id
int32 0
25k
| text
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| label
int64 0
3
| Generalization
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
166 | This is supposed to be well-researched and based on fact. How come therefore that it's so packed with McGovernisms. Did the people of Derry live in some kind of bizarre Philip K. Dick world in which reality was uncannily like Cracker/ Liam/ Priest? Or is McGovern an idle hack who just keeps repeating hims | 0 | trimmed_train |
10,119 | Yes, Marie Dresler drinks prune juice that she thinks is poison and she exits running.<br /><br />Dresler is good. Never my cup of tea but she is a solid performer who surely holds the screen.<br /><br />I watched this for Polly Moran, whom I've seen elsewhere. Here, Moran is OK -- just OK -- as Dressler's shrewish friend/foe. Too bad she has sunk into nearly total oblivion.<br /><br />The plot is good hearted. Bad guys try to rob the townspeople. Dressler triumphs and all ends well.<br /><br />I do wonder about the central plot mechanism: bonds. This came out during the Depression so maybe everyone was familiar with bonds and what they can do if used well and if used wrongly. I, however, not of that era, am vaguely familiar with them. They're like stocks only different, right? It seems odd to build a story about The Little Man around a somewhat sophisticated monetary entity. | 2 | trimmed_train |
6,534 | DEAD HUSBANDS is a somewhat silly comedy about a bunch of wives conspiring to bump off each others husbands`. It`s by no means embarrassingly bad like some comedies I could mention but it never fufils its potential . Imagine how good this could have been if we had the Farrelly brothers directing Ben Stiller in the role of Carter Elson .<br /><br />Oh is Carter based on Jerry Springer ? Just curious because the catch phrase on Dr Elson`s show is " look after each other and keep talking " | 2 | trimmed_train |
16,546 | I watched both Bourne Identity and Bourne Supremacy on DVD before seeing this in the theater. I'd been waiting for this since before they started filming. I wasn't disappointed.<br /><br />Minor spoilers below- <br /><br />Overall it was good, but it also lacked the continuity of the first two. Identity and Supremacy both flowed gracefully between adrenaline rush action to introspective drama. This movie felt choppy at times. The plot-building down-times were slightly too drawn out. That caused the following action to feel too frenetic.<br /><br />Camera: Speaking of frenetic, the trademark Greengrass shaky cam was present and very annoying to me. I know its has been talked/whined about to nausea on the message board, but it doesn't mean it's not relevant. All the martial arts training the actors went through was totally wasted. The ridiculous camera cuts and wiggling camera ruined most of the fighting in the movie. It is a cheap, student director trick to make the film feel unsettled. I'd expect those techniques to be used in some horror flick made for high school kids, but not in this classy, adult, action series. Too much extreme close-up also. Do some framing. Get some interesting shots. Constant close-up feels like lazy directing to me.<br /><br />Story: The story was VERY confusing at first. They thrust new names and faces upon you from the get go. Gave me the feeling that you get when you come into a movie late and know you've missed some crucial information. Felt rushed or compressed for time reasons. After you catch up however the story is quite good. It's enjoyable following leads along with Bourne. HOWEVER, I did NOT care for the whole last scene of Supremacy (Landy/Bourne on the phone) being in the middle of Ultimatum thing. It basically makes the movie a half-prequel. I thought that was awkward.<br /><br />Cast/Characters: The star of the movie is the action. Obviously there are only two originals left. Bourne and Nicky Parsons. Them teaming up was kind of odd to me. I think they just wanted to give Bourne someone to protect to and confide in. Unless I completely missed something, they never even tell you why they teamed up. The other assassins in the movie were pretty quiet. This felt like Gilroy/Greengrass/whoever wanting to not leave open ends. Understandable but disappointing. Seriously, Damon with Clive Owen in Identity and Marton Csokas in Supremacy.. Those scenes were phenomenal. These assassins are as uninteresting as Castel (the first fella Bourne fights in Identity). The cast in general has degraded as the the series went on. Clive Owen was practically an afterthought. That's a measure of strength for that first cast. The second, they basically trade Chris Cooper for Joan Allen.... Not exactly equal. This one trades Brian Cox and Franka Potente for 3 actors to be named later. Nothing against David Strathairn, Scott Glenn, or Albert Finney, but they're not the first names that come to mind for this kind of series. Aside from a couple pauses that seemed to long, the acting was right on.<br /><br />As a whole, it was successful. Felt like they wanted to get the series over with though. If they would have trimmed or rearranged the slower parts, eliminated Scott Glenn's part entirely, zoomed out, and taken the camera away from the seizure victim, it would have been perfect.<br /><br />ENDING SPOILER<br /><br />I don't see why they leave Bourne alive at the end. It was my understanding this was the conclusion. They clearly made reference to the very beginning of the series with his silhouette floating motionless. I thought that was going to be it. A full circle type of ending. I did like Nicky reacting to the news report though.<br /><br />SPOILER SPECIFICS WARNING - QUOTE FROM MOVIE BELOW -<br /><br />Bourne's last line at the end "Look at this.. Look at what they make you give." quoting the first assassin he killed, I loved that. The final scene was great. (Except that it was Vosen {Strathairn} that shot at Bourne. Why would he do that? Just out for vengeance? If he was angry enough to murder, why not shoot Pamela Landy after she faxes his top secret file? That didn't make sense.) | 1 | trimmed_train |
19,352 | If you like CB4, you have no idea what you're missing if you haven't seen this film yet. This movie is crazy hilarious, and incorporates a lot more about the hip hop industry than any other parody movie... It is unfortunate that this movie has not been released on dvd because it is one movie that everybody I've ever watched it with has loved and wanted a copy. If you really want a good laugh and you like hip hop and are a little familiar with some old-school performers, definitley rent this movie. There aren't that many video rental places that have copies of it, but if you happen to come across one you will not be disappointed. | 3 | trimmed_train |
1,818 | I was looking forward to Kathryn Bigelow's movie with great anticipation after the endless hype and 6 Oscars which it was awarded. Unfortunately it really isn't a good movie. The depiction of the situation certainly seemed to be accurate and believable on all counts, but beyond that the story simply came across as incomplete and the direction of the movie appeared to be uncertain and haphazard. The actors put in a good effort, but for me I didn't really get what the movie was trying to be. It's not as atmospheric and gripping as Full Metal Jacket, not as epic as Band of Brothers, not as action packed as...well, anything. I certainly can't see why it was nominated for so much, nor why people are 'hyping it up' to these epic proportions. Mind you, given the calibre of movies in the last couple of years I suppose there's not a lot to choose from. | 2 | trimmed_train |
8,819 | this, is NOT one of those films it is one of the biggest pieces of tripe I have ever scene, the camera work is trying to be flashy but it really just crap the whole thing looks like the red shoe diaries, but without the sex, the only reason I bought this was I wanted to try out dvd and this was the cheapest one I could find, possibly the worst buy of my life and could have put you off dvd forever, the soundtrack is REALLY tacky and most of the movie is made up of endless repeats of clips from the first two films, why anyone would want to make a movie as awful as this is beyond me, if they had really attempted to make an original movie and failed I would be nicer in this review but they don't they just got the rights to reproduce stuff from the first two and then edit it and repeat it into this film with about maybe under 1 3rd original footage which is about up to the standards of film school students, DO NOT buy this movie. the only entertainment this dvd can offer is if you were to stick it in the microwave and watch the flashing lights! UTTER UTTER UTTER UTTTER unbelievable GARBAGE! 0/10 if only the voting system would allow that. | 0 | trimmed_train |
9,881 | The script for this Columbo film seemed to be pulled right out of a sappy 1980's soap opera. Deeply character-driven films are great, but only if the characters are compelling. And in this film the only thing compelling was my desire to change the channel. The villain's dialog sounds as if it were written by a romance novelist. The great Lt. Columbo himself is no where near his famous, lovable, self-effacing, crumpled self; and the bride/kidnap victim is a whimpering, one-dimensional damsel-in-distress (she cowers in fear from a tiny scalpel held flimsily in the hand of her abductor - come on!!! I could have knocked the scalpel out of his hand and kicked him in the you-know-what in 2 seconds). In any sense of reality, this character would have at least TRIED to struggle or fight back at least a little. And speaking of reality....the story revolves around a kidnapping which is worked and solved by the police. The POLICE?? Give me a break. Everyone knows the FBI takes over EVERY kidnapping case. This was NO Columbo, just a shallow and totally predictable crime drama with our familiar Lt. Columbo written in and stretched to 2 hours. | 0 | trimmed_train |
17,673 | Funny, sexy, hot!!! There is no real plot but you needn't anyone...<br /><br />so the naked or almost naked girls and the typical fights between college-cliques need no development!<br /><br />All in all the whole seems to be known from simply every film in this category but the reissuer reached the goal that this film can be recognized out of thousand others.<br /><br />Last thing I've got to say. Unbelievable funny!<br /><br />You've got to see it!!! <br /><br />And if you are young and you want know more about the female body you've got to see it twice | 3 | trimmed_train |
24,481 | And I am a Nicole Kidman fanatic. I would pay to see and hear her read the Moscow phone book, which, for all I know, she may have been doing when she was speaking Russian in this movie. <br /><br />All four of the principals are excellent, but the movie itself is a number of good images and better scenes held together by nothing.<br /><br />While one is always ready to suspend disbelief while watching a movie, this one asks too much of the viewer. <br /><br />It could have been very funny (which it is in parts) or quite frightening (which it is in one scene) but the director didn't seem to know which way to go. | 1 | trimmed_train |
22,994 | It is not as great a film as many people believe (including my late aunt, who said it was her favorite movie). But due to the better sections of this film noir, particularly that justifiably famous "fun house" finale, THE LADY FROM SHANGHAI has gained a position of importance beyond it's actual worth as a key to the saga of Orson Welles' failure to conquer Hollywood.<br /><br />By 1946 Welles' position as a Hollywood figure was mixed. CITIZEN KANE was not recognized as the great movie it has since been seen as due to the way it was attacked by the Hearst press and by Hollywood insiders themselves. Welles' attempt at total control (direction and production and acting) of his movies seemed to threaten the whole system. His best job in this period was as Edward Rochester in JANE EYRE, supposedly shot by Robert Stevenson, but actually shot in large measure (with Stevenson's blessing) by Welles. But the credit went to Stevenson. Only THE STRANGER, a film benefiting from a postwar interest in fleeing Nazi war criminals, made a profit. For five years in Hollywood it was barely a great record.<br /><br />Welles returned to Broadway in 1946, hoping to recapture his critical abilities by his production of AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS. But despite the assistance Mike Todd, and Cole Porter composing the score, the musical was a failure. His failure occurred just at the same time that his wife, Rita Hayworth, was on the rise with her portrayal of GILDA. So the marriage was going on the rocks as well.<br /><br />Welles had to make money - his Broadway production had led to his personal bankruptcy. He sold his interest in the possible movie rights to AROUND THE WORLD to Todd (which he would eventually rue), and he also sold the idea of a film about the career of Henri Desire Landru to Charlie Chaplin, who was supposed to be directed in it (and who turned it into MONSIEUR VERDOUX).<br /><br />The story goes that Welles, with a $10,000.00 tax bill to worry about, called Cohn and offered to do a film with Rita for a down payment. Cohn was willing to do so, but naturally asked what the film was. It was a wise question. Welles was on a pay phone in New York in a pharmacy that had a book department. He grabbed a book with the title THE LADY FROM SHANGHAI, and raved that it was a great thriller. Somehow Welles convinced the normally astute Cohn that Welles knew what he was talking about. Cohn said he'd look into getting the rights, and sent Welles his down-payment of $10,000.00. After Cohn hung up Welles bought the book and read it - and found it was really pretty bad. He spent time rewriting a treatment and screenplay that would build up Rita's character of Elsa Bannister.<br /><br />Certainly it has a curious plot development. Michael O'Hara is a seaman/longshoreman. He rescues Elsa Bannister, when she is apparently attacked by gangsters in a park in San Francisco. Elsa is married to Arthur Bannister (Everett Sloane) a crippled criminal lawyer with a great reputation. She convinces him to hire Michael as the skipper of their yacht. The cruise also contains Bannister's sinister partner George Grisby (Glenn Anders) and one Sidney Broome (Ted De Corsia) who turns out to be a detective hired by Bannister to watch Elsa. When they can Michael and Elsa try to find time together, but Broome or Grisby keeps showing up.<br /><br />Grisby makes Michael an offer - he wants (for reasons connected to his so-called fatalistic view of modern society) to drop out of it, pretending to be dead. According to Grisby (the plot becomes murky here) he can still collect his life insurance (although dead?) and use it to run off to the South Seas. He will pay Michael $10,000.00 if he will pretend to shoot Grisby. This includes actually signing a document admitting to the murder (Michael does not realize that such an admission would wipe out the need to produce a corpse if all the other evidence suggests that Grisby is probably dead).<br /><br />Of course Grisby is killed, and Michael is arrested for that, and for the murder of Broome (shot with Michael's gun). Michael is tried with Bannister defending him, and discovers that the latter is doing a second rate job because he wants Michael to be convicted. Michael is convinced that Bannister is the actual murderer, and manages to escape just before the jury verdict. He is knocked out and deposited in a deserted carnival, and this leads to the famous "fun house" sequence and the conclusion of the film.<br /><br />It's a terribly confusing movie (as I have had commented on). That does not mean it's not worth seeing - visually it is striking. Witness the fight between Michael and the police in the trial judge's quarters, where he knocks the bailiff into the judge's bookcase, shattering glass. Or the clever use of photography to capture Hayworth diving from a rock, reflected on the lecherous Grisby's binoculars.<br /><br />The acting is pretty good, in particular Sloane (possibly that fine actor's best film role). Glenn Anders was a leading Broadway performer. He rarely made movies before THE LADY FROM SHANGHAI, and his slimy Grisby is unforgettable. Also Ted De Corsia does very nicely with Broome - a detective who is really looking for his own interests, to his own cost.<br /><br />As for Hayworth, she turns in a performance that was unlike most of what she had done before (BLOOD AND SAND, TALES OF MANHATTAN, and THE STRAWBERRY BLOND are exceptions), and is a memorable siren. Welles' O'Hara is a very unusual character for the actor - a likable but naive man who learns the hard way not to believe what he secretly wants to believe. It's not KANE, AMBERSOMS, OTHELLO, TOUCH OF EVIL, or CHIMES AT MIDNIGHT, but it is a good film for all that. | 3 | trimmed_train |
20,323 | Japanese indie film with humor and philosophy where the three main characters run literally almost through the entire film, chasing each other due to strange circumstances and comical coincidence. As they are running, we see what is going on in their minds and how they got where they are at the moment. The act of running is a metaphor for these down-on-their luck people's lives. In some way, what they're really chasing for is not what they were originally chasing, but for meaning in their lives and an escape from their personal problems and broken dreams. Running makes them all feel truly alive. The big life-altering running adventure comes to an end when they accidentally get in the middle of something big, violent, and so absurd that it's funny in a clever way. One of my favorite films of all time by genius director Sabu. | 3 | trimmed_train |
17,366 | After seeing several movies of Villaronga, I had a pretty clear opinion about him -- he concentrates too much on the personal aspect of the characters, forgetting about a rhythm of the movie. That is why, though having good critics, his movies never caught the broad audience attention. In ARo he follows the same line, but really improved on the rhythm, especially in the end of the movie. Frankly speaking, I slept through the first part, cause though the first part gives necessary information, it is really slow. Nevertheless the second part is absolutely marvelous and makes the whole movie the best movie ever made by Villaronga.<br /><br />Recommended. | 3 | trimmed_train |
24,407 | Return of the Jedi is certainly the most action packed of the series, and is a fine conclusion to the Star Wars Saga. With Han Solo imprisoned by Jabba the Hut and the Empire building a new Death Star, the rebel alliance is facing an uphill struggle against the dark side, and only our favourite heroes can pull it off.<br /><br />The Opening sequence, set on Tatooine, we see Jabba's palace, a pit of slavery and scum, and new home to Han Solo, as Luke and the gang prepare for his rescue, and with Luke's Jedi powers, they have the edge.<br /><br />We also witness a tremendous triple battle at the end. Han, Leia and Chewy battle it out on Endor, desperate to deactivate the shields protecting the Death Star. The Rebel Fleet led by Lando, battle with the Imperial Fleet while they wait for the shields to go down, and Luke has a final showdown with Darth Vader. An Epic end to a Classic Saga, and it's only just of the pace of the first two.<br /><br />10/10 | 3 | trimmed_train |
10,891 | - I had planned to write something explaining what I didn't like about this movie, but this is going to be more difficult than I thought. Honestly, I can't remember much about it. I watched it just three days ago and it's made almost no impression on me. That's usually the sign of a real stinker. About the only thing I remember was being incredibly bored by most of it. The novelty of having a Humphrey Bogart look-a-like as the detective wore off real quick. It would be different if he could act, but he's a one-note entertainer. The kill scenes were amateurishly handled and there was no suspense leading up to them. If you can't spot the killer five minutes into the movie, you need to see more Euro horror. The casting is a dead giveaway to the killer's identity. | 2 | trimmed_train |
16,850 | I'm too old to know (or care) exactly what the difference between rap and hip-hop is. And, being Canadian, it's likely that I've never actually seen MTV, but I'm not certain.<br /><br />But I thought this film was very funny when I saw it, a bright little satire. Hip-hop culture is so pervasive these days that it's difficult not to keep hearing about it over and over. (If only we could say the same about bagpipe music.) I got most of the jokes (at least I think I did). Sure, it's derived from Spinal Tap, but there are lots of targets that could stand a Tap treatment. Just not the Carpenters, they're sacred. | 1 | trimmed_train |
14,932 | The acting in this movie was superb, but mixed with the truth about the condition of many Africans in South Africa made it heart wrenching. It was good that the writer isolated Boesman and Lena from others run from their homes, so we could share fully in their triumphs and defeats; the conflicts they shared as they grew together and apart. Worth seeing when you put the movie in it's proper context. | 3 | trimmed_train |
6,578 | ... and in *no way* as clean, logical, and understandable as in pictured in that pathetic sum of tired Hollywood cliches.<br /><br />I'm 27, and I've spent 16 years of my life struggling through delusional phobia and paranoid hallucinations. Like the main character in the film, I was successful mainly because of logic : because I kept thinking over and over to keep delusion away from reality, and to know what was really going on and what wasn't. In the end, I was really successful because of medication, by the way, but I certainly escaped madness because I knew before I took medication the difference between what was real and what wasn't.<br /><br />So, I feel entitled to tell you that this movie is a total fraud. Not only does it cheat with the main character's story (who wasn't faithful to his wife, who was bisexual - something really important here), but mostly, it shows a comforting, tamed view of schizophrenia - which is entirely missing the point.<br /><br />Schizophrenia is a mind structure, not a disease. A schizophrenic *isn't* a "normal man with a disease", it's someone who from early on views and feels things differently from most people : for him, things like time, space, and people's personalities aren't solid things. He feels it can be bent, it can change, it can mutate, and maybe even disappear. To cope with this, a schizophrenic has a rich, very imaginative inner world which "normal" people don't expect - but he's trapped in it because he can't relate with most people, and his world gets poorer and poorer until he finishes in a blank, delusive dead end.<br /><br />This is very different to what's depicted in this ridiculous "cure", tear-jerking movie. It should be violently frightening. People other than the main character should appear strange, weird and absurd, like in Lynch's "Eraserhead", for example. There should be *really* impressive, weird, gross hallucinations, because that's what schizophrenia is all about. It's not about *details*.<br /><br />I mean, watch "Naked Lunch", "Lost Highway", read P.K. Dick's "Martian Time-Split" or "Ubik", DO watch "The Cell", "Perfect Blue", "Dark City", or play "American McGee's Alice" on PC, and you may have a vague idea of what it's like. Don't watch the "feel good" movie of the month, with banal situations, cleaned characters and visuals, and stupid plot tricks. "The Cell" is the most accurate movie about a schizophrenic's mind, his visions and his inner consistency - it's violent, weird, confusing, and very, very scary.<br /><br />Once again, Schizophrenia isn't about details, it's not a neat, tame trick played to you. It jumps in your face and won't let you go : walls fall apart, people turn into strange hostile creatures, you feel like you go backward in time, you're not sure you're who you think you are, everything feels... strange, unnatural. Believe me, this is much much more than what's depicted in this soap-like melodrama | 0 | trimmed_train |
22,518 | The movie looked like a walk-through for "Immoral Study". Most likely I never got much involved with the burning need of the female artist to immortalize male nudes and thus all that fuss about "Now, who drew this penis?!" sounded a bit gratuitous. Dialogues in this movie are rather dreadful, albeit visually this movie got its moments. I almost dig it when Tassi got into painting a mental picture but then movie weered back onto penises. Highly recommended to those who has not seen one in a while. | 1 | trimmed_train |
13,395 | Is this the future that awaits us? An overpopulated, unforgiving wasteland with a hellish, unwanted existence? This film brings to mind a problem that still plagues us, doubly so since the film was released in back in 1973. Let's hope that the world isn't going to end up like this...<br /><br />Soylent Green is a wild movie that I enjoyed very much. It had likable characters, a semi-apocalyptic setting, a compelling and thought-provoking storyline, and the macho-est macho man out there: Charleton Heston. Richard Fleischer gave the movie a very unpleasant, dirty feel. You're almost choked by the stench from the city and its filthy inhabitants.<br /><br />The characters are wonderful. Charleton Heston, who has become one of my favorite actors, IS Thorn. The man created this role of badass, yet likable tough-guy. I could definitely put myself in Thorn's shoes. He sees that something isn't right, but everyone around him either doesn't listen (more like paid not to listen) or wants him dead. Edward G. Robinson (in his last film, R.I.P.) plays the lovable old Sol, who has had enough of this nasty place. Everyone else is great, especially Leigh Taylor-Young as Shirl, a piece of "furniture" that comes with the apartment in which she resides.<br /><br />The special effects are fantastic, even for 1973. The Soylent Green factory, the futuristic apartments, and especially the "scoops" (bulldozers that get rid of people) were excellent. The polluted air outside looks disgusting and very nasty. The empty city streets filled with the vile and putrid people are very unsettling.<br /><br />One final note is the ending, which even now still shocked me. It is gruesome, but if you think about it, it's a pretty good idea.<br /><br />The Bottom Line: <br /><br />An excellent 70's Science Fiction flick that makes you think and leaves you feeling very uneasy. | 3 | trimmed_train |
3,059 | I'm a huge fan of war movies, and, as a Vietnam combat vet, have some experience with the technical details. I worked with the bomb guys more than once and have nothing but respect for them. Other vets, and Iraq vets in particular, have summarized the inaccuracies in this movie very well. Poetic license is one thing, but this movie is a complete fantasy, and fails badly because of it. No bomb disposal unit, or any unit, would ever have tolerated this rogue operator for more than 5 minutes. Military units prize conformity and discipline for a reason;it saves lives. The opening scene particularly annoyed me. The guy with the cell phone would have been shot immediately. Yelling, "Stop dialing" is not an effective deterrent. It got worse from there. The scenes with the sniper were particularly egregious. As others have noted, your average EOD guy doesn't know jack about being a sniper, and to think any Arab sniper is that good really stretches the imagination. Kidnapping an Arab businessman for some form of personal revenge just wouldn't happen. Somebody might shoot him, but this kind of risk-taking is limited to the movies. I could go on, but, as I said, others have pointed these things out in detail. This is not a good movie, and if it wins any awards at all, it's a further reflection of why "La La land" is so named. | 0 | trimmed_train |
89 | This is a movie about making a movie. Such movies may be entertaining, but they need some substance, to do so. It did not happen here, I am afraid. Mr Coppola did not inherit his father's skills, unfortunately (neither did his sister, who can however make movies which one might watch).<br /><br />I do wonder how this movie came to get such rave reviews. <br /><br />Let's see: the lead male actor, supposedly a director, is as expressive as a frozen squid and his voice has the same pitch whatever he says, the lead female actress has an expression on her face that never changes, the plot is totally segmented in bits with perhaps one single connecting element, the movie within the movie idea must be more stale than paleolithic rocks... Would that be enough?<br /><br />I regretted every single moment I watched this movie. A walk with the dog is far superior entertainment to this unbelievably lame movie. It's as if a François Truffaut plot were directed by Dick Cheney...<br /><br />Brazil, some other classic SF movies? You must be really joking... | 0 | trimmed_train |
5,153 | I guess I've seen worse films, but that may be becuz I'm so jaded by how standard these bad horror movies are. The killer monster thing is really really bad, basically its a guy in some kind of green body suit. There is much worse acting as far as B movie go, but don't think for a second this was anything stellar, hell no. It actually did have a plot with substance, but was still pretty stupid. Basically its just a bad low budget horror movie. But at least its not as bad as titanic, that movie sucks balls, this one just sucks. The blood looks really fake in this movie. Thats one complaint I have about all the horror of the new millinium, low grade gore, looks stupid. A good gruesome death scene with really fake blood is so stupid. At least there was a nice shower scene | 2 | trimmed_train |
3,619 | Play Mystery Theater 3000 at home with your friends! Rent this movie for the laughs! The acting is poor, the sounds is terrible and the fights are ridiculously unbelievable. I thought the movie was a joke until I looked it up on IMBD. I can't wait to rent the sequel, China O'Brien II. | 0 | trimmed_train |
50 | I just sat in the theater bored as hell, i wanted to leave halfway through the movie. The plot is simple 4 Samoan guys wreck weddings. So They have to bring a dates in order to get into the wedding. Yawn.<br /><br />The thing that peeved me off the most was the so-called crude jokes... They were highly UNfunny, clichéd and thrown in your face, to make you get into the already dull movie. The acting was below-average and i felt this movie just went on and on about nothing but a bunch of unfunny jokes and a predictable plot.<br /><br />All in all, one of the worse movies i've seen of 2006, unfunny, bad acting, just ugly.<br /><br />Well thank god a friend shouted me. <br /><br />Avoid. | 0 | trimmed_train |
8,654 | well, i hated knocked up, i despised 40-year-old virgin, and this little gem is a worthless piece of trash movie. do yourself a favor, and skip it. i admit, i don't like the actors in this movie, and after my 18-year-old son showed me the cover of the DVD, i was like, "i wouldn't like that movie," but at his insistence, i decided to give it a try, unfortunately. <br /><br />about two minutes into the movie i turned it off, i was so offended. it's just disgusting. any decent person would be offended by the filth in this movie. call me old fashioned, but shoving your pussy juice-covered hand into your friend's face so he will know you "got some" is over the line of decency, in my opinion. yeah, that's how this putrid little film starts, and i can only imagine it gets much worse from there. another real winner for Mr. Rudd. i bet he's proud as punch. imagine if you could only get worthless roles like he gets, would you stay in movies? despite the pay, i wouldn't. <br /><br />i should have known better; next time i will. | 0 | trimmed_train |
2,663 | This film is so ridiculously idiot that you may actually laugh at it. But no, even this is too much for this lost meters of celluloid. I found it as an offer in a magazine and that's why I've seen it. I regret the time I lost to see this. 1 out of 10 (because they don't have a lower grade). | 0 | trimmed_train |
11,070 | Words really can't describe how bad this film is. I thought Zandalee was bad, but at least that had some nice shots and the occasional good chin stroking moment here and there to stop you from nodding off. This is just laughable! Terrible script, poor direction, awful acting and you know what? I can't think of a single thing to recommend about it other than the fact that it isn't too long. If you want 100 minutes worth of entertainment, book yourself in at the dentist and have some root canal work - far more enjoyable and much better value for money (assuming that you need it!). Incidentally, I need to type 10 lines of text to complete this review - PLEASE DO NOT BUY THIS MOVIE. IT IS TERRIBLE! | 0 | trimmed_train |
17,437 | A meltdown at a nuclear power plant causes a majority of people to turn into lethal, rot-faced, shambling zombies who naturally go on a grisly rampage. A ragtag handful of uninfected folks do their best to survive this grueling ordeal. Director/co-writer/producer Todd Sheets displays an appealingly sincere love and passion for go-straight-for-the-throat lively and gruesome horror fare: he maintains an unflagging snappy pace throughout, fills the screen with wall-to-wall crazy action, and thankfully keeps the terrible dialogue to a pleasing minimum. Moreover, Sheets certainly doesn't skimp on the gloriously graphic and excessive over-the-top splatter: this picture delivers a tasty truckload of flesh melting, evisceration, lots of gut munching, one dude has his heart yanked out, and there's even a nice impalement on a tree branch. Sheets earns bonus points for keeping the tone grim and nasty to the literal bitter end (for example, almost all of the main characters wind up becoming zombie chow). Granted, this flick has its fair share of flaws: the ragged editing, several ham-fisted attempts at pathos, and the largely awful acting from a rank no-name cast all leave a good deal to be desired. Top thespic honors go to the pretty and perky Kasey Rausch for her winningly spunky portrayal of the resourceful Daria Trumillio. Frank Dunlay likewise does well as rugged take-charge army veteran Ralph Walsh. Best of all, Sheets' sure grasp of an infectiously slambang sense of unrelenting headlong momentum and obvious affinity for the horror genre ensure that this remains a total blast to watch from start to finish. | 1 | trimmed_train |
19,835 | I'm a huge classic film buff, but am just getting in to silent movies. A lot of silent films don't hold my attention, but Show People is a notable exception.<br /><br />Marion Davies and William Haines are simply wonderful in this picture. Davies, in particular, shows a wide range as she morphs from a giggly small town girl to a starlet who takes herself a bit too seriously.<br /><br />Show People is a fast paced film with a fantastic array of cameos by some of the biggest stars of the silent era. The movie captured my attention immediately and I actually forgot that it was a silent film. (I know that doesn't make much sense, but that's what happened.) The actors are so skilled in their craft that few dialogue cards are necessary.<br /><br />Show People is a perfect introduction to silent films. It is a fast paced, interesting film with two of the silent era's best stars. Add in the satire of Hollywood and Show People should be on the 'must see' list for all classic film buffs. | 1 | trimmed_train |
4,460 | ...and Ethel Merman buffs, too, will love her loud, bossy vocals as the wicked witch Mombi, but this cartoon sequel to "The Wizard Of Oz" is bereft of real imagination, substituting fantasy and excitement with noisy action (and cheaply repeating its footage like a bad music video). Little Dorothy is whisked back to Oz, which has gone to ruin, and meets old and new friends. The inelegant animation is stuck somewhere between the weakest Walt Disney and the less-inspired shows from Hanna-Barbera, however many of the songs are good, particularly Dorothy's sweet lament "It's a Far Away Land", superbly performed by Liza Minnelli. You can count on Minnelli for energy, which is why the movie perks up whenever Dorothy is around. Much of it is unmemorable, and I'm not even sure baby-boomers will get a charge from it since it has been out of circulation for so long. As a curiosity item, just fair. ** from **** | 2 | trimmed_train |
24,658 | The location of the shop around the corner is precisely stated at the start of the film, Balta Street in Budapest but it could really be in any place. The small number of sets reflect a middle European design but it could be a shop around any corner. The film is not about Budapest or the retail leather goods business but about the ups and downs of love, reflected in most of the main characters.<br /><br />Alfred Kralik and Klara Novak are sparring partners at work but their anonymous letters to each other are full of hope and aspiration and romance, and the story unwinds to bring these two aspects together beautifully. Hugo Matuschek, the owner of the shop, is having trouble with his wife, she only a voice at the end of the phone. Ferencz Vadas has a secret affair. Ilona Novodny has a gentleman friend who buys her fur garments. Mr Pirovitch's life is centred around his wife and children. Pepi Katona 'plays Santa Claus' to a girl at Christmas. You even sense that quiet Flora Katchuck, while staying at home with her mother dreams of someone.<br /><br />The script is a masterpiece of comedy and drama. It moves effortlessly from scene to scene. It is one of those quiet films that repays looking at again and again, simple yet profound. The dialogue reflects the character speaking which is not common these days. <br /><br />All the acting is magnificent. Even the minor characters like the waiter in the cafe and the policeman in the street are perfect. James Stewart and Margaret Sullavan play off each other perfectly. He was really getting into his stride as an actor then and gives a sweet and sharp performance. Margaret Sullavan was a terrific actor and under appreciated these days. Some of her other films are worth catching. As Mr Matuschek, Frank Morgan is amazing. His moment of truth is very moving. Gold stars all round to the performers.<br /><br />It is a well worn phrase that they don't make them like they used to (The vague re-make 'You've Got Mail' was dire) but in this case it is true. The director Lubitsch is not in farce mode thankfully but delivered a classic film of spirit, charm and warm humanity. | 3 | trimmed_train |
5,422 | Really it's a dreadful cheat of a film. Its 70-minute running time is very well padded with stock footage. The rest are non descript exteriors and drab interiors scenes. The plot exposition is very poorly rendered. They are all just perfunctory scenes sort of strung together. There is no attempt at drama in scene selection but rather drama is communicated by the intensity of the actors. Please don't ask.<br /><br />The plot concerns a rocket radiating a million degree heat orbiting earth five miles up threatening to destroy the earth. It's a real time menace that must be diverted if a custom built H-bomb can be fashioned and placed in an experimental rocket within an hour. Nothing very much here to report except for a mad speech by a scientist against the project because there might be some sort of life aboard and think of the scientific possibilities but this speech made by the obligatory idiot liberal was pretty much passé by then.<br /><br />What saves this film, somewhat uniquely, IS the stock footage. I've never seen a larger selection of fifties jet fighter aircraft in any other film. This is by no means a complete list but just some of the aircraft I managed to see. There's a brief interception by a pilot flying, in alternate shots, an F-89 Scorpion and an F-86. First to scramble interceptors is the Royal Canadian Air Force in Hawker Hunters and F-86 Sabre Jets (or Canadian built CF-13s) and even a pair of CF-100 Clunks.<br /><br />Then for some reason there are B-52s, B-47s and even B36s are seen taking off. More padding.<br /><br />"These Canadian jets are moving at 1200 miles an hour". I don't think so since one of them appears to be a WW2 era Gloster Meteor, the rest F-80s. The Meteors press the attack and one turns into a late F-84F with a flight of early straight wing F-84s attacking in formation.<br /><br />There's a strange tandem cockpit version of the F-80 that doesn't seem to be the T-33 training type but some sort of interim all-weather interceptor variant with radar in the nose. These are scrambled in a snowstorm.<br /><br />An angled deck aircraft carrier is seen from about 500 meters. It launches F-8U Crusaders, F-11F Tigers, A-5 Vigilantes and A-3 Skywarriors. The Air Force scrambles F-86s and F-84s and more F-89s then you've ever seen in your life as well as F-100 Super Sabres and F-102 Delta Daggers.<br /><br />The F-100s press their attack with sooooo much padding. The F-89's unload their rockets in their wingtip pods in slo mo. The F-86s fire, an F-102 lets loose a Falcon, even some F-80s (F-94s?) with mid-wing rocket pods let loose. There is a very strange shot of a late model F-84 (prototype?) with a straight wing early model F-85 above it in a turn, obviously a manufacturer's (Republic Aviation) advertising film showing the differences between the old and the new improved models of the F-84 ThunderJet. How it strayed into here is anybodies guess.<br /><br />There is other great stock footage of Ottawa in the old days when the capital of Canada was a wide spot in the road and especially wonderful footage of New York City's Times Square during one of the Civil Defense Drills in the early 50s. <br /><br />I think we also have to deal with the notion that this was filmed in Canada with the possible exception of the auto chase seen late in the picture as the Pacific seems to be in the background. The use of a Jowett Jupiter is somewhat mind-boggling and there is a nice TR 3 to be seen also. Canada must have been cheap and it is rather gratuitously used a lot in the background.<br /><br />As far as the actual narrative of the film there is little to recommend it other than the mystery of just who Ellen Parker is giving the finger to at the end of the picture. And she most definitely is flipping someone off. Could it be, R as in Robert Loggia? The director who dies before this film was released? Her career as this was her last credit?<br /><br />Its like the newspaper the gift came wrapped in was more valuable than the gift. | 2 | trimmed_train |
837 | This is easily one of the worst 5 movies I've ever seen. It's not scary or any of the other things suggested in the plot outline. This movie is agonizingly slow and I was bored for almost all 98 minutes. While the acting is mediocre at best, the biggest problem is the script, which is poorly written, slow and plodding with no real direction. Occasionally an eerie mood is set only to be broken by some useless line or event. I'm not surprised that the entire cast was sick and throwing up between shots, they did after all have to try and digest a terrible script. As a huge fan of good horror movies, I'm always irritated that something this bad gets made. Save yourself 98 minutes you'll never get back. | 0 | trimmed_train |
22,352 | Had fun watching this film.. despite the feeling I got a lot of the time, that this film was almost copying Monsters Inc. There're quite a few things that are extremely similar between the two, the relationship between an animal/monster and a small child, other animals trying to break that relationship, etc. It felt like that pretty much throughout the film, to me.<br /><br />One of the redeeming features though, is Scrat :) Very very funny character, even if he serves no purpose :) | 1 | trimmed_train |
22,181 | Well, what can I say having just watched this fantastic film, when my nerves are still jangling! Jacques Audiard the director must be making quite a name for himself in France, and rightly so. Vince Cassel is no Tom Cruise and Emmanuelle Devos is no Penelope Cruz either, but these two are fantastic actors, and this is a taut and compelling thriller which starts off slowly with some clever character building and then starts to put tension on tension to a wonderful climax. Others have written about the plot, so I will not say more than everyone in this film plays their role to perfection, the director, the actors, right down to the cameraman, and everything seems so real, no stupid gun play, the fighting when it happens is so credible, the expressions, the emotions, it is almost as you are there as a spectator. Do yourself a favour, get the DVD, a bottle of wine, turn the lights low, take the phone off the hook and immerse yourself in this Hitchcockian thriller :) | 3 | trimmed_train |
4,286 | This does give away some of the plot, by the way. A Charlie Brown Christmas is one of those timeless classics that teach you the value Christmas and just enjoying the holiday. This, however, does not. It tries to capture the emotion of A Charlie Brown Christmas, there even is another Christmas play, but fails with lackluster and easy jokes. Charlie Brown is no longer wondering about the spirit of Christmas but is instead wants to buy a present for Peggy Jean ($25 gloves...what?). His sister Sally is the most annoying character in the movie. Here is one of her jokes: Sally wants to write a letter to Santa, but doesn't know how to spell Charlie (for some reason he needs to be in her letter) so instead decides to name him Sam, because she knows how to spell Sam. Also, Sally plays an angel in the play with one word to day: "Hark!" She instead says hockey stick (har har). If Sally saying hark 12 times (all oddly sounding exactly the same) doesn't kill you, nothing will. Peppermint Patty and Marcy are a large focal point, but that hardly makes it better. Marcy is funny with her responses to Patty, but Patty is another story. She sounds like a boy (which doesn't dispel the rumors) and gets mad when she has to be the sheep in the play (terrible baas and all). Apparently she is the sheep every year, and is worried she will forget her lines (lines she doesn't have). She is so worried she mentions it twice, one right after the other, and gets the same response. I'm assuming she must have short term memory loss, or something. Lucy and Linus are more welcome (although Linus still has annoying advice), but hardly amount to much air time. I'm sure Schroeder isn't even in this one. All in all, it tries to be a parasite to the original, but compromised the message for a few quick laughs. | 2 | trimmed_train |
18,372 | Steven Speilberg's adaptation of Alice Walkers popular novel is not without its share of controversy. When first released members of the black community criticised its treatment of black men, while others questioned why a white man was directing this film about black women.<br /><br />This is the story of a young black woman named Celie, growing up in rural America after the turn of the century. She has two children by her abusive father which are snatched from her arms at birth. Her only solace in her miserable life comes from her sister.<br /><br />Celie (played in later years by newcomer Whoopie Goldberg) is married off to an abusive husband (Danny Glover). The husband is humiliated by the sister and so she is quickly removed from Celie's life.<br /><br />The story is often heartbreaking as Celie keeps up hope that she may one day be reunited with her sister and with her children. Throughout her life she meets an assortment of characters, including Sophia, a tough as nails wife to her step son, and Shug, a loud and luscious saloon singer, who teaches her a thing or two about love.<br /><br />Speilberg's direction is all over this picture, which offers brilliant cinematography and some stellar performances. I dare you to watch this film and not be moved! The film The Color Purple manages to capture the essence of what is a complicated story. While it tends to minimise the lesbian aspects as well as the African story, both of which were so vivid in the book, the movie remains true to its themes, allowing the voice of Alice Walker to shine through.<br /><br />I couldn't begin to respond to the controversy that surrounded this film. Suffice it to say, however, this is one of the few films that I can watch again and again, and which has left an indelible mark on me.<br /><br /> | 3 | trimmed_train |
17,477 | Deliverance is the fascinating, haunting and sometimes even disturbing tale by James Dickey, turned into a brilliant movie by John Boorman. It's about four businessmen, driven by manhood and macho-behavior, who're spending a canoeing weekend high up in the mountains. Up there, they're faced with every darkest side of man and every worst form of human misery...poverty, buggery and even physical harassment! These four men intended to travel down the river for adventure and excitement but their trip soon changes into an odyssey through a violent and lurking mountain-land, completely estranged from all forms of civilisation. All these elements actually make Deliverance one of the most nightmarish films I've ever seen. Just about everything that happens to these men, you pray that you'll never find yourself to be in a similar situation. Pure talking cinema, Deliverance is a very important movie as well. John Boorman's best (closely followed by Zardoz and Excalibur) was - and still is - a very influential film and it contains several memorable scenes that already featured in numberless other movies. Just think about the terrific "Duelling banjos" musical score and, of course, the unforgettable homosexual "squeal like a pig" rape scene. All the actors deliver (haha) perfect acting performances. Especially Jon Voight. A must see motion picture!! | 1 | trimmed_train |
5,524 | This film can't make up its mind whether its message is "humans are evil and bad and animals are sweet and blameless" or "don't ever go in the water again." A fisherman (Nolan) is out to nab a killer whale, a very bad thing, but when he accidentally (ACCIDENTALLY mark you) hits a pregnant cow instead of her mate, the cow -- and I use the word in all senses -- who is obviously a sick psycho-bitch and the canonical villain of the piece -- throws herself against the propellers trying to chew herself to bits in the most distressing and hideous not to mention ineffectual method of killing herself. (I doubt it was her first.) When her unborn fetus aborts from her hideous self-inflicted wounds, her mate goes mental with revenge and swears to hurt, kill and mutilate every human who even so much as talks to Nolan. Obviously as among humans, total psychos date other total psychos.<br /><br />The film reeks of half-thought out anti-human message, "the poor poor whale!! the evil men must suffer and die!" and yet, it does not succeed in demonizing Nolan at all. It's true that when he set out his motives were selfish and cruel, but at the first squeal of the first whale he grows a heart and, as the film progresses, he grows more and more compassionate to the whale's pain until it seems he will walk out on the ice and give himself to the whale, just to make it feel a little better.<br /><br />The films final journey, in which Nolan follows the whale on a bizarre journey to the north, reminds me of Melville's eerie man-whale connection, and for a moment hinted at a truly interesting conclusion, where these two husbands might connect, understand even respect each other in their own grief, for Nolan lost his wife and unborn child also to an accident. It's clear Nolan respects the whale and feels for its loss. However, it never goes there. The whale-character has no compassion or respect for anyone.<br /><br />The final scene loses this focus and becomes Jaws-like where the sea-monster finally kills everybody and Nolan and no-doubt through an oversight, fails to chomp up the whale-hugger (tho he made a good snap for her head a little earlier.) I love animals, and I detest whaling, and what is more I love orca whales, but if this film's goal was to make me feel that the whale was the victim and that people are evil and detestable it completely failed. Nolan shows compassion and growth, and feels for others, and all the whale thinks about is killing and maiming.<br /><br />The only message one can walk away with is "If you see an orca whale, ever, anywhere, run the other way cause if you step on his FIN the wrong way, he will hunt you to the ends of the earth destroying everything around you." | 0 | trimmed_train |
8,009 | This rip off of the 1984 hit "Gremlins" is quite possibly the biggest train wreck of a movie ever made. Even for a 'B' grade movie, all other cheap horror movies on the same platform completely dwarf this movie in terms of plot, acting, and goodness.<br /><br />It begins with a random old security guard and the younger punky security guard whose name is of no importance. Why? Because a few minutes into the film he walks into the 'forbidden' safe, and is killed whilst living out his fantasy of being a rock star in a cheap pub.<br /><br />This is just an appetizer for the scat-filled main course. The main character, KEVIN, struggles various times to prove himself as more than a total pussy. Perhaps he succeeds within the film, but to the audience he proves himself as nothing more than a bad actor. Kevin gets himself a job with the old security guard, and is guided through his security shift in the (wait for it) abandoned studio lot. Yes why bother making a set when you can just use the studio itself. Back to the film. Kevin somehow opens the forbidden safe and releases the Hobgoblins. The Hobgoblins force people to live out their wildest fantasies and then kill them for some reason. They must be returned before sunrise or else...or else what? Exactly.<br /><br />Other characters include Kevin's 'macho' army friend NICK, Nick's 'woman' DAPHNE whose character has no more substance than a bitch-slut attitude and prostitute worthy outfits. There is Kevin's manipulative and 'reserved' girlfriend AMY, whose deepest desire is apparently to be a badly portrayed Cher look-alike with fishnet stockings with a pair of blue grandma underpants on top.. Don't ask me how that works. Quite possibly the most entertaining character of all is KYLE. How such groups of friends are made is up for question. Kyle is a perverted creep who can't go an hour without self-stimulating. His hobbies include calling up sex-chat lines from other people's houses and most likely sniffing underwear.<br /><br />The story unfolds as the heroes search for the Hobgoblins: knee-high creatures (aka. hand puppets) which, for some reason, attempt to travel no further than the borders of the local neighborhood. Each of the characters eventually lives out their wildest fantasy which never has anything to do with having millions of dollars... or the film having a big budget.<br /><br />WARNING SPOILERS AHEAD: The twist at the end of this movie will leave the watcher wondering "What?". The Hobgoblins are returned to the safe by...their own free will. Perhaps they lost patience waiting for sunrise to wreak havoc, or perhaps the story-writers got writer's cramp and decided not to worry about the ending. Upon returning to the safe, the old security guard reveals "What he learned in the military" and detonates explosives which destroys the safe, signaling the end of the evil Hobgoblins and the end of this roller coaster ride; better fitted to a ride on an escalator.<br /><br />The sheer badness of this film is enough to send someone to tears. If you plan to watch it, I recommend a few alcoholic drinks beforehand to take any serious consideration of the film out of mind. | 0 | trimmed_train |
10,859 | Pedantic, overlong fabrication which attempts to chronicle the birth of the Federal Bureau of Investigations. Begins quite promisingly, with a still-relevant probe into an airplane explosion, however the melodrama involving James Stewart and wife Vera Miles just gets in the way (Miles had a habit of playing tepid wives under duress, and her frayed nerves arrive here right on schedule). Esteemed director Mervyn LeRoy helmed this adaptation of Don Whitehead's book, but despite the talent involved, the picture fails to make much of an impression. Best performance is turned in by Murray Hamilton as Stewart's partner, however most of the dialogue is ludicrous and the dogged pacing causes the movie to seem twice as long as it is. *1/2 from **** | 2 | trimmed_train |
10,237 | This movie down-shifts from 4th into 1st without bothering with 3rd or 2nd, grinding gears all the way to the sappy, b-movie finish-line. The con at the beginning is easily the best and cleverest part of the movie. That is worth seeing. The scene with Harlow in the bathtub occurs so fast, you may miss it. Definitely not worth all the ballyhoo provided by Robert Osborne in his TCM intro to this bad-to-mediocre confusion. There is no real conflict, and all of the characters in this supposed fringe society turn out to be saints - especially the unbelievable character, Al. I wonder if he's got a job for me in Cincinnati? | 2 | trimmed_train |
18,111 | When I saw this movie I was stunned by what a great movie it was. This is the only movie I think I would ever give a 10 star rating. I am sure this movie will always be in my top 5.<br /><br />The acting is superb. Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslett are at their best. I don't think anyone could have a better job than Kate. <br /><br />If it is a rainy day and you can't decide what to rent, well, this is the one. You will love all the acting, special effects, and much much more.<br /><br />If you have not seen this movie go rent or buy it now!!! You won't regret it.<br /><br /> | 3 | trimmed_train |
24,371 | This movie, while seemingly based off of a movie of the same title in 1951 released by MGM and starring Janet Leigh, is still a great film. Danny Glover in one of his best performances brings George Knox, a down on his luck baseball manager with a short temper, to life. As for this movie being "stacked", how about adding Christopher Lloyd (his stage experience works and shows through in his performances on screen, a wonderful actor), Joseph Gordon-Levitt (Third Rock from the Sun), Brenda Fricker (a charming and well seasoned Irish actress), Tony Danza (yes even he is good in this film), Matthew McConaughey (he stole the show in Dazed and Confused, and his role may not be as pivotal in this film, but he got exposure), Adrien Brody (what I said about Matthew McConaughey goes the same for Adrien, except the Dazed and Confused part), some great character actors like Taylor Negron (David), Tony Longo (Messmer), Jay O. Sanders (Ranch Wilder), Neal McDonough (Whitt Bass) and a seasoned veteran in one of his final performances, Ben Johnson (Hank Murphy, the owner of the California Angels), and the rest of the cast does a great job, plus a great storyline that is uplifting to pretty much anyone, I don't care what recesses of depression you're in. I loved this film as a kid, and it brings back memories when I watch it today. I need this on DVD. I recommend it to any parent who's looking for something their kids have not seen, and everybody else, for that matter. | 1 | trimmed_train |
18,425 | Reviewed at the Sept 12, 2006 2nd screening at the Paramount 1 theatre during the Toronto International Film Festival. The film had World Premiered the day before at the Elgin Theatre VISA Screening Room.<br /><br />The basic plot involves Morgan Freeman playing a one time popular actor who is on the downward slope of his career and who is taking on roles that may be beneath him, but which he still does with a positive attitude knowing that he needs to pay the rent etc. The downward slope is indicated by his being a long time between roles with previous flicks in bargain DVD bins and his being chauffeured by a not too sure of himself production assistant who drops Freeman off at a local community market where he is going to do research for a role as supermarket manager. He soon discovers the real-life market is run by a iron-willed "10 Items or Less" checkout line clerk played by Paz Vega. When Freeman's ride never returns and Vega needs help in prepping for an interview the circumstances cause them to join forces in a ride across town to get Freeman back home and to get Vega a job that'll get her on a more upwardly mobile career path.<br /><br />While the film was enjoyable, it felt like it was still a sketch or a work in progress. There were two extended musical sequences (One with Vega & Freeman teaching each other children's songs in the car, one that literally plays like a Paul Simon music video) that felt like padding to bring up the time and even then the film was only about 80 minutes long.<br /><br />It's a good thing Morgan Freeman is as well liked as he is because without him this would have been too little. Sure it was funny in parts and Paz Vega is a delight as well, but there was just not enough here to say it was a complete film.<br /><br />They lost me when Morgan Freeman started talking about stopping the car to ask for directions and Paz Vega said she never does that. Who ever heard of a guy wanting to ask for directions and the woman saying no!? In the real world it's the exact opposite.<br /><br />Make sure you stay for the outtakes in the credits. The bit with a Target Store saleslady teaching Morgan Freeman how to hustle sales is just hilarious! An early bit where Freeman's chauffeur insists it is Freeman's voice on a "Books on Tape" reading was also pretty funny.<br /><br />The director/writer Brad Silberling and actress Paz Vega were there for a brief Q&A after the screening. Silberling answered one question saying that the script was not written specifically for Morgan Freeman and that once Freeman took the role he actually changed very little of what was there. Quite a compliment for both Silberling's writing and also about how Freeman can just slip into a role and make it feel entirely like he was born to play it. | 1 | trimmed_train |
6,703 | In 1979 Lucio Fulci released his film Zombi. However, due to the earlier import of George Romero's Dawn of the Dead, which had gone by that name for its Italian release, it was retitled to Zombi 2. (Which also had the bonus of letting the audience think this was a sequel to the second Romero movie). Continuing this theme, the second Zombi film, which would have been called Zombi 2, was then consequently titled Zombi 3. In the UK, the original Zombi film (that is, Zombi 2) was titled "Zombie Flesh Eaters". To continue THIS theme, the second Zombi film (Zombi 3) was then titled "Zombie Flesh Eaters 2" for its UK release. (Are you following all this?) So if Zombie Flesh Eaters was Fulci's Dawn, then is 2 his Day of the Dead? While this is only a flippant observation, this tale of military compounds, helicopters and a plodding narrative certainly does bear a vague thematic resemblance.<br /><br />Some of Fulci's European direction compels in a film like this, but the acting, dubbing and exposition-heavy script are absolutely horrendous. Its ecological message is so forced and overstated it can no longer be considered a subtext, while there's an (unintentionally) hilarious Birds homage. Combining this last element with MOR 80s rock is not a good idea. For some reason I couldn't stop thinking of Time of the Apes (q.v.) the whole time I was watching this. This is obviously not a good thing.<br /><br />While there's nothing here to rival topless scuba-diving, shark wrestling zombies and eyeballs on a splinter, Fulci's misogynistic leanings do get a work out with a hotel cleaner's mouth being ground into a mirror until it gushes blood. His fannish gore predilections also see a hand severing. Both themes are combined when a woman's face is ripped off, first by one zombie, then a zombie foetus that tears out of a pregnant woman's stomach.<br /><br />Production-wise, this is obviously a step up from Zombi, coming five years later. (Nine years in worldwide release terms). But without the original's low-key charm it struggles, while Stefano Mainetti's music is inappropriate and uninspired. Fabio Frizzi's score was one of the best things about the '79 movie. Here zombie attacks are played out to what sounds unnervingly like Bonnie Tyler's "Holding Out For A Hero". In the middle of this carnage we get an irksome love interest, and Roger and Kenny, two bland macho types who do everything with acrobatic urgency and constantly state the obvious. ("We're out of ammunition" to a stalling gun is a particular standout). But where it also falls down is in the zombies themselves. Low key or not, Fulci's original had truly magnificent, rotting zombies. Skull faces, worms in eye sockets... they really were something to behold. By contrast, this dull follow-up opts for the more traditional "men with a bit of paint on their faces" option. <br /><br />The climax rips off too many Romero movies to even be funny, while the use of the DJ is a crass and cheap narrative device. Not containing the same elements of outrage and gratuitous nudity of the first, this is unlikely to have the same cult appeal. <br /><br />It turns out that Fulci actually walked out on the project after reportedly directing just fifteen minutes, the rest filmed by Bruno Mattei. I'm fairly sure that even Fulci would have balked at the ludicrous "flying zombie head" scene, and so credit to the director for having the good sense to leave. Unfortunately, however, it's his name that's above the film title on releases, so the majority of people will be left with the impression that this is a Fulci film through and through. On that scale then it's a major setback for him, for this movie commits what you imagine Fulci would regard as the worst crime of all: that of being boring. | 2 | trimmed_train |
10,151 | Dull, predictable and uninteresting story of a man contaminated by a chemical substance (Weller) who goes on across the country just to find his ex-wife and children; meanwhile, he kills everyone in his way only by a single touch of his hands. In his dangerous track, a doctor (Hurt) and a young reporter (Natasha) try to stop the man. The movie has a not original premise but even though could be much better. The final result is just a movie without suspense or gritting moments. Even the good cast is completely waste. I give this a 4 (four). | 2 | trimmed_train |
2,604 | If you want to learn the basics of quantum mechanics, spend your $9 on a used textbook, not this movie. I'm a little worried that the money I spent is being used to buy Kool-Aid for shipment to Guyana. <br /><br />I don't think the directors really got any point across, but it looks like maybe they were trying to make several: 1) Science can explain everything we do, meaning that our lives are deterministic; 2) Science can't be used to explain everything we do, meaning that we have free will; 3) Science is, like, really cool, brother; 4) We are God; 5) The world exists only in our minds; 6) Sarah Norman is a tough role to follow and 7) here, put this tiny paper square in your mouth and you'll see some really groovy stuff. | 2 | trimmed_train |
14,238 | This is the touching story of two families in Israel and the relationships within each family. Each family has a gay son. The stories are interrelated at that point but this film is about all of the family members, not just the two sons. The portraits of each of the family members in both families are well drawn and the story is consistently interesting if a bit bleak. | 1 | trimmed_train |
11,478 | This movie got extremely silly when things started to happen. I couldn't care less about any of the characters; Susan Walters was so annoying, and the leading actor (forget his name) also got on my nerves. Can't quite remember how it ended and so forth but the whole idea of aliens possessing human bodies and all just seemed stupid in this film, things didn't quite carry off. My dad told me it's s stupid movie...I should've listened to him. | 0 | trimmed_train |
8,601 | What was with all the Turkish actors? No offense but I thought it was all for nothing for all these actors. The film had no script to test any actors acting skill or ability. It demanded next to nothing I bought this film to see Michael Madsen. He is one of my favorite actors but this film was another failure for him. The script was so bad. Their was just nothing to sink your teeth into and all the characters were two dimensional. Madsen tried to act like a hard ass but the script and direction didn't even allow him to do enough with his character to make it more interesting or 3 dimensional.<br /><br />Even the sound effects of the gunfight at the beginning of the film sounded like the noise of paint ball guns when they are fired in a skirmish. It was really weird and they didn't sound like real guns. A video game had better sound effects than this film. There was also a really annoying bloke at the beginning of the film who was a member of the robbery gang. He had this American whining voice like a girl shouting lines like "Lets get the F#$k out of here" and What are we going to do man". He sounded like a girl. As a positive It was funny to watch and it made me laugh too. For a few seconds. Whoo Hoo ! Dumb Film. Poor Madsen. He will bounce back... | 2 | trimmed_train |
8,871 | This is the first film of the Horrorfest I have watched and after Im almost thinking I don't need to see any of the others. I was told its a "thinking mans horror movie" and have to say that if this was supposed to make me think I shutter to think what the splatter/gore films in the collection will be like. Don't get me wrong not even the gore in this film is worth sitting through.<br /><br />The plot is very washed out with way too much art for arts sake. The camera effects and music are out of place most of the time and the characters are banal to say the least. Several characters and scenes seem worthless in the end when they start to reveal some of the hooks of "The Hamiltons". I figured out who Lenny was about half hour in when I figured out the movie. I was so visually under whelmed and confused by the Lenny reveal that I completely felt ripped off. I expected what I got but they could have gone so much further, in fact all the gore falls completely flat. With movies out there like "Hostel" and "Saw" you need to come a little better for a film that is "considered to graphic or too disturbing for general audiences". | 2 | trimmed_train |
778 | I found this movie in the 'horror' section of my video store. That seems to make sense as most zombie movies have their place there. From Romero's 'Dead' trilogy to '28 days later.' However upon watching it, you can quickly see what this movie really is.<br /><br />It is actually a music video that goes progressively faster and gets more and more and more gory. There is no horror here folks. Just some half-way decently staged action scenes which soon grow tiresome because they last... and last... and last... and soon you get the feeling maybe you're DVD player accidentally skipped back 3 minutes, but no, this is how they actually made the movie. It's a pity. I think anyone could find a better use for $7 million dollars in the movie industry than make this lump o' crud. Though some of the 360 effects were cool, but once again, they were over used and grew tedious since it was the same stunt over and over again each time, just with a different character.<br /><br />Also what is ROYALLY annoying is the splicing on of footage from the arcade game. I've played the game. It sucks. So why did they put it in here? Oh that's right, this isn't a movie but a music video, and it's a poor one at that. 3/10<br /><br />Rated R: a lot of violence/gore, and profanity | 2 | trimmed_train |
11,119 | I grew up watching the original Disney Cinderella, and have always loved it so much that the tape is a little worn.<br /><br />Accordingly, I was excited to see that Cinderella 2 was coming on TV and I would be able to see it.<br /><br />I should have known better.<br /><br />This movie joins the club of movie sequels that should have just been left alone. It holds absolutely NONE of the originals super charm! It seems, to me, quite rough, and almost brutal, right from the (don't)Sing-a-longs to the characterization.<br /><br />While I remember the character's telling a story through a song, this film's soundtrack was laid over the top, and didn't seem to fit. Jaq's transformation into a human is a prime example: Where he was walking around eating an apple and adding a few little quips in here and there, he should have been dancing around and singing about how great it was to be tall! And in the ballroom, there's old barn dance type country music. It's as though the writers forgot where and when this story was set. The upbeat fiddles certainly didn't fit.<br /><br />Even the artwork and animation in Cinderella 2 isn't up to scratch with the original. The artwork in this film seems quite raw and less detailed. And we see part of Cinderella's hoop skirt, which doesn't feel right.<br /><br />The movie itself could have been it's own story, I think that it should have been just that. I wouldn't say that I hate it, but I believe that it had many shortcomings. It seems to downgrade in a significant way from the beloved Cinderella original. | 2 | trimmed_train |
19,577 | I can't believe John died! While filming an episode he collapsed on set! read this, (out of his biography online):John Ritter was Born In Burbank , Calafornia , On September 17th 1948. <br /><br />He landed his last television role in "8 Simple Rules for Dating My Teenage Daughter" (2002), based on the popular book. On this sitcom, he played Paul Hennessey, a loving, yet rational dad, who laid down the ground rules for his three children. The show was a ratings winner in its first season and won a Peoples Choice Award for Best New Comedy and also won for Favorite Comedy Series by the Family Awards! While working "8 Simple Rules", he also starred in his second-to-last film, Manhood (2003)<br /><br />That Same Year , While John Was Rehearsing for The 4th (3rd series) Episode of 8 Simple Rules (Now Shortened), he fell ill. Henry Winkler described it as "John Looked Like He Had Food Poisoning".Then He collapsed on the Set, he was quickly rushed to a Nearby Hospital, The Same Burbank Hospital Where He Was Born ,he was diagnosed with an aorta dissection, an Unrecognized Heart Flaw, he Underwent Surgery but did not make it. John Ritter Died At Age 54 , just 1 Week Away from His 55th Birthday , leaving His Wife Amy Yasbeck and 4 Children. | 3 | trimmed_train |
15,947 | This movie was recommended to me by a friend. I never saw an ad or a trailer, so I didn't know Clooney was in it and was not bothered by the fact that his role was so small. I thought the whole cast was suitable, and found the film pretty enjoyable, all in all. The opening scene, with the small crew of bandits standing at the side of the road, looking whipped and haggard, caught my attention immediately. It had a way of telling you, "don't go away; this won't be boring", and it really wasn't. It turned out to be an interesting, light-hearted comedy with enough twists and turns to keep you in your seat to the very end, but when the ending did arrive, I felt a little bit cheated....just a little bit. The events kept building up so that you expect them to continue building, but at a point that I can't define, it sort of levels out, making the ending a slight disappointment. I reckon I expected a bigger bang of a climax, but it turned out sort of low-key. If you watch the movie with that in mind and you can live without high dosages of George Clooney, you should find this flick very entertaining and well worth watching. Now I'd like to see the original (Big Deal on Madonna Street), but it's probably a rare find in the United States. | 1 | trimmed_train |
20,417 | ... when this movie so well proves that they indeed are unnecessary.<br /><br />Although few lines, it was kind of weird to see this movie, no subs, in a language unknown. A friend of mine sent a VHS, included a few pieces of papers with all lines translated to English. with her translation next to me, I began watching this tale (it is indeed a tale), and from the very first tunes of the whistling melody during opening credits I was stuck. the colours, that minimal acting (well, in most cases), absurd comedy, slapstick, thoughtful, beautiful... along with a few other movies (Paris, Texas and Nenette et Boni), this one is able to speak to anyone's heart - without words. Whenever you get the chance, see it. Whatever you do - don't miss it. It's a once in a lifetime experience. Oh, acting is great, the soundtrack is brilliant, the story is simple and told a thousand times before - but rarely (never?) like this. | 3 | trimmed_train |
10,821 | ...am i missing something here??? "unexpected plot developments"? "plot twisting with subversive glee"? are these viewers watching the same Arquette vehicle to which i just subjected myself (in an now-obvious sub(un)conscious bout of sadomasochism)...I just joined this site simply to make sure that no one else ever rents this stinker...this movie was an embarrassment to every single person involved...quick question: did Sir Stevie read the script before he gave the thumbs-up to Kate C.? if so, then it must be the same Spielberg who greenlighted "howard the duck"...don't give me that, "it was a hit play" crap--i'm guessing Mssr. Reddin ain't too pleased ...the DVD cover promised "surprising corners" and a "twisted story..." Story!!Story?? It's crap like this that make old Bobby McKee and his wandering band of Structuralists sound like geniuses...Sundance??Berlin??Toronto?? I have a home video of my cat farting that evokes more interest than Arquette's negatively-dimensional portrayal of anguished loss...and, talk about deux ex machina for Mr. Stanley T.; thank god, just in the nick o time he thought to have Dave call the cops! and thank shiva that the cops had just caught the true killer...what!!! up until the credits i was still waiting for it to be some kind of grift against Arquette and his "hidden millions"...no, Mrs. Spielberg, you don't escape unscathed: what the hell was that kitchen scene with the "athlete's foot in my crotch" gag??? are you worse in this or "just cause"?? i dunno...hey film lovers: why don't you make it a blockbuster night and rent this along with "jersey girl" and "white chicks" and then commit sepukka (or is it seppuka)...and take E. Dunsky with you.... | 0 | trimmed_train |
7,028 | It's a while ago, that I have seen Sleuth (1972) with two great actors Michael Caine and Laurence Olivier. Michael Caine is back, but he is now the husband and Jude Law the lover of his wife. The story is still the same and it's a fantastic play.<br /><br />During the movie I always had the feeling to watch a play. That's one of the reasons I dislike this remake of a classic. When I watch a movie adapted a play I still must feel to see a movie and not just a play. Director Kenneth Brannigan did some marvelous movies in the past, but this time he missed. Another reason was the look of the movie. The design was modern, stylish clean, uncomfortable and cold. I never got the feeling that somebody ever lived in that house. The photography wasn't bad, but the lightening was awful. Sometimes there was blue light, dark, green light, to round it up not friendly for eyes.<br /><br />The acting was really good. Michael Caine's and Jude Law's perform at their best. I really would like to see these 2 guys playing together on stage. But I have to confess I never was a fan of Jude Law. The weakest part was the mid part. I remember that in the original that this part was still very mysterious and just marvelous directed. I tried to watch it twice and always in the mid part I felt asleep. The end part is better and more interesting. Sleuth (2007) isn't awful, but it seems to be more a movie for critics than for the audience. Sleuth (1972) is still a masterpiece and much more entertaining than Sleuth (2007). | 2 | trimmed_train |
13,734 | George Cukor directs a brooding and cynical classic. The distinctive Ronald Coleman is at his best in this piece of Noir about an actor who loses himself in his roles. The acclaimed Anthony John(Colman)has driven his wife Brita(Signe Hasso)away with his highly fueled temper and erratic behavior. But the two manage to continue working together to please their audiences. Things begin to change as John is becoming bored with his career; he reluctantly agrees to play Othello. He gets deep into character as a jealous and murderous man. He begins walking a thin line between illusion and reality and ends up confusing his role with his own life and eventually kills his mistress(Shelley Winters),but has no memory of the dastardly deed.<br /><br />Colman seems faultless in this role. Winters is very impressive as the young woman determined to get away from her squalid life. Also in the cast: Edmond O'Brien, Ray Collins, Joe Sawyer and Whit Bissell. | 1 | trimmed_train |
1,093 | This weekend just passed I watched "28 Weeks Later" which was very good. After that I watched this film. <br /><br />I have tell you it is one of the most boring so called horror you could ever watch. The scenes were unrealistic, there was no script and no plot. The alien creature was unreal. And the fight scenes mild compared to a school yard fight. And to make it worse the guy named Cody had an uncontrollable loose filthy tongue which distracts attention from the main film.<br /><br />Forget about this movie; rather go and watch 28 Weeks Later.<br /><br />Cheers, Mesake C. | 0 | trimmed_train |
11,840 | This movie is very important because suggested me this consideration: sometimes you can wish to be sick ... sometimes you can wish to have a syndrome ... sometimes, for example, you can wish have Goldfield Syndrome... that way you'd not remember this boring movie ... and above all you'd not remember Adam "superfluos" Sandler... sometimes, simply, you can wish... have rented another movie...<br /><br />My vote? 3 out of 10. My suggestion? If you are neither a fan of boring romantic comedies or Adam Sandler (...it's a joke don't exist Adam Sandler's fan...I want to hope it), save yourself... Someone to save? Drew Barrymore. ... perhaps. | 2 | trimmed_train |
12,741 | This highly underrated film is (to me) what good writing in a movie should be all about. Kasdan takes the search for meaning in our lives and lays it out for all to see and wonder at. The movie is about the divides people create to insulate themselves from the violence and hatred and bigotry of everyday life. <br /><br /> Along the way we are asked question after question about life. Davis (Steve Martin with a great beard) asks himself 'Is my making a violent movie (and by extension our enjoyment of it) causing the violence in society?' Claire asks "What kind of world throws away something as precious as a human life?' Mack is not immune as he asks 'Is it possible to pass beyond the bounds of race and (an even harder step) finance? These are of course not quoted from the film, but generalities. Others ask their questions too, and to be honest it raises more than it answers.<br /><br /> But that is the nature of life. We strive all our lives to find answers to questions we will never totally answer, and in certain cases have to make answers fit to our own needs and desires. As humans we thrive on questions we cannot answer. Some answers are real. Claire and Mack come to realize that even though they could take the easy road and let the state take the baby, their finding it placed the responsibility for her life in their hands. Some answers are not. Davis `Sees the Light' and decides not to make violent films, but the next day turns around and dismisses his epiphany as subordinate to his art.<br /><br /> We all seek answers. This movie does not answer them for; it simply reminds you to keep looking for the answers.<br /><br /> | 1 | trimmed_train |
13,967 | If my expectations weren't exceeded, they were certainly met. "Nancy Drew" works both as a mystery and a comedy. It pays homage to the books it was based on and spoofs them at the same time. The movie starts with a close-up on a book shelf and an animated credit sequence resembling illustrations from the books. It then begins lampooning the books immediately. Writer/director Andrew Fleming seems to realize the idea of a teenage girl regularly breaking up crime rings in a small town is ridiculous, so he doesn't treat the idea religiously. He pokes fun at Nancy Drew's ability to do anything, such as ace every class in school, know which baked treat is perfect for converting any enemy to her side, make a bird house with twelve flying buttresses, and even perform an emergency tracheotomy at a party. Nancy'd always be in perfect style, if she were living in the wholesome 1950's instead of present day L.A. And she carries around a "sleuth kit" complete with fingerprinting dust, flashlight, compass, and magnifying glass. Preposterous, of course, but I seem to remember the Hardy Boys' access at any given moment to CSI equipment being a little too convenient as well. And if the perky pipsqueak private eye is a little younger than her literary counterpart, it's just more comedic exaggeration on the movie's part.<br /><br />The mystery of the movie is handled more seriously. Nancy and her lawyer father move from their small town to Los Angeles, where Nancy digs into a cold case involving the murder of a Hollywood movie star who lived in her new house decades ago. Nancy searches for clues in some pretty practical ways, such as surfing websites like Google and this one and watching old videotapes of the victim's movies. When she does something more out of the ordinary, you have to admire the girl's resourcefulness. Emma Roberts, an undeniably cute kid, plays the pint-sized amateur sleuth beautifully. She makes the too-perfect girl completely lovable, if not completely realistic. Tate Donovan is also great as the too-perfect girl's father, Carson Drew. He's an ideal father figure without being unrealistically perfect, and he shows reasonable concern for his daughter as she gets into danger. Less likable is Max Thierot's take on Ned Nickerson, Nancy's boyfriend. I much preferred George O'Hanlon Jr.'s portrayal in the 1970's TV series starring Pamela Sue Martin as Nancy Drew, in which Ned was a gawky, awkward kid with a little crush on Nancy. The character of Corky (Josh Flitty), a twelve-year old with a crush on Nancy, is much less annoying than Max Thierot's Ned. Amy Bruckner and Kay Panabaker seem appropriately cast as Nancy's gal pals Bess and George, but they only make brief cameos at the beginning of the film.<br /><br />Speaking of cameos, Chris Kattan (SNL), Eddie Jemison ("Ocean's 13"), and Bruce Willis all make surprise guest appearances, which just proves you never can guess which movie Bruce Willis will pop up in next.<br /><br />The movie does fail to live up to some potential. It's mentioned early on that the Drews' new house is heavily booby-trapped, but Nancy and her father are done with tripping over booby traps a few minutes after that. Also, Nancy describes the cold case she's about to investigate as a murder taking place at an extravagant party, which should yield plenty of potential murderers, but she only encounter a handful of suspects. And while there's some moments of real suspense during Nancy's adventures, the solution to the case comes out of nowhere, and in the end all possible plot threads are tied up too conveniently and who-cares-who-done-it. Ralph Sall's score adds to the movie's suspense, but the contemporary teenybopper songs woven into the soundtrack are lame. Still, I really enjoyed this film, and while the movie is aimed primarily at tween girls, people of any age and gender can enjoy it. | 3 | trimmed_train |
16,642 | A hit at the time but now better categorised as an Australian cult film. The humour is broad, unsubtle and, in the final scene where a BBC studio fire is extinguished by urinating on it, crude. Contains just about every cliche about the traditional Australian pilgrimage to 'the old country', and every cliche about those rapacious, stuck up, whinging, Tory Brits. Would be acceptable to the British because of its strong cast of well known actors, and to Australians of that generation, who can 'get' the humour. Americans -- forget it. The language and jokes are in the Australian dialect of English and as such will be unintelligible. | 3 | trimmed_train |
22,906 | This is the one in which the diminutive Ruth Gordon plays an Agatha-Christie type of murder mystery author who locks her nephew by marriage into a safe. Gordon believes that he murdered her niece and the young fellow dies of suffocation, while Gordon is traveling back and forth to New York. He manages, however, to leave behind some clues, scratches on a couple of black safe deposit boxes and an improvised and well-hidden note. Columbo enters the case, suspects her at once, and solves the mystery by simply using his supernatural mystical intuitive powers. Oh, and Mariette Hartley is on hand as Gordon's secretary and would-be blackmailer. Hartley is, I believe, the grand daughter of the psychologist B. F. Skinner. I'm not sure her ancestry had anything to do with her attractive belly button, which is on display during a belly dance sequence, but I've always admired Skinner anyway.<br /><br />The murder is well handled. It's a good plot, and none of the performers or crew fluff anything. But the outstanding figure here is Ruth Gordon, only a skosh over five feet tall. She was over 80 years old and looked it. There are moments when she almost teeters, but she consistently exudes charm. Her acting is idiosyncratic. You can never be sure when she's being serious or when she's putting Columbo and the audience on. She's given some good lines too. What humor there is comes from Gordon. Columbo doesn't have any of his frequent comic moments.<br /><br />All in all, a nice job by everyone concerned. | 1 | trimmed_train |
19,924 | I LOVE the Doodlebops. My son has been watching them for over a year. We went to the Doodlebops concert last year as well as one concert yesterday (connecticut). He LOVES them. The doodlebops do not teach the alphabet or numbers but who cares? are you being serious? the TV isn't suppose to teach your children about numbers or the alphabet. the parents should. Get over it. The Doodlebops actually CAN sing. Deedee has a beautiful voice and in concert you can tell all 3 of them have nice singing voices and do NOT lip sing. Imagine, they dance, jump around and STILL sing. they have talent, the kids love them i even enjoy watching the show. This show is by far the best show on TV for kids. AND a rock band for children. How amazing is that? Why are people saying Chad (rooney) is gay? where did you hear that from? Whether he is or not, He is awesome! Leave him alone. Its not like he or anyone else is promoting homosexuality to our children! | 3 | trimmed_train |
14,162 | Why did it sound like the husband kept calling her Appy ? It ruined a great episode and so I can only give it a 6. Proper grammar and pronunciation are essential to a film.<br /><br />It was very Hellraiser what with all the skin ripping though I dunno how anyone can survive without skin the skin is a vital organ to the body the biggest organ actually and without we would die. The more a horror film is true the more creepy it can be and more entertaining.<br /><br />I do admit though that the stories from the great horror directors are very disappointing and very mediocre. <br /><br />6/10 come on Yankies get your English up to par ! | 1 | trimmed_train |
18,877 | The only reason I knew of Midnight Cowboy was because it was in the AFI Critic's Top 100. For a top 100 it is not a very well known movie; indeed, I had to look hard to find a copy, I got the DVD version for about half-price. Surprisingly it was only rated M15+ (the uncut version).<br /><br />I doubt many will take notice of this review (more like comment) so I'll make it brief.<br /><br />This is perhaps one of the strangest movies I've seen, partly because of the use of montages, artistic filming (very art-house) and the unusual theme. There are many things in the film I still don't understand (I've seen it twice), and it makes for an emotionally confusing film.<br /><br />The filming and acting were very good, and it is the larger than life characters which make this film memorable. The main character is Joe Buck, a 'cowboy' from Texas who moves to New York to become a male prostitute. He meets the crippled conman Enrico 'Ratso' Rizzo and, of course they become friends going through the usual escapades. What makes the film interesting is the two characters are so different.<br /><br />I felt the film didn't really develop the relationship between Buck and Enrico Rizzo for the audience to have any real emotional connection, although the ending is certainly quite sad and tragic. You probably already know what happens by reading the reviews, but its pretty obvious from the start.<br /><br />I personally think the film beautifully and poignantly explores its main themes. The deprivation of humanity (shown by the darkness of the city streets, the breaking-down tenements). Most of the characters in the film exist beyond the law (a conman, giggolo.etc) yet you can't help liking them. Joe Buck is endearing because he is so naive and optimistic, while we begin to feel pity for Ratso later in the film.<br /><br />I think the film was rated so high because it was certainly very ground-breaking for its period. At the time (And even now) it was definitely not a typical movie (quite art-house). At a time when the cinema was dominated by tired westerns, musicals and dramas a film with such an unusual theme as Midnight Cowboy pops up.<br /><br />On a personal level, I must say I quite liked the film. The imagery conveyed a dream-like quality. I particularly liked the scene at the party, the music, images etc stay in your mind for a long time after watching. However, as a movie for entertainment's sake it was a bit lacking (not really my style of movie) in thrills. This is a film to be savoured and appreciated, rather than a cheap thrills action flick.<br /><br />Although I would hardly consider myself qualified to analyse this film, the characters and their motives were quite interesting. From what I understand from the flashbacks, Joe Buck was sexually abused as a child by his grandmother, although it still doesn't seem to be relevant to the story. He is a happy-go-lucky young stud, who suppresses his darker memories. The religious connotations in the film are also puzzling. Some have suggested a homosexual connection between Buck and Ratso, although I fail to see where they have got the idea from. The theme of homo-sexuality in general is more than touched upon in their conversation, and later in Joe Buck's encounter with a lonely old man, but it has little to do with the main story.<br /><br />Certainly from a technical point of view one of the finest films of the decade (it has more of a 70s feel to it than a 60s feel) and revolutionary for its time touching on subjects few other films dared to do. While it has a simple, sentimental story to it (disguised by a hard edge) the beauty of the film is in the strange, often psychedelic sequences. | 1 | trimmed_train |
15,476 | "La Maman et la putain" is the beautifulest film of all time. And what's most moving about it may be the relation between reality and art the movie deals with, which is directly inspired by Proust's "A la Recherche du temps perdu".<br /><br />Indeed, "La Maman et la putain" and "In search of lost time" apparently tell the same story : the one of the failure of love, which repeats itself endlessly. The first woman's name is always Gilberte, and the second woman appears like a twisted and deformed double of Gilberte : Veronika is like a "whore Gilberte", beautiful like the night, whereas Gilberte was pure, and "beautiful like the day". After the failure of the first love, a second love begins, but this one is like already doomed by the first one. Veronika takes the place of Gilberte, in Alexandre's life and in the movie. She progressively eclipses her, first by time to time, Gilberte's still coming when Alexandre waits for Veronika,then totally. That shows it's the same sad story repeating itself, the same "unfaithful woman", like Alexandre says, who appears endlessly - and unfaithful is for Proust the higher point in love, which makes it exist, but which also underlines its illusions.<br /><br />Art is what causes the passage between what's outside - the illusion of love - to what's inside, which is the truth, and is a learning of this truth. For instance, when Veronika notices the strange way Alexandre makes is bed, he answers that he saw it in a movie, and then, that a movie, "it's made for that, to learn how to live, how to make a bed". Alexander wants to live like he was in a film, he wants his life to be art. <br /><br />This conception of art comes from Proust, with whom Eustache shares the same rejection of "political art" and realism in art. "La Maman et la putain" fights against a conception of art "principaly political" - see for example the ironical review of a political movie by Alexandre. Like Proust says : "Art doesn't care for all this proclamations, and only exists in silence." First of all, art is introspection. And that also why realism or naturalism is rejected : art needs to transform reality to exist. Proust writes : "I discover the illusion of realism, which is a lie". That's why "La Maman et la putain" doesn't hide its artificiality, underlines by the way the actors "say" their text : "the more you seem artificial, the higher you go", said Eustache.<br /><br />Eustache and Proust both share this idea that the artist is a "translater" of a inner truth. But, Alexandre failed where Eustache succeed. "La Maman et la putain" tells us the failure of a character to be what he truly is. You can sens the tragedy arise when you go further in the movie, which becomes saddest. You can see it in the face of Alexandre, who looks more and more like a living-dead. You can see it by the fact that the scenes become longer, and that after a while, nothing happens outside. At the end of the movie, when you see Alexandre writing, and Veronika asking if he's writing his life,you can guess that he's not, that even literature failed. The end of the movie shows the symbolic death of Alexander, who is smashes by the heaviness of reality. And in this tiny nurse's room, Alexandre looks more like Albertine than Marcel.<br /><br />To explain this failure, we can say that Alexandre is a Balzac's reader. In "Forme et signification", Jean Rousset explains that, in Proust's, the readers of Balzac, who are Swann and Charlus, are unable of any artistic creation, because they're stuck in reality, which they mistake with art. They see reality in art and "are not aware of the transformations that necessarily exist between the life of an artist and his work, between reality and art". And that's exactly Alexandre. He claims for instance that he "loves a woman for parallel reasons, because she played in a Bresson's for example". He's like Swann, who falls in love with Odette because she looks like a Botticelli's woman.<br /><br />"Life is perhaps not my vocation". This thought is indeed by Eustache, who committed suicide, even if it's said by Alexandre. Nevertheless, there is a difference between Alexandre and Eustache : if Eustache is absolutely Alexandre, Alexandre is like a double without art, a horrible vision of the artist, which crystallizes his fears.<br /><br />By fallowing Veronika at the end of the movie, Alexandre is condemned to illusions. It's death that remind me the last frames of the movie, in the face of Jean-Pierre Léaud as well as in the endless pucking of Veronika. Or maybe it is already hell that describes the end, like in Sarte's "Huit-Clot", and absolutely not like in the final liberation of "Le Temps retrouvé". If Eustache had read Proust, Alexandre could never have finish the book , always perturbed by life and Veronika when he tries to read it at his apartment or in the cafés. "La Maman et la Putain" is like a inverse double of "In search of lost times", which tells how Alexander doesn't become an artist, whereas "A la Recherche du temps perdu" tells how Marcel becomes a writer (Genette).<br /><br />If, like Baudelaire says, an artiste tells "reality at the light of his dream", it is his nightmare that Eustache tells us in "La Maman et la putain". | 3 | trimmed_train |
19,675 | I'm not sure I understand where all these enthusiastically anti-grudge people are talking about here, perhaps it's just that some people like to rant about things.<br /><br />The movie was certainly imperfect (uneven acting, some may have had difficulties with the time-changes, actors all too willing to go places I'd really rather not go, etc.) but IMHO there were some things that more than made up for the imperfections.<br /><br />First and foremost, I LOVED the 'breaking of the rules' bit. NORMALLY when you leave the haunted house the baddies leave you alone, giving you time to regroup, get friends, and find the token mysterious paranormal type. NORMALLY (semi-spoiler alert) when you're hiding under the covers they can only get you through that little opening you peek through. NORMALLY at the end the ghosts somehow have become less creepy because you've found out they're just misunderstood, or they've been freed, or whatever.<br /><br />Secondly, the production was exceptional. While the movie was hardly special-effects-laden the supernatural bits while brief were extremely well done.<br /><br />Probably not the best sort of movie for those who think Freddy and Jason are the ultimate sort of horror (nothing against 'em, they've got their place), but great for those who've begun to take the conventions for granted and who don't have trouble with the time distortions. | 3 | trimmed_train |
8,498 | Story starts slow and nothing funny happens for a while. All the action is in the end, but you won't have to laugh because the movie is funny, but because the story is pathetic.<br /><br />The funniest part is when Harvey 'I'm not Paranoia' Keitel really loses it and the judge starts a massacre. Oscars for this guy! | 2 | trimmed_train |
7,904 | After just finishing the book the same day I watched the movie, I knew what was supposed to happen. I had high expectations of the movie, because of the rating. The only reason I give this movie a 2 out of 10 stars is that it was alright trying to be a movie. I have a couple main points for not liking this movie.<br /><br />********** SPOILERS **********<br /><br />1. The casting. Jack Nicholson barely fits into Jack Torrence's character. Also, I would have NEVER picked Shelly Duvall for Wendy. I pictured Wendy much differently. I can see why they picked Jack Nicholson though, the grin, the pointy eyebrows, but he's not supposed to really look 'evil'. He's supposed to look normal, and he turns evil. Also, they make one of the worst movie couples. Danny was alright, he needed more life though. He acted way to droney.<br /><br />2. The screenplay. They cut out so many things that were in the book, and added things. Some of the things that were in the book that I was looking forward to in the movie were either deleted, changed, or handled wrongly. Some of the things that were in the book that I was looking forward to seeing (the hedge animals, the roque mallet, the elevator) were not in the movie, and it was 2 and half hours!! I was extremely irritated.<br /><br />3. The Ending. The ending was changed completly, Halorann died, Jack froze to death, Wendy never got hurt...The Overlook didn't blow up. The Ending was so cool in the book, and the movie messed it up so horribly, I was apalled. Hallorann was never supposed to die, but Jack killed him with an ax. If they wanted to kill him, at least have Jack use a roque mallet. You never even saw a roque mallet during the whole movie.<br /><br />There are other things that I didn't like about the movie, but there are things that were all right. The camera angels were cool, the blood coming out of the elevator (didn't happen in the book) was cool, but maybe I was too irritated that the movie didn't go with the book, to try to be scared at all. I reccomend reading the book, before you see this movie. I applaud Stephen King for actually agreeing to sign a contract to not dis Stanley Kubrik any more. I would never have done that, I would have taken all the rights I could get to yell at him all day. I can't wait to see the 6 hour version, at least it has the hedge animals.<br /><br />Rating: 2/10 | 0 | trimmed_train |
2,234 | I was expecting the movie based on Grendel, the book written by John Gardner in the late 1970's. It was based on the Beowulf epic, but told from the perspective of the monster. <br /><br />Whatever you may think of Gardner's book, a movie based on the Beowulf epic should not be entitled Grendel, when it doesn't say anything more about the monster beyond the few pathetic scenes in which the CG monster is shown as nothing more than a modified Predator. <br /><br />On top of this, the writers should also be punished for screwing up the original story so badly and contributing to the continued growing ignorance of mass TV audiences throughout the US.<br /><br />Typical Hollywood to get this so wrong. <br /><br />Very disappointing and a complete waste of time. | 0 | trimmed_train |
20,349 | I was lucky enough to get a DVD copy of this movie recently and have now seen it for the 2nd time. The 1st time was on late night TV in Australia more than 20 years ago but I could never forget this strange and bleak film..<br /><br />Not many people like this film at all because it is so unconventional - the fact that there is hardly any spoken dialogue in this move - we just hear the thoughts of characters - is only one unconventional aspect of it.<br /><br />Searching for a copy of this film I found out that the producer was dead, the main actor was dead, it was not kept in any British TV or film archives, that it was never released on video or DVD, that television networks around the world trashed it after their copyright ran out in the 80's. When it was first shown on TV in Australia there were no recordable devices for consumers.<br /><br />On the second viewing recently, I could see why it was unforgettable. At times it is very tense and unbearably claustrophobic very like a Harold Pinter stage play.<br /><br />Again, if anyone wants a DVD copy of this please email me and I'm sure we can work something out Regards Adam ([email protected]) | 3 | trimmed_train |
13,752 | I've seen this movie, when I was traveling in Brazil. I found it difficult to really understand Brazilian culture and society, because it has so many regional and class differences. To see this movie in Sao Paulo itself was a revelation. It shows something of the everyday life of many Brazilians. On the other side, it is sometimes a little bit over-dramatized. And that's the only negative comment I have on this film. It's sometimes too much, too much sex, too many murders and too much cynicism for one film. The director could film some things a bit more subtle, it would make the film more effective.<br /><br />Despite this I liked the movie and the way the story unravels itself. The characters are complex, and very much like real-life people. Not pretty American actors and actresses with a lot of cosmetics, but people who could be ugly and beautiful at the same time. That makes the film realistic, even when the story is not that convincing. | 1 | trimmed_train |
14,902 | "Read My Lips (Sur mes lèvres)" (which probably has different idiomatic resonance in its French title) is a nifty, twisty contemporary tale of office politics that unexpectedly becomes a crime caper as the unusually matched characters slide up and down an ethical and sensual slippery slope.<br /><br />The two leads are magnetic, Emmanuelle Devos (who I've never seen before despite her lengthy resume in French movies) and an even more disheveled than usual Vincent Cassel (who has brought a sexy and/or threatening look and voice to some US movies).<br /><br />The first half of the movie is on her turf in a competitive real estate office and he's the neophyte. The second half is on his turf as an ex-con and her wrenching adaptation to that milieu.<br /><br />Writer/director Jacques Audiard very cleverly uses the woman's isolating hearing disability as an entrée for us into her perceptions, turning the sound up and down for us to hear as she does (so it's even more annoying than usual when audience members talk), using visuals as sensory reactors as well.<br /><br />None of the characters act as anticipated (she is not like that pliable victim from "In the Company of Men," not in individual interactions, not in scenes, and not in the overall arc of the unpredictable story line (well, until the last shot, but heck the audience was waiting for that fulfillment) as we move from a hectic modern office, to a hectic disco to romantic and criminal stake-outs. <br /><br />There is a side story that's thematically redundant and unnecessary, but that just gives us a few minutes to catch our breaths.<br /><br />This is one of my favorites of the year! <br /><br />(originally written 7/28/2002) | 3 | trimmed_train |
423 | I hated this show when I was a kid. That was back in the day when kids show characters actually had accents, not just the bland, generic, General American Dialect we're used to. Jack Wild had a British accent and Pufnstuf's was southern. Like one of the others mentioned, though, I never quite understood what the deal was with the witch wanting the flute. That always seemed odd to me, probably because the flute just annoyed me and I wouldn't have gone to any trouble to take it away!<br /><br />Just a comment on the similarity of Pufnstuf to early 70s McDonalds commercials that others have mentioned: Pufnstuf ripped off McDonalds. At the height of McDonalds popularity, the TV show (or rather, their creators) sought to license McDonalds characters for their show, but when McDonalds declined the TV show changed the characters slightly and passed it as their own. They even hired former employees of McDonalds ad agency and the voice actors to make the TV shows. McDonalds sued and won. Search for Pufnstuf McDonaldland lawsuit and you'll find plenty of articles about it. | 0 | trimmed_train |
14,299 | Granted I had seen some "Speed Racer", but I never really watched it and I had also seen other shows some featuring these characters dressed as birds who flew a ship called the Phoenix and another revolving around a space ship that looked like a giant ocean vessel and it flew backwards at times for some reason and was really dark and hard to understand for someone who was maybe five. This one though I watched nearly every episode and the amazing to me at the time was that this show had some resolution to it. It actually ended, the bad guys done in unlike nearly every American cartoon where nothing really concludes such as the last episode of the generation one Transformers that ended with Galvatron and this new bad guy vowing to get the Autobots, Dungeons and Dragons with the kids never making it home, with GI Joe with Cobra still out there ready to try again and so on and so forth. This one did end and did feature a rather cool robot that got new weapons as the show progressed, it was a bit bland to begin with as it could not fly and had only a few really cool weapons. As it went on he got a cool shooting fist like the one Android 16 used against Cell in Dragonball Z, then that weapon evolved to include razors that shot out. Then the big robot even got wings so he could fly and even more weapons were incorporated into the wings. He would also get a couple of allies in a female robot and a rather funny one called Bobo in America. The villains not only consisted of Dr. Hell, but a really weird person that was half man half woman and a dude with a flying head. Interesting show and it was kind of nice seeing a conclusion. | 1 | trimmed_train |
15,552 | "Match Point" and now "Scoop" have both convinced me that not only is Woody Allen doing a neat job making movies in England (and that Scarlett Johansson is the right cast member), but corroborated what I have known for years: he shouldn't focus on neurotic rich New Yorkers. In this case, Johansson plays journalism student Sondra Pransky, whom magician Sid Waterman (Allen) puts in his disappearing box, where she meets the ghost of murdered reporter Joe Strombel (Ian McShane), who tells her that the serial killings that have plagued London were committed by millionaire Peter Lyman (Hugh Jackman). So, she gets to know him, and...well, I don't know how much I can tell you without giving it away. But I can say that this is probably Allen's funniest movie in years. There's his ubiquitous unique style of humor (especially the line about his religion).<br /><br />So, you're sure to like this movie. If nothing else, it'll make you fall in love with London. But mostly, it's just so damn hilarious. Even if you don't like Woody Allen, you gotta love this one. | 3 | trimmed_train |
19,437 | As a baseball die-hard, this movie goes contrary to what I expect in a sports movie: authentic-looking sports action, believable characters, and an original story line. While "Angels in the Outfield" fails miserably in the first category, it succeeds beautifully in the latter two. "Angels" weaves the story of Roger and J.P., two Anaheim foster kids in love with baseball but searching for a family, with that of the woebegone Angels franchise, struggling to draw fans and win games. Pushed by his deadbeat father's promise that they would be a family only when the Angels win the pennant, Roger asks for some heavenly help, and gets it in the form of diamond-dwelling spirits bent on reversing the franchise's downward spiral. And, when short-fused manager George Knox (portrayed by Danny Glover) begins believing in what Roger sees, the team suddenly has hope for turning their season around--and Roger and J.P. find something to believe in. Glover in particular gives a nice performance, and Tony Danza, playing a washed-up pitcher, also does well, despite clearly having ZERO idea of how to pitch out of the windup! | 1 | trimmed_train |
3,968 | How can anybody say that this movie is a comedy?? If I had not gone with then my finacee I would have fallen asleep and asked for my money back. I love Gwen Paltrow, but it was like she was on the wrong set. I like most chick flicks, but I hated this one. This is the only time I saw so much clevage and was not turned on. Those outfits were way overdone. No one talks that way anymore and I don't think they even did then. The dancing part was horrible.My ex said to me later..."Didn't ya like that part? Didn't ya think it was sensous?" I said yes only to spare her feelings. Now I know why we never married.This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. | 0 | trimmed_train |
18,958 | Young Mr.Lincoln is a poetic,beautiful film that captures the myth of one of the most revered figures in American history. Henry Fonda had the difficult task of portraying a mythical figure and at the same time make him human enough for people to care about. It is perhaps the actors best performance.Watch how he singlehandedly stops a lynching-mob.Alice Brady is fantastic in the role of a simple farmer woman.Most of the last part of the film plays out in a courtroom,and there lies the only negative thing I can say about this movie.Most of the characters from judge to spectators are given so many folksy humorously lines that distracts from the serious trial that is on hand.But I'm quite used to this because the humor is a Ford trademark. Supporting parts by Ward Bond and Donald Meek are very good. | 1 | trimmed_train |
1,363 | This movie was probably the biggest waste of my life ever. The acting was pathetic. Jordan Hinson could not show any upset emotions. At the beginning of the movie, she was supposed to be discouraged. Instead, she bobbed her head with her bottom lip stuck out. She sobbed pitifully without any tears for the crying scene. I was almost angry that out of all girls who wanted to be actresses, they had to pluck out her. Everyone else was suffering from over-acting as well. It was flat out annoying. It was also an insult to figure skaters. Jordan took a month to train, and they cast her as a person who makes the Olympic team. It's practically spitting on the effort real figure skaters put into their work. A pitiful excuse for a movie, and a pitiful attempt to associate hockey and skating. Don't waste your life. It doesn't even deserve one star. | 0 | trimmed_train |
14,393 | Young Mr. Lincoln marks the first film of the director/star collaboration of John Ford and Henry Fonda. I recall years ago Fonda telling that as a young actor he was understandably nervous about playing Abraham Lincoln and scared he wouldn't live up to the challenge.<br /><br />John Ford before the shooting starts put him at ease by saying he wasn't going to be playing the Great Emancipator, but just a jack-leg prairie lawyer. That being settled Fonda headed a cast that John Ford directed into a classic film.<br /><br />This is not a biographical film of Lincoln. That had come before in the sound era with Walter Huston and a year after Young Mr. Lincoln, Raymond Massey did the Pulitzer Prize winning play by Robert Sherwood Abe Lincoln in Illinois. Massey still remains the definitive Lincoln.<br /><br />But as Ford said, Fonda wasn't playing the Great Emancipator just a small town lawyer in Illinois. The film encompasses about 10 years of Lincoln's early life. We see him clerking in a general store, getting some law books from an immigrant pioneer family whose path he would cross again later in the story. And his romance with Ann Rutledge with her early death leaving Lincoln a most melancholy being.<br /><br />Fast forward about 10 years and Lincoln is now a practicing attorney beginning to get some notice. He's served a couple of terms in the legislature, but he's back in private practice not really sure if politics is for him.<br /><br />This is where the bulk of the action takes place. The two sons of that family he'd gotten the law books from way back when are accused of murder. He offers to defend them. And not an ordinary murder but one of a deputy sheriff. <br /><br />The trial itself is fiction, but the gambit used in the defense of Richard Cromwell and Eddie Quillan who played the two sons is based on a real case Lincoln defended. I'll say no more.<br /><br />Other than the performances, the great strength of Young Mr. Lincoln is the way John Ford captures the mood and atmosphere and setting of a small Illinois prairie town in a Fourth of July celebration. It's almost like you're watching a newsreel. And it was the mood of the country itself, young, vibrant and growing.<br /><br />Fans of John Ford films will recognize two musical themes here that were repeated in later films. During the romantic interlude at the beginning with Fonda and Pauline Moore who played Ann Rutledge the music in the background is the same theme used in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance for Vera Miles. And at a dance, the tune Lovely Susan Brown that Fonda and Marjorie Weaver who plays Mary Todd is the same one Fonda danced with Cathy Downs to, in My Darling Clementine at the dance for the raising of a church in Tombstone. <br /><br />Lincoln will forever be a favorite subject of biographers and dramatists because of two reasons, I believe. The first is he's the living embodiment of our own American mythology about people rising from the very bottom to the pinnacle of power through their own efforts. In fact Young Mr. Lincoln very graphically shows the background Lincoln came from. And secondly the fact that he was our president during the greatest crisis in American history and that he made a singularly good and moral decision to free slaves during the Civil War, albeit for some necessary political reasons. His assassination assured his place in history.<br /><br />Besides Fonda and others I've mentioned special praise should also go to Fred Kohler, Jr. and Ward Bond, the two town louts, Kohler being the murder victim and Bond the chief accuser. Also Donald Meek as the prosecuting attorney and Alice Brady in what turned out to be her last film as the pioneer mother of Cromwell and Quillan. And a very nice performance by Spencer Charters who specialized in rustic characters as the judge.<br /><br />For a film that captures the drama and romance of the time it's set in, you can't do better than Young Mr. Lincoln. | 3 | trimmed_train |
22,983 | "Most of us at least inhabit two worlds , the real world where we are at the mercy of circumstances and the world within ,the unconscious ,a safe place where we can escape ..." With those words ,Mr .Gone introduces inside the world of "The Maxx" a fascinating world where the fantasy and the reality are combined . Inspired in the comic books of Sam Kieth, "The Maxx " is very faithful to the material in what it was inspired , not only in the story but also in the graphic style ,that look like the pages of the comic ,giving this show a surreal and unique appearance . But also ,the story it's interesting and entertaining .At moments it could turn too weird ,but when you got inside it ,it's hard to get out of it . The story and the characters are wonderfully developed . The music goes perfectly with the style of the show and give it the proper atmosphere . Unfortunately , like many good animated shows ,this one was short -lived . "The Maxx" is a must see . It 's one of my all -time favorites . | 3 | trimmed_train |
19,862 | The story of peace-loving farmers and townspeople fighting for land, water, law and order, and the respect and ultimate subjugation of the long entrenched cattle interests and their hired guns had been worked over better in earlier (Shane) and probably later films as well. There's some good action scenes and the general layout of the story, excluding a disappointing ending, is well executed. Law and order and religion have established roots in the town, but the old order of cattle drives, cowboys, and gunslingers is still around as well. The clash of the two occurs in a nicely staged ambush scene where the townsmen ride right into a trap. Granger, an ex-gunfighter, plays the guy who is shunned by the very townspeople who need his expertise with a gun. | 1 | trimmed_train |
5,116 | Vulpine Massacre should have been this movies actual title. And the tag-line should have read "Guaranteed to make your kids CRY!" This is a nature drama telling the story of a family of wild foxes in a remote region. Starting with the meeting and pairing of two young foxes and the eventual birth of a large family and the trials of raising them. The only speaking is done in narrative by a tree that stands over the den, giving insight into the animals loves and lives... Lovely scenery and gorgeous filming of the animals. Sounds good huh? Well from there things go straight to hell and then start drilling towards the core...<br /><br />*** Spoilers Below - Or they it may be a Warning!***<br /><br />Almost first off we learn one of the foxes is born blind. But seems to get along well enough and there's a beautifully cheerful musical score to accompany him... And then he dies... Next we have one of the siblings adventures. And then he dies... One of the sisters gets her screen-time... and then she dies...And so it goes like some horrific slasher movie as one fox after another is killed off by nature, in traps, just up and vanish, and even by a bunch of snowmobiles! By the end of the movie almost all the foxes have been massacred. Though mercifully no deaths are shown on screen. (Least not in the version we saw.) Unlike say "Tarka the Otter" the deaths in this movie are almost all pointless and border on the sadistic in the way hopes are built up and then snuffed out. One or two losses would have been acceptable. It is a nature film after all. But not nearly the whole family.<br /><br />Do not go to see this film deceived by the cheery box into thinking its safe for the kids. Watch it with some foreknowledge that things are *not* going to go well at all and that you or your kids may be left feeling very badly depending on how sensitive you or they are. You may enjoy it. Or you may not... | 0 | trimmed_train |
23,637 | I truly enjoyed this film. The acting was terrific as was the plot. Jeff Combs has more talent than he is recognized for. The only part of this flick I would change was the ending. The death of the creature was far too gruesome for the Sci Fi Channel.<br /><br />There were some interesting religious messages in this film. Jeff Combs obviously played a Messiah figure and the creature (or shark if you prefer) represented the anti-Chirst. There were some particularly frightening scenes that had that 'end of the world feel'. I only noticed this after my third viewing of this classic creature feature. I know many people won't get the references to Christianity, but if you watch close you'll get it. | 3 | trimmed_train |
10,819 | How can a movie have Ozzy Osbourne and still suck? I just don't get it. Trick or Treat managed to do it. This sucks and likes it.<br /><br />Trick or Treat is one of those movies I have to warn people about. It is a vomit-inducing vile atrocity just begging to be viewed so you can feel that much worse about yourself. Trick or Treat has no redeeming factors.<br /><br />For a movie about heavy metal, it sure doesn't seem to grasp what heavy metal is or what it represents. This movie manages to make heavy metal look lame and this was in 1986, probably one of heavy metal's strongest hours. That is quite a feat, however negative.<br /><br />Trick or Treat = so bad you will be angry at yourself for having watched it. That simple equation will hopefully keep you away from this brainless and gutless film. | 0 | trimmed_train |
10,688 | Maybe I've seen one too many crime flick, or maybe I don't take the right drugs.<br /><br />This was the most cliché ridden, plot deficient, plot-absurd, just plain stupid movie I have seen in a long time.<br /><br />As for the direction, it looks like it took less time to show this than it did to put it together.<br /><br />In fact it looks like to made it straight to video before it was completed.<br /><br />It's a bad rip off of "M" the classic Fritz Lang film starring Peter Lorre. You'd be SO much better off renting that instead. | 0 | trimmed_train |
4,762 | I would just like it to be known, that I do not often rate movies below a 5. I was originally very excited to see this movie. Its numerous trailer bumps on TV for several months made me REAALLY want to see this movie. So, the other night when I saw that it was available on FearNet on Demand, I got some popcorn and sat down to watch the film.<br /><br />The storyline seemed intriguing enough - some dude is butchering unsuspecting people on the subway. There's a photographer obsessed with the missing people. Where are they going? What's happening to them? One day, the photographer sees a connection between some photos he has taken, and becomes obsessed with the butcher, following him around, yada yada. The film had a way of sucking you in, even though the plot was highly predictable. "Oh no, it's dark, look out behind you" I say, quite bored with the cheap thrills.<br /><br />The plot, even though predictable, was intriguing...that is, until the end. "This was good until the end.... Then it just got silly", says Jack_skellington_freke on the message boards. And I fully agree. And here come the spoilers...<br /><br />See, I was hoping it was some mad killer, some psychotic person obsessed with cannibalism. No. It was some secret society keeping creatures alive for centuries. Woo. How original. How unrealistic. How dull.<br /><br />3/10. Come on Lionsgate. You've had amazing films, but this one sunk. | 2 | trimmed_train |
15,025 | Ernst Marischka, one of the most respected Austrian directors of that time, made films full of beautiful scenes, delicate love and with respect to all that is precious in life. <br /><br />Nowadays, if people should hear about him, they associate the name of Marischka with SISSI trilogy (1955,1956,1957). However, he made other excellent films like DAS DREIMADERLHAUS (1958), EMBEZZLED HEAVEN (1958) and definitely this one, MADCHENJAHRE EINER KONIGIN showing the young years of queen Victoria. Although it deals with a slightly different theme than SISSI films, I do not see many differences between this movie and SISSI. They are strikingly similar.<br /><br />The movie is almost identical. The style, the music, the photography. In fact, the crew are almost the same. Anton Profes, Bruno Mondi!<br /><br />The cast... Romy Schneider's one of the first main roles. It was a lovely introduction to her role of Sissi since this film was made one year before the first part of the trilogy about the Austrian empress. It is also a film where Romy plays with her mother, Magda Schneider. But Ernst Marischka was not the first director who cast Romy to play with her mum. Romy's debut, WENN DER WEISSE FLIEDER WIEDER BLUHN (1953) was her performance with her mother, too. Therefore, there were some voices that Romy began her Austrian career on the bases of her mother's fame. Indeed, there is some truth in it.<br /><br />Again, like in SISSI, this film shows love very gently. Victoria meets Prince Albert in a little inn in Dover. Their sympathy is based on pure exaltation in dance and gentle smiles. And now...? What would it be showed like? Only sex... But is it the only thing love is based on?<br /><br />I am grateful to Ernst Marischka for these movies. They had a soul and a message. Some people may call them kitschy, but I will never give up admiring these films. They are IMPRESSIVE!!! UNFORTUNATELY, HIGHLY UNDERRATED! | 1 | trimmed_train |
13,053 | (SPOILERS included) This film surely is the best Amicus production I've seen so far (even though I still have quite a few to check out). The House that Dripped Blood is a horror-omnibus
an anthology that contains four uncanny stories involving the tenants of a vicious, hellish house in the British countryside. A common mistake in productions like this is wasting too much energy on the wraparound story that connects the separate tales
Peter Duffel's film wisely doesn't pay too much attention to that. It simply handles about a Scotland Yard inspector who comes to the house to investigate the disappearance of the last tenant and like that, he learns about the bizarre events that took place there before. All four stories in this film are of high quality-level and together, they make a perfect wholesome. High expectations are allowed for this film, since it was entirely written by Robert Bloch! Yes, the same Bloch who wrote the novel that resulted in the brilliant horror milestone `Psycho'
We're also marking Peter Duffel's solid and very professional debut as a director. <br /><br />The four stories chapters if you will in the House that Dripped Blood contain a good diversity in topics, but they're (almost) equally chilling and eerie. Number one handles about a horror-author who comes to the house, along with his wife, in order to find inspiration for his new book. This starts out real well, but after a short while, his haunted and stalked by the villain of his own imagination. The idea in this tale isn't exactly original
but it's very suspenseful and the climax is rather surprising. The second story stars (Hammer) horror-legend Peter Cushing as a retired stockbroker. Still haunted by the image of an unreachable and long-lost love, he bumps into a wax statue that looks exactly like her. Cushing is a joy to observe as always and even though the topic of Wax Museums isn't new this story looks overall fresh and innovating. This chapter also contains a couple of delightful shock-moments and there's a constant tense atmosphere. It's a terrific warm-up for what is arguably the BEST story: number 3. Another legendary actor in this one, as Christopher Lee gives away a flawless portrayal of a terrified father. He's very severe and strict regarding his young daughter and he keeps her in isolation for the outside world. Not without reason, since the little girl shows a bizarre fascination for witchcraft and voodoo. Besides great acting by Lee and the remarkable performance of Chloe Franks as the spooky kid, this story also has a terrific gothic atmosphere! The devilish undertones in this story, along with the creepy sound effects of thunder, make this story a must for fans of authentic horror. The fourth and final story, in which a vain horror actor gets controlled by the vampire-cloak he wears, is slightly weaker then the others when it comes to tension and credibility, but that the overload of subtle humor more or less compensates that. There's even a little room for parody in this story as the protagonist refers to co-star Christopher Lee in the Dracula series! Most memorable element in this last chapter is the presence of the gorgeous Ingrid Pitt! The cult-queen from `The Vampire Lovers' certainly is one of the many highlights in the film
her cleavage in particular. <br /><br />No doubt about it
The House that Dripped Blood will be greatly appreciated by classic horror fans. I truly believe that, with a bit of mood-settling preparations, this could actually be one of the few movies that'll terrify you and leave a big impression. Intelligent and compelling horror like it should be! Highly recommended. One extra little remark, though: this film may not
repeat MAY NOT under any circumstances be confused with `The Dorm that Dripped Blood'. This latter one is a very irritating and lousy underground 80's slasher that has got nothing in common with this film, except for the title it stole. | 3 | trimmed_train |
19,199 | The 40 Year Old Virgin, is about Andy Stitzer, a forty year old man who works in an electronic store and doesn't have much of a social life and is very awkward around women. Some of his co-workers at the store invite him out one night and they discover that Andy, is still a virgin so they plan to help him lose his virginity. One day in the store Andy, meets a woman named Trish, who gives him her phone number and eventually Andy, works up enough courage to go on a date with her and they start to really like each other but Andy, is still very awkward when it comes to sex and he is going to have to tell this to Trish, much to his embarrassment if he can actually get up enough courage to tell her before things get awkward. The 40 Year Old Virgin, has good direction, a good script, good comedic performances by the whole cast, good cinematography and good film editing. The film stars and is co-written by Steve Carell, who does a very good comedic breakthrough performance and his writing for the film is very good too. I was very pleasantly surprised with this film. It is sweet, funny, entertaining, fun, enjoyable, clever, good natured and a good time. This film is just as good as this year's Wedding Crashers, and both films are two of the best comedies I have seen in awhile. The 40 Year Old Virgin, really showcases a lot of talent and it is put to good use and it works as a comedy and a romance and it is sweet and a lot of fun. One of the biggest surprises and one of the best comedies of the year. | 1 | trimmed_train |
3,290 | I can barely find the words to express how utterly utterly awful this film is. I was sold on the promise of action, with Segal and stealth aircraft, which normally make for an entertaining action movie. I can honestly say I'd rather gouge my eyes out with a cocktail stick than have to see this film again. The acting was so awful that it was almost funny. The story was insanely weak, with plot holes so cavernously wide you could fly an F117 through them. The script was so poor, if I found out that a 10 year old wrote it I shouldn't be in the least surprised. The direction and production is so amateur, I wouldn't even hire these people to shoot my worst enemies wedding video. Utter Utter drivel. Those responsible for making this movie have cheapened the art, and they should be ashamed of themselves. Steven Segal should never ever show his face in public again, I can't imagine what made him agree to star in this, the worst film I have seen in my entire life. | 0 | trimmed_train |
15,528 | One of my favorite shows back in the '70s. As I recall it went to air on Friday (or possibly Saturday)night on the Nine Network (?) here in Australia. Darren McGavin and Simon Oakland were great together.<br /><br />Each episode usually reached a climax with Kolchack having to engage in hand to hand combat with some sort of supernatural opponent. To their credit, the writers made a concerted effort to get away from the usual round of vampires and ghosts as much as possible.<br /><br />I remember one episode in which the adversary was the spirit of an ancient Indian Chief which/who 'came back' as a massive electrical current which started to kill people in a city hospital. The final showdown saw Kolchack trying to short circuit the 'power beast' amidst an explosion of sparks and billowing flames. Oh well .... you had to be there at the time but it was an interesting idea.<br /><br />McGavin always packed a lot of energy and enthusiasm into his roles and this was one of his best.<br /><br />Definitely deserves a place in TV's "Hall of Fame". To quote Tony Vincenzo .... 'Kolchack you are ON IT '... Or, in the case of the Hall of Fame,'IN it' ! | 1 | trimmed_train |
12,902 | Before the regular comments, my main curiosity about THIS IS NOT A LOVE SONG is that while there's a running time listed on IMDb of 94 minutes, the DVD from Wellspring Media in the United States runs 88 minutes. Any input on this is appreciated!<br /><br />Two friends with very rough lives take on the road for an adventure. What they wind up in is just that, with one accidentally shooting a girl and the two escaping by foot into the countryside. Rather than just a big chase, the film is complicated by the the daft and rather childlike Spike behaving inappropriately, and clutching his boom box like a teddy bear. Some viewers may dislike the story based solely upon the character Spike, but without a bit of frustration added to the story, the film would have been too easy. You'll notice the way the more stable character Heaton refers to Spike as "big man" in contrast to Spike's "kid out of control" attitude and behavior. Frankly, I too was aggravated by Spike's ridiculous actions, especially the spray can sniffing, but in a desperate situation it's apparent someone of his mentality would choose an temporary escape. But, Heaton was there to keep things in check up until things get way over his head as well.<br /><br />Kenny Glenaan as Heaton is a marvel, and after a while I quit wondering why in the heck he would want to pick Spike up from prison and continue a friendship, due to Glenaan's great performance. After all, there are many many reasons during their run that would be a good idea for Heaton to just ditch Spike and try to save himself. I suppose Heaton felt like a protective older brother to Spike, and the loyalty between the two is hard to break -- until things get too desperate.<br /><br />While some of the cinematography is indeed artsy, it does offer more flavor to story instead of just shots of the men running through the wilderness. The beautiful landscapes, rain, and vast gray skies offer a somber tone that increases the feel of the tragic circumstances. The score is unusual as well, and the use of Public Image Ltd.'s song "This Is Not A Love Song" and as the title of the film is quite smart.<br /><br />Overall, it's understandable if you don't care for THIS IS NOT A LOVE SONG as it's focused on two contrasting personalities escaping from another man determined to hunt them down (played by a cool, quiet David Bradley). It's not big-budget action entertainment. For the rest of us that enjoy seeking out something minimal and dramatic, it's time worthwhile spent, and it DOES offer some extremely tense moments that have you holding your breath a bit.<br /><br />I'm really enjoying the films coming out of Scotland recently, with the likes of this one, Dog Soldiers, and The Devil's Tattoo. I'm also a bit thankful for the subtitles offered on this DVD, as the accents are sometimes lightning fast and difficult for some viewers like me to understand. <br /><br />Frustrating, dark, and often tense, THIS IS NOT A LOVE SONG is very tragic yet engrossing storytelling.<br /><br /> | 1 | trimmed_train |
21,629 | The first 50 minutes of this movie were quite boring. It focused on the personal problems Doyle had, including his sick wife, death threats by fans, a pushy publisher and feelings of guilt concerning his mentally ill father. Even though these subjects had an important impact on Doyle's life, I was more curious about the birth of Sherlock Holmes. The last 40 minutes were excellent. We finally got a look inside Doyle head, how he created Holmes and why he had to 'kill' Holmes. The actors are excellent. Including the intriguing Selden played by Tim McInnerny, Arthur Conan Doyle, a compelling role played by Douglas Henshall and Brian Cox as the 'role model' for Sherlock Holmes, Dr. Bell. The locations are good, especially for a TV movie and the camera work is nice. If the first 50 minutes were as good the the last 40 minutes this would have been a small masterpiece. | 1 | trimmed_train |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.