id
int32 0
25k
| text
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| label
int64 0
3
| Generalization
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
15,749 | i love this film. the songs and story lines are great fun. and the song "saying goodbye" always moves me. what a brilliant thing to do to bring puppets to life, in a way that you actually care about these things made of cloth and fabric and whatever. great voices and great talent. why were all the other muppet films that came after this one so much less interesting, moving and funny? is it that mr. henson is just so very missed? | 3 | trimmed_train |
12,845 | Whatever you become in your life,you must never forget that you have roots.This is the story of true facts that was made into a beautiful and moving movie! I dare to say that this movie is well underrated.This shows us a reality of life...the more evil surrounds you ,the better person you become.Trust in your instincts and be aware that the ideal of life is to live it happy...without grudges,without living "under a rock" . The movie concept is more that interesting...connecting the storytelling with real life events...keeping us aware of everything..from facts to emotions! Bless these people and make everyone happy ! See it,i recommend it to all young people.it's not about racism it's about how to live your life ! | 3 | trimmed_train |
2,225 | I stole this movie when I was a freshmen in college. I've tried to watch it three times, the second two because friends wanted to see it. "Sweet, Adam Sandler, I've never heard of this movie, but since he's so funny its gotta be funny." Wrong! I can't make myself watch this pile of crap after the dream boxing match/insult war, where burning the guy with a good zinger causes your opponent physical pain. You would think that terrible comedy hurting you is ridiculous, but after watching this you'll know its true. This movie isn't worth the price I paid for it. I've watched a ton of Steven segal movies, and I've even watched Crossroads twice... but I still couldn't watch this. | 0 | trimmed_train |
11,832 | The Perfectly Stupid Weapon. I think the guys dancing at the beginning of one of Steven Segal's movies was intented to mock Jeff doing his forms to dance music at the beginning of this stupid movie. The plot is predictable, the fights were fair and Jeff acts about as well as the sofa he beats with some sort of weapon in one scene. | 0 | trimmed_train |
10,476 | A female vampire kills young women and paints with their blood. She has an assistant who doesn't want to be a vampire, so he has to do what she orders or be turned into a blood sucker. After a few kills, the assistant gets remorse and falls in love with a homeless girl.<br /><br />What can I say about this movie ? That its pacing is over-slow, that it has some strange sound effects (never a bite sounded so strange) and ambiance (new jazz here I come) and that lights don't seem to be included on the set. It looks like an "auteur" horror movie with all the self-sufficiency inside.<br /><br />The plot is completely stupid and as you can guess, it's the female vampire who explains how to kill her even if she doesn't have to do it; of course, crosses, light, garlic and sticks don't work.<br /><br />It's not even a funny lousy movie. Perhaps with some friends and a lot of beers, it can't have its funny sides (to be honest, it's funny during 10 - 15 minutes near the end of the movie). Don't be fooled by the Troma sticker, it's one the bad movie they present. | 0 | trimmed_train |
12,468 | You know how sometimes you can watch a crappy movie with friends and laugh at all the shortcomings of the movie? Well this was beyond that. I bought the DVD at Tower Records because it was like $3.00 and I'd heard this was a movie you could laugh at. It is really nothing short of pathetic. About 30 minutes into the movie, my friends started asking me to turn it off. Around 45 minutes they begged me. After an hour, we compromised to fast forward to the end, so we could see how the conflict was resolved (and because we had been watching the whole time for Matt Walsh). Seriously, don't watch this movie. It is beyond painful. | 0 | trimmed_train |
22,677 | The absolute summum of the oeuvre of that crafty Dane Douglas Sirk (born Detlef Sierck), Written on the Wind compels our prurient attention in every gaudy frame. From its justly famous opening sequence, with the leaves blowing into the baronial foyer of a Texas mansion and the wind riffling the pages of the calendar into a flashback, the movie compresses into its 99 minutes all the familial intrigue that was to fuel such later, little-screen knockoffs as Dallas, Dynasty and Falcon Crest over their years-long runs.<br /><br />The combination of wealth and dysfunction is a theme Americans, in our dollar-based society, find irresistible. Brother and sister Robert Stack and Dorothy Malone are the spoiled, troubled heirs to the Hadly oil fortune; boyhood chum Rock Hudson and new bride Lauren Bacall are the sane outsiders who try to keep the lid on the roiling cauldron. (It's been rumored that the story was based on Libby Holmann's marriage into Reynolds tobacco money.) As always, the misfits get all the scenery to chew -- and the best lines to spit out (Malone, in her Oscar-nabbing performance as the boozing nymphomaniac with a jones for Hudson, gets to detonate a whole fireworks display of them). Hudson, while good, can't compete with all this over-the-top emoting; Bacall starts out strong but grows recessive, a mere plot convenience. No matter; with a succession of set-pieces shot in extravagant hues, Sirk gives an object lesson in how to turn out overwrought melodrama set in the lush consumer paradise of late-50s America. Nobody ever did it better. | 3 | trimmed_train |
17,473 | Unfortunately, Jean Eustache (1938-1981) belongs like so many once leading French film makers nowadays to the great unknown ones whose movies are hard to find and are not released on international DVDs. Since we have a good old-fashioned video-store in Tucson, I had the chance to watch this 3 1/2-hour marathon masterwork that is not boring for ten seconds.<br /><br />Since we speak here about one of the most discussed (and most controversially discussed) movies of all times, let me tell you my impression that the endless dialogs, originally typical for the early "Nouvelle Vague" of a Jacques Rivette or Alain Resnais appear almost ridiculous in this movie. The dialogs are basically monologues, mainly the longest ones spoken by Jean-Pierre Léaud. The most characteristic feature is that the intersections of the speeches of two people is almost zero. Léaud, or his character, Alexandre, pleases to tell more about himself than about the topics he is seemingly to speak. Therefore, one can hardly speak about communication in this movie. It is well possible that the director had a gargantuan satire in mind against the idle running of the once so hotly discussed political and sociological ideas, but the type of man Alexandre exists to all times, we find him already in Petron's "Satiricon", which work has actually great resemblance with "The Mother and the Whore".<br /><br />Alexandre does not only nothing, but he has developed an own kind of metaphysics about the absence of acting, at least acting in the sense of responsibility toward the society whose part he is. He mocks at the people who run to work at 7 c'clock in the morning, when he is just busy having his last drink before he goes to bed in the apartment of one of his girlfriends from whose money he lives. He is unable to speak one sentence without quoting one of the leading thinkers between Nietzsche and Bernanos. Especially Sartre who is shown quickly in the French intellectual café "Aux Deux Magots", where Alexandre, too, is sitting all day, must serve as excuse for the life-style of Alexandre and his colleagues, because they suffer existential crisis from bourgeois nausea. However, the intellectual speeches of Alexandre seem to be rather pseudo-intellectual, and the sentences and quips he cites seem to come rather from a dictionary of quotations than from his actual reading of the respective books.<br /><br />It is true: This movie demands an extremely broad European knowledge, especially the connoisseurship of French existentialist philosophy and there consequences to the 68 student revolution movement, but if you have this knowledge, than you will enjoy 215 minutes of your life by staring amazed into the TV and crying out with laughing like you have probably not done it since a long time. | 3 | trimmed_train |
14,803 | Enjoyed this 1936 film with plenty of veteran classic actors and especially, William Powell, (Dr. Lawrence Bradford), "Mister Roberts", who played the role as a doctor and detective. Dr. Bradford was once married to Jean Arthur, (Paula Bradford), "Shane", and got a divorce and still they managed to live with each other and also fight all the time. Paula wanted her husband to investigate a homicide and did everything she could to convince him it was very important. Jean Arthur plays a rather nutty type and there is plenty of 1936 Comedy and the method of murder is something you will never believe, especially with a jockey on a California Race Track. Robert Armstrong, (Nick Martel) "King Kong" gave a great supporting role as a bookie along with James Gleason, a detective who need the help of Dr. Bradford in order to solve this very strange murder mystery. If you see this film, just remember it was produced and directed in 1936 and the people in the audience in those days thought this was great entertainment and it really was in Those DAYS! | 1 | trimmed_train |
18,613 | I find I enjoy this show, but the format needs some work. First off, the good attributes. I like how this show will take us through the day-to-day life of an addict because the producers have a knack at getting the addict to show us how bad they've allowed their lives to become. This is followed by an intervention which is then followed by an outcome. Intervention doesn't candy-coat things and sometimes the outcome (often short term due to the constraints of time between filming and airing) is a negative outcome. This makes the positive outcomes all the better.<br /><br />Another thing I like about the show is the quality of the camera work. Given the reality that these cameramen have to squeeze anywhere and don't have the benefit of re shooting scenes the photography is surprisingly good and stable. It's actually superior to scripted shows like "The Shield" where the photography is so bad it can induce nausea.<br /><br />Now for the bad. An episode will sometimes contain two completely different and unrelated cases that will be mixed together during the show. You'll get caught up in the story of one addict then suddenly you're thrown into the story of another. Get caught up in that story then suddenly you're back to the first addict...or are you? By now you may have forgotten which case the individual currently on screen belong to. This constant flip-flopping between addicts really gets disruptive during the intervention scenes because the show will even mix together the two completely unrelated interventions! I once heard the marketing B.S. reason for this poor design: "The show can get so intense that switching to another addict allows the viewer time to absorb what they're watching." Oh please. Clearly the reason this is done is because they have two cases that aren't big enough for an hour show so they mix two together. By mixing them instead of giving each a half hour block, like they should, it forces the viewer to watch the entire thing (and the commercials) if they are interested in one case but not the other.<br /><br />I used to find these "blender" episodes so annoying that I'd only tell my TiVo to record episodes containing one addict, but then it became easier just to record all of them. | 1 | trimmed_train |
7,251 | Frequently voted China's greatest film ever by Chinese critics, as well as Chinese film enthusiasts from the outside, and, frankly, I don't get it at all. What I saw was one of the most generic melodramas imaginable, blandly directed and acted, with a complete shrew for a protagonist. Wei Wei (don't laugh) is that shrew, a young married woman who has suffered alongside her tubercular husband (Yu Shi) for the past several years. It is post WWII, and they live with the husband's teenage sister (Hongmei Zhang) in a dilapidated home with not much money (the man had been wealthy when they married). Along comes the husband's old best friend (Wei Li), who also used to be the wife's boyfriend when they were teens. She considers running away from her husband with this man, while the husband pretty much remains oblivious, thinking he may engage his little sister to his friend. That's the set-up, and it doesn't go anywhere you wouldn't expect it to. I've actually seen the remake, directed by Blue Kite director Zhuangzhuang Tian. It runs a half hour longer, and is actually kind of dull, too, but at least it was pretty. This supposed classic is pretty intolerable. | 2 | trimmed_train |
20,978 | The scenes are fast-paced. the characters are great. I love Anne-Marie Johnson's acting. I really like the ending. <br /><br />However, I was disappointed that this movie didn't delve deeper into Achilles's and Athena's relationship. It only blossomed when they kissed each other. | 3 | trimmed_train |
12,247 | I saw this film last night following a lot of good reviews from many sources. I would like to point out that if your not ready to try and work out continuously who is who and what it all means you will hate this film.<br /><br />I am still struggling to understand the roles of the actors in this film, the film jumps from different stories and does not allow you to really empathise with any of the roles.<br /><br />For the political buff's and those interested in corruption in other world governments out there this film is probably quite good, but to the average movie watcher this film is awkward,very boring in places and you will leave the cinema confused and annoyed that you paid the entrance fee.<br /><br />see it if your ready to focus 100% on every minute detail or politics interest you. don't see it, if you actually like watching films. | 0 | trimmed_train |
3,614 | Once again, like Charlie's Angels, Inspector Gadget and Thunderbirds, a TV series is turned into a full length film and gets ruined for all the hundreds of people that watched. Basically the Duke cousins, Luke (Johnny Knoxville) and Bo (Seann William Scott) in Hazzard County, spend a lot of time driving very fast in "The General Lee". But they need to get their act together and stop their family farm being destroyed along with almost the whole town by nasty Jefferson Davis 'Boss' Hogg (Razzie nominated Burt Reynolds) to make way for a huge coal mine. They get help along the way from their sexy cousin Daisy (Razzie nominated Jessica Simpson) and Uncle Jesse (Willie Nelson), while being chased by equally mean Sheriff Rosco P. Coltrane (Lost's M.C. Gainey) and the police. Also starring Joe Don Baker as Governor Jim Applewhite, Jack Polick as Deputy Cletus Hogg, David Koechner as Cooter Davenport, Michael Weston as Deputy Enos Strate and Lynda Carter as Pauline. I think the only reason I give the film an extra star is because of a couple of impressive car stunts, and of course the gorgeous body of Simpson (I'll admit her legs aren't quite Catherine Bach, but still!), but besides that it is pretty boring. It was nominated the Razzies for Worst Picture, Worst Director for Jay Chandrasekhar, Worst Remake or Sequel, Worst Screen Couple for Simpson & Her "Daisy Dukes" and Worst Screenplay. Pretty poor! | 0 | trimmed_train |
1,674 | Tom Wolfe's sprawling, brilliantly observed satiric novel of life among New York snobbery gets a glossy look here but is nevertheless not well served. The film suffers not merely from the miscasting of everyman Tom Hanks as an uncaring Yuppie, Kewpie-doll Melanie Griffith as a manipulative southern belle and Bruce Willis (?!) as the darling of New York's literati. The most serious miscasting was in the director's chair. Robert Altman might have breathed life into these unlikeable characters and made them interesting, but Brian De Palma, for all of his visual sophistication, has never had an eye for the nuances of the human experience. The resulting film looks good but seems blah toward its subject of dehumanization in favor of status. Honestly, if a satire does not make the viewer angry, what is the point? | 2 | trimmed_train |
11,748 | A "friend", clearly with no taste or class, suggested I take a look at the work of Ron Atkins. If this is representative of his oeuvre, I never want to see anything else by him. It is amateurish, self-indulgent, criminally shoddy and self-indulgent rubbish. The "whore mangler" of the title is an angry low budget filmmaker who murders a bunch of hookers. There is a little nudity and some erections, but no single element could possibly save this from the hangman's noose. The lighting is appalling, the dialog is puerile and mostly shouted, and the direction is clueless. I saw a doco on American exploitation filmmakers during the recent Fangoria convention. Atkins was one of those featured. He spoke like there was something important about his work, but after a viewing of this, I see nothing of any import whatsoever. There is no style, either, and the horrible video effects (like solarization) only enhance the amateurishness. Not even so bad it's fun. Avoid. | 0 | trimmed_train |
3,880 | After seeing the low-budget shittier versions of the "Universal Soldier" franchise, I hoped and prayed that Van Damme reprised his role as Luc Devoreaux in a second Unisol movie. Well, it seemed this prayer was answered, but not the way I hoped. Universial Soldier 2 is just intense as poetry reading at your local library. No, even that would be more intriguing . The fight sequences are top-notch, Bruce Lee quality, which is the only redeeming factor in this entire pathetic excuse for a motion picture. That and having former WCW tough-guy legend "Goldberg" playing the villain. However, placing Goldberg as Seth's sidekick lieutenant would've been better.<br /><br />We offended me the most was the setting of the movie itself. It's like some film school students slapped it together. The plot holes are that bigger than Kanye West's ego is what really did this movie in. For example: Luc's daughter, Hillary looks like she's at least 11-13 years old and the first movie was filmed only seven years ago. How is that possible? Tell me that! The part in which Luc's partner was killed off and turned into a Unisol is just re-goddamn diculous! You mean to tell me that there was an experimental Unisol exposed naked in the basement of the research complex at the beginning of the movie. C'mon. The director could've spent more time with this movie like the first one and sewn all the plot holes shut. But oooh nooo! <br /><br />Speaking of the plot, IT SUCKS! Compared to the first movie, Universal Soldier 2's plot watered down and worthless. Where's the gritty thrills in which a Unisol goes berserk an re-enacts his last memories in a supermarket rampage thinking its Desert Storm or something ? This was the dawn of the Millennium, you would attracted more of an audience if this had taken place in a dystopia/Orwellian type of future cesspit. Corny is the correct adjective to describe this sad, sad, sad sequel. <br /><br />From what I seen: Double Impact, Under Siege 2, Robocop 3, and hell, even the cheap-ass/no class Terminator knock-off "Class of 1999" is more entertaining than this! | 0 | trimmed_train |
4,093 | Not that he'd care, but I'm not one of Simon Pegg's friends. If I was, there's a good chance we'd fallout if he continued to make dross like this. The trouble is, he found a successful formula as the bumbling, ordinary guy-next-door type in Shawn of the Dead, Run Fat Boy Run etc, but it's starting to wear thin. Here his character has no discernible qualities, he's rude and obnoxious, and thinks he's funny when he frankly isn't. When transferred to New York from London (and I presume this link is meant to appeal to viewers on both sides of the Atlantic), he proves equally out of place with his new colleagues. Still, is it any wonder when amongst his jolly japes he hires a transvestite stripper to appear at an editorial meeting an act of revenge for his boss. Yet somehow, Kirsten Dunst starts to warm to him, even though he's done nothing nice. Oh, and because he's a superficial male he falls for Megan Fox at first sight, possibly because her character is as shallow as his. It all makes for a predictable film conclusion, although I can't see any viewer expressing how this mirrored their life. The shame is that on paper this is a cast supposedly worth watching. Pegg, though, plays himself, Kirsten Dunst seems to just go though the motions, creating no on screen chemistry, and Megan Fox isn't stretched at all. The one huge plus is Miriam Margolyes, as Pegg's New York landlady - now if she had been on screen longer..... | 2 | trimmed_train |
18,086 | An old family story told to two young girls by their grandfather is brought to life 16 years later as he foretold.<br /><br />People are getting murdered and blood is being spilled and rats are scampering all over and naked bodies are being enjoyed.<br /><br />Kitty (Barbara Bouchet) is the suspect, but we know she is not the killer. Is it Franziska (Marina Malfatti)? Is it Evelyn back from death for revenge? Is it a plot to steal an inheritance? The color is superb in this thriller from Emilio Miraglia, who only did one other Giallo, as far as I know.<br /><br />The only thing that spoiled the film was the appearance that several frames were cut out. Someone calls the police, and suddenly they are there trying to save Kitty. | 1 | trimmed_train |
5,705 | I don't want to go too far into detail, because I can't really justify wasting much time on reviewing this film, but I had to give an alternate opinion to hopefully help people avoid the movie. The animation is crud and the story alternates between boring/pointless to extremely irritating. The humor was completely lost on the audience, and yes - Ghost in the Shell fans, this is NOT an action sci-fi or anything like that - its an attempt at slapstick comedy, and the humor just did not work after being translated. It was a total chore to watch this movie, and horrible way for me to kick off the film fest, especially considering how excited I was and how open I was for anything - I wasn't expecting a Ghost in the Shell sequel, but I was expecting something entertaining, and it simply didn't achieve this. Yaaawwnnn... Rent Kino's Journey instead. | 2 | trimmed_train |
16,035 | This Night Listener is better than people are generally saying. It has weaknesses, and it seems to be having a genre identity crisis, no doubt, but I think its creepy atmosphere and intriguing performances make up for this. The whole thing feels like one of those fireside "this happened to a friend of a friend of mine" ghost stories. One big complaint about the movie is the pacing: but the slow and sometimes awkward pacing is deliberate. Everything that unfolds in this movie is kept well within the realm of possibility, and real life just sort of plods alongno? So there are no flashy endings or earth-shattering revelations, no "showdown" scenes. Thank Heaven. You have to get into the zone when watching this movie, forget your reservations and your expectations of what makes a (conventionally)good movie. Williams isn't terrific, but he easily meets the needs of the story, plus his character is supposed to be somewhat generic ("No One") as he is the Everyman, the avatar by which we ourselves enter the story. Toni Collette's performance should be nominated for an Oscar (even if she maybe shouldn't win it). Give it a shot. For quality and content alone, The Night Listener is surely in the top twenty percent of movies coming out these days. | 1 | trimmed_train |
21,244 | I saw this film at the Adelaide Film Festival '07 and was thoroughly intrigued for all 106 minutes. I like documentaries, but often find them dragging with about 25 minutes to go. Forbidden Lie$ powered on though, never losing my interest.<br /><br />The film's subject is Norma Khoury, a Jordanian woman who found fame and fortune in 2001 with the publication of her book Forbidden Love, a biographical story of sorts concerning a Muslim friend of hers who was murdered by her family for having a relationship with a Christian man. A few years later though, a few journalists started poking holes in the story, leading the public to believe it was fraud. The film covers this quickly but thoroughly in the beginning, and from there we spend most of our time in the company of Norma as she tries to convince us that her novel is more than fiction.<br /><br />Director Anna Broinowski has found a truly fascinating woman to study, and she conducts endless interviews with Khoury as she seeks the truth. As always in life, the truth is not so easy to find. Norma fears for her life, worried about violent backlash over the unsavoury portrait her novel paints of Jordanian Muslims. She refuses to return to Jordan and show us the facts. Broinowski is not deterred however, and slowly puts the pieces together in front of us.<br /><br />The result is an incredible look inside the mind of a con artist. Naturally, what we find there makes little sense and is extremely difficult to follow, and ultimately we don't know whether to believe Norma or not. She's either a rather unfairly put-upon woman trying to survive, or a fantastic spinster. The web of lies, truths and half-truths she turns through the film is brilliant.<br /><br />The film uses much interview footage, as well as dramatisations to tell it's story, and Broinowski uses these dramatisations to show us why people like Norma are able to exist: we want to be conned. We go to the cinema every day and allow ourselves to believe what's happening on the screen is real. That might just be me reading into things a bit too much, it didn't come up in the Q&A with Brionowski after the film, but that's what I took away from it.<br /><br />This is a great Australian film, and must receive an international release, and a swag of awards if you ask me. Certainly the best film I saw at AFF07.<br /><br />Go see it, if you get the chance. | 3 | trimmed_train |
1,424 | OK, so it was written in 1996, before 9/11, so you can give it a little credit for worrying about terrorists and the idea that the CIA director makes a plot to blow this doomed plane out of the sky before it brings doom to the world, is prescient. That's it. That's the good stuff. The acting...fair. The plot...silly. The "twist"... unnecessary. DOOOOOOOOOOOM It isn't as though no one ever thought of what to do when a plane gets contaminated. Don't you think bureaucrats have a manual for "plagues" and how to contain them? Proper execution of such a plan is always a problem, as we saw after Katrina. But they have a plan. It isn't to send them off to Iceland and then to Mauritania. And if the virus is carried in the air, why was the plane door open and the "shooters' standing there with no protection? In fact, did it ever occur to anyone to shoot her legs? That would stop her. But not as dramatic. I'm a sucker. I always watch a movie to see the end, once I started it. But this was a waste of time, and for the most part, predictable. I saw it using a recorder so I didn't have to watch all the ads, that was a plus. It's a good example of why I watch so little network TV. Rubbish. | 2 | trimmed_train |
9,603 | I bought a DVD of this film for my girlfriend who shares the same name as the ghost girl in this film, and enjoys movies about the paranormal. The movie was shot entirely on video, so it has the look of a PBS special about it. The special effects are phoney looking, but there are actually some scary moments in the movie that got us to jump in our seat. There is a particularly effective scare involving a Virgin Mary statue.<br /><br />HOWEVER, the acting is bad, the "plot" scenes are long and very boring, and I will tell you I have no clue what happened at the end. If you get the movie, rent it, if you buy it, please make sure you pay less than $5. | 2 | trimmed_train |
23,949 | I felt it necessary to respond to the comments posted on the front page of this film's page because some of it was slightly misinformative.<br /><br />Originally I posted quotes from the original poster, but I wasn't sure if it was proper given that this is the "comments" index and not a message board (though we used to use 'em that way back before IMDb added the film message boards) so I will edit this to make it unnecessary.<br /><br />Well, first of all you may not be aware of this, but Gene Kelly first became famous for playing "Pal Joey" on Broadway in the original production. When Vincente Minnelli decided to make a Gershwin "panorama" film, he wanted Kelly's character to be more sophisticated than the "goody two shoes" roles he had been playing in most his films (with the exception of "For Me and My Gal"). Alan Jay Lerner was instructed to construct a new story set in Paris based on the story of "Pal Joey". This gave Kelly a chance to play his famous role from Broadway even though Warners had outbid MGM for the rights to "Pal Joey." In my opinion, the WB film "Pal Joey" is a wreck, though Sinatra was suitable for the role, but other problems sunk the film (script changes and poor direction. ===================================================<br /><br />You complain that Kelly's pictures are not well done, even citing your art education to prove the point. But you miss the fact that Kelly's bad art was clearly designed to be bad, and it is necessary for the story/characters. The pictures are so bad, the audience knows that Kelly isn't ready for an exhibition. Even he knows it, though Milo has sort of sugared him up to the point where he almost believes her. But it's important that the audience not be sitting there saying "but, he's a great artist, if he only had the chance!". You want the audience to be fully aware of his deficiencies.<br /><br />Then you complain that he sabotages his interest in the show; again you are not understanding the structure of the story. He refuses because he doesn't want to feel like a gigolo, and because he knows he's not really ready for the exhibition. His enthusiasm for the exhibition is certainly not as great as "Joey's" enthusiasm to "start a nightclub". But it serves the same function in the plot. Remember, it's essential in "Pal Joey" (the play) that Joey gives up his nightclub after he realizes that he doesn't deserve it. Same with the art show. If Kelly's paintings were actually good, it would undermine this whole point. ===================================================<br /><br />Then you complain that Caron and Kelly have no "chemistry". I guess it's in the eye of the beholder. I agree, the chemistry between them is not as strong as it should be, but for me it was fine. Compare it to even worse "forced" romances like the one between Cary Grant and Sophia Loren in "The Pride and the Passion". ====================================================<br /><br />When you say that the big dance finale has nothing to do with anything else in this film, it just shows that you haven't dug beneath the surface of the film into its symbolism. Many elements in the dance sequence relate to the story and characters, and through the dance the plot is resolved through images and symbolism. It's about finding love, enjoying love, then losing love (he looks around and his love is gone). The movements of the symphony are constructed so that part of each dance scene mirrors a separate phase of Parisian Art and also a separate phase of their relationships. If you didn't' see that, it's not the movie's fault. It's certainly not a "load of crap". ================================================== | 3 | trimmed_train |
11,334 | Why review good movies when you can review "Trancers II?"<br /><br />Ooh, this film is soooo lame. I can just picture the cast and crew driving around L.A. with a camcorder, hurling extras in silly monster make-up at poor, long-suffering Tim Thomerson. The stars' families actually turn up to play cameos, probably because Full Moon couldn't afford "real" extras. Lame effects, lame sets, and a script so convoluted it would take eons to untie all the knots - this must be classic Trancers!<br /><br />And yet...and yet...it rules. Note this is the same thing I say about "Trancers IV." I say it because it's true. What can beat watching an old guy in a trench coat mow down zombies, then bust out with quips like, "Don't worry ladies, they're bio-degradable"? Well, lots of things could be better, but anyway this is still good stuff.<br /><br />My only significant reservation is Megan Ward, who really stinks up the joint. She's a lousy rival for Helen Hunt's character - they're both young pieces of eye candy, and it would've been more effective if they actually contrasted a bit more. Oh well, you can't have everything. At least the wonderful plot device of the "long second watch" is back in place, and we've got more of Hap Ashby, the least-convincing athlete in the history of cinema (oh, wait a minute - he's got a rival in the form of David Ogden Steirs in "Creator").<br /><br />I haven't seen this lately, but I do seem to remember that Martine Beswick runs away twice during the final battle. Hooray for lousy continuity! Just one of the many highlights in this fine film. | 2 | trimmed_train |
17,923 | This is a film that can make you want to see it again. I especially, liked the way it ended. I did not see the end coming, but when Laws was not blown away the first time, one suspects he will be back again.<br /><br />The story is gripping and could have been more psychological, but I understand the story needed to capture the viewer and the action was necessary for that.<br /><br />Hard to believe Michael Jr. could be so apparently unmoved as his younger brother and mother as blown away. But, I can appreciate the scene play couldn't really take our attention there because it had a greater story to tell.<br /><br />Some have complained about Hanks as a gangster. I believe that isn't justified. If his character had been any harder, he would not have cared if his son pulled a trigger or not.<br /><br />Eight Stars for this one. Although it was released in 2002, I just saw it for the first time yesterday on DVD. | 1 | trimmed_train |
23,628 | *I mark where there are spoilers! Overall comments: If you can take a serious movie, go see this. Have an open mind and you will enjoy it. Don't leave the theater because you get confused as to what is going on! The movie fits together nicely in the second half. I will be taking my mom to see it again when the movie officially opens. <br /><br />I was lucky to see this at a screening a couple of weeks ago, when Will was going around promoting the movie. He was great--spent a lot of time with the fans. Thank you for the picture Will! About Will's performance: A lot of times when you see a movie with an actor really famous for some other movie/show, you always think of them in their current performance much like you think of them for their past performance. This is not the case with Will Smith in this movie. I didn't picture the Fresh Prince (lol) when I was watching this movie. He was completely and utterly convincing in this very, very serious role. He has grown immensely as an actor. I think he will at least get an Oscar nod for this performance.<br /><br />About his character: Ben is very conflicted and tormented. He's sad...guilt-ridden...very determined, but very scared. Very true to himself. His character has a lot of depth...and somehow, Will managed to bring that to life.<br /><br />About Emily (Rosario): Rosario did a nice job portraying Emily, a woman very much behind on her taxes. Maybe she's not the shining star Will is in this movie, but she was very convincing. I think her character just did not have as much to work with as Will's did.<br /><br />About the plot (no spoilers): I admit that I did NOT like the movie until the second half of it. I knew absolutely nothing about the movie going into it, and nothing made sense until the second part of it or so. But when things eventually fit together, wow. Surprisingly well written and well thought out. It's an extremely intense movie that really sticks with you.<br /><br />It actually takes a lot out of you to watch. In the theater I was in, most people were crying towards the end--even grown men. When you realize what Ben is doing, and why, it's a very powerful moment...<br /><br />******* Minor SPOILERS***** Which is why it's really hard to talk about the plot without giving major things away. I feel like knowing too much about this movie really ruins it. There was a lot of symbolism in the movie that I enjoyed, though. I will mention some of it here (without trying to give a lot away).<br /><br />-The fish that Ben was keeping in his hotel room. At first, it makes no sense whatsoever. There was a LOT of chatter in the movie theater when people realized the reality of the fish.<br /><br />-I hated Ben at the beginning of the movie. By the end of it, I loved him and hated him. That's how convincing Will was. I thought Ben was being a huge jerk to Ezra, a blind man just trying to make his way in the world. Why he was treating Ezra like that also became abundantly clear later in the movie. Wait it out though. Everything in this movie: wait it out.<br /><br />-Ben is a fundamentally good person who made a big mistake that he won't forgive himself for. It's still unclear to me if he was doing what he was doing because he was trying to rid himself of his own guilt, or if he genuinely wanted to help people. I think it's a little bit of both...I think he wanted to help people but also rid himself of his past. I love his character. You love him and hate him because you realize that what he is doing is nothing short of amazing. You hate him because of what he is doing to himself (as a very good person), both physically and emotionally. Nice job Will. | 3 | trimmed_train |
3,987 | I only rented this movie because of promises of William Dafoe, and Robert Rodriguez. I assumed that upon seeing RR's name on the cover (as an actor) that this movie would be good. It sounds like a movie that Rodriguez would of made so if He's going to lend his name to it, than it has to be good right? WRONG WRONG WRONG. By far the worst editing since "Manos Hands of fate". The way it was edited made no sense and made the movie impossible to follow and after the first 30 minutes you wont even want to try to follow it anymore. I have no idea how Dafoe and Rodriguez got involved in this film, maybe they owed somebody, but they are way to good for this. Besides they were only in this movie for a couple minutes apiece and Rodriguez didn't even talk. So if you wanna see a movie with Poor editing, poor acting, and confusing storyline than be my guest but don't say you weren't warned. | 0 | trimmed_train |
14,224 | I did not intend to write this review, but having read the default review that shows up on this movie's URL, I felt compelled to write a rebuttal. The movie in a word is superlative. It does not deserve the slanderous review that the writer has written. I think the writer has totally missed the point of the movie to a large extent. In fact, I too was turned off by the excessive show of Evangelist devotions that occupied the middle of the movie to a large extent. However, I must beg to differ with the reviewer in that, this movie in the end is not a propaganda piece for evangelist action. I think, what the director has shown is that how religion is not enough to find all the answers, how religion is to a large extent incapable of providing answers to basic, simple questions that one may ask and all that religion has to offer is sometimes just banal platitudes of one kind or another. This does not demonstrate a value judgment on religion as we have to remember that religion is transmuted and expressed by ordinary, mostly well meaning, basically good people and they usually have no monopoly on truth and thus religion can not in the end provide the ultimate answers to some questions in life. Ultimately, it is a matter of faith. You have to take it on faith and that's all. And if you are given to faith, then you can appreciate any show of faith. And if you are not given to faith then any show of faith is tiresome. It is thus at the same time, instructive to note the reviewer reaction to the movie. In any case, the director shows us that one can choose not to accept the religious interpretation of events and answers to questions and in spite of that life goes on and there are 'secret sunshine' in this world that awaits all wounded souls, regardless of their religious orientation. And that's just the core message of the film! Please note the last scene of the movie, if you don't get this! In the end, the movie is a great one and very thought provoking and confronts you - the viewer with questions that you have to answer for yourself. Thus it is a work of art that is challenging to you personally. I do agree with the reviewer in that, the Evangelical stuff was a bit too much. However, given the above interpretation of religion as shown in the movie, I think the director was trying to balance the act whereby he might not be called an Evangelist basher! The actor Kang-ho Song was great as always. He's so balanced and just perfect that he's just amazing. He's my favorite Korean actor no doubt. I know the actress Do-yeon Jeon got the Cannes award for best actress for this movie. However, I did not find any specialty in her acting. It seems that to get awards you just have to act really convincingly in crying and hysterical scenes and all
All in all a great movie. If you don't like it please watch it again and see if you get it! If it leaves you dissatisfied or uncomfortable or asking questions then think, if that was not what the director was actually aiming at through this movie in the first place! | 3 | trimmed_train |
8,884 | This movie was definitely not one of Mary-Kate and Ashley's best movies. I really didn't like it, and I was kind of disappointed in that movie. For some reason, it seemed like it was a movie that they put together really fast. In some parts, it got so boring that I had to fast forward it. It didn't have any bloopers or any exciting parts like their other movies. | 2 | trimmed_train |
22,139 | This is the second part of 'The Animatrix', a collection of animated short movies that tell us a little more about the world of 'The Matrix'.<br /><br />In this one we learn how men and machines could not work and live together. It is a little history lesson in the world of 'The Matrix'. Not as good as the first part ('The Final Flight of the Osiris') but still pretty entertaining. | 1 | trimmed_train |
6,463 | I wonder how much this movie actually has got to do with the 1984 movie "Bachelor Party", starring Tom Hanks. Is this movie even an official sequel? This movie is lacking in every department and you're obviously better off not watching it.<br /><br />For a comedy this movie simply isn't good or funny enough. It relies mostly on the character's their stereotypical assessments, rather then the movie actually features some good, original and funny moments.<br /><br />Of course there also is very little story present and the movie nude breast than script pages. You just keep waiting for things to finally start off. There is a main plot line in it somewhere but that one is so terribly unoriginal and gets executed so poorly in the movie that it feels more as if it's something non-existent. I guess there even is a message and moral story in it somewhere but this again is so terribly unoriginal and poorly done in the movie that it simply does not work out.<br /><br />It's basically a typical teenage comedy, with lots of sex jokes and nudity, only without the teenage main characters, which makes the story all the more sad and tasteless. The movie makes some really wrong jokes, that are misplaced for any type of movie.<br /><br />I regret ever watching this.<br /><br />3/10 | 2 | trimmed_train |
11,330 | 1) I am not weapon expert, but even i can see difference between U.S. army riffles in WWI and WWII. In movie we can see privates, armed with "M1 Garand" (invented in year 1932!), not authentic "1903 Springfield" (aka "Silent Death"), who privates use until WWII. Difference - M1 can load 1,5 times more ammunition and 3 times more fire rate! M1 was semi - automatic, Springfield requires reloading after every shot. Little difference?! 2) German army uniforms has borrowed from 1940 Year too. Especially - helmets. German helmets until end of WWI have significant pike on top, we cannot see even one in movie. And if we make little additional search in archives - how much truthful is this "True Story"? I am surprised, how much "truthful" can be film directors in a pursuit of cheap propagation. | 2 | trimmed_train |
8,311 | Sam Mraovich should never be allowed to touch a camera again. If he does he should be arrested on the spot...at the very least for petty larceny. Anybody who pays even a dime to rent any of his garbage should file a claim and be compensated. This was innocently my first viewing of his "work"...and it will my last. Ed Wood looks awfully good to me right now.<br /><br />When I return this piece of crap to the video store, I will personally ask that it be taken off the shelf. An active supporter of gay cinema, I am incensed and angered that this warped, exceedingly untalented man-child be allowed to distribute and package something like this, with a coltish pretty boy on the cover (Jamie Brett Gabel, who, thankfully, has no other acting credits in IMDb) and an interesting synopsis on the back used as bait, and then market it as a "movie" rental. Trust me, this has no place being on any rack anywhere; it is simply not a movie in any sense of the word. Offensive, irresponsible junk such as this can only be detrimental to the efforts being made to promote and support gay cinema (hell, gay rights in general!) For those tempting to rent this out because of the cover, you WILL be disappointed. Gabel is not as flattering to look at on film as he is on the cover, and he appears once or twice without a shirt -- that's it. Instead, the homely Mroavich inflicts on us his own disgusting, sorry-looking dough-boy nakedness.<br /><br />This "thing" he "assembled" is a reverse vanity project for Mraovich. Both he and his friend Michael Habousch (who, I understand, puts out similar sleazy garbage) are terrible in this. Mraovich is purposely posing as a complete no-talent (in all fields), desperate to grab onto any "loser" attention he can for himself. He is to be pitied. | 0 | trimmed_train |
398 | A perfect little atrocity...I doubt if a single shot lasted for more then the reglamentary-MTV 4.4 seconds. Woeful casting, worse even than in Kusminsky's version (a reminder: he managed to miscast Juliet Binoche and Ralph Feinnnes). But, hey-the rich got what they deserved. Dark and brooding Heathcliff reduced to the state of a golden-locked angel, frail and angellic Catherine presented as a chubby, melon-breasted heffer, meek and weak Linton is a peeping tom, and innocent Isabel becomes Sara Michelle-Gellar's character from Cruel Intentions. 15-year old Eddie Bauer and Abercrombie and Fitch donners-take notice. This thing was made for you. It is an hour-and-a-half long music video where everything is given to you; you are saved from the uncomfortable necessity of not even trying to understand the complexity of the characters, but even from initial shock at their actions. The actors tried, but, as I stated before, they were miscasted. Decent photography, but editing is on the level of TV production class in high school. I implore you all: read the book, or the cliffnotes even; watch the previous versions of it, even Kusminsky's; but stay away from the numerous future reruns, during which you will not receive the benefit of the commercial-free premiere. | 0 | trimmed_train |
8,917 | In the 60's, having as the background the rehearsal and recording of "Sympathy for the Devil" in the classic album "Beggar's Banquet" by the revolutionary bad boy Rolling Stones Mick Jagger, Keith Richards, Charlie Watts, Bill Wyman and Brian Jones plus Marianne Faithful, Godard discloses other contemporary revolutionary and ideological movements the Black Power through the Black Panthers, the feminism, the communism, the fascism - entwined with the reading of a cheap pulp political novel divided in the chapters: "The Stones Rolling; "Outside Black Novel"; "Sight and Sound"; "All About Eve"; "The Heart of Occident"; "Inside Black Syntax"; and, "Under the Stones the Beach".<br /><br />"Sympathy for the Devil" is another pretentious and boring mess of the uneven director Jean-Luc Godard. The narrative and the footages are awful, but fortunately I love the Stones and "Sympathy for the Devil" and it is nice to see them in the beginning of their careers; otherwise this documentary would be unbearable. My vote is three.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Sympathy for the Devil" | 2 | trimmed_train |
12,799 | Tarzan and his mate(1934) was the only Tarzan movie I didn't see when I was a kid. It sounded boring. Now I have seen it. I have seen the ape man(1932) about a hundred times and I keep a copy on my drive. It's a remarkable movie. It's almost flawless. Tarzan and his mate(1934) however, falters. It's not harmonic and it's parts tend to live a life of there own. The parts themselves are often very good and the action sequences are great. Big budget expensive. Tarzan himself is co-starring. Jane dominates. She have developed and have become a jungle girl so sexy I tend to forget about criticism and sing her praise instead. Well. She let her be duped by a crock who steels a kiss from her and later murder an elephant. She insists Tarzan to carry a bracelet who belonged to her father. Forever. The thing would split to pieces the moment he went about his businesses in the jungle. Stupid? Later someone founds it in the river. Well it's supposed to proof Tarzan is dead. Some cheap drama. The crocks who has an obvious interest in a dead Tarzan convince Jane that he is gone. She takes their words for granted and want to be taken away(to England). Stupid Jane seems to have forgot how tough Tarzan is, how hard he is to kill. The caravan is leaving and Jane go along. Again a pothole. She could easily make the caravan rest for a few hours or more, to pick up a few things and say goodbye to the jungle and her dead husband. She could be smart. She could dive where they found the floating bracelet, check the banks for traces. She can make fire in 15 seconds and swing in Liana's. Picking up traces shouldn't be too hard for jungle Jane. She could talk to the apes, and so on. If she get home to England without have done this she would become miserable. Jane is smart but cheap drama brings her down. And why on earth is she letting the kiss rapist get away with "I blame myself as much as you". A punishment for being vane perhaps? Nonsense. Struggle, a hard slap and telling Tarzan would be appropriate. Still. This movie is far from bad even if the potholes are many and sometimes deep. Just lean back and enjoy. It's Tarzan and Jane for God sake. | 1 | trimmed_train |
7,943 | This movie made it into one of my top 10 most awful movies. Horrible. <br /><br />There wasn't a continuous minute where there wasn't a fight with one monster or another. There was no chance for any character development, they were too busy running from one sword fight to another. I had no emotional attachment (except to the big bad machine that wanted to destroy them) <br /><br />Scenes were blatantly stolen from other movies, LOTR, Star Wars and Matrix. <br /><br />Examples<br /><br />>The ghost scene at the end was stolen from the final scene of the old Star Wars with Yoda, Obee One and Vader. <br /><br />>The spider machine in the beginning was exactly like Frodo being attacked by the spider in Return of the Kings. (Elijah Wood is the victim in both films) and wait......it hypnotizes (stings) its victim and wraps them up.....uh hello????<br /><br />>And the whole machine vs. humans theme WAS the Matrix..or Terminator.....<br /><br />There are more examples but why waste the time? And will someone tell me what was with the Nazi's?!?! Nazi's???? <br /><br />There was a juvenile story line rushed to a juvenile conclusion. The movie could not decide if it was a children's movie or an adult movie and wasn't much of either. <br /><br />Just awful. A real disappointment to say the least. Save your money. | 0 | trimmed_train |
1,605 | Tedious girls-at-reform-school flick, which plays somewhat like a prison movie. Chris (Linda Blair) is stuck in there after running away from her abusive father. Once in the de facto jail, she is gang raped by her fellow female "inmates".<br /><br />Overlong (even at 98 minutes), with an utterly pointless ending which makes the entire film seem pointless.<br /><br />15 year old Linda Blair does her best to avoid showing her body when unclothed, but lets a nipple shot slip during a shower scene.<br /><br />*1/2 out of **** | 2 | trimmed_train |
24,969 | When you compare what Brian De Palma was doing in the 80's to what passes for entertainment today, his films keep looking better and better. "Dressed To Kill, "Blow Out", "Body Double", "Scarface" and "Carlito's Way" are all superb works of a cinematic craftsman at the peak of his powers. The guy had a long run of better than average films. This is pure Hitchcock with an 80's dash of lurid perversion, an affectionately told tale of lust and murder with plenty of twists, huge helpings of style, a stunning Pino Donaggio score, and a trashy, giallo-inspired plot. De Palma's love of complex camera-work and luscious, blood-smudged visuals helps overcome the logical holes while the terrific performances of Dennis Franz, Keith Gordon (a good director in his own right), Nancy Allen (De Palma's wife at the time) and Michael Caine make every scene special. Let the virtuoso take you on a surreal, scary, erotically charged odyssey and you'll enjoy every frame of "Dressed To Kill". | 1 | trimmed_train |
24,841 | I need to be honest. I watched and enjoy this show because it was gross, offensive, hilarious, and raunchy. Yeah, there is a lot of humor for all tastes. If you are into the kind of humor that deals with making fun of people falling from skateboards, for example then you will have a great time for it.<br /><br />Or, if you enjoy people on extreme stunt actions going bad, you will also have a great time. And if you enjoy scatological humor and extreme situations oh , you will enjoy the show.<br /><br />I enjoy all three kinds of humor that "Dirty Sànchez" offers. I like to have a hard laugh with the situations of the show. "Jackass" is like a walk in the park compared to this one. So if you are tired of the typical American stupidity of Jackass, give it a try to English extreme stupidity on this show. With all due respect.<br /><br />This is a show that has little taste or class. It's not recommended for those who are easily offended or grossed out.<br /><br />Now, these guys need to see a psychologist. Specially the Paco character. | 1 | trimmed_train |
10,535 | This movie is nothing but a religious tract promoting classic Hinduism and New Age Occultism dressed up with Western images to be swallowed by those who are ignorant of foundational religious comparisons. Basic tenants of Hinduism contain elements of reincarnation. (Some of the characters appear both in the present time and also in the 1600's) obviously reincarnated. God is an impersonal force. Animal life and plant life are all the same. (This is Pantheism). Redfield has tried to mix Eastern Mysticism with Western Christianty. His attempt at syncretism may fool or confuse those who are not seekers of truth but this movie is a feeble excuse for any ultimate reality. As the ad in the old Berkeley Barb used to say for $10.00 will show you how to start your own religion. As one famous prophet has said, "Use the Force Luke". | 0 | trimmed_train |
22,935 | Star Pickford and director Tourneur -- along with his two favorite cameramen and assistant Clarence Brown doing the editing -- bring great beauty and intelligence to this story of poor, isolated Scottish Islanders -- the same territory that Michael Powell would stake twenty years later for his first great success. Visions of wind and wave, sunbacked silhouettes of lovers do not merely complement the story, they are the story of struggle against hardship.<br /><br />The actors bring the dignity of proud people to their roles and Pickford is brilliant as her character struggles with her duties as head of the clan, wavering between comedy and thoughtfulness, here with her father's bullwhip lashing wayward islanders to church, there seated with her guest's walking stick in her hand like a scepter, discussing her lover, played by Matt Moore.<br /><br />See if you can pick out future star Leatrice Joy in the ensemble. I tried, but failed. | 1 | trimmed_train |
1,164 | This movie was rented by a friend. Her choice is normally good. I read the cover first and was expecting a good movie. Although it<br /><br />was a horror movie. Which i don't prefer. But no horror came to mind while watching the movie. It was a dull,<br /><br />not very entertaining movie. The appearance of Denise Richards<br /><br />was again a pleasure for the eye. But that's it. We (the four of us)<br /><br />we're a little bit disappointed. But feel free to see this movie and<br /><br />judge it yourself. | 2 | trimmed_train |
7,434 | A girl is showering unknowing that a serial rapist is staring at her through the skylight. Detectives Martin Manners and Orville Stone is hot on his trail, but not hot enough as they find him after he kills, rapes, and eats a nipple of the girl.He's the shot to death. One would hope that this would be the end of the film. Not because it's too horrifying, but because the level of acting is atrociously horrid. Sadly it's not the end and months later the rapist is resurrected as a zombie by a coven of satanists. So he continues where he left off, with the detectives on the case again, this time a flying baby is after him too (don't ask). There has been VERY good VERY low-budget movies (Street Trash and Filthy McNasty spring to mind), but this one is scraping the bottom of the barrel. Horrible acting, crappy dime store special effects, lame attempt at comedy and oh yeah, and the ending sucks too.<br /><br />My Grade: F <br /><br />Eye Candy: Theresa Bestul gets fully nude; Anne R. Key gets topless | 0 | trimmed_train |
4,290 | Well here I go with another B industry movie. It's sad enough to see some badly made films but I don't care if a B industry or C industry produces the film. Show some effort in your work. The characters are really bad. The acting isn't in question in this one (surprise), but plot is. How can a tight-knit squad witness two of their fellow soldiers butchered, and then go on as if nothing happened. What sickened me was how the writer even threw in the remaining members a scene where they joke about how nice the doctor's ass was. Give me a break. | 0 | trimmed_train |
12,913 | Emory is a Cincinatti steel worker like his father before him and for most of the 20th century the twin pillars of his family's existence have been the steel mill and the union. The mill, which once employed 45,000, has seen its numbers dwindle to 5,000 recently and now 1, as the plant just shut its doors, leaving a single security guard. At first, newly-unemployed Emory and his pals enjoy their independence, hanging out around town and carousing at their favorite bar, where they down "depth charges" with reckless abandon. They think the mill will reopen after listening to their union rep's optimistic spiel, but reality starts to sink in when they find themselves selling their personal vehicles in a struggle to put food on the table and stave off foreclosure of their homes. Emory's father - a dedicated union man - is sure the plant will reopen and recalls for his son all the short-lived closures during his own 35 years at the mill. Meanwhile, some of the unemployed men take demeaning make-work jobs or hop in their trucks and take off in a desperate search for employment. <br /><br />Finally the union admits its helplessness, as Emory explains to his stubborn father that times have changed and that the mill won't ever open again. Emory tearfully asks "What did I do wrong?" as a lifetime of hard work and devotion to job, union, church and family have left him with nothing and nowhere to turn. He hits rock bottom when in a drunken rage he manhandles his young sons and knocks his wife to the floor. Tossed out of his own home and stinging from the plant manager's comments that he and his men didn't work hard enough to justify their substantial paychecks, Emory recruits the steel workers still left in town to do something that will demonstrate to all what they are capable of. Early in the morning they break into the mill, fire up the furnaces and work harder than they ever have in their lives, producing in one shift enough high-quality steel pipes to fill the loading docks from wall to wall, top to bottom - something the plant manager thought was impossible. <br /><br />Arriving at the suddenly-reopened plant, the stupefied manager looks around him at the tremendous output that came from a single day's work, realizing that production like this could make the plant profitable again. The manager asks Emory: "Can you do this every day?" Emory is forced to nod "No" and the manager asks: "Then what were you trying to prove?" Emory explains that the workers' decades of hard work, honesty and devotion to their jobs had meaning and that by showing how much they could produce in one day "We just spit in your eye." Emory bids a tearful farewell to his wife and kids as he takes off with his buddies to look for work down south, promising to relocate the family when he finds it. <br /><br />This is a powerful and honest treatment of the plight of American workers displaced by foreign competition and gives a realistic view of the costs they bear for the short-sightedness of concession-demanding unions and greedy plant owners who extracted every penny they could from their factories but never gave back by modernizing them. Peter Strauss as Emory, John Goodman as his best friend, Gary Cole as his college-boy brother, Pamela Reed as Emory's sympathetic wife and John Doucette as his dying father all turn in excellent performances in this fine picture. | 3 | trimmed_train |
10,829 | How did this ever come into existence? I generally love sci F/Bigfoot whatever films etc. . . but I still expect them to be written without quite so much cheese as this. The effects were sad, the lines were sadder. Avoid at all costs. I only ended up renting it because it was in the wrong case (I was looking for the Sasquatch film with Lance Henrikson in it -- still haven't seen that one). The idea of the film is actually a good one. There was a lot of potential to make a great little movie here. I just don't understand how something like this ends up like this. Go speak to the film/arts/English interested students in any high school and you'll find people who can write a better script. | 0 | trimmed_train |
18,591 | A kind of road movie in old-fashioned trains in the Slowenian late summer province. At the beginning you see someone in underwear sewing trousers from black cloth, and when the same young man in his black trousers leaves the house with two suitcases, you see that the trousers-part is missing on a flag of mourning (appearently his father has died). In the train he meets a young lady, and almost without words, but many small gestures, a wonderful love story begins. It's a somehow surreal, very poetic, and a little bizarre movie, with a lot of strange characters and strange incidents. Beautiful pictures with love for beautiful details. | 3 | trimmed_train |
23,985 | OK, I would not normally watch a Farrelly brothers movie. I can't recall ever watching one. I also don't recall watching a Jimmy Fallon movie. Alright, I did watch taxi, but I said penance and was forgiven for that mistake. But, this movie had Drew Barrymore and I just think she is the cutest thing. I don't know what it is about her, but I just smile the whole time I am watch her. She just captivates me that way. I mean I even watched Adam Sandler just to see her in 50 First Dates. How sad is that? This wasn't the greatest baseball movie - it wasn't supposed to be. It was a love story about a sad puppy that hung on to the only thing that never let him down until he found something worth giving that up for. It had a predictable ending, but there was so much on the way there that made it worthwhile. | 1 | trimmed_train |
6,691 | In his 1966 film "Blow Up", Antonioni had his hero question truth against a backdrop of British youth protesters. By setting such questions against a fabric of hippie youth movements, Antonioni questioned, intentionally or not, the effectiveness of these organisations. How can you fight for a cause when what you think is true may actually be a lie? On the flip side, the film said that we must fight and actively challenge what we see precisely because others may be deceiving us with false images and false truths. Though the hippie aspects were the most tacky parts of "Blow Up", they created a nice texture and gave the film more meaning than it might otherwise have had. It was a very cautionary and mature little film.<br /><br />With "Zabriskie Point" Antonioni throws away all the ambiguities and subtleties of "Blow Up" and goes full blown hippie. The result is a film awash with bad metaphors, stupid ideas and heavy handed storytelling. How could somebody, who across his career displayed such restraint and intelligence, make something so silly? <br /><br />The film opens with a nice series of close ups, as we watch a group of radicals discussing the meaning of revolution. Suddenly one man (Mark) gets up and leaves. He hates the rigid and ordered nature of revolution. He recognises that, though revolutionaries fight for freedom, to bind oneself to such a militant cause is to effectively give your freedom away. And so like Jack Nicholson in "The Passenger", Mark just wants to be free.<br /><br />As such, Mark buys a gun and goes solo. He takes orders from no one. When police raid his university campus Mark shoots a guy and runs away. He then flees to a nearby airfield, steals a small private plane and flies out to the desert. Antonioni treats the desert as a peaceful utopia, and contrasts it with the ruthlessly capitalist cities, with their billboards and hollow modern appliances. He sees the desert as a sort of Garden of Eden.<br /><br />In the desert, Mark meets Daria and quickly falls in love. Antonioni then gives us a ridiculous sex scene in which hundreds of hippies have sex in the sand. Free from the constraints of modern life, these tree-huggers and student radicals can now celebrate their individualism by humping in the sun.<br /><br />The film ends with Mark dying and Daria fantasising about blowing up the mansions and stately homes of the rich capitalists who killed him. It's Antonioni's challenge to his audience. Pick up the guns, pickets and explosives, he says. Tear the walls down before they cage you in!<br /><br />Of course the film had no effect on its audience. They recognised "Zabriskie Point" as being just another self centred commercial attempt at being radical. A sort of commodified radicalism. It felt untruthful and tame.<br /><br />Thematically the film is pretty stupid. Antonioni basically says that if you are unhappy with the modern world, and the fat cats who exploit you, you should either flee to the desert (Mark) or actively fight the system (Daria). That's all well and good. But though artists constantly warn us of such dystopian nightmares, they're all mostly unable to show us how to effectively administer change. Like the end of "Fight Club", nihilism and violence achieve nothing. In the real world, social change tends to be instigated by humble inventors, spurred ahead by minor technological advancements. I mean, what liberated women more than contraceptives?<br /><br />3/10 - A very bad film. The problem is, Antonioni does not really believe in rebellion. He is a quiet and contemplative man. An introvert who seems to have made an extroverted film simply to garner more adoration from the counterculture who embraced his earlier film, "Blow Up". As such, "Zabrinskie Point" comes across as a very pretentious and stupid film. It's essentially a 50 year old man say "Look at me, I'm a daring rebel!"<br /><br />There are many films in which the audience is encouraged to fight "the system", but they all fall into one of four categories. In the first category you have films like "Network", "Cool Hand Luke", "Cuckoo's Nest" and "Spartacus". These all show that the lives of freedom fighters all end in failure, though in each case the "spirit of revolution" survives. The message is that you can not effect change, but by dying or failing, the optimistic notion of change survives through martyrdom. Essentially we must keep on failing rather than give up hope.<br /><br />Then you have films like "Fight Club", "Zabriskie Point" and "Falling Down", which simply encourage you to explode. Tear it all down. Blow it all up. Everything is a lie, so you might as well go out guns blazing. These films are borne out of angry, reactionary feelings, rather than any sort of common sense.<br /><br />Then you have the "flight rather than fight" category. Terrence Malick and Antonioni are the masters of this genre. Films like "The Passenger", "Red Desert" and "Badlands" show human beings running from worlds they do not like and forging islands or peaceful havens for themselves. Both directors are pessimists, in that Malick has his islands destroyed and Antonioni has his islands offering no sense of happiness or solution.<br /><br />Then you have the fourth category. Films like Donnersmarck's "The Lives of Others", Ashby's "Bound For Glory" and Kubrick's "A Clockwork Orange", treat artists as a force of change and rebellion. In these dystopian worlds, in which everyone is content to be a slave to the state, it is the unbridled creativity and freedom of will of the artist/criminal who keeps the system in check. By simply existing outside of the herd, you create waves. Your comments, actions and critical eye, challenges the status quo. As such, Donnersmarck's film has novelists and artists undermining Nazi Germany, whilst Kubrick has Alex the artist/criminal fighting Nazi droogs, painting the town in blood and sperm. | 2 | trimmed_train |
4,661 | About three minutes into this thing I started fast-forwarding, pausing only during the nudity (why is it that bad movies always include such good looking women?). In ten minutes I was done, and wishing I could get my money back from the rental store. The people who write these movies should be sanctioned by the MPAA. Come on writers - the bad guys ALWAYS get into the car with the bomb activated by the good guy's remote control! That's the way its been done since the days of the Ottoman Empire! Also, to add insult to injury, the "twist" at the end was so formulaic, that it could have come from any action movie written in the past 25 years. Burt Reynolds was fine, but he should concentrate on real movies.<br /><br />This movie is just a waste of time - Run away! Run away! | 0 | trimmed_train |
316 | This film is a pure failure. I am a Steve Martin fan, but even he can't save the tired idea and swiss cheese script. Think "Police Academy 7" and apply it to a military parody. Yuck.<br /><br />I DO NOT feel the other user comments reflected the poor rating this film received (and rightfully deserved!). It is extremely misleading. I have often seen this film marked down to $3.00 in the grocery store and now I certainly know why.<br /><br />If only I could get my 90 minutes back... | 0 | trimmed_train |
5,859 | They should have named this movie ...Blonde women that needed to get their roots colored. Also the main character, geeze, the too tight sweaters. The giggling. Thought the guy did a good job though. I keep hoping we'll find a good 8 star Christmas movie to watch this week. The dart throwing. Had to laugh at that too. We've still got 3 more on the DVR to watch, maybe we'll get lucky. Oh yeah, I figured the guy out pretty quickly and nailed it when he picked up the flowers and then drove out with his cousin. I told my daughter they were on their way to the cemetery. And how stupid was it that the two gals followed them there spying on them? Creepy. | 2 | trimmed_train |
16,834 | No one better spoil this piece of work! Awesome movie! Written expertly by the likes of Ira Levin and depicted with the best performance of Christopher Reeve's career and one of Caine's very best, this is simply excellent. I wish I could catch a staged version somewhere...maybe someday I will. I hope this grossly underrated, overlooked film has not become too difficult to locate because it a 'must' for any Hitchcockian, Agatha-phile or lover of great film. One of very few movies I couldn't instantly solve or predict and worth a second or even third viewing, "Deathtrap" gets a 9/10 and earns every iota of it. We need and deserve more movies like this! | 3 | trimmed_train |
7,070 | I love Julian Sands and will at least attempt to watch anything he's in, but this movie nearly did me in. I'm hard pressed to remember when I found any other movie to move....so......slow.........ly.....zzzzzzzzzzzz<br /><br />Pop it in the VCR when you've run out of sleeping pills. | 2 | trimmed_train |
24,952 | This is one of those films that explore the culture clash of Eastern born people in Westernized cultures. <br /><br />Loving on Tokyo Time is a sad film about the inability of opposites to attract due to major cultural differences. Ken, rock n'roll fanatic, marries Kyoto, a Japanese girl, so that she can stay in the United States when her visa expires. The marriage is only expected to be temporary, that is, until Kyoto gains legal status again. But, Ken, who seems to be lost in every relationship, takes a liking to Kyoto and tries very hard to make things work out. This, despite his friend's urging that dumping Kyoto and getting rid of all commitments to girls is bad for rock n' roll except to inspire some song writing about broken hearts and all of that.<br /><br />But Kyoto comes from a strict traditional Japanese upbringing, and doesn't expect to be married to Ken all that long. Not only that, she is homesick and wants to return to Japan. It's sad in that this is finally someone Ken thinks he can love and be with and all that, except the one time he thinks he's found someone to feel that way about, the girl isn't expecting to stay that long. It's not that she doesn't like Ken, it's just that she's used to a whole 'nother way of life. She says, "I can't tell him the way I feel in English, and Ken can't tell me the way he feels in Japanese." It's a rather sad love story with a killer 80s techno-nintendo soundtrack.<br /><br />I picked up Loving on Tokyo Time because it reminded me of one of my favorite 80s films, Tokyo Pop. And, for those of you who enjoyed Loving on Tokyo Time, check out Tokyo Pop (a New York singer goes to Japan and joins a Japanese American cover band), except it's a movie with a happy ending.<br /><br /> | 1 | trimmed_train |
7,886 | This movie deserves more than a 1. But I'm giving it a one because so many fricken fan boys have given it a 10 resulting in it getting a rating that'll take it into the top 100 list. Seriously it's not that great its not that bad. Its a stupid cult classic with so many fricken fan boys it's ridiculous. These are the types who probably still laugh at Chuck Norris jokes and still say "I'm rick james b!tch" No matter how old or annoying it gets. I dread having to hear "I'm tired of MFn snakes on this MFn plane" months from now from idiots trying to be funny. Its crappy plot crap acting etc. Its Okay to love a bad movie, but you still gotta admit its a bad movie.<br /><br />Wait for the Marine starring John Cena if you wanna see a real movie | 0 | trimmed_train |
8,712 | Murder By Numbers is one of those movies that you expect is made-for-TV but isn't. Considering the only actor of any note is Bullock (although Michael Pitt seems to be moving onto bigger and better things), it isn't a great surprise that this movie quickly fades away from memory to be replaced by more important things. Like... remembering to lock your front door when you go out. Or putting clothes back on when you come out of the shower.<br /><br />Bullock plays Cassie Mayweather, a cop with personal issues (don't they all). Together with her new partner (a wet-looking Ben Chaplin), she is called to investigate the murder of a young woman. Nothing unusual there except that the perps are a couple of teenage students who think they've planned and executed the perfect murder. As the investigation continues, a battle of wills emerges between Cassie and the main suspect Richie Haywood (Ryan Gosling).<br /><br />The crippling issue here is that the two leads are hopeless. Bullock, though she is very nice to look at, is about as believable in the role of a hardened cynical cop as Rodney Dangerfield (actually, he'd be better!). Chaplin, for his sins, is a complete non-entity and I feel sorry that he has to put this film on his CV in his attempt to break into Hollywood. At least Gosling and Pitt, as the conniving sneering suspects, acquit themselves adequately. As if dodgy leads weren't bad enough, a story that would send anybody to sleep and a highly predictable (but illogical) ending shoot this film in the head before it has a chance to run.<br /><br />"Murder By Numbers" has absolutely nothing going for it, even a pointless nude scene by Bullock wouldn't redeem it. Well, just a little but still not enough to save it. Forgettable, predictable and redundant - this is one film that isn't going to move the cop genre forward. As Cassie probably says on her next case, there's nothing to see here people. Move along, keep moving... | 2 | trimmed_train |
12,289 | Dreadful horror sequel to "The Howling". This picks off with Karen White's funeral (she was killed at the end of the first film). Stefan Crosscoe (Christopher Lee sadly) arrives there and tells Karen's brother Ben (Reb Brown) that Karen was a werewolf. He's going to Transylvania to kill Striba (Sybil Danning) the head werewolf. Ben and a coworker of Karens (Annie McEnroe) join him.<br /><br />A terrible script, bad direction, inept editing and truly horrendous acting by Brown and McEnroe single handedly sink this one. The werewolf effects are mostly kept in the dark--for good reason! They're terrible when you see them. Subpar special effects also--although I DID like the cartoon lightning that comes from Danning's fingers. There's also a werewolf orgy which is particularly stupid and Danning takes off her top at least EIGHT TIMES during the closing credits! <br /><br />There are a few good things--I found the village in Transylvania amusing--it looks like it came from a Universal horror flick from the 1930s! There are interesting camera tricks between transition scenes; Brown and McEnroe have good bodies and Lee and Danning are good in this--but they can't save it. Really--WHY did they do this? Where that they hard up for money??? This is one of IMDb's lowest rated movies. That alone should tell you something. Supposedly Danning was horrified when she saw the movie--I can understand why! A must-miss. | 0 | trimmed_train |
19,721 | Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey is the sequel to Bill and Ted's excellent adventure. Their bogus journey follower almost directly after the first movie, and does just as good of a job if not better to entertain the viewer.<br /><br />The plot is an evil person from the future is trying to kill Bill and Ted using evil robots that look exactly like Bill and Ted. Once the robots kill Bill and Ted, they must compete with the grim reaper (death) and return their lives to normal.<br /><br />The acting in the movie is top notch, and even thought it is a little weird at times, especially Bill and Ted's conversations, it is a great movie. The wannabe rockers sure have made another great movie. Pick this up the next time your at blockbuster! | 1 | trimmed_train |
21,501 | I had an uncle who committed suicide after serving in Vietnam because of mental problems he experienced after coming back. So when I saw part of this movie one night on a pay-for-view channel I was intrigued. I wanted to know what my uncle went through and felt as he got ready for Vietnam. I went out and rented this movie and I have to say it is the most heart-wrenching film I have ever seen. I bought the DVD immediately after renting it. The way it pulls you in so many different directions emotionally is something I've never experienced with any other film. As far as Vietnam subject films go, I think it is the best one, although Platoon runs a close second. Besides all of that, I think it is also Colin Farrell's best performance as an actor. I like him in most of his movies but in this one he was incredible. I gave this a 10 rating because it is one of my top five favorite movies. | 3 | trimmed_train |
7,429 | I had numerous problems with this film.<br /><br />It contains some basic factual information concerning quantum mechanics, which is fine. Although quantum physics has been around for over 50 years, the film presents this information in a grandiose way that seems to be saying: "Aren't you just blown away by this!" Well, not really. These aren't earth shattering revelations anymore. At any rate, I was already familiar with quantum theory, and the fact that particles have to be described by wave equations, etc. is not new.<br /><br />The main problem I have with this movie, however, is the way these people use quantum theory as a way of providing a scientific basis for mysticism and spiritualism. I don't have any serious problem with mysticism and spiritualism, but quantum mechanics doesn't really have anything to do with these things, and it should be kept separate. The people they interviewed for this movie start with the ideas of quantum theory and then make the leap to say that simply by thinking about something you can alter the matter around you, hence we should think positively so as to have a positive impact on the world and make our lives better. The reasoning is completely ridiculous, and the conclusions do not logically follow from quantum theory. For every so called "expert" that they interviewed for this film, there are scores of theoretically physicists who would completely disagree. They would point out, quite rightly, that the unpredictability of the subatomic world does not lend support to mystical notions about our spiritual connectedness.<br /><br />It disturbs me that people are going to see this film and completely eat it up because it leaves them with a nice positive feeling. The main thrust of the film is based on a total misinterpretation of quantum theory, and it is as bad in its reasoning as any attempt to justify organized religion with similar pseudo-scientific arguments.<br /><br />Avoid this film.<br /><br />Oh yeah. At one point, one of the "experts" says that since throughout history most of the assumptions people have made about the world turned out to be false, therefore the assumptions we currently hold about the world are also likely to be false. Huh? That totally does not follow. And even if it did, I don't see how that helps his argument. I mean, if his ideas ever became common assumptions then I guess we would have to assume that they are false too, based on his own reasoning. | 0 | trimmed_train |
14,524 | This is a really fun, breezy, light hearted romantic comedy. You cannot go wrong with Meg Ryan's cute perkiness combined with Albert Einstein's genius. Normally, I'm not a fan of completely fabricated fictional tales about actual people, now deceased and not able to defend themselves, but I think the late Einstein might himself have gotten a chuckle out of this one.<br /><br />It's the 1950's...Princeton, New Jersey in the spring. The story revolves around a pretty, young, scatter brained mathematician, Catherine (Meg Ryan), who is all set to marry a stuffy jerk, a behavioral researcher named James, merely because he has the brains she's looking for in the father of her future children. However, it's love at first sight when her car breaks and she meets an auto mechanic named Ed (Tim Robbins). As she doesn't think Ed is intelligent enough, her uncle, none other than Albert Einstein, plays match maker, assisted in his endeavors by three mischievous cronies, all theoretical physicists. Uncle Albert must make Ed appear suitably smart, so concocts a charade portraying him as a physicist...naturally with amusing results.<br /><br />Walter Matthau is his usual hilarious self, and pulls off the character of Einstein quite effectively. With his three professorial buddies, Kurt, Nathan, and Boris, a lot of laughs ensue. The real Einstein had a genuine human side and this film just takes it one (outrageous) step further. If you suspend all logic, you can almost imagine this silly story happening!<br /><br />It might not be rocket science (despite its main character) but it is a wonderful sweet, refreshing movie. One of the best of the comedy romance genre. | 1 | trimmed_train |
22,608 | For all the hoopla, respect and recognition this film gets from Kung Fu historians, it still lacks glaringly in a couple critical areas: action and fight scenes. But I must say that the plot is probably the best and most original I've ever seen in a martial arts film. Five Deadly Venoms without a doubt is a must see, not only that, a movie you can watch again and again; but I also must say that after watching it you feel it could have been even better. It somehow leaves you wanting something, you want more. The producer Chang Cheh sets up the storyline beautifully for a potential masterpeice but doesn't follow through with giving us more of the action we want. The fighting styles in the movie really captures the viewer (Centipede,Snake,Scorpion,Lizard,Toad) and they are shown, but battles are noticeably short. The Toad and Snake styles are particularly intriguing and should have been showcased much, much more, in fact the Toad is killed off by the middle of the movie. Interestingly enough with this movie, the absence of constant action or fighting leads to development of a great plot, this is one of the few kung fu films where you are really interested in the storyline and care about the outcome. This movie has a dark and vicious tone to it and you are drawn into the vibe. Sinister weapons and torture tactics are used throughout the movie and adds to the movies feel. To start off the movie and to introduce the Poison Clan producer Chang Cheh takes us to a grimy dungeon. The ending fight scenes are certainly good but seem muffled and somehow you expected more. Still though this movie is one of Shaw Brothers best and is quite enjoyable. My overall impression of the movie would conclude with this: The styles the fighters used are merely shown to us and not showcased in detail, sad thing is , the director had the goods for something extraordinary right at his fingertips and didn't expand on it. I am left wondering what could have been with this movie, still one of the best though. 8 out of 10 on the scale. | 3 | trimmed_train |
21,247 | Visual creative epic of inimitable style.<br /><br />This film may neither have the most alternative dramaturgy nor the most artistic acting. But who dares to say this film is no art? I'm not a supporter of the idea, that an important film must be serious, non-commercial or bothering me with questions. Even there are a lot of films, apposite to this attributes, that I like.<br /><br />Bogus Journey, for sure, is not one of this films. What you get is pure, excessive creativity with a very positive charged, childlike energy. This film doesn't reflect reality. Its friendly-naive and utopian. Imagine the world of the future described by Rufus - for me it would be a pretty nice time-place combination to live in! Except of that music ;- )<br /><br />Technically, Bogus Jorney is very well made. I always liked the cinematography and the sceneries of this movie. Especially in this point Bogus Journey tops its prequel by far. Also the effects are good, and I think most of them very made without cgi. I generally prefer the good old effects in big budget movies. Sure its 'just another Hollywood movie' out of some peoples view. But I think it is this in a very charismatic way.<br /><br />A short word to the soundtrack: all the band and orchestral music fits very well into the film. Also the sound design has no lack. I am not a big fan of rock music, but I had to get this track by Winger from the scene 'station' builds the bill and ted robots in the van. I love the unorthodox camera work at its beginning.<br /><br />Let me conclude saying this:<br /><br />This film is very naive and very imaginative! It is way better than Panzerkreuzer Potemkin, The Godfather, Eraserhead or Aguirre - the wrath of god. It is absolutely superior to citizen kane, apocalypse now or chris markers sans soleil... ...it is even better than Total Recall... No way!? Yes way!<br /><br />Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey is simply the best movie ever made.<br /><br />Who dares to disagree makes himself guilty of "artsie-fartsy behavior" or likes Terminator Salvation (what is the bigger self-defamation)<br /><br />PS: part 1 is not the better movie. So Bogus Jorney is a superior sequel. Not even Terminator 2 is a superior sequel! Its NOT! | 3 | trimmed_train |
9,816 | What a piece of stupid tripe.<br /><br />I won't even waste time evaluating any of the points of this show. It's not worth the time. The one comment I will make is - why get such a DUMB, inarticulate doofus to be the star?!?<br /><br />There aren't many more dismal testimonials to the deteriorating mental condition of the networks than the fact that FOX has stated it will NOT bring back John Doe (a decent series) but WILL bring back brain-dead drivel like Joe Millionaire for yet another round of killing the brain cells of the american public.<br /><br />FOX has lost it, IMHO. | 0 | trimmed_train |
11,737 | I can't believe this show is still rating a 9 out of 10. I could see if those votes were in the first 2 seasons, but what would possess anyone to continue to rate it high after that? I was a huge fan the 1st season. I was hooked - all the mystery, suspense, unexplained events. You never knew what was going to happen next. By season 2, I was still watching faithfully, but was getting a little frustrated that some basic things had yet to be explained. And instead of giving you more answers, it just seemed like more questions. I LOVE suspense, but you have to throw people a bone every now and then to keep them watching.<br /><br />Now, I can't even remember what finally turned me off, but somewhere in season 2, I had enough. I'm not a big fan of appointment viewing - and you clearly can't miss an episode to stay up on what's happening. So, it was no longer worth the effort to me.<br /><br />It's a shame that they couldn't have been a little smarter and more considerate of the loyal fans. I agree with some of the posters that it appears ABC just got greedy and decided to see how long they can stretch this show out. Don't they realize that in the end, they are going to lose more fans than they could possibly gain. | 0 | trimmed_train |
10,052 | The original was a good movie. I bought it on tape and have watched it several times. And though I know that sequels are not usually as good as the original I certainly wasn't expecting such a bomb. The romance was flat, the sight gags old, the spoken humor just wasn't. This may not have been the worst movie I've ever seen but it comes close. | 0 | trimmed_train |
23,388 | A female executioner (played by the sexy Jennifer Thomas II) has the fun job of fulfilling all the fantasies of all the men on death row before they meet their maker. And what a way to go. Lucky this film is not real, or we would have a lot more people in this world on death row.<br /><br />It starts out real slow. Low light and bad acting, like most (B) films. It gets better as it moves along. And ends with a bang.<br /><br />I would rate it very high on the low cost, very sexy movies of the 90's. It's a must see once the kids are away or in bed. | 3 | trimmed_train |
17,336 | Although I agree that it's a good but not great movie, for many of the reasons other posters have mentioned, I still enjoy it. One reason is the music: I'd call attention to the very cool appearance by the Candoli brothers -- Conte and Pete -- in a well-staged scene in the nightclub. These guys were two of the best jazz trumpeters of their day, and they manage to convincingly boggle the mind of Jimmy Stewart by playing an hysterical trumpet duet, one trumpet in each of Stewart's ears. The Candolis really did play that well, too, though I suspect the actual music for that scene was dubbed later by the two of them. I don't know much about George Duning, who gets the credit for the music (other than that he seems to have worked with the Three Stooges on more than one occasion), but the casting of the Candoli brothers as jazz-playing warlocks was a real nice touch. | 1 | trimmed_train |
1,041 | This, the direct-to-video death rattle of the Tremors series, features sixty inspired seconds (sawblade: you'll know it when you see it) and more tedium and filler than you can shake a stick at. Tremors 4 was obviously shot on a cripplingly low budget. That means they only had enough special effects mojo for three or four minutes of precious worm-on-human violence, tops. The lackluster, cliche-spouting cast and hackneyed writing ensure that the remaining hour and a half of the Tremors 4 experience feels at least fifteen thousand years long. Only hardcore Tremors fans will be able to sit through, much less enjoy this film. If you aren't among them- don't bother. | 2 | trimmed_train |
16,832 | Garam Masala is one of the funniest film I've seen in ages. Akshay Kumar is excellent as the womaniser who has affairs with 3 girls and engaged at the same time. John Abraham is Amusing at times and this is one of his best works so far. Paresh Rawail is superb as usual in most of his films. The director Priyadarshan has delivered great Movies in the past. Hera Pheri, Hungama and Hulchul being some of the Best. Garam Masala is his funniest film he has made. The three newcomer actresses are average. Rimi sen doesn't get much scope in this movie. I was impressed to see how Priyadarshan made a movie with a simple storyline of a guy having a affair with 3 girls at the same time. All 3 girls have a day off in the same day and end up in the same house. Packed with loads of Laughs, this is one Non stop Entertainer. | 3 | trimmed_train |
17,047 | The narrative affirms the classic image of good versus evil in the form of a struggle of brother against brother. The main character, Lin Macadam, played by James Stewart, represents justice and righteousness. His brother, who operates under the persona of Dutch Henry Brown, played by Stephen McNally, stands for the classic stage-coach robbing western outlaw, chased by his brother for having killed their father. The world the story takes place is the classic dystopian west where the only way to prevent its inhabitants from killing each other is to take away their sidearms as soon as they enter town, and the man responsible for keeping this law and order is the classic western lawman Wyat Earp. <br /><br />Present as well are such flat characters typical of the western, such as the murderous Indian warrior, the besieged cavalryman, and the bonnet-clad damsel in distress. <br /><br />Another important archetype in this film, that which gives the film it's name, is a custom made Winchester rifle. The weapon can be viewed as an allegory for the rewards given to those who do things honorably. Once it is stolen from its rightful owner, it brings tragedy to everyone that comes in contact with it. In this sense it resembles other such icons like the holy grail in Raiders of the Lost Ark, and the blood stained letter in Saving Private Ryan. This gives the film an element of surrealism which is usually absent from westerns, a genre not known for esoteric themes and symbols. <br /><br />Being essentially a revenge film, it shares this element with many other examples of the genre, such as Jack Arnold's No Name on the Bullet, and Clint Eastwood's Unforgiven. <br /><br />There is also a tacit theme of rape in Winchester '73. Waco Johnny Dean, one of the film's villains played very effectively by Dan Duryea, abducts a woman after killing her husband. The volatile cowboy toys with the tenderfoot husband, and dispatches him like a caricature of a cat toying with an insect before biting its head off. Waco Johnny Dean eventually gets what is coming to him after coming in contact with the ominous Winchester rifle. <br /><br />The main story of Winchester '73 is reminiscent of the mythological tale of Jason and his quest for the golden fleece, as told in Apollonius' Argonautica. Both stories deal with the acquisition of a sacred object that possesses some sort of intangible quality. Like Jason, Stewart's character hops from one adventure to the next in search of a one-of-a- kind prize. Another theme in Winchester '73 that is similar to a mythic tale is the struggle between brothers. Several stories of antiquity deal with this issue, such as the Hebrew Bible's tale of Cain and Abel, and the vulgate tale of Romulus and Remus. <br /><br />As for the theme of abduction and rape present in Anthony Mann's film, it is present in many mythological works, such as the rape of Europa as told by Ovid in his Metamorphoses. <br /><br />Winchester '73 is a fine example of the western genre, and acts as the objective correlative for many classic American western and ancient mythological themes. | 3 | trimmed_train |
4,743 | Ironically, although he can do the "splits", Thomas is a complete stiff as an actor. <br /><br />This film is seared into my memory as one of the most side-splittingly cheesy and incompetent movies I have ever seen. As such, I'm actually rather fond of it. <br /><br />Still,the only reason this gets more than one star is that Thomas is great shape, and it's fun to see his tiny, muscular body performing various feats of gymnastic skill on the oddly shaped rocks and poles scattered about the East European country side (including the infamous "pommel horse" shaped well cap in the middle of a village square that Thomas uses to plant his feet in the faces of various insane villagers). But let the poor guy open his mouth and try to emote, and any illusion that he might have a film career is immediately dashed to bits. <br /><br />Thomas at least had the excuse that he wasn't really an actor. Everyone else in the film - actors, director, editor, camera guys, etc. is at least as bad, or even worse, and most of them are professionals. So Kurt doesn't come off quite as badly as you might think. <br /><br />I hope poor Kurt took the money and ran. If anyone ever asks him to perform in a martial arts film again, I'll bet that Thomas kicks the guy in the face. | 0 | trimmed_train |
18,822 | seriously i loved this film..i had started to read the book and i loved it...the way everything was set up and everything had a purpose...i think this film did so well was because Louis Sachar wrote the screenplay..and of course Andrew Davis directed it...Shia Lebouf gives a great performance for his first film...the storyline is very cool and interesting...there's humor, heart and intensity...it is very similar to the book..i find this film to be not the least bit boring...i absolutely loved it...and i encourage anyone to read the book..all in all this film is very well put together and carefully crafted...two thumbs up for me in every single way | 3 | trimmed_train |
22,644 | -Kidnappings in Mexico are as common as honeys giving me their phone numbers so if you're rich then you'll need a good bodyguard to keep you and your kids safe. A couple hires a washed up bodyguard called Creasy to protect their adorable kid Pita. At first, their relationship is a tad buggy but after a while, Creasy eases up to the girl and the two develop a father/daughter relationship. One day Pita is kidnapped and Creasy is badly injured in the process. When he wakes up he finds out that the girl has been killed due to a ransom negotiations that went wrong and this sets Creasy on a path find the men responsible for her death and make sure they are brought to his brand of justice.<br /><br />-Keep some Tylenol next to you while watching this movie because you will need to take some after watching it. I really love the story here of going to the extreme to obtain revenge because most movies usually just want revenge but really never go too far where as this movie they show how far a man can go to do what he feels is right. The only problem is the annoying visual style, which will either make you hate the movie or hate Tony Scott. I really feel sorry for the cinematographer because I'm sure he came into this movie thinking he was going to be filming an action movie and probably got all excited but instead he got stuck being the DP for a filmmaker that feels that the whole movie should look like it's been possessed by demons. I wouldn't have mind if the crappy visuals were restricted to a few action scenes but when it's spread through out the whole movie then that's when we have some problems. The same annoying style was recently used on "Domino" and much like with this movie the style did hurt that otherwise great movie.<br /><br />-Another person I feel sorry on this movie was the soon to be great Harry Gregson Williams who had the impossible task of trying to compose music out of the jagged images. Somehow, Williams wrote some decent music for the movie but I'm sure if the movie had been more stable then the music would have turned out a lot better. The sound is wrongfully used throughout the movie and instead of enhancing the movie experience, it rather makes you feel like you're being punished. The overuse of the subwoofer is irritating as every 5 seconds or so you can hear an ungodly low end sound coming out of it. I don't know why Scott thought the audience needed to be bombarded by the subwoofer but it really takes you away from the movie.<br /><br />-The acting in the movie is a beast despite the visuals. Little Fanning does yet another great job here and the scene at the end of the movie just breaks my heart. If the end of the movie doesn't make anyone cry then they're dead on the inside. Denzel Washington breaks his rule of not making any action movies with this movie and luckily, for him he gets to play a great character. The whole idea of a man that's lost in life and all of a sudden due to a tragedy finds a purpose in his life is nothing new but Washington brings some heart and emotion to the otherwise flat character. I love how we witness him from being a loner to actually learning to have emotion and after the kidnapping becoming a cold instrument of revenge. Radha Mitchell plays Marc Anthony's wife and she along with Fanning are the two reasons why I can't hate the movie too much. J.Lo's husband comes and goes in the movie but he doesn't really stand out much. Mickey Rourke and Chris Walken all have minimal roles in the movie but they do make an impact.<br /><br />-One thing that makes me laugh is how the filmmakers try to makeup for the crappy way they portray Mexico by calling it a fine city at the end of the movie. A little too late for that if you ask me. Let's hope that Tony Scott is done with this phase of intentionally trying to ruin his career because a filmmaker as talented as him CAN and must do better than this. | 1 | trimmed_train |
16,995 | I didn't feel that this film was quite as clever as it seemed to think it was but enjoyed it nevertheless. <br /><br />It is original, although reminded me a little of two other French films, Vidocq and City of Lost Children, mostly for the colouring but also for the edgy quality of the close ups of the characters.<br /><br />Set in a prison cell but do not let this put you off, this film seemingly goes further than many a multi locationed blockbuster.<br /><br />Always interesting, with the perennial 'Black Arts' well to the fore and very good characterisation making some only too believable! <br /><br />Scary with some gore this is well worth a viewing. | 1 | trimmed_train |
6,810 | I am a huge horror/splatter fan, I even enjoy horror films some people consider as stupid. I also like gore. The more the merrier as long as it has a point.<br /><br />After reading the other people's reviews on the site I was sure this film was going to be a little gem. But much to my disappointment it proved to be one of the most pointless films I've ever watched.<br /><br />The acting was terrible, the dialogs were stupid, the plot was pointless, the special effects were useless and the editing was probably done by someone who has been dead for the past 2 years. Usually i find that all these characteristics make a great b horror movie . But not in this case.<br /><br />I waisted 11 EUR to get this DVD. <br /><br />Unless you actually enjoy pointless gore ( for example the "violent sh*t" films) avoid at any cost! | 0 | trimmed_train |
14,397 | Well i am going to go against the grain on this film so it seems. Being a self confessed horror fan I sat down to this not quite knowing what to expect. After 2 or 3 mins i actually found myself scared (quite rare). The film obviously has a small budget and is set around charing cross station but the films lack of money does not distract from the story. Yes the story is a bit far fetched and doesn't explain itself very well but THE CREEP is a class act and proceeds to slash and dismember anything that comes its way. MESSAGE FOR LADIES !!! THERE ARE CERTAIN PARTS OF THE FILM YOU SHOULD CLOSE YOUR EYES AT OR AT LEAST CROSS YOUR LEGS !! you will understand when you see it.<br /><br />All in all a good film and it makes a change to see a good slasher movie that actually scares | 1 | trimmed_train |
5,372 | I only watched this because it was directed by Lucio Fulci and featured Claudio Cassinelli, an actor I like. I was certainly disappointed.<br /><br />The idea that condemned prisoners would fight to the death for TV ratings has been overdone with Rollerball, Logan's Run, Blade Runner, and the new film, Death Race, which will certainly suck me in because it stars Jason Statham.<br /><br />This was just a bore for the most part. The "Kill Bike" action was ridiculous. The "training" was a snooze-fest. It just never grabbed me and made me want to care about anyone, including "Dallas" star Jared Martin or Fred Williamson.<br /><br />Pick one of the others mentioned and you'll be better off. | 2 | trimmed_train |
5,978 | I have seen a lot of bad movies with big actors in it. But this movie was terrible. I have yet to see why people thought it was funny. The idea behind it is stupid. Plus all the things that are supposed to be funny are just dumb. Why anyone would want to watch this more than once just baffles me! | 0 | trimmed_train |
8,495 | Anything that might have been potentially interesting in this material is sunk in the first few seconds with a disclaimer that the events we're about to see can't ever be known and "This is the whisper [rumor] most often told" about one of Hollywood's most sensational "mysteries."<br /><br />Okay. So we're not getting anything new (and E!'s "Mysteries & Scandals" gives you a better foothold on the particular incident...and that's not much of an endorsement). What do we get?<br /><br />We learn that Hollywood is a nest of viper's and decadents. No big news there. More interesting we learn what a washed up director is willing to do to regain his position of power in the entertainment industry and/or political establishment. It raises the question of whether Peter Bogdanovich is speaking from his own experience through these characters. But what's told is so cynical and ugly and muddled, we're left feeling guilty for witnessing a bunch of hooey that passes itself off as history.<br /><br />The tone of the film has a curious madcap quality that I found more irritating than fun. We're not empathetic with anyone. And the great "Citizen Kane" polishes off the relationship between Davies and Hearts in a much more convincing way. In "The Cat's Meow" we're not ever sure of Davies motives for being with Hearst. As soon as we're told one thing, she's off doing the other.<br /><br />And are we to believe that Davies was the love of Chaplain's life? Or is he just trying to cockold one of America's most powerful--and apparently moronic--citizens. The film never makes it clear.<br /><br />What is convincing are the production values. There's a glorious recreation of the yacht and period costumes. I got more out of looking at the construction of some of the lapels on the men's jackets than following a story that libels many of the the most well-known personalities in Hollywood history. No one will remember that the screenplay is pure fiction. The disclaimers that frame the film only make it all the more tentative and unsatisfying.<br /><br />The performers can't be faulted, although Meg Tilly goes way past parody here. Kirsten Dunst never disappoints. She gives the most sincere performance in a sea of scenery chewing. Only Joanna Lumley rises above the material, but so much so that she seems to be distancing herself from the whole enterprise rather than narrating it. One of her first lines is, "I'm not here!" And I'm sure she wishes she wasn't.<br /><br />This isn't on par with Bogdanovich's trashy, so-bad-it's-good "At Long Last Love." It's perched on attempting something serious, but hesitates and stumbles chiefly because it's so full of bitterness towards "the beast" named Hollywood. This is "National Enquirer" filmmaking. And it not only soils the names of those who the film places on board the Oneida that weekend, but the audience gets pretty dirty as well. | 2 | trimmed_train |
12,275 | This film is a massive Yawn proving that Americans haven't got the hang of farce. Even when it has already been written for them! The original film "Hodet Over Vannet" is a witty comedy of errors that I would rate 8/10. It isn't just about a linguistic translation, but certain absurd chains of events are skipped entirely, robbing the film of its original clever farcical nature and turning it into a cheap "oops there go my trousers" style of farce. | 2 | trimmed_train |
17,975 | Zero day has a purpose and this is not simply entertainment, it delivers a message about its specialised subject school shootings. Charting the lives of two friends Andre and Cal leading up to an attack on their high school. <br /><br />Whilst the movie started in somewhat unassuming fashion, an impromptu announcement of the coming attack in amateurish teenage style followed by some brief encounters with the boys families. It is not long before we are down to business with the boys showing us their collection of guns, their fetishistic love of them, their sprawling sporadic narcissistic fantasies and even in a controversial scene how to build pipe bombs.<br /><br />So what is the movie trying to say? What is really motivating these soon to be killers. It seems hard to really pinpoint. They certainly do not come across as cold blooded psychopaths yet they are planning an act of sheer brutality. This brings me to what I feel is the genius in part of Zero day. Cal and Andre talk constantly about how much they are on a different level, how above the rest of us they are and how they will 'leave us all behind.' Like the columbine killers they truly feel superior. Like Nietzsche's res sentiment Cal and Andre's value system seems to have been born out of rejection from their society. Yet we are given only glimpses of this, an expression of hatred for a popular athlete for example. So where is the motivation? What I feel is that Coccio portrayed two individuals desperate to make a statement of superiority a gesture of their power yet who have no reasonable venue for it. Hence they turn to mass murder and the kind of which that will garner them more attention than they could ever realise. This is why in part school shooters seem able to carry out atrocious acts despite coming from good stable loving homes. The murder is part of a fantasy, Cal and Andre are totally lost in their fantasy they almost fail to see the reality of their actions. They turn fantasy into tragedy.<br /><br />What is secondly most enthralling about this film is the character development and the unique dependence Cal and Andre have on each other. Andre is throughout the film overtly the leader of the two, Cal's embrace of his demeanour and attire seem somewhat forced. Andre is uptight, Andre is intense and serious. He completely shuns others except for his family, he is meticulous and precise about everything he does and for a while appears the prime mover in the plot to attack the school. Yet he is likable in his own way, he does not embrace teenage nonsense and in part we feel compelled to agree with him, yet these moments are shattered by Andre's fleeting gestures of violence towards us the audience treating us as both confidante and potential victim. Cal on the other hand seems more relaxed than Andre, more accepting of reality. Yet he is in his own way dominant. We have many personal moments of introspection with Cal's video diary, scenes when he is alone and apart from Andre. Cal seems to be struggling with his own personal demons and using their plan to exorcise himself of them. Andre is jealous of Cal going to the prom with an old friend, he wants Cal all to himself. Cal placates Andre and encourages him. For the first time in his life Andre seems to have found someone who believes in him and who admires him he cannot lose it. Whilst Cal has found someone offering him a way out.<br /><br />The movie certainly picks up pace and improves as it nears its grim conclusion. There is an excellent moment when Cal attends the high school prom. Suddenly the star of the movie becomes shy and introverted, not at all at ease with his peers. Yet we are inclined to feel more connection with Cal than with the raucous bawdy crowd screaming juvenile obscenities whilst drinking heavily in their limo. Theirs is an episode all too common and recognisable. We do not want to relate to them, when it is over and Cal is back with Andre silently preparing one of their final videos we like the characters feel once again at ease safe in the fantasy world they created. We feel like shunning the masses as they have.<br /><br />The penultimate scene is superb. The final video sees Andre and Cal arming themselves in their car just moments before attacking. It is all too real and truly creates a sense of impending doom. By know we know Cal and Andre and are realising they are about to actually do it, with a kind of morbid fascination we are also relishing the films catharsis.<br /><br />The massacre shot in CCTV fashion is at times shocking, and whilst it was certainly the perfect choice to depict the massacre if we were going to it is not void of flaws. What is most significant is the sudden radical change of perception we have of Cal and Andre, looking at them in the this person suddenly they are the callous killers we knew they would become yet refused to acknowledge that they would. It is violent and real, our heroes have become monsters and the reality of their fantasy is a terrible tragedy, which costs them everything.<br /><br />The final scene shows a group of teens filming themselves burning the crosses erected for Andre and cal in disgust that they have been memorialised. Having known Andre and Cal we can only feel almost a sadness that they are actually gone forever and that they certainly did not win anything.<br /><br />Zero day is a must see for anyone interested in these violent acts sensationalised by the media. It is a character study well worth experiencing. | 1 | trimmed_train |
5,300 | This movie is just another average action flick, but it could have been so much better. When the guns come out they really needed some choreography help. Someone like Andy McNabb - who made that brilliant action sequence in Heat as they move up the street from the robbery - would have turned the dull action sequences into something special. Because the rest of the film was alright - predictable but watchable - better than you would expect from this type of movie. Then came the final scene, the show-down, the one we had been waiting for, but was like watching something from the A-Team in the 80s. They shoot wildly, nothing hits, and they run around a house trying to kill each other - same old, same old. | 2 | trimmed_train |
19,669 | "Film noir" is an overused expression when it comes to describing films. Every crime drama seems to be a "noir". But "Where the Sidewalk Ends" really is a good example of what the genre is all about.<br /><br />Very briefly, an overzealous detective (Andrews) accidentally kills a no-goodnik who works for the mobsters. The killing is blamed on the father (Tom Tully) of a woman Andrews meets and falls for (Tierney). To save Dad from Old Sparky, Andrews captures the rest of the mob and turns himself in.<br /><br />The morally guilty cop is driven by impulses from the past. His father was a thief who was killed trying to shoot his way out of jail. But that doesn't excuse his actions after he accidentally offs the no-goodnik in self defense. He immediately goes to the phone to report the incident but he hesitates. He's already in hot water with the department and this could finish his career. Then, at just the wrong moment, the phone rings. It's Andrews' partner and Andrews tells him the suspect they're trailing isn't at home. He hides the body and later disposes of it by slugging a watchman and dumping the body in the river.<br /><br />What motivates a guy to do something so dumb? Okay. His job was at risk. But now he's committed multiple felonies. At least I think they must be multiple. I counted obstruction of justice, assault, disposing of a body without a permit, littering, first-degree mopery, and bearing false witness against his neighbor.<br /><br />In the end, we don't know whether to root for Andrews or not. The suspect didn't deserve to die, true, but it was after all an accident because Andrews didn't know he was a war hero and "had a silver plate in his head." Maybe it's that kind of ambiguity that made noir what it was, among other things such as characteristic lighting. If noir involved nothing more than black-and-white photography, murder, criminals, mystery, and suspicious women, then we'd have to include all the Charlie Chan movies under that rubric.<br /><br />Andrews is pretty good. He's a kind of Mark MacPherson (from "Laura") gone bitter. He never laughs, and rarely smiles, even when seated across a restaurant table from Gene Tierney, a situation likely to prompt smiles in many men. He has no sense of humor at all. His few wisecracks are put-downs. When he shoves a stoolie into a cab and the stoolie says, "Careful. I almost hit my head," Andrews' riposte is, "That's okay. The cab's insured." Andrews could seem kind of wooden at times but this is a role that calls for stubborn and humorless determination and he handles it well. His underplaying is perfect for the part. Little twitches or blinks project his thoughts and emotional states. And I guess the director, Otto Preminger, stopped him from pronouncing bullet as "BOO-let" and police as "POE-lice." Never could make up my mind about Gene Tierney. She does alright in the role of Tom Tully's daughter, a model, but she's like Marilyn Monroe in that you can't separate the adopted mannerisms from the real personality traits. Did Tierney actually have such an innocent, almost saintly persona? When she answered the phone at home, did her voice have the same sing-along quality that it has on screen? Poor Tierney went through some bad psychiatric stuff, before there were any effective meds for bipolar disorder. And Andrews too, nice guy though he appears to have been, slipped into alcoholism before finally recovering and making public service announcements.<br /><br />The DVD commentary by Peter Muller is unpretentious, informed, and sometimes amusing.<br /><br />Anyway, this is a good film as well as a good example of film noir. The good guys aren't all good, although the bad guys are all bad. Maybe that ambiguity is what makes it an adult picture instead of a popcorn movie. For the kiddies, only one shot is fired on screen and nobody's head explodes. Sorry. | 1 | trimmed_train |
12,931 | About 1986 I saw this movie by accident on TV one night. I was 6 years old. It was similar to my accidental viewing of the terrifying ending to Don't Look Now in 1987. I went to Venice on holiday the next year in silent terror, hoping to god that my parents wouldn't find out I'd watched it! <br /><br />Would I have minded if my parents knew I'd watched Les Valseuses when I was a kid? I'd probably avoid the subject with my dad even nowadays, and my mum's probably disapproving in the afterlife. I don't know if they'd want to see it anyway. From the stalking and trapping of a woman at the block of flats in the first scene to sliding down the mountain roads with glazed satiated eyes I'm never sure whether this film is an insensitive piece of trash that disregards the sexual revolution or if it's a sexy liberating movie to watch as it dawns on you that you could never be so offensive yourself. <br /><br />It's definitely violent. It has a violent view of sex, virtually no acknowledgement of love. Even suckling a young baby mutates into a greedy sexual act of exploitation. But the scenario IS very erotic and (god I'm so British) arousing! Do they suck her breasts for her own good? That is exploitation. So why am I getting a woody?<br /><br />The fellows go in search of an experienced older woman, find an ex-con, mother-figure? I don't know. It ends in a truly gruesome suicide. I described it to my friend JB Nelson, who has Cannibal Holocaust-guts, and he went eeuurrgghh! No motherly love for this movie, quite the opposite. Mutilation of where the boys began. Why do they shoot the girl in the leg? Why does she come back to them? Do women need to be punished so that they learn what is right from men?<br /><br />I'm thinking of two movies, one of which I wish I'd never seen, the other makes me wish it wasn't such a harsh world. Swept Away/Madonna what a pile of insanity doesn't compute never been so offended that a woman punished for being a woman becomes slave to man and its maybe madonna saying everybody respect guy ritchie im so enraged i cant use punctuation! Once Upon A Time In America/Leone god why does Noodles do it? Destroys the path to joy we've been following him on his whole life. So close to finally finding love with Deborah. Now they are both destroyed. Why Sergio? Why?<br /><br />There is no rape in Les Valseuses but lots of sex and nakedness in abundance, of both sexes. Very honest, no titillation. No fantasy shags, no perfect Hollywood smooth moves. Jokes, yes. But there's too much darkness and jealousy and trickery in here to call it a sex comedy. Forget Carry On Shooting A Naked Hairdresser In The Leg Cos She'll Come Back & You'll Hook Her Up With Your Ex-con Lover's Vengeant Son & She'll Learn How To Cum From Him.<br /><br />Two things I can't stand are rape movies and prison movies. Les Valseuses isn't a rape movie! God nobody's going to want to watch it now! It is a brilliant movie! | 3 | trimmed_train |
2,567 | The storyline is absurd and lame,also sucking are performances and the dialogue, is hard to keep your Eyes open. I advise you to have a caffeine-propelled friend handy to wake you in time for a couple Gore-effects.Why they bring Alcatraz in?In this case,becomes increasingly difficult to swallow. All the while ,i wondered who this film aimed for?Chock full of lame subplots (such as the Cannibalism US Army-captain)This is low-grade in every aspect.BTW this Movie is banned in Germany!! | 2 | trimmed_train |
21,189 | I rented this film from Netflix for two reasons - I was in the mood for what I thought would be a silly '50s sci-fi-asco and because it is the first feature-length Superman film. Needless to say, after about 15 minutes I found myself thoroughly engaged and very pleasantly surprised.<br /><br />An experimental oil well has penetrated about six miles into the earth and is being shut down by the sponsor. Lois and Clark show up to get the scoop but are disappointed that the deepest well ever drilled will no longer be in operation. A day later, strange events at the well make for a story more appropriate for Superman than Clark Kent. It seems that the radioactive Mole Men have invaded from their six-mile deep home near the earth's core.<br /><br />Supermen and the Mole Men is a simplistic but well-made piece of social realism. Released in 1951, starring a lead actor who served in World War II, the moral of the story seems to be that Americans are just as capable of becoming fascists as anybody else. To drive this point home in a typically straightforward Superman manner, Reeves even accuses the lynch mob hunting the Mole Men of being 'Nazis' at one point.<br /><br />Even in the 1950s, the science underlying this film was nonexistent. Six miles of drilling through continental crust would not have even penetrated the upper mantle, let alone the "hollow center of the earth" - which, in any case does not exist. Forgivable - keep in mind that this film is based on a golden age comic book.<br /><br />The film is a little unevenly paced. Although the Molemen are interesting, a bit creepy, and nicely portrayed, there are several Corman-esquire scenes which spend too much time redundantly showing us their odd behavior. The script is intelligent and economical. By today's standards, the costuming is poor to fair, but for its time, this film's special effects and costuming were quite good. The cinematography is also generally very good, and the acting is much better than one might expect. I was particularly impressed with Reeves, Jeff Corey and Walter Reed. | 1 | trimmed_train |
11,450 | As has been noted, this formula has been filmed several times, most recently as "You've Got Mail", with Tom Hanks and Meg"Trout Pout" Ryan. Of the several versions, this is my least favorite. The problem i think is that the studio coasted on the Stars charisma, which doesn't quite cut it here.<br /><br />The chemistry betwixt the two leads never comes to a boil in this movie. There are no real sparks. Van Johnson and Judy Garland remind me of day old donuts, pleasant but bland. And when the leads are boring the rest of the movie can only follow. Judy in particular is disappointing. She looks like she has no neck! I don't know if she was having trouble with pain or something but she looks like a turtle trying to pull it's head into it's shell, all hunched up and everything. I couldn't figure out what Van Johnson was getting so hot about. I would have made a bee line for that cute violin player. And Van wasn't great either. I've always thought of him as a rather generic Hollywood leading man and he doesn't do anything to dispel that image here.<br /><br />If you're a fan of the stars or the early 1900's then you might like this movie. But there are a lot more entertaining romantic comedies out there, and they offer you much more than a mouthful of stale confection. | 2 | trimmed_train |
7,826 | You loose 100 IQ points just for tuning in. This show has to be awful, I refuse to tune in from just what I've seen in commercials. Where did they dig this guy up at anyway? Also, what do they intend to do next season? The secret is out. Everyone already knows the set up? Are they going to look for people who has been living under a rock to star in next season? Where are they going to dig up more stupid women? No wonder America is a big joke to outsider's,look what you are watching!! | 0 | trimmed_train |
10,317 | This film was a critical and box-office fiasco back in 1957. It was based on a novel which was later turned into a play--which flopped on Broadway. The story is about some navy officers on leave in San Francisco during WWII. They have 4 day's leave which they spend at the Mark Hopkins hotel. The film meanders a lot and none of the characters seem very real. Cary Grant is generally brilliant in comedy and drama--but here he plays a sort of wheeler dealer and he doesn't really pull it off. Tony Curtis or James Garner would have been better choices. Audrey Hepburn was initially set to play opposite Grant, but had other commitments--so Suzy parker stepped in. She had never acted before, but was America's top photographic model at the time. I think that she did a good job, considering all the pressure that she was under. Grant's pairing with Jayne Mansfield in a few brief scenes--did not really work. The Studio was trying to give her some class by acting with Grant--but the character had no substance at all. | 2 | trimmed_train |
17,999 | "A Girl's Folly" is a sort of half-comedy, half-mockumentary look at the motion picture business of the mid-1910's. We get a glimpse of life at an early movie studio, where we experience assembly of a set, running through a scene, handling of adoring movie fanatics, even lunch at the commissary. We are also privy to little known cinematic facts - for example, did you know that "Frequently, 'movie' actors do not know the plot of the picture in which they are working"?<br /><br />The plot of this film in essence is movie star Kenneth Driscoll's discovery and romancing of a budding young starlet whom he discovers while shooting on location in the country. I believe the 30-minute version I watched was abridged, included on the same tape with Cecil B. De Mille's "The Cheat." It is a very credible film - an easy watch with a large cast of extras. As a bonus it includes some of best-illustrated captions I have ever seen accompanying a silent movie. | 1 | trimmed_train |
6,779 | I was looking for a cute, simple comedy to pass the time but choosing this film proved to be an enormous mistake.<br /><br />I can't write a single good thing about it. First, the script is stupid and not funny at all, relying on tired, recycled jokes and a farting turtle for laughs. In my book, that's not funny, that's pathetic.<br /><br />Low budget 'effects' (if I can even call them effects) with horrible cinematography. In many places it feels almost like an indie film shot with no money.<br /><br />Acting... I feel sorry for the actors. Are Pamela Anderson and Denise Richards that desperate for some money that they've agreed to take part in this? (looking at their recent filmography, it would appear so.) Despite the outfits, Pamela is showing her age and as a whole, they don't even come across as sexy, let alone funny.<br /><br />This movie is not even in the so-bad-it-is-funny category. It's just bad, as if everybody involved was sick of it.<br /><br />Avoid. | 0 | trimmed_train |
22,720 | BEWARE SPOILERS. This movie was okay. Goldie Hawn and Chris Sarandon were the best two in it. Okay, so the goofie foreign guy who (SPOILER HERE) trades with the biker for his clothes was funny. This guy's boss was good, too. But the movie really belonged to Sarandon and Hawn. These two should have had a lot more time on screen together. They're chemistry was great. The bathroom scene-WOW! Romantic, sweet, yummy.<br /><br />Hawn is a goofy cocktail waitress who saves a foreign man and ends up at the whitehouse in the middle of a plot due to the greed of politicians. To talk about Sarandon would be to give a lot away. SPOILERS This is a rather untypical romantic/political comedy, and it satisfies both somewhat-the political side a whole lot more than the romantic. It touches on political issues, and just barely skims on romantic areas.<br /><br /> | 1 | trimmed_train |
16,492 | A sophisticated contemporary fable about the stresses that work to loosen and ultimately unbind the vows of marriage. The main thrust of the narrative arises from a 'homily' spoken by a country priest following the wedding vows of a young cosmopolitan couple from Milan. In it, the future course of the marriage is spelled out, which bit by bit frays from the stresses of modern life. The 'moral' of this story within a story is that in order for a marriage to work out, both now, and in the past, it has been necessary for that relationship to be abutted by family and friends. This film was a relative blockbuster by domestic Italian standards. It's a terrible shame that this film is not available in either DVD or VHS. | 3 | trimmed_train |
14,059 | The feel of this movie was amazing. Adam Sandler's performance was very inspiring. As he played a very rattled and fragile character, he took his ability to the very edge and really worked the role. His character was really interesting. I can see myself reading the script for this movie and not being half as interested in the part as Sandler made me. For someone who plays primarily comedy roles, he pulled off a serious role with what seemed to be his own quirks and input. I especially loved the scene in which Adam and Don's characters rode the motorized scooter around the city. I familiarized with the moment, because it seemed like Don was witnessing one thing Adam does to get away from it all. With his video games, music, and many other things he does to keep him from thinking about the past, riding his scooter with his headphones on seemed like an escape from his thoughts. This movie is definitely worth the watch. | 1 | trimmed_train |
1,459 | The previous poster obviously worked on the movie. It's a joke how bad it is and no one would review this kind of movie the way he did.Mentioning all of the actors' names and what they were in previously is a sure sign that he's involved with it in some way.<br /><br />It's on Cinemax right now and I was sure this was some movie where porn stars (the one called Ava is gorgeous and well-endowed) were forced to make something else for some crazy tax reason.<br /><br />Also, when I first saw it, I was sure it was made in about 1986, and I was born in '73, so I thought I knew what i was talking about...but no...it was made in 1993!! Unbelievable!<br /><br />Though I would call it one of those so bad it's good movies. Like watching a train wreck. | 0 | trimmed_train |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.