id
int32 0
25k
| text
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| label
int64 0
3
| Generalization
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
15,414 | This movie was on British TV last night, and is wonderful! Strong women, great music (most of the time) and just makes you think. We do have stereotypes of what older people "ought" to do, and there are fantastic cameos of the "sensible but worried children". Getting near to my best movie ever ! | 3 | trimmed_train |
13,202 | Ok, so it's not a masterpiece like the Godfather, but it doesn't have to be. The only purpose this movie has is to make the viewer laugh several times. If it can make the viewer laugh a bunch of times, it has accomplished its purpose. I laughed out loud and left with a smile. I feel like I got my money's worth. | 1 | trimmed_train |
1,655 | I am currently sitting here, forcing myself to finish this. I figure I blew 6 bux on the VHS, might as well suffer for it. I remember about 4 or 5 years ago doing a search on the internet for "War of the Worlds" cause of the rumors of the Spielberg movie at the time, and I missed the old TV series from the early 90's. The website make it out that this was a multi-million dollar budget rendition of the classic book. It was going to be a "perfect translation". Perfect CRAP is more in tune with this film.<br /><br />First off, the video on this movie was glitched! It looked as if I was watching the Full Motion Video from an old mid-90's PC or Playstation CD-Rom video game. Sadly enough, the color quality was similar. The acting made Shatners classic "dramatic pause" look damn near Shakespearean in quality. The CG rendering of various scenes was horrendous, and green screen sequences were worse than those seen in old Dukes of Hazardd scenes.<br /><br />Secondly, it is slow and terribly drawn out. I sat thru 45 minutes of the video (no promo's at the beginning) before the cylinder actually Opened to reveal the first alien. After that, the alien was a terribly constructed CG squid. I am now an hour into it and the most of the alien weaponry I have seen is a spinning silver disk (crappy down even) attached to a mechanical arm. The dramatic scenes are murdered with overly done instrumental's. The last thing on that, for an alien invasion in the turn of the century 1900's NO ONE is concerned for their life. It's like they have no concept. Even though media was slow, word of mouth spreads fast and people would have known. The "illusion" of day and night was shoddy at best. Simply changing the color around the people to purple, blue or green does not signify NIGHT TIME. Perhaps some lighting and actual night time shoots would have given a MUCH better illusion. THere is a lot of wasted sequences throughout the film of just watching the "hero" gallop around or walk down silly roads. Get on with the film. I know how people get around, you do NOT need to be so in-depth.<br /><br />Now, finally an hour and 5 minutes into the film and they show the alien machines. Mighty Morphin Power Rangers had better looking effects. Even the skeletons of vaporized humans looked as if animated by a freshman high school computer app class student. The animations do NOT match up to the scenery at all.<br /><br />In closing folks, if you want "The War of the Worlds", do one of four things. 1) Watch the 1953 original, 2) watch the early 90's TV series, 3) wait for Spielberg's rendition to be released shortly, OR 4) Read the frikkin book (something we all probably did in elementary English class). AVOID THIS MOVIE. IT IS A WASTE OF YOUR MONEY. | 0 | trimmed_train |
24,593 | Intelligent, stylish, and compelling thriller from the great Brian De Palma is a modern classic that firmly ranks among his best films!<br /><br />When troubled housewife is brutally murdered by a bizarre stranger, the victim's son joins with a prostitute to uncover the killer.<br /><br />Dressed to Kill left a strong impression upon the audiences of its day and for good reason. De Palma creates a wonderfully dramatic story that begins with an intriguing setup and builds into a harrowing mystery full of strong suspense. The finale and conclusion are especially 'nightmarish'.It's a truly edge of your seat shocker. Even more impressive though is De Palma's elegant direction that gives this film not only tight suspense but a unique and dark atmosphere of its own. Dressed to Kill is also a very erotic film, but mainly in a strangely beautiful way. Pino Donaggio also lends a lovely musical score to the film.<br /><br />The cast is another strong feature of this film. Michael Cain does a terrific turn as a psychiatrist. Angie Dickenson is wonderful as the ill-fated housewife. Nancy Allen's performance as an involved street-walker is solid. A young Keith Gordon also proves to be a worthy supporter as the investigating son.<br /><br />Many criticize De Palma's films for having Hitchcockian elements and this film was no exception. But any similarities between Hitchcocks works and De Palmas can only be seen as a good quality, as calling this film a 'rip-off' would be degrading to a fine thriller. Dressed to Kill is a must see for all cinema fans.<br /><br />**** out of **** | 3 | trimmed_train |
10,019 | Hammerhead is a combination between the mad scientist and killer shark movie genres. In a bit of type-casting, Jeffrey Combs plays the aforementioned mad scientist who develops a human/hammerhead shark creature. Bizarrely, this being is in fact his son, who he has turned into this monster to prevent him dying from cancer. Or something.<br /><br />A group of associates are invited to the scientist's private island. They end up being used as shark bait or shark mate. For some unknown reason the head of IT has been brought along as part of this team. Who knows why? Luckily, he turns out to be a resourceful, if somewhat overweight, Ramboesque hero. I'm working on the assumption that he learnt how to handle an assault rifle as part of his day job working in 1st line support. A normal day for this IT man presumably involves fixing someone's network connection followed by a call to gun down gun-toting evil-doers. Or perhaps a call to fix someone's PC has to be scheduled between physical confrontations with land-based human-shark hybrids? Anyway, he's amazing and saves the day. He even get's the girl.<br /><br />The shark-man is a slightly lame creation but OK, I guess, judging by the effects in general in this film. And the movie moves on at a decent pace. It's complete hokum of course but if you buy a movie called Hammerhead and expect it to be a complex drama about the emotional conflicts experienced by a man turned into a land-based killer fish, then really you have no one to blame but yourself. As it is, there are guns, gore, girls and possibly even an exploding helicopter. It's rubbish but not as bad as some might say. | 2 | trimmed_train |
18,514 | I generally find Loretta Young hard to take, too concerned with her looks and too ladylike in all the wrong ways. But in this lyrical Frank Borzage romance, and even though she's playing a low-self-esteem patsy who puts up with entirely too much bullying from paramour Spencer Tracy, she's direct and honest and irresistible. It's an odd little movie, played mostly in a one-room shack in a Hooverville, unusually up-front about the Depression yet romantic and idealized. Tracy, playing a blustery, hard-to-take "regular guy" who would be an awful chauvinist and bully by today's standards, softens his character's hard edge and almost makes him appealing. There's good supporting work from Marjorie Rambeau and Glenda Farrell (who never got as far as she should have), and Jo Swerling's screenplay is modest and efficient. But the real heroes are Borzage, who always liked to dramatize true love in lyrical close-up, and Young. You sort of want to slap her and tell her character to wise up, she's too good for this guy, but she's so dewy and persuasive, you contentedly watch their story play out to a satisfying conclusion. | 1 | trimmed_train |
18,570 | Why the crap is this movie rated so low?! I've seen this movie over 25 times, I know EVERY line to this movie. It's obvious that I love this movie. Trey Parker and Matt Stone (creators of South Park and the new puppet masterpiece Team America) star as the main characters Joe Cooper, or Coop "Airman" Cooper, and Doug Remer, or "Sir Swish." Mainly they're just referred to as Coop and Remer throughout the movie. Right as the movie starts it reminds us of the money hungry corrupt world of overpaid sports starts, they even go as far as to make one up called "Townsell." I must quote this portion of the movie since it is true with some sports starts: "And after playing for New England, San Diego, Huston, Saint Louis, a year for the Toronto Arganauts, plus one season as a greater at the Desert Inn I'm happy to finally play here in the fine city of Miami." His agent leans over: "Minnesota." Let us not forget this important piece of the movie. So it starts that Coop and Remer are at a high school reunion party and realize they are still nothing as they talk to their old classmates. Outside they create the sport BASEketball after being challenged by what probably was high school basketball heroes. After shaming them the sport goes pro in about a year. During this time they manage to recruit their third team mate Squeak, which is actually a day after they invent the game. As the movie follows we find out that Coop, Remer, and Squeak are the only virtuous sports heroes left. The story follows with zany blackmail, the Milwaukee Beers cheerleaders, and humor so absurd it'll leave you crying for more. Watch it dude, it's hilarious. | 3 | trimmed_train |
7,962 | My wife and I rented this movie because some people had drawn parallels between it and "Office Space". Blockbuster and IMDB even had it as an "also recommended" selection if you liked "Office Space".<br /><br />Now, I've seen Office Space probably 15 or 20 times. I love it. It's probably one of my 10 favorite movies. Witty, humorous, and featuring characters that remind me of people I've worked with over the years. "Haiku Tunnel" is similar to "office Space" in that they are both films. That's where the similarity ends. We sat through probably the first 50 minutes of HT, giving it the benefit of the doubt, hoping, nay, *praying* that it would get better. It didn't. We couldn't take it any more, and stopped the tape. Thank GOD it was a free rental. I'd have been p***ed if we'd actually paid for it. We should be reimbursed for having to sit through it. Now, since we didn't see the end, perhaps it miraculously comes together and redeems itself. I doubt it.<br /><br />Haiku Tunnel is so bad it's hard to believe it ever got produced. The movie is SO unfunny it's painful. Just mail the friggin letters already!!! The premise is asinine. The jokes are awful. We got as far as the "printer doesn't work" scene and had to stop. We couldn't take it anymore. This film is an EMBARRASMENT for Josh Kornbluth.<br /><br />If you are a fan of Office Space......don't waste your time with this turd. 0/10 | 0 | trimmed_train |
23,534 | It is an almost ideal romantic anime! MUST SEE FOR ALL AGES! But the English dubbed version is not too good. Perhaps the 1999 version will be better. | 3 | trimmed_train |
16,306 | Although recognized as the best film treatment of the difficulties of having a house in the country built (or bought) to your specifications, it is not the first, nor the last. In 1940 Jack Benny and Ann Sheridan were the leads in the film version of the comedy GEORGE WASHINGTON SLEPT HERE by George S. Kaufman and Moss Hart. And about fifteen years ago Shelly Long and Tom Hanks had the lead in THE MONEY PIT. The former was about moving into an 18th Century country house that...err, needs work. The latter was about building your dream house - in the late 1980s. Although the two films have their moments, both are not as good as BLANDINGS, which was based on an autobiographical novel of the same name.<br /><br />Jim Blandings and his wife Muriel (Cary Grant and Myrna Loy) are noticing the tight corners of their apartment, which they share with their two daughters Joan and Betsy (Sharyn Moffett and Connie Marshall). Although Blandings has a good income as an advertising executive (in 1948 he is making $15,000.00 a year, which was like making $90,000.00 today), and lives in a luxury apartment - which in the New York City of that day he rents! - he feels they should seek something better. He and Muriel take a drive into the country (Connecticut) and soon find an old ruin that both imagine can be fixed up as that dream house they want.<br /><br />And they both fall into the financial worm hole that buying land and construction can lead to. For one thing, they are so gung ho about the idea of building a home like this they fail to heed warning after warning by their wise, if cynical friend and lawyer Bill Cole (Melvin Douglas, in a nicely sardonic role). For example, Jim buys land from a Connecticut dealer (Ian Wolfe, sucking his chops quietly), with a check before double checking the correct cost for the land in that part of Connecticut. Bill points out he's paid about five or six thousand dollars more for the land than it is worth. There are problems about water supply that both Blandings just never think about, such as hard and soft water - which leads to the Zis - Zis Water softening machine. They find that the designs they have in mind, and have worked out with their architect (Reginald Denny), can't be dropped cheaply at a spur of the moment decision by Muriel to build a little rookery that nobody planned for. <br /><br />The escalating costs of the project are one matter that bedevils Jim. He has been appointed to handle the "Wham" account ("Spam" had become a popular result of World War II, in that the public started using it as a meat substitute, in the light of it's success with the armed forces). Jim can't get a grip on this (he's not alone - one or two other executives fumbled it before him). He comes up with the following bit of "poetry"(?):<br /><br />"This little piggy went to market,<br /><br />He was pink and as pretty as ham.<br /><br />He smiled in his tracks,<br /><br />As they gave him the ax -<br /><br />He knew he would end up as "Wham"!"<br /><br />His Secretary looks at him as though he needs a straight jacket when he reads that one!<br /><br />Jim also is increasingly suspicious of the attentions of Bill to Muriel, although (in this case) Bill is blameless. But he's always around (Jim keeps forgetting that Bill is the clearheaded one, and that he's keeping Jim and Muriel from making so many mistakes). All three have mishaps, the best being when they get locked in a room in the half constructed house, just as the men have left for the day. They can't open the door, and Jim (in a panic) tries breaking the door down by a make-shift battering ram. He breaks a window, and the door opens by itself.<br /><br />The film works quite satisfactorily, with all of the actors apparently enjoying themselves. It is one film which (despite changing price levels and salary levels) really does not age at all. After all, most Americans dream of owning their own home and always have.<br /><br />A number of years ago a paint company made use of a delightful scene with Myrna Loy and Emory Parnell regarding the paint job Parnell's company has to do on the various rooms. She carefully shows the distinct shades of red, blue, etc. she wants - even giving a polite Parnell a single thread for the right shade of blue. The commercials hinted that the paint company had a wide variety of colors to choose from for your paint job. They proudly called Loy "Mrs. Blandings" in the commercials' introduction. You can imagine though how the no-nonsense Parnell handles the situation afterward, when Loy leaves him with his paint crew. | 3 | trimmed_train |
12,720 | Having not seen all the films released in 2002, I can't say that this is the best film of the year. I can say that it is the best film I have seen all year. <br /><br />Most American films featuring black people either obsess over the American preoccupation with "race relations", or fall into the cliches of the inner city ghetto, with every sterotype imaginable spouting ebonic-phrased slang. Antwone Fisher stands proudly alone in this regard: race is irrelevant, save for one fight that may, or may not, have been provoked by a racial slur.<br /><br />Antwone Fisher's story is one that should find resonance with any empathic individual. He is understatedly, and thoughtfully, portrayed by Derek Luke. Denzel Washington, while obviously using his star power to have the film made, sticks to the background for the most part, and allows the film to be the Antwone Fisher story. <br /><br />At a time when BET, and popular culture in general want to maintain the ghetoization of a large number of Americans (and Canadians too, you know), this is a film that speaks to the humanity in all of us. I just hope that the non-Black audience will go see this film for that humanity, rather than avoiding it because they feel that there are no characters or actors in the movie whom they can identify with. That would be a sad commentary on race-relations in North America in and of itself. <br /><br /> | 3 | trimmed_train |
19,868 | a movie about the cruelty of this world. I found it liberating, as only truth can be. It also contains some quite funny bits. Some of the acting is extraordinary, see Maria Hofstätter for instance. The director has tried to depict life as realistically as possible, succeeding. Coherently, the sex scenes are explicit and no more fake than those of a hard-core movie. Although I hardly understood a sentence, I found the vision of the movie in the original language with subtitles much more rewarding, because with the dubbing half the great work of the actors gets lost. The voice of the character played by Maria Hofstätter is particularly hard to duplicate by a dubber.<br /><br />My favorite movie | 3 | trimmed_train |
14,771 | A priest who has abandoned his ministry meets a young man who has just been ordained.<br /><br />This movie is about the cruel dilemma between a life dedicated to God and faith and a life of more earthly pleasures. In post war France it is also about the mortal aspect of Faith itself.<br /><br />This may not be the movie of a lifetime but it is a sin to have allowed it to fall in oblivion. Besides, Pierre Fresnay is sublime. | 1 | trimmed_train |
15,208 | I have always like this great baseball movie! It has a good cast including two tremendous actors and two of My favorites Danny Glover and Christopher Lloyd! Also in this movie is Ben Johnson, Brenda Fricker, Big Tony Longo, Tony Danza, and Matthew McConaughey! Also Jay O. Sanders and Dermot Mulroney! The film has great special effects and acting from all of the film's actors! The baseball scenes are all realistic! The music by composer Randy Edelman is very good and it fits the film very well! Some of the actors who reminded Me the actual baseball personalities. Stoney Jackson's Ray Mitchell character reminded Me Royce Clayton, McConaughey's character reminded Me of Steve Finley, and Jay O. Sanders's commentator in My opinion resembled how Al Hrabosky looks today. This is a fantastic movie for non and Baseball fans and I strongly recommend this film! | 3 | trimmed_train |
21,910 | This was a movie that I had heard about all my life growing up, but had never seen it until a few years ago. It's reputation truly proceeded it. I knew of Michael Myers, had seen the mask, saw commercials for all of the crummy sequels that followed. But I was growing up during the decade where Jason and Freddy had a deadly grip on the horror game, and never thought much of the Halloween franchise. Boy, how I was being cheated with cheap knock offs.<br /><br />Halloween is a genuinely terrifying movie. Now, by today's standards, it isn't as graphic and visceral, but this film delivers on all the other levels most horror movies fail to achieve today. The atmosphere that John Carpenter creates is so creepy, and the fact that it is set in a quaint, mid-west town is a testament to his ability. The lighting effects are down right horrifying, with "The Shape" seemingly appearing and disappearing into the shadows at will. The simple yet brutally effective music score only adds to the suspense.<br /><br />The performances by all the players are well done, with specific nods to Jamie Lee Curtis and Donald Pleasance. Ms. Curtis is such a good Laurie Strode because she is so likable and vulnerable. It is all the more frightening when she is being stalked by Michael Myers because the director and viewer have invested so much into her, we want her to survive and get away.<br /><br />Donald Pleasance plays Dr. Loomis like a man on a mission, and it works well. He adds a sense of urgency to the predicament the town finds itself in because he knows what evil stalks their streets.<br /><br />Overall, not only is Halloween a great horror movie, but also a great film. It works on many levels and draws the audience in and never lets up. This should be standard viewing for anyone wanting to experience a truly scary movie. And for an even more frightful time, try watching it alone with the lights off. Don't be surprised if you think you see "The Shape" lurking around in the shadows! | 3 | trimmed_train |
13 | From the first time I saw the box cover of the movie and the stretched out photography I thought this guy, this friend of the 'Scwarz' must be like 6 foot or 6ft 2in. <br /><br />Not 5 feet tall. Not that, it's his fault. <br /><br />At any rating, I turned on the movie one cool night in Tucson, out on the second story-deck with a good cigar and let it roll. At that time my wife was having an affair and things were going down hill for me, so I needed a good diversion. But, as bad as the movie was...I totally enjoyed it, with a bottle of Merlot too, I might admit. <br /><br />Truly, I have watched this movie many times. It always makes me feel good!! It's not that it 'tries too hard' to be cool or that 'It's so close' to hitting the mark for an action film....It's frantic. And then truly clueless. Then frantic again. It's the best of the best when it comes to a slow speed chase scene. Wow!! I never felt safer in my life. Warm and happy too. I was thankful that they conserved on the gasoline during the chase, due to less production in the summer months...anywho <br /><br />The direction was 'uninspired' the action and fight sequences needed to be choreographed, or re-choreographed and tightened up, the sound was off the delivery didn't hit you, it just kept on going, the other way. The 'locals' of that village that they were in, the town rather, were 'Off cue' they also did not seem to follow what was happening very well, the would look and even 'stare' into the camera lens. Like a deer in the head lights kind of thing only some of them with a smile, a smiling deer. <br /><br />I feel bad because 'Columbu' I just bet has a good heart and a caring spirit for people in America as well as for his own countrymen. <br /><br />However "Baretta's Island" is very lethargic and unbelievable. Even still I like it a lot. My now x-wife hates it, but I love it! <br /><br />The funny thing is, I am pretty discriminating when it comes to movies I like or even 'love'. All in all, I like Franco. So there it is. <br /><br />As a movie adding addendum to this if you like killing a few hours with truly fun to watch, straight to video-B movies or 'bad' movies for your little library collection then, if you can find it, check out 'The Big Sweat' (1991) with Robert Z' Dar..you know the big guy from 'TANGO & CASH'. 'The Big Sweat', a bomb of a cop story with no real plot discovery and acting that is so lame, it might as well be 'on crutches' and at the end of 'The Big Sweat' I think they ran out of money, because they had a picture of the cast and just set it on fire and let it burn during the credits. -Good fun. <br /><br />But all in all, not as good as Baretta's Island', I gave it a '1' and an overall rating of 'awful' for awful-good B' movie. I'm waiting for the sequel, maybe like 'Baretta's revenge on Montazuma' (Franco takes a Mexican vacation and gets sick on the water then, declares war on the water co.) or 'Baretta's powder war' where as he would stake out a large drug lord in his country and chemically gene-splice and create a hybrid super bug (insect) that would be bred and dropped into the cocaine fields and eat the coke and upon passing it through the bug, it forms a chemical reaction that turns the coke to pure powdered sugar. Then another sequel he would have to get the young people rescued from excessive sugar addiction and so on. He could get a major tooth paste company to endorse and partially fund the project with careful product placement in the feature. Right?(*) | 0 | trimmed_train |
14,295 | I just saw this movie tonight, opening night. It was great!! I'm a big fan of sports movies, and this was right up there as one of my favorites. Dennis Quaid was great. (Oh, by the way, Mr. Quaid, if you read this...my sister lives in Austin, where you live.....and she was supposed to buy you a drink once...well...she kinda stood you up...but she didn't mean to! :C) [not that anyone's going to believe that...]) ANYWAY, it's a great movie. Everyone who likes a good sports movie, should go out and see it! :C) | 3 | trimmed_train |
5,703 | In the title I write that the story is ludicrous. below I'll elaborate and tell you why it, in my humble opinion, ruins this movie.<br /><br />Gere and Danes are doing their jobs, and while it's not their best work, it's quite OK. The rest of the cast, though, is doing a really poor job. Mind you, this is not entirely the actors fault. The problem is that Gere and Danes are the only ones that have characters that have even the slightest room in the movie to really give any depth. All other characters have either too little room in the movie to create any depth, or the character is such a cliché that it doesn't matter how hard the actors try.<br /><br />The director has a bit of a Se7en complex, but looking merely at the direction, I think he does an OK job.<br /><br />But the story. This is the kind of script that is bad in two ways. First of all it's a bad movie script. The characters are shallow (except for Gere's and Danes' characters), the villains are clichés and the actions of the characters is totally unbelievable. Besides this, the writers must have an agenda where they want to bring back our views and ethics a hundred years. It's the kind of movie that are saying that some criminals are still criminals, regardless of the fact that they have paid the price the society has given them. It's also the kind of movie that says, albeit only between the lines, that every form of sexual deviance should be punished without trial, judge or jury. And of course, according to the movie, everything that is not sex in the missionary position by a married couple is a sexual deviance.<br /><br />So, if you're going to film school and need an example of a bad script, or if you're writing scripts yourself and want an ego boost. See it. For everyone else, I recommend another movie. | 0 | trimmed_train |
6,505 | Don't get me wrong, this is a terrible, clichéd film, but it is a delight for fans of Olivia Hussey - quite possibly the most intoxicating beauty ever to grace the silver screen. One poster stated that she was unpleasant to look at - I wonder what his ideal woman looks like - Paris Hil-slut? Blockbuster should really establish a sub-genre to this type of film, as the Fatal Attraction plot has become a genre unto itself. When will Blockbuster adopt the "Adultry" section? It will fit in quite nicely between the drama and action sections, right? This film revolves around Olivia Hussey, who spends a night of passion with an unstable yacht owner who may have murdered his ex-wife, who looks remarkably like Ms. Hussey. This ne'er-do-well proceeds to stalk Olivia and thus make her life a living-hell. I like Olivia Hussey, but I have no sympathy for characters in movies that cheat on their spouses, so I really wasn't rooting for Olivia to make it out o this stinker alive.<br /><br />VIOLENCE: $$ (There is a smattering of violence in the film. Don Murray and Anthony John Denison get involved in a fisticuffs when Denison says that he will not stop seeing Olivia, Murray's wife, because she is just too good in bed. Olivia also gets to handle a shooter and might get to squeeze off a round - I'll let you watch).<br /><br />NUDITY: $$ (Olivia is the queen of brief nudity and supplies a little here. She has a love scene with Anthony John Denison and also has a shower scene - shot at a distance).<br /><br />STORY: $ (We've seen this plot before - a hundred times over, and oftentimes done much better. The true culprit, when trying to decipher why this film was a dud, is William Riead. The man's dialogue is sophomoric and moronic. The man has no story-telling abilities and fails to build believable human reactions to the plot. These people, of the upper strata of society, talk like middle school kids - with a habit of sleeping during English class. I have placed Riead on the Never-to-be-Viewed-Again list).<br /><br />ACTING: $$$ (The acting wasn't "phoned-in" as the insiders say, but was hindered a great deal by Riead's juvenile script. Olivia Hussey resorts to calling Anthony Jonh Denison "weird" and "crazy" to his face when he begins to stalk her. Hussey, who is still beautiful, delivers the best performance here but Denison was equal to the task of portraying a demented, love-crazed stalker. Don Murray was basically just there - his character not fleshed out, and Edward Asner, a terrific actor when given something with substance, is ill-used in this film). | 2 | trimmed_train |
22,749 | Ten out of the 11 short films in this movie are masterpieces (I found only the Egyptian one disappointing). Stragely, all but the Mexican director chose to portray the problems of individuals or groups in connection with 9-11: the Afghan refugees, deaf people, Palestinians, the widows of Srebrenica, AIDS and poverty and corruption in Africa, Pinochets coup and ensuing bloodbath, suicide bombings in Israel, paranoia-hit and state-persecuted Muslim Americans in the USA, old people living alone, and the aftermath of WWII in the hearts of Asian soldiers. This might say something sad about the limits of empathy, in both ways: the directors might feel that Americans ignore the pains of the rest of the world and only care about their own tragedies, while they effectively do the same with their short films.<br /><br />Surprising myself, I found Sean Penn's piece one of the very best in the collection, and ***SPOILER AHEAD*** I also guess his portrayal of Ernest Borgnine as a half-crazy old man vegetating in a New York flat experiencing his widow life's happiest moment when the Sun shines through his window after the WTC "collapsed out of light's way", I guess this might also be one of the most offending as the general American audience would see it. | 3 | trimmed_train |
6,738 | *WARNING* Contains MANY SPOILERS!<br /><br />Let me start by saying I have a huge respect for Gillian Anderson's incredible talent as a varied and versatile actress - which is why I cannot comprehend her reasons for agreeing to make this film once she saw the script (or lack thereof.) <br /><br />The premise of the film was, in my opinion, a great idea and there were some genuinely thought-provoking themes in there but it ended up like a collapsed soufflé. It exemplifies why I hate 99% of British cinema. It feels too long, it's tedious, for the most part, and not a lot happens after the first twenty minutes. Just when you think there's a chance of it picking up some speed it disappoints like Paula Radcliffe running a marathon. With little imaginative directing and a minimalist plot, there isn't much to keep the audience from nodding off into their popcorn. As for the script I can only surmise that the writer was trying to save a few trees, with the average scene reading something along the lines of "Alice: F*** OFF! (Adam stares. Adam runs off into woods)(Alice follows) Alice: ADAM! ADAM!" I suspect that, word for word, the actors probably got paid more than Kate Moss did for her Virgin Mobile adverts. What few lines there were didn't have a lot of variation with a frequent use of the f-word that would make Bridget Jones's friend, Shazza, proud. There is little establishment of the main characters before the main sordid event which leaves the audience lacking much sympathy for the characters beyond an automatic 'Oh that's terrible' reaction.<br /><br />Alice isn't the kind of woman who courts sympathy either. She's got a great job, an expensive London apartment with roof space to die for yet she comes across on screen as conceited, bitter and dissatisfied before her life takes a turn for the worst. After the attack a few layers are peeled back which sort-of explain why she is this way to start with; she grew up with a tough-as-old-boots soldier who thought that teaching her how to shoot his gun was the ultimate expression of love so, instead of following in his footsteps, she ran away to the big city in search of something to make her feel like her life is worth living. Instead she found a group of stereotypical middle-class Toffs who look down on anyone not rich enough to drive a Lexus and the luxuries that come with an integrated security/entertainment system (i.e. becoming Mrs Robinson to a wanna-be Cockney wide-boy electrician) Someone pass me a tissue. The one saving grace of this character is that she is played by Gillian Anderson. In the hands of a lesser actress she would've been intolerably one-dimensional but Ms Anderson actually manages to inject a few fleeting moments of humanity into this otherwise lifeless human being, most notably when she's sincerely apologising for her road rage in a vain attempt to stop her attackers from continuing their assault.<br /><br />I can't say that Adam fared much better either. Danny Dyer played him well as a fish-out-of-water Jack the Lad but a good performance couldn't save him from both the lack of a script and the total absence of any character background. <br /><br />This film relied mostly on shock value but the timing was off and it felt far too engineered from beginning to end. As for the shock, the most shocking thing about this film is the unashamed demonstration of how painfully thin Ms Anderson has become; it was almost as unsettling to see as the brutal attack scenes. On a side note, only in a British film would a gang of violent sex attackers take the time to offer each other contraception before continuing to cheer their mates on - talk about stiff-upper-lip taken to the extreme! If this is the kind of film that the National Lottery is donating money to make then I'm not surprised that fewer and fewer people are choosing to spend their pound each week. <br /><br />Saying that I hated this film is giving it too much credit, I didn't care enough about any of the characters to warrant that strong an emotion. I want that one-and-a-bit hours of my life back, please! | 2 | trimmed_train |
13,359 | Coming shortly before the imposition of a morality code darkened the spirits of writers, directors and actors, the first film adaptation of W. Somerset Maugham's "Of Human Bondage" titillated countless moviegoers. It has no shock value today, just fine acting.<br /><br />While the cast is excellent, this is Bette Davis's first great role and one of Leslie Howard's best performances. Howard is English wannabe Parisian artist Philip Carey who is gently and firmly told that he lacks any talent and that his dedication is no substitute for true genius. Taking the lesson to heart he returns to London and enrolls in a medical college (one, by the way, that seems to have no female students-at that time there would have been at least a few. Perhaps author/physician Maugham didn't care for distaff medicos).<br /><br />Having tea one day Carey is entranced by a waitress, Mildred Rogers, Bette Davis in a role as a morally loose and basically wicked farrago. Her Cockney accent is as sharp as Eliza Doolittle's. His repeated attempts to date her are greeted with the less than enthusiastic reply, "I don't mind," a sure sign for any man with his head screwed on straight that he's plumbing the depths. Maugham's Mildred supplemented her waitress tips with a bit of old fashioned street-walking, something not clearly brought out here.<br /><br />Carey's besotted prostration serves Rogers' avaricious need for support of the financial kind. He is desperately in love with her-she plays him as a Sunday church organist effortlessly plies her instrument. No sex here. Recognizing that he is getting nowhere, he begins a chaste relationship with Norah, a woman who adores him. Re-enter Mildred, replete with a baby, and in her usual need of being taken care of. Exit heartbroken Norah. <br /><br />Another separation from Mildred and Carey begins a long-term friendship with Sally, abetted enthusiastically by her dad who seems to view eventual marriage as both a good thing for the two young people and a chance to be relieved of one of his nine offspring.<br /><br />The movie reasonably but not entirely follows Maugham's excellent novel. Howard's Carey is naive and vulnerable and for much of the movie his sad eyes remind one of a doe facing a double-barreled shotgun. Mildred is unrestrainedly wicked, a user of the worst kind, her sole preoccupation with her own needs barely disguised when she tries to wheedle Carey with a thin patina of affectionate words (and offers-at one point she promises she'll do "anything [he] wants," a daring statement for the times and one I'm sure audiences fully understood.<br /><br />Pre-Code it may be but Mildred's quick-march dissolution would have satisfied the League of Catholic Decency. The ending is conventional-sin loses, principled behavior triumphs.<br /><br />Director John Cromwell wrought excellent performances from his two main stars, one well-established, the other established largely because of this film. The atmosphere is 1930s London and the trip back in time is worth taking.<br /><br />Available on DVD.<br /><br />9/10 (for Davis's and Howard's performances) | 3 | trimmed_train |
22,026 | I went to see Antone Fisher not knowing what to expect and was most pleasantly surprised. The acting job by Derek Luke was outstanding and the story line was excellent. Of course Denzel Washington did his usual fine job of acting as well as directing. It makes you realized that people with mental problems CAN be helped and this movie is a perfect example of this. Don't miss this one. | 3 | trimmed_train |
16,587 | Who knew they could be so funny?? Christopher Meloni and Janel Moloney are known more for their outstanding work in some of television's hottest dramas. ("Law & Order: SVU" and "The West Wing") Put them together on the big screen and what you get is an engaging romantic comedy with plenty of laughs.<br /><br />The actors develop the story's ongoing relationship with impressive skill, leaving the audience bound to fall in love with Barry Singer (Meloni), despite the fact he's a standup comic who also happens to be a mean-spirited, sexist jerk.<br /><br />You'll be rooting for him even as he takes all his insecurities with the opposite sex and chases Thea (Moloney) halfway around the country in hopes of winning her heart. They have so little in common...but when Barry finally opens his heart, you'll wonder why Thea keeps running away.<br /><br />The Souler Opposite is a wonderful movie with an incredible cast and a gifted writer. Well worth your time.<br /><br /> | 3 | trimmed_train |
11,172 | Upon viewing Tobe Hooper's gem, Crocodile, in 2000, I developed a great interest in the college/crocodile niche of the exploitation/monster genre. I look forward to a wayward producer to follow up with several sequels to these delightful bonbons of camp goodness. If only Ed Wood could bring his subtle sense of flair and dignity to these remarkable scripts. With Ed writing the scripts, and a room full of monkees creating crocodile special effects on a computer, all we'd need would be a cast of crocky fodder with Russ Meyer breasts and Ren Hoek pectoral implants.<br /><br />While Tobe Hooper's crocky opus referenced his own movies, Blood Surf chose to dish out a bunch of aging themes from the chum bucket of other movies. See if you can look past the Revenge of the Nerds sequel sets to find the allusions/homages?/rip-offs to Jaws, Temple of Doom, Indiana Jones' Last Crusade, The Convent, Godzilla 2000, and any James Bond movie. Also, try to find the ready-for-tv fade where the editor gave up on making sense of the stock.<br /><br />I was disappointed the crock didn't get to try out its sotto voce tenor with a soliloquy on environmentalism...or crocky appreciation, but the quasi-Captain Ahab of the story does get his tour de force speach. Perhaps, in the coming years, we'll see a crock galloping off after a shootout into a golden sunset. Or hopefully, a monkey will flush a crocky down the toilet of an international space station for midgets and enjoy the exploitative waltz of zero-G monkey/midget/crocodile bloodshed.<br /><br />All-in-all, the lack of a whammy bar in the surf music irked me. | 0 | trimmed_train |
17,033 | I remember watching this in the 1970s - then I have just recently borrowed a couple of episodes from our public library.<br /><br />With a nearly 30 year hiatus, I have come to another conclusion. Most of the principals interviewed in this series - some at the center of power like Traudl Junge (Hitler's Secretary),Karl Doenitz (head of Germany's navy) Anthony Eden (UK) - are long gone but their first hand accounts will live on.From Generals and Admirals to Sergeants, Russian civilians, concentration camp survivors, all are on record here. <br /><br />I can remember the Lord Mountbatten interview (killed in the 1970s) <br /><br />This is truly a gem and I believe the producer of this series was knighted by Queen Elizabeth for this work - well deserved.<br /><br />Seeing these few episodes from the library makes me want to buy the set.<br /><br />This is the only "10" I have given any review but I have discovered like a fine bottle of wine, it is more appreciated with a little time... | 3 | trimmed_train |
891 | As far as HEIST movies go, this one is pretty weak. Continuity is pretty lousy, there isn't enough character continuity to really feel like you understand any of the characters. Peter Falk is great, and he is one of the reasons its worth watching. Falk has some great lines, like "he'll be right back, he goin' buy to some saugages" or something like that... there are a few nice scenes, although they are entirely due to the efforts of the actors. Direction, script, and editing is pretty lousy. | 2 | trimmed_train |
22,689 | A number of posters have commented on the unsatisfactory conclusion. This is always a problem with long, complex dramas. Crime is essentially banal, so the pay off is always anti-climactic, whilst detailed exposition detracts from the human drama. The writer has used a number of clever devices to try and get round this, but has not been entirely successful. Answers to precisely what happened and why may have been supplied, but if so they are well buried. The viewer inevitably feels a little cheated.<br /><br />But in a sense this is unimportant. The drama was never about the crime, or even the investigation, it was about the impact of events on the lives of those involved; the family, the investigators, the witnesses, the press. And as such it was gripping. The writing was a significant cut above the run of the mill for prime-time drama, and the performances uniformly good. In an ensemble piece it is invidious to focus on individuals, but Penelope Wilton deserves special mention for an extraordinary tour de force as the mother-wife-daughter, and Janet McTeer was in cracking form as a hard-bitten old cop.<br /><br />One of the most interesting aspects of the drama is the handling of race, as the elephant in the room that no-one is prepared to mention. Subtle, powerful stuff. | 3 | trimmed_train |
9,537 | This movie is so awful, it is hard to find the right words to describe it!<br /><br />At first the story is so ridiculous.A narrow-minded human can write a better plot! The actors are boring and untalented, perhaps they were compelled to play in this cheesy Film.<br /><br />The camera receptions of the National Forest are the only good in this whole movie. I should feel ashame, because I paid for this lousy Picture.<br /><br />Hopefully nobody makes a sequel or make a similar film with such a worse storyline :-) | 0 | trimmed_train |
18,229 | After the success of Die Hard and it's sequels it's no surprise really that in the 1990s, a glut of 'Die Hard on a .....' movies cashed in on the wrong guy, wrong place, wrong time concept. That is what they did with Cliffhanger, Die Hard on a mountain just in time to rescue Sly 'Stop or My Mom Will Shoot' Stallone's career.<br /><br />Cliffhanger is one big nit-pickers dream, especially to those who are expert at mountain climbing, base-jumping, aviation, facial expressions, acting skills. All in all it's full of excuses to dismiss the film as one overblown pile of junk. Stallone even managed to get out-acted by a horse! However, if you an forget all the nonsense, it's actually a very lovable and undeniably entertaining romp that delivers as plenty of thrills, and unintentionally, plenty of laughs.<br /><br />You've got to love John Lithgows sneery evilness, his tick every box band of baddies, and best of all, the permanently harassed and hapless 'turncoat' agent, Rex Linn as Travers.<br /><br />He may of been Henry in 'Portrait of a Serial Killer' but Michael Rooker is noteworthy for a cringe-worthy performance as Hal, he insists on constantly shrieking in painful disbelief at his captors 'that man never hurt anybody' And whilst he surely can't be, it really does look like Ralph Waite's Frank character is grinning as the girl plummets to her death.<br /><br />Mention too must go to former 'London's Burning' actor Craig Fairbrass as the Brit bad guy, who comes a cropper whilst using Hal as a Human Football, yes, you can't help enjoy that bit, Hal needed a good kicking.<br /><br />So forget your better judgement, who cares if 'that could never happen', lower your acting expectations, turn up the volume and enjoy! And if you're looking for Qaulen, he's the one wearing the helicopter. | 1 | trimmed_train |
19,905 | Four stories written by Robert Bloch about various people who live in a beautiful, old mansion and what happens to them. The first has Denholm Elliott as a novelist who sees the killer he's writing about come to life. Some spooky moments and the twist at the end was good. The second has Peter Cushing becoming obsessed with a wax figure resembling his dead wife. The third has Christopher Lee who has a child (Chloe Franks) and is scared of her. It all leads up to a pretty scary ending (although the ending in the story was MUCH worse). The last is an out and out comedy with Jon Petwee and Ingrid Pitt (both chewing the scenery) and a cape that turns people into vampires! There's also a cute line about Christopher Lee playing Dracula.<br /><br />This is a good horror anthology--nothing terrifying but the first one and the ending of the third gave me a few pleasurable little chills. Also the fourth one is actually very funny and Pitt makes a VERY sexy vampire! Also the house itself looks beautiful...and very creepy. It's well-directed with some nice atmospheric touches. A very good and unusual movie score too. All in all a good little horror anthology well worth seeking out. Try to see it on DVD--the Lions Gate one looks fantastic with strong colors and great sound. | 1 | trimmed_train |
12,291 | I see that someone already thought of a similar analogy, which was similar to the first thing that came to mind after I watched this movie. They said that the ingredients were there but there was no plot. Besides the sexual scenes which bordered on child-porn (which I feel could have been edited out or been presented more suggestively in nature rather than graphically, I would liken this movie to a recipe that's been torn in half. It's kind of like being handed a list of ingredients, with no directions on how to put them together into a finished product. From the start, character development and story development are lacking...unfortunately, many times in this monotonous drivel we are teased with bits of plot and we think "Ahh-OK...finally we are going to find out something more about WHY this scene is going on...or...WHO this character is...or maybe we are finally going to get to know and appreciate this character more...or understand and get involved more with this inter-character relationship...etc." But no such luck! On the contrary, many times I was tempted to just turn it off more than once but stuck it out when the carrot was dangled, only to find that whatever mini-plot within whatever mini-plot (and that poorly presented) was just a ruse. Why I stayed with it till the end is a mystery, other than usually IFC has better selections and they gave it 2-1/2 stars (another mystery). It's not that the characters aren't likable to SOME degree, or that you can't identify with them or their humanness at all...it's just that this could have been so much better with just a little more effort. I notice this was shot around Santa Cruz and find myself wondering if it was someone's film school project. I wish I could have given this a better review but honestly it was a frustrating and disappointing waste of an hour and a half. | 0 | trimmed_train |
17,569 | It's been 19 years since Gordon Gekko used "Wall Street" to let us know that greed is good. Now, Michael Douglas takes the GG persona and morphs it into a Secret Service agent, Pete Garrison. Guess what? It works! This is a solid political thriller that kept me guessing. The detail work in showing the security precautions taken by the SS on behalf of the President and First Lady was likewise intriguing. All the leads were pretty good but, try as I might, I could not accept Eva Longoria as a Secret Service agent. Whereas Jodie Foster just made you suspend belief and really think she was FBI agent Starling in "Silence of the Lambs", you do not get the same feeling with Longoria. Nevertheless, this is a fun film, escapist entertainment with the Beltway as the backdrop. | 1 | trimmed_train |
371 | This film really disappointed me. The acting is atrocious. Unbelievable. And it's about actors. The story is incredibly obvious: A group of independent actors stage a Passion Play and, in turn, they start to live out the lives of the characters they play. I've been watching a lot of movies lately, thanks to Netflix, and this is the first one I haven't watched all the way through in a long time. I felt I didn't need to see the end; we all know the end of this story.<br /><br />For some, it seems, this "modernization" of the Gospels is either sacrilegious or enlightening. I cannot speak to any of this as I wasn't raised in the Christian church. That being said, I was raised in the US and I live in an increasingly Christian culture. I'm curious enough about Jesus and about the modernization of the religion, for better or worse. I haven't seen Mel Gibson's version, but I'm guessing that those who liked that one will like this, except for the most conservative. I just wish this was a better film.<br /><br />Lots of these reviews praise Arcand's direction and especially the cinematography. I liked neither. The film itself is rather prudish and preachy. I didn't believe the characters' personae and I was never involved with their on screen lives. The play within the play is very much dated and would not, I think, carry it's own weight in a real time production. But that's beside the point. What I really needed for this to work would have been stronger development of the characters and the plot to support the philosophical and theological questions the film would like to be about. And the musical choices are obvious and unoriginal.<br /><br />There were two examples of this that come easily to mind. Firstly, there is a reenactment of the parable of Jesus driving the money lenders from the temple: the lead actor, who has fallen for the woman who will play Magdalene and who is also a model and dancer, becomes enraged that she must debase herself by auditioning for a commercial (with a wicked producer and plenty of panting men in the audience) with her pants off. He trashes the place and chases them all out. I guess this is the level that the film wishes to reach. The romance between these two is entirely arbitrary and not at all emotionally realized and the scene is played out like a high-school rendering of Death of a Salesman, i.e., not well. Please stop hitting me over the head with this high-handed "significance." The other is the relationship between the other female lead and the priest who has asked them to do the play and who, eventually, turns against them and betrays them to the nowadays-corrupt Church. Why. Why does she sleep with this guy. "It brings him so much pleasure and me so little pain." Ah, the saintly whore and the lovable old coot. It seems to be just enough for Arcand to signify but not worth the trouble to enrich and enliven these characters. They are going through the motions and I'm reaching for the eject button.<br /><br />Feel free to write me off as bored, jaded or just not interested. Feel free to watch this movie and see the Passion, in all its beauty, sadness and inspiration, delivered as an amateurish and gimmicky charade. Feel free to have all your preconceived ideas affirmed and see any shred of artistic integrity forsaken for monotonous drivel. But don't say I didn't warn you. | 0 | trimmed_train |
10,886 | I love all types of films, especially horror. That being said, Survival does not live up to ANY of the hype surrounding it.<br /><br />I can't give it any points on originality. There is nothing wrong with exploring the same themes, or remaking what others have done. It has just become a cop out for indie films to take us on a slasher journey through the woods, a crazed killer, and as of lately, throw in some crazy family. On those lines I have to compare it with the likes of Texas Chainsaw, Wrong Turn (though the twist in that one is obvious), and others. Survival falls up way short against comparable films. The plot was just not original in ANY way. Some films can get by with a weak (and way over-done) plot with superb acting, special fx, or a slew of other factors. Survivial doesn't have any of that to bank on. If you will, note the following: The acting in the movie never took off. I don't knock or blame the actors for that, nor the director. The dialogue was at best mediocre, and the actors involved never showed (not saying didn't HAVE) the talent to pull it off. I mention 2 standouts. The leading man in this film certainly has the look, but I seriously thinks he needs to consider more training before he is ready to carry a film. The actor who portrayed Greg also had potential, but we never got to see any of it (watch the movie to see why, you won't believe it..).<br /><br />The grainy film look. Ah yes, that little tid-bit of film making magic designed to take us to the glory days of "Grindhouse" films. In today's film making, that has become a gimmick. It either works or it doesn't. In this case it just does not work. There are too many other flaws going on, so it winds up distracting from the film, not adding to it. That being said, I think they did a good job of adding that grain. That is some good, quality grain. I think with a different script, better direction, and possibly actors, they should try another "Grindhouse" attempt. They will probably pull it off.<br /><br />As far as the tech aspects, in my opinion, they never quite gelled for me either. Better care could have been taken with audio (sounds like it was fed directly into the camera, but there is nothing wrong with that) and for being shot on DV, it was too soft for my taste.<br /><br />That is all I have to say about that..... | 0 | trimmed_train |
4,623 | A real head scratcher of a film by Bill Rebane who appeared to be getting worse in his trade throughout the eighties. Three crackpot millionaires invite nine people to a remote hotel to compete in a last person standing contest in which the final contestant will be given $1 million provided he or she makes it that far. A series of lame pranks are pulled on some of the guests while the others engage in what most adults would do under the circumstances namely get shatfaced at the hotel bar. Most scenes are merely an excuse to focus the camera on various female body parts including an opening dance number that is a crossover of American Bandstand meets geriatric aerobics complete with hookers. If there was any hesitation that white people can't dance this scene hammers the final nail in that coffin. Pay close attention for the nipple slip. This continues on for about forty-five minutes until Bill Rebane begins throwing darts at various plot twists and whatever he hits becomes the inspiration for the next scene making this one incoherent mess. It's a game until it's not a game. The three old coots are in complete control until they're not. The hotel is possessed by a supernatural force until it becomes just props. They're dead until they're not. Even the narrator at the end replies that he doesn't know what the hell happened. I defy anyone to reason where Rebane was going on this one. The acting is dinner theater caliber minus the dinner. Most of the actors probably went back to their day jobs at the local Stuckey's. I give it a few points for the scene where the yuppie broad opens the closet and a skeleton is inside skull humping himself. Let's see Gone With the Wind do that! This Chilling Classics collection is really becoming the bane of me. Bane, Get it! Like Rebane! I hate myself. | 2 | trimmed_train |
11,259 | This movie sucked plain and simple. Okay so it's basically about a girl that gets raped, and to get revenge she gets another guy to rape the rapist. The rapist is a douche, but the girl victim is partly to blame. I mean they both get in the mood and start kissing and stuff, but when the rapist tries to have sex with her, she doesn't allow it so the rapist rapes her. And the thing is the rape scene for the girl is very short and it doesn't really expose or show anything, but when it comes to the rapist getting raped, it's a pretty long rape scene. There is basically nothing in the story that is worth watching.<br /><br />3.2/10 | 2 | trimmed_train |
68 | ...okay, maybe not all of it. Lured by the false promise of bikini-clad women on the movie's cover...but the HORROR...THE HORROR... ...whatever you do, do NOT watch this movie. Gouge out your eyes, repeatedly bash your skull in...do what it takes. Never again--never forget!<br /><br /> | 0 | trimmed_train |
21,065 | Thank god ABC picked this up instead of Fox. The best description (for those in the know) is really Wonderfalls meets Dead Like Me in the best way possible.<br /><br />I'm not sure whether an experience with death and destiny early in life makes me a fan of Brian Fuller but I certainly enjoy his productions. I also enjoy checkered floors, pies, talking toys, gravelings and other mischievous items :) While a bit "Burtonesque", I certainly think this enjoys its own niche that doesn't require J Depp or HB Carter to be a wonderfully imaginative playground. Here we can find the joys and sorrows of childhood and adulthood crashing into each and actually making sense and making us want to live life to the fullest! | 3 | trimmed_train |
4,140 | Rock star John Norman Howard (Kris Kristofferson) turns lounge singer Esther Hoffman (Barbra Streisand) into an overnight singing star. Esther's star rises while John's goes into decline, thanks to drugs and alcohol. After about two hours, John does the self-destructive-red-converible-160-MPH-crack-up-on-a-desert-highway thing. The best thing about this movie is the music, especially the song, "Evergreen." Barbra Streisand sings well, but you can't take her seriously as an up-and-coming star, when she is *already* a star. The very first time she appears, singing in a back alley bar, she looks like an established singing star who is slumming for the night, not like a struggling unknown who is trying to launch her singing career. She is too confident, too professional. Her apartment looks like a page out of "Apartment Living," not some hole-in-the-wall apartment where a real struggling singer would live.<br /><br />Kris Kristofferson handles the self-centered, out-of-control rock star role like...well, like a singer who is trying to be an actor but doesn't have much acting talent. The direction is tepid, the story is slow and dull.<br /><br />But the worst thing about this movie is not the acting, or the lame direction, or the slow story. It's the hair! After staring at Kristofferson's and Streisand's awful 70's hairdos for 2+ hours, your eyes hurt. | 0 | trimmed_train |
22,305 | Its Hollywood imitating Daytiem Soap Operas at its finest! Its the fun that we never see. Great characters and great lines. Whoopi is hilarious.....Sally Field is so over the top....Gary Marshalls lines are a riot....this is what I love about good comedies. Never afraid to poke fun at themselves!!!!!!The sets were great....wardrobe was on point and the backstabbing "Montana Morehead" was a devilish delight. Terri Hatcher as "Dr. Monica Demonico" didn't have enough lines but none the less still gorgeous and fun when on screen. I would love to know how the idea for this movie came up. Never have I seen a cast of people have so much fun in making comedy work! Soapdish is a must have and I am waiting for the DVD!!! | 3 | trimmed_train |
16,141 | Really...and incredible film that though isn't very popular...extremely touching and almost life altering...was for me at least.<br /><br />Definitely worth seeing and buying .....Added to my favorite movie list....it's number one now....<br /><br />This is a very touching movie that all people should see..<br /><br />The Man in the Moon.....we'll it's just incredible. It's now my favorite movie and I only saw it today and I'd recommend it to anyone above 15 as long as you're somewhat mature......If you don't really try to feel the characters emotions then you'll never get the true meaning and value of this movie....But it really is incredible....just watch it because it'll alter the way some people look at life....worth seeing 5/5 | 3 | trimmed_train |
20,577 | I loved that this film recognizes the intelligence of the viewer, allowing the layers to peel from the characters through their interactions with each other about the unspoken loss that has so affected each of them. <br /><br />The cinematography is a beautiful, and is an inspired reflection of the vision of someone I believe is an extremely talented new filmmaker with the maturity and artistic insight to tell a story that others with much more experience have failed to accomplish. I see a bright future for this writer/producer/director who had the ability to focus on a goal and accomplish it with integrity.<br /><br />Kudos for this achievement. | 3 | trimmed_train |
18,939 | Watching this several times as a child was quite the experience 15 years ago, and now that I've found it again it still has a film experience like few others. If risky, it's a great display of morals and life lessons recommended for family viewing with young kids. While it still holds up as an adult, I was fortunate to have learned from it many times over years ago. Trying to find it today is hard enough . . . but believe me it is well worth it no matter what the age. Anime fans especially will find this a great entry to Masami Hata's filmography. With impressive art work and unique designs, "Chirin No Suzu" represents a worthwhile experience. While some of the lyrical songs are not so hot when recorded in English, the musical score is nevertheless captivating. But even the voice acting is far better than much released today. Unfortunately is went out of print in the mid-1980s from RCA Columbia Home Video, and has not received any new format release to my knowledge, at least in the US. Look hard for it and you will be quite satisfied! It's an artful, intense, enjoyable, and important landmark in Japanese animation. | 3 | trimmed_train |
15,097 | One of the best parts of Sundance is seeing movies that you would otherwise almost certainly miss. Unless you're a real art-house devotee, you probably don't catch many documentaries. Only a handful get any recognizable distribution. Fortunately, Sundance has increased its commitment to documentaries in recent years.<br /><br />Shakespeare Behind Bars is a powerful documentary about a dramatic production group at the Luther Luckett Correctional Complex in LaGrange, Kentucky. Every year a group of inmates present a Shakespearean play. Director Hank Rogerson and his crew follow the troupe as roles are self-selected, interpreted, rehearsed and ultimately performed.<br /><br />The movie is filled with fascinating revelations for those of us that have not been exposed to prison environments. Despite the labels we know them by (convict, felon, murderer, etc.) we soon began to appreciate and respect these men as thinking feeling human beings. Serendipitously, the play chosen for the year of filming was The Tempest, with its penetrating focus on forgiveness and redemption. The actors all grapple with the relevance of the play to their lives, finding patterns and parallels with their characters and the meaning of the drama.<br /><br />For a documentary film, like a book, the best that can be hoped for is that we experience something that changes our lives. Shakespeare Behind Bars was a personal revelation for me. "O brave new world, that has such creatures in it." | 3 | trimmed_train |
19,372 | The movie concerns about Philip(Leslie Howard)he's a serious but handicapped medicine student .He falls fatally in love with a heartless, predatory waitress called Mildred(Bette Davis).She leaves him ,engaging with others(Alan Hale,Reginald Denny).Meanwhile he is romanced with another suitors(Kay Johnson,Frances Dee)but she goes back in a mutually destructive affair.<br /><br />Easily the best and first of numerous films versions of Somerset Maugham's novel. Bette Davis as the cockney cruel waitress winning yet another magnificent interpretation with an alluring and smouldering performance ,absolutely hypnotic in her account of the bondage that occurs from the beginning to the finale.Davis rose the stardom with her performance.Her role as tough and crude domineering woman will be repeated several times in posteriors acting . Leslie Howard as the essentially good and decent student subtly destroyed gives an excellent and melancholic performance.He was an awesome actor(Gone with the wind)besides producer and writer and dead in plane crash during WWII. Both will play again in ¨Petrified forest¨(1936). The atmosphere film is elaborately recreated in the RKO(Radio Picture Inc) studio is entirely convincing. Remade in 1946 by Edmund Goulding, with Eleanor Parker and Paul Henreid; and in 1964 by Ken Hughes with Kim Novak and Laurence Harvey . The motion picture will like to classic cinema buffs. Rating : Very good but a little bit dated. | 1 | trimmed_train |
10,295 | The movie was "OK". Not bad, not good, just OK. If there was anything else in the theater this would be skipped by far. Sadly, Fast and Furious 2 also stunk, but I'd rather see this than FF2. :) If you have a fetish for harrison ford or that other young punk, this will be a "cute" movie for you. Personally, I'd wait for HBO or Blockbuster. | 2 | trimmed_train |
20,038 | Paul Reiser did a spectacular job in writing this movie. Peter Falk gives the performance of his life. It is worthy of an Academy Award. This was one of the most poignant and funny movies of the year. Reiser's wit is fantastic and he is as good as it gets and as he was in his long running TV sitcom "Mad about You". Peter Falk did a masterful job as his dad, and Peter who is now 78 years young made us laugh and cry at the same time. The supporting cast was equal to the task especially the gorgeous gorgeous Elizabeth Perkins. It is a must see movie for 2005. We bet that everyone across all ages and religions will love this movie and somehow relate to it in one way or another. We have mothers and fathers and siblings like these in the movie. We have all had the good and bad times together and wish things were the same but different. | 3 | trimmed_train |
16,372 | While I loved this movie, the trailers that circulated the internet the year before it hit theaters set my expectations a bit high.<br /><br />I own the DVD, so don't get me wrong, I am not saying don't watch it or even buy it! It's just that I still think the first scene was the best, and nothing throughout the entire movie ever topped it. | 1 | trimmed_train |
8,575 | ... And being let down bigger than ever before. I won't make any direct references or anything here, but to say the least, this film is pathetic. If you're military trained, don't bother watching. I put it on the DVD with 2 friends wanting to watch a somewhat interesting action / war flick. Why couldn't I just have read the reviews first.<br /><br />Already at the first "bomb" scene the film has huge glitches, and they continue to show and become bigger and bigger. My 2 friends, not connected to the military in any way spotted a couple of the filmmaker's mistakes almost as fast as I myself did and asked me if some of the things going on we're realistic. Well, as you might have guessed, they're not - at all.<br /><br />Avoid this movie unless you're able to overlook these completely idiotic and re-occurring mistakes being made. 2/10 for catching my interest at first. | 0 | trimmed_train |
5,047 | This film is hardly good, not great at all. A few memorable scenes and the unlucky choice of pairing Norma Jean with an actual actress. Jane Russell has it all working for her, Marilyn's lesser woman and/or actress. One can only wonder why this is considered being one of the highlights of her lame career. 3/10 | 2 | trimmed_train |
18,291 | Credited by Variety to be one of the greatest documentaries to ever come out of Canada. Al Pacino, Roger Ebert, Neil Simon, Matt Dillon as well as a constant slew of celebs make this film a Canadian classic. The film is really best described as "Roger & Me" meets "The Player". Watch as Kenny Hotz and Spenny PITCH their script to the big boys of Hollywood. Called the only American film to ever come out of Canada, This film opened the Toronto Film Festival in 1997, Winner of the 'Best Indie Film Award Toronto'. Europe premier was at the prestigious HOF film fest in Germany. U.S.A. premier U.S. Comedy Festival Aspen 1999. More information available at www.kennyhotz.com | 3 | trimmed_train |
9,422 | this film really tries to hard. if your going to make a horror film, at least give it a reason to believe in to hook the viewer. <br /><br />you wait and wait through the film expecting for some grand explanation but it doesn't. instead it tries to be too clever ending and not revealing anything. <br /><br />what was the point of the movie ? where it's actually going ? and more importantly what the hell was going on . . . <br /><br />why were they there and how does it tie into anything? just another weak sci-fi horror. i love the fake reviews on IMDb saying how great it is by related press releases to bump the movie (either that or people have low horizons). it's not worth your 2hrs at all.<br /><br />i'm not saying the film is better than the fragile, but at least that gave you reasoning and why things happened and has an end result. this doesn't and it just waffle's on with tons of padding to make everything feel scary. this film is about as low as when a stranger calls. god that was lame too. <br /><br />big tip, if your gonna make a horror, make it believable with reasoning and explain to the viewer what's going on, so they have a hook into your story. because if there's no reasoning or believability then there's no firm hold on anything and it can't be scary. no disrespect to the cast or crew cause they did a good job. it's just the poor writing. | 0 | trimmed_train |
189 | The Lives of the Saints starts off with an atmospheric vision of London as a bustling city of busy, quaint streets and sunshine. I was hoping it would maintain this atmosphere, but it gets bogged down in a story that goes pretty much nowhere.<br /><br />Othello works for big, fat Mr. Karva, his crime-boss step-dad (at least I think that is what he is supposed to be because it's never really defined, but he does drop kittens into deep fat friers, so trust me, he's a prick) doing scrappy little errands while his skanky girlfriend gives daddy hand-jobs. One of his colleagues is Runner, a black dude who is always dashing from A to B. Until the day he comes across almost mute homeless child who grants him his wish of being able to stop running. Runner dumps the lost boy in Othello's flat, where he promptly starts granting more wishes. Keen to have some of his own desires fulfilled, Karva has the boy kidnapped. But he isn't sure of what would really bring him happiness. Is it the innocence of being a child again or is it another hand-job? Either way, I don't want to see the little boy grant him the second.<br /><br />It just takes ages to get going and there are loads of repetitive scenes. The ending tries to be shocking but since there's hardly any back-story on investment in any of these characters it only serves as a release for the bored audience.<br /><br />Writer Tony Grisoni, a favourite of Terry Gilliam, tries to blend in some kind of religious allegory which ends up being pretentious as all hell, ironically. If he gave us something more accessible or at least had better explanations for the characters suddenly acting all weird then it would have been a more enjoyable film. As it is, we are introduced to a bunch of annoying loudmouths who then miraculously seem to develop intelligence when confronted by the mysterious boy. Who's origins are never revealed. That's just plain irritating! <br /><br />Aside from sporadic moments of atmosphere and a moody score, this film has little to recommend. | 2 | trimmed_train |
2,790 | Ron Howard directed this? The 1966 cartoon is charming, teaching a simple lesson to children using a simple plot. In this movie, Howard gives us a Whoville filled with greedy, manipulative, self-centered Whos. Jim Carrey is terrible, but I'm sure it's not his fault; I imagine the script called for the nastiest person imaginable, so Carrey channeled Tom Green and the result is movie magic. Much like Danny Devito's Penguin in Batman Returns, Carrey's Grinch is so thoroughly unlikeable that any degree of comedy that might be mined from his character simply evaporates. Where the 1966 cartoon featured a Grinch that we could all identify with, Carrey's Grinch is that angry, soulless old man that we've all seen at one time or another, sitting in a parked car muttering to himself or tripping toddlers at the supermarket with his cane. This Grinch is thoroughly bereft of any degree of humanity, humor, or insight whatsoever, and his redemption at the end of the movie rings false. The whole movie rings false: there is some stupid Christmas lighting competition, a failed attempt at explaining why the Grinch is such a jerk by digging into his childhood, and an indecipherable mystery as to why some of the Whos have that weird lip extension and some of them don't. Contrary to the 1966 cartoon, I would imagine children would find this movie tiresome, irritating, and filled with contradictory messages. Did we really need to see Slutty Smurf, aka Christine Baranski as Martha May Whovier? In addition, Ron Howard filled the cast with his untalented relatives. Throw in the requisite butt jokes, fart jokes, sex jokes, and other obligatory Carreyesque low-brow humor, and you have a movie that is about as far from the 1966 cartoon (or book that inspired it) as George W. Bush is from rational, lucid thought. Thumbs down on this big fat turkey. | 0 | trimmed_train |
2,720 | Good lord, whoever made this turkey needs to be buried alive. I'm sorry, but the other reviewer must not have seen this movie, he must be watching something else, or have never seen a movie before... 9 out of ten stars? He's saying what, this is as good as Ben Hur or Gone With the Wind? Unintentionally funny, massively unbelievable characters, absurd situations, looks like it was shot in Griffith Park (which works out pretty well--MASH was shot in Griffith Park), crappy script, just about everything that could possibly be wrong with a movie all rolled into one package. Should be required viewing for all prospective film makers as an example of how a movie could be horribly wrong. It reminds me of something a USC student may make for a film class. <br /><br />Give this one a pass unless you do drugs and are into high camp. | 0 | trimmed_train |
5,252 | A lot of other reviewers here, including many whose opinions I respect, hold this slice of European sleaze horror in high regard. Personally, I didn't like it at all. Its an incoherent attempt at a atmospheric period cross between sex and violence. Jess Franco at his best makes these kinds of films very well. Unfortunately, the infamous exploitation filmmaker Joe D'Amato does not. D'Amato's most well known films are infamous for their high gross-out quotient. This, an early film by him, doesn't have the constant disgusting scenes that his more notorious "Anthropophagous" and "Beyond the Darkness" did. Ultimately, its an incoherent film that doesn't manage to involve the viewer in any way. Without the sleaze factor either, it becomes very boring. As I said, others have enjoyed this film, but I just found it to be a perfect example of incredibly lazy writing.<br /><br />There are a few pluses for the film. Ewa Aulin (from "Candy") is in it, and she looks pretty hot and is often naked. However, cult film icon Klaus Kinski is completely wasted in a subplot with no connection to the main film. He seems bored with the role and doesn't have the manic intensity he does at his finest. The music score is nice and there are some brief moments of unintentionally funny gore. Still, this is a pretentious and pointless film that manages to be incredibly boring. (3/10) | 2 | trimmed_train |
12,914 | Astounding.....This may have been A poor attempt at remaking the already recreated Omen Movie, but I sure enjoyed it.<br /><br />That last Man who commented is a fool, This Movie was one of a kind, And the Music Dark, Jerry Goldsmith Himself, would had applaud this Movie.<br /><br />Great recommendations from Myself to Watch or Buy this Film.<br /><br />I collect horror Movies and Soundtracks, So listen to what I have to say, not that other idiot.<br /><br />There is only one thing that do not fascinate Me, the endings.<br /><br />According to Prophecy it is all inaccurate, Including Final conflict, and Left behind.<br /><br />But My conclusion being.... There great Movies...and should be seen, before the Great Depression falls upon Us, and Before the Democrats Take over the Presidency too.<br /><br />So Signed....Jacob Eder...A Farmer, with A Mastermind. | 3 | trimmed_train |
6,756 | I did not really want to watch this one. It seemed to be an old Raj Kanwar movie which disgusted me even before I started watching it because I don't consider him even close to being mediocre as a filmmaker. The only reason I took this one is obviously the Shahrukh Khan appearance in the film. I had not even known what the film was all about because I was sure it would be just an ordinary fairy tale. So I just imagined a love story between Shahrukh Khan and Divya Bharti with a substantial supporting role by Rishi Kapoor who I thought would be playing her father or uncle. And to my complete shock, Rishi Kapoor is actually the hero! He is the one who romances the young Divya! I was saddened to find out that Shahrukh had a small part of no substance and that too, only in the second part of this idiotic film.<br /><br />Just let me repeat the question: why would a 17 year-old lovely Divya have fallen for a 40-plus long haired, chubby, swollen piglet like Rishi Kapoor? Rishi Kapoor should be ashamed of taking this part; the only thing he did is ridiculing himself. He romanced a girl who could logically be younger than his own daughter and to make things worse -- acts like a teenager at his forties. On top of that, just to make himself more pathetic, he plays a pop-star...<br /><br />To make things clear, I have no problems with actors romancing ladies much younger than they themselves are. As long as they make a convincing couple, there should be no problem. In fact, leading actors have always been cast opposite young girls (Amitabh Bachchan-Sridevi, Mithun Chakraborty-Madhuri Dixit, Shahrukh Khan-Deepika, Salman Khan-Sneha Ullal) and made the pairing pretty well. Also, I have nothing against Rishi Kapoor, I think he is a good actor, and his act in Bobby is still well-engraved in my heart, but it's not that he looks in this film like, say, Shahrukh Khan, Salman Khan or Aamir Khan look today.<br /><br />That was such a disappointment. Oh, and as for the reason every person actually watched this film, Shahrukh Khan made a good debut. He excelled in the very little his part allowed him to do. The late Divya Bharti made a promising debut as well. If you want to watch this film, go for the second half only. Personally, I would not do even that. | 2 | trimmed_train |
7,907 | Someone, some day, should do a study of architecture as it figures in horror films; of all those explorations of weirdly laid out mansions, searches for secret passageways and crypts, trackings of monsters through air ducts, and so forth. Offhand I can recall only a few films in which architecture played a major role throughout--"Demon Seed," "Cube," the remake of "Thirteen Ghosts"--but it's at the heart of every story about a spooky house or church or crypt; it's all about the character and the affect of spaces, passages, and walls. So I was looking forward to this thriller where it promised to be central. The idea is this: An architect has built--actually, rebuilt--for himself a huge and rambling house; his wife has just left him, mainly because of his own self-centeredness, but also, it is intimated, because she can't get used to the place since he remodeled it. Living in unaccustomed solitude (real this time, rather than virtual), he comes to suspect that somebody else--a stranger who had come to the door one evening asking to use the phone and then suddenly disappeared--is living into the house with him; only the place is big enough so that he never sees him.<br /><br />This is a good start for a melodrama, whose development one would expect to follow some such lines as these: After searching the house for the intruder a few times without success, the architect resorts to his blueprints to undertake more systematic searches, trying in various ways to surprise, intercept, or ambush the intruder, maybe by means of some special features he built into the structure. Meanwhile the intruder has discovered hiding places and back ways between places that the architect didn't foresee or doesn't remember. The movie would turn into a cat-and-mouse game, a hunt, a battle; and finally, in trying to trap the intruder, the architect himself would end up trapped in his own creation, in some way he didn't expect. Then he would be forced to think himself out of it--and maybe at the same time out of his own self-imposed isolation--and in a final twist would nail, and maybe even kill, the ****er.<br /><br />Nothing like this happens in this movie; the house is just a house, the architect is just a guy, and his nemesis is of an unknown character, if he exists at all. Here is what does happen in the movie: Once the intruder is installed in the house--if he is--the architect begins hearing noises, but when he goes to investigate finds nothing. He calls the police, they think he's slightly nuts; he persuades his estranged wife to spend the night, she thinks he's more nuts. At last, more or less accidentally, he runs into the intruder (doesn't get a good look, but figures, who else could it be?--not a hard question, in a story with, to that point, fewer than three principal characters), whereupon he locks the doors, lowers the grills on the windows, throws away the key (I don't know why he thought this necessary), and leaves his victim to starve. I missed why this was a given: the doors and walls are made of steel? In any event, the architect takes to sleeping in his car. And since the idea of the movie has languished undeveloped and cannot now be developed further, something else must be devised to take its place. And this is it: The architect--are you ready?--moves into the house of the man who (presumably) moved into his, and lives there in the same way. How is this possible? It is not, but the movie takes this route to try and make it seem so: The architect has drawn a picture of the man who came to his door; and when he leaves the house he takes the picture with him; and while sitting in his car, he throws the picture into the street; and two kids pick it up and observe that it looks like Martin, their neighbor; whereupon the architect asks where his house is and the kids point the way.<br /><br />If this sequence seems to verge on the implausible, what ensues plunges right in. The architect takes up residence with Martin's wheelchair-ridden wife, unbeknownst to her; so stealthy in his moves and so cunning in his reading of his hostess that he's able always to leave a room just as she enters or to duck out of sight just as she turns around. Throughout this section the movie is clever in one way, making (or leaving it to the viewer to make) the point that his life with this stranger, who doesn't know he's there, is in essence the same life he lived with his wife, as a virtual recluse with her as a convenient buffer. But at the same time, his inability to live in the world makes his transformation into Raffles the cat-burglar entirely incredible. Not to go into the series of twists at the end--including another murder achieved by locking someone in behind another invincible door--this one in front of a landing so flimsy that it collapses under the weight of a wheelchair; two nice people who take murder in stride; and (before the story started) the unnoticed construction of a tunnel under several houses.... To the final, long-anticipated twist, the movie adds another, to make it even more offensive, and then...ends.<br /><br />Here is a story that depends on the development of two things--the idea of the stranger in the house, and the character of the man whose house it is--and fumbles both. The first fumble makes it boring; the second made me angry, as it pushed its main character farther and farther along a more and more zigzaggy path, and never offered any explanation for the character who most required one: Martin the tunnel-builder and sneak-tenant. The story should be redone by someone, some day. | 2 | trimmed_train |
15,397 | I was lucky enough to have seen this on a whim during a film festival and was smacked so hard with what I saw I returned the next night for its second of three screenings. A funny, savage and sharp-toothed attack on every aspect of mainstream entertainment passively swallowed without tasting by the lowest-common-denominator target audience waged by a lone-avenger journalist who slowly takes in members for his guerilla-war on predictability is what the movie's all about, and is executed in such an unpredictable and refreshing way that you're left after the credits roll with hope renewed, and excited that original films can still be made. Anyone frustrated with unfulfilled expectations for something to light up their imaginations would do well to hunt (and I do mean hunt) this scarcely-seen item down. For fans of Fight Club and any Charlie Kaufman film, and required viewing for anyone who avoids multiplexes like a rabid dog. | 3 | trimmed_train |
8,264 | First off, let me say that I am a great believer in Fanpro stuff. I see it as a way to continue a good show long after it has been cancelled. Star Trek Voyages and Star Wars Revelations are examples of decent efforts. So I have a soft-spot for fanpro stuff that means I'll overlook things that I would ordinarily slate badly.<br /><br />So on to ST: HF. Well, first off the good things. Enthusiasm is a major part of making any show believable and, for the most part, the crew of the various ships all seem to be having a good time with their roles. Next, the effects aren't bad for a home-brew effort, with nothing to make you really wince. The stories aren't too bad either. Nothing particularly innovative, but solid enough stuff and at least there are ongoing story-arcs.<br /><br />But it has a lot of faults.<br /><br />First off, although they quite obviously HAVE to rip-off Star Trek footage, set backdrops, music and effects, I see no reason why they proceeded to rip off virtually every other sci-fi musical score ever made. Everything from Aliens to Starship Troopers rears it orchestral head at one point or another. Likewise, much of the footage is from other movies, dutifully CGI'd over to make it look different. The Grey warships, for instance, though disguised, are quite obviously Star Destroyers from Star Wars. And the station is also rather obviously Fleet Battle Station Ticonderoga from Starship Troopers. Likewise, sound effects from various Star Wars movies appear in space battles between fighters, as does animated over footage. In one scene in either first or second season, I think, you even see two TIE fighters fly past during a battle, which hardly does your suspension of disbelief any favours.<br /><br />Acting varies from the reasonable to the hideously painful to watch. Everyone does improve as the seasons progress, though, but expect to grimace at the screen a lot, especially in the early seasons. They've also made some interesting acting choices. Let's just say that the food replicators on this show seem permanently set to "cake" and leave it at that.<br /><br />Make-up effects are generally quite effective on the whole. But they really ought to mercilessly club to death the person who decided to use cheap Ferengi and Cardassian masks for anything other than background use or "passing" shots. They are just beyond unrealistic. Every time I saw one of these (apart from trying not to laugh too much) I kept expecting the unfortunate soul wearing it to pull out a gun and announce that "This is a stick-up!" In one scene a "Cardassian" actually talks whilst wearing one of these. Not only do the lips not move, but the mask doesn't even have an opening where the mouth should be. Someone needs to be slapped hard for that. Couldn't they have taken a craft knife to it, for goodness' sake! There are also some well-done, but unintentionally funny make-up jobs, such as the Herman Munster look alike.<br /><br />The writing, though coherent, is nothing new. Instead the script runs like a continuation of DS9, with the ships heading out from DS12 on various missions. The new enemy, "The Grey" aren't very menacing and the plot line involving them is effectively a reworking of the Borg threads. i.e. Starfleet meet the Grey, the Grey are hugely powerful, Starfleet barely escape with their lives, then through technology they begin to find ways to combat the enemy etc etc. All done before with the Borg.<br /><br />Another bone of contention is the dialogue. Star Trek writers have long had the ability to write "insert technobabble here" into a script. It usually means an exposition of the latest plan to combat the enemy using "quantum phase discriminators" or "isolytic charges" etc. In other words, nonsense that tells you that they are on the case and a resolution is at hand.<br /><br />The words are just gibberish really. I've no problem with this, but where ST:HF makes a mess of it is where they include real-world comments into this concept.<br /><br />Tactical advice such as "We need to regroup" sounds good, but not when uttered by trio of characters already standing in a group. Likewise when asked what the situation is, a tactical officer is heard to reply "We count three battleships". He actually needed to count them? C'mon! I expected the questioner to ask him "Are you sure?" or "Can you double check". But my all-time favourite comment is this: <br /><br />Captain: "Can we establish two-way communication?"<br /><br />Comms officer: "No, we can only send and receive.."<br /><br />Well, duh!.....<br /><br />Having said all the above, the show does improve as it goes along. Seasons 1 and 2 are pretty bad, 3 shows an improvement but 4 & 5 are where it starts to get noticeably better. Season 6 so far looks quite reasonable.<br /><br />I do have a problem with their choice of media for the shows though. Quicktime sucks, quite frankly and the sooner they move to divx/avi format the better. Some of us like to actually take our downloaded shows and watch them on decent size screen and not peer at a tiny QT window on a computer monitor. Not only does Quicktime make this difficult, but the 320x180 resolution the shows are in does not scale at all well. In fact, it makes the shows pretty unwatchable, like they were a tenth-generation VHS tape copy. The least they could do was to include a hi-res downloadable option.<br /><br />Anyway, the show has promise, and I'm even beginning to like some of the characters. But that's 40 episodes on, so I'm not sure this says that much about character development at all.<br /><br />But what can you say, it's free....<br /><br />PS: Out of 28 votes, 19 people rated this show as a 9 or 10. Hmmmm... were we watching the same show? Or are you 19 all three year olds? | 2 | trimmed_train |
3,722 | Black and White film. Good photography. Believable characters. <br /><br />Just awful.<br /><br />I have wasted another perfect evening watching a film that other rated as "worthy" and "very good." There is some good acting here and the back ground setting for the plot is good (more should have been done with this) but it is very slow to grow and never develops. It is totally bases on sex without much romance with much un needed nudity. More could have been done with the main characters. If you are looking for something to watch with you family this in not the movie and if not you will have trouble sitting through it. Though this film is long its only about 1 inch deep! | 0 | trimmed_train |
3,793 | To compare this squalor with an old, low budget porno flick would be an insult to the old, low budget porno flick. The animal scenes have no meaning nor do they represent this man and his crimes even in the broadest sense of abstractions. The synopsis on the back of the DVD case says in part, "
gripping retelling of the BTK Killer's reign of terror." This is NOT a retelling. A retelling would suggest that you are being told the truth of what happened or how or why. None of these things are true. I'm an enthusiastic studier of serial killers and have seen some pretty crappy movies about them and honestly, this IS NOT one of them. This isn't even about the BTK killer. Save yourself some time and a few bucks and rent Dahmer instead. THAT serial killer movie is accurate and true. However, if you just HAVE to see this movie for yourself, check it out for free at your local library and even then, you'll still feel cheated. | 0 | trimmed_train |
6,699 | THE BROKEN is part of the After Dark Horrorfest III. Not a slasher or filled with gore. Plenty of broken glass and mirrors in this edgy thriller from France and writer/director Sean Ellis. A successful radiologist Gina McVay(Lena Headly)inters a strange world as her life seems to spiral out of control. While attending her father's(Richard Jenkins)birthday party, the guests are stunned when a mirror crashes to the floor for no obvious reason. Things get really strange when she witnesses a woman that is the spitting image of herself driving down a London street in a car identical to her own. Gina sneaks to her doppelganger's apartment and finds a photo of herself with her father. She drives away and is involved in a head on collision. Then mysteriously her boyfriend is not the same; to be exact family and friends are not easy for her to trust. Is Gina beside herself? Is she in a parallel world? Her nightmares become more horrific...is she broken?<br /><br />Kudos if you can figure this one out...it won't be easy. Editing couldn't be any tighter. Lighting is questionable. Other players: Melvil Poupard, William Armstrong, Michelle Duncan and Ulrich Thomsen. | 2 | trimmed_train |
5,489 | "Ask the Dust" looked intriguing from the trailer, and we especially like all of the actors. Unfortunately, the movie was not compelling enough to be considered drama, and it wasn't funny enough to be a comedy. It practically seemed to satirize itself, and to no entertaining effect. After seventy minutes of waiting for this thing to get better, my wife and I walked out, valuing not having wasted any more time on such nonsense. It simply was not interesting, moving, funny nor artistic. It appears as though it were written, produced and directed by a high school kid; worse yet, it was such a shameful waste of otherwise extraordinarily talented actors, not to mention our time and money. | 0 | trimmed_train |
7,809 | When I refer to Malice as a film noir I am not likening it to such masterpieces as Sunset Boulevard, Double Indemnity or The Maltese Falcon, nor am I comparing director Becker to Alfred Hitchcock, Stanley Kubrick, Stanley Kramer or Luis Bunuel. I am merely registering a protest against the darkness that pervades this movie from start to finish, to the extent that most of the time you simply cannot make out what is going on. I can understand darkness in night scenes but this movie was dark even in broad daylight, for what reason I am at loss to understand. As it is, however, it wouldn't have made much difference if director Becker had filmed it in total darkness. | 0 | trimmed_train |
10,394 | I consider Stuart Bliss the worst movie I have ever seen.<br /><br />The acting was terrible and the plot ludicrous. I get the fact that the main character's wife leaving him triggered a mental breakdown, but it got so silly and boring, after a while I could have cared less about any of the characters.<br /><br />The movie kept going over and over the same ideas without anything fresh or surprising to add to the plot. The whole thing with the Geiger counter got too much after a while after Stuart started opening up his wall to see what was behind it after the counter indicated something was there.<br /><br />Then there was the repetitive scenes with the flyer, and the confusing ones where he meets himself.<br /><br />I should have guessed that this movie was a flop when I didn't recognize any of the actors. Do yourself a favor when this movie comes up, read a book! You'll be better off. | 0 | trimmed_train |
2,497 | You will recognize the plot immediately. Daughters of a divorced couple trying to get Mom and Dad back together again. Yes, that was the theme of The Parent Trap in the 60s, 80s and 90s. But here's the spooky thing. Even though Deanna Durbin was younger than the 21 year old Hayley Mills while playing the doting daughter(s) roles, Durbin looks much older, as in adult. And so do all of her so-called siblings. <br /><br />And this confusion between adult and child goes throughout the film. The girls are dressed in cute little sailor outfits but look ridiculous in them as the director seems to take pains to point out their ample tops and tushies throughout the film. So you're constantly torn between thinking of them as children or women. When Ray Milland and others start "hitting on" them you get the feeling as if they're pedophiles, and you might be one, too for noticing those tushies and tops the director was pointing out. Teens or temptresses, little girls or little foxes, you are never quite sure what you're supposed to be thinking of them as.<br /><br />The parents, too, seem very old and the whole film seems very dated.<br /><br />It is a rusty version of the Parent Trap and you should avoid it, or at least ensure your tetanus shots are up to date if you don't believe me. | 2 | trimmed_train |
9,180 | I almost called HBO and demanded my money back for the month just because they've been airing this movie. I can just see the movie execs sitting around going, "Okay, we need to come up with something that's just like Home Alone, only we'll add a bunch of cash for the kid, hire cut-rate actors, and oh yeah, we'll make it a lot less funny!"<br /><br />Okay, maybe not the last part, but that's basically what you've got here. Not even worth seeing if someone else rents it. And as a movie for kids? Forget it. I wouldn't let my kids see this, not necessarily because of bad-taste jokes, but because I wouldn't want them to say, "What were you thinking showing us that lame piece of garbage, Dad?!?!" | 0 | trimmed_train |
21,268 | I agree that the movie is a little slow at spots having many scenes of mundane everyday life and no dialog. And I wasn't impressed right after I watched it. However, after a few days, I realized that the movie stays with me and it evokes a melancholy mood which lingers in my mind. My appreciation of this movie increases. It certainly merits a higher consideration than those movies that are instantly forgettable.<br /><br />As many have commented, the movie is non-linear and that's a hallmark of European film-making as opposed to the linear narrative form that Hollywood favors. I don't really know whether it's true or not. Many also dislike its confusing structure and lack of clear explanations. To those viewers, I don't think there is much I can say to change their opinions. However, for others who have yet to see the film, DO expect to be challenged and DON'T expect the film to supply all the answers and you might come away enjoying it more than you would otherwise.<br /><br />The movie skips around a bit but really chronicles just 3 time periods. Pay attention to the hair style and you can easily separate out 2 of the 3 periods. It is also not as confusing as suggested; just enjoy and it'll all be clear at the end.<br /><br />Yes, lots of things are left unsaid or not shown, and lots of situations are left unexplored. But isn't that what life is like? A lot of time you're not sure of the motives of your friends/loved ones unless you confront them and even then, you can never be 100% sure if they told you the whole truth. This type of movies forces us to interpret the reasons behind the actions. The movie does, however, leave enough hints for you to make some reasonable assumptions. For example, Mathieu is manic depressive, to the point of suicidal. Why? I don't know, maybe his life is not turning out exactly as he expects it; maybe he misses his family but hasn't forgiven his father for abandoning his sick mother at her hours of need; maybe after all he sacrifices for Cedric, rearranging and indeed, shattering his life to be with him, he realizes that it is all "coming undone". I think the director meant to show us that he has always been a little off, mentality fragile by that scene w/ the dead bird. Maybe he has a very sensitive psyche and all these stresses are taking a toll on him. But we're also shown that he is not some animal torturing psycho by his loving interaction w/ the stray cat. Also, there is one conversation between the doctor and Cedric that sheds light on the reason behind the breakup and maybe the suicide attempt. The doctor asks him if everything is okay, and Cedric thinks so even though he cheated on Mathieu once, but that's nothing, according to Cedric. Is that the only reason, we don't know, there are probably others, all mixed up together. Is it paramount that we know exactly what they are? I don't think so, for this movie. Another telltale sign that they are ultimately not compatible is the historical ruins scene. Mathieu is interested in studying the ruins, Cedric is not. He is the one w/ the raging hormone who focuses only on the physical side without an intellectual side that Mathieu obviously needs.<br /><br />Finally, the ending is really rather hopeful and sweet. I was pleasantly surprised by the turn of events after the bleak tone that edges toward the end.<br /><br />I have two complaints for the DVD. One is the sound. It's very soft. I had to crank up the volume to hear the dialog and then when it switched to a bar or outdoor crowd scene, it became too loud. The other is that the subtitles can't be turn off; they stay on the screen. Most foreign movie DVDs not released by a major studio are shoddy this way unfortunately. | 1 | trimmed_train |
7,852 | Susan Swift is an appealing youngster, a flower child transplanted to the 1980's (like a young Susan Dey), but she doesn't quite have the vocal range for a demanding dramatic lead and she tends to whine; still, she's rather sweet and has bright eyes and a pretty smile. In "The Coming" (as it was called when briefly released to theaters), Swift may be the reincarnation of a Salem witch. The flick is very low-budget and borrows from so many other pictures that I gave up on it with about 15 minutes to go. It starts out strong and has some camp appeal. Obviously, there are more serious films that deal with the Salem witch trials that deserve to be seen over this one; however, as junk movies go, it isn't too terrible. The Boston locales are a definite plus, and the supporting cast is amusingly hammy. *1/2 from **** | 0 | trimmed_train |
19,589 | Chris Rock stars in this remake of Warren Beatty's Heaven Can Wait (itself a remake of the 1941 film Here Comes Mr. Jordan), a comedy about a man who dies before his time, before he can realize his dreams, and his adventures in his new (albeit temporary) body. In the Beatty version, the protagonist was a backup quarterback for the then-Los Angeles Rams. In Rock's hipper version, our lead character is a struggling young - and decidedly low-talent - standup comedian.<br /><br />It's very funny to see the razor-sharp Rock playing a bad comedian. It's kind of like seeing Tom Hanks play a bad actor. Lance Barton's dream is to play the legendary Apollo Theater on a non-amateur night. But every time he tries out his material, he's booed off the stage lustily - so much so that his nickname becomes "Booie." His jokes are lame, his delivery painful. In short, Lance is everything that the real Chris Rock isn't.<br /><br />Lance is also a bike messenger, and he's riding the streets on his way to try out even more material when BAM! He's hit by a truck. Ok, so maybe he was taken from his body a tenth of a second early by a slightly incompetent angel (Eugene Levy), but hey, he was going to get hit anyway. No dice, it appears Lance isn't due in Heaven until 2044. So what to do? Mr. King (Chazz Palminteri), the "manager" of Heaven, reluctantly agrees to find a new body for the not-quite-dead Mr. Barton. Trouble is, the body they find is of a greedy, old white man. Turns out this fella (a Mr. Wellington) owns all kinds of things - he's the 15th richest man in the country! What luck! You can imagine how Lance will turn things around. <br /><br />But of course, while in the body of the affluent Mr. Wellington, Lance falls for a gorgeous hospital worker (Regina King). We males know how tough it is to find a female given our own body, but try winning one over while you're an dumpy, old white guy! And it's even worse when she's not impressed by your money. <br /><br />This is Rock's first shot at a lead role, and in my opinion he performs admirably. There's still a lot of the standup comedian in him - and, of course, if he ever wants to get diverse roles, he might have to stop incorporating standup routines into the script - but this isn't really a bad thing. Rock's personality - his drive, his delivery, his demeanor, and his passion - are what fuel this film. He's clearly having a lot of fun in the role, and he seems bent on making sure you have fun watching him. | 1 | trimmed_train |
5,653 | Siskel & Ebert were terrific on this show whether you agreed with them or not because of the genuine conflict their separate professional opinions generated. Roeper took this show down a notch or two because he wasn't really a film critic and because he substituted snide for opinionated. Now, when Ben Lyons comes on I feel like I'm watching "Teen News" -- you know, that kids' news show, hosted by kids for kids? Manckiewitz is not much better. It's obvious they've encountered only a steady diet of mainstream films their entire lives. The idea that these two rank amateurs have anything of interest or consequence to say about motion pictures is ludicrous. If they are reviewing a non-formula film, they are completely lost. Show them something original and intelligent -- they just find it "confusing". Wait -- I think I get it ... ABC is owned by Disney ... Disney makes movies for kids. While Siskel, Ebert, and Roper promoted independent films and were only hit-or-miss with the big budget studio productions -- what a surprise: these two guys LOVE the big studio schlock and only manage to tolerate a few indies. Plus everyone knows the age group TV advertisers are aiming for. The blatant nepotism is the icing on the cake. In what alternate universe do these guys qualify as film critics? | 0 | trimmed_train |
3,466 | A group of us watched this film are were really disgusted. We were willing to forgive the fact that our favorite character Jo wasn't on (it's not like the writers/producers could do anything about that). The writing was poor, the script was sub-par. What REALLY annoyed us: 1. When the two guys realized they were both dating Natalie, they didn't just leave they put up with that stupid (and ultimately degrading) contest - but only because they were macho competing guys, not because they really wanted Natalie. 2. Despite being unable to choose between the two guys before the reunion, Natalie suddenly decides that she really loves one of the guys and is now ready to marry him? (and there was no foreshadowing that he was really a better guy, it's as if the writers flipped a coin and then just had her spit it out at some convenient point in the film). 3. Blair makes a point of talking about how she does not want children and then all of a sudden when her husband says he wants to have children, she blissfully agrees with him. | 2 | trimmed_train |
13,799 | This movie is a little unusual in that it's got a very slim plot and the movie itself is done at a very slow and leisurely pace. While this makes it pretty different from the average Grant film, it is still highly watchable and entertaining. It's sort of like someone said "let's just follow Cary around and watch as he gets perturbed at all the little problems that come up when you are having a house rehabbed". Considering what a fun actor he is in the film and the great support he gets from Myrna Loy and Melvin Douglas, the film works very well. While the film has pretty modest pretensions, it makes the most of the material. It's a great film for Cary Grant fans or for the whole family. | 1 | trimmed_train |
12,539 | Thanks should be given to the Hong Kong VCD/DVD distributors that I only paid US$1.4 and I could have such a surprisingly delightful enjoyment.<br /><br />Adultery? How common in our modern days. Eva grabbed her two children and kidnapped Nick to chase after Luis and Charlotte to Italy. She wants her revenge done but at the end, she also commits the same crime of Luis: she had sex with Nick.<br /><br />In this small indie production, Vivian Naefe dealt with the teething problems in modern marriage with a light heart. How can one dare treat marriage seriously in this fast-food time where people are now of higher mobility in physical, mental and technology areas? Conjugal commitment asks for too high a price that most people would choose to succumb to circumstances. Nick once trusted Charlotte but he fell for Eva after that kidnap journey which forced him to experience much growth.<br /><br />Most viewers may feel happy about the ending because Eva and Nick come together, well, this should be the greatest retribution to the unfaithful act of their spouses. However, I want a sequel, I want to see how the four would develop after this exchange. Perhaps they may exchange back, how can one be so sure about the shaky love relationship.<br /><br />Good acting and good scenery. The two little child-actors should not be neglected especially the boy when he cries at the reception of the hotel in Venezia. And of course, how can we forget the "bella, bella" scenery of the city. | 1 | trimmed_train |
4,846 | This is a well made informative film in the vein of PBS Frontline. The problem is, Frontline already did this piece and managed to bring L. Paul Bremer in to tell his side of the story. More troubling is the fact that the director of the film, Charles Ferguson--a former think tank wonk, was a war supporter until the occupation went south. What did he think would happen? <br /><br />The invasion of Poland went really well too until it was messed up by those pesky Nazis.And that is what this film feels like--an apology for occupation rather than a deconstruction of the act of war itself. <br /><br />Ferguson seems to suggest that the war could have been run better--as if any war can be better. | 0 | trimmed_train |
7,153 | This movie serves as a timely warning to anyone who thinks they can both write and direct their own movie. Face it, you can't. Because that way there's nobody around to tell you when you hack great holes in your plot, have meaningless transitions, trite, unmemorable dialog and manage to turn a fairly cool Korean legend into a steaming pile of celluloid turd.<br /><br />I wanted to like this movie as a trashy popcorn movie, really I did; I like lots of crappy movies. But once I've been forced to ask myself what the hell just happened and WHY, DEAR LORD, WHY? more than a few times, I really can't take it any more.<br /><br />Also, I would love for someone to explain how LA became Mordor for the last scene. | 0 | trimmed_train |
9,982 | This is without a doubt one of the worst movies EVER, I emphasize, EVER made. What´s worse, my old hero Dolph is in it and he´s starring it. Jesus... The story is actually quite good but the way it´s carried out made even my body hurt. The fighting scenes for starters are about as well choreographed as a fight between two drunks slugging it out in the gutter. The actors, except for Dolph who kinda sucks also, perform so badly you can´t help but wonder if their reason for being there is that they´re all friends of the director, who by the way must have been absent most, if not all, of the time. This is §12 million spent in an unimaginable way, because by the look of the effects and scenery, the cost can´t be a cent above §1000. | 0 | trimmed_train |
24,522 | Star Wars: Episode 4 .<br /><br />the best Star Wars ever. its the first movie i ever Sean were the bad guys win and its a very good ending. it really had me wait hing for the next star wars because so match stuff comes along in this movie that you just got to find out more in the last one. whit Al lot of movies i always get the feeling that it could be don bedder but not whit this one. and i Will never ever forget the part were wader tels Luke he is his father.way too cool. also love the Bob feat figure a do hes a back ground player. if you never ever Saw a star wars movie you go to she this one.its the best.<br /><br />thanks Lucas | 3 | trimmed_train |
9,163 | It's rare that I come across a film this awful, this annoying and this irritating. It is without doubt one of the worst films I've ever seen.<br /><br />The plot, when it's not a blur of confusing and pointlessly over flashy editing, is ludicrous. Why did Domino become such a bad-ass tough bitch? Because her gold fish died when she was a kid and this "traumatic" event left her emotionally stunted, and hating everyone. When the dialogue is not clichéd or banal, it's littered with laughable lines such as: "There are three kinds of people in this world: the rich... the poor... and everyone else". At one point the bounty hunters have some guy tied up in the back of their bus who has a combination number tattooed on his arm. Because of a confusing mobile phone call, instead of rolling his sleeve up and just reading the number, they blow off his arm with a shotgun. At another point, the bounty hunters take a bomb to a meeting arranged with the mafia and threaten to set the bomb off unless the mafia let them go!? Clearly not going to the meeting would have been just too easy.<br /><br />Keira Knightley is unconvincing and dreadfully miscast. Mickey Rourke does manage to salvage some credibility from this mess.<br /><br />I have enjoyed some of Tony Scott's previous films, True Romance being one, but all I could think while suffering this drivel was that it must have been made by a complete idiot. | 0 | trimmed_train |
1,194 | Watching this movie made me think constantly; why are they making such a problem out of some broken brakes? There are a million options to slow down the car! In the movie Speed the writers a least thought of a good reason why the car wasn't able to stop...<br /><br />There aren't many good things to say about this film; all the usual narrative cliche's make their appearance, the actors are very bad, the story is as leak as a sieve etc. That makes this movie a waste of time and money.<br /><br /> | 0 | trimmed_train |
24,382 | I have bought the DVD of this version to compare against the current BBC 2005 version (which is brilliant). The 1985 was adapted by Arthur Hopcraft, who adapted Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy for TV and who died this year (2005). I remember great acting, especially from Rigg and Elliott, and moving music. (Music in the 2005 version is far more understated, but very telling.) Just to pick up other commentators on a couple of points: Richard Carstone is Ada Claire's boyfriend, not Esther's. Esther had no uncle. Charlie Drake never played Krook in either version, nor did he play Toby Esterhase in TTSS! Krook is played by comedian Johnny Vegas in the 2005 version. Toby was played by Bernard Hepton.<br /><br />Both versions are honourable and admirable adaptations of Dickens' great novel. Now read the book! It's not perfect, and the sentimentality may make you wince at times, but I defy you not to cry - and laugh! | 3 | trimmed_train |
3,338 | I tried to like this program; I really did. I even bought the pilot film, first on VHS and later on DVD. However, I couldn't get into this story because its two main characters: "David" (Bruce Willis) and "Maddie" (Cybill Shepherd) just seemed to in love with themselves, for one thing. I admit was some clever dialog in the shows, which was a key part of the success of the TV program, and I did appreciate of lot of that dialog. <br /><br />Basically, this was almost like the old screwball comedy movies of the '30s and '40s with male versus female. You get lots of arguing, accusations, yelling and screaming. A lot of people apparently love that sort of bickering, but I hate it, so I never got on the Moonlighting bandwagon. <br /><br />Only Allyce Beasley as the hapless aide "Agnes," was entertaining. It's too bad she had such little air time. Shepherd was nice on the eyes and I suppose women would say the same for Willis, but too much arguing between the two finally turned me off. | 2 | trimmed_train |
24,263 | I had a chance to see a screening of this movie recently. I believe that it will be in theaters in Canada some time around Mother's Day. If it is in a theater near you... GO! It's not a funny feel-good movie - it's more along the lines of a feel and think movie.<br /><br />The director does an excellent job of character development - letting you into the heart, mind and hurts of Hagar little by little. At first, her attitudes and behaviors don't make much sense. As her story unfolds, she becomes someone you can understand. As in life... understanding brings empathy. I found her likable by the end of the movie - particularly when she opens up her heart to the young man in the shack by the lake.<br /><br />Hagar's relationship with her two sons is painful - and reflective of so many of our own experiences in this world. Her youngest son, John, who is full of life and adventure takes the viewer to the very edge of their seat - and into the kind of raw emotion that is so authentic and rare.<br /><br />It's fun to see Ellen Page acting in this movie. She is so very different than the young woman that she plays in Juno. It gives me an even broader appreciation for her acting ability. If you loved her in Juno, you'll love her in The Stone Angel.<br /><br />Of course, there is Ellen Burnstyn as Hagar. There is likely no way of expressing the power of acting as strongly as the ability for the actor to make you forget every other character they have ever played. Never once in the course of this movie did I ever think of Ellen Burnstyn - I always and only thought of Hagar. She swept me into her character - hook, line and sinker.<br /><br />Kari Skogland's capacity to capture on film this renowned book by one of Canada's most cherished authors is impressive. She brilliantly brings to the screen both the stoney and angelic parts of this complex woman, Hagar - the stone angel. | 3 | trimmed_train |
4,706 | This romantic adventure must have seemed shockingly subversive in its day. A wealthy upper class English woman schemes, plots and manipulates everyone around her for her own satisfaction. She uses her privileged position to embark on secret activities of a decidedly anti-social kind. There's a clever sex-role reversal as her activities prove her more daring and dashing than most of the male characters. But naturally there's a tall, dark and handsome stranger to keep up the love interest, and this wicked lady is not backward in coming forward when she meets the right man.<br /><br />The wishy-washy weakness and gullibility of every other character make the plot unconvincing in the extreme, but those who thirst for Romance will overlook that. | 2 | trimmed_train |
15,483 | If any movie stands out extremely with the actors' acting skills, this is probably the one. I've never seen dialogues be spoken in such a rough way, but having a strong feeling. The movie was disturbing at moments. However, the movie was terrible at editing. The movie tries to go the commercial way by adding comedy and songs, yet they feel out of place. Like Karisma is getting beat up, and the same time SRK is fighting (comically) with the police officers. The Ishq Kamina song was very out of place. On top of that, the movie is overly glossy in the beginning. The direction was not bad, but certainly nothing one can brag about.<br /><br />I have to say that the actors' were chosen very wisely. Without them, this movie would not have an impact. Karisma Kapoor has given her best role to date, and this looks very good on her record after Zubeidaa and Fiza. She looks pretty in the first half, and I've never seen an actress scream of emotion and anger as well as her. What is most ironic is this is probably her weakest written role to date. Nana Patekar was excellent as her father-in-law. Not much to say about him, besides this is a role made for him. Deepti Naval as the mother-in-law was excellent especially in her final scene. Though she doesn't have much to say, her facial expressions and body language was good. The other good performance was the little kid. He was adorable, and is sure to bring tears to the viewer's eyes. The movie was probably saved desperately by their performances. Sanjay Kapoor was all right, but he didn't have much to do. Shahrukh Khan was wasted in his bad boyish type role. <br /><br />One thing that brought the audience to the theater was Ishq Kamina. The song picturization and dancing is perfect for the crude lyrics of the song. And boy Aish is mad hot. However, the song belonged to be in another movie only because it came at the worst moment ever. People may have come to the movie for Aish, but they won't brag too much about it after-wards. Hum Tum Miley was properly paced, but seemed to drag as the suspense mood was leaving throughout the movie. Damroo Bhaje was boring and nothing to rave about. Dil Ne Pukara is too boring of a song to get the mood of the movie. Despite the poor editing, the performances alone make it a must see. | 1 | trimmed_train |
14,403 | Another classic study of the effects of wealth on a southern family is masterfully depicted in Written on the Wind.<br /><br />Kyle Hadley has it all. Wealth, a plane, you name it. Kyle's best friend, Mitch, has always gotten him out of difficulty. Mitch finished college, Kyle got thrown out. Mitch is not from a wealthy home. Kyle's family, with Hadley Oil, controls most of everything in the town.<br /><br />While in N.Y., Kyle meets the girl of his dreams, nicely played by Lauren Bacall. After a whirlwind romance, he marries her and brings her home. There she meets her father-in-law who warns her how difficult Kyle can be. Kyle sleeps with a gun under his pillow. The Bacall character meets Kyle's sister, Mary Lee, a tramp if ever there were, played to the fullest by Dorothy Malone, who was voted best supporting actress.<br /><br />Rock Hudson plays Mitch, the faithful friend.<br /><br />A year of wedded bliss for Kyle and his bride ends when Kyle is told by the doctor that he can't have children. It is when his wife reveals to him that she is indeed pregnant, Kyle, thinking that the child is Mitch's, goes on a drunken frenzy and is accidentally shot dead in a memorable scene.<br /><br />Mary Lee, who has always loved Mitch, tries but is unsuccessful in blaming Mitch for Kyle's death. In a memorable courtroom scene, Malone pulled out all the stops in finally admitting that Kyle's death was an unfortunate accident. Her Oscar was well deserved.<br /><br />Surprisingly, Robert Stack, brilliant as Kyle Hadley, was nominated for best supporting actor and lost in an upset victory by Anthony Quinn, as Paul Gauguin, in Lust for Life.<br /><br />Douglas Sirk was the master of soap opera films of the 1950s. Written on the Wind is no exception. ***1/2. | 3 | trimmed_train |
15,669 | As usual, Hollywood stereotyped EVERYONE in the movie. But, this one is a classic - from the uptight white collar banker to the Russian woman!! Well done. Even facial expressions were great! Language was perfect (even in Russian language) and Nicole did a splendid job!! Hey guys - you get what you pay for:) | 1 | trimmed_train |
18,264 | `An Itch In Time' is one of a string of home runs Bob Clampett hit for WB in the early 1940s, including `Horton Hatches The Egg' and `Tortoise Wins By A Hare.' Soaked in manic timing and exaggerated mayhem, it's basically the saga of a flea who's busy breaking ground for a new home, and the dog whose ground is being broken. Because master Elmer will give him a dreaded flea bath if he so much as scratches, the unlucky canine is forced to endure an upward spiral of torment as the homesteading flea uses pick-axes and power tools to clear the `land.' Ultimately, the little monster lights the fuse to a small mountain of high explosives he's piled onto his victim's backside! There's a tremendous explosion, and the hapless pooch covers his eyes as his rear end erupts in a blazing Fourth of July display! That really has to hurt, and the dog takes flight, but soon he stops the action and says with a merry smile, `You guys better cut it out, 'cause I think I'm starting to like it!' For years this kinky confession was censored, but current prints have restored the clip, so now viewers can enjoy it in its original devilish glory. Still cut, however, is the closing gag in which the cat blows his brains out after he laments, `Now I've seen everything!' This was a common gag at WB, but it has since been purged from this cartoon and several others, including `Horton.' | 3 | trimmed_train |
8,805 | For those of you who've never heard of it (or seen it on A&E), Cracker is a brilliant British TV show about an overweight, chain-smoking, foulmouthed psychologist named Fitz who helps the Manchester police department get into the heads of violent criminals. It's considered to be one of the finest shows ever to come out of England (and that's saying something), and was tremendously successful in England and around the world back in 1993.<br /><br />Now, the original stars have re-teamed with the original writer to knock out one more 2-hour episode. I've loved this show ever since I'd first seen it, over a decade ago. The DVD box set holds a place of honor in my collection, and I can quote a good deal of Fitz's interrogation scenes practically word for word. The idea of Robbie Coltrane reteaming with Jimmy McGovern for another TV movie about Fitz filled me with absolute glee.<br /><br />I'll start with the good. One of the many things that impressed me about the original Cracker series was how quickly Fitz was defined as a character. Five minutes into the first episode with his lecture (throwing the books into the air), his drinking, and his cussing of the guy after him on the gambling machine queue and you knew, simply knew, who this character was. You could feel him "clicking" in your mind, the kind of click that only happens when a great actor gets a great role written by a great writer.<br /><br />Coltrane, of course, remained great throughout the show, but I always felt that some of the later episodes those not written by McGovern mistreated the character.<br /><br />So the good news is this: Fitz is back. As soon as you see him in this show making incredibly inappropriate comments at his daughter's wedding you'll feel that "click" once again. It's him: petulant one moment and truly sorry the next, always insightful, sincere to the point of tactlessness but brilliantly funny in the process. If you love this character as much as I do, you'll be delighted with how he is portrayed in the movie. And this extends to Judith and Mark: in fact, everything having to do with the Fitzs is handled perfectly.<br /><br />The problem I do have with this movie revolves around the crime Fitz is trying to solve. In standard Cracker fashion, we know exactly who the criminal is in the first five minutes the suspense lies in seeing Fitz figure it out. In this case, we have a serial killer who is out for American blood. And the reason for this, unfortunately, is not due to any believable psychological trauma rather, it seems that the murders are here simply to allow the writer to display his personal political beliefs.<br /><br />It's difficult for me to write this, as I truly believe that Jimmy McGovern is one of the greatest writers in the world. Nor do I have a problem with movies that are about current issues, or movies that take a political stand. But in the Cracker universe, we expect to see the characters behaving like human beings, not like caricatures. Instead, the Americans in this movie are all depicted in an entirely stereotypical fashion. They're know-nothing loudmouths who complain about everything, treat the locals like crap and cheat on their wives one of them even manages to do all of the above within less than 5 minutes. I honestly thought I'd mistakenly switched channels or something.<br /><br />But it doesn't stop there. We get constant reminders of just how badly the war in Iraq is going reminders that have nothing whatsoever to do with the story and appear practically out of nowhere. The killer is so busy ranting about how Bush is worse than Hitler that he almost forgets to get on with the killing; but more to the point, he is such a mouthpiece for the writer's political views that he forgets to act like a believable human being, and thus we as an audience don't buy his sudden transformation from a happy family man to a tortured serial-killing soul.<br /><br />I can't say that this ruined the show for me it's was still good TV, better than almost everything else in the genre (mainly due to, once again, Coltrane). But its constant politicizing made it impossible for it to be as good as the real Cracker classics like "To Be A Somebody" an episode that was just as "issuey", but one that was handled with far more subtlety and psychological depth.<br /><br />Two other small points: Panhandle not being around is a disappointment, but what's worse are her replacements. The entire police department which for so long filled with such great characters - is now full of vanilla. Completely interchangeable cops who lack any and all personality (how you could drain Coupling's Richard Coyle of personality is beyond me, but it is indeed missing here).<br /><br />Also, there are couple of moments where the show lost its believability for me. One such instance revolves around Fitz having to narrow down the entire population of Manchester from 1 million to a hundred based on some very strange criteria (French windows? How does the computer know if I have French windows?) he not only succeeds in doing this, but he succeeds in less than an hour. I don't think so.<br /><br />So, all in all, I was a little disappointed. It's recommended viewing, but remember to leave at least some of your expectations at the door. Still, if there's new series to come after this, it would all have been for the good: I'm convinced that McGovern can still write great stuff, and maybe now that he's got his politics out of his system he can go back to writing about people. | 2 | trimmed_train |
4,761 | I usually check out the MTV movie awards to watch a witty, entertaining show that delivers a unique award show (Chewbacca winning a life-time achievement award as example). So this year was no different. While I'm not a fan of Justin Timberlake, Seann William Scott has always been funny-albiet stupid-to me. I've laughed at Stiffler in both American Pie movies, and even enjoyed him in Dude Where's My Car?. But the MTV movie awards were simply horrible. Nothing was coherrent, humorous, or entertaining. Justin Timberlake should stick to singing and dancing; he sure as hell can't act.<br /><br />I'm curious as to who the writers were for this show. Last year's performance by Jack Black and Sarah Michelle Gellar was extremly funny (The Lord of the Rings parody alone was worth watching the entire show), but this year was completly different. Did anyone understand Timberlake's comments regarding Luke Wilson and Kate Hudson ("They're staring in a movie together, but have never met! Here they are...") Where was the joke? Kate and Luke just went into their lame dialogue, never making a reference to the "joke" by Timberlake. And Seann was completly wasted as a talent, not even causing me to smile, yet alone laugh. And what was the point of Harrison Ford's one-liners? Did they make ANY sense to anyone? Perhaps the MTV writers figured the young viewers would only know the aging Ford as Han Solo, Indiania Jones, or the President from Air Force One. I'm baffled. And would someone tell me the deal with Adrian Brody? How old is this guy and how old does he THINK he is? The guy looks 30, trying to act 19 again....give it up, show some class (like in your best actor academy award speech) and act your age!<br /><br />I give this show 1 star out of 4, simply because of the speech by Gollam for Best Visual Performance. This was very creative, extremely well done, and caused the only genuine laugh of the entire evening. | 0 | trimmed_train |
6,155 | I gave this more than a 1 because I did think there were some moral lessons in this story and it provoked some thought and comment from my wife and I. The acting and the dialogue were mediocre and I must confess I came out feeling like I had been beaten over the head with the God this , God that and Christ is our saviour stuff. The movie and the story line did not need it. If , as I am , you are a recovering Catholic or Christian avoid this one it will make you nauseous. The movie did a good job of demonstrating the thin line between being a good citizen and how someone could become a potential stalker focused on what might have been. | 2 | trimmed_train |
843 | As someone who likes chase scenes and was really intrigued by this fascinating true-life tale, I was optimistic heading into this film but too many obstacles got into the way of the good story it should have been.<br /><br />THE BAD - I'm a fan of Robert Duvall and many of the characters he has played, but his role here is a dull one as an insurance investigator.<br /><br />The dialog is insipid and the pretty Kathryn Harrold is real garbage-mouth. From what I read, there were several directors replacing each other on this film, and that's too bad. You can tell things aren't right with the story. I couldn't get "involved" with Treat Williams' portrayal of Cooper, either. He should have been fascinating, but he wasn't in this movie. It's also kind of a sad comment that a guy committing a crime is some sort of "folk hero," but I admit I wound up rooting for the guy, too.<br /><br />Not everything was disappointing. I can't complain about the scenery, from the lush, green forests of Oregon to the desert in Arizona.<br /><br />I'd like to see this movie re-made and done better, because it is a one-of-a-kind story. | 2 | trimmed_train |
8,244 | This movie was a littttle confusing at first. I usually like Gina Phillips, but this one I have to say was a bad choice just like her doing the movie Ring Around the Rosie, that one also not one her good movies. Jeepers Creepers was way better. Anyway, Faye Dunaway was good. She totally creeped me out and at the end, that was crazy. It was about Jennifer Cassi(Phillips) who comes to her twin sisters funeral. She stays at a house that her sister owns and her grandmother(Dunaway) lives at with an Aunt named Emma. Mary Ellen(Dunaway) is kinda sacrificing her relations to stay alive and as long as she wants to live, she can't die. Even if Jennifer tries to kill her, which she tries. Ravens have a weird part in it. When the relations go to sleep, the Ravens eat there organs, so they can't go to sleep. But they do. Basically it all crazy and Mary Ellen will never die and her relations will be buried, but not dead, b/c they have to suffer forever so Mary Ellen can stay alive. Yeah, I hope this helps. If it doesn't, sorry. Love ya. | 2 | trimmed_train |
13,551 | The movie was totally Awesome and Cool. The graphics was superb and it was amazing, Especially, Flik was superb and awesome in the movie and he was funny and he was and sometimes he was intelligent. The circus bugs are colorful and they are superb in the movie. The grasshoppers were also superb and cool in the movie. Hopper was a pure and perfect villain. Even, Dot was cute. When, the bird comes to eat the bugs, that scene was superb and good. Even, the last scene was awesome and cool. Even, Flik's inventions was good. Building an artificial bird was a good idea to scare away the grasshoppers. When, the ants are building the artificial bird, that scene was good and nice I should really appreciate the creators of "A Bug's Life". | 3 | trimmed_train |
8,125 | This film is a calculated attempt to cash in the success of Sex in the City and Four Weddings and a Funeral. In fact, if they'd called it Sex at a Funeral, they might have done better at the box office.<br /><br />But the film falls between two stools and can't get up. The characters spout improbably bright dialog, but never act in any way remotely recognizable as human. One arbitrary, senseless action follows another to advance what passes for a plot, and one soon tires of the falsity of the whole enterprise.<br /><br />Andie MacDowell gets points for acting her little heart out, but the performing honors are stolen by Imelda Staunton, as of all things, a police detective (don't they have a height requirement over there?). Ms. Staunton seems unable to make a false move. Would that we could say the same about the writer-director.<br /><br />If Notting Hill annoyed you as being bogus, stay away from this one. Phonus bolognus on the half-shell. | 0 | trimmed_train |
5,286 | When I was a teen-ager seeing this film for the first time, I thought it was one of the best movies ever made. Of course, the reason for that is Bo Derek and her various states of undress in this film. However, now that I'm older, I can honestly say that this film is awful. Mind you, Bo Derek is absolutely incredibly beautiful, and she and husband-director John Derek make sure you see plenty of her. But when you take that aspect out of the film, it becomes one big dull ride. And Tarzan, well, he's all muscular like you think he should be, but when he sees Jane (that's Bo, of course) for the first time, he doesn't know what to think. This despite the fact that Bo is wearing a wet see-thru shirt, with her breast prominently displayed. Tarzan would be the only primitive man on the planet who would have that problem. If you are looking for a movie to slobber over a beautiful naked body, then this might fill the ticket. If you are looking for a thoughtful, entertaining and worth-while film, go elsewhere...almost anywhere else at that!!! | 2 | trimmed_train |
5,854 | Some wonder why there weren't anymore Mrs. Murphy movies after this one. Will it's because this movie totally blew snot. Disney was not the right studio to run this film. MAYBE Touchstone (well, they're owned by Disney, but it'd be more adult). The film is too kid-ish, as the book series is not. The casting is all wrong for the characters. The characters don't even act the way they do in the books. And why was Tucker changed to a guy? He's a girl in the frigging books! Was this done to make the film appeal to boys? Sheesh. And where was Pewter, the gray cat? One of the funniest characters from the book is absent from this filth. Rita Mae Brown is a good writer, but letting Disney blow her work was wrong. An animated feature film, perhaps in the vane of Don Bluth's artwork would suit a better Mrs. Murphy film. Overall, I give this a 2, because at least Disney made a film from an under-appreciated book series. But, I wish they did better. Either way, I still have my books to entertain me. | 0 | trimmed_train |
Subsets and Splits