as I remember hearing about kids on the caravan to the East getting this kind of work in Bollywood.<br /><br />(It is not about the actual Hare Krishna movement, though the movie hippies sing a Krishna/Rama chant, as do a group of actual Indian devotees, unrelated to the hippies, in the opening scene of the movie.)<br /><br />~Virginia
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
24,192 |
One of my favorite films for a number of years was "Last Action Hero"; unfortunately, Arnold Schwarznegger decided to spoil my fun by becoming a corrupt scumbag politician; so now I can't bear any film he may had a hand in.<br /><br />The Adventures of Jake Speed actually toys with some themes similar to those in Last...Hero; so I was pleased to find it on DVD, so I could watch these themes played out so well.<br /><br />Despite the "plot-within-the-plot" involving white slavery during an African nation's civil war, this is not an action movie. The plot that the "plot-within-a-plot" is within, is actually about a question that the film has no intention to resolve: Is Jake Speed a real person that is helping the heroine save her sister from the white-slave trader; or is he actually a fictional character (which means that the heroine has somehow entered the universe that really only exists in a series of pulp novels)? I suggest that this is not all that clearly defined in the film, and that Wayne Crawford and Andrew Lane are perfectly aware of this. The film thus becomes a presentation of what audiences may want from such a fictional "adventure-story" universe. That's actually a rich theme, the potential heaviness of which is lightened by the film's amiable and campy sense of humor.<br /><br />There are weaknesses to the film - primarily it's cinematography, which makes the film look like a TV show. And the pacing does sag on occasion.<br /><br />But I really like these characters, and I enjoy the adventure they live, however silly. And I just find fascinating the idea that this adventure is actually taking place in a novel.<br /><br />Holds up under multiple viewings -m good show!
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
12,396 |
Trifling romantic drama directed by Clint Eastwood about the loving relationship which grows between a comely hippie (Kay Lenz) and a Los Angeles real estate agent in his golden years (William Holden, surprisingly affable within this highly-concocted arrangement). The script is slight but not without some thoughtful passages; still, the scenario is such a middle-aged cliché by now that most of the picture comes off as puerile. It may have worked much better with different leads: Holden and Lenz don't match up well (her stature is so slight he seems to tower over her), making their intimate scenes less stirring than simply uncomfortable. Dated, blurry-romantic, and mostly unmemorable. ** from ****
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
149 |
In the first one it was mainly giant rats, but there were some wasps and a giant chicken too. This one, however, is just giant rats period, well giant rats and one really growing little boy. This one is about this growing boy and a scientist that is trying to help him so he accidentally creates giant killer rats...you know how it is. This movie has some kills and its moments, but I find it to be on par with the original, I just prefer some variety in my giant creature movies. Well, that is not true...I actually like "Empire of the Ants", maybe I just do not care for giant rodents. All in all a rather drab movie though it does have one rather odd turn of events in this one dream sequence that is truly bizarre. I just can't recommend this one.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.