id
int32 0
25k
| text
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| label
int64 0
3
| Generalization
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
19,127 | I don't understand why the reviews of this film are so universally bad, unless I'm just off my rocker. I found it sick, brilliant, twisted, and psychologically sophisticated. You won't get deeper into the mind of a criminal psychopath in a Hollywood film than this one. It has layers within layers, nuanced acting by Stone,and a plot that will keep you guessing even after it's over. People need to get over the fact that Sharon Stone is 48,and that Michael Douglas isn't in this one. I predict that this film will be a huge hit on DVD once people see it for themselves and stop paying attention to the drivel professional reviewers put out. Give it a shot, you might be glad you did! | 1 | trimmed_train |
3,623 | i love horror films, low budget, 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's.. but how can anyone think this is a very good horror film? let's compare it to titles in a similar vein- haunted house films. the haunting, the changeling, the shining. or for a similar technology based horror film that was FAAAR better, (though still FAR from great) Demon Seed. OK, i'll be fair.. let's compare it to made-for-TV horror films! don't go to sleep.. waaay creepier and better done. salem's lot, the night stalker, night gallery, even don't go in the basement or crowhaven farm were far better. *SPOILERS* first of all, for as good a scene as the bloody shower scene was, you have a scene like the opening scene.. oh boy! the garden hose comes alive to hose down some frisky teenagers! TERRIBLE. also, just what we understand about the house.. it apparently needs to use its video cameras to see what is going on, and it's a very emotional house. not a spirit, or demon, or entity, it's a house thats "possessed", but by what? we are led to believe an inanimate object learned to love suzie/margaret, our protagonist? now that I'm on the topic of suzie.. another scene that totally bothered me, this poor old crazy lady comes, tells you she was your nurse, pours her heart out, falls in the boiling pool, struggling in agony for 45 seconds, and what does margaret do? does she risk her hands being burnt to save this poor elderly woman that came there to warn her's life? no, she stands there and watches! the acting for the most part was better than average for a horror film, but that's where the positives end. for at least a more interesting, and fun horror film about an inanimate object that kills people watch death bed: the bed that eats. i have a feeling the people who rated this so highly either haven't watched it since it originally aired, or remembered it scaring them as children. this film was pretty much merit less. | 2 | trimmed_train |
9,687 | I am terribly sorry, I know that Faßbinder still is called one of the greatest directors in post-war Germany and that most of his films are considered "master-pieces", but when I see "Lili Marleen" today, in 2004, I wonder what everyone is up and away about this movie! The acting is simply terrible - Hanna Schygulla is all the smiling like an idiot! -, the changings between Nazi-glamour and battlefields are ridiculous, the whole film looks as if it was made within two days in an attic. Probably it was exactly that way and many people seem to take this for "real art", but for me this movie is simply bad & cheap. Compare this to Viscontis "La Caduta degli Dei" and tell me again that "Lili Marleen" is a good movie... | 0 | trimmed_train |
22,033 | as a sequel,this is not a bad movie.i actually liked it better than the 1st one.i found it more entertaining.it seemed like it was shot documentary style.at first this bothered me,as i thought it just looked too low budget.but it grew on me,and it made the movie seem more authentic.this movie has more dry one liners than the original,which is a good thing,in my opinion.i do think at times they went a bit over the top with some of the scenes and the characters.it almost becomes a parody of itself,which may be the point.this movie at least has some suspense,which the 1st one did not have,in my view.it has some of the same great music from the original,which is great.the acting again was pretty decent for the most part,though like i said,some of it seemed over the top.i also felt that the movie loses a lot of momentum towards the end and there are a few minutes which seem really slow and just don't seem to flow,like the rest of the movie.overall,though,i thought this was a pretty sequel.my rating for "Return to Cabin by the Lake" is 7/10* | 1 | trimmed_train |
9,216 | I'm glad I rented this movie for one reason: its shortcomings made me want to read Allende's book and get the full story. <br /><br />Pros: the movie is beautiful, the period is depicted well and consistently (to the best of my knowledge), and Meryl and Glenn do good jobs.<br /><br />Cons: This is the worst acting job I've ever seen from Jeremy Irons--I kept wondering if something was wrong with his mouth. (And I hate the terribly English way he says "Transito.") Winona Ryder does nothing believable except look young and idealistic. Most of the other performances are OK, but so few things hang together in the character arcs and the relationship development that I was frustrated and angry well before the end. <br /><br />I'm very curious now whether this movie is typical of Bille August's work. I may have to drop another couple of bucks to rent Smilla's Sense of Snow. | 2 | trimmed_train |
7,289 | Now, I've seen a lot of bad movies. I like bad movies. Especially bad action movies. I've seen (and enjoyed) all of Jean-Claude Van Damme's movies, including the one where he's his own clone, both of the ones where he plays twins, and all three where he's a cyborg. I actually own the one where he plays a fashion designer and has a fight in a truck full of durians. (Hey, if nothing else, he's got a great ass and you almost always get to see it. With DVD, you can even pause and zoom in!) That's why you can trust me when I say that this movie is so bad, it makes Plan 9 look like Citizen Kane.<br /><br />Everything about Snake Eater is bad. The plot is bad. The script is bad. The sets are bad. The fights are bad. The stunts are bad. The FX are bad. The acting is spectacularly, earth-time-bendingly bad, very probably showcasing the worst performance of every so-called actor in the cast, including Lorenzo Lamas, and that's really saying something. And I'd be willing to bet everyone involved with this movie is lousy in bed, to boot. ESPECIALLY Lorenzo Lamas. <br /><br />It does manage to be unintentionally funny, so it's not a total loss. However, I recommend that you watch this movie only if you are either a congenital idiot or very, very stoned. I was able to sit through it myself because I needed to watch something to distract me from rinsing cat urine out of my laundry.<br /><br />It didn't help much, but it was better than nothing. One point for Ron Palillo's cameo as a gay arsonist. | 0 | trimmed_train |
21,310 | I have read over 100 of the Nancy Drew books, and if you are not bright enough to catch on yet, Nancy Drew the movie was of a YOUNGER Nancy Drew, not the 18-year-old that doesn't go to school that all of the books are about. This was when she was sixteen. So naturally, she would of not as been as smart as the one in the book considering she is only in the 10th grade. Other than that, I thought the movie was very cute. It was clean and appropriate for everyone. It was funny at times. I thought Emma Roberts did a great job. She was articulate, in character, and cute. I liked the awkwardness that Nancy and Ned had around each other because they obviously were not old enough to be in a serious relationship like they have in the books. It was a cute, PG movie that I throughly enjoyed because I, unlike most people my age, enjoy movies without sex, drugs, or profanity. | 1 | trimmed_train |
8,277 | Nick Cage is Gates, a treasure hunter (oh, excuse me... treasure "protector", whatever that means) who is descended from a long line of treasure hunters. One of his ancestors had been given a clue to the whereabouts of a huge treasure that our Founding Fathers, most if not all Freemasons, had decided to hide because they just didn't want to finance their Independence all that badly.<br /><br />The first clue turns out to be in a long-lost ship hidden in the Arctic. Gates and his crew, consisting of financier Ian (Sean Bean), Movie Dork Riley (Justin Bartha of the immortal "Gigli") and a couple of faceless lackeys, enter the cargo hold of the ship. They immediately spill out tons of gunpowder all over the floor, not that this is significant in any way. At last they find the clue (a skeleton is hovering over it) and it turns out to be a pipe with writing... on it. Sort of. Don't ask me to explain.<br /><br />It's a riddle, and despite the fact that his expedition is clearly miffed at not finding the actual treasure, Gates wanders around yammering to himself about the meaning of the riddle, in this frozen cargo hold, while the crew just stands around slack-jawed. I mean, come on. Someone should have been a little vocal in their disappointment of coming all the way to the freaking Arctic and not finding anything interesting, but they just stand there as Gates enters his own world, solving the riddle.<br /><br />The next clue turns out to be on the Declaration of Independence. Ian decides to steal it. Gates is appalled. Various characters deliver gratingly obvious exposition (get used to it). All this leads to Ian's lackey pulling a gun on Gates, and the gunpowder going off in a big explosion. (oh, that's why they spilled all the gunpowder! Huh!!) Ian and his henchmen make their escape, and Gates and Movie Dork Riley walk nine miles in subzero temperatures to an Inuit village in order to stop them.<br /><br />To stop them, Gates concludes after trying the FBI and Super Archivist Abigail Chase (Diane Kruger), Gates and Riley must steal it themselves. Riley then tells Gates in excruciating detail why they can not steal the Declaration, because it's so protected with metal and laser eyes and high tech security blah blah. Gates then tells Riley that there's an opportunity to steal it from the Preservation Room. Does Riley know what the Preservation Room is, Gates asks? "A place where they make jams and jellies?" I am not kidding; that's the actual line. Bartha doesn't deliver it like a joke, either. So Riley does all this research about the Library of Congress and the Archives and water and sewage, fercryinoutloud, but doesn't know what the Preservation Room is. This pretty much indicates what level this script is on.<br /><br />To make the rest of this short, Gates does in fact make off with the D of I, in a ridiculous break-in that could only happen in a movie. (I also hate the way they depict computer monitor technology in movies -- full of improbable and impractical graphics and fonts.) Abigail Chase ends up tagging along for convenience's sake, and as an obvious "love interest" angle. At one point, the three of them, on the run from the law, discuss all their plans really loudly in a clothing store, surrounded by people.<br /><br />A series of clues and the kidnapping of Gates' father, played by a dyspeptic Jon Voight, leads good guys and bad guys alike to a huge Indiana Jones fun-house located underneath New York City. Odd that the subway builders never found this thing. Gates and Gates Senior lead Ian off on a wild goose chase. Ian believes they're trapped in a cul-de-sac and leaves them there. However, after they're gone, Riley asks how they're going to get out. Gates...<br /><br />... oh boy ...<br /><br />... presses a button and a door opens. No, I'm serious. A button, like they might have on a vacu-flush lavatory in an office building. Good thing he knew where that was. Anyway, after some more knob-twiddling, they find this immense treasure room (remember, this is all underneath Manhattan!) full of all sorts of historyish golden things. Riley gets to deliver a really stupid line. Again. And FBI officer Harvey Keitel forgives them, arrests Sean Bean, and allows the two chemistry-less leads to get married.<br /><br />For any viewer, I think it would be hard to ignore all the exposition, the leaps of logic, and the stereotyped characters for very long. Though some of its exposition involves nice history lessons inserted into conversation at random moments. I'd like more conversations like that in my life. | 0 | trimmed_train |
16,120 | The final installment in the action thriller franchise is just that probably the hardest hitting of the three films. It goes further to play the anti-Bond theme. Bourne doesn't like what he is doing and wants to know about his blurry past. Everything about this film hits it on the nail from the cinematography to choreography/stunt work to the script to acting.<br /><br />The film starts out in a flurry as Bourne is running from the Moscow police. The story seems to pick up right where the first film left off. Or does it? The time is a little muddled here, but we get the fact that Bourne is remembering things. A sudden flashback while trying to clean himself up nearly gets him caught, but he makes it and doesn't kill anyone. They aren't his target. From there we get more of the intrigue of his past with a new player, Noah Vosen, who seems to know everything about Bourne and will protect it at all costs. Pamela Landy is back as well as Nicky Parsons who seems to have a past with Bourne as well.<br /><br />The cinematography is in your face following tight on practically everything. The car chase is even more intense if that seems possible than the ones from the first two. And the veteran cast chasing Bourne is superb with a nice part by Albert Finney. It also has slight political overtones in relationship to rendition and other government policies, but that is minor and integrated very well within the plot. All in all this is the best of the trilogy conclusions this year, if not the best action trilogy ever. | 3 | trimmed_train |
8,113 | I agree with the majority of the comments I have seen written. I grew up watching Seseme Street before a lot of the people who have written comments were even born. I was born in 1964, so I was 5-yrs-old when Seseme Street was introduced to television. The show taught me my numbers (The Count), spelling (the Muppet), and about life. I liked all the old characters (Big Bird, Oscar, Grover, and Cookie Monster) and don't quite understand why they had to change. I understand that everything has to change in some way, but to make Cookie Monster into a "veggie monster" to promote healthy eating. The show has introduced new characters and monsters since it's inception, why not make a separate "veggie monster" that talks/discusses the benefits of eating a varied diet with Cookie Monster. But, back to my point. I grew up watching the very beginning of Seseme Street, my now 20 yr-old daughter grew up watching SS with me along side her, and we discussed Mr. Hooper dying, although he had died prior to her being born, as well as other topics on the show. I saw the episode as a older child, and still remember how well they portrayed the event, much like real life. And I'm sure it hit the cast extremely hard as all deaths and losses effect families. You saw this on the show and it allowed parents and children to discuss very difficult events. The show has talked about traditional families, adoptive families and combined families. It's one of the few shows that actually discusses these scenarios. I now have a 5 yr-old daughter who really doesn't watch SS. I've tried to watch the show a couple of times, but, it really is not what it used to be. The Elmo 1/2 hr with Mr. Noodle is absolutely ridiculous. Like many people have said, it doesn't teach anything. It's geared for the less than 18 month old (maybe), and isn't even funny. I always prided myself on watching SS as a child, teen, and adult with my own child. Now on my second go-round, I really have a hard time watching SS. The topics that were discussed: death, marriage, non-traditional families, new to neighborhoods, moving away were related to children and adults in a manner easy for 2-99 year old to understand and relate to. Now, there are NO concepts taught, minimal counting, only the occasional mention of the alphabet. It is NOT the same SS, from an original watcher of the show. PLEASE if any producers from the show read these comments, return the show to its foundation. New concepts have never been a problem with SS, they just used to have a better way to incorporate them into the show. | 2 | trimmed_train |
9,866 | 'SherryBaby' is quite a painful and sordid melodrama set in Jersey, the story of a young mother who is out of jail on probe after a drugs-related conviction and fights to stay clean, to find a place for herself in life and especially to win back the love of her kid daughter who is being taken care by her brother's family. The only reason the film is to be watched is Maggie Gyllenhaal, an actress at the top of her career, who fits very well in the role and carries the whole film on her shoulders. This is not enough however, as the story line is too simplistic and expected, and the emotional emphasis is put on the wrong place - I kept asking myself all over the picture whether I am supposed to be sorry about the ex and maybe future drug addicted mother as the director and script-writer wanted, or about the innocent kid who is in the middle. Even Maggie Gyllenhaal's acting could not convince me that I should not care more about the kid. | 2 | trimmed_train |
12,101 | I love Dracula but this movie was a complete disappointment! I remember Lee from other Dracula films from when i was younger, and i thought he was great, but this movie was really bad. I don't know if it was my youth that fooled me into believing Lee was the ultimate Dracula, with style, looks, attraction and the evil underneath that. Or maybe it was just this film that disappointed me. <br /><br />But can you imagine Dracula with an snobbish English accent and the body language to go along with it? Do you like when a plot contains unrealistic choices by the characters and is boring and lacks any kind of tension..? Then this is a movie for you! <br /><br />Otherwise - don't see it! I only gave it a 2 because somehow i managed to stay awake during the whole movie.<br /><br />Sorry but if you liked this movie then you must have been sleep deprived and home alone in a dark room with lots of unwatched space behind you. Maybe alone in your parents house or in a strangers home. Cause not even the characters in this flick seemed afraid, and i think that sums up the whole thing!<br /><br />Or maybe you like this film because of it's place in Dracula cinema history, perhaps being fascinated by how the Dracula story has evolved from Nosferatu to what it is today. Cause as movie it isn't that appealing, it doesn't pull you in to the suggestive mystery that for me make the Vampyre myth so fascinating. <br /><br />And furthermore it has so much of that tacky 70ies feel about it. The scenery looks like cheap Theatre. And i don't say that rejecting everything made in the 70ies. Cause i can love old film as well as new. | 0 | trimmed_train |
23,857 | This is a film.., not porn.<br /><br />This is a wonderful film!!! Full of tender moments and memories!! A beautiful piece of work!!! Excellent!!! For intelligent, viewers only!!!<br /><br />If you are a film lover. A romantic. A person who has loved deeply, this is your film!!!!<br /><br />It has a beautiful surreal quality. Fine acting and directing. Watching this film made me remember my first love.<br /><br />Thi is a film for those who want to reflect on life, love and the meaning of loss.<br /><br />Highly recommended for all film lovers. | 3 | trimmed_train |
11,488 | Yeah, Madsen's character - whilst talking to the woman from the TV station - is right: the LAPD IS a corrupt, violent and racist police. And this movie changes nothing about it. Okay, here are the good cops, the moral cops, even a black one, whow, a Christian, a martyr. But this is a fairy tale, admit it. Reality is not like that. And most important for the action fans: The shoot out is boring. It's just shooting and shooting and shooting. Nothing more. Play Counter Strike, then you will at least have something to do. The only moral of this film is: The LAPD is good now. No more bad cops in it. If you like uncritical, euphemistic commercials for police and military service, watch this movie. It's the longest commercial I've ever seen. (2 Points for camera and editing). | 0 | trimmed_train |
13,342 | A great gangster film.Sam Mendes has directed this beautiful movie showing another father-son camaraderie.Brilliant star-cast leading with Tom Hanks(Michael Sullivan) has done a terrific job.Great acting by him again.He is an acting legend.Great acting too from Paul Newman,Jude Law and Daniel Craig.Casting is just too good.The plot is quite good.You will enjoy the movie.A great portrayal of the gangster of the 1930's.Set in the 1930's,this will surely stand out as the zenith of all gangster movies of that era.Soundtrack is pretty good an apt to the movie.A great flick in totality showing what a father does to protect his son.Way underrated for my liking.Deserved a fully deserved 10. | 3 | trimmed_train |
20,251 | That Certain Thing is the story of a gold digger (Viola Dana) from a tenement house. Her mother uses her to take care of her two brothers, but they are a loving family. Although Dana's character has the opportunity to marry a streetcar conductor, she refuses and holds out for a millionaire. Everyone makes fun of her for her fantasy, but are surprised when one day she really does meet a millionaire, son of the owner of the popular ABC restaurant chain. The two marry hastily, but the girl's dreams of wealth are shattered when the rich father disowns his son for marrying a gold digger. However, she truly loves her new husband and the two are unexpectedly successful at making it on their own.<br /><br />A rare glimpse of movie star Viola Dana, this film is a lot of fun. Dana's role is accessible, natural, and entertaining. She displays a knack for comedy as well as an ability to do drama.<br /><br />The mechanics of the film are a lot of fun too. The camera displays sophisticated late silent techniques like mobility. The title cards are also incredibly clever.<br /><br />If you like films like My Best Girl, It, or The Patsy, you will enjoy this film. | 1 | trimmed_train |
22,786 | The Lady From Shanghai is weird even by the standards of its eminent director, Orson Welles, whose last Hollywood film this was for many a moon. It's a kind of post-modern film noir made during the period when more conventional films of this type were quite popular, and it concerns a happy go lucky Irish sailor (played by Welles) who falls in with a mysterious lady (Rita Hayworth, who was married to Welles at the time), and her crippled, and probably impotent husband, played with a brainy, malevolent gusto by Everett Sloan. A long sea voyage follows, with Welles in tow as bodyguard, and the plot thickens when Sloan's law partner (Glenn Anders) turns up and starts making trouble by giving odd speeches about suicide and other morbid topics that suggest that the man is on the verge of mental breakdown. A murder plot ensues, and all sorts of calamities follow for Welles and his employers, and at this point the story, fuzzy and told at a leisurely pace thus far, goes off the deep end, and the last part of the film consists of brilliant directorial set-pieces that seem to have been thrown in to give the movie some of the drive and urgency its story does not, by itself, possess, and the result is a very watchable and often pleasing at all times incomprehensible mess.<br /><br />It's hard to know what Welles was trying to do with this film aside from maybe resurrect his career in Hollywood by making a vehicle for his wife. But self-destruction intervenes, as it often does with Welles, and Miss Hayworth has never looked less fetching. That she is also cast as a femme fatale seems peculiar, as aside from her beauty her most appealing trait as a screen personality was lovableness, a quality she does not possess in this picture. The director himself is strangely unappealing and hammy at O'Hara, the (presumably) easygoing sailor, since Welles, for all his many gifts, was not known as an easy man to work with. This is a role that twenty or thirty years later Sean Connery or Robert Shaw might have been able to breath life into. Welles does not. The most interesting performance in the movie is Glenn Anders' as Grisby, Sloan's loony, treacherous law partner. Anders works wonders with the part, and is photographed to look bizarre, while his scenes end on odd, sour notes, and are often choppily edited; but for all this he manages to make Grisby's derangement palpable and disturbing, and anticipates, in a genteel way, the more flamboyant Method actors of the fifties, such as Timothy Carey.<br /><br />There is a question that nags me about this film: what was Welles trying to say? He was a highly talented and intelligent man, and tended to make statements in his movies, which, whether one agrees with his world view or not, were brilliantly put forth. I think I have an answer, or a partial one: Welles was summing up his movie career. He had reached the end of his rope in the Hollywood studio system he despised, and he knew it. The Lady From Shanghai isn't exactly a nose-thumbing at the studio moguls of the day, but I suspect that it is, in its portrait of amoral, rival big shot lawyers (read: producers) expressing Welles' opinion of the power brokers of Hollywood. That he presented himself as a rootless sailor is telling. Welles himself was certainly an inveterate traveler, and he rarely lived in one place for long. He was hired by a studio to provide it with a big, prestigious film (Citizen Kane), which caused a firestorm of controversy from which he never fully recovered. This may be the issue that dares not speak its name in this film, which is to say Welles' personal failure in not getting over the shock of his newness in the movie colony, and his inability to deliver the goods, as promised. The mere fact of him turning up in Hollywood, like his mere presence in the film, could not forestall disasters well beyond his control. That he presented himself in the movie as an amiable, naive outsider shows a lack of self-knowledge on Welles' part. He was much more of an inside player than he let on, and I imagine that he despised his knowledge of the worldlier aspects of life, and himself for knowing so much. | 1 | trimmed_train |
21,469 | Cracking good yarn with all the actors giving great value. Michael Curtiz at his best. Lots of nice twists and turns and probably the best of the Philo Vance series. William Powell looks wonderfully relaxed and at his debonair best. A forerunner to the Thin Man series. Recommend to everyone. Did you figure it all out? | 3 | trimmed_train |
2,859 | If movies like Ghoulies rip off Gremlins, then Hobgoblins sinks to the new low of ripping off garbage like Ghoulies. These barely-animated furbies have some kind of scheme to fulfill fantasies (which involve basically groteque characters' sex dreams - oh joy), but what that has to do with anything is anybody's guess, except to let the director indulge his kinky penchant for erotica. They show this down in the 8th circle of Hell, one suspects. There's no real plot - just "goblins - kill!" and feeble attempts at humor and a mild attempt to arouse the viewing audience. | 0 | trimmed_train |
3,538 | This is perhaps the worst attempt at a Zombie film I have ever had the misfortune to see. Terrible, terrible, terrible. Any review found on this site is obviously the work of either the filmmaker, the filmmakers family, or a friend of the filmmaker. How does this film suck? Let us count the ways...<br /><br />The plot? Incoherent. Dialogue? Atrocious. I will not slam the effects/gore, as I understand that this is low budget. But was there even one zombie that was not obese? C'mon! And for a film set in Rhode Island, why did that truck sport a Massachusetts plate? Continuity, find some.<br /><br />The Girl dancing while the soldier "Stands at attention". Please, don't put your ex-girlfriend or buddy's sister in your movie naked. This was an ugly movie filled with ugly people, and has no business even mentioning Romero on the cover. Next time you decide to make a movie, don't. | 0 | trimmed_train |
3,595 | Spanish horror icon Paul Naschy stars in this, one of his weakest werewolf films... but bear with me for a moment. Most people will be familiar with it under its most common television title, THE FURY OF THE WOLF MAN, and there have been many home video versions of it over the years. If you want to be serious about giving it a fair shot though, the most workable edition I've seen of it goes by the title THE WOLF MAN NEVER SLEEPS, and it's an unedited and complete European version which restores a couple of disturbing scenes and contains the original nude shots which are missing from FURY's print. It is also letterboxed.<br /><br />Naschy plays Waldemar Daninsky, returning home from a trip to Tibet only to find out that he's contracted a werewolf curse and that his wife has been having an affair. He takes care of her and her lover while in animal form, but then becomes a guinea pig for a sexy woman doctor and her female assistant. Apparently, the doc attempts to "tame" the werewolf, and there is a very strange sado-masochistic love scene between her and the hairy and fanged Daninsky who is under her trance, at least in the original version. Ultimately we get two werewolves for the price of one as Daninsky battles a she-wolf! <br /><br />The biggest problem with the movie is that the director (according to Naschy's claims) was often drunk, and the results are indeed rather incoherent. When watching THE WOLF MAN NEVER SLEEPS copy, it's not quite as difficult to make out what's going on, though the editing remains atrocious in spots. Worst of all is occasional non-matching footage of Naschy's ravenous werewolf swiped straight from another previous film (LA MARC DEL HOMBRE LOBO, aka "FRANKENSTEIN'S BLOODY TERROR") and mixed into this one without any sensible reason! The wolf's clothing changes from black shirt to white and back again, as does his demeanor; one moment the wolf is walking around lethargically in a hypnotic trance from FURY, next he is growling and running around savagely from BLOODY TERROR. Really bizarre. | 2 | trimmed_train |
20,126 | This movie was a fantastic comedy. It had a lot of comedians star in it like Akshay Kumar,Rajpal Yadav,Paresh Raval and John Abraham.<br /><br />Rimi Sen was good at playing Akshay Kumars wife and so were all the air hostesses. Mr Hot as Mac (Akshay Kumar) and Mr cool as Sam (John Abraham) are two fashion photographers who like the same girl Maggie (Neha Dupia). When John Abraham cheats on his work he becomes Akshay Kumars senior and Akshay Kumar gets really jealous because his flat has to be given to John Abraham and Neha Dupia starts liking John more. Akshay Kumar wants to be better than John Abraham so he finds a flat and he is going out with three different girls (Nitu Chandra,Nargis Bagheri,Daisy Boppana). | 1 | trimmed_train |
16,500 | I'm a fan of Crash and Blade Runner and this movie explores some of those highway death and 80s film noir themes that I like to see, so I enjoyed it.<br /><br />In general though, the essential stupidity of the film noir protagonist is not pulled off well by the female lead and her hero is nearly a neanderthal, hence the kitch warning. | 1 | trimmed_train |
6,734 | I love sharks. And mutants. And explosions. Theoretically, with those parameters in mind, HAMMERHEAD: Shark Frenzy should have been the best movie ever.<br /><br />It is not.<br /><br />The monster looks like a villain from Power Rangers, and has approximately the same range of rubbery movement. This might be okay if the makers weren't quite as proud of its design as they seem to be. That is to say, for a guy in a big rubber suit in an action/scifi/horror flick that could benefit from some mystery, the shark gets a lot of screen time. Granted, it is usually shaky and erratic. I guess you're supposed to assume that it's so scary that even the camera guy freaks out.<br /><br />The camera goes to a person about to get eaten, the camera goes to the shark. The camera goes back to the person about to get eaten, only now they are screaming and armless. And so on.<br /><br />The costuming is bad, the acting is poor, and the special effects are sub-par, but the writing is by far the worst. Things happen completely randomly so that more people can be eaten, or so something can explode. Because LET ME TELL YOU, the people who made this movie definitely went in with a more explosions = more better mindset. Characters shoot cars and there is a massive explosion. They shoot helicopters, there is a massive explosion. Barrels, rocks, trees, WHATEVER, they all explode, so much so that the freaking shark even explodes at the end.<br /><br />Speaking of which, I don't care how crazy a person is, I find it hard to believe that anyone would think trying to make a giant half-person half-shark have sex with a woman in order to make freaky shark people babies is a good idea. That is, UNLESS that person is the mad scientist in this movie.<br /><br />The bad thing is, the movie is so random (and at times, boring) that even its badness is not really enough to hold a person's prolonged interest. It might be a good one to MST3K with your friends, but past that, if you happen to catch this bad boy on, do yourself a favor and change the channel. | 0 | trimmed_train |
11,667 | CQ could have been good, campy fun. But it commits the only unforgivable sin: it is b-o-r-i-n-g! The pace is deadly slow and the plot is fairly confused and so artificial that it's next to impossible to care where it's going. The story would have been acceptable in a creative writing class from a thoughtful and sensitive eighth grader but this video should have carried a warning label: "CAUTION: Student film. Fit for viewing only by relatives of the film maker." | 0 | trimmed_train |
16,218 | A brutally depressing script and some fine low-key performances by Peter Strauss and Pamela Reed and some good location shooting in Ohio power this fine TV movie about hard times in the rustbelt. As the mills close and the union jobs disappear, the blue-collar workers are threatened by everyone: management, owners, their wives and children. Strauss is completely believable in his role, and Pamela Reed is, as always, wonderful. See if you can recognize John Goodman before he put on weight.<br /><br />The heavy metal score -- was someone making a pun? -- is, at times, obtrusively annoying, but the cinematography by Frank Stanley is knockout, particularly the mill scenes. | 1 | trimmed_train |
6,556 | Average viewers looking for any sense of internal coherence in a film should probably give this one a pass. It generates the same feeling as staring at a curious array of individual images that seem to have some relationship one to another, but never coalesce into a totality.<br /><br />While this isolative approach to creating a kind of cinematic montage may appeal to a few students or critics steeped in the inside language of contemporary filmmaking, it is flatly irritating and condescending to us commoners who just fell off the haywagon. An overt avoidance of accessibility may be the intentional hallmark of auteurs like Kar-wai Wong and Tarantino, but to me it comes across as Andy Warhol warmed over. The only redeeming characteristic I find is in the production values, and them there just ain't going to cut it all by themselfs.<br /><br />This is one of those productions in which you watch and listen and wait anxiously and in vain for some clever development of an idea or thought to sustain all the remarkable and beautiful individual scenes. Sorry. The calligraphic credits unexpectedly begin to roll just as your interest begins to stir. I get the same big yawn and let-down reading what I guess are very knowledgeable and thorough comments about this film that never lead to anything truly comprehensible. Ideas and images without some external context are not my idea of fun.<br /><br />Call me a philistine roaming the streets of Hong Kong looking for a bowl of chop suey.<br /><br /> | 2 | trimmed_train |
8,213 | Style but no substance. Not as funny as it should be. Not as deep as it wants to be.<br /><br />This is another in the genre of films about the difficulties of filmmaking. A young filmaker is hired to finish a campy 60s sci-fi movie called Codename:Dragonfly. Think Barbarella, or Danger Diabolique.<br /><br />But Jeremy Davies is an angst-ridden filmmaker. He's no hack he's an artist. The movie he wants to make is a diary of his life. Hardly original.<br /><br />All the characters outside of Jeremy Davies filmmaker are as thin as rice-paper. Characters that might be interesting, such as his father, his doppelganger, or Jason Schwarzmann as a hack director are introduced and then shown the door without adding a thing.<br /><br />This movie is full of eye candy but when compared to other films about filmmakers such as Stardust Memories or 8 1/2 it pales in comparison. Those movies are funny, provocative with well-developed characters. Those movies have lessons that apply outside<br /><br />The movie wants to be comic and campy but its just derivative and there is not one funny scene. The filmmakers describe it as a send-up but what's the satirical target? The actors say it's an homage but I think I would rather a full-length version of Codename:Dragonfly.<br /><br />Coppola is clearly amused by the setting as is evident by the visual humor of the sci-fi movie within a movie. But he fails to share why we should be amused.<br /><br />Outside of the sci-fi movie its just a mess. There are continuity errors, the filmmaker chooses a sci-fi weapon after its already been chosen. What?<br /><br />Just because he has a scene were the filmmaker is confronted by the critics complaining about the lack of story, lack of a point, a scene where he admits empty cleverness does not mean that he has addressed those criticisms.<br /><br />I guess if your Roman Coppola you can get away with making a movie about an angst-ridden idealistic filmmaker who doesn't know what he wants to say and so ends up saying nothing. In that sense it may be considered autobiograhical.<br /><br />I would watch it at Circuit City on a wall full of TVs if I had a choice. Watch the 15-minute Codename:Dragonfly movies included on the DVD as extras and then send it back. | 2 | trimmed_train |
4,909 | Title: Zombie 3 (1988) <br /><br />Directors: Mostly Lucio Fulci, but also Claudio Fragasso and Bruno Mattei <br /><br />Cast: Ottaviano DellAcqua, Massimo Vani, Beatrice Ring, Deran Serafin <br /><br />Review: <br /><br />To review this flick and get some good background of it, I gotta start by the beginning. And the beginning of this is really George Romeros Dawn of the Dead. When Dawn came out in 79, Lucio Fulci decided to make an indirect sequel to it and call it Zombie 2. That film is the one we know as plain ole Zombie. You know the one in which the zombie fights with the shark! OK so, after that flick (named Zombie 2 in Italy) came out and made a huge chunk of cash, the Italians decided, heck. Lets make some more zombie flicks! These things are raking in the dough! So Zombie 3 was born. Confused yet? The story on this one is really just a rehash of stories we've seen in a lot of American zombie flicks that we have seen before this one, the best comparison that comes to mind is Return of the Living Dead. Lets see...there's the government making experiments with a certain toxic gas that will turn people into zombies. Canister gets released into the general population and shebang! We get loads of zombies yearning for human flesh. A bunch of people start running away from the zombies and end up in an old abandoned hotel. They gotta fight the zombies to survive.<br /><br />There was a lot of trouble during the filming of this movie. First and foremost, Lucio Fulci the beloved godfather of gore from Italy was sick. So he couldn't really finish this film the way that he wanted to. The film was then handed down to two lesser directors Bruno Mattei (Hell of the Living Dead) and Claudio Fragasso (Zombie 4). They did their best to spice up a film that was already not so good. You see Fulci himself didn't really have his heart and soul on this flick. He was disenchanted with it. He gave the flick over to the producers and basically said: "Do whatever the hell you want with it!" And god love them, they did.<br /><br />And that is why ladies and gents we have such a crappy zombie flick with the great Fulci credited as its "director". The main problem in my opinion is that its just such a pointless bore! There's no substance to it whatsoever! After the first few minutes in which some terrorists steal the toxic gas and accidentally release it, the rest of the flick is just a bunch of empty soulless characters with no personality whatsoever running from the zombies. Now in some cases this can prove to be fun, if #1 the zombie make up and zombie action is actually good and fun and #2 there's a lot of gore and guts involved.<br /><br />Here we get neither! Well there's some inspired moments in there, like for example when some eagles get infected by the gas and they start attacking people. That was cool. There's also a scene involving a flying zombie head (wich by the way defies all logic and explanation) and a scene with zombies coming out of the pool of the abandoned hotel and munching off a poor girls legs. But aside from that...the rest of the flick just falls flat on its ass.<br /><br />Endless upon endless scenes that don't do jack to move the already non existent plot along. That was my main gripe with this flick. The sets look unfinished and the art direction is practically non-existent. I hate it when everything looks so damn unfinished! I like my b-movies, but this one just really went even below that! Its closer to a z-level flick, if you ask me.<br /><br />The zombie make up? Pure crap. The zombies are all Asian actors (the movie was filmed in the Philippines) so you get a bunch of Asian looking zombies. But thats not a big problem since they movie was set in the phillipine islands anyway. Its the look of the zombies that really sucks! They all died with the same clothes on for some reason. And what passes for zombie make up here is a bunch of black make up (more like smudges) on their faces. One or two zombies had slightly more complex make up, but it still wasn't good enough to impress. Its just a bunch of goo pointlessly splattered on the actors faces. So not only is this flick slowly paced but the zombies look like crap. These are supposed to be dead folks! Anyhows, for those expecting the usual coolness in a Fulci flick don't come expecting it here cause this is mostly somebody else's flick. And those two involved (Mattei and Fragasso) didn't really put there heart and souls into it. In fact, when you see the extras on the DVD you will see that when Fragasso is asked about his recollections and his feelings on this here flick, he doesn't even take it to seriously. You can tell he is ashamed of it and in many occasions he says they "just had a job to do and they did it". And that my friends, is the last nail on this flick. There's no love, and no heart put into making this film. Therefore you get a half assed, crappy zombie flick.<br /><br />Only for completest or people who want to have or see every zombie flick ever made. Everybody else, don't even bother! Rating: 1 out of 5 | 0 | trimmed_train |
1,143 | The two things are are good about this film are it's two unknown celebrities.<br /><br />First, Daphne Zuniga, in her first appearance in a film, young and supple, with looks that still encompass her body today, steals the very beginning, which is all she is in, and that is that. She is obviously just starting out because her acting improved with her next projects.<br /><br />Second, the score by then known composer Christopher(Chris) Young is what keeps this stinker from getting a one star...yeah, I know one star more is not much, but in this movie's case, it is a lot.<br /><br />The rest is just stupid senseless horror of a couple a college students who try to clean out a dorm that is due for being torn down, getting offed one by one by an unsuspecting killer, blah, blah, blah...we all know where this is going.<br /><br />Watch the first eighteen minutes with Daphne Zuniga, then turn it off. | 0 | trimmed_train |
12,276 | This 1973 TV remake of the Billy Wilder classic is inferior to the original. Surprise!<br /><br />First, the good things. Lee J. Cobb makes a terrific Barton Keyes. He's not as good as Edward G. Robinson, of course, but he's the only reason to watch this. This remake's only improvement over the original is that it cuts down the role of Lola Dietrichson, the step-daughter of the femme fatale, Phyllis Dietrichson.<br /><br />And that's it for the good things.<br /><br />The bad things are many. The director records everything in an indifferent manner: if you watched the film with the sound muted you'd hardly get the impression that anything especially interesting was happening. Because of modern bad taste, the film must be in color instead of black and white. Because of 1970s bad taste, all the sets are distractingly ugly. Walter Neff's expensive apartment, in particular, is hideous.<br /><br />The modern setting hurts in a lot of small ways. Train trips were a bit more unusual in the 70s than in the 40s, so Mr. Dietrichson's decision to take a train seems more of a contrivance. Men stopped wearing hats, which prevents Walter from covering up his brown hair while posing as the white-haired Mr. Dietrichson. Women in mourning stopped wearing veils, which robs Samantha Eggar of a prop Barbara Stanwyck made splendid use of in a key scene. (Oddly, Lola still has the line where she reveals that her stepmother was trying on a black hat and veil before she had need of them.)<br /><br />Stephen Bochco keeps much of the Billy Wilder-Raymond Chandler script the same. But he makes a lot of tiny, inexplicable changes to the dialogue which leave the script slightly flabby where once it was lean and muscular. Outrageously, the famous motorcycle-cop banter is gone, but look closely and you'll see what looks like a post-production cut where those lines should have been. Bochco may not be to blame.<br /><br />Richard Crenna is passable as Walter Neff. What might have made this version tolerable is a really splendid Phyllis Dietrichson. Instead we get Samantha Eggar, who comes off like a standard-issue villainess from "Barnaby Jones." But who can blame Eggar? With a director who barely seems interested in what's happening in front of the camera, how could Barbara Stanwyck herself have come off well? | 2 | trimmed_train |
1,773 | I actually paid to see this movie in the theater.<br /><br />It would get a 1-rating, but the fight scenes between the robots are okay, and there's a surprise.<br /><br />I realize that some movies have larger budgets than others. I don't have a problem with that. Unfortunately, science fiction movies probably suffer the most on a small budget for obvious reasons. But, one way this movie fails is that just about every piece of each set looked cheesy and cheap. I mean, couldn't they even make it "look" good?<br /><br />The other major reason this movie is horrible is the acting If I watched the movie now and knew what to expect, I might just enjoy it for the cheese-factor, but at the time, I was expecting a good movie and had no clue as to how horrible it would actually end up being.<br /><br />Thankfully, the experience was over in only 85 minutes. | 0 | trimmed_train |
22,616 | Taking over roles that Jack Albertson and Sam Levene played on Broadway, Walter Matthau and George Burns play a couple of old time vaudeville comics, a team in the tradition of Joe Smith and Charles Dale who seem to have a differing outlook on life.<br /><br />Walter Matthau can't stop working, the man has never learned to relax, take some time and smell the roses. He's a crotchety old cuss whose best days are behind him and his nephew and agent Richard Benjamin is finding less and less work for him. <br /><br />What hurt him badly was that some 15 years earlier his partner George Burns decided to retire and spend some time with his family. A workaholic like Matthau can't comprehend it and take Burns's decision personally.<br /><br />Benjamin hits on a brain storm, reunite the guys and do it on a national television special. What happens here is pretty hilarious.<br /><br />The Sunshine Boys is also a sad, bittersweet story as well about old age. Matthau is on screen for most of the film, but it's Burns who got the kudos in the form of an Oscar at the ripe old age of 79.<br /><br />Burns brought a bit of the personal into this film as well. As we all know he was the straight man of the wonderful comedy team of Burns&Allen who the Monty Python troop borrowed a lot from. In 1958 due to health reasons, Gracie Allen retired and George kept going right up to the age of 100. Or at least pretty close to as an active performer.<br /><br />The Sunshine Boys is based on the team of Smith&Dale however and if you like The Sunshine Boys I strongly recommend you see Two Tickets to Broadway for a look at a pair of guys who were entertaining the American public at the turn of the last century. The doctor sketch that Matthau and Burns do is directly from their material.<br /><br />And I do think you will like The Sunshine Boys. | 3 | trimmed_train |
12,040 | They changed the title of this atrocity to An Unexpected Love. The only thing worse is the film itself. The script contains dialogue that would be laughed out of a third grade play recital. At one point when the wife leaves the husband, a bad cover of All by Myself plays over the soundtrack! No kidding. The actors try but are defeated by the inept, unbelievably terrible script. Direction is staggeringly bad. No wonder Lifetime has such a bad reputation. How do things like this get made. I'm turning off the television before it's over! | 0 | trimmed_train |
396 | i don't know what they were thinking.by they,i mean anybody even remotely connected to this disaster.i've seen so bad movies,i've seen so really bad movies,and then there's this.but i will say one thing.whoever wrote the script has manged to put what could possibly the most inane dialogue over written,onto the screen.there is nothing good about this movie,either from a technical standpoint or any other standpoint.whoever allowed it to be made and then released should have been fired immediately.there are a few fairly well known names in this movie.actually i hesitate to use the word movie.it's more like a collection of random scenes that have no relation to another and make less than 0 sense.anyway,i fail to see why anyone with any dignity would appear in this.i got it really cheap,and i still got ripped of.even if i had gotten this movie for free,i would still have been ripped off.this is an absoluter 0/10 | 0 | trimmed_train |
5,873 | Yes, CHUNKY, this is the nick-name that Donna Reeds' romantic lead played by Tom Drake tags her with! So lets get this clear right away. From her first ingénue role in THE GET-AWAY (1941) too her last, DALLAS (1984-1985) Ms. Reed could NEVER be described as CHUNKY. Not this attractive and slim actress. Whose roles at M.G.M. seldom lived up to her talents.<br /><br />Ms. Reed is supported by a cast of competent character actors, who unfortunately must flounder through this alleged 'screw-ball' comedy. Clearly M.G.M. was out of their depth making this type of film. A type better produced over at COLUMBIA, PARAMOUNT, RKO and even UNIVERSAL. Neither the 'touch' of Ernst Lubitsch nor the wit of Preston Sturges could save this film. A rather conventional romantic comedy that had all the markings of a pre-war (WWII) effort.<br /><br />If Irving Thalberg had still been alive the screen-play would have either gone through a significant rewrite or never seen the light of day. It did fit into Louis B. Mayer's 'safe-zone' of none challenging family entertainment. A form that could not stand up to the post-war challenges of the 'DeHavilland Decision', loss of their theater chains, television and would contribute to M.G.M.s decline. Fortunetly for Donna Reed her best days are ahead of her culminating in FROM HERE TO ETERNITY (1953) and her Oscar win as Best Supporting Actress. | 2 | trimmed_train |
23,272 | I've seen this movie about 6 times now. And each time I view it, I'm more impressed by the story and the acting. Its like watching a train wreck being set in motion. Its subtle in its approach, but very effective in reaching its goal. <br /><br />Spoilers-> At the center of the story is a very nice dichotomy. On the one hand we have Deputy major, Eddy Calhoun (Cusack) unknowingly tearing at the old boys network that forms the hart of major of New York's Administration and on the other hand we have the mob boss Zappati who's deliberately trying to maintain the status quo through all means necessary. This situation nicely culminates in the end when Zappati orders Alselmo to make it easy on himself by killing himself and Calhoun ordering Pappas to do the same, politically speaking.<br /><br />The movie also contains some really great one-liners such as (a personal weakness of mine): - You don't sum up a man's life in one moment - The only thing new in this world is the history you don't know<br /><br />All in all, a great movie that deserves a much higher rating. | 1 | trimmed_train |
19,171 | This early sci-fi masterwork by Herbert George Wells with music by Arthur Bliss is a powerful piece of film-making. Adapted from Wells' somewhat different work by the author, it presents a look at the human future with the subject of periods of war as versus periods of 'peace'. The structure is that after a contrasted-pair of episodes of normalcy and gathering clouds of war, the script allows the war to happen. Two families, the Cabells and the Passworthys disagree about what may happen; Passworthy takes a hopeful view of civilization's "automatic" progress; Cabell is the thinker, the doubter. Their city Everytown--obviously London-- becomes wrecked by a war featuring tanks, a magnificent war march by Bliss, and the end of civilization. The second portion finds people living in the wreckage of what had been the city under a "Boss", played with bravura by Ralph Richardson, whose woman, lovely Margaretta Scott, is as fascinating a dreamer as he is a concrete-bound dictator type. He is trying to rebuild old WWI airplanes so he can attack a nearby hill tribe to complete his petty kingdom; a young scientist complains about having his work continually interrupted demands for planes--etc.--everlastingly; this is Wells' comment on war versus progress. The survivors are subject to a plague called "The Wandering Sickness" also. Enter a modern flying machine piloted by the Cabell of the first section of the film, now part of Wings Over the World, an International Scientists' Coalition, who are planning to end warfare forever. This flight-suited modernist has fascinating conversations with the Boss and his woman, their attraction being evident; then Boss sends up his aircraft against them, the Scientists come with huge numbers of planes and drop the "Gas of Peace" onto the ruins of Everytown. Only the Boss dies, fighting too hard against the pacifying. The film then shows ore being mined and by slow steps being made into the girders of a magnificent new futuristic city of towers. In section three, a future Cabell argues with a future Passworthy over the morality of human science. Passworthy wonders if they have a right to send men to the Moon; Cabell champions man's right to advancement and the need to expand his horizons. The son of Passworthy and Cabell's daughter, are the astronauts being sent. Theotocopulos, a religious-minded Luddite, makes a fiery speech on a huge screen in the city's Forum and leads an attack on the 'space gun' that is to fire the new rocket free of Earth's gravity. The climax of the plot is the firing of the space gun successfully; the denouement and ending is a speech by Cabell praising worth and science that is universally considered to be the most profound defense of the mind ever penned. "It is all the universe--or nothing!" Cabell tells Passworthy. "Which shall it be?" As Cabell, Raymond Massey gives perhaps his greatest screen performance; he is thoughtful, compassionate, and reasonable, a true scientist. As the rabble-rouser who wants to end the Age of Science, Cedric Hardwicke is perfect and powerful. Edward Chapman playing Passworthy does admirably impersonating the voice of convention and fear. The storyline is logical, frequently beautiful and always interesting. Given the near-extinction of mankind, the idea of a civilization run by rebuilder scientists is rendered plausible and credible to the viewer. This is a triumph for the director, William Cameron Menzies, for Bliss and for all concerned. Listen to the dialogue with someone you love; within its constructed limits, this is a thinking man's drama debating two possible human futures--progress or its reactionary opposite. | 3 | trimmed_train |
16,793 | Ya know when one looks at this Brian DePalma film today, I'm sure there has been allot of criticism about how dated it is. Also, about the violence. When I looked at this film on VHS when I was 20, I thought it was ulta-violent and gritty as well. But I didn't get 'it'.<br /><br />A few decades go by and man, how I know how much I didn't get in this film!! This is a remake of an excellent film which was done back in the 30's/40's. How can you improve upon a classic? Ya don't. But you tell a tale that is brought up to date through the eyes of the "new immigrants" during the most greed ridden decade, the over indulgent 80's. DePalma, Stone and the gang present an ambitious, disturbing and darn right good film.<br /><br />Yes....Disco was dying and New Wave/Punk were taking over but these immigrants from Cuba who had to make a new home in Florida couldn't tell the difference. It was exciting, it was what they wanted but how to get it???? To these immigrants, there was only one way to get it in Florida where they were..by having lots of money and to get the money, you had to take over running a drug empire.<br /><br />Al Pacino was fantastic to me as Tony Montana, the "little train that could". What an amazing way to have your lead character look at America: to fight, kill, steal. lie, cheat all to get -- "the money, the women and the power."<br /><br />That's what Tony saw as the American dream.<br /><br />He wanted it, he wanted to live it and in his circle saw nothing wrong with how he went to get it. Tony Montana's command of the English language was heavily saturated with the "f" word but what did you expect, Emily Post's finishing school for him and his co-horts? Look at how they CAME to America, what they knew, what they were exposed to. This is the way Tony and his crew chose to "be all they can be in America." It was all about the power. Tony Montana would and did ANYTHING to achieve it..it all its violent, lying, stealing, crooked, thieving glory.<br /><br />The part of the film that personified the 1980's to me, is the money laundering. Tony's crew bringing sacks of drug money to the bank. Did those around Tony and his crew care? At the clubs where he spent and drank? Nope. Money was money and with money, you get the power. Tony was living high off the hog. He and his pretty blond American trophy he married played well by Michelle Pfieffer.<br /><br />After Tony Montana's rise to power, he finds out its really crappy up there. He's riddled with doubt, he's drug addicted, he's paranoid, he's surrounded by those who want to take him on in a bloody take-over, his trophy 80's American blonde drug addicted wife he finds out is a bore, he needs to keep atop of his empire because...he's going down. And down he goes in a horrific violent fashion, but again I ask, what do you expect?<br /><br />This is the quintessential 1980's film telling you a warped tale of how some misunderstand the American Dream...to obsession. It's violent, bloody, overly so..but it drives the point disturbingly home. Not all Cubans thrown out of Cuba who landed in Florida in the 80's were anything like Tony Montana. Give me a break. But the showing of how miserable the 1980's were with its emphasis on greed and money as the only measures in the USA to "be somebody" and have power took its tool on these poor characters and their lives in America.<br /><br />Makes you wonder -- has anything from then -- been learned today? | 3 | trimmed_train |
24,343 | Steve Carrel Proves himself to be a great leading man in this wonderful, original, raunchy breath of fresh air. I about wet myself at how geniusly hilarious it was.<br /><br />Basically the movie's title says it all: Andy Stitzer is a 40 Year- Old Male who works at an electronics store. He is a bit of a nerd who loves videogames and Comics, and has the biggest collection. His Peers that work in the store with him find out that he's a Virgin during a rather sex dialogue filled poker game, and then Andy has to go through a rather funny as hell Odyessy of rude sexual awakenings, but always screwing up which leads to him not losing his virginity, but he eventually gets lucky in the very end.<br /><br />Leave the little ones at home, But Take the entire family to see This awesome Romantic Adult Comedy. It will have you hooked and cracking up from the very beginning, and by the time it is over, you will be wishing you wore your extra thick absorbent undergarments. Only other thing I can say about it is Too bad Steve Carrel wasn't recognized as a leaving man 20 years ago. He is definitely gonna win best breakthrough male performance in next years MTV movie Awards. You can bet your hard earned dollar on that, people!<br /><br />I Give this one a perfect 10! | 3 | trimmed_train |
15,202 | Father of the Pride was the best new show to hit television since Family Guy. It was yet another masterpiece from the talented people at Dreamworks Animation. Like The Simpsons, the show centers around a nuclear family (of white lions, in this case). It also contains many memorable supporting characters including Roger the surly orangutan, Vincent the Italian-American flamingo, the eccentric white tigers Blake and Victoria, the faux patriotic Snout Brothers and Chutney the elephant. The other stars of the show are the Sigfreid and Roy. They are incredibly eccentric and do everything in a grandiose manner, making the most mundane activities entertaining. The combination of cute animal characters with very adult dialog and controversial issues (drugs, prejudice, etc) is the source of the program's brilliance.<br /><br />The blame for this show's failure lies with NBC. They opted to broadcast the episodes in no particular order (perhaps being influenced by which guest stars they could promote) rather than the more logical production order. Several times, the show was preempted for an extra half-hour of such dreck as The Biggest Loser (as if 60 minutes of that was not enough)! It is indeed an ill omen for the future of television as art if an original and daring show like this fails while Fear Factor and American Idol dominate.<br /><br />Luckily, the complete series was released on DVD and the show now has an opportunity to gain a larger following. 10/10 | 3 | trimmed_train |
2,361 | "Iowa" wants to be "Requiem for a Dream" for Midwest meth, but it comes across as a hard R rated "Reefer Madness". <br /><br />Yes, drugs are bad, and meth is horribly pernicious, as an addiction and how it destroys people, families and communities. But these characters who are either dumb or ridiculous and the eye-rolling plot won't teach that lesson to anyone. <br /><br />While writer/director/star Matt Farnsworth has some charisma on screen, his partner Diane Foster plays a wincibly silly wide-eyed innocent corrupted by drugsas was already satirized by Susan Sarandon in "The Rocky Horror Picture Show". I really felt sorry for her for all the totally unnecessary nudity she was put through. It wasn't until the end of the film that I realized I was supposed to think these two were recent high-school graduates to explain some of their naiveté, as we are bombarded by their school photos, but if so, they even looked older than the folks on "The O.C.". While they have good chemistry on screen, they are a pale imitation of a "Badlands"-type couple. <br /><br />The guest stars are badly used. Michael T. Weiss, who was so good in TV's "The Pretender", is completely ludicrous as a corrupt parole officer and his brutal violence is just plain crazy, as his character pretty much ruins any social significance for the film. Rosanna Arquette has to be even sleazier than she rolled around for David Cronenberg as a very low rent Livia Soprano. John Savage even has to mouth the old baby boomer excuses about I did pot but this is worse. A Goth chick shows up, with the odd explanation that she's a stripper from Des Moines. The obligatory Latino drug dealer appears - in Iowa? <br /><br />With a limited budget, the interior view of meth use is portrayed quite vividly, with quite scary hallucinations. We certainly see them go crazy. <br /><br />While the Iowa locations are used very well (including an amusing scene of a propane gas robbery), the accents and church references are confusingly Southern Baptist. Guns seem to be used by law abiding and law breaking citizens here more than in any inner-city drug-dealing movie.<br /><br />The songs of Iowa's best known bard Greg Brown are used throughout, but oddly are not listed in the credits. I hope they were used with permission.<br /><br />I caught this at its commercial run in NYC because I missed it at the Tribeca Film Festival where it got considerable-- and inexplicable-- buzz. | 0 | trimmed_train |
13,662 | I am of "the Christopher Reeve Generation" it is fair to say that he was the best actor to play Superman yet, but that doesn't stop me from enjoying other actors in the role, and George Reeves makes a pretty good bid to knock Chris off the top, though he just barely falls short. That doesn't stop me from enjoying this film, it has a lot going for it. It has all that a movie needs, a plot with beginning, middle, and end, plus all those parts are intelligently written. The film is edgy both in acting and storyline, something a film-noir but with tights. The story is both exciting and meaningful, this is a movie with a message that isn't too preachy. I am still amazed this was shot over 12 days, oh the glory days of Hollywood, when we didn't have to wait 5 years just to see if the movie would fall into development hell... The film is polished and expertly made, directed by Lee "Roll'em" Sholem, best known for directing with both speed and efficiency. It never lets the constraints of technology slow it down, in fact there is some creative things done to create the effect of flight, including putting a camera on a boom on a truck and shooting high and traveling fast to make it look like we are seeing it from Superman's point of view, also a few closeups of George in process work, and a long shot of an animated Superman. <br /><br />This is now available on DVD as an extra feature on the first season of the George Reeves Television series. A DVD worth owning in its own right, the inclusion of the film as its original whole, is icing on the cake.<br /><br />Give Blood Today God Bless! | 1 | trimmed_train |
22,036 | As many reviewers here have noted, the film version differs quite a bit from the stage version of the story. I have never seen the stage version of the story, and therefore I have a more favorable review of the film than many other reviewers. Perhaps Richard Attenborough was not the best choice for director of the film, but the film is still an entertaining account of several dancers trying to make the big time in choreographer Michael Douglas' show. The film does right by not selecting any famous actors or performers to wind up in the final try-out group. This way our attention is focused on the dancers' movements and individual stories and struggles as they unfold during a marathon day of try-outs. Douglas is also probably not the best choice for the part. Apparently some songs were cut out in favor of a new one, and the backstage cliché-ridden story of a romantic liaison between a dancer and the choreographer was added. I have to say in all fairness this was the weakest part of the film. The repeated intrusions Cassie made during try-outs appear to mirror the almost desperate pleas one often has to make when engaging in the artistic professions in the absence of talent and/or luck. However, this aspect of the film has been done to death in the past, and it's curious to see this tired old shoe kicking its heel up once again. The revelations of the dancers themselves began promisingly enough with the "I can do that" number, but then it plodded a little at various points while the dancers were telling their stories. Frankly, their stories differed little from real life folks who never get a chance like this. *** of 4 stars. | 1 | trimmed_train |
19,190 | This movie was excellent. A sad truth to how culture tends to clash with the sexes. This is just one big warm fuzzy type of movie. You have the master who is steeped in tradition and kind hearted in his own way, Doggie despite being a girl thing to win his affections and you top it off with one cute monkey with a thousand facial expressions. This equals on big happy movie in the end. This movie does a good job at showing how steeped in tradition one can be, so steeped that they are willing to die without sharing their secrets. You see sides to a culture never seen before which helps enhance the drama that unfolds near the end of the picture. The cinema-photography is excellent, in particular the opening parade sequence with all the sparkers. Bound to be in Oscar contention for best foreign film. | 1 | trimmed_train |
18,973 | "Moonstruck" is a movie that I liked the first time I watched it. I really liked it the second time. I loved it the third time. Now it is one of my all time favorites.<br /><br />The humor is subtle but really good. The film offers a lot of warmth humor. the story takes place in a old school Italian neighborhood in NYC. Cher's search for love is enjoyable to watch. This film is, by far, the best job Nicholas Cage has done on film. The old man character is fantastic. He lights up the screen without saying a word. The scene with his dogs howling at the moon was fantastic. But, perhaps the best character is the one played by Olympia Dukakis.<br /><br />The film's climax is a scene where the main characters have it out over a breakfast of oatmeal in the family kitchen. Exceptional direction and wrap up. | 3 | trimmed_train |
4,842 | It was a good story, but not very well told. I liked the themes and the main story line, which wasn't as clear as it could have been. Maybe there was too much going on and a lack of ability to reign it all in. The acting was okay to cheesy, some were stronger than others and even the stronger actors had their moments of lesser quality acting. It took me a couple of months to get through the entire movie because it didn't keep my attention and the flow was just bad. I only just finished watching it and I'm glad I did as the movie finally gets moving and has some continuity toward the end. Again, a good story, but the delivery was sub par. Would recommend it for the story line and maybe a little eye candy, and I do mean, a little. | 2 | trimmed_train |
22,815 | I enjoyed The Night Listener very much. It's one of the better movies of the summer.<br /><br />Robin Williams gives one of his best performances. In fact, the entire cast was very good. All played just the right notes for their characters - not too much and not too little. Sandra Oh adds a wonderful comic touch. Toni Collette is great as the Mom, and never goes over the top. Everyone is very believable.<br /><br />It's a short movie, just under an hour and a half. I noticed the general release version is nine minutes shorter than the Sundance version. I wonder if some of the more disturbing images were cut from the movie.<br /><br />The director told a story and did it in straightforward fashion, which is a refreshing change from many directors these days who seem to think their job is to impress the audience rather than tell a story and tell it well.<br /><br />Do not be sucker punched by the previews and ads. It is not a Hitchcockian thriller. See The Night Listener because you want to see a good story told well. If you go expecting Hitchcock you will be disappointed.<br /><br />My only complaint with the movie was the ending. The director could have left a little more to the audience's imagination, but this is a minor quibble. | 3 | trimmed_train |
5,076 | I say 'I'd figure' in that line because, frankly, I've not seen a Hal Hartley movie until now. It's not that I haven't heard of him though, as he was seen as one of those small NY filmmakers (when I say small I mean even smaller than Jim Jarmusch), who made ultra-personal projects on limited budgets. In an ironic way, much as with Pasolini's Salo, though in a slightly different context, Fay Grim interests me to see some of Hartley's more acclaimed features, because there seems to be at least present some semblance of talent behind it, as if Hartley *could* be a very good filmmaker who may be so good he's just taken a big experimental blunder. Or, on the other hand, he could just be someone far too impressed with his own idiosyncrasies and would-be Godard-like cinematic collisions.<br /><br />I can't quite explain the story, which may or may not be a problem I suppose, however it's not really in due to not having seen the film that preceded Fay Grim, Henry Fool. I think even if I had that experience it wouldn't make too much of a difference based on the final results. There's a lot of international espionage, a double plot wrapped inside of another that's fallen through the fake pockets of the title character, played in an aloof way by Parker Posey (not sure if that's good or bad either, maybe both), and also involving a CIA operative (Jeff Goldblum, as usual a solid presence amid the mania, even conjuring some laughs), not to mention an orgy-laden picture box, and author Henry Fool. It's not that the script is totally impenetrable, however much it goes into over-extended loopholes just for the sake of it, because there are some touches of witty or affectingly strange dialog.<br /><br />Quite simply, the direction just sucks. Harltey is in love with the Third Man, which is fine, but he imposes a consistently headache inducing style of everything being tilted in angle, with characters having to get into frame equally oddly. Not since Battlefield Earth, in fact, has a director come off so annoyingly in trying to make the unnecessary choice of titled angles for some bizarre dramatic effect, only this time Hartley isn't amid a cluster-f***, he's mostly responsible for it. This, along with the crazy wannabe Godard title-cards that pop in here and there, some a little amusing and some just totally stupid, and the montage segments all in still shots, AND a couple of moments involving action that almost call to mind Ed Wood, undermine any of the potential that is in the script, which is already fairly hard to decipher. In a way, it's fascinating to watch how bad this all goes, but a kind of fascination that comes in seeing the flip-side to total creative control on a sort-of small-scale story.<br /><br />But let it be known: you'll likely not come across a more wretchedly pretentious example of American independent film-making this year. | 2 | trimmed_train |
23,704 | I first saw Enchanted April about five years ago. I loved it so much that my husband surprised me with a copy the following Christmas. It's about two women who decide to rent a castle in Italy for the month of April, leaving their humdrum lives behind them. They are very sad women at the outset of the film, and you can't help but root them on as they plan this get-away with two other women they invite along to share the expenses. This is perhaps the most feel good movie I have ever seen. It' pure and simple, with no car chases, no animosities and no deaths. It was made with care and in very good taste. You cannot help but smile all through it -- except when you're crying happy tears! | 3 | trimmed_train |
4,823 | 1st watched 12/7/2002 - 3 out of 10(Dir-Steve Purcell): Typical Mary Kate & Ashley fare with a few more kisses. It looks to me like the girls are getting pretty tired of this stuff and it will be interesting what happens to them if they ever decide to split up and go there own ways. In this episode of their adventures they are interns in Rome for a `fashion' designer who puts them right into the mailroom to learn what working hard is all about(I guess..). Besides the typical flirtations with boys there is nothing much else except the Rome scenario until about ¾ way into the movie when it's finally revealed why they are getting fired, then re-hired, then fired again, then re-hired again. This is definetly made by people who don't understand the corporate world and it shows in their interpretation of it. Maybe the real world will be their next adventure(if there is one.). Even my kids didn't seem to care for this boring `adventure' in the make-believe. Let's see they probably only have a couple of years till their legal adults. We'll see what happens then. | 2 | trimmed_train |
18,880 | Daniell Steel's Daddy, what a refreshing story. This movie glorified the importance of the family and the importance of parents in the lives of their children. How rare is that? In these times of "Heather has two Mommies" (or what ever, you fill in the blanks) it is easy to see why this theme is not for everyone. With the father's roles being prominent I was hoping this would be another Daniell Steel Saga. How disappointing to have it end. Every character was important and did a fabulous job carrying their role. I would have loved to see each character develop over the years. I loved this movie, it is one I will defiantly watch every time it's on. Good story, good acting, and I hope this isn't a spoiler, but no obtrusive sex or bad language. Yes it touched my heart. Warning, get the Kleenex ready. What I find sad is that this side of family life is rarely depicted today in our entertainment, be it Television or. Movie's. Daniell if your listening, You Go Girl, give us more. | 3 | trimmed_train |
9,282 | Remakes (and sequels) have been a staple of Cinema from the beginning of the media. It is pretty much a hit or miss venture though. If you take what's good of the original and build upon it and update key features too current standards, you can have a success. Note, such films like THE THIEF OF BAGDAD (1924/1940) or KING KONG (1933/2005) succeeded in their attempts. Others like KING KONG (1976) fail, miserably.<br /><br />BRIEF ENCOUNTER (1945) is the template for this film. It is as perfect as could be made on such a subject and we rate it IMDb**********Ten. The story is simple, Love, innocently found by accident and tragically lost. Why, it just happened for the two (2) principals involved at the wrong time. These are portrayed in a convincing and sensitive manner by TREVOR HOWARD and CECILIA JOHNSON. Neither are conventionally leading Star material, but quality Character Actors. For the details watch the film.<br /><br />Now what went wrong? A T.V. Movie, remade practically scene for scene with name actors RICHARD BURTON and SOPHIA LOREN should have at least scored IMDb******Six. Both actors though appear disinterested, just showing up to punch their time-clocks and pick up their checks. Neither are involved with their characters or with each other. You do not believe they are in Love or when they finally separate it is any great loss to either of them. That should not be and that's why it fails in its intent. Sometimes it is just better to leave things alone. | 2 | trimmed_train |
14,399 | Fact: Stargate SG-1 is a cheesy sci-fi TV series.<br /><br />There's no escaping facts. How much you try to excuse yourself or explain it Stargate SG-1 remains a cheesy sci-fi TV series.<br /><br />Stargate SG-1 does borrow and steal ideas briskly. Special FX aren't nearly as impressive as they could have been and the action isn't going to blow you out of the chair. Or couch for that matter either.<br /><br />But, and this is where I really think Stargate SG-1 deserves all the credit it can get, for each and every episode or stolen idea I think you can count at least one cheesy sci-fi movie that's actually worse than a one hour TV episode.<br /><br />In fact some episodes actually could probably have been 90 minutes long and still have been better than most movies.<br /><br />And being able to keep that quality throughout the show and keep delivering and pushing the storyline further is what makes Stargate SG-1 special.<br /><br />I am very picky with my selections. I follow perhaps one or two TV series at most and I hold pretty high standards which made me even more surprised when I found myself caught.<br /><br />So for those who decide to brush of Stargate SG-1 as yet another tacky sci-fi show, don't. Stick with it and you'll see what I'm talking about. | 1 | trimmed_train |
6,309 | I have grown up pouring over the intertwined stories of the Wrinkle in Time Chronicles. My dream was that one day a screenwriter would come across their child sitting in a large sofa reading A Winkle in Time, and would think, what an amazing movie this would make. Sadly enough that screenwriter failed, changing characters, throwing in lame humor, and all out destroying the plot. I know that it is a hard task to change a well loved novel into a movie. But why can't you stay true to the book? Why must you change the way characters think and act? For those of you who have not read the book, pick it up, find a soft couch, and let your imagination run wild. | 0 | trimmed_train |
5,250 | Unfortunately the only spoiler in this review is that there's nothing to spoil about that movie.Even if B. Mattei had never done any master piece he use to do his job with a bit of humor and craziness that made him a fun Eurotrash director. But for the last 10 years he seemed to have lost it.This film is just empty, nothing at all to wake us up from the deep sleep you sink into after the first 10 min.No sex, no blood(it's suppose to be about snuff?),no actors, no dialogs, just as bad as an 90'T.V film.It's even worse than his last cannibals and zombies epics.So Rest in peace Bruno, you will stay in our minds forever anyway, thanks to such unforgettable gems as:Zombi 3, Robowar,Rats, l'altro inferno,Virus, Cruel jaws and few others.So except if you want to see B Mattei possessed by jess Franco's spirit's new film, pass on this one.But if you don't know this nice artisan's career track down his old films and have fun. | 0 | trimmed_train |
4,539 | Really a terrible movie. It's to be expected, though. Clearly a low budget: nothing all that innovative, an actress (if you can call what she does "acting") who always has roles with nudity in a shower scene, a man in a reptile suit almost modeled after predator, a cabin in the woods, etc. But there are some redeeming points. Although the story is not new, for the most part, there's a few parts that aren't so regurgitated. For one, the black guy doesn't die when he's attacked (the first time) and he isn't even one of the first couple to die. But that's minor. More importantly, there's a very interesting twist regarding Kat's experiments and Wes & Steve that I didn't see coming. When Steve told Kat he knew what she did, I believed what he said and what Kat replied with. But when the creature revealed who he really was, I was pleasantly surprised at the novelty of the revelation. It could be because of my lack of experience with the genre, or that it's a genuinely clever twist.<br /><br />Either way, the movie's pretty bad and don't watch it if there's anything better on... Unless you're in the mood for a cheap scifi flick. | 2 | trimmed_train |
12,863 | This movie is a perfect portrayal of The Nutcracker; the dancing is wonderful, the scenery in the background was excellent, and I LOVED THAT FLOATING BED.<br /><br />Oh, and the costumes... I particularly loved Marzipan's, the tutu was adorable. The special effects were very well done (e.g. the tree, the bed, etc.), and I quite enjoyed the rats. I love how they didn't make them scary, but cute and huggable. Except for the king, I suppose.<br /><br />If you're a thoroughly masculine person, you won't enjoy this, but this is a very good movie that's good for all ages - just not all levels of testosterone.<br /><br />But I have a few complaints.<br /><br />Firstly, why did they have to put the Sugar Plum Fairy's partner in those terrible tights? It would barely make a difference if he was butt naked! And secondly.. why on EARTH did they have to make Culkin's outfit PINK? | 1 | trimmed_train |
8,772 | Seriously, I'm all for gooey romantic comedies and will get sucked into Miss Congeniality as easily as Goodfellas...but this movie? It doesn't make any sense!!!! And I'm not even talking about the willing suspension of disbelief kind of not making sense. Why does her family live in England? Or, at the very least, why doesn't she have a British accent? She's sure cozy with her dad and he's surprisingly forgiving of her not being around for the last two years. (On that subject, no one ever makes much of a deal about her being away for so long). And what was with the goofy outfits at the bachelorette party? I'm not even going to get into the fact that the escort she paid for falls in love with her--that could've been overcome by better movie-making. I'm just saying that the characters, the setting, and the plot aren't fleshed out enough to make an even somewhat cohesive story. Oh, and the worst part, in my opinion, is the filmmaker's consistent use of the most unflattering angles on Deborah Messing's nose--I'd have sued the filmmakers if I were her! I mean, honestly, I'm all for women being who they are, but why, in seven loyal years of Will and Grace viewing, have I not ever noticed how incredibly odd her nose is? Oh! Because those producers are kind to her! This movie, like my other least favorite movie ever, Armageddon, is the fault of the filmmakers, not the actors. I can see both Messing and McDermott in these roles with a better writer, director, and producer.<br /><br />This easily gets my vote as one of the worst movies I've ever wasted time on. I'm just glad a friend loaned me her DVD, so all I wasted was time. If there were a way to make this review ZERO stars, I'd do it. | 0 | trimmed_train |
7,864 | with a title like this, you know not to expect a great horror movie. But this was really bad, even with low expectations. The plot is really insulting and stupid: an escaped criminal wears a Halloween mask, so everyone around him thinks he's someone else. this joke might actually work for 5 or 10 minutes, but not during the entire movie ! the actors are not that bad, but their characters are rather dumb and the story is boring and downright stupid. No suspense, no excitement and little gore (very cheap). Satan's Little Helper tries to combine horror (...) with comedy and fails dramatically at that. It became so boring towards the end, that I actually stopped watching 10 minutes before the end. I couldn't care whatever happened. Amanda Plummer was great in Pulp Fiction, but come on.. that was 13 years ago, and she hasn't done anything decent after that. So no wonder that she had to sink as low as this piece of crap.. Avoid or be warned.. | 2 | trimmed_train |
6,829 | What a bad, bad movie! I tried watching without fast forwarding...That failed. After about 30 minutes I stopped the movie, went on-line to see how many minutes this disaster was. (Only 84 minutes, Whew!) It was a confusing, boring movie. I don't think anyone can get knocked down by getting hit with a fluorescent bulb much less gutted by one!! The one funny thing is that I watched "The Killer Cut" version of the movie. The box boldly states "More Blood!" "More Sex!" "More Terror than the theatrical release!" Yikes! If this movie was horrible with all those claims I wonder just how lame the "UN-Killer Cut" was??? If you want to see a great movie about the world of the living & the world of the dead watch any of The Night of the Living Dead series!! | 0 | trimmed_train |
9,337 | Don't you just hate it when you order steak but the restaurant gives you chicken?<br /><br />Such is how I felt watching this so-called "Battlestar Galactica". Arguments can be made over its quality but the fact remains, it's NOT what the fans ordered.<br /><br />Imagine if you were sitting down at that proverbial restaurant I mentioned. You have waited years for them to bring back their famous New York Strip steak which you loved. When your meal arrives, you find they've applied the name "New York Strip" to a chicken dish. You complain but the waiter merely states "but ze cheeken, ees really GOOD zir"! Do you really care if the chicken is good? You wanted New York Strip - a STEAK! The waiter then explains, "you zee zir, ze chef wanted to to do, as you zay, zomezing NEW. We felt ze cheeken would be more popular zo we gave it the name of our previous delicious deesh". You ask if you will ever find the original New York Strip on the menu in the future but are informed that because the restaurant HAS a dish called "New York Strip" now on the menu, you'll never see the original New York Strip - ever again.<br /><br />Such is the case with creating something NEW and slapping the "Battlestar Galactica" namesake on it.<br /><br />* This mini series is an affront to all fans of the original show! *<br /><br />It's a shame the production team put in charge of this new version obviously held contempt for the original. The team put in charge of resurrecting BG should have LOVED the original series - seeking to improve what the fans loved, not try to shamelessly sell this new series by exploiting the Battlestar Galactica name.<br /><br />If SciFi Channel wanted to give us a NEW show, then DO so! Give it a new name! Don't use the name we fondly remember in an attempt to lure in viewers. That effectively robs us of the chance to see any semblance of the original in the future.<br /><br />We have been waiting for 25 years to see what we knew as BG because we LIKED something about the original! We didn't simply want the NAME and remnants of the basic concept. There are things we LOVED about the original series!<br /><br />Sadly, probably the BEST elements of the original were those which were omitted. Sure, the original BG was imperfect and could have used some updating. This mini series, however, was not an improvement in any regards but the special effects (which were good but not anything unusual by today's standards).<br /><br />Many viewers will debate back and forth about the quality of this NEW show but we will not forgive SciFi and Ron Moore for destroying our dream.<br /><br />That being said... I shall offer some comments about the merits of this new mini by itself (not in comparison to the original):<br /><br />The battle sequences were the best part. Effort was obviously put into making the effects more "real" in appearance and less "wow - look at that effect". I would not say these sequences were exceptional by today's standards yet they were in keeping with made-for-cable original movies. What was the deal with this "pseudo-live-cam"? Some views tried to fake the effect of a "real" camera with lagging tracking and jerky zooms. However, it was over-used considering there was no apparent SOURCE of these cameras. The infinitely more intelligent series, Babylon 5, is the only instance I've seen such "live cams" used effectively, when we were supposedly witnessing action from Security Cams.<br /><br />The script, you ask? The script felt like it was written by a teenager, FOR other teenagers. The characters felt cardboard and stereotypical. Indeed, the whole story felt pieced together from other well-known stereotypes. The only good features of the entire story were those few elements which were preserved from the original series. It was obviously "dumbed down" for digestion of your average TV audience.<br /><br />The human interaction was pitiful. Rather than drama based on subtle looks, expressions and fine timing, every moment of human tension was exaggerated to the point of being so obvious they lost all ability to move any refined viewer. Such was obvious in any interaction between Adama and son. The director must have been trying to make sure the most dense and unfeeling viewer wouldn't miss it even if not paying attention. Sorry, but real humans don't behave like the continually.<br /><br />I wouldn't have considered this a BAD show had it stood on its own. Nothing great; it will never be revered by true SciFi fans or artisans, but it would be watchable by the masses. I personally could have lived without it, though. I only watched it to see how it really DID capture the spirit of the original. <br /><br />How this mini series will always be remembered is as a symbol of how quality in storytelling has been cast aside to appeal to greater numbers. How even SciFi Channel has "dumbed down" its productions to cater to the masses as opposed to its true niche market, the Science Fiction fans. It will be the time we asked for steak and they insisted on giving us chicken, despite our complaints.<br /><br />I leave you with only one thought - <br /><br />NO "MOORE".<br /><br /> | 2 | trimmed_train |
21,060 | This film captures the true struggle with identity that is ongoing in our teenage years. It is really moving and it feels strangely like a documentary-not contrived but very real. It is very interesting and unsettling | 1 | trimmed_train |
8,769 | Why in the world would someone make this piece of trash movie? The first two Zombie Bloodbath movies were stupid enough, but this takes the cake for the worst of the trilogy (Perhaps of all time). Todd Sheets is still the director, but no longer the screenwriter, which isn't a negative or a positive, considering he's just as untalented as the guy who wrote this one. The writing is too heavily reliant on the f-word, which is used somewhere between 200 and 300 times at nausea. The acting is about on par with the last two Bloodbath movies, so naturally, it's some of the worst I've ever seen. The special effects are better than the last 2, but they still look godawful. The plot has become too complicated for it's own good, and was about some government experiment gone wrong and zombies being produced. Also featured is cryogenically frozen mutant zombie and school kids that know how to time travel, leading to one of the most idiotic endings I've ever seen. After the movie it goes to outtakes, which is strange because this whole movie is an outtake. Only see this to make fun of it, because if you go into this with a serious mind, you might possibly kill yourself.<br /><br />My rating: BOMB/****. 95 mins. | 0 | trimmed_train |
22,383 | THE MATADOR is hit-man movie lite....if you can say that about a hit-man movie. The violence is never really shown but often introduced. At first I was scared I was in for another retread of mid-90s gangster-hit-man-hipster-dark comedy BUT was happily surprised when I realized this is just a sweet and humorous story about friendship. Nothing terribly exciting happens in this film but every bit of it is kept me grinning. The three leads have the best chemistry the big screen has offered in recent years and it looks like they had a great time making this film together. The writing is sharp though at times it felt as if the script had been adapted from a stage play because of the one set dialog scenes. This is a good film that I probably won't remember for too long but at the time it was a complete joy. Good film. | 1 | trimmed_train |
1,110 | Hoo boy, this was a real trial to get through. The DVD case has Tom Hanks' mug plastered on it and that is the only reason that anybody would buy it. He looks about forty on the box, however, the movie was made in 1982, so he still has his Bosom Buddies 'do and of course is about forty pounds lighter. The plot concerns a Dungeons and Dragons like game that Hanks and his three friends play and Hanks ends up thinking the whole thing is real. Chris Makepeace is a boy genius named Jay Jay and the best thing about the movie is that he wears a succession of funny hats. Ooh,look, he has a yellow hardhat on with a tuxedo! Now he's dressed like a WWI pilot! This was a truly awful movie but in a bad way. A bunch of vets pop up mostly as parents of the kids. There's Anne (I'm Honey West, dammit!) Francis and Louise Sorel, who actually looks kind of hot. Murray Hamilton, the Mayor from Jaws, has a thankless roll as a cop. Wendy Crewson, is the love interest for Hanks and some blonde guy I have never seen before or since. There is some syrupy music here and there and absolutely no tension or sense of danger or excitement. There is a monster that only Hanks can see because he's, you know, nuts. The monster is played by the late, great Kevin Peter Hall, he of Predator fame. A friend of mine got this out of the ol' discount bin at MallWart and advised me to chuck it in the trash without even looking at it, so naturally I had to see if it was as bad as all that. It was. The night before, I watched Apollo 13, so after that, this movie was a bit of a shock. Do yourself a favor and leave it in the bin. Oh yeah, after Hanks almost jumps from one of the World Trade Center towers because of his delusions, he goes home to recuperate and is visited by his friends. Hanks mother, a drunken Vera Miles, says he is coming along nicely now but when they walk down to the lake to visit him in his tennis outfit, he is crazier than ever. The End | 2 | trimmed_train |
13,568 | Director Paul Verhoeven's American vehicles are of varied quality, but most of the films he made in his native country are indisputable masterworks. This is the story of alcoholic (and bi-sexual) writer who moves in with a beautiful rich and very strange woman. But the lady does not know that he is only interested in meeting the woman's handsome male lover. In the meantime, the writer is plagued with strange visions - at first they look like hallucinations triggered by alcohol abuse, but he soon begins to realize that he is actually experiencing some kind of premonitions. Fascinating Hitchcockian thriller, very original and provocative. I love films that make you think they are about something, but then you realize they are about something completely different. This is one of those movies; a thriller during the first half, and a quasi-religious surrealist saga during the second half. Very erotic, original and blasphemous, not for kids or people that go to church every Sunday. Great cinematography by future director Jan de Bont. Highly Reommended! | 3 | trimmed_train |
8,976 | Waiting to go inside the theathre with tickets in my hand, I expected an interesting sci-fi fantasy movie which could finally feed my appetite of movies regarding robot-technology, instead I went disappointed by each aspect of it, once more proving that stunning special effects can't help a boring plot, which by my opinion was the worse in this year. Acting in this movie also dissatisfied me, Will Smith didn't show anything new in this movie, yet I never saw his acting to change since "Men In Black" which was his only success by my opinion. He had to retire since than, not spoiling his name with titles like "I,Robot" and "Men In Black 2". 4/10 | 2 | trimmed_train |
14,896 | Now, I have seen a lot of movies in my day, but out of every single one there have been a very select few that have been really good to me. And I'm a 19 year old man which is impressed by this movie directed towards a younger audience. This is a very underrated gem for those who watch foreign movies. Almost all the acting is believable, the graphics are decent (for which you won't even be caring about as you watch the movie. Trust me, bitching about the graphics would be a stupid thing to do), the story is well written and it's a movie that everyone can enjoy not just the kids.<br /><br />Here's basically what this movie made me to. It one, made me laugh...a lot, two, made me feel for the characters like you're suppose to, and three, it's a very uplifting story. By the end of this movie you will feel good. Sure, what anime out there hasn't featured some young kid turning into a great warrior and whatever to defeat some great evil. It's a formula that is used a lot. But, in this case it is forgivable because even though they use puppets for some characters and some average graphics you'd see 5 years ago, the appearance of it is not to be judged. It's very touching, the ending is original, and it keeps you into the movie like it is suppose to. If you however try comparing this to other movies like "The Never-ending Story" or whatever it will diverse your opinion. Watch it as it is and you will enjoy it.<br /><br />It has been a good long while since I've been impressed like this. The only other movie where I have gotten this feeling is when I saw TMNT way back when it came out. There is something about this movie I felt about TMNT that really made me love it. So don't over-analyze or take this movie too seriously, just enjoy it. | 3 | trimmed_train |
13,746 | When an actor has to play the role of an actor, fictional or factual, the task becomes much more difficult than playing a role. In A Double Life,Ronald Coleman surpassed himself as Anthony John, the tortured double personality. He put into that character all his talent and sincerity. The facial expressions, mannerisms,gait and stance spoke eloquently of what Anthony John was going through while playing Othello on stage. Coleman also did extremely well as a Shakespearean actor in those short scenes as Othello that were part of this gem of a movie. Closups of Coleman's face as Othello tortured by doubts about the fidelity of Desdemona were in themselves scenes worth watching.Add to that, his character's off stage desperation and only someone with Coleman's depth of acting perception can achieve. It was like watching Spenser Tracy as Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, except this double role was much more profound and poignant. Shelly Winters looked so sweet, vulnerable and gorgeous at the same time and added her talent to the movie. It is believed that Ronald Coleman liked his role in this film above all others he played and went on to win the Oscar for Best Actor in 1947. I would see this movie repeatedly and never feel bored. | 3 | trimmed_train |
13,470 | This film has been on my wish list for ten years and I only recently found it on DVD when my partner's grandson was given it. He watched it at and was thrilled to learn that it was about my generation - born in 1930 and evacuated in 1939 and he wanted to know more about it - and me. Luckily I borrowed it from him and watched it on my own and I cried all through it. Not only did it capture the emotions, the class distinction, the hardship and the warmth of human relationships of those years (as well as the cruelties (spoken and unspoken); but it was accurate! I am also a bit of an anorak when it comes to ARP uniforms, ambulances (LCC) in the right colour (white) and all the impedimenta of the management of bomb sites and the work of the Heavy Rescue Brigades. I couldn't fault any of this from my memories, and the sandbagged Anderson shelter and the WVS canteens brought it all back. The difference between the relatively unspoiled life in the village and war-torn London was also sharply presented I re-lived 1939/40 and my own evacuation from London with this production! I know Jack Gold's work, of course, and one would expect no more from him than this meticulous detail; but it went far beyond the accurate representation of the facts and touched deep chords about human responses and the only half-uttered value judgements of those years. It was certainly one of the great high spots in John Thaw's acting career and of Gold's direction and deserves to be better known. It is a magnificent film and I have already ordered a couple of copies to send to friends. | 3 | trimmed_train |
2,434 | I signed in just to comment on how awfully stupid this movie is. Besides being a rip-off of Executive Decision or Air Force One or any other kind of terrorist story, this is the kind of movie that makes you appreciate seeing a movie that can take the same basic ideas and do it well. It's hard to blame the actors when they are given such a stupid, cliché-ridden script to work with. It's bad enough if you groan once in a movie when you encounter an insult to your intelligence, but when you find yourself groaning over and over again, you have to conclude that the director also isn't the brightest bulb in the movie business, nor are the producers for deciding to bring this story to the screen in the first place. The mostly low-rent actors you can excuse for taking on this assignment, because they most likely showed up to get the money and exposure, not that being a part of this joke-of-a-movie is going to earn them any awards or recognition. It may end up embarrassing them for having such poor judgment as to get involved in such a loser. I see no point in summarizing the plot or even in giving any examples to prove my case, for, to do so, would be cruel and unusual punishment that no one involved in this debacle could withstand. Just as studying well-made movies can inspire you how to make a good, skillfully put-together work of art and beauty, the only thing that you can learn from watching this monstrosity is what NOT to do and what does NOT work! Be warned. | 0 | trimmed_train |
13,072 | Loretta Castorini (Cher)is a woman in her late thirties, a widow, who lives with her parents in a duplex apartment in Brooklyn. She is engaged to marry Johnny Cammareri (Danny Aiello), a bland man, more out of a resigned duty than actual love. Before their wedding Johnny takes a trip out to visit his mother who is sick and leaves Loretta the function of playing the olive leaf with his brother Ronny by notifying him of their impending wedding. Ronny (Nicholas Cage) hasn't forgiven Johnny for being the cause of his accident which caused him the loss of his hand (and subsequently, his then-bride-to-be), but he does fall for Loretta, and hard. After a heated affair Loretta out of respect for Johnny tries to avoid Ronny, but his dark looks and overpowering masculinity win her over. Meanwhile, Loretta's mother Rose Castorini (Olympia Dukakis) is not only suspecting her husband Cosmo (Vincent Gardenia) is seeing another woman, but is also herself the subject of admiration from a college professor and wonders why do men chase women. Things get complicated when Johnny returns from Sicily to tell Loretta they can't be married.<br /><br />The setup is pure sitcom, but the story, written by John Patrick Shanley with a deep understanding for Italian-Americans living in New York, is genuine: he gets the idiosyncrasies of these people and their day-to-day foibles and quirks, and all of the characters have a deep romanticism that comes through in key moments throughout the story. Loretta, a character hardened by the loss of her husband and knowing her chances of happiness are slim, slowly emerges as a woman who is so swept by the sudden recognition of love she becomes the heroine of La Boheme -- the one who acknowledges the love of the man with the wooden hand (in a clever gender reversal), and Cher inhabits the role and makes it hers and in her own style subtly trades her frumpiness to a deep, dark beauty. Ronny is pure fire and Nicholas Cage exudes masculine power as if he were channeling Marlon Brando. The Castorini's and the Cappomaggi's, counterbalancing the central couple, both express their love for each other in two very crucial moments: the latter couple, on the night of the full moon when Loretta and Ronny consummate their affair -- a rare scene depicting love and intimacy among the elderly --, and the former at a tense moment over breakfast when Rose bluntly reveals, in touching words, that she wants Cosmo to stop seeing his mistress Mona (Anita Gillette).<br /><br />MOONSTRUCK is not only the romantic comedy and date movie of choice, but also a beautiful examination of love and passion among regular people. The ending is a tour de force of emotional impact, the family situation going beyond the momentary complications to cement it in tradition going back to the days of immigrants, and is one that elevates this movie from being just another feel-good movie to a classic. MOONSTRUCK deservedly got its Oscars for Best Writing, Actress, and Supporting Actress, and has proved to grow beyond its time. | 3 | trimmed_train |
755 | Slackers is just another teen movie that's not really worth watching. Dave (Devon Sawa), Sam (Jason Segel) and Jeff (Michael C. Maronna) are about to graduate from Holden University with Honors in lying, cheating and scheming. The three roommates have proudly scammed their way through the last four years of college and now, during final exams, these big-men-on-campus are about to be busted by the most unlikely dude in school. The plot is very stupid and there's no reason why to watch this unless your looking to shut off you brain for a little while. Slackers is just a predictable teen flick that really adds nothing new to the genre. The comedy in Slackers is either hit or miss but there's no real true funny or original moment in the movie. Its really just a collection of gags and some are actually pretty funny. Though for every joke that works there's at least eight more that don't. The screenplay is full of penis and breast jokes that some high school and college students may enjoy. Even if they do they probably won't remember this film after awhile as its not a very memorable comedy. Jason Schwartzman plays the freaky Ethan and after appearing in some good comedies he has stoop pretty low. Jaime King and Devon Sawa are the other main stars but they do a rather poor job in this film. This is directed by Dewey Nicks and this is his first film so you can't blame him too much. The funniest character was probably Laura Prepon though, she's not in the movie very much. The film is very short at only 86 minutes long however, that may be too long for some people who don't really like this type of humor. Slackers isn't the worst film of 2002 but certainly is below average. When compared to other films in the genre there's a lot better out there such as Not Another Teen Movie, American Pie and its sequels , Scary Movie 1 & 2 etc. So unless you have seen most of them and you're looking for something new then Slackers might fit that bill but its better if you just watch something else. Rating 4.3/10 a below average teen comedy that's worth skipping. | 0 | trimmed_train |
11,837 | Well, what can you say about a Barbara Cartland adaptation?<br /><br />There are some amazing actors in this (Oliver Reed, Sarah Miles, Christopher Plummer) but they clearly are clocking up the money.<br /><br />Lysette Anthony and Marcus Gilbert have appeared in two other Cartland epics - Anthony with Hugh Grant (who looks suitably embarrassed) and Gilbert with Helena Bonham Carter.<br /><br />If you really want to see a "watchable" adaptation of Cartland, the Bonham Carter one is the one to go for ("A Hazard of Hearts" - what a title!!). Gilbert is the weak link in that, but Bonham Carter is suitably beautiful and of course can actually act, and the rest of the cast play it to the hilt with tongues firmly in cheek (Edward Fox & Diana Rigg) | 0 | trimmed_train |
14,537 | Pressburger and Powell's greatest movie. David Niven plays the RAF bomber pilot who misses his own death but is granted a second chance at life when heaven notices that he is AWOL and dispatches an angel to investigate. The scene when the young soldiers, men and women, black and white, all killed in action, arrive in heaven to be processed for eternal life is unbearably poignant. Watch out too for Roger Livesey, a deeply under appreciated actor, and Kim Hunter as the love interest (later, of course, Zira in Planet of the Apes). Incidentally, Steven Spielberg cast the actress who played the chief angel (Kathleen Byron) as the elderly wife of the eponymous private in Saving Private Ryan half a century later, an act that speaks volumes for his cinematic literacy. | 3 | trimmed_train |
4,287 | This 1919 to 1933 Germany looks hardly like a post WWII Czech capitol. Oh sorry, it is the Czech capitol and it is 2003, how funny.<br /><br />This is one of the most awful history movies in the nearest past. Röhm is a head higher than Adolf and looks so damned good, Göring looks like 40 when he just is 23 and the "Führer" always seems to look like 56. And the buildings, folks, even buildings have been young, sometimes. Especially 1919 were a lot of houses in Germany nearly new (the WWI does not reach German cities!). No crumbling plaster! Then the Reichstagsbuilding. There have never been urban canyons around this building, never. And this may sound to you all like a miracle: in the year 1933 the Greater Berlin fire brigade owns a lot of vehicles with engines, some even with turntable ladders, but none with a hand pump.<br /><br />One last thing: What kind of PLAYMOBIL castle was this at the final sequence? For me this was a kind of "Adolf's Adventures in Wonderland" | 0 | trimmed_train |
21,135 | I had never heard of Robert Roy MacGregor before "Rob Roy" came out, but the movie is definitely worth seeing. Playing the title character, Liam Neeson brings the same spirit to the role that he brought to Oskar Schindler, and Jessica Lange also does a really good job as his wife Mary. Archibald Cunningham (Tim Roth) is one person very likely to make your skin crawl.<br /><br />All in all, this comes out as good as "Braveheart" (maybe even better). I laugh when I think of how Hollywood released two movies almost back-to-back taking a swipe at England. Very good. Also starring John Hurt, Eric Stoltz, Brian Cox and Jason Flemyng. | 1 | trimmed_train |
18,454 | Maybe one of the most entertaining Ninja-movies ever made. A hard-hitting action movie with lots of gore and slow motion (eehaaa!). Made in ´83 and still the greatest swedish action movie made so far! And we can hardly wait to see the upcoming sequel, Ninja mission 2000 - The legacy of Markov! | 3 | trimmed_train |
22,757 | OK Clara Bow silent film from 1927, it's a spin-off of Rain, with Bow playing the half-Hawaiian wild daughter of the local pineapple king who falls in love with the staid English engineer--Clive Brook. Bow competes with the local widow (Arlette Marchal) for his attentions, but both women get a big surprise when his wife shows up (Patricia Dupont). The predatory wife is ready for a divorce until she discovers he might be on the verge of a fortune. Bow settles her hash fast.<br /><br />Bow has personality to spare and has a few great scenes: her opening nude bath, her hula in a grass skirt, and the dog rescue scene with Bow and Brook doing their own stunts.<br /><br />Note: the IMDb credit list is wrong. The film credits (from the DVD I have) list Patricia Dupont as playing Mrs. Haldane---not Margaret Truax as listed on IMDb. | 1 | trimmed_train |
19,859 | This movie is just funny. mindless, but funny. to enjoy this movie completely you can't have a perception of how a film like this goes and just enjoy all the side jokes and puns which are involved with the film. I still find the bit at the start funny when he says "want a beer........cock". funny stuff. but what makes the film decent is the fact that it doesn't try to hard to create a serious spin on the film, too many comedies try to have serious aspects which you just don't believe. But this is different and just focuses on being funny. I must say though, Yasmin bleeth is terrible in the film and adds nothing but the 3 main guys, coop, remer and squeak are very funny to watch and make the film great to watch | 1 | trimmed_train |
13,698 | This is a ripsnorting, old-fashioned adventure yarn. I understand that by today's political standards, the treatment of the Indians was unacceptable. But this moving isn't about politics. It's about action, dialogue, comradery, acting, direction, music, and photography, and it's marvelous on all these factors. Grant, Fairbanks, and McLaglen are electric together, and Jaffe is superb. This is the ultimate buddy movie. | 3 | trimmed_train |
14,086 | Beautifully done. A lot of angst. Friendship may not endure all, but in the end it's all that matters, or so a group of friends learn. I have watched it over and over again. The music is also amazing. When Kei loses the one friend he has he gives up until he meets Sho, an orphan boy who is not repelled by his true nature. In the lawless streets of Mallepa they struggle for their own place among a melting pot of Asian races, and learn that sometimes being on top can cost you more than you are ever ready to pay. A surprise ending that grips as much as the whole movie does. I couldn't get enough of it. Gackt and Hyde do a wonderful job of acting, proving they are more than pretty boys who sing. | 3 | trimmed_train |
13,751 | I read nothing but good things about this movie and finally had a chance to watch it late last night and it was everything I expected it to be and more.This is the way a proper horror movie should be.I think the reason it was so scary was because it was so realistic. The spooky sounding score was perfect for setting a dark mood.I liked the dramatic opening scene and enjoyed how the rest of the movie played out.It was very easy to follow and understand unlike some movies which are way too complicated.The special effects were very good.I would love to see more horror movies like this one.This is easily one of my favorite's.A realistic thunder and lightning storm would have set a nice atmosphere for this movie.Other then that it had all the elements a good horror movie needs.I highly recommend this movie to anyone who can appreciate a good scary movie that pulls no punches.I will be adding it to my collection.The DVD has some interesting special features. | 1 | trimmed_train |
21,510 | Perhaps, one of the most important and enjoyable Greek films i've seen in the last ten years..Excellent performances(especially yiannis zouganelis is great), well-written script and effective direction from a very special, for the Greek very average standards, auteur. A film, obviously influenced by Sam Peckinpah's Straw Dogs, that could be a masterpiece if it avoided some evident and exaggerative situations and symbolizations in the end. Nevertheless, this is a movie which deserves our attention and belongs to that rare category of Greek movies which should be watched outside Greece. It's a shame that in Greece didn't work commercially, in addition with other fake and cursory big productions like Politiki Kouzina.. | 1 | trimmed_train |
10,359 | I just saw the third week of Stephen Kings' Nightmares and Dreamscapes mini series; meaning, I saw 6 episodes so far. I have to say that the stories are really weak. I have read Stephen King's Skeleton Crew, a collection of his short stories that was published way back. I recall most of the stories were average to poor but there was one that was really excellent, if not outstanding.<br /><br />What I'm trying to say is that just because this mini series is from a collection of stories from Stephen King does not mean that it will be any good. In fact, if his previous collection of short stories are of any indication, then most of this mini series will be average to poor.<br /><br />In Stephen King's defense, I have not read these new short stories. Perhaps they are good as stories in a book and not readily adaptable to television, or perhaps it was the fault of the scriptwriters in trying to write an interesting script. Who knows. Also, these short stories may have been made exclusively for this mini series and not not for print purpose. Maybe that may have been the problem. If Stephen King had submitted these crap stories to an editor, I am sure the editor would have immediately told him to make it more interesting because as is, it is simply boring.<br /><br />What is clear from all of this is that the problem is with the stories/script and not the actors and actresses because this mini series has some excellent people acting on it.<br /><br />Seeing this mini series really makes me appreciate those old "Twilight Zone" series. Each series was only half an hour but it was compelling and riveting. I don't understand why this mini series could not accomplish similar feat. I am sure this mini series had a good deal of money to make a good mini series but unfortunately, something must not have clicked.<br /><br />For instance, this week there were two episodes shown. The first involved a horror story writer who buys a picture drawn by an artist who committed suicide. The writer begins to see changes in the picture as he is driving homeward. Feeling uncomfortable, he throws away the painting but it keeps appearing near him. Also, the portrait of an individual in that picture is killing people and is out to kill him. (I will not even mention the second episode for this week involving criminals and their loot because it was even more boring than this episode!)<br /><br />This premise is interesting and so the story should be good but after seeing it, I was frustrated because there were too many gaps in the story as well as extraneous materials that was shown that did nothing to help the story. After the last scene, I was left with more questions than answers.<br /><br />I tried for 3 weeks to get into this mini series but it was just too aggravating due to poor stories/script. If this was a movie, I would have recommended that people should wait for the movie to come out on cable or such. I would not even recommend that it be rented in your video store. However, given that this is on TNT, a cable channel, I would say if you have not seen it already, then try it for one week. If you do not like it that week, then you will not like the past series nor the future ones, since they all share the same boring trait. | 0 | trimmed_train |
11,912 | This was a nice attempt at something but it is too pretentious and boring to rise above it's low budget trappings. The use of virtual sets almost works but at some points it fails miserably. They made good use of the small budget I guess. I just wish the story and most of the acting was better. There are a lot of parts where you see what they were aiming for and it would of been great if they actually hit those marks but they don't. Confusing and unbelievable story. Bad DVD transfer too. It doesn't take much for me to watch a movie in one sitting. This I had to shut off. It was too boring. I can do slow movies. But just make them appealing in some aspect. Visually, story-wise, acting, etc. This was lacking in all departments so it never added up to an engrossing experience. Maybe the film maker's next attempt will be better. | 2 | trimmed_train |
10,594 | There is a level of high expectation when you sit down to watch a comedy with a cast headed by Cary Grant, Jayne Mansfield, Ray Walston and Werner Klemperer. Those expectations are buoyed further when the film is directed by Stanley Donen, whose comic touch was so evident in, among others, DAMN YANKEES!, BEDAZZLED and CHARADE. For the first five minutes, or so, it seems that those expectations might be met and then
. Nothing. What is supposed to be a light comedy, plunges into leaden, heavy handed melodrama, with nary a chuckle to be had.<br /><br />Relative newcomer Suzy Parker has often been criticized for her performance, or lack of one, in this film, but in a movie in which even the great Cary Grant frequently appears flat and wooden, attacking Parker seems unfair. Not even as bright a light as an Audrey Hepburn or Doris Day could have changed the fortunes of this meandering, dreary and wholly pointless script, which drags itself lamely along and drags the viewer's interest and patience down with it.<br /><br />The rest of the cast, especially Ray Walston, keep trying to breath some life into the proceedings, but the horrible script is beyond resuscitation. The desperate, inane effort to drag a half hearted laugh from the numbed audience in the film's final moments only serves to add insult to injury.<br /><br />This film is nothing but a major disappointment on all levels. | 0 | trimmed_train |
15,925 | Of all the football films I have watched, this is one of the 2 best. The other being fever pitch. But Hero is about the greatest world cup ever and consequently arguably also the greatest player ever to play in a world cup, Diego Maradona. This story is centered around him principally but also revolves around the other giants of the game at the time.<br /><br />The musical score is evocative and the images are powerful. The narration by Michael Caine is suitably unbiased and also calmly dramatic. This story is not about the individual games of the world cup; rather it is more about the emotions of the players and the beauty of the event itself.<br /><br />Exciting games like France v Brazil( one of the greatest games of all time ) were covered in the same vein. The final Argentin v W Germany was also in the same vein. highly recommended. A classic of world football. to be watched over and over again, esp if you're a Maradona fan. | 3 | trimmed_train |
5,706 | I voted 3 for this movie because it looks great as does all of Greenaways output. However it was his usual mix of "art" sex and pretentious crap.I know lots of people like this film but I grew tired of it VERY quickly. It is definitely not for everyone. The ubiquitous McGregor obviously took the part for crediblity's sake I guess but he really should not have wasted his time. I hate to consign anyone to pseud's corner but please.....!!! On the plus side it IS visually very attractive and I enjoyed the music but could not see it through to the end and I cannot say that for many movies. I usually watch the whole thing but this is unbearable!! | 2 | trimmed_train |
5,542 | Relying on the positive reviews above, we saw a free screening of this last night. Now I KNOW that filmmakers plant positive reviews, because there is no way an objective individual could have written these. "Destined to become a 'cult classic'"?? The theater was packed, apparently with friends and families of the production crew, because only a few of us walked out by the first hour.<br /><br />The songs were the most literal I've ever heard in a musical "don't take the short cut, honey, there's a wolf in the woods..". Debi Mazar's eyes blinked furiously as she struggled to sing. Fortunately, most of the tunes lasted for only a few lines.<br /><br />Now, whoever plays the wolf in this tale should be charming and seductive. Instead, we get Joey Fatone, ex N'Syncer, living up to his last name as he's not aged well. He's not exactly lithe with his extra 50 pounds and junior high school-quality makeup and out-of-tune singing. Seriously, this guy was in vocal group? The rest of the actors are semi-adequate, but can't do much about the unimaginative script. You know, it is possible to write for adults and children at the same time see under "Pixar".<br /><br />On the positive side, the virtual sets looked nice and were well-integrated with the actors. And it wasn't as offensive as "Crash". | 0 | trimmed_train |
22,696 | Having watched this film strictly on the strength of reviewers' ratings I was most pleasantly surprised. Although clearly low-budget, it bears the signs of clever ingenuity. For example, when Julia wakes in the strange house and looks out the window I found myself thinking that her sense of isolation would be enhanced with an exterior shot focused on her face and then moving backwards to include the house and its isolated location. And lo and behold! the next scene was exactly that last shot of the house standing lonely on the cliff at the water's edge. There are other examples of how a clever director can elevate his film to the level of a very enjoyable thriller. Savvy viewers will surely spot them but should rest assured they will not be disappointed.<br /><br />As to the performances, George Macready is his usual creepy self, barely maintaining his composure while suggesting a capacity for unadulterated violence. Nina Foch was surprisingly good as the no-nonsense working girl who's not about to submit without a fight. But Dame May Witty, oh boy, she even had me doubting my own eyes and believing she could get away with her evil schemes.<br /><br />This a real diamond in the rough and not to be missed. | 1 | trimmed_train |
394 | I'm a horror/gore movie freak and this flick was so bad, I felt embarrassed for not only the "actors", but also the director and the poor sap of a producer who actually put his money up for this schlock.<br /><br />From the title, you'd expect some great carnage, somewhat of a storyline and at LEAST some direction or dialog. Instead, you get what looks like a slightly more violent and sexual Three Stooges episode. At least I laugh at the Three Stooges. While watching this crap, I turned another TV on and started watching Howard Stern until something interesting happened.<br /><br />Needless to say, I kept watching Stern.<br /><br />Watching this "film" I realize that I could produce a film with three monkeys, 2 DV cameras, $50 dollars in loose change and a broken PC. This film is my inspiration to get into no-budget film making. Watch this movie if you dare, but be warned...there is a lot of nothing in here but a whole lot of talking and very little action. This makes "KaZaam" look like a Meryl Streep film.<br /><br />I'm sure Germany didn't ban it due to sex or violence. Other countries need to take heed. | 0 | trimmed_train |
17,833 | What a gem of a movie, so good that they made a sequel.<br /><br />The film starts off really good with a nasty monster who eats a few people and a party where the 2 main characters first set eyes on each other.<br /><br />Bendan Hughes plays the eccentric Vlad, a bit of an inkling there to who this character is, who has moved into town and uses the services of a particular real estate agent to find him a house.<br /><br />Hell, we've all seen vampire movies, we know the format.<br /><br />The movie is watchable, but the actors' performances are very wooden and they seem as they don't want to be in this film, but may be that's just all part of the decadent ambiance.<br /><br />Didn't like the ending, but there is a sequel, must track it down.<br /><br />When I watched the film I thought Brendan Hughes didn't really fit the part. Later on, I couldn't stop thinking about him, he sort of exudes an eerie sensuality, so maybe he was right for the part.<br /><br />BRENDAN HUGHES Last seen in 'Hitler - the rise of evil' as Lt. Guffman.<br /><br />Where is he now? | 1 | trimmed_train |
11,461 | One of the worst films I have ever seen. Got so bored that I switched it off midway through to watch the news. When I switched it back on, I fell asleep. The film starts with a dream, continues with a dream, and ends with a dream. Then there are a few more dreams in between. Come on, what is supposed to keep me interested in that? A film needs to have a reason to be interesting. The minute you felt the film was only a dream is when any sensible film-goer switches off. Ever had someone insist on telling you their dreams and what it means to them? This is it!!!<br /><br />Absolutely awful. | 0 | trimmed_train |
1,519 | The first ten minutes of "Just Looking" really dictates the direction most of this movie takes. Lenny (Ryan Merriman) is a 14 year old boy living in New York in the '50s. He has a burning desire to see two people have sex. Who are the best people he has in mind? Well, his own mom and stepfather of course! How pleasant. Unfortunately for Lenny, he is caught before he sees anything and is sent away for the summer to stay with his uncle and his uncle's wife.<br /><br />Lenny's next plan is to see his uncle and his wife have sex. However, the wife is quite pregnant and they aren't currently sleeping together. Then Lenny makes a new friend. Him and his buddy spend most of their free time hanging around a couple of girls. They have a little club where all they do is sit around and talk about sex. The problem is...it's not done in an innocent, charming 1950's sort of way. I am no prude by ANY means, but I found it rather disturbing listening to these kids talk about masturbation, blowjobs and anal sex. That kind of rawness may work in a movie like "Kids" (1995) but in this film it just seems perverted.<br /><br />Gretchen Mol is utterly wasted here as Hedy, a former bra model who becomes the object of Lenny's carnal desires. Jason Alexander needs to stay as far away from the director's chair as possible. "For Better Or Worse" (1996) was awful and now this. What a waste. 1/10 | 0 | trimmed_train |
7,910 | Proof why Hollywood conventions are in place. Stale dialogue, underdeveloped and flat characters and a disjointed storyline are only part of the problems with this gangster classic wannabe. An attempt to be daring and different but this appears to be a slap-together attempt at recreating the magic of Arthur Penn 's Bonnie and Clyde (1967) and George Roy Hill 's Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969)- truly innovative filmmakers and films - but falling well below the bar. Problems with storylines being self-explanatory result in the need for a voiceover to explain problem sections. The editing appears again to be an attempt to duplicate the previous classics but is occasionally disjointed and cause more problems for me technically. Unnecessary shots are thrown in to justify the filming of them but would have better served the viewer by sitting on the cutting room floor. Stills, black & white montages and period music are thrown in from time to time in attempts to either be different or to cover up for scenes that can't transition well or to replace scenes that just didn't work at all and again are reminiscent of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969).<br /><br />Overly dramatic pauses between sentences, random shots of surrounding scenery that wasn't needed for storytelling plus over-the-top acting of bit players and supporting actors was reminiscent of the backyard camcorder directors of the late 1980's - I was left wondering who was in charge of this film during production and during post-production. The playing of music in most two shots and close-ups and then suddenly stopping in wide shots overly emphasized a weak musical score. No sound editing was drastically apparent as the bulk of the film was gunshots, doors, footsteps and dialogue (a style used in the late 60's through the mid-70's by new directors) but lacking background noise causing it to seem artificial - particularly the tire squeaks on dirt roads. In my honest opinion the biggest problem of all is there are no 'likeable' characters for the audience to route for nor were we lead to see as the protagonists of the story. Neither the gangsters nor the lawmen were characters I wanted to see win and neither were focused on as the 'hero'- a necessity for any story to work for me. We know from Penn's and Hill's movies who the 'heroes' are. Even though they are criminals, we like them and want to see them get away. I could care less who was on the screen in this film. I got the impression that John Milius was trying to give off a non-historically accurate reenactment documentary of the events surrounding John Dillenger's life from June 1933 to July 1934 (his death).<br /><br />To be fair, there are some moments of good solid storytelling, which are moments that shine forth brightly from the dark and dismal canister in which this film sits. John Milius gets better thankfully in future films where he doesn't seem to try to 'copy' other filmmakers. Dillinger (1973) isn't a total waste as many stars and famous faces who were at the cusp of breaking out are involved with this directorial 'big budget' debut, but wait for it on a classic movie channel rather than spending money to rent or buy.<br /><br /> | 2 | trimmed_train |
10,176 | I'm glad some people liked this, but I hated this film. It had a very good idea for a story line, but that's where it ended. It was badly written, badly acted and badly made.<br /><br /> It had some interesting plot points, but they were just skipped over too fast, the writers needed to realize what to keep in and expand on these bits, like lying about why she was kidnapped, and ditch the dross. Instead it was "what's going on?", 5 seconds later they tell you.<br /><br />This film had no suspense, and I was bored from start to end. I just wanted it to finish.<br /><br /> Go and rent misery, or best laid plans if you want suspense or twists that keep you guessing to the end. | 0 | trimmed_train |
785 | I'm sorry to say this, but the acting in this film is horrible. The dialogue sounds as if they are reading their lines for the first time ever. Perhaps I got the "dress rehearsal" version by mistake. The director over-uses slow motion during special effects perhaps as an attempt to compensate for the poor performance of the actors themselves. The story is pretty well written, and the fight sequences are actually better than I have seen in many action films. The fights seem pretty real. But all of this happens while to two leading actors time and time again miraculously survive incredible amounts of point-blank automatic weapon fire, grenades, morter rounds, and bazookas. The enemy soldiers are definitely some of the worst shots I have ever seen, especially when they have the escaping truck in their sights from about 30 yards, and every bazooka shot is wide by at least 50 feet. Those bazookas need serious site calibration. | 2 | trimmed_train |
21,188 | If you r in mood for fun...and want to just relax and enjoy...bade Miyan Chote Miyan is one of the movies to watch. Amitabh started off pretty good...but it is Govinda who steals the show from his hands... awesome timing for and good dialog delivery.....its inspired from Bad boys... but it has Indian Masala to it... people think it might be confusing and stupid...but the fact that David Dhavan is directing and Govinda is acting... should not raise any questions....other recommended movies in the same genre(David Dhavan/Govinda combo)...are Shola Aur Shabnam, Aankhen, Raja Babu, Saajan Chale Sasural, Deewana Mastana, Collie no. 1, Jodi no. 1, Hero no.1, Haseena Manjayegi, Ek Aur Ek Gyarah. | 3 | trimmed_train |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.