id
int32 0
25k
| text
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| label
int64 0
3
| Generalization
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
13,436 | Most folks might say that if one were to spend a Saturday night watching a movie,you must be really bored. Actually,I had just gotten back home from being out and turned on the TV and there it was,"Paulie". <br /><br />I had missed the opening credits,so I didn't know the name of it but I saw that it had Cheech Marin in it,so I naturally thought I had tuned into "Born In East L.A." When I saw him talking to a talking parrot,I was ready to dismiss this as the kind of flop movie they show late in the night.<br /><br />Happy to say,it was better than that. As you know,if you don't already Paulie is lost and trying to get back to his original owner. Seems it's taken years to find her. What should be Paulie's advantage is actually a dis-advantage in ways. People come across a literate parrot and all they see is a way to make money or benefit themselves. <br /><br />While Cheech Marin's character "is" making money from him,he's not mean to him. The dance sequences with the parrots are something kids will find cute,I found them amusing.<br /><br />Paulie,who's naive',learns quickly that not all humans are nice people. Especially the owner of an animal research lab. The man lies to him saying he'll help him find his owner as long as he helps in his animal communications research. Paulie is now stuck but decides to make a fool out of the man at a demonstration to others of Paulie's vocal ability.<br /><br />Throughout the film Paulie's telling his story to the facilities janitor who ends up freeing him,several other animals and finding the location of Paulie's owner. It's a touching reunion. <br /><br />8 out of 10,the wing clipping scene should have been assumed and not shown. That part might bother younger children. Otherwise,it's a great movie for older kids and adults who are a kid at heart. (END) | 1 | trimmed_train |
3,049 | This is the worst show I have seen in years. I believe that it should be taken off of T.V. because of its retardedness. It is so dumb I could faint when I watch it. (even though I never watch it because it is SOOOOO poor) <br /><br />Goofs: When mac says he can;t eat sugar, in another episode he eats sugar. Almost everything in the world has sugar in it!!! In episode "Eddie Monster" when eddy screams at Terrance he falls into the crate twice PLUS the seconed time he falls in he doesn't fall in, he falls off to the side. What stupidity. I can't even say the word Fosters Home. I even made a song with my band about how retarded this show is. Byyyyyyyyeeeee | 0 | trimmed_train |
4,755 | I didn't expect much from this TV movie. You have to set the bar lower than you would for midget limbo for any TBS movie starring Antonio Sabato Jr. Still, it managed to disappoint, failing even to be a good-bad film.<br /><br />Every scene was by rote, as if someone had cut and pasted scenes from a dozen movies and tv shows dealing with big business conspiracies into the script, leaned back and said, "My work is done". It's all cliche, all predictable, and, even worse, the actors are forced to look like they're taking it seriously, (even when the plot developments are laughable).<br /><br />Do yourself a favor. Watch "The X-Files" if you're in the mood for paranoia. They handle it better. Also, let anyone know that sitting through "Fatal Error" is just that. | 0 | trimmed_train |
23,459 | Actually, the answer only occupies a tiny portion of this excellent Imax movie that educates us on our delicate selves. C.G. and special cameras--assisted by Imax--incredibly display the inner (and outer) workings of an average human, be it adult men and women, boys and girls, or babies. Nearly every human body part aspect is specifically detailed: digestion, reproduction (featuring a Marvin Gaye hit), the heart, etc. Some especially revealing moments include how an infant can be immersed underwater and also how the brain's impulses look. It is amazing how we function.<br /><br />The subject matter skips around an awful lot. But at all times we still learn a hell of a lot about our bodies that we should be *required* to know. | 1 | trimmed_train |
1,160 | This movie stinks! You will want back the two-plus hours it takes to get through it. Sliding Doors, w/ Gwyenth Paltrow and directed by Peter Howit, did what Melinda & Melinda tries to do much much MUCH better. That movie was clever, witty, and well-acted. I cared about what happened to both Gwyenths -- or rather the characters she played -- and the performances by supporting cast were fantastic.<br /><br />Where as Melinda & Melinda is tiresome, the dialogue is contrived and I could have cared less about any of these people -- least of all Melinda. One Melinda is so dysfunctional -- her first glass of wine is at 10 a.m. -- and so melodramatic she is laughable, and not in the comedic sense. The 2nd Melinda is fine, but forgettable.<br /><br />Woody Allen's previous ensemble movies worked because, I'm guessing, he spent time on the screenplay and the actors were talented. One piece of trivia for this movie is that he wrote this screenplay in two months: you can tell. And while Chloe Sevigny is talented -- those around her are not, not enough to be a whole presence. The movie ends up being Chloe Sevigny and a bunch of other people you know you've seen in other movies but can't quite remember which ones.<br /><br />Sad, very sad. | 0 | trimmed_train |
20,797 | Geniuses William Cameron Menzies and Herbert George Wells craft this extraordinary anticipation film, with ambition and scope hard to find today. They predict World War II and the way Great Britain was attacked, and also the fact that the war would be followed by a space race. They change the timing; in the film the war and the space exploration are much longer, but there are so many qualitatively correct things that it's amazing. We even see an helicopter (the film is older than them).<br /><br />Unforgettable giant planes and a futuristic meritocracy of scientists that seem Romans with bubble-helmets: if you can see through those funny costumes you may appreciate the state of the art architecture by masters from the 30s, Well's vision of a rationalistic society, interesting reflections on the nature of power, and John Cabal as archetype of the adventurous and inventive human being, the one that chooses to shape reality and not to be shaped by it.<br /><br />9 1/2 out of 10. Inspiring like that final monologue by John Cabal. | 3 | trimmed_train |
22,440 | If only ALL animation was this great. This film is classic because it is strong is two simple aspects: Story and Character. The characters in this film are beautifully personified. I felt for all of the characters, and human-animal relationship in the movie works perfectly. The beautiful animation and 3-D computer animation hasn't worked better in any other film. This is a great movie for kids, and for adults who want a classic hero's journey. 8 of 10. | 1 | trimmed_train |
14,090 | How does an usual day start in Point Place, Wisconsin...<br /><br />First of all, Red, the tyrannical father of the Forman family and a WWII veteran, sits at the kitchen table and reads his newspaper while his overjoyed wife Kitty serves breakfast. Then comes their skinny son, Eric, he sits at the table as well, and his father starts his daily yelling, usually involving placing his foot in Eric's behind if (insert reason here). If his promiscuous angel-faced sister Laurie is at home, she comes along, then Red stops yelling and kindly talks to her, making Eric feel left out of the family.<br /><br />Once this daily (painful) ritual is over, Eric rushes down to his basement, where all his friends are already hanging out. And when we get to see them, it becomes obvious Eric and his redhead tomboy girlfriend, next-door neighbor and childhood friend Donna Pinciotti are the sanest people around. Meet Steven Hyde, the conspiracy theorist who hates disco and doesn't really care about what's around as long as it's not funny to watch; Michael Kelso, the kind of guy who thinks that he will get through his life only by his looks and that carrots grow in trees; Jackie Burkhardt, the one who thinks of herself as the prettiest girl around, spoiled kid of a rich father, and, of course, cheerleader; and Fez, a naive but oversexed foreigner who loves candy and can't keep a secret. At first they simply hang out, gossiping and making fun of Kelso, but then they all sit in a circle and let the real fun begin... before going out doing something they'll regret later.<br /><br />Meanwhile Red goes out and meets Donna's weirdo parents, Bob and Midge. He's rude, but they don't mind, as they think he's joking. Somewhere around is Leo, an aging hippie, who's constantly confused and makes word plays without even noticing.<br /><br />Did you imagine that seemingly peaceful neighborhood with all these awesome characters? Of course, most seem "clichéd", but the show takes the cliché to a new level. Now throw in some of the most wicked story lines a sitcom can offer, sit down and enjoy one of the best TV shows ever. The one that never does two times the same thing and which is, compared to most sitcoms that are "cute funny", purely hysterical. If you get hooked, don't let this show let you go. Bite on the hook over and over and, man, you will see the sitcom genre from a whole new prospective. | 3 | trimmed_train |
9,353 | European Vacation (aka National Lampoon's European Vacation) is the weakest of the Vacation films (the first and third one the most superior of the films). While Chevy Chase and Beverly D'Angelo return as Clark and Ellen Griswold (with new actors in the roles of Russ and Audrey Griswold), this time they are given a weaker script with very bad dialogue. This causes the pacing to suffer, with the jokes not very funny at all. To be more specific, what really causes this film to suffer is the fact that the "jokes" as they are, are just pasted together into a cobbled-together script), rather than serving a central plot as the other 3 Vacation films have. Oh well, they can't win them all. 4 out of 10. | 2 | trimmed_train |
2,933 | Two films are useful for scaring people to God, this and 'Event Horizon'. One has a significant and poignant message, the other is as one-dimensional as a religious movie can get. Too bad Paul Anderson went on to the accursed Resident Evil movies, he really had something going.<br /><br />Thief in the Night is hampered by many obvious independent film attributes (acting, storytelling, dialog, and persuasion) and it's obvious what the film's intentions are from the start. The Christian film industry hasn't learned from the failures of this, so we are stuck with The Omega Code, Left Behind, and the other Tribulation movies. Their underlying element is that they are so concerned with selling their message: "Get saved, folks!" that everything else becomes second to whacking the audience over the head with a Bible.<br /><br />Overall, I can't believe I'm even writing this much about a movie this ineffective. Skip it entirely and go back to Sam Neil gouging out his eyeballs. 1 out of 5. | 0 | trimmed_train |
20,658 | I have not read the book that this was based upon/inspired by. This being some of(the others are film roles) the last work of John Ritter(RIP), one hopes that it is hilarious. And it is. Almost every time he's present in this, as a matter of fact. Most of the cast, supporting as well as regular, play off each other well, and the material tends to be great. He plays Paul Hennessy, the father of three teenagers: Rory, the typical guy of that age, Kerry, the depressive middle-child who fights for causes and awareness, and Bridget, the fashion-loving, popular ditz. Sagal makes a return to being the female lead in a sit-com, and her character is far removed from Peggy Bundy. The show changed somewhat after Mr. Three's Company passed on, and for a while, they couldn't seem to make up their minds if they wanted to go for getting laughs, or being poignant and making sure to be respectful. One can wonder how or why it lasted for so long after that: It could still be quite good, some of the additions were fortunate(if you like David Spade, most of his part consists of him doing his schtick) and had stuff to say. My personal favorite episode is in the last season. The humor is a nice mix of "dumb person" jokes(mainly related to the high-schoolers), silliness, dark comedy and crude material. This dealt with sex and other adult topics, but never in a graphic manner. The language is mild, and, on occasion, moderately strong. I recommend this to any fan of those who made it. 8/10 | 1 | trimmed_train |
17,508 | And a rather Unexpected plot line too-for the era: there is Plague in the City of New Orleans-and only Richard Widmark can stop it! Elia Kazan's trademark subjects: waterfronts, working men, crowds, fugitives, blue collar folk, violence on a backstreet-are all showcased here.<br /><br />Jack Palance is quite effective as the ice-cold mobster out for a big score, Zero Mostel as Dom Delouise somewhat miscast but certainly watchable as his go-fer. I enjoyed Barbara Bel Geddes as the stalwart, cool wife-I thought she and Widmark were a believable couple.<br /><br />He himself always reminds me somewhat of Sinatra-in the face and in the intense quiet manner-and that is meant as a compliment if anything. I'd never even heard of this movie, and yes, you have to admire Widmark's performance. I also enjoyed Paul Douglas-he seemed to play this role many times, they make an unlikely but effective team.<br /><br />The plague itself is a McGuffin-and you gotta know it's not exactly done the way it would have been in Real Life-rather small-scale at the least no?-but I found it carried the plot along nicely.<br /><br />Check this out. It's good. *** outta **** | 1 | trimmed_train |
11,923 | I don't know where to begin. The cast is full of people who've never done anything before or since. Debralee Scott is listed on cover boxes, but does not appear in the movie at all. The writing is quite bad, even for college films. It's obviously very low budget, with one scene at the sorority house having extremely choppy editing.<br /><br />The characters are pretty typical for college films - timid guy, nerd, suave black guy, tough guys, guy with mustache, attractive girl, small town girl, etc. The featured teacher is about what's you'd expect... middle aged heavy set guy who gets sidetracked easily.<br /><br />If you wan't to see a college flick, stay clear from this one. It's so bad, it's not even funny. | 0 | trimmed_train |
1,443 | Kudos to the patience of Paul Muni, who spent hours and hours in the makeup room each day to look the part of Zola. Muni was the one of the biggest stars in the 1930s and I wonder how many people today -other than classic movie buffs - know anything about it. He was a giant in the business for at least a decade. He could have won the Academy Award for this performance, which would have given him two in a row, as he won it for playing Louis Pasteur the year before. My own opinion is that while he tended to overact a bit, I still think he was one of the great actors of the "Golden Age." Whatever part he played; you were riveted to the screen watching him.<br /><br />Unlike the Pasteur role, I thought this story smacked of a little too much of what we've seen in the last 60 years: going overboard to make a Liberal hero. Even in 1937, Hollywood couldn't suppress its disdain for police or for the military, here making it a point to tell us how "corrupt" those organizations are. Filmmakers just love it when authority is challenged and defeated. In that regard, this film is way ahead of its day since we've seen this big-time since the 1960s.<br /><br />However, it must be noted the facts support this story. It also does not in any way diminish Zola's accomplishments as a social reformer, getting rid of certain evils. Good for him! I wish they had spent more time showing that, than concentrating on one trial. | 2 | trimmed_train |
331 | We laughed our heads off. This script is so incredible you either zap to CNN or go to sleep.<br /><br />My dad was a sea captain for 30 years, he could not believe his eyes when he saw the movie.<br /><br />During his experience as an officer he once claimed command over the ship, the captain drunk 3 bottles of whiskey/daily and (sorry) s**t on his desk. Of course this was not on a nuclear mission.<br /><br />For instance, the fire in the kitchen, fire is the most important thing on any ship, nuclear or not. To give a drill at that time is just Hollywood script. When a captain is put under arrest, he IS under arrest, you take all his keys and open the safe where the guns are kept. This is stored within minutes in a well guarded room. He CANNOT escape, it's just like in prison.<br /><br />Funny thing is, my dad also had a dog on board, however, we see how Hackman let him pee in the control room. This is not done, ever. My dad cleaned all the mess the dog made wherever he was.<br /><br />Hackman and Washington make the three stars this movie is credited for, all the rest is bulls**t.<br /><br />When we do know that 23 people were still alive on the Koersk, this film gets an extra dimension.<br /><br />If you want to see a real thriller about a submarine rent: Thas Boat.<br /><br /> | 2 | trimmed_train |
2,948 | The Derek's have over the 1980s produced a few decent bids to acquire the title "worst movie of all time", and this is probably their prime achievement in these stakes. In fact, this film can be regarded as belonging to the "so bad, it's good" category, right up there with the products of the likes of Edward Wood Jr. or Doris Wishman. This explains the IMDb voting pattern for this film with some people handing out top marks.<br /><br />Anthony Quinn made the odd dodgy film in his time, but this performance as a randy ghost is so incredibly bad, it has to be seen to be believed. | 0 | trimmed_train |
11,922 | I suppose that any novel that's as much of a downer as Moby Dick would not find much favor with Depression era audiences who had enough of their own troubles. But any resemblance to the classic Herman Melville novel is a pure coincidence. <br /><br />In fact half of the film is a prequel to the main story as we know it, not that too much of it was kept for the film. We first meet Ahab Creely (he's got a last name and a brother) as one happy go lucky soul with two legs and intentions to marry Joan Bennett who is Father Mapple's daughter. That brother Derek, played by Lloyd Hughes, also wants to marry Bennett.<br /><br />John Barrymore is Ahab in an over the top performance. Barrymore had not quite mastered the sound cinema and he gave out with all the silent era histrionics plus a stage voice that would have shaken the rafters of any movie theater this film was playing in.<br /><br />We see Ahab lose his leg to the great whale Moby Dick and I have to say the amputation scene was pretty gruesome. Of course this was all before the Code. Still I'm sure 1930 audiences shuddered.<br /><br />After that the story of Ahab's hunt for the whale that he thinks made him unsightly in Joan Bennett's eyes. That is not exactly Melville's motivation, in fact there are no women characters in Moby Dick as he wrote it.<br /><br />One of the things Melville did was invest the crew of Ahab's ship the Pequod with personalities. Other than Queequeg the cannibal harpooner the names are there, but not the personalities. Starbuck and Stubbs might as well be Smith and Jones.<br /><br />I'd see this version of Moby Dick strictly for curiosity and nothing else. | 2 | trimmed_train |
8,920 | i checked this one out on DVD for a dollar so I could easily smile as this dreadful movie unfolds. every time that you think it cannot get any worse, it inevitably does. The acting is absolutely horrific. the plot makes no sense at all. The title "cold vengeance" in the US DVD version has absolutely nothing to do with the script. The action scenes are so obviously taken in their first take. There are lots of mistakes during dialogues indicating that there is just no intend to do another take to at least try to make this movie bearable. I cannot remember having seen a worse movie and I do occasionally get bad ones--well, except for unstoppable with Wesley Snipes. No, who am I kidding, while a bad one, Unstoppable deserves Best Picture awards at the Oscars when compared to this piece of crap. | 0 | trimmed_train |
614 | Humphrey Bogart clearly did not want to be in this film, and be forced to play a part-Mexican or he would have been suspended. Believe me , he made the wrong choice! Presumably, after the success of "Dodge City", Warners tried a follow-up with Errol Flynn and his usual list of buddies, like Alan Hale, Guinn (Big Boy) Williams, Frank Mc Hugh and the ever-present John Litel, but they made the huge mistake of trying to present Miriam Hopkins as a love interest for Flynn v. Randolph Scott, and as a singer to really make things bad, because she proved one thing, and that is she cannot sing. The story was not too bad, but with Bogie clearly miscast also, it turned out to be a poor Western that was overlong, and on a low budget, but in fairness, color would not have helped. | 2 | trimmed_train |
22,750 | Having no knowledge of this film prior to seeing it on Rialto Channel I found it to be a pleasant, poignant and enriching film. <br /><br />The casting was excellent. I loved all the characters, they were a little exaggerated in places, (but this IS a film). The way it looked and the enjoyably giddy ride the main character took until it turned badly, as real life can and does. Yes, I thought Andy MacDowell was great. I was particularly interested to watch this film once it began because people so often joke about her acting abilities (I find this quite wierd because she's always a solid actress in my opinion).<br /><br />I loved the bit at the end where Andy's character said "sometimes I feel he was never here" etc., it was so completely how it really is in a situation like that (which I can personally identify with), then there was that gorgeous classical piece "Nocturne" I think by Chopin, which was a beautiful way to end (bar the light comedy at the end, which was probably unnecessary).<br /><br />I say "well done" to the film makers - I have seen 1,000s of worse films! | 3 | trimmed_train |
14,433 | How could I possibly pass up the chance to see Orlando Bloom and Heath Ledger together? Well, I couldn't and so, I rented this mess of a movie.<br /><br />I had never heard of Ned Kelly and was surprised by what I found out about this young man's legend. I was also surprised at how mediocre this movie was. Perhaps the fact that it was very, very late and at the end of a 4 hour movie marathon or maybe it was because it really is a little slow, I found this story difficult to follow. Not because the story is complicated, but because it is slow. Even with a slow story, Ledger and Bloom managed to create interesting, dimensional characters. <br /><br />Though I flounder to recommend this as a must see, it is a great story of Australian history (considering how young the country is, this is very rare and should be appreciated) and the film does have some good actions sequences. <br /><br />6/10 see it for historical value....(yeah right...and that's the only reason to see it... ;) ) | 1 | trimmed_train |
16,118 | Just after the end of WWII Powell & Pressburger were asked to come up with something to try to heal the rift developing between the UK & the USA. At the time there was a lot of "Overpaid, over sexed and over here" type of comments. Somehow they came up with this masterpiece.<br /><br />My favourite movie of ALL time. It's got everything. Romance, poetry, emotion, religion, drama and very quirky.<br /><br />I can never explain exactly why, but it hits all the right buttons and although I've seen it hundreds of times (yes, really) I'm still guaranteed to be in tears at many points throughout.<br /><br />Was it the magnificent acting, the wonderful sets, the inspired script ? Who knows. But *DO* watch it and you'll see what I mean. | 3 | trimmed_train |
10,096 | The version of this film I saw was titled 'Horror Rises from the Tomb'. The horror in question is a wicked Medieval magician played by Spanish horror legend Paul Naschy looking like he's playing Abanazer in a church hall panto. He rises from his tomb when a stupid descendant (I think he's a descendant, as he's also played by Naschy)returns to his ancestral home and reunites the magician's head and body, which had been separated by by the witchfinders who executed him, in an attempt to stop him, er, rising from the tomb.<br /><br />Obviously, once head and body are back together all hell breaks loose and lots of people die. Like all good magicians, Abanazer here has a lovely assistant. This one's played by another Spanish horror great, the beautiful Helga Line. Like practically every other woman in the film Line periodically gets her kit off. There's a LOT of nudity in this film, and not just female - we even get to see Naschy's paunchy body, which isn't a pretty sight, I can tell you. Most of the film's sex angle is laughably gratuitous. There's one particularly funny scene where Naschy and Line discuss their evil plans and then suddenly decide to both have a grope of the nubile young blonde they've possessed.<br /><br />It's also pretty gory in places - notably a Herschell Gordon Lewis-esquire moment where Line plunges her hands into a man's chest to remove his heart.<br /><br />The best part of the film is the pretty effective zombies who turn up towards the end. They're quickly scared off by a fire though, and don't bother coming back. Which is a shame. The scene where the zombies rise, however, is the film's most ludicrously inept moment. It all happens in long shot, and we haven't really got a clue what's happening until we see some figures shambling on from the distance. There are several rubbish moments like this, thanks largely to poor editing. When a labourer falls under the hypnotic spell of Naschy's head there's a big close up of his face that seems to last forever and serves no purpose whatsoever.<br /><br />All in all, not a great horror film, but entertaining enough. Of course, the version I saw was a dubbed American version that had probably been chopped to pieces. For all I know, the original Spanish version could be a masterpiece... | 2 | trimmed_train |
11,080 | Oh my, I think this may be the single cheesiest movie I've ever seen. I'm serious, this is one of the ultimate b-movies. The first proof is that it isn't a $5 DVD. Oh no, that's too mainstream for this. I got this on VHS, from a bin full of ex-rental videos at my local video store.<br /><br />If I may quote the blurb: "In 17th Century Japan, there lived a samurai who would set the standard for the ages. His name was Mayeda. He is sent on an epic journey across the world to acquire 5,000 muscats from the King of Spain. Whilst at sea a violent storm swallows their precious gold intended to buy the weapons and almost takes their lives. Mayeda must battle all odds to survive and the secure the fate of his beloved Japan." It then goes on to say "A multi million dollar action adventure epic set across three continents"<br /><br />I must have seen a different movie. This was no epic, and it certainly wasn't a multi million dollar anything. No, 'Shogun Mayeda' is really just the crazy adventures of the Engrish-speaking Mayeda (Sho Kosugi). He isn't even a Shogun really, but thats not important. What is important, is that he does a really cool impression of John Cleese's repeated charging of the one castle in 'Monty Python and the Holy Grail', and his ability to go from serious scenes to showing off his samurai mind powers. Awesome.<br /><br />The greatest thing about this movie is Sho Kosugi's Engrish accent. The movie may lack nearly everything that makes a good movie, but makes up for it with some of the cheesiest lines ever, delivered by the coolest Engrish accent ever. And honestly, do you really want anything else? You could fast forward 'Shogun Mayeda' to the end, and replay Kosugi's final line over and over. The tape will probably wear out before you get tired of that one line. Awesome.<br /><br />2/10 - So very very cheesy. | 0 | trimmed_train |
15,223 | Went to Wal-Mart and found this film on DVD and had no idea whether I made a bad purchase or a good one. It is the later outcome to my viewing the entire film from beginning to end. Michelle Rodriquez,(Diana Guzman),"BloodRayne",'05, gave a great performance and her looks are beautiful, sexy, and at the same time a real study in the art of how acting is really performed. Diana did not like her home life and especially her own father for the abuse he gave her mother. She decides to get boxing training in a local Brooklyn Gym and is not really well accepted by the male boxers. In her high school there is plenty of friction between her female classmates and guys. There is lots of action in the ladies bathroom and references as to private parts of guys. If you like boxing, and seeing a hot sexy gal do wonders in the ring and knock the boys on their you Know What, this is the film for you. | 1 | trimmed_train |
12,630 | Pleasant story of the community of Pimlico in London who, after an unexploded WW2 bomb explodes, find a Royal Charter stating that the area they live in forms part of Burgundy.<br /><br />This movie works because it appeals to the fantasy a lot of us have about making up our own rules and not having to listen to THEM. A solid cast of British stalwarts, especially Stanley Holloway, makes this more believable.<br /><br />There are some very nice moments in the film, such as when the people have ran out of supplies and other Londoners on the other side of the barricade start throwing food and other things over to them.<br /><br />Even though you always knew Pimlico would become part of the UK again, the people of PImlico and as a consequence the viewer doesn't mind when this happens, leaving a nice happy feeling.<br /><br />It's amazing to think that these low budget movies from a small studio in London still remain so popular over fifty years later. The producers must have got something right. | 1 | trimmed_train |
2,007 | It's always tough having a sibling doing better in their life than you, always a struggle to get out from under that shadow and not let bitterness keep you away from your family. So, imagine that your older brother is Santa and then imagine how tough that must be. That's the premise here.<br /><br />Vince Vaughn plays the titular Fred, an embittered loser who spends a lot of his energy making sure that people don't go around expecting good things to happen to them or giving his brother, Santa (played by Paul Giamatti), too much praise for simply being the limelight-hogging, fame-hungry, slightly creepy guy that Fred would want to portray him as. Then, wouldn't you know it, Fred needs a financial favour and so has to make up for it by helping his brother on the run up to Christmas. And hilarity and life lessons ensue.<br /><br />Well, that's what should happen. The reality is that we get a Christmas movie featuring a few good moments of Vaughn's patented fast-talking, a ridiculously out-of-nowhere music video moment, Kevin Spacey playing an auditor out to close down Santa's operation (and he's one of the weakest baddies I have seen in some time), not enough of the gorgeous Elizabeth Banks in a lush Christmas outfit, too much of John Michael Higgins in his elf outfit (to be fair, he's a highlight though) and a movie that's too swimming in bitterness to feel like good seasonal fare yet too schmaltzy in it's latter half to feel like a fun poke at all the bad things about the commercialism of the time.<br /><br />Rachel Weisz is along for the ride too, as is Kathy Bates, but it's really nothing more than a movie for Vaughn and if you like his style you will find something to enjoy here. Unfortunately, there's very little else to recommend this seasonal stinker. Outside of Vaughn's rantings the script barely throws up anything decent with the exception of one particularly good scene involving a hilarious support group dealing with a very specific problem.<br /><br />David Dobkin's direction is as mediocre and staid as the 20p Christmas card that you send the auntie you haven't seen in 10 years and he seems to think that simply putting the ingredients together without a good mix or decent care taken will guarantee a delicious Christmas pudding. Nope, we get a burnt, bland lump with too much sugar on top. Forget this and stick the hilarious Elf on again if you want a great, modern Christmas comedy.<br /><br />See this if you like: The Santa Clause 2, Santa Baby, The Santa Clause 3: The Escape Clause. | 2 | trimmed_train |
2,270 | Impressed! This is the worst SRK movie and one of the worst Bollywood movies I ever saw! I didn't like the novel, but this movie made it worse! Very bad music, even worse actors (apart from SRK of course, though even he doesn't manage to save the movie), and not much sense. The director makes it all look very confusing, God knows why... Maybe it's because he's trying to make it all look very surrealistic, and yet credible. Well, he manages neither.<br /><br />Even if you've got a few hours to loose, don't watch this movie, please! (Saying this for your own welfare!) Keep searching, you will find something else to watch! | 0 | trimmed_train |
3,515 | "Laughter is a state of mind" says the tag, and I hesitate to comment on Barry Levinson's. What could he have been thinking during the making of "Toys"? When he watched the rushes, did he see a successful, funny fantasy? If so, then he's working on a different plane than I. This is an excruciating picture, one in which the production design is 90% of the thing (and even the cartoon colors are a disappointment). Robin Williams and (most especially) Joan Cusack are humiliated as brother and sister of a toy mogul who are bypassed as inheritors of the factory when their dad dies. There's nothing remotely funny (satirical or slapstick-wise) on display here. It is uniformly draggy, ugly, and one of the very worst "big" movies ever made. NO STARS from **** | 0 | trimmed_train |
17,119 | I see a lot of folks on this site wishing AG would come out on DVD. Well, I bought it on DVD. (From Borders, no less!) While it is great to have this terrific show in a boxed DVD form, I am upset by the fact that they added very few in the way of "extra's" (A director commentary from Shaun Cassidy on the Pilot episode) and the episodes are shown in the same order they were put out on TV. The missing episodes that were never shown prior to being run on Sci Fi channel are in the box set, but are tacked on the final DVD. If you buy the DVD set, get the actual order they are to be viewed and you will be happier. (You will need to swap DVD's in and out of your player to see them in order, but you will be glad you did.)<br /><br />S | 3 | trimmed_train |
5,258 | I like monster movies, generally. Even if they are implausible and silly. But its hard to like this movie when its so implausible and silly AND tries to take itself seriously all at the same time. Like in a really posh kind of way.<br /><br />While the idea is somewhat factual, like Orcas are known for killing Great White Sharks, its really hard to find it scary when I can't help but just see an angry Shamoo destroying stuff. Especially that one scene where some building exploded cause of the Orca's doing...and while it explodes, the thing jumps out of the water and it felt like I was watching a show at Sea World with fireworks. Plus they kill a lot of the scary moments before they even hint that they're going to happen. On top of that, it takes a few jabs at JAWS. Its like "hey look, we're being factual and we can come up with BETTER reasons why the Orca is attacking".<br /><br />Yes you are, ignoring your outrageous **** ups in logic of course. But JAWS had one thing your movie doesn't. Its scary. Yes its implausible. Yes its somewhat outrageous. But quite frankly, factual or not, a Killer Shark is not close to being as scary as a Great White. And the poor attempt at character development and writing just hurts it more. Even JAWS the Revenge is scarier than this. | 2 | trimmed_train |
22,961 | Everyone is either loving or hating this film. I am going with loving. It is so well shot and so well acted. Beautiful. This film is for people who appreciate well crafted film making. If you are not a fan of well done films of course you would hate this. But if you like the tops of acting, photography, story and development, look no further then here. | 3 | trimmed_train |
2,012 | I saw this film in its premier week in 1975. I was 13 years old and at that time I found it adequate and somewhat fun. I then came to discover the WORLD of Doc Savage through the Bantam novels of the old pulp magazine stories. I had no idea before any of this of the realm of Doc, but I fast became one of the most avid Doc Savage fans you could ever meet. I read (and still own) all of the Bantam books, I started going to comic book cons (along with Star Trek and Doctor Who and all manner of geeky fat kid events) and had a wonderful time with each adventure I took with Doc and the ORIGINAL Fab 5. Philip Jose Farmer's Book - The Apocalyptic Life of Doc Savage became a bit of a bible for me and to this day I have very fond feelings regarding my Doc phase. In so saying I have to admit now years later that this film really missed the boat. It is a film that did not know what it wanted to be when it grew up. The screenplay was infantile and bore little resemblance to the pulp story. These stories from the 30's were short and if one looked at Lester Dent's (AKA Kenneth Robeson) outline for writing them, they broke down into PERFECT 3 act dramas that screamed for screen treatment. One would have thought that with George Pal and Michael Anderson at the helm, it would have turned out better. The spoof elements miss the target and the more serious moments almost get there, but then fall short. It is interesting to watch though in that they hired second-string character actors (guys that had really been only bit players and extras before this film) who all acquit themselves very well. Paul Gleason of course has gone on to be a fine utility player in all facets of entertainment and Bill Lucking is a television perennial. All the rest have fallen off the map sadly. I do wish to own a copy of this film as it is the only movie version of my hero, but I fear I will not watch it much as it is too painful. I would say 0 but I give it 2 out of 10 instead for some of the period art direction (Doc's answering machine at the end was a nice touch) and the cast of 3rd stingers getting a moment in the sun. | 0 | trimmed_train |
18,488 | This series it's "something different". Sometimes European series are less accurate than the USA ones, but this time authors have hit the right target creating a mix that works in a smoothly way. Edel & Starck is great, it has all: great plot, smart, witty, always well delivered lines, an amazing theatrical timing showed by all the stars and beautiful shots of Berlin, one of the most interesting city in the world. It's entertaining to see how things works in the justice field in other countries than the USA and for once "feel" the old Europe way of dealing with life. Kudos to all the cast and crew for a well done comedy that is going to be a must to see in the years to come.Watching the series in German is super. | 3 | trimmed_train |
7,923 | Problem with these type of movies is that literally dozens of them are being made each year. Luckily for use only a handful are given a theatrical release, while the others are being pushed straight to video or TV, such as this movie.<br /><br />The foremost problem of this movie is really its originality. It's one of those movies which uses the "Die Hard" formula of a tough but troubled guy being at the wrong place at the wrong time. In this case it's a character played by Casper Van Dien, who works for a security agency that thoroughly test safety procedures for companies and individuals. In this case he's being send to a cruise ship, which of course gets hijacked. You can see this movie as a sort of mix of "Die Hard" and "Air Force One" and the movie doesn't even try to conceal that those two movies were probably its biggest source of 'inspiration'. So really, you can't regard this movie as an original one at all. It uses all of the clichés out of the book and this movie really doesn't offer any surprises or anything that remotely resembles anything original.<br /><br />Like you can expect from a movie such as this, it has a very weak script. Or rather said, it features some very lazy writing. Like I said before, the movie features nothing original but also the actual story itself features some elements which are far from likely and are just plain ridicules truthfully. I mean, hijacking an huge cruise ship with only about 8 guys, of which halve only carry some small guns and then ask for a ransom of 'only' 10 million dollars, for a ship that is about worth 10 times that amount is itself already quite ridicules. How do they even intend to split that money afterward? Every person gets just over a million or something? That's hardly profitable for such a big and risky undertaking. And then there is the case of taking the passengers hostage. Somehow they manage to take all passengers on the huge ship hostage and they manage to put them inside one room, with only one guy with his pistol, which he can't even seem to be able to hold right, watching them. You never see more than like 30 hostages however, as if they were all the people who were aboard at the time. Also when the Van Dien character goes looking for his son and vice versa, no matter which room they walk in through on the huge cruise ship, they always bump into each other instantly. Just some examples of the lazy writing within the movie.<br /><br />But it of course is an action flick, so the story of course becomes secondary. But then again, it's not as if this movie features any good action at all. Halve of the actors look as if they had never hold a weapon before and the movie is filled with some ridicules slow-motion. It really becomes laughable at points.<br /><br />Of course the movie also doesn't feature the best actors, though I must say that Casper Van Dien really isn't a bad 'action hero' and actor, as far as the genre and B-movie circuit is concerned. He just however also suffers from the same problem as Tom Cruise; no matter how old he is, he just never looks convincing enough to play the father of a teenager. Van Dien once started out as a promising new young actor but starring in movies like this really doesn't help his career much. He's probably capable of something better, though he is never really given the right opportunity to show it. All of the other actors also do a fair enough job but their characters are just so formulaic that they never truly become interesting.<br /><br />Oh well, it's not the worst genre movie I have ever seen but it also ain't exactly the most original or memorable one either.<br /><br />4/10 | 2 | trimmed_train |
494 | ....because if I was, I may have wished it was me being crucified on a wooden cross! I'm still trying to determine the plot of this movie - and I'm being "generous" that there was even a plot to begin with. As previously mentioned, it's a misnomer on the cover of the DVD that Richard Dreyfuss is actually the star. He was barely in the movie. And if he was indeed "frustrated" as the back cover indicated he was, well, that's probably because he said YES to be in this disaster of a movie and couldn't get out of it! The movie really seemed to focus on Jared Martin, and what his role in the movie was supposed to be, other than the extreme close -ups, was not as big of a mystery as to what Gene Barry's role actually was - or wasn't. And speaking of "big"...whomever had the bright idea to fit Gene Barry in the Humpty Dumpty attire, which showcased his trousers literally pulled up to his chin, should be sentenced to hard time by watching this movie stoned sober. I could go on and on about how horrendous this movie was, from the dialogue not matching the "actors'" mouths (think Clutch Cargo), to the erratic jumping from scene to scene (again, being generous even calling the frames of pictures "scenes"), to the lack of a plot.... However, if you're into bad early 70s genre and if you're in a cottage in Michigan with nothing but this movie and a box of kid & cat pictures, I recommend having a good bottle of wine before you embark on this weird ride of a movie because you'll be thankful that you may not remember it the next day! | 0 | trimmed_train |
6,525 | Alright if you want to go see this movie just give me our money I'll<br /><br />kick you were it counts and you'll have the same amount of fun. I'll<br /><br />even guarantee more fun. This movie once again shows what happens when<br /><br />you can't get any one else to hire your family and your forced to make<br /><br />your own movies. Same, I'm going through puberty humor jokes, just<br /><br />dumber and grosser. This movie is really a disgrace to movie goers. They<br /><br />try to shock you into laughing because you can't believe the levels they<br /><br />have to stoop to make you laugh. So my offer above stands as | 0 | trimmed_train |
12,216 | Overlong drama that isn't capable of making any real point. So she became an actress - so what? She learned to love - big deal. There is a certain eccentricity among the characters and in the dialog and situations, but the kind which is bad for the movie, causing it to often seem absurd.<br /><br />Summer Phoenix, playing the lead, talks and behaves like a semi-retarded person, so there is no choice but to watch the movie as about a retarded girl that makes it in the world of theater - which was clearly not the intended point. We are told early on (in that "Barry Lyndon"-like narration) that she learned to hide her emotions, which certainly explains her autistic stone-face, but the movie suffers for it. She basically walks around like a zombie, and her success as an actress isn't quite credible given her lack of emotions. Occasionally, the movie had that dull, sleepy feel of a Dogma 95 movie. Is it one? I wouldn't be at all surprised.<br /><br />Summer Phoenix is sister of Joaquim Phoenix and the late River Phoenix. Nepotism rarely works.<br /><br />If you'd like to see my Hollywood Nepotism List, with over 350 pictures/entries, contact me by e-mail. | 0 | trimmed_train |
23,153 | Shakespeare Behind Bars was a strangely uplifting documentary despite its content. Convicts at Luther Luckett Correctional Complex in LaGrange, Kentucky who have raped, murdered etc
and surrounded by bad people in an obviously depressing environment find something they genuinely enjoy and can become important, popular and celebrated in acting. There are paralleled themes to 'Shawshank Redemption' with their institutionalised natures and search for forgives and redemption for their past lives. As we follow a generous, non judgemental Director, who gives up his time each year to Direct certain inmates in a chosen play by William Shakespeare (this time around, the 'Tempest', that was cleverly portrayed with the inmates who could relate to it so much with its penetrating focus on forgiveness and redemption in which they confide and relate to) we are introduced to each actor in formal interviews that are nicely paced with break up footage of them rehearsing. Each actor has their own story and tell of their regrets and reasons why they are there in emotional fashion with melancholic music over each in a traditional documentary sense. The strongest and most respected inmate (it would seem) is Sammie. The Director appears to immediately realise who the most interesting inmates were in Sammie (and later, Hal) and allows a longer, more in depth observation into the man and his personality. His presence is felt on screen and his personal revelations come as a shock to the audience, but give him such appeal in his emotional personality and a particular empathy is felt toward him. Hal is the same at the beginning of the film. He has other things that he does to pass the time that's shown as a comfortable hobby as it were in running an on site news broadcast programme. Again, through personal interviews and revelations self admitted by Hal (and nicely shot cutaways of Hal's body language, not the close-ups of his uncertain hand movement not only observed with him but others as well,) in particular his heart felt story about being unsure and scared of his true sexuality in a society that purely would not accept him as a homosexual until later on in the film where he is shown to be quite snide and rude to other inmates involved in the play as though he deems himself above all of them, in particular to Ron who already has a frustrating temperament in his acting. The relationship between all of the inmates involved in the play is shown as one of respect and unity to achieve something great for themselves. With nice (if not clichéd) motions of time passing by with titles etc
everything seems to go right in the first act, and then on the build up to the public performance, things predictably go wrong. An induction of one of the actors being transferred and his character being replaced by a younger, newer inmate gives the narrative a nice subplot into someone who promises big, but in the end disappoints all and does not live up to their expectation. One inmate in particular (Big-G) welcomes the new inmate actor (Rick) with an evident will to nurture him into their beloved practise and hopefully become a good role model. The film seems to capture each inmates passion so well with something the audience can relate to especially when Rick is put in the 'Hole' for getting new tattoos (something nicely hinted upon earlier in the film when the warden stops a random inmate in the yard and asks him when he got a tattoo that's on his arm and we learn it's a punishable offence in the facility) and Big-G's disappointment is understood deeply. A happy ending? It all looks great when they are performing successfully (even being invited to perform elsewhere) and a sense of real unity echoes around them, but in the end, the film brings everyone back down to earth that this is short lived and everything they ever had or wanted was and will always be taken away from them. It is back to prison to pay for their crimes and no matter what redemption they seek in acting these plays, they won't be free men, their proud performances and recognition is undermined by the fact that they are the lowest of the low criminals and a nice halt in the uplifting music that plays in a shot of a long corridor that coincides with the lights turning off and doors shutting is a powerful image of their oppression. The Director seemed to be aware he was watching likable people in the documentary by given additional information at the end of the film into each actors future from the end of the film about where they are and what's happening to them now. | 1 | trimmed_train |
16,257 | I watched the movie in a preview and I really loved it. The cast is excellent and the plot is sometimes absolutely hilarious. Another highlight of the movie is definitely the music, which hopefully will be released soon. I recommend it to everyone who likes the British humour and especially to all musicians. Go and see. It's great. | 3 | trimmed_train |
24,583 | Melvyn Douglas and Joan Blondell co-star in "The Amazing Mr. Williams," a 1939 mystery/comedy that's quite good, although forgotten, probably due to the number of incredible films that came out in 1939.<br /><br />Douglas plays a talented police detective married to his job, while his girlfriend waits for a wedding that is constantly postponed. What happens in this film is no exception - he's called to a murder scene just as he's about to walk down the aisle yet again.<br /><br />Both stars were excellent at comedy, worked together well (and often), and help make this battle of the sexes fun. Edward Brophy and Donald McBride are on hand for excellent support.<br /><br />As you can read in other reviews, Melvyn Douglas doesn't make much of a woman.<br /><br />Entertaining if a little on the long side.<br /><br />One of the comments here trashed Melvyn Douglas, one of our greatest actors. He literally floated effortlessly through dozens of films as the other man and the best friend before coming into his own in films as an old man. He wasn't lazy, but rather, a very hard-working actor (who made it look easy) who had a Broadway career simultaneously with his film career. He just wasn't cast as a leading man in films or given very challenging roles under the studio system. I challenge anyone to see his devastating performances in "Hud" and "I Never Sang for my Father" and call him lazy or make reference to his smirk. | 1 | trimmed_train |
9,448 | I'm a big fan of B5, having caught on only at the end of season three. I faithfully watched all the previous seasons when it was syndicated, concluding that it was one of the most well-thought out story arcs to ever hit television. Even the filler episodes were interesting. The movies, also, were well produced and as entertaining as anything to hit the theaters.<br /><br />Which brings us to 'River of Souls'. Naturally, after seeing everything else, I had high expectations. Martin Sheen appears to be acting in an Ed Wood movie rather than a serious Sci-Fi story. The story itself, might have looked good in outline form, even made it to the story board. However, it suffers obviously when it came time to filling this notion out into a two hour movie. There are no special effects to keep us entertained in the total absence of a compelling story. There are places where they were obviously short of time and just improvised the dialog to fill the story out. Had this made the regular season, it would have rated among the worst of the episodes. | 0 | trimmed_train |
4,557 | I remembered this show from when i was a kid. i couldn't remember too much about it, just a few minor things about the characters. for some reason i remembered it being really intense. also it was on really really early in the morning up in PA. I finally, after looking around the web for a long time, found an episode. the first episode no-less. Criminey! This show was so horrible. it was obviously just made to show kids playing lazer tag and having a great time. the show opens with bhodi li telling his mommy "my names not Christopher, I'm bhodi li-PHOTON WARRIOR!!!!!" we then are forced to watch kids playing lazer tag to the song "foot loose". and not just a quick little bit, but the whole song. ahhhhhhhhh my brain hurts just thinking about it. oh yeah, and as if i couldn't get worse, you cant even see the laser beams from their guns. its like they're just running around to the entire "foot loose" song. later on, after bhodi goes up into space or where-ever, they have a crappy laser gun fight to the Phil Collins song "su-su-sudio." ah, trust me, you don't want to know the rest. what can i say......THE LIGHT SHINES!!!!!!!!!!! | 0 | trimmed_train |
2,032 | (Honestly, Barbra, I know it's you who's klicking all those "NO"s on my review. 22 times?? How many people did you have to instruct to help you out here? Don't you have anything better to do, like look at yourself in the mirror all day?)<br /><br />Steven Spielberg told Barbra that this was "the best movie I've seen since 'Citizen Kane'". That pretty much says it all - and serves as a dire warning!<br /><br />What are the ingredients for a sure-fire cinematic disaster, and one that will haunt you, never letting you forget the tears of both laughter and pain? The ingredients: Barbra Streisand's face, a musical, feminism, Barbra Streisand's voice, Barbra Streisand directing, and an ultra-corny/idiotic premise.<br /><br />Hollywood is full of egomaniacs, this much we know. In fact, nearly everyone by definition has to be an egomaniac in Hollywood. Why would anyone want to act? For the "art"?!? Well, if you're dumb enough to believe what they tell you in their carefully prepared interviews
And Streisand has the biggest ego of them all! This is quite an achievement. To be surrounded by narcissistic cretins, and yet to manage to top them all remarkable.<br /><br />The movie, like all her "solo" endeavors, is an ego trip straight out of hell. Every scene Streisand is in is automatically ruined. Stillborn. But as it that weren't enough, she sings a whole bunch of Streisandy songs you know, the kind that enabled the Mariah Careys, the Celine Dions, and the Whitney Hustons of this world to poison our precious air-waves for decades now. Just for that she deserves not one but 100 South Park episodes mocking her.<br /><br />The premise, Streisand dressing up as a man to study to become a rabbi, sounds like a zany ZAZ comedy. Apart from it being a cliché, the obvious problem is that Streisand doesn't look like a woman nor does she look like a man in fact I'm not even sure she's human. The way she looks in this movie, well
it cannot be described in words. E.T. looks like a high-school jock by comparison. She looks more alien than Michael Jackson in the year 2015. She looks HORRIBLE.<br /><br />The songs. They made me shiver. Particularly "Papa Can You Hear Me Squeel Like A Demented Female Walrus In Heat?" and "Tomorrow Night I'll Prepare the Sequel, YENTL 2: THE RETURN OF THE BITCH".<br /><br />Did you know that Streisand considered having a nose-job early on in her career, but changed her mind when they told her her voice might change? Can you believe that? She should have done it! Killing two flies with one swipe, that's what it would have been.<br /><br />If you're interested in reading my biographies of Barbra Streisand and other Hollywood intellectuals, contact me by e-mail.<br /><br />SHOULD BARBRA STREISAND FINALLY GO INTO RETIREMENT? CLICK "YES" OR "NO". | 0 | trimmed_train |
21,315 | I have seen several comments here about Brando using a Southern accent, some of which felt it was a mistake. When this movie was made, racism and discrimination were very strong in the South. The Jim Crow laws were still in effect. Civil Rights was in it's infancy. Could this have possibly been a subtle social commentary, a Southern man in love with a woman of another race? The same way MASH was a subtle criticism of the Viet Nam war? Any thoughts?<br /><br />Another comment was made about Myoshi Umeki appearing "cold". Anyone who has been in Japan would understand. The Japanese people, at least in my experience, did not tend to show emotion in front of strangers. There were strict social rules, especially for men meeting single women. Americans in Japan were totally foreign to this culture, and the blunt attempts to meet women were shocking to the ladies. One trait of the Japanese was to smile when embarrassed or uncomfortable, which many American servicemen took as a sign that their advances were welcomed. Also remember that at the time represented in the movie, Japan had just been defeated, and the occupying forces were treated with reluctant acceptance. I think Myoshi Umeki gave a very credible performance of what her situation would have been. Watching her interaction with the American actors brought back several memories of my own experiences in the country. I was able to meet a pair of lovely young ladies who, after I convinced them I was not the typical American male, taught me their language and their culture during my time in their country. | 3 | trimmed_train |
9,976 | This film is terrible. Every line is stolen from 8MM (the Italian dubbed version, at least). If you like trash... real trash, give it a try; but beware: this ain't the "so bad it's good" kind of flick. In its cheapness, it may really look like a porno but, believe me, if you're looking for "snuff", s & m, hardcore, softcore... or even an ordinary erotic thriller, go find something else in store! I'm telling you this, 'cause the absolutely uninspired and unconvincing shooting, acting, plot, dialogues (the only good lines, as I said before, are the ones they stolen from Joel Schumacher's 8MM!) will bore you to tears in a few minutes and the "happy ending" is absolutely revolting! I'll give it one star: a half for the sudden shot in the back scene, after "the eyes of the victim" monologue (stolen from 8MM as well) and a half for mom & daughter's sexy bodies (that didn't manage to keep me completely awake while watching this turkey, anyway!) | 0 | trimmed_train |
20,681 | I don't know...Maybe it's just because it's an impressive tribute to some Muslim religious action(hajj)but I just felt the movie is so underrated. I just can't believe that the movie has just been voted by only 223 people so far given that the movie was produced in 2004 and it has won many awards since then.About the movie...it's one of those well-acted sweet movies.Reda,a French teenager due to sit for Baccalauréat, is asked by his devout elderly father to take him to Mecca.Strange as it may seem(if one doesn't know much about Islam)the father wants his son to drive them from their home in France to Saudia Arabia on a once-in-a-lifetime religious pilgrimage.The generation gap between the father and the son is based on simple enough terms('you may know how to read and write, but you know nothing about life,' the unnamed father to his son)but some sort of bromidic generation gap literature is avoided.Bot of them are affectionate in their frustrations.The father never speaks in French though Reda understands Arabic but can only seem to answer in French. Though they encounter many people on the road: "There's the scary old woman they pick up in the Bosnian border on the way to Belgrade, and the talkative Mustafa(Jacky Nercessian), who helps them out at the border of Turkey,the reticent and shy women wearing burqas on the way to Damascus" the focus is always on the mismatched father and son.There is not much of a conversation in the movie which makes it enjoyable to your eyes. You see magnificent views in every city they go.The director shows you even the Blue Mosque and the Hagia Sophia even though the movie is not relatively long.<br /><br />Generally I don't like movies which don't have enough dialogs and which take their power from camera subtleties but this one was really great.Despite some unanswered details(like Reda's unseen French girlfriend)the movie appeals to senses.Great work of art and remember this movie is Ismaël Ferroukhi's debut. | 3 | trimmed_train |
890 | I turn on 700 Club once in awhile and only agree with some of the statements made- I'm one of many believers that is considered liberal by most Christians and conservative by most non-Christians. I vote my mind, and its usually not rep. or dem. - i don't believe 700 club tells people what to believe, but that it represents many older christians that grew up in very conservative backgrounds. i think many folks misunderstand what is said on 700 club. it bums me out to hear name calling either direction. i think 700 club folks really do love Jesus but are so busy trying to get people to vote conservatively that they've forgotten to show love to certain people and promote peace like Jesus did. Please don't judge Jesus based on ignorant individuals that believe on Him and let's also not be as ignorant with our comments about them. Why ARE people so mean to each other? | 2 | trimmed_train |
23,759 | It was clear right from the beginning that 9/11 would inspire about as many films as World War II and Vietnam combined; however, there is certainly a big danger that most of these films to come are about as good (or rather: bad) as Pearl Harbor. It is a great luck that the first international release about 9/11 is not a cheesy love story starring a bunch of pretty faces, but a collective work of 11 directors from the entire world.<br /><br />I'm not intending to say that all 11 episodes are great (Youssef Chahine's, for example, has a needless prologue with too many cuts and Shohei Imamura's has a really bizarre ending) or that the segments are in the right order (Imamura's, being the only one not referring directly to the Twin Towers, should open the film, not end it, Alejandro Gonzales Inarritu's should be the last one instead, as it's the most impressive one). But it is an impressing effort and an interesting portrayal of the way other parts of the world react to the collapse of the twin towers.<br /><br />Consider Samira Makhmalbaf's opening segment, in which an Afghan teachers tries to explain to her pupils what happened in New York and unsuccessfully suggests a one-minute silence. Or Idrissa Ouedraogo's part (which features a bin Laden-double so much resembling the real one that you'll be shocked when you see him, I promise), in which 5 boys muse about good things that can be done with the reward put out on Laden.<br /><br />There's a surprisingly good (and extremely angry) segment by Ken Loach about a man from Chile talking about what he calls "our Tuesday September 11" - that September 11 in 1973 when their elected president Allende was killed and Pinochet installed his dictatorship - with the generous help from Henry Kissinger and the CIA. This could have become a terrible effort in Anti-Americanism, but it did become a sad tale and shares my recognition for the best segment with Inarritu's (mainly sound impressions and phone calls from the hijacked planes to a black screen, sometimes a few pictures of people falling down the WTC and finally a collapsing tower, ending with the screen brightening up and one question appearing) and Amos Gitai's about a hysterical reporter trying desperatly to get on air after a car bomb exploded in Tel Aviv (hard to recognize, but this one is a masterpiece of choreography).<br /><br />All these different segments (I haven't mentioned yet Claude Lelouch's about a deaf girl, Danis Tanovic's about a demonstration of the Women of Srebrenica, Mira Nair's - strange, but it takes an Indian director to make the part that is probably most appealing to Western tastes - about a Muslim family whose son is under a terrible suspicion after 9/11 and Sean Penn's with Ernest Borgnine (yes, Ernest Borgnine) as a widower leading the most depressive life one can imagine) add up to a unique film not easy to watch and hard to forget. I am sure this film will be a classic known to everyone thirty years from now. I hope it will be remembered for starting a long tradition of world cinema movies. But, alas, it's far more probable it will be remembered as a one-film-only effort. And as the one of the few 9/11 movies made by then that don't reduce this terrible event to a love story with a happy end just to please the audience. | 3 | trimmed_train |
14,071 | Okay, so the plot is on shaky ground. Yeah, all right, so there are some randomly inserted song and/or dance sequences (for example: Adam's concert and Henri's stage act). And Leslie Caron can't really, um, you know... act.<br /><br />But somehow, 'An American In Paris' manages to come through it all as a polished, first-rate musical--largely on the basis of Gene Kelly's incredible dancing talent and choreography, and the truckloads of charm he seems to be importing into each scene with Caron. (He needs to, because she seems to have a... problem with emoting.) <br /><br />The most accomplished and technically awe-inspiring number in this musical is obviously the 16-minute ballet towards the end of the film. It's stunningly filmed, and Kelly and Caron dance beautifully. But my favourite number would have to be Kelly's character singing 'I Got Rhythm' with a bunch of French school-children, then breaking into an array of American dances. It just goes to prove how you don't need special effects when you've got some real *talent*.<br /><br />Not on the 'classics' level with 'Singin' In The Rain', but pretty high up there nonetheless. Worth the watch! | 1 | trimmed_train |
1,787 | Hollywood, the home of hype, glamor and the search for profits, is scarcely ruled by spiritual values, and so it comes as no surprise that its attempts at investigations of the spiritual life are thin and often silly (better to go farther afield--to the films of Bresson, Dreyer, Rossellini and Bergman, for probing depictions of the spirituality). "Strange Cargo" is no exception. This odd hybrid of adventure film, love story and religious parable trivializes the very insights it tries to communicate. That a figure of providence and salvation would work to match Verne (Clark Gable at his most cockily mannered and self-regarding) and Julie (Joan Crawford, snarling and spitting out every other word in an attempt to be the Queen of Tough Dames) seems ludicrous at best. Is this the Patron Saint of the Star System at work, matching warring egos before sending them off to further penal servitude on the M-G-M lot? BUT. . .there are good supporting performances here, and visually arresting moments: the shadowy prison barracks; the escaping boat by moonlight, or against a painterly cloudscape; Julie walking along the seafront as the wind whips up; Julie and Monsieur Pig (Peter Lorre) bargaining for Verne's freedom as the storm builds; an unusually ennobling gay prison romance between two convicts. . .Above all, there is Paul Lukas's dignified and detached performance as Hessler, a murderer who can appreciate Cambreau's virtues, yet turns his back on him. In the film's most arresting moment, Hessler, having left Cambreau, stands outside the cabin. We hear the wind through the jungle, see the shadows on his face, which conveys a moment of fear and self-doubt. Then he exits into the night. In this moment, Hessler achieves an ambiguity, depth and existential strength that none of the other characters manage to achieve. is the film's secret that its deepest sympathies are allied with Hessler? | 2 | trimmed_train |
12,042 | This should be a great film... Meryl Streep and Jack Nicholson co-starring as two newspaper writers. Mike Nichols directing. Uh uh. It's dull dull dull! Pointless and predictable! Slow and unfocused!<br /><br />It's a cookie cutter 'boy meets girl, boy marries girl, boy has affair, girl leaves boy' story. Now theres an original concept! After squirming through two hours (was it only two? It felt like six.)I wasn't sure whether it was a comedy, a romance, a tragedy or a soap opera. It was done in 1986. I'm sure all of us did things sixteen years ago that we rather would forget. I hope the damage to the reputations of Streep et al is beginning to heal and that the emulsion on the master is beginning to fade. It's not that it's such a bad picture. It's just that it's such an un-good one. | 2 | trimmed_train |
278 | Jimmy Dean could not have been more hammy or absurdly loutish. Hysterical if viewed through the eyes of Mystery Science Theatre 3000, which I rate as a 10. I mean, the sight of this obese, corn-fed hog trouncing around Malta should be enough to send you to the vomitory, if you make it that far into the film. This ugly, hysterical farce should be placed with the likes of "Booty Call", "Pumpkinhead", "Swarm", and "The Smurfs Go To Bangladesh". A -gulp- film like this proves that sometimes actors, writers, producers, etc. get behind on their mortgage, or get stoned to the point of insanity. It begs the question "who was so stupid to finance such a whale?" But then, had good judgment prevailed and "Final Justice" never was, then we wouldn't have the delightful spoof voice-over in "Mystery Science Theatre 3000"! | 0 | trimmed_train |
11,947 | I'm actually watching this film as I write this . . . If the following comments "prove my lack of development as a true, artistic film maker", then so be it . . .<br /><br />But . . . I thought (am still thinking as I'm presently viewing) that this film . . . to put it mildly, is very, very overrated. Again, very.<br /><br />It looks like a really, really bad student film done by a someone with beyond extremely limited resources . . . and who didn't pay that much attention to detail.<br /><br />I don't want to go on and on regarding all the different ways that I find this film lacking, but . . . well . . . I just don't get it (rememeber, I fully admit that maybe it's ME that's the idiot here - not the film maker - for not getting this "piece of imaginative genius") . . . I rented this on a whim because the reviews were very, very outstanding . . .<br /><br />Sheesh . . . | 0 | trimmed_train |
141 | I got this movie out of Blockbuster in one of those racks were you can get like 5 movies for 20 bucks. I'd have to say I got my money's worth on this one. I had expected horrible dialogue, crappy monsters, and shaky cameras. Well, as Meatloaf said, two outta three ain't bad.<br /><br />The acting is bad, though not as bad as some movies I've seen. Or maybe I've watched so many low budget movies recently I've lost perspective. There are some bits were the acting is downright terrible, but for the most part it's of at least High School Play level.<br /><br />The CG for the Sasquatch in this movie is probably the second-worst part. The first thing I thought when I saw it (and I noticed another reviewer agreed with me) was that a man in an ape suit would have been better. Clunky stop-motion animation would have looked better.<br /><br />So you may be asking why I call the CG the second-worst part. That's because the very worst part of the movie is the sound effects. They are loud, annoying, and constant. I've been camping, I know what insects sound like in the woods at night, and while they can be loud, they're not deafening like the cacophony in this movie. Usually when the "background" sounds drown out the movie's dialogue, it's a bad thing, but from what I caught of the dialogue of this film, I wasn't missing much.<br /><br />The action was infrequent and boring. The tension was non-existent, as was any sense of empathy with the characters. Speaking of the characters, they were all cookie-cutter and bland. The only mildly engaging byplay was between...actually, I can't think of anything. There was a line or two that made me crack a wan smile, but that was about it.<br /><br />The cinematography was decent, a step or two above what you'd normally see in a movie like this. However, it still had that "home movie" quality to it that you get with movies made on pocket change and a prayer. <br /><br />If you're like me and get a kick out of shoestring budget genre flicks, and you see this one in the dollar bin, think about grabbing it. Otherwise, stay away at all costs. | 2 | trimmed_train |
12,946 | A series of vignettes, most of them spoofing television of the 1970's, but also with some digs at the government and corporate America. One of the longest segments, "The Dealers" is not that funny to me and I don't know what it is parodying. Some of the others, though, are absolutely side-splitting. I particularly enjoy the cooking show segment. Most of the foul words I know are used in the movie, and, if you object to full frontal nudity, stay away. | 1 | trimmed_train |
7,982 | Did Francis Ford Coppola have a brain aneurysm some time after directing "Apocalypse Now" that made him absolutely incapable of making a good movie? <br /><br />You have to wonder what the director of "The Godfather" and "The Conversation" was thinking when he made this flabby film. It gives Kathleen Turner a starring vehicle, playing a woman who travels back in time and gets to redo her adolescence knowing all of the things that life as an adult has taught her, and Turner, the trooper that she is, does what she can with it, but this movie couldn't be saved by anyone.<br /><br />It doesn't even have any style to it, and, given its director, one would expect that even if it had nothing else, it would have that.<br /><br />Grade: C- | 2 | trimmed_train |
7,788 | I'm beginning to see a pattern in the movies I give a 1 to. They are almost all movies that my wife made me watch. Maybe I should stop having faith in her taste in movies. Anyway, this is typical drivel aimed at pre-teen girls but done even more poorly than usual. Once again, the writer broke the cardinal rule of any movie. He/she made the main character unlikable. She starts off by being a complete b*tch to her friend at the beginning, and then finds out when she becomes 30, that she's basically a sh*tty person (having affairs, etc.). Why the F would we feel for this person? OK, let's say we can get past that. Jennifer Garner is about as far from attractive as you can get without having some sort of deformity. I don't know if it's her or the writer's fault, but her character goes well beyond my threshold for annoyance. Here's a tip for future filmmakers: 13 year olds are NOT entertaining, they're annoying. Far and away the most embarrassing moment in the movie came when they danced to "Thriller". Holy crap that was painful. It showed her practicing that dance at the beginning. That explains why she knows it, but an entire club full of people?!? Argh!!! The Macarena would be more believable! All of a sudden she's completely incompetent and has no clue how to do her job and no one notices? At least Tom Hanks' character on "Big" had a job that made sense to a child. These body-switching/child becoming adult overnight movies are really getting out of hand, and this is by far the worst one yet. | 0 | trimmed_train |
6,891 | Just once I'd like to see a version of Beowulf where it appears the screenwriters have at least a passing familiarity with the original poem. Yet again, after watching this Sci Fi presentation, I'm disappointed. <br /><br />I'm not suggesting the writers need to understand and analyze the poem in Old English, but I wish they could at least try to read a translation in modern English and attempt to construct a story based on what actually transpires. The story is exciting enough; why add plot elements that are non-existent and ruin the story? What's wrong with being faithful to the text? <br /><br />Grendel is immune to weapons of any kind; why introduce some super-crossbow that is unbelievable and could not have possibly existed in this time period (as correctly pointed out by the previous reviewer)? The fight with Grendel was Beowulf vs. Grendel. That's it. No one else took part in the battle. The only way Beowulf could have defeated him was by choosing specifically to engage the monster without any weapons, the mistake made by all previous challengers. Yet, in this version, Danes and Geats fight the beast and Beowulf hacks off Grendel's arm with a sword! Again, why couldn't they portray what really happened? Personally, I think a one-on-one grappling match between the two would be much more exciting. <br /><br />Overall, this is a pathetic and abysmal depiction that is faithless to the true tale. Why add in a pact with Hrothgar and Grendel's mother that includes sacrificial offering? Why create extra characters, like Finn, that add nothing to the story? There was no love story in the poem. They couldn't even set the scenes in the appropriate locations (a forest instead of the swamp and no lair under the lake). They fail to notice the metaphor that Grendel's lair signifies it's supposed to be underground to represent hell. Why not instead center on the symbolism inherent in the epic poem? Even my high school students last year were able to do immensely better when they created a short film based on Beowulf, since they focused on the themes and symbolism underlying the story. If Hollywood could create a film that centers on these elements and is faithful to the plot, then that would be a truly great movie. | 0 | trimmed_train |
5,005 | As horror fans we all know that blind rentals are a crap-shoot. Sometimes we find a real gem, but many times we find that the film we've just spent our hard earned money on is nothing more than a putrid steamer made worse by the completely undeserved rave reviews and film fest awards listed on the box. Such is the case with Five Across the Eyes ( a title I'm sure is a double entendre referring to both the films budget and the compulsion anyone watching it might have to using all five fingers to stab their eyes out ).<br /><br />The story, or, at least what the *ahem* writers think passes for one, centers on a group of teen girls who unwisely decide to go on a backwoods joyride late at night after leaving a football game and run afoul of a crazy woman who plays cat and mouse with them as punishment for what she thinks the girls found in her car after a fender-bender in a gas station parking lot.<br /><br />In fairness, it's an interesting idea. Some of the best horrors have very simple story lines. It's in the execution of Five Across the Eyes that this idea falls flat. The film tries to be a cross between The Blair Witch Project with its shaky camera work and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre in its bare-bones approach to the material but succeeds at being neither. What we get instead are redundant scenes of chase, torture, release; chase torture, release, in that order for 94 minutes with long interludes of bitching, moaning, and incoherent rambling acting as plenty of padding in-between chase sequences.<br /><br />The look of the film is incredibly grainy and dark, which, in a better made film might have enhanced the tension and the realism. Here it's merely annoying. The characters are undeveloped and the viewer is hard-pressed to find anything to sympathize with them. One character stops to get a first-aid kit and tend to some scrapes on her face while gunshots heard in the background indicate her friends may be getting killed. Another girl mutters hilariously dumb lines like "Don't go out there, she'll get you, if she gets you she'll kill you and if she kill's you you're dead".<br /><br />It was an accolade from Fangoria magazine and Dreadcentral.com listed on the box that compelled me to check this one out. Talk about a fake orgasm! Perhaps my expectations would have been met had this been in the comedy section. I'm all for low-budget Indie horror but this one takes the crap-cake. Give Five Across the Eyes (or FATE; get it?) a pass.<br /><br />RazorFriendly gives FATE 1 slash out of five / | 0 | trimmed_train |
14,478 | I am a fairly big fan of most of the films that have been based on Stephen King's books - this one rates as one of the scariest and most memorable.<br /><br />I have just finished rewatching it for about the tenth time and I still find it heart-wrenching as well as scary.<br /><br />The scene where Gage is on a sure collision course with the monster truck is one which stands out. And the "No fair" uttered by little Miko Hughes near the end is a touch of brilliance.<br /><br /> | 3 | trimmed_train |
21,872 | I read the book in 5th grade and now a few years later I saw the movie. There are a few differences: <br /><br />1.Billy was oringinally suppose to eat 15 worms in 15 days, not 10 worms in one day by 7:00pm.<br /><br />2.Billy is suppose to get 30 dollars after he's eaten all the worms. In the movie after Billy eats all the worms, Joe has to go to school with worms in his pants.<br /><br />3. Joe is suppose to fake some of the worms but in the movie, he doesn't at all.<br /><br />Even though there are changes,this movie is still one that kids will enjoy. | 1 | trimmed_train |
8,760 | I was expecting a movie similar to Deuce Bigalow, which I enjoyed. However, this dud seemed to last forever. It's one of those flicks which enjoys the sad placement of PG-13 while not being kid appropriate. The jokes aren't just low-brow or f**t jokes, they're crude, lewd, and many acts cross the boundaries to not only bad taste but beyond legal and moral decency. Many scenes appear to have been chopped to get the PG-13 rating...too bad...it might have made a bigger splash as an R-rated film if the funny was left in. (Overstatement? Probably.) I do not recommend this movie. It is a full-on waste of time...and I'm a movie lover and ready to give just about anything a shot. At 45 minutes in, the movie felt like it should be winding down...and boy were we ready for it to. The ending is quaint but doesn't salvage the rest of this quagmire/tourist trap of a rental. 1/2 star (glad I saw it as a freebie...would have been sickened to pay hard-earned greenbacks for this tripe) | 0 | trimmed_train |
10,483 | Go immediately and rent this movie. It will be be on a bottom shelf in your local video store and will be covered in dust. No one will have touched it in years. It may even be a $.50 special! It's worth ten bucks, I swear! Buy it! There aren't very many films than can compare with this - the celluloid version of that goo that forms at the bottom of a trash can after a few years. Yes, I gave it a '1,' but it really deserves much lower. 1-10 scales were not designed with stuff like this in mind. | 0 | trimmed_train |
3,343 | They played this on the July 4th Twilight Zone marathon and this is, hands down, the worst Twilight Zone episode I've ever seen. It's completely out of sync with the rest of the series in its tone. Even though Twilight Zone is a pretty uneven series and many episodes end up being groaningly predictable, this one was completely out of place. Compare this to legendary episodes like "A Stop at Willoughby" or "Midnight Sun", and you realize there is no comparison.<br /><br />Buster Keaton did what he could with such terrible material, and frankly it surprises me that someone of his historic comedy stature would stoop to the level of this episode. Even though he seemed to be giving it some effort, he MUST have needed the money... there's no other explanation. | 0 | trimmed_train |
20,340 | Wasn't sure what to expect from this film. I love watching Brosnan in any movie, he's always good, but this was totally different. He's a mess, and plays being a mess very well. In fact he reminded me of myself a few times back in uni :) So yes, there's not a lot of violence, there's not a lot of action, but the dialogue is cracking, the acting is superb and very refreshing, and it's pretty funny too :) I don't think you'll come out of the cinema going "Wow! I was blown away", but you'll come out smiling having enjoyed a good film. Can't ask for more than that.<br /><br />Oh, and if you're lucky, some moron will put the adverts reel in wrong and you'll get inverted, upside down, reversed (with reversed audio) adverts!! Brilliant. Nothing like watching a Jack Daniels ad where the drink goes back into the bottle from the glass with a gruff American "Twin Peaks" commentary :) | 3 | trimmed_train |
14,877 | The next-to-last episode aired of the original Star Trek series is an interesting, sometimes melancholy installment that proves the show was still exploring its characters even at this point in the third season; though flawed, 'All Our Yesterdays' has its moments and overall a moody, compelling feel to it. Kirk, Spock, and McCoy beam down to a planet, assuming they are arriving in the nick of time to save or at least give some warning to whatever populace is there, since the planet's sun is due to explode within hours. But as it turns out, the people there are all too aware of the planet's fate, and using a kind of time travel device, have escaped into the past. Each person has been able to choose the time and place in the past where he or she would like to live at a 'library,' run by an elderly man named Mr. Atoz. Atoz assumes the three men are looking for a past to live in as well, and shows them various periods from which they can choose on viewers. There is some rather forced confusion at the start of the episode, with lines like:<br /><br />McCoy- Where did they go? Atoz- Wherever they wanted to.<br /><br />The misunderstanding could be cleared up rather easily, but for plot purposes, it isn't, and soon Kirk finds himself transported back to a period resembling 18th Century England, while Spock and McCoy are sent to an ice age, 5000 years in the planet's past. From here, the main focus is on Spock and his relationship with a woman exiled to this time by a tyrant as punishment. Spock begins acting increasingly emotional, showing anger toward McCoy and deep affection for Zarabeth, the woman. He eventually realizes that he is reverting back to the primitive emotional state of his ancestors on Vulcan, 5000 years ago. Kirk makes his way back to the library first, and finally convinces Mr. Atoz they don't belong in his planet's history. Spock and McCoy return just before it's too late, leaving Zarabeth behind; the Enterprise beams the three up and speeds away as the sun explodes, destroying the planet. The interaction between Spock and Zarabeth provides this episode's most memorable moments, though Kirk's adventure into the 'English' past is amusing. All in all, a very decent latter-day Star Trek outing. | 1 | trimmed_train |
13,890 | David Mamet wrote the screenplay and made his directorial debut with `House of Games,' a character study fraught with psychological overtones, in which a psychiatrist is lured into the dark world of the confidence game. Margaret Ford (Lindsay Crouse) has a successful practice and has written a best-selling novel, 'Driven.' Still, she is somewhat discontented with her own personal life; there's an emptiness she can neither define nor resolve, and it primes her vulnerability. When a patient, Billy Hahn (Steven Goldstein), confides to her during a session that he owes big money to some gamblers, and that they're going to kill him if he doesn't pay, she decides to intervene on his behalf. This takes her to the `House of Games,' a seedy little dive where she meets Mike (Joe Mantegna), a charismatic con-man who wastes no time before enticing her into his world. Instead of the `twenty-five large' that Billy claimed he owed, Mike shows her his book, and it turns out to be eight hundred dollars. And Mike agrees to wipe the slate clean, if she'll agree to do him one simple favor, which involves a card game he has going on in the back room. In the middle of a big hand, Mike is going to leave the room for a few minutes; while he is gone, her job is to watch for the `tell' of one of the other players. By this time, not only Margaret, but the audience, as well, is hooked. The dialogue, and Mamet's unique style and the precise cadence with which his actors deliver their lines, is mesmerizing. As Mike leads Margaret through his compelling, surreal realm of existence, and introduces her to the intricacies of the con game, we are swept right along with her. From that first memorable encounter, when he demonstrates what a `tell' is and how it works, to the lessons of the `short con,' to the stunning climax of this film, Mamet keeps the con going with an urgency that is relentless. And nothing is what it seems. In the end, Margaret learns some hard lessons about life and human nature, and about herself. She changes; and whether or not it's for the better is open to speculation. Mantegna is absolutely riveting in this film; he lends every nuance possible to a complex character who must be able to lead you willingly into the shadows, and does. Crouse also turns in an outstanding performance here; you feel the rigid, up-tight turmoil roiling beneath that calm, self-assured exterior, and when her experiences with Mike induce the change in her, she makes you feel how deeply it has penetrated. She makes you believe that she is capable of what she does, and makes you understand it, as well. The dynamic supporting cast includes Mike Nussbaum (Joey), Lilia Skala (Dr. Littauer), J.T. Walsh (The Businessman), Ricky Jay (George) and William H. Macy (Sergeant Moran). `House of Games' is the quintessential Mamet; he's written and directed a number of high-caliber plays and films since, and will no doubt grace us with more in the future. But this film will be the one that defines him; and you can go to the dictionary and look it up. You'll find it under `Perfection.' This is one great movie you do not want to miss. I rate this one 10/10. | 3 | trimmed_train |
3,469 | Ummm, please forgive me, but weren't more than half the characters missing? In the original novel, Valjean is a man imprisoned for 19 years for stealing a loaf of bread and then attempting several times to escape. He breaks parole and is pursued relentlessly by the police inspector Javert. Along the way there are MANY characters that weren't in this version. Some worth mentioning would be Fantine, Cosette, M & Mme. Thenardier, Eponine, Marius, Gavroche, and Enjolras. The only character with the same name is Javert. I was confused and frustrated throughout the whole movie, trying to see how it was in any way connected to Victor Hugo's epic novel. | 0 | trimmed_train |
7,543 | The next time you are at a party and someone asks, "The other day I heard the expression 'Author's will'. Does anyone know what it means?" Tell them to sit through 'Head Above Water'. The only way Diaz could possibly have survived this movie was by means of this literary device commonly used by bad writers. There are some comic scenes and you will have a few laughs. However the film does not stand up to the most minor logical analysis. Why does Keitel tie Diaz's hand in front of her instead of behind? Why so she can do the chainsaw gag of course. For me the best part of this movie was that I saw it on a cable channel instead of spending four bucks at the video shop. | 0 | trimmed_train |
16,486 | An ultra-nervous old man, "Mr. Goodrich," terrorized by the news that a gang is stalking the city and prominent citizens are disappearing, really panics when someone throws a rock through his window with a message tied to it, saying "You will be next!" <br /><br />He calls the detective agency wondering where are the guys he asked for earlier. Of course, it's the Stooges, who couldn't respond because had come into the office, robbed them and tied them up. Some detectives! The moment poor Mr. Goodrich hangs up the phone and says, "I feel safer already," a monster-type goon named "Nico" appears out of a secret panel in the room and chokes him unconscious. We next find out that his trusted employees are anything but that. Now these crooks have to deal with the "detectives" that are coming by the house for Mr. Goodrich.<br /><br />Some of the gags, like Moe and Larry's wrinkles, are getting a bit old, but some of them will provoke laughs if I see them 100 times. I always laugh at Shemp trying to be a flirt, as he does here with Mr. Goodrich's niece, in a classic routine with a long, accordion-like camera lens. The act he puts on when he's poisoned is always funny, too. Shemp was so good that I didn't mind he was taking the great Curly's place.<br /><br />Larry, Moe, Curly/Shemp were always great in the chase scenes, in which monsters or crooks or both are chasing them around a house. That's the last six minutes in here. At times, such as this film, | 1 | trimmed_train |
16,142 | This film is actually pertinent even today given the threat of bio-terrorism, and the threats of superbugs, West Nile Virus, and SARS. As a thriller, the tension is fairly intense. Richard Widmark and Paul Douglas are more than serviceable in their roles. The domestic scenes between Widmark and his wife provide a nice interlude to the main plot. The actor in this film who most left his mark is Jack Palance. His sharply defined features and seemingly easygoing exterior always wither way to reveal the avaricious and cruel man beneath the surface. The chase scene through the packing plant is impressive even today. Recommended, 7/10. | 1 | trimmed_train |
7,193 | I'm not a fan of the Left Behind book series - the books are written at a 6th-grade reading level with a lack of research and understanding of science, technology, and politics. While the books do manage to remain faithful to scripture, their methods of fulfilling prophecy are often ridiculous (an example is their explanation for the Russian/Arab invasion of Israel). Also, the books have an unmistakable preachy tone that will turn off unbelievers rather than bring them to the gospel. Still, I found myself reading these books because of my interest in the events of Revelation. For a similar reason, I watched this film adaptation. I am sad to say that it is a rather mediocre film bordering on poor. The acting is actually rather decent for the most part with occasional bits of poor acting and over-acting. The script is rather bad, though it is hardly unexpected when starting with the novel as a basis. The characters are poorly drawn and underdeveloped. Events feel scattered and disconnected. The dialogue sometimes sounds rushed. At least the book managed to flesh out its hokey conspiracy theory. Here, the viewer is left with an incoherent mess that only makes much sense if one has read the book. The pacing of the film is also very poorly executed with the opening and conclusion seeming extremely rushed, and the middle dragging to an excruciatingly slow trudge that makes it feel padded. The music is schizophrenic. At times, it successfully underscores the mood and sounds fitting for a motion picture. At other moments, it reminds me of sitcom and mini-series music. And still other bits remind me of a poppy MTV soundtrack that just doesn't belong in the film. I can give the film points for the scene of panic on board the plane, but that's it. The other scenes involving the disasters after the Rapture are far from compelling. The film also suffers from the book's preachiness although its message isn't quite as in your face. In all, I found the movie just as disappointing as the series. This is not the film to rally Christians around it. I hope that this film does NOT get any attention at the theaters next year. It would be more unnecessary bad publicity for Christianity. For an example of a compelling, intelligent, well-researched series based on Revelation that presents a realistic and Christian world view without offending the secular reader (who after all should be whom a Christian is trying to reach) read the Christ Clone trilogy by James BeauSeigneur. It's a great read and is a much better choice for unbelievers or believers who appreciate quality. | 0 | trimmed_train |
6,317 | "Dahmer" is an interesting film although I wouldn't use "horror" or "thriller" do describe it. It's more a minor character study that seems oddly sympathetic of the killer.<br /><br />Jeremy Renner portrays serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer, who drugged, murdered and dismembered his male victims. The film centers on the relationship between Dahmer and "Rodney", well-played by Artel Kayàru. <br /><br />Rodney is almost the more interesting character: enamored of Dahmer and having once escaped an attack, he returns to Dahmer for sex and survives a second attack.<br /><br />I think the film is disjointed because it does little to portray Dahmer's formative years, how events may have created the human monster we see on screen and offers no insight into Dahmer's belief that he could create sexual zombies of his victims.<br /><br />The roles are well played but the story is thin. | 2 | trimmed_train |
22,761 | As the jacket proclaims, this film is "Gorgeously shot and masterfully edited," and, yes, it is mesmerizingly beautiful. The timelessness that we perceive in stoic rock and in the unceasing ebb and flow of water frames the ephemeral works from Goldsworthy's hands so that in their very ephemeralness they point to eternity.<br /><br />And so the beauty of his compositions haunt us with just a touch of melancholy woven in--or in the words of Matthew Arnold from "Dover Beach":<br /><br />Listen! you hear the grating roar Of pebbles which the waves draw back, and fling, At their return, up the high strand, Begin, and cease, and then again begin, With tremulous cadence slow, and bring The eternal note of sadness in.<br /><br />At one point near the end of the film Goldsworthy says that "Words do their job, but what I'm doing here says a lot more." As a wordsmith myself I take no offense and not for a moment do I think him immodest because the combination of form and time and change and texture and color and composition that Goldsworthy painstakingly and intuitively creates, is indeed something more than mere words can say.<br /><br />At another point he remarks on "What is here to stay...and what isn't." That is his theme.<br /><br />I think that artists sometime in the twentieth century became acutely aware of how ephemeral even the greatest works of art are compared to the vast expanse of cosmic time; and so they began to reflect this understanding by composing works that were deliberately ephemeral. The idea was, that by emphasizing how short-lived are even the mightiest works of humans, a sense of the timelessness of art would be expressed.<br /><br />Perhaps part of the effectiveness of Goldsworthy's work is in this sort of expression. He painstakingly composes some form of straw or leaves where the tide will reach it, or places it in the river where it will be swept away; and in this process is merged both the composition and its ephemerality.<br /><br />Both the transitory and the timeless are necessary for us to understand our world and our place within it. And it is important that these works be done within the context of nature so that what is composed is set within what is natural. Thus the walls of stone and the eggs of stone that Goldsworthy constructs are silent and solid yet we know that they are not monuments to eternity, but instead will stay for some undefined length of time and then dissipate and return to a state much like that which existed before we came along.<br /><br />This is art as art should be, akin to the spiritual.<br /><br />In a sense Goldsworthy's work is an inarticulated understanding. It is an experience purely of time and form. In a sense his work "answers" Shelley's famous poem "Ozymandias" by saying, even as the tide washes the work away, and even as the river dissipates the expression, even so the art lives on because of our experience of it. Similarly one thinks of Tibetan sand paintings so carefully composed and measured out, and then just as they are so beautifully and preciously finished, they are given to the wind, so that we might know that all is flux.<br /><br />Yet, in the modern world these works of art endure in photos and videos. Goldsworthy is an accomplished photographer (of necessity I would say) and all his works, even the unsuccessful ones, he tells us, are photographed so that he can look back at them in a more reflective mood and see what he has accomplished and what he has not.<br /><br />This cinematic production directed by Thomas Riedelsheimer with the beautiful and appropriately haunting music by Fred Frith is not to be missed. It is one of the most beautiful documentaries that I have ever seen and one of the most spiritual. | 3 | trimmed_train |
20,005 | I enjoyed Albert Pyun's "Nemesis" for its cheesy action and semi-complicated script. A lot of people complain about the "confusing" plot to the first film, which is probably why "Nemesis 2: Nebula" has a dumb as rocks plot with the same super-action to carry it through.<br /><br />This one gives the name of the first movie's hero, Alex, to a bulked up super-female sent to the past to save the future. She is raised by a tribe in Africa. A good portion of the film only has dialogue in an African tongue without subtitles, which I liked because it made it seem somewhat authentic (how often do movies in this genre really try to do that?). It doesn't take long for the evil cyborgs to time travel back in time to find her and try to kill her.<br /><br />Don't get me wrong, this is a piece of crap (not that the first one was anything great). There are subplots involving Africa's political unrest, treasure hunting, and tribal combat. The picture is very short on brains, so none of these things gets a very good treatment. The picture is basically a drawn out fight with some chases that boils down to muscle-babe vs. cyborg. It has its entertainment value, just don't expect quality, or anything of the first movie. | 3 | trimmed_train |
8,460 | Anita and Me seems to be little more than an excuse for Meera Syal, the author of the novel and screenplay, to air her prejudices, grievances and general antipathy towards the English. The general sentiment of Indian superiority over the English in this film is foul.<br /><br />The English people in this film are portrayed as overweight, violent, foul-mouthed, promiscuous, engaging in child neglect, stupid, uneducated, racist, ugly, eating poor food, and dim-witted -- tellingly, only by turning to Indian culture can the local priest be "redeemed" at the end of the film.<br /><br />By contrast, the Indian family are beautiful, clever, educated, can speak many languages, are caring and loving parents, and grammar-school fodder. The film is so insidiously prejudicial that I am astonished the BBC funded it at all. Had it been the other way round, an English family in an Indian community depicted this way, the film would have been seen as racist.<br /><br />There were a few moments where my eyebrow shot so far up my forehead, I thought it would lodge in my hairline. First, the gossip scene between the women at the Divali celebration -- undertext: the English are dirty and promiscuous -- and the men -- undertext: English women are prostitutes. Second, the meal with Anita where Neema's family lie to her about cutlery -- undertext: the English are so stupid, you can make them do anything.<br /><br />But the underlying contempt towards anything English -- even English weddings are an object of scorn -- is evident all the way through the film. The character of Anita was drawn so appallingly -- almost the fallen woman trope -- that I finished the film feeling angry.<br /><br />This is not a "Bend it like Beckham" where the humour is focused on loving exaggerations of a community's behaviour and customs from somebody within that community, and is a film about two girls from different backgrounds coming together. Instead, Anita and Me seems to convey that a form of cultural apartheid is inevitable, as the English are almost an version of the Indian Untouchable caste, and this is underscored by a thinly-veiled series of attacks upon the film's "other" community: the English.<br /><br />I felt Anita and Me is a hate-filled, grievance-based piece of work. On that basis, the BBC should not have funded its production. | 0 | trimmed_train |
7,394 | I picked this movie on the cover alone thinking that i was in for an adventure to the level of "Indiana Jones and The Temple of Doom". Unfortunately I was in for a virtual yawn. Not like any yawn i have had before though. This yawn was so large that i could barely find anything of quality in this movie. The cover described amazing special effects. There were none. The movie was so lightweight that even the stereotypes were awfully portrayed. It does give the idea that you can solve problems with violence. Good if you want to teach your kids that. I don't. Keep away from this one. If you are looking for family entertainment then you might find something that is more inspiring elsewhere. | 0 | trimmed_train |
14,535 | This group of English pros are a pleasure to watch. The supporting cast could form a series of their own. It's a seen before love tiangle between the head of surgery, his wife, and a new pretty boy surgery resident. Only the superior acting skills of Francesca Annis, Michael Kitchen, and the sexy Robson Greene lift this from the trash category to a very enjoyable "romp". The only quibble is that it's hard to accept that the smoldering Francesca Annis would fall in love and actually marry Michael Kitchen, who like me, is hardly an international, or even a British sex symbol. You can readily understand why Robson Green would light her fire, with apologies to the "Doors". The guy who almost steals the show with a great "laid back" performance is Owen's father David Bradley. Watch him in "The Way We Live Now", in a completely different performance, to get an idea of his range. Daniela Nardini as Kitchen's secretary, sometime sex toy, is hard to forget as the spurned mistress who makes Kitchen sorry he ever looked at her great body. Conor Mullen, and Julian Rhind-Tutt, as Green's sidekick surgery buddies as I've said could have their own series. They are that good. The whole thing is a great deal of fun, and I heartily recommend it, and thank you imdbman for letting the paying customers have their say in this fascinating venue. | 1 | trimmed_train |
193 | There is good. There is bad. And then their is The Sentinel, a bottom-barrel political "thriller" that ranks among the worst movies I have ever seen. The plot of a mole in the Secret Service is a good one, but never has a movie with so much potential been so utterly butchered. Directed with ham-handed "edginess" by Clark Johnson, every actor in this film seems to be working on autopilot. Even the great Michael Douglas looks bored here. I can honestly say I have NEVER, in all my life, viewed another film with so many glaring plot holes. The twist is predictable from square one, and the character's motives are so utterly ridiculous that they inspired laughter from the audience. Avoid this at all costs. This is a catastrophe of a movie with no redeeming value. | 0 | trimmed_train |
13,794 | At first I was weirded out that a TV show's main character could bring the dead back to life, but then I thought I'd give it a shot. Guess what? I love "Pushing Daisies" and look forward to Wednesday nights just to watch it, then for the next week I watch it a few more times on my DVR. The colorful characters, witty banter, fast-paced dialogue, and new unique situations draws me in and captivates from beginning to end. Ned and Chuck Charles' relationship is interesting to watch as they work their romance around the fact that they cannot have physical contact. Even Detective Emerson Cod's character has continued to grow in complexity. And Olive Snook! Jiminy Crispies! She cracks me up! The narrator's voice is fun to listen to and the cinematography gives me the impression that I am watching a movie instead of a TV show. I have recommended my family and friends to turn on "Pushing Daisies" and they are hooked too!!! The show is well worth waiting a week for a new episode and if you have not seen "P.D.", I highly recommend watching it! | 3 | trimmed_train |
1,827 | Lorne Michaels once again proves that he has absolutely no business producing movies.<br /><br />You'd think that after such dismal flicks "Superstar", "Night at the Roxbury", and "Coneheads", he'd start to get the notion that maybe he doesn't know what he's doing when it comes to movies (and many would argue that he doesn't know what he's doing when it comes to television, as well). Trying to make feature films out of skits that wore out their welcome the third time the were done on SNL makes no sense.<br /><br />I personally like Tim Meadows, and think that he would be great in the right movie. It's a shame to see a talented guy wasted in a film that features unfunny after unfunny situation, and caps it all with a dreadfully bad song and dance scene. Any laughs here will be because the movie is so bad, not because it's funny.<br /><br />Oh well, at least we can be thankful that there are many other tired SNL characters who will never have films done about them. It's just too bad that this one made it to the big screen. | 0 | trimmed_train |
18,353 | Omar Epps is an outstanding actor. I really think he gets into his character alot. When deja gets shot he shows true emotion. He also shows true emotion when remmi puts the gun to him in the room. Omar is a very talented actor!! | 3 | trimmed_train |
19,690 | What more can be said? I have not been this fascinated with a young actress since Cate Blanchett burst upon the scene over ten years ago. And although both Blanchett and Blunt have played Queens now( seems to be the benchmark for up and coming actresses), the roles are complete polar opposites.<br /><br />Simply put if you are looking for high passion, compelling drama, and Machiavellian intrigue, this is not the movie for you. This isn't to say that the script or direction was bad, its just that the subject of the film did not lead too dramatic a life when compared to other notable royals like Elizabeth I, Anne Boylen, Henry VIII, Henry V, Henry II and Elainor of Acquitane. These are people whose lives were the stuff such as good soap operas are made of and whose policies and decisions altered the course of British ,and in most cases, world history. Victoria, in contrast, ascended the throne without incident, she quasi-governed a nation that was fast becoming a global power due to industrialization and the rise of the Navy, her State had a stable government led by competent and dynamic politicians, and she married young had a harmonious family life. The facts of her life are not the Sturm und Drag such as powerful dramas are made of.<br /><br />The heart of the film, aside from the attempt to dramatize her stultifying upbringing and the machinations surrounding her throne, is the story of the one thing that was truly shocking and surprising about her reign- a love story. Marriage made for financial or political reasons is with reason not necessarily the place to look for world shaking passion, yet Victoria will always be remembered in history as being sort of a Patron Saint marital fidelity, happiness and ideal family life. Thus, central to the film is the budding love of Victoria and her Prince Albert. I was very taken with Rupert Friend's characterization of Albert whom he portrayed as a kind, patient, somewhat earnest and maybe a touch naive young man, looking to" do good in the world and help". In short, he is a good man with a good heart, not the most dynamic figure to base a drama around, but as that is not the point of the story, that does not matter. The heart of the character shines through thanks to Friend's understated yet earnest performance. <br /><br />As for the Queen, well..Emily Blunt is sublime. Her beauty cannot be denied, but she is more than something pretty to look at; her face is like quicksilver because of her expressiveness. The slightest arch of the eyebrow, glance of the eye or slight wry smile delivers so much. Again, this is not a bombastic performance of heavy speeches and impassioned pleas, its not that kind of movie. But what Ms. Blunt does do with the role is show the simple humanity of the character with potent subtlety. <br /><br />For example, we see the joie de vivre that has been kept in check by Victoria's mother ( Miranda Richardson) and her scheming adviser/lover Conroy expressed in the simple things like Victoria trying to sketch her dog. We see her delight and fascination upon first meeting Albert by her eyes being continually drawn to him. We see her nervous and overwhelmed when addressing Parliament upon her Ascension. And my favorite scene of all in the film- we see her nervous, happy, and hopeful as she steels herself to do what really most women never have to do in their life- ask the man she loves to marry her, a proposition so ridiculous for those times( and some would say now) that Victoria bursts out in nervous laughter before she can even say "marry me". Again, this is not a movie for over the top larger than life expressions, but more a study in the subtleties of a character and making the little things say so much.<br /><br />So, overall, I judge the film by what it is and what it tried to do and as such I give it a 7. I felt that some of the politics could be better explained and that some very fine actors were wasted with little do and little character development, namely Miranda Richardson as the Duchess of Kent, and the characters of Conroy and Lord Peal. Again, the film need not have spent a large amount of time on those characters, but a little more exposition would have helped to explain the political environment. Also I would have loved to have seen more of the adjustment to married life between Victoria and Albert, but that may be just my greed for more scenes between Friend and Blunt. <br /><br />In summary, don't view this film in terms of a historical drama but for what it really is, a love story between two characters that happen to be historical figures. I give this film a solid 7 for wonderful lead performances, brilliant costumes and scenery and the magnificent Victoria of Emily Blunt. And anyone who has any shred of romance left in them, you will be touched by the end of this movie. God save the Queen. | 1 | trimmed_train |
2,333 | This was one film i wanted to watch always when it released The promos were eye catching and Govinda in a negative role was a surprise<br /><br />But the film isn't that good<br /><br />It has lot of flaws<br /><br />The start is good and till the murder everything goes well but the film falls flat when the romance track starts between Govinda and Karisma and the songs that follow<br /><br />Then the twist about Govinda and Tabu being in love leaves more doubts and flaws and then How come Govinda turns into a rich criminal from a poor villager?<br /><br />The last flashback too is prolonged and also the entire clash between Govinda-Karisma and Tabu<br /><br />N Chandra disappoints Music is okay, Bahot Khoobsurat stands out<br /><br />Govinda tries a negative role and does very well in it though he overdoes it too much at times Karisma is good but irritates at times with her cries Tabu is okay Nirmal Pandey still doesn't know the difference between loud screaming and acting rest are okay | 2 | trimmed_train |
11,130 | I am quite sure that this was the worst movie ever made. If you can't make a 13 year old boy laugh at silly humor you should give up comedy forever. Unfortunately Joan Rivers chose differently. The movie is full of predictable gags (some of these are racist) and very unfunny jokes. Particularly memorable is the scene where the doctor tells the lead character that the rabbit has died and he is pregnant (as I write this, I cannot believe this was actually a movie scene). The man rushes to a dead rabbit on the doctors desk and tries to give it mouth to mouth. ROTFLMAO! NOT! The punch line that can tell you how bad things are in this movie is "I knew I should have been on top." ha ha ha ha ah ugh ........ | 0 | trimmed_train |
12,001 | I basically skimmed through the movie but just enough to catch watch the plot was about. To tell you the truth it was kind of boring to me and at some spots it didn't make sense. The only reason I watched this movie in the first place was to see CHACE CRAWFORD!!! He is so hot, but in this movie his hair was kind of weird. But still hot.<br /><br />However, despite how hot CHACE is, it really did not make up for the film. I guess the plot isn't that bad but what really threw me over was the fact that they cuss in like every sentence. Is it that hard to express your anger without saying the F word every time?The cussing was annoying and the whole flashy, camera shaking thing gave me a headache.<br /><br />All in all, although the plot was OK, I found the film to be a bore and over dramatic. That's why I only cut to scenes with CHACE in it. LOL Anyways, not worth renting unless your a die-hard fan of a specific cast member like I was. Oh yeah the cast was Hot. The girls were HOT!!! But CHACE IS THE BEST!! | 2 | trimmed_train |
551 | I totally disagreed with those comments which said this is a good movie. This is a totally SUCKED movie. I mean SUCKED - S.U.C.K.E.D. The story development is strange. Mia Kirshner changed from an innocent girl to a party-fun seeking chick for no convincing reasons at all. In addition, all the actresses looked way too old for being college students - College students looked like about 30 years old - you figure out the rest. I watched only about first ten minutes and started fast forwarding to look for sex scenes. all the sex scenes are lame, hasty and, most importantly, no frontal at all. All the sex scenes are laughable, considering how many clothes they had on. Do yourself a favor - put it down and save yourself a few bucks. Conclusion: Story - 0, Sex - 0, Acting - 0, Score - 0 out 10. | 0 | trimmed_train |
1,384 | This is one of those movies that you and a bunch of friends sit around drinking beers, eating pizza, and laugh at. Unfortunately for me I found myself watching this one alone. My friends and I rented a big block of movies and never got around to seeing this one. It was due back and I figured that it was a waste not to watch it. So I did, and I was impressed at how absolutely terrible this movie is.<br /><br />Now, I love bad movies quite a bit, and I probably would have liked this one if the "hero" wasn't so utterly loathsome. The entire movie I was hoping that he'd put that stupid sword down and let someone kill him! He does very little heroic things in the movie. He's a beefy, disgusting, stupid thing. He has less redeeming qualities than the villains do. And what was it with all the naked chicks? I mean, I love naked chicks just as much as the next guy, but this movie went a tad overboard in that department.<br /><br />Well, anyway, if you love bad movies and can stand a disgusting "hero" then I'm sure you'll like this schlock of a film. | 0 | trimmed_train |
12,856 | The trailer for this movie didn't do the movie justice. And while the movie didn't know what it really wanted to get across, the first half of the movie being a light, romance comedy and the second have a more serious, romantic drama, the overall impact was much better than I thought it would be. This movie was more of a date movie, but the trailer made it into more of a suspense thriller which it never really turned out to be. Kidman, being one of my favorites, of course I'm biased, but this movie proved to be a light, sensitive, if somewhat quirky movie that deserved better. Three out of four stars. 9/5/02. | 1 | trimmed_train |
24,875 | The Three Stooges has always been some of the many actors that I have loved. I love just about every one of the shorts that they have made. I love all six of the Stooges (Curly, Shemp, Moe, Larry, Joe, and Curly Joe)! All of the shorts are hilarious and also star many other great actors and actresses which a lot of them was in many of the shorts! In My opinion The Three Stooges is some of the greatest actors ever and is the all time funniest comedy team! <br /><br />This is a good Three Stooges short. It funny and its cast includes Christine McIntyre,Symona Boniface, Gino Corrado, Fred Kelsey, Sam Flint, Chester Conklin, Theodore Lorch, Lynton Brent, Judy Malcolm, Vernon Dent, John Tyrrell, Heinie Conklin, and Bess Flowers. The Stooges performed very well in this short! I recommend this one! | 3 | trimmed_train |
7,709 | We've all been there, sitting with some friends watching a bad movie, laughing at how terribly it was made and how poor the acting was; eventually the credits roll and everyone looks around and says "how is it possible such a movie was made? who paid money to have this script made into a feature film?" Well Jigsaw is not that kind of film, instead of asking how this garbage was budgeted you wonder why the makers were shot out of a cannon into the sun. Yes, Jigsaw is quite possibly the worst movie ever made or conceived, this coming from a guy who has seen Campfire Stories and Fever Lake. The film starts out in some kind of college class, what kind of class I am unsure, but it is imagined to be an art class. Now these dorks have been given a final project by their idiot teacher, five of them are given pieces of a mannequin and told to design it in any way they see fit, and since there are only five pieces the other students in the class receive and automatic A, oddly enough there are only six students in this entire class so the one goth chic gets a free A, good for her! A week passes and the five students, plus teacher, plus one hillbilly husband meet in a bar to discuss their and complete their project, they put the pieces together, head, arms, legs and inform the others why they chose their specifics designs, now these creative geniuses used the week to their full advantage, one puts a saw blade in the left hand, the other gets a sawed off shotgun, the right leg gets a bunch of broken ceramic glued to it and the left some magazine clippings, the head is the worst getting a camera in the eye, ala Hellraiser 3, with some bottle rockets for a stylish mo-hawk. After they have all spilled their guts about their specifics designs the now drunk teacher says they are to burn the mannequin, now aptly named Jigsaw. Now up to this point it has been standard horrible movie fair, bad acting, dialog and everything else, but has still been pretty plausible, yet after Jigsaw catches fire things take a turn for the worst...Jigsaw comes alive.. How you ask? I have no idea, he just does because the writers couldn't think of a realistic way for two pounds worth of molded plastic to become alive (Come on guys, a bolt of lighting, a traveling voodoo priest, anything could have worked.) So once Jigsaw comes to life he uses his new abilities of walking very slow and stilted with the use of his molded fingers to wreak havoc. First he kills the cool guy with some barb wire, this guy who was about to get it on with a hot chic decides drinking ground beer off in the distance is more important than what is in front of him. With him gone Jigsaw shoots the sexy girl in the face and then gives an old man a heart attack with a slight twist of his head, he then saws up a nasty looking southern woman and then her hillbilly husband; Jigsaw then kills the nerdy guy with some headless deception. Did I mention Jigsaw was taking body parts off his victims to make a human version of himself? No! Well its not important they don't even show his macabre creation, they don't even show him steal away a torso from his poor creators (Maybe he was trying to create the head detective from In Living Color). So after these five have been killed the teacher and the nerdy girl are all who is left, the teacher figures out that Jigsaw only needs a head to finish his masterpiece, since he is still uninterested in that torso thing. So being the coward he is the teacher ties up the girl as a sacrifice to Jigsaw who comes in only to go for the teacher with his electric buzz saw which isn't even plugged in. That is where the freaking movie ends, we don't even get to see the teacher get killed or what happens to the girl, let alone an explanation why Jigsaw came to life or how he cleaned himself off after being burned. This movie is so shameful it has too be seen, it is only 71 minutes so it is a small part of your day; For the memories of a lifetime, Jigsaw, Jigsaw, Jigsaw. Thank you Total Recall! The Judge has ruled, watch Jigsaw only if your plans of severing off your genitals seems played out. | 0 | trimmed_train |
14,822 | Now either you like Mr Carrey's humour or you don't. Me, Myself and Irene had audiences both walking out in droves and, on the other hand, cheering and collapsing in puddles of mirth. Bruce Almighty is a bit more mainstream, but you have been warned.<br /><br />If you're not sure, watch the trailer. I saw the trailer three times and still laughed at the same gags when I saw the film. If you don't find the sight of a dog putting the seat down after using the loo funny, don't bother with the movie.<br /><br />Carrey, a reporter stuck in a rut covering 'lighter news' berates God when the whole of his life seems to be going to pot. God takes up the challenge and asks Carrey if he can do better. Carrey gets into the swing of having all of God's powers by making his girlfriend (Jennifer Aniston)'s breasts bigger, getting himself promoted, and answering everyone's prayers by single stroke computer commands.<br /><br />This is not a highbrow movie or even that memorable, but it is very well made within it's very limited intent, provides almost continuous laughs to Carrey fans, and even any religious cheesiness is likely to be inoffensive to all but the most narrow-minded god-squadders and anti-god-squadders.<br /><br />On the more thoughtful level, the film tempts us to speculate about Carrey's own career - stuck in his 'comedy' typecasting he has largely failed to make an impression as a serious actor even after winning two Golden Globes. His most accomplished 'straight' role, the Man on the Moon, is less well known that his comedy romps - or The Truman Show (on which the Academy heaped three nominations whilst bypassing Carrey). | 1 | trimmed_train |
16,838 | In order to rate this movie fairly you have to think about the genre it's supposed to be: children's. They had more guidelines to follow in order to make this movie (meaning it could not get away with some of the humor and or language from the 1st) taking all that in this movie was fun and enjoyable to watch. Sequels usually make me nervous, however this one did pretty well for itself. Knowing that it didn't have the star power of Fraiser as George they capitalized on the humor and i believe Showeman did pretty well as the lead. The plot being easy to follow and maybe campy at times fits well for a younger audience, if you want to watch a movie and hope for academy award honors this is not it, but if you want to watch a simple, fun, energy filled movie you would make a good choice with this one. | 3 | trimmed_train |
22,842 | Never viewed this film and consider it a great Classic with great veteran actors. In the period that this film was made, people in America were different, there was no TV or all the modern things we have today, except the Radio and the starting out of great films being made in Hollywood. Sweet innocent tales of young romance between a young girl or guy was viewed differently than it is today. Ann Shirley,"Murder My Sweet",'44 played a young orphan gal who was called Carrot Top because of her red hair and found herself being taken into a home of two elderly folks, who were like two wise owls and watched over Ann Shirley. It was a small town and everyone knew everyone and if anything happened, the entire town found out about it within minutes. It is a down to earth film with nice decent people trying to help each other in a very very simple way of living. Today, it seems very corn ball and stupid, but believe me, this was the way people were in America during the 1920'. & 30's and they were a great generation that loved good family films. | 3 | trimmed_train |
23,926 | Any screen adaptation of a John Grisham story deserves a mainstream Hollywood approach, and Robert Altman is about the last director I would go to for a mainstream take on anything. But this southern-fried pot-boiler is pretty good. While it's not among Altman's best, it certainly isn't among the films he's made that leave you scratching your head and wondering what he was thinking.<br /><br />Altman had tipped his hat to the mystery thriller with noir overtones before, in his 1973 film "The Long Goodbye." "The Gingerbread Man" is nowhere near as good as that film, but it holds up fairly well on its own. Kenneth Branagh is a cocky attorney who finds himself framed for murder after he gets involved with a client (Embeth Davidtz) who has enlisted his help in protecting her from her cuckoo father (Robert Duvall). The film is set in Savannah, Georgia during the approach of a tropical storm, which lends the film an oppressive atmosphere that I very much liked. The twists and turns toward the film's end become clunkier and clunkier, and Altman proves himself to be not all that adept at staging shootouts, but overall the film is not a bad addition to Altman's canon.<br /><br />Also starring Robert Downey, Jr., Daryl Hannah, Tom Berenger and Famke Janssen.<br /><br />Grade: B | 1 | trimmed_train |
21,985 | I have a lot of time for all the Columbo films, but this one in particular was extremely well written, and the solution at the end very effective. However, my main memory of this one is the opening of a scene in the middle of the film, between Columbo and the murderer (I apologise if I've not remembered every detail of this exactly). It's the most striking image of Columbo I've seen: the view is from inside the darkness of the cupboard where the victim was murdered, and into the room beyond, which is lit up by daylight. Columbo is sitting in a high-backed armchair facing the doorway (and us), contemplating the cupboard, and almost in silhouette due to the contrast in light. There's no sound. The camera slowly moves out of the room and up towards him. He's deep in meditation, puffing gently on a cigar, swirls of smoke from the cigar circling slowly upwards as he thinks. Then the dialogue starts. Superb. | 3 | trimmed_train |
17,113 | I just picked up the DVD release of this movie while on holiday in Norway where it has been released with English subtitles.<br /><br />The film is beautifully photographed and powerfully acted. The youngster portraying 'Frits' the lead character has an astonishingly open face which mirrors with painful accuracy the tragic events which unfold around him.<br /><br />Early on in the film we see that the father whom Frits loves so much has mental health problems and this is brought up when the brutal headmaster denies assaulting the boy and suggests it was his own father.<br /><br />The climactic scene where Frits refuses to show any respect to the headmaster; simply standing his ground and repeating 'Liar' as he is brutally assaulted in front of his classmates is a scene you are not likely to forget.<br /><br />The films only weak point is the rather clichéd 'Flower Power' teacher who uses every 'friendly teacher' trick in the book. Other than this I feel sure that this is a film you will really enjoy. | 3 | trimmed_train |
850 | Going down as the most expensive film in Finnish history, to date, "Dark Floors" is a horror film with an extremely Lynchian narrative that recounts an ever increasingly decrepit series of "Floors" (ironically enough) in an abandoned hospital, in which our protagonists are trapped. Lead by an autistic daughter and her father, himself disenchanted with the hospitals apparent lack of medical progress with his daughter, make their way into an elevator debating the issue with one of the hospitals nurses. Accompanied by a security guard, a businessman and a seemingly intoxicated tramp the collective soon find the complex abandoned, but they are not alone. Directed by Finnish- born Pete Riski, more known for his television work, "Dark Floors" is filmed in English, using mainly English actors but has the notable inclusion of Finland's arguably most famous group "Lordi" (2006 Eurovision song contest winners) as themselves, i.e. in their on stage monstrous costumes, as the films antagonists, yet for all this razzmatazz the production fails where it is needed most, in convincing the audience.<br /><br />Any film that has their lead character use the phrase "it's too quiet" is already headed down a dubious path, and this Lordi influenced horror does not break that convention. For all the good ideas that are thrown into the mix there are a handful of ripe clichés alongside and worst of all, anything that is interestingly original isn't fleshed out enough for it to resonate. The concept of the degrading floors is initially highly ominous and does provide a sense of inevitable doom as the audience is aware those trapped in the hospital must progress ever further down in the mire. However, there isn't enough atmosphere created to scare and intimidate the audiences into the unknowing fear, the viewer is aware the journey will become ever more dangerous, as the levels degenerate from shiny white through to hellish black, but I don't think the characters are aware enough of this fact for it to be threatening. Also, the entire film taking place in what is essentially its own time bubble is again a very nice touch, a concept not often used in the horror genre, but the characters don't confront the situation with enough fear and trepidation when they stumble across this fact, they continue about their business far too readily and without enough genuine concern for the idea to mean anything to the audience. These initially good ideas are just left to go to waste, as if the director and/or Mr Lordi (who had many of the ideas used within the film) had these thoughts, but couldn't agree or decide on how to best use them and as such lose their purpose and point. <br /><br />Yet for all the frustration there are large quantities of comedy, yet not for the reasons the creators would have hoped for. Too much is clichéd, too much is recycled and too much is just simply ridiculous. While the lead is amicably acted by Noah Huntley, the characters are mere cardboard cut outs that have been pasted into the story from other films. We have a lead man doing everything possible to protect his daughter alongside a clunkily developed love interest. Accompanying the "couple" we have the traditional token black man as a hard-nosed security guard, with the nigh on infinite clip for his sidearm, and a weasely disbelieving businessman only on the look out for himself. Worst of all though, unfortunately, is the introduction of the cast of Lordi as the creatures of the night that torment our wandering band of misfits, but not for them appearing as themselves. What makes a horror film scary to the viewing audience is contextualising the fear. "The Shining" is scary because it's a member of your own family hounding you, in "Dawn Of The Dead" it's our fear of each other and the primordial cannibalism and irrational thought patterns the zombies possess, in "Alien" the fear is explained, the creature is rationalised and in "Dark Floors" there is none of that. Perhaps it's unfair to compare this production to these monoliths of the genre but when you do it shows it pales significantly and that it's aggressors feel like nothing more than demented Klingons where you can almost see the zip on the costumes they wear, without a build up of any atmosphere "Lordi" just aren't scary.<br /><br />It's infuriating because we all cheer for the underdog and hope they do well, you want the smaller productions to say that they can create the same quality of film as "Hollywood" churns out, much in the similar way that George A Romero started out, but it doesn't always materialise. I enjoyed the film and didn't feel as if I had wasted the ninety minutes I had just sat through, but I felt enjoyment on a completely hollow level as if nothing that had occurred mattered or affected me subconsciously, emotionally or critically. I felt the almost Lynchian narrative was a standout plus point, but it fades out into nothingness. Why did it happen? What does it mean? Will they go through this all again? Without even the slightest insight into what will happen the film is simply puzzling for the sake of trying to be arty. Was the entire sequence of events real or was it merely a dream sequence? Had the autistic girl watched the Eurovision Song Contest of 2006 and simply had a highly bizarre nightmare given the stress she was under? Who knows? And unfortunately I fail to work up the energy to even care. "Dark Floors" is an infuriating experience that while ultimately shallow hallmarks potential and at the very least shows a plethora of creative energies from Mr Lordi, who perhaps should look into working solo to fully develop his ideas. It's one that fans of the group or the genre should perhaps pursue but will leave you feeling left in the lurch for not having enough light shed on the situation. | 2 | trimmed_train |
19,542 | ...On stage, TV or in a book, 'The Woman in Black' is an outstanding ghost story. Other reviewers have already said just about all there is to say about this film, but I thought I would add my belated little review too. The made-for-TV movie has a deliberately slow first act, which chronicles the main character Arthur as he goes about his business as a solicitor in 1920s London. I can understand why this might not appeal to all palates. Nevertheless, for me, I love this British-style of storytelling similar to any of the BBC's "Ghost Story for Christmas" adaptations of the great M.R. James' work. In the second act, the ghost story kicks in as Arthur is sent to the provinces by his boss, to tidy up the affairs of a deceased client. The third act relentlessly builds up to a spine-tingling conclusion... As a Londoner, I have seen the play. I own the book, DVD-R and have the unabridged audio book on my iPod, too. What is sure for me, 'The Women in Black' on any medium is a ghost story with few equals. It is about time that we had a legitimate region 2 DVD release. | 3 | trimmed_train |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.