id
int32 0
25k
| text
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| label
int64 0
3
| Generalization
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
18,391 | The story deals about Jet Li who has to fight against his old<br /><br />friends.But there is one problem, the friends are superfighters. The film is filled with blood, super action and the best stunts forever. And Lau Ching-Wan is a great Co-actor. Of course the movie has the typical HK-Fun.But I love it! In Germany "Black Mask" is uncut. | 3 | trimmed_train |
17,434 | I simply love this movie. It is a perfect example of the well-rounded surprising stories that come out of Asian cinema. There was a recent Hollywood remake of this movie, with Richard Gere and the simply awful Jennifer Lopez. Please do not confuse the two movies. The original Japanese film is touching, subtle and wonderfully acted. The Hollywood version is the exact opposite. I was aghast when I first saw the trailer for the remade US Version and who was starring in it. It's typical Hollywood unoriginal crass commercialism at it's worst. The remake cements the argument that some foreign films can never be improved upon. The ONLY reason the original film did not become more widely viewed is the US audience's aversion to subtitles.<br /><br />One of the main reasons this movie would never work in an American telling is that the reserved, ultra socially conservative character of the public Japanese persona is at issue in this movie. Certainly the main character awakens to a more full understanding of living a vivacious life through dance, but half of the movie's tension comes from the stereotypes and ridicule ballroom dancers face in Japan.<br /><br />Please try to see this movie in it's original form, not the terrible full screen. And please DO skip the US remake....it's a shallow travesty in comparison to the original Japanese movie.<br /><br />Yes, I know the "original" movie is much older, and this is simply a Japanese take on the story, but the only two people are likely to see any time soon are this one and the new US remake.<br /><br />Speaking of foreign films, I'll make a few quick recommendations: 1.Monsoon Wedding-I list this first for a reason, outstanding film! 2.Johnny Stechino-Very funny Italian mistaken identity flic! 3.Shiri-A Korean action pic that mixes both Asian flare & US style plot 4.Run Lola Run-A German film that integrates it's techno score ingeniously.<br /><br />Well, just a quick list anyway :-) | 3 | trimmed_train |
18,832 | After going for a bike ride that day, lying beside a lake in a nature reserve, spending half an hour feeding and talking to a donkey who lived in a beautiful field with a small wood in it, this film made absolute sense to me.<br /><br />The imagery of the film was beautiful and that is all you need. Switch off the conscious control knob of the mind and job done.<br /><br />Reminded me of Baraka (1992) but with the added lesson of my previous paragraph.<br /><br />This comment requires a minimum of ten lines, ten lines is the minimum not 9 lines but ten. After finishing counting all the lines you realise that there are less than ten even though less than ten lines is all that is needed to make my comment. | 3 | trimmed_train |
202 | Imagine a woman alone in a house for forty five minutes in which absolutely nothing happens. Then this goes on twice more. The writing is flat and lifeless, and jokes unfunny, and the bad acting keeps you from caring about any of the characters, even when they battle wolf packs and get beaten up by fraternity goons. Anyone that ranked this movie higher than a two is not fully sane. | 0 | trimmed_train |
8,624 | THE RINGMASTER stars Jerry Springer as a TV talkshow host called Jerry , but it`s not THE JERRY SPRINGER SHOW , his guests are trailer trash , but not the trailer trash you get on THE JERRY SPRINGER SHOW, they attack one another , but not like on.....What is the point of making a movie about THE JERRY SPRINGER show and pretending it`s not THE JERRY SPRINGER SHOW ? And on top of that this is a very boring film | 2 | trimmed_train |
10,124 | Anyone who could find redeeming value in this piece of crap ought to have their head examined. We have the submissive, heroin-addicted, part-time hooker wife with lacerations all over her body, lacerations received from repeated beatings by an abusive son. Now, she is squirting breast milk all over the kitchen floor, the release so gained somehow akin to Helen Keller placing her hands in running water. We have the husband who starts out by patronizing a prostitute who just happens to be his daughter (she's upset with him because he came too quickly)and ends by murdering his female colleague, having sex with her corpse, and then chopping her up. We have the kid who is relentlessly bullied by his classmates and who comes home and beats his mom. You see, it's all circular. Deep, huh? The only decent moment in this horrendous pile of tripe is when the dad murders his son's tormentors. It's a good thing this turkey was shot on video because otherwise what a waste of expensive film it would be. If that guy who thinks artists ought to be interested in this slop is really serious, no wonder most people think artists are insane. We saw this lousy movie, then put on "Zero Woman, The Accused." Oh my God, it was a tossup as to which one was worse. What is going on in Japan these days? Sick, sick, sick. | 0 | trimmed_train |
3,458 | 'Succubus', the edited version of 'Necronomicon Geträumte Sünden', is a struggle to sit through, even at a lean 76 minutes; any more of this dreadfully boring and pretentious Euro horror tripe and I may have slipped into a coma.<br /><br />Jess Franco once again delivers a truly awful piece of 60s trash that appears to have been made by a cast and crew out of of their heads on Class A hallucinogenics, since not one second of this mess made any sense whatsoever. Apparently, this is one of the better of his 180+ films it's hard to believe that there are worse efforts out there.<br /><br />The unfathomable plot deals with Franco's usual themes of sex, violence and lesbianism and throws in a bit of S&M for good measure, and yet it still manages to remain mind numbingly tedious.<br /><br />I may leave it quite a while before entering the world of dodgy Euro Horror again life is too short to be spent watching bilge like this. | 0 | trimmed_train |
20,771 | A bunch of popular high school students play a cruel joke on nerdy Marty (a sympathetic performance by Simon Scuddamore) which leaves him hideously disfigured. Five years later the gang returns to the now crumbling and abandoned high school for a reunion. Of course, an angry and vindictive Marty shows up dressed in a jester's costume to exact a grisly revenge on his tormentors. Writers/directors Mark Ezra, Peter Litten and George Dugdale trot out all the endearingly corny clichés which make these 80's slice'n'dice body count flicks so much cheesy fun: fake jump scares, prowling Steadican shots, a fierce storm, an insanely groovy hard rock soundtrack, a nice smattering of gratuitous female nudity, a totally ridiculous "what the hell?" supernatural climax, tacky make-up f/x, and one of those lovably lame "it was all just a terrible dream" fake-out non-endings. Moreover, the elaborate murder set pieces deliver the gruesome goods: Gory highlights include a man's stomach exploding after he drinks poisoned beer, a lady taking an acid bath, a guy being crushed under a huge tractor, and two people getting electrocuted while in the middle of having wild passionate sex. Thirtyish British cult horror siren Caroline Munro is hilariously miscast as an American teenager in the first third of the flick. The cast all give solid performances, with especially stand-out work from Carmine Iannaccone as smartaleck ringleader Skip Pollack, Billy Hartman as faded macho meathead Frank, and Donna Yeager as foul-mouthed slut Stella. Co-producer Dick Randall has an amusing cameo as Munro's sleazy agent Manny. Harry Manfredini's moody, rattling music shamelessly recycles cues from his "Friday the 13th" scores. Alan Pudney's slick cinematography does the trick. Good, trashy fun. | 1 | trimmed_train |
19,087 | This movie has been poorly received and badly reviewed. The book by Rebecca West was written in 1918, soon after WWI, when shell shock and trauma-induced amnesia were not clichés, as the reviewers call it many books and movies later. It is difficult to go back in time and live, as the characters lived, the realities of the time: the war and the horror of the experience of the first war to use lethal gas, the British class system the wife thought all-important, the hopeless spinster, and the lover from the past still seen with the eyes of love being as young and as beautiful as she was 20 years ago.<br /><br />Alan Bates as the amnesiac soldier who "will die" if he isn't allowed to see Margaret, the girl of his youthful dreams, builds on the devotion his character showed in "Far From the Madding Crowd". Having seen that performance, it is possible to sense his strong romantic attachment to the girl who didn't live up to the family's and society's expectations. Margaret says, "We quarreled, and as you rowed away, you turned your face away from me." So we know that the breakup was something that he instigated, that it brought him shame, but that he forgot the shame in his memory of his time with Margaret. I haven't seen all his films, but in the ones I've seen, he imparts a strong masculinity, which shines through even in this role as the disabled soldier.<br /><br />I didn't even recognize Ann-Margaret at first and feel that her performance has been underrated. Not having read the book, I wondered whether the child who died was the result of acting on a borderline incestuous feeling between Jenny and Chris, though Jenny does state that she "is a cousin". The way Kitty keeps Jenny in the nursery in the hair-drying scene, the fact that Kitty says she always dries her hair in that room seems more a way for Kitty to keep the coals of anger hot than the orientation of the room to the sun, or sentiment about a lost child, and the statement she made that she wished Chris hadn't felt it necessary to preserve the room exactly as it was when the child was alive made her seem uncaring toward the memory of the child. Also, Jenny is shown as living in the house in a subservient role, as high society would have done to a fallen member at the time.<br /><br />Having recently been the recipient of the intense fantasy of a lover (non-sexualin keeping with the mores of the time) from 50 years ago, I couldrelate to Margaret's and her husband's dilemma. I, too, was cast aside because I wasn't good enough for his family, and upon his rediscovery of me via the internet, I was burdened with helping him deal with his still very horrifying Vietnam experiences and a marriage to a woman above his class whom he didn't believe he loved. My husband, like Margaret's was very understanding, but the strain was very real. The lover was finally able to reconcile his real-life situation with his fantasy of loving only me.<br /><br />I thought that it was a good decision to show very little of the reliving of the war experience that was happening in Chris's mind. I thought of "Mrs. Dalloway" with the WWI soldier who acts out very violent memories and commits suicide versus Chris's joy in his fantasy of Margaret. In contrast, the actiona of the soldier in "Mrs. Dalloway" seems overwrought.<br /><br />Showing that the psychiatrist understood very little of what was happening to Chris underlines what a major problem the whole group faced. Everyone seems to get their life back, but was it the right choice? | 3 | trimmed_train |
2,252 | A lot of promise and nothing more. An all-star cast certainly by HK standards, but man oh man is this one a stinker. No story? That's okay, the action will make up for it like most HK action flicks. What? The action is terrible, corny, and sparse? Dragon Dynasty's releases up to this point are by and large superb and generally regarded as classics in Asian cinema. This is a blight. They managed to wrangle a couple of actors from Infernal Affairs, but they can't bring life to a disjointed script. There are scenes of dialogue where two or three lines are spoken with a cut in between each and no continuity in what the characters are saying. You almost feel like they're each giving a running monologue and just ignoring the other characters. Michael Biehn is made of wood, really? Sammo Hung uses a stunt double? No way. Yes way. Stay away. | 0 | trimmed_train |
20,489 | Since starting to read the book this movie is based on, I'm having mixed feelings about the filmed result. I learned some time ago to see the movie adaptation of a book before I read the book, because I found that if I read the book first I was inevitably disappointed in the film. This would undoubtedly have been true here, whereas in the case of Atonement, which is probably the best filmed adaptation of a book I've ever seen, it would probably not have mattered.<br /><br />I'm trying to figure out what the cause is, and I suspect that I have to point my finger squarely at Michael Cunningham. Much as I respect him for The Hours (which I have not read but which I saw and was awed by) I cannot escape the feeling that he not so much adapted Susan Minton's book as he did take a few of the characters and the basic premise and write his own movie out of it.<br /><br />It's not that I dislike the movie. I actually love the movie, which is why, since I started reading the novel, I'm feeling disturbed about the whole thing. I feel disloyal to Ms. Minton for enjoying the movie which was so thooughly a departure from her work. Reading it, I can understand why she had such a struggle adapting it. Unlike what one reviewer of the movie said, it's not so much that some novels don't deserve to be a movie; it's more like some books just can't make the transition. Ms. Minton's novel operates on a level so personal and intimate to her central character, so internally, that it seems impossible to me to place it in a physical realm. Even though a lot of the book is memory of real events, it is memory, and so fragmented and ethereal as to be, I feel, not filmable. I think that Ms. Minton's work is a real work of literature, but cannot make the transition to film, which in no way detracts from its value.<br /><br />I cannot yet report that Evening, the film, does not represent Evening, the novel, in any more than the most superficial way, since I'm only halfway through, but the original would have to make a tremendous leap to resemble the film that follows at this point. I guess I'm writing this because I feel that if you're going to adapt a novel, adapt it, but don't make it something else that it's not. I'm not sure if Michael Cunningham has done anything wholly original, but from what I can see so far the things he has done are all based on someone else's work. We would not have The Hours if Virginia Woolf had not written Mrs. Dalloway, and we would not have Evening, in its distressed form, if Susan Minton had not had so much trouble doing what probably should not have been attempted in the first place. But it's too much to say that it would be better if Ms. Minton had left well enough alone, because Evening, the film, is a satisfactory and beautiful work of its own.<br /><br />Thus my confusion, mixed feelings, sense of disloyalty, and ultimate conclusion that, in this case, the novel cannot be the film and vice versa, and my eventual gratitude to both writers for doing what they did, so that we have both works as they are. | 3 | trimmed_train |
7,084 | lets start off by saying that "JAWANI DIWANI" is just a pathetic movie. I agree with the last person who said "I missed the joyride". lol. <br /><br />The jokes were just terrible. Performances were average. Something went terribly wrong with the film. Emraan totally deserved something better. All CELINA JAITLEY did was expose. Hrishitta bhatt was OK. Emraan hashmi was OK too.<br /><br />MANN (EMRAAN HASHMI)is a desperate guy who wants to become famous. therefore, he uses RADHA and pretends he loves her, only because her father is a music director and could help him become famous (since, the father obeys everything his daughter says). One day, MANN and his friends go to GOA to have some fun. There he meets ROMA (CELINA JAITLEY) and totally falls for her looks and tries to flirt with her BLA BLA BLA. <br /><br />Then, that night ROMA cannot open the door to her room, and MANN decides to help her. Seeing that he cannot as well, ROMA goes to ask for help. While she is gone, MANN is able to open the door and decides to come inside and sits on her bed BLA BLA BLA. ROMA comes in and they have a one night stand. However, in that one night- stand ROMA falls in love with him. That morning, they spot the underworld don (MAHESH)who sees it all. The don loves ROMA and couldn't stand what he saw. He orders them to get married, and being frightened, MANN obeys the order and Merry's ROMA. Then, their marriage news ends up in the newspaper. MANN is later finds out that he loves ROMA after they do a music video together. He is now trapped between love and fame. BLA BLA BLA.<br /><br />the movie is horrible. The songs "SINI NE SINI NE" is fantastic the remix version is even better. "DIL DIWANA" is also great. The title track is also awesome. GUYS, AVOID WATCHING THIS MOVIE. | 2 | trimmed_train |
7,186 | I could name plenty of funny movies. There are comedies that set out to be funny, and are. Some movies, like a Gymkata for example, try to be serious but end up funny. The Ladies Man is a film that is desperately trying to be funny, but could not be less funny if it was about a guy who got a lot of chicks in the middle of the wreckage of a nuclear holocaust. It's anti-funny.<br /><br />I don't think I laughed harder than a chuckle at anything in this movie. It's simply unfunny. It's boring, stupid, inane, annoying, mind-bogglingly bad, but not funny. I don't particularly care for Tim Meadows, or this character from SNL, but I expected better than this.<br /><br />The movie is completely lacking logic or common sense. It's like the script writer had a bag over his head while he was typing and he couldn't see which keys he was hitting. They tell the "origin" of the Ladies Man, but fail to include a motivation for his bizarre fascination with acting like it's still the seventies. The movie tries to get humor out of a man who appears to pleasuring himself to porn, shortly after he tried to hang himself. This is comedy? I like to consider myself having a pretty keen sense of humor (Spending a lot of time writing comedy as I do), but maybe I'm just not quite bright enough for this film.<br /><br />Lee Evans, so funny as Tucker in There's Something About Mary, is outrageously bad here. I was pleading with him in my head to shut up.<br /><br />By the end I was pounding on my chair, muttering under my breath, and had the film gone on any longer, would probably have attempted suicide. This film might not be as bad as Battlefield Earth, but it's the first movie I've seen that's come close.<br /><br /> | 0 | trimmed_train |
1,379 | If there was some weird inversed Oscar Academy awards festival this flick would win it all. It has all the gods, excellent plot, extreme special effects coupled with extremely good acting skills and of course in every role there is a celebrity superstar. Well, this could be the scenario if the world was inversed, but it's not. Instead it's the worst horror flick ever made, not only bad actors that seem to read the scripts from a teleprinter with bad dyslexia, but also extremely low on special effects. For example the devil costume (which by the way is a must-see), is something of the most hilarious I've ever seen. Whenever I saw that red-black so called monster on screen I couldn't hold my laugh back. And to top of things it looked like the funny creature was transported by a conveyor-belt.<br /><br />Do not do the same mistake as I did. Checking IMDB seeing that the movie was released in 2003, had less than five votes and thinking: -"Well, it's worth a shot, can't be that bad".<br /><br />Yes it could.<br /><br />I'm not even going to waste more words on this movie. | 0 | trimmed_train |
19,014 | There have been several films about Zorro, some even made in Europe, e.g. Alain Delon. This role has also been played by outstanding actors, such as Tyrone Power and Anthony Hopkins, but to me the best of all times has always been Reed Hadley. This serial gives you the opportunity to see an interesting western, where you will only discover the real villain, Don del Oro, at its end. The serial also has good performance of various actors of movies B like Ed Cobb, ex- Tarzan Jim Pierce, C. Montague Shaw, eternal villains like John Merton and Charles King, and a very good performance of Hadley as Zorro. He was quick, smart, used well his whip and sword, and his voice was the best for any Zorro. | 1 | trimmed_train |
7,044 | All I can really say is that I'm glad that I was knitting socks while watching the movie, or I would be very angry for having wasted 2 hours of my life. The acting was terrible, the plot was even worse. There were some scenes that were meant to be serious that had my husband and I laughing out loud. I highly recommend this movie to people who like to do their own version of MST3K. | 0 | trimmed_train |
22,003 | Deanna Durbin, then 14 and just under contract to MGM, made a short feature in 1936 which paired her with Judy Garland, a year younger, in the first film for both of them. Louis B. Mayer then decided he didn't need two competing young singers, placed his bet on Garland and let Durbin go. Universal immediately signed Durbin, rushed her into Three Smart Girls and rewrote the screenplay to pump up her part. She's billed last, but with the typographic equivalent of neon lights around her name. Universal was convinced Durbin would be a smash, and they were right. Three Smart Girls is less a musical and more a screwball comedy, and Durbin, 15 when the movie was released, carries it with aplomb. She's Penny Craig, and she and her older sisters, Joan and Kay, are determined to save their father, who had divorced their mother, from the clutches of an elegant gold digger with a fierce mother. They talk their way from Switzerland, where they live, to New York City, where their father lives. They plan not just to break up their father's wedding but to reunite their father with their mother, who after ten years apart still loves the guy. Is there any doubt that Durbin will sing a song or two in her warm, luscious soprano? Nope. Is there any doubt the girls will succeed...with Kay and Joan finding love and matrimonial material along the way? Nope, again. Years later Durbin was quoted as saying that she couldn't keep playing little Miss Fixit forever. She was right, of course, but in Three Smart Girls, her first feature movie, she has little Miss Fixit down pat. Durbin is funny, determined, resourceful, energetic and, of all things, natural. Her personality is so genuine that it makes this comedy -- a mix of farce, confusion, good intentions and cheerful avarice -- downright endearing. <br /><br />Durbin carries the movie with ease. It's a lot of fun watching her hold her own against the likes of Binnie Barnes as Donna Lyon, the woman with her hooks in Penny's rich father, played by Charles Winninger, who was no slouch at stealing scenes, either. Alice Brady, who played the dithering matron in My Man Godfrey, plays Donna Lyons' mother, who is even more of a gold digger than her daughter. The last of the accomplished farceurs is Ray Milland as Lord Michael Stuart, who through a contrived and amusing mix-up is mistaken for Mischa Auer. <br /><br />Three Smart Girls holds up well as a light-weight and amusing comedy of manners and mix- ups. So does Deanna Durbin as a brand-new star, who with her huge success saved Universal's bacon. | 1 | trimmed_train |
20,555 | Sometimes they get lucky and have a hit on their hands (Wayne's World, the first one, not the second). But most often they have duds (It's Pat comes to mind rather quickly). This time out it's Tim Meadows as The Ladies Man. This movie falls somewhere in between a hit and a dud. It was very funny for the first 20 minutes, but then, as usually happens with SNL skits, it starts to slow down, before finally ending, long after it should have.<br /><br />Tim Meadows is Leon Phelps, a radio DJ with a nightly show called The Ladies Man. He answers any and all questions dealing with sex and relationships, usually in the crudest way possible. Everything seems to ultimately come down to the butt. After pushing the buttons of the station manager, Leon, along with his producer Julie (Karyn Parsons) gets fired, and needs to find another job. Out of the random blue, comes a letter from one of his ex-ladies. The letter offers him wealth and luxury for the rest of his life, the only problem being that the letter isn't signed. So Leon needs to track down all the women he's been with to find the woman of his dreams. But sometimes, as Billy Dee Williams says in the film, the woman of your dreams is standing right in front of you. There is also a sub-plot about a bunch of guys who's wives/girlfriends have all slept with Leon, and they want to first figure out who he is (by a tattoo he has on a part of his anatomy), then kill him. Leading this bunch of guys is, surprise! Will Ferrell from SNL. First off, I thought the sub-plot was rather lame. The singing and dancing stuff was just completely worthless. I usually like Will Ferrell but here he just never clicked for me. And the rest of the guys were just schlubs who tagged along, and in the end all decided that having their wives/girlfriends cheat on them was in fact their fault. So back to the main story. The story basically centers around Leon and sex. So what it comes down to is, if you don't like the character of Leon, you won't like the movie. His voice, his mannerisms, his dialogue is what carries the movie. I am not a big fan of Tim Meadows. I never thought he was a particularly good actor on SNL. The only thing I ever really liked of his, was his Ladies Man skits. But the best thing about those, is that they usually involved the guest host (remember the one with Cameron Diaz?), and they were short. For about 5 minutes, they were pretty funny. And here, for about 20 minutes, it's really funny. What I thought was good about the character in the movie, is that he stayed in character throughout. He never wavered from his wanted to just get laid persona. Until right at the end where there was this transformation, and the ever present speech to tie things up. Other than that, it was pretty good at keeping Leon as Leon, and not changing him into something less crude than he was. There isn't a lot of substance to this movie, if you couldn't guess. But like I said earlier, the beginning of the movie I found to be very funny. Some real laugh out loud moments, all revolving around sex and his crudeness. The problem of course with this movie, and most other SNL spin offs, is that these are characters that are only supposed to be shown for a few minutes at a time. Stretching the concept into 80 minutes is very difficult. That difficulty is obviously why they needed the sub-plot, because without it, this movie would have been a little under an hour. When it was good, it was good, but when it wasn't good, it got to be boring.<br /><br />So overall, The Ladies Man wasn't as bad as other SNL films, but it wasn't as good as others. It had some funny moments, the first 20 minutes was pretty good, but the rest of it dragged on. There was an unnecessary sub-plot whose only purpose was to lengthen the film. The bottom line is, if you like Tim Meadows and his Leon Phelps character, you'll be able to watch the film. If he annoys you, don't even bother going. Unless you just want to see Tiffani Theissen in some nice revealing clothing. <br /><br /> | 1 | trimmed_train |
19,144 | OK, so I know of this movie because of a friend of mine's in it and I actually visited the set when they were filming, so from a personal stand-point, I was intrigued to finally view this obscure little gem. If you dig at all on info regarding this movie, you'll find it's mired in legal troubles (even over 7 years after being filmed) so, if you are at all like me -- then you'll do whatever it takes to obtain a copy. My source? Ebay. About $15 but I felt ripped because when I got it today in the mail, it was a very rough, grainy copy of a "SCREENER ONLY" release, complete with annoying top mini time-code but alas, I could still enjoy it but not as much as if I had a proper copy, something I suggest you obtain if you want the full impact this film may or may not have on you. From what I have gleaned, it's been released on DVD in Germany & now Spain. With that, good luck & happy searching/bidding...;). The score/sndtrk is worth it alone. Very eclectic and varied (somethinbg rare these days IMHO in film) -- I think that will be my next sndtrk/score to locate, but I digress... <br /><br />Now, onto the review. The film opens as Billy Zane's character is injecting a nurse in the mental ward he is apparently locked up in. He steals her clothes (even shoes) and quickly moves into a series of holding up a bank/loan shop but after escaping with the loot, well, I guess this is where the "plot" begins -- he inadvertently looses it. After perpetrating several campy over-the-top crimes & dalliances to various A to C-list celebs to locate the money, he finds himself somehow in a cemetery where a funeral -- I think for the dead guy he shoots in the loan office/bank, and -- even with 1950's police cars and cops looking all over for him steadily throughout -- he never gets seen or nabbed. (He sees daily newspapers reporting his "crimes") This I liked, because it gave the thin plot an extension. After all, it's a MOVIE (see: fiction) & director Iris Iliopulos does what I think is everything possible to 1) Bring Wood's vision to fruition and 2) Give it an updated feel, yet have shots of authentic 50's police cars intertwined with, ahh, local L.A..99$ stores -- so well hence my 9 rating. If the period and props were authentic -- I would have given it a 10. Now it wraps it self up kinda weird and I won't spoil it for anyone but let's just say the final ending is somewhat disappointing for it, to me, it had promise, action and comedy -- all up till the end, so...with ALL that said --locate a copy at your own discretion.<br /><br />Just realize that, as there is no dialouge (except for some narration and singing) this may be up your alley -- maybe not-- but I definitely think it's worth a watch. The actors all do fine performances and it's only the inconsistency in proper period pieces that really made me long for just that correction -- then I would say by all means check this film out for it's not like anything these studios put out these days (or will in the future, too) I am sure. | 3 | trimmed_train |
24,417 | I dont know why people think this is such a bad movie. Its got a pretty good plot, some good action, and the change of location for Harry does not hurt either. Sure some of its offensive and gratuitous but this is not the only movie like that. Eastwood is in good form as Dirty Harry, and I liked Pat Hingle in this movie as the small town cop. If you liked DIRTY HARRY, then you should see this one, its a lot better than THE DEAD POOL. 4/5 | 1 | trimmed_train |
17,039 | The first film ever made. Workers streaming from a factory, some cycling, most walking, moving right or left. Along with Melies, the Lumieres are both the starting point and the point of departure for cinema - with Melies begins narrative fiction, cinema, fantasy, artifice, spectacle; with the Lumieres pure, unadorned, observation. The truth. There are many intellectuals who regret the ossification of cinema from the latter into the tired formulae of the former.<br /><br />But consider this short again. There is nothing 'objective' about it. The film is full of action - a static, inhuman scene burst into life, activity, and the quiet harmony of the frame is ruptured, decentred from the back to right or left (but never, of course, the front, where the camera is). And yet the camera stands stock still, contains the energy, the possible subversion, subordinates it to its will. The cinematograph may be a revolutionary invention, but it will be used for conservative purposes - to map out the world, edit it, restrict it, limit it.<br /><br />worse is the historical reality of the film. These factory workers are Lumiere employees. The bosses are spying on their workers, the unseen eye regarding his faceless minions. The film therefore describes two types of imprisonment. Behind the gates, the workers are confined in their workplace. The opening of the gate seems to be an image of freedom, escape, but they face another wall, the fourth wall, further confining them. The first film is also the first example of CCTV surveillance, an image of unseen, all-seeing authority entrapping its servants. A frightening, all too prophetic movie. | 3 | trimmed_train |
7,527 | I have seen many good Korean Movies including thrillers and movies with darker overtone, but this one sucks. The director seems to be a sadist, who happened to get someone to produce some junk. The movie lacks any sort of entertainment value and is not even a thriller. I can't believe someone really made such a movie. Even though acting is OK, the story line and the feeling it leaves is awful.<br /><br />I am sure, I am not going to see any movies of this director. No sense of movie making, and utter disappointment in having thriller moments. All this has is showing scenes with psychopath wasting the reels with badly shot scenes and showing more blood and violence thinking that makes it thrilling. Very disappointing movie and I strongly recommend skipping all the movies of this sort. | 0 | trimmed_train |
12,357 | Yes I have rated this film as one star awful. Yet, it will be in my rotation of Christmas movies henceforth. This truly is so bad it's good. This is another K.Gordon Murray production (read: buys a really cheap/bad Mexican movie, spends zero money getting it dubbed into English and releases it at kiddie matinées in the mid 1960's.) It's a shame I stumbled on this so late in life as I'm sure some "mood enhancers" would make this an even better experience. I'm not going to rehash what so many of the other reviewers have already said, a Christmas movie with Merlin, the Devil, mechanical wind-up reindeer and some of the most pathetic child actors I have ever seen bar none. I plan on running this over the holidays back to back with Kelsey Grammar's "A Christmas Carol". Truly a holiday experience made in Hell. Now if I can only find "To All A Goodnight (aka Slayride)" on DVD I'll have a triple feature that can't be beat. You have to see this movie. It moves so slowly that I defy you not to touch the fast forward button-especially on the two dance routines! This thing reeks like an expensive bleu cheese-guess you have to get past the stink to enjoy the experience. Feliz Navidad amigos! | 0 | trimmed_train |
16,858 | And yet another run of South Park comes to an end. This wasn't as strong an episode as I'd hoped for, but Night of the Living Homeless was a stronger finisher then Stanley's Cup, Tsst, Bloody Mary, or Erection Day. It still can't hold a candle to Woodland Critter Christmas and Goobacks, but few episodes can.<br /><br />Night of the Living Homeless is a spoof of the zombie genre, done in a way only South Park would think of. Instead of flesh eating zombies, the entities are homeless that request change and seem to survive off of it.<br /><br />Randy and other residents are locked in the Community Center, though this time on the roof, where they can survey the scene. A particularly funny moment is when one member finds out his home is gone, and becomes homeless, leaving Randy no choice but to shoot him.<br /><br />Meanwhile, the four boys set out to solve the problem, with the whole story behind the homeless takeover trying to convey a message, but being seriously uninspired. South Park is at it's best a lot of the times when it is being ridiculous. Matt and Trey played it safe this week, and didn't really critique the homeless problem, just lampooned it.<br /><br />The shock moment of the episode comes when a scientist shoots himself in an attempt to avoid the homeless. This is the first time a suicide on South Park goes wrong, and we watch the poor man miss his brain and then attempt to shoot himself many times while he painfully dies. Another inspired South Park moment.<br /><br />Overall, the episode was funny, but it was kept from being great by withholding any real commentary on the homeless and sticking straight with the zombie shtick. The ending is somewhat funny, but nothing new.<br /><br />Now we must wait until October for the next batch of episodes. It's a long haul, but South Park must be applauded for it's run. The show seemed to be running out of steam last season, but now it's back in full form. | 1 | trimmed_train |
18,975 | Well, was Morgan Freeman any more unusual as God than George Burns? This film sure was better than that bore, "Oh, God". I was totally engrossed and LMAO all the way through. Carrey was perfect as the out of sorts anchorman wannabe, and Aniston carried off her part as the frustrated girlfriend in her usual well played performance. I, for one, don't consider her to be either ugly or untalented. I think my favorite scene was when Carrey opened up the file cabinet thinking it could never hold his life history. See if you can spot the file in the cabinet that holds the events of his bathroom humor: I was rolling over this one. Well written and even better played out, this comedy will go down as one of this funnyman's best. | 1 | trimmed_train |
8,998 | A very slick modern (keeping it sensually hip) revamp on the Dracula story (although staying with the traditional customs) with quite an interesting, if not fully grasped back story of the prince of darkness. The first time I tried watching it I could only make it halfway through, before losing interest. Again it gets off to a good start (especially the scenes with the thieves and then their encounters with Dracula), but then for me it got less involving when it hits New Orleans to focus on Van Helsing's daughter. A great place to set it, but never took advantage of its settings (despite etching a paradise in damn, where Dracula could flourish). Produced by Wes Carven (and yeah they throw that name out there), but written / directed by Patrick Lussier. Artistically it had its moments with few dreamlike visuals, but some kinetic editing and cheap jolts don't help. The messy script does get considerably silly. Lussier does a polished job that remains rather glassy, inserting a lot of blood (the make-up is suitably achieved) and a lot of "Virgin" advertising. No I don't mean virgins, it's the music company, as it does get in numerous shots and Helsing's daughter works there too. Oh that wasn't obvious planting. The soundtrack is an amusing choice of rock tunes. Now the performances are all over the shop, but there are few familiar faces to spot (Danny Masterson, Sean Patrick Thomas, Nathan Fillion, Shane West and Lochlyn Munro). Gerard Butler as Dracula just didn't come off, as not much of a presence was formed. He was simply out-shined by the succulent ladies of the night; Jennifer Esposito, Colleen Fitzpatrick and Jeri Ryan as Dracula's brides. The likes of Jonny Lee Millar and Justine Waddell are respectably okay. Christopher Plummer gives out a grizzled turn as Van Helsing and Omar Epps has fun with his role. | 2 | trimmed_train |
18,788 | This film is, quite simply, brilliant. The cinematography is good, the acting superb and the story absolutely breathtaking. This is the story of Donald Woods, a white South African who thought himself a liberal until he found out the reality of apartheid. Kevin Kline is completely convincing - so much so that when Donald Woods himself appeared on TV some years later, I recognised him from Kline's portrayal. Denzel Washington also turns in a masterful performance, as ever.<br /><br />I urge you to watch this. It is long, but it is worth your patience because it tells such an incredible story. Remember, folks, this really happened. | 3 | trimmed_train |
24,798 | There are so many reasons as to why I rate the sopranos so highly, one of its biggest triumphs being the cast and character building. Each character unfolds more and more each series. Also each series has an array of different 'small time characters' as well as the main. A good example of a character (who was only in three episodes) who you can feel for is David the compulsive gambler played brilliantly by Robert Patrick. Every little detail builds the perfect TV series. The show revolves round mob boss Tony Soprano (James Gandolfini) who attempts to balance his life of crime with his role as father of two. The show is not afraid to be bold and powerful with its dialogue and imagery and this is what makes it so believable. Whilst Tony runs things with capos Paulie (Tony Sirico) and Silvio (Steve Van Zant) his nephew Christopher (Michael imperioli) looks for a promotion. Every episode also features Tony's other family in some way which includes his children and wife carmela soprano (Edie Falco). On top of these problems is his uncle Junior soprano (Dominic Chianese) is trying to get what he can out of Tony's businesses despite being under house arrest. All the acting is powerful and characters complex, but the two who stand out the most are; James Gandolfini who 'is' Tony Soprano. Also Michael Imperioli who plays Christopher, representing the younger (20-30) generation in crime. If David Chase had not created this masterpiece modern TV dramas of such caliber may not have existed, such as The Wire and Dexter. So the Sopranos is definitely the Godfather, Goodfellas and Pulp fiction of TV | 3 | trimmed_train |
10,370 | I saw this movie in the theater when I was a kid and always remember it as my first experience with getting ripped off by a horrible movie with a good commercial. The commercial was great, but it I found out later that it had every explosion or 'special effect' in the entire movie (about 4) and even some that weren't in the movie. There was some sort of plot relating to the aliens but the aliens were never actually shown in the movie as far as I remember. It was clearly a case of someone making a buck off a cheap movie designed to scam people. I guess my world of innocence ended that day, when I found out there were bad people out there who make bad bad movies. | 0 | trimmed_train |
1,505 | This movie is a prime example of squandering great resources in a film. You've got future SNL and SCTV stars in their prime, such as John Candy, Chevy Chase, Laraine Newman, Al Franken,Tom Davis and Joe Flaherty essentially making 70 minutes of coarse, uninspired fart and racist jokes. The concept of a network from the future subverting society could have really been taken to some interesting extremes, but instead right out the gate, makes a lame, juvenile proctology joke and stays in that vein of humor the whole way.Seek out the earlier and much more subversive and witty Groove Tube or the later, hilarious Kentucky Fried Movie. This movie is only for those who want to see a time capsule of bad 70's sketch comedy movies. | 0 | trimmed_train |
22,635 | I never really knew who Robert Wuhl was before seeing this. But after seeing it I realized what a funny man he is. This HBO special features him teaching "American history" to New York university film students and the man was just phenomenal. He poked fun at almost every key historic event that occurred not just in the U.S. but some other parts of the world. This documentary/comedy was a great satire that made me question if what I accept as the infallible true history is really true.<br /><br />I enjoyed how Mr. Wuhl managed to mix useful information with great comedy and made learning a lot more exciting. I would recommend this to anyone interested in history and is willing to question what his/her beliefs. | 3 | trimmed_train |
3,732 | I went for this movie believing it had good ratings. Firstly, it is ridiculous that they're releasing a movie originally made in 2001, seven years later in 2008 here in India. Everything in the movie looks dated. Even for 2001 the movie looks like its been made on a shoe string budget. There is a scene where a taxi hits a man to elaborate how low budget you can get. Anthony Hopkins doesn't seem to know what he is doing in the film. He ends up giving a long monologue towards the end. If the film had bright sparks during that scene, I missed it as I was sleeping on my seat. Nothing about Jennifer Love Hewitt resembles a Devil. She wears ill-fitting trite clothes and scowls at random kids. As for Alec Baldwin a scene where he goes to meet Webster for the first time is not to be missed. What a waste of money! As Anthony Hopkins rightly put it, "Go back home and write better!" | 0 | trimmed_train |
747 | To grasp where this 1976 version of A STAR IS BORN is coming from consider this: Its final number is sung by Barbra Streisand in a seven minute and forty second close-up, followed by another two-and-half-minute freeze frame of Ms. Streisand -- striking a Christ-like pose -- behind the closing credits. Over ten uninterrupted minutes of Barbra's distinctive visage dead center, filling the big screen with uncompromising ego. That just might be some sort of cinematic record.<br /><br />Or think about this: The plot of this musical revolves around a love affair between two musical superstars, yet, while Streisand's songs are performed in their entirety -- including the interminable finale -- her costar Kris Kristofferson isn't allowed to complete even one single song he performs. Nor, though she does allow him to contribute a little back up to a couple of her ditties, do they actually sing a duet.<br /><br />Or consider this: Streisand's name appears in the credits at least six times, including taking credit for "musical concepts" and her wardrobe (from her closet) -- and she also allegedly wanted, but failed to get co-directing credit as well. One of her credits was as executive producer, with a producer credit going to her then-boyfriend and former hairdresser, Jon Peters. As such, Streisand controlled the final cut of the film, which explains why it is so obsessed with skewing the film in her direction. What it doesn't explain is how come, given every opportunity to make The Great Diva look good, their efforts only make Streisand look bad. Even though this was one of Streisand's greatest box office hits, it is arguably her worst film and contains her worst performance.<br /><br />Anyway, moving the melodrama from Hollywood to the world of sex-drugs-and-rock'n'roll, Streisand plays Esther Hoffman, a pop singer on the road to stardom, who shares the fast lane for a while with Kristofferson's John Norman Howard, a hard rocker heading for the off ramp to Has-beenville. In the previous incarnations of the story, "Norman Maine" sacrifices his leading man career to help newcomer "Vicky Lester" achieve her success. In the feminist seventies, Streisand & Co. want to make it clear that their heroine owes nothing to a man, so the trajectory is skewed; she'll succeed with or without him and he is pretty much near bottom from scene one; he's a burden she must endure in the name of love. As such, there is an obvious effort to make the leading lady not just tougher, but almost ruthless, while her paramour comes off as a henpecked twit.<br /><br />Kristofferson schleps through the film with a credible indifference to the material; making little attempt to give much of a performance, and oddly it serves his aimless, listless character well. Streisand, on the other hand, exhibits not one moment of honesty in her entire time on screen. Everything she does seems, if not too rehearsed, at least too controlled. Even her apparent ad libs seem awkwardly premeditated and her moments of supposed hysteria coldly mechanical. The two have no chemistry, making the central love affair totally unbelievable. You might presume that his character sees in her a symbol of his fading youth and innocence, though at age 34, Streisand doesn't seem particularly young or naive. The only conceivable attraction he might offer to her is that she can exploit him as a faster route to stardom. And, indeed, had the film had the guts to actually play the material that way, to make Streisand's character openly play an exploitive villain, the film might have had a spark and maybe a reason to exist.<br /><br />But I guess the filmmakers actually see Esther as a sympathetic victim; they don't seem to be aware just how cold-blooded and self absorbed she is. But sensitivity is not one of the film's strong points: note the petty joke of giving Barbra two African American back up singers just so the film can indulge in the lame racism of calling the trio The Oreos. And the film makes a big deal of pointing out that Esther retains her ethnic identity by using her given name of Hoffman, yet the filmmakers have changed the character's name of the previous films from "Esther Blodgett" so that Streisand won't be burdened with a name that is too Jewish or too unattractive. So much for ethnic pride.<br /><br />The backstage back stabbing and backbiting that proceeded the film's release is near legendary, so the fact that the film ended up looking so polished is remarkable. Nominal director Frank Pierson seems to have delivered the raw material for a good movie, with considerable help from ace cinematographer Robert Surtees. And the film did serve its purpose, producing a soundtrack album of decent pop tunes (including the Oscar-winning "Evergreen" by Paul Williams and Streisand). But overall the film turned out to be the one thing Streisand reportedly claimed she didn't want it to be, a vanity project. | 0 | trimmed_train |
19,864 | This 1934 adaptation of Somerset Maugham's novel put Bette Davis on the map as a movie actress. She might have won an Academy Award for her performance but the films was made on loan, so her studio didn't push for her. Her acting in this one doesn't come off well by today's standards. As the heartless waitress who jerks Philip, a sensitive medical student, around and nearly ruins his life, Davis is way too shrill, almost demonic. Director John Cromwell, who usually elicited good performances from his actresses, was perhaps overwhelmed by this one. Davis is watchable, for sure, but so strident and predatory as to seem scarcely human. I imagine the character of Millie as quieter, less feminine than Davis, with maybe a touch of the tomboy. Davis is such a strong, immediate presence that's there's no air of mystery to her, which makes Philip's attraction to her seem more overtly masochistic than it should be.<br /><br />As Philip, Leslie Howard is excellent. His wan, somewhat wilted good looks are perfect for this failed aesthete. Nor does he impose a personal interpretation on the part, as, say, Dirk Bogarde might have done, which gives his work a rare clarity. He seems completely in control here, as he should be, playing a man with a rational intellect who is in the grip of irrational emotions he cannot manage or even fully satisfy, as the object of his affections moves him in ways he cannot understand. Howard was a fine actor, too often cast in standard romantic parts which compelled him to fall back on charm, which he doesn't use here.<br /><br />It's been so long since I've read the book I don't feel comfortable commenting on the movie's faithfulness to it. I think it captures the spirit of the story well enough, and that it has in Howard a perfect Philip Carey. The sexual undercurrents are muted, and at times Philip behaves so masochistically that in the absence of strong sex feelings makes one wonder about the character's sanity, surely not Mr. Maugham's intention. Thanks to Howard's performance, Philip remains firmly in focus, as one can see in his various responses to and yearnings for Millie the extremes to which a reasonable intellect will go to understand the irrational, in himself and in others. <br /><br />Overall, a very good film, a little stilted at times, due to its age, it evokes London nicely, and is well acted for the most part. | 1 | trimmed_train |
16,227 | I was a bit scared to watch this movie due to its rates. But living in Italy titles like this never ever come across and I love step so much that I decided to give it try. And how surprised I was! The story is different from any other dance-movie I've seen lately, with a deeper meaning than just "winning". It's touching and well written and well directed. Raya is such a strong character, I love the fact that she never doubts herself, she's so mature and focused and AWARE of her TALENT (and what talent Rutina Wesley has, my jaw dropped in the final dance scene). The way she pursues her dream and refuses to let anything stop her is, honestly, inspiring. Also, the fact that she's not the typical super-hot chick (see Jessica Alba, Briana Evigan, Jenna Dewan, Zoe Seldana...) makes her really appealing and real. Seriously, why is this movie rated so low? You can understand between the first 5 minutes that it's a good work. Really good actually. I even cried at the end of the movie. And the dancing routines are just sick. | 3 | trimmed_train |
12,961 | 1.) This movie was amazing! I watched it while I was in the town next to the one where he grew up! I went and saw the buildings that the story took place in. Overall, I loved this movie, One of Jake Gyllenhaal's best!! Also- my favorite parts were the science fair, and all the times with his father. They were so sad, it seemed. Homer wanted to follow his dream and his dad didn't seem to care one way or another. That tag line is true. "Sometimes One Dream is bright enough to light up the sky." 2.) The way this movie was shot was impeccable, it was all so believable that it could have been recorded during the 1950's. Dress was accurate and they had their slang down too. Definitely recommend this movie! | 3 | trimmed_train |
14,326 | Although in my opinion this is one of the lesser musicals of stars Frank Sinatra, Gene Kelly, Kathryn Grayson and director George Sidney, a lesser musical featuring anyone from that line-up is nothing to sneeze at, and in conjunction, the line-up makes Anchors Aweigh a pretty good film despite its flaws.<br /><br />Sinatra and Kelly are Clarence Doolittle and Joseph Brady, respectively, two Navy men. As the film begins, they're just pulling in to the Los Angeles area for some much needed leave. Brady plans on visiting a girlfriend named Lola. Doolittle is still a bit wet behind the ears, appropriately enough, and seeks advice on women from Brady in private (publicly, scriptwriter Isobel Lennart and Sidney have all of the Navy men comically exaggerating their finesse with women to each other). Brady promises to help get Doolittle hooked up, but primarily because Doolittle won't leave him alone otherwise. A kink is put into their plans when local police basically force them to assist with a young boy who is obsessed with the Navy. He won't give the police any information about who he is or where he lives. Brady helps and he and Doolittle end up taking the boy back home. When the boy's guardian, Susan Abbott (Grayson), finally shows up, Doolittle goes gaga for her. Brady tries to convince him to forget about her; Brady just wants to get back to Lola. But they keep getting coaxed back to Abbott's home, and eventually something of a love triangle forms. Things become more complicated when Brady lies about Doolittle knowing a famous musician, Jose Iturbi, who is in residence at a film studio, and claims that Doolittle has set up an audition for Abbott, who is a singer and actress, in front of Iturbi.<br /><br />Because of the story, the music is a strange combination of militaristic music--because of the Navy premise, obviously, Broadway pop--what the stars tend to sing in more informal settings, opera--what Abbott's character excels at, Liberace-like popular classical--what Iturbi did, and Mexican music--because Abbott frequents a Mexican restaurant in a Mexican section of L.A. The combination doesn't work as well as it could. Plenty of the songs are good, and everyone involved is certainly talented as a singer or musician, but the genre hopping tends to lose coherence. Worse, there are a couple showcases for Iturbi, who was apparently a big star at the time, that effectively bring the plot to a halt and that seem more than a bit hokey at this point in time. I just watched another film that happened to have outstanding music, Robert Altman's Kansas City (1996), but that misguidedly stopped the plot to periodically turn into a concert film. Anchors Aweigh takes a similar tactic. Yes, this is a musical, but there's a difference between songs that propel and are integral to the plot and concert showcases that seem like contractual obligation material.<br /><br />There are also some plot problems. It's not very well established why Brady is so against Doolittle's pursuit of Abbott. We can guess that Brady thinks Doolittle shouldn't become involved with someone who has to take care of a kid, and who seems relatively "proper" and traditional, but on the other hand, Brady can tell that Doolittle doesn't have the same womanizing disposition that Brady admits of himself. Abbott seems like a good fit for Doolittle, and furthermore, Lennart works hard to establish that Brady just wants to get Doolittle out of his hair and get on with meeting Lola--it seems that Brady's character should be quickly pawning Doolittle off on any candidate, whether she's a good fit or not. This might seem like a minor detail, but it's actually the hinge for about a third to half of the plot. The story also seems a bit drawn out. Length is a problem. Anchors Aweigh, clocking in at roughly two hours and twenty minutes, should have been cut down by at least a half-hour.<br /><br />The above surely sounds like I'm complaining about the film too much to justify an 8. I just wanted to stress what I see as flaws, because the conventional wisdom on Anchors Aweigh is much closer to the idea that it has no flaws.<br /><br />Sinatra, Kelly and Grayson are certainly charismatic, separately and together. They turn in good, interesting performances. Sinatra looks and acts much younger than his actual age of 29 30 while shooting. He plays an unusually naïve, virginal character--completely different than most of the roles he would take later, and different than his public image as a crooner. For Kelly, this was his breakthrough film, and rightfully so. His choreography is varied and impressive, as is his acting. Grayson is charming, her performance is sophisticatedly understated, and she's simply gorgeous. All of this helps override the flaws with the script and the drawn out pacing.<br /><br />And there's even a very interesting element that probably only arises because Sidney was allowed to sprawl over a large variety of moods--the infamous Kelly dance with Jerry the Mouse (of "Tom and Jerry" fame) in an extended fantasy sequence. This is one of the earliest examples of combining live action and animation, and it is extremely well done and enjoyable as long as you're a fan of fantasy. The fantasy sequences tend to be the best of the film. Matched in excellence to the dance with Jerry the Mouse is a long song and dance number featuring Kelly and Grayson, where Brady is imagining Abbott in a scene from a period film while he woos her, having to resort to acrobatic stunts to reach her physically as she stands on a high balcony.<br /><br />As uneven and flawed as the film is, it is largely successful and entertaining to watch. Fans of classic musicals certainly shouldn't miss Anchors Aweigh, and neither should Sinatra fans, who'll get quite a kick out of his character. | 1 | trimmed_train |
15,219 | ...intimate and specific. Yes, a bit of a cinderella story, but only after many convoluted turns, earning it's way deeper and deeper into Antwone's psyche. Only superficial viewing can condemn this film as superficial. This is the stuff that heals nations, this is one of our great national stories. Antwone's path to emotional health encompasses a whole breadth of family history, the history of slavery and its aftermath. In his first directorial effort, first of many I hope, Denzel Washington confirms once again, that he has a truly beautiful mind and soul. | 3 | trimmed_train |
5,451 | And so the great rewriting of history continues Hollywood style.<br /><br />This was senseless ridiculous rubbish.<br /><br />Its shocks me that such an amazing amount of money can be spent to produce what is the most contrived, poorly acted inaccurate film I have ever seen. It is appalling.<br /><br />Nic Cage's brief flirtation with serious acting appears to be over. I can only assume that Leaving Las Vegas was a glitch in an otherwise litany of dreadful films.<br /><br />Diane Kruger proves that her performance in Troy was no fluke, she really can't act.<br /><br />Harvey Keitel should be ashamed of himself for working on such tripe.<br /><br />Only recommended for those either recovering from a recent lobotomy or people of an opinion that America invented the world. | 0 | trimmed_train |
3,199 | I really wanted to like this movie - the location shots were mostly filmed in Pittsburgh and the trailer had some wonderful photography. But, even for a filmed cartoon, it was a really badly-made movie. The continuity and pacing were both simply awful. The best bits in the movie are under the ending credits, so it's (almost) worth sticking it out to the end (though, oddly, it does pick up a little over the last half hour or so).<br /><br />When the best performance in a movie is by Andy Dick, you know there's got to be a problem... | 2 | trimmed_train |
17,528 | Disregard the plot and enjoy Fred Astaire doing A Foggy Day and several other dances, one a duo with a hapless Joan Fontaine. Here we see Astaire doing what are essentially "stage" dances in a purer form than in his films with Ginger Rogers, and before he learned how to take full advantage of the potential of film. Best of all: the fact that we see Burns and Allen before their radio/TV husband-wife comedy career, doing the kind of dancing they must have done in vaudeville and did not have a chance to do in their Paramount college films from the 30s. (George was once a tap dance instructor). Their two numbers with Fred are high points of the film, and worth waiting for. The first soft shoe trio is a warm-up for the "Chin up" exhilarating carnival number, in which the three of them sing and dance through the rides and other attractions. It almost seems spontaneous. Fan of Fred Astaire and Burns & Allen will find it worth bearing up under the "plot". I've seen this one 4 or 5 times, and find the fast forward button helpful. | 3 | trimmed_train |
135 | Here we are: two travelers from a distant futuristic world arrive on earth... one is on a desperate mission to preserve a life, another is an inhuman killing machine determined to eliminate the woman who will give birth to the saviour of an entire race.<br /><br />So what could we call this killing machine? It's almost like he's some kind of destroyer, or eradicator... sort of like an exterminator or something. What's the word I'm looking for... something that -terminates- things? Hmmmm....<br /><br />Anyway, the protector (who swiftly doffs the white tunic he stole from Luke Skywalker in favour of local clothing) finds the young woman first and impregnates her with a future-born hero-to-be. The evil uhhhh... "exterminator" kills some rednecks and steals their guns and clothes, then attempts to locate the woman by visiting her workplace and asking around by looking menacingly into people's eyes and repeating her name threateningly.<br /><br />Then begins a desperate race for survival as the seemingly deathless and unstoppable "exterminator" pursues the couple across the countryside. At some point he may acquire boots and a motorcycle, but I'm not sure.<br /><br />Perhaps, in an exciting finale, he will attempt to crush them under the wheels of an enormous tanker truck full of... acid. Then the truck will crash. They will be saved... but no! He will then re-emerge, as strong as ever. He will kill the protector and pursue the girl into a meat packing plant, where in a terrifying finish, he is pushed into a large piece of industrial chopping machinery, and destroyed once and for all.<br /><br />But maybe I'm extrapolating too much... after all, I did stop watching this movie after Mr. Protector magically impregnates Sean Young by kissing her at a bar, then tells her the child will be born in 3 days. <br /><br />The costumes and effects are great in this movie... I loved them the first time I saw them on Star Trek: Next Generation too! Sean Young does another great turn as an unemotive Replicant, and career sweat-hog Stephen Baldwin is also on board as Young's Fat Cop Boyfriend. Not sure where he fits into the plot though... maybe he's an import from a different James Cameron movie? | 0 | trimmed_train |
11,062 | I had the (mis)fortune to see this film at a showing in the US. Having reluctantly sat through the entire abysmal thing, I am shocked to have seen so many good reviews here on IMDB. <br /><br />The original film was a turkey, but an interesting one. It fitted into that early seventies, post 1969 revolution thing; this film just stinks of....... , well, nothing really. It's that bad.<br /><br />Imagine a badly done perfume commercial - see what I mean ?<br /><br />Madonna never could act, and has been an embarrassment on the big screen for years. She looks worse and worse with every one of those years, increasingly coming to resemble a skinned meerkat.<br /><br />Guy Ritchie, who has built his "reputation" on Lock Stock, could never direct either - his movies are shallow, badly cut, fashion shows. He doesn't disappoint here either; he wisely cast his wife as the star of this debacle.<br /><br />Please people, take little heed of the good reviews this movie has received from other posters below. They are quite obviously business plants.<br /><br />Don't encourage Ritchie to humiliate himself further by giving him money.<br /><br /> | 0 | trimmed_train |
14,136 | New York, I Love You finally makes it to our shores, but its 10 short stories on love somehow didn't find reason enough to be released over Valentine's, probably due to the fact that this year's festival also falls on Lunar New Year, and with that comes the usual LNY blockbuster films from the likes of Jackie Chan (no, not The Spy Next Door) and local filmmaker Jack Neo who has traditionally released his latest film over that period to resounding success. So why fix a formula that hasn't been broken?<br /><br />Continuing in concept where Paris, Je T'aime had begun in spawning the City of Love Franchise (Shanghai will be next, so says the end of the closing credits here), the buzz here is definitely about the intertwining stories set in one of the cities of the world to allow for various interpretations from filmmakers all over to come up with stories based on love as a theme, although someone probably forgot to tell Scarlett Johansson some of the finer points in the sandbox ground rules, and her short was unceremoniously dropped from the theatrical edition for being unable to fit into everything else (well, it was shot in black and white), but here's hoping that it would make it to the DVD at least.<br /><br />Structurally, this series is less compartmentalized compared to its predecessor, which if memory serves me right had individual stories set within its own confines and never really breaking out of its artificial borders created. Here a little more leeway is given, where characters from various stories interact in short filler segments used to bridge scenes together, and not just solely reliant on pick up shots made up of buildings and landscapes, in hopes of making things look a little bit more serendipitous with the idea of chance encounters amongst strangers, though one story craftily adopted this mindset for its own narrative to deliver a surprise, though already seen in Paris.<br /><br />One of the top draws for sitting through a film like this one, is definitely the creative forces behind the stories, from writers, directors and cinematographers from various geographies and backgrounds mirroring the makeup of the cosmopolitan city, coming together for a concept film. And what more the star-studded cast too, with big names amongst the lesser known ones all upping the ante through picture perfect performances, be it for the entire length of the short, or as a support to build upon. You can't deny the initial star-gazing in recognizing the notables, from Irrfan Khan to Natalie Portman (who also had writing and directing duties), Rachel Bilson (looking quite like Bardot) to Spielberg's blue eye boy Shia LaBeouf, who surprisingly can act, and shows off more in his few minutes here than his entire filmography to date.<br /><br />Story wise, like any anthology, you'll find some which will automatically appeal to you, and with others that don't. Some are straightforward in nature, while others have to come up with gimmicky twists that thankfully worked. But these 10 stories plus 1 (because Randall Balsmeyer was given duties to integrate everything together for a more organic feel instead of just plain pick up shots of lesser known areas and established landmarks) somehow lacked the more "anything goes" spirit from its predecessor, with stories more rooted in reality, compared to some fantastical elements in the previous film (Elijah Wood's dalliance with a vampire anyone?), or even less adventurous with its narrative style (Christopher Doyle's, and Tom Tykwer's starring Natalie Portman). Here it seemed that the filmmakers opted very much for safe, with none venturing into that spirit of adventure and experiment.<br /><br />Minor quibbles aside, I still enjoyed almost all the shorts here, contrary to what many others have felt about it. The short film format is still very much alive, and having them strung together into a feature under the City of Love banner works fine, and left me wondering which other cities are or have been included in its lineup. I am hoping that perhaps the franchise will catch on and spread its influence here. We surely have enough prolific filmmakers to be stringing together a Singapore, I Love You, so here's crossing my fingers that maybe something will materialize down the road. Otherwise there's always the Sawasdee Bangkok route of just making it without any attachments to franchise house rules. | 1 | trimmed_train |
16,181 | While the soundtrack is a bit dated, this story is more relevant in the U.S. now more than ever. With not only blue collar jobs but everyone's jobs being outsourced by U.S. corporations while the government profits and American suffer.<br /><br />Peter Strauss is Emory, a steel worker who works the same job his father did for 35 years. His wife is well-portrayed by Pamela Reed, who is very realistic, trying to support the family with two children when Emory loses his job. The mill is closed under the pretext of mismanagement, but there is also embezzlement and cheaper wages where they can pay one steelworker in one month (outsourcing) what they would have to pay Strauss/Emory in a day. Never mind that these men are all good loyal workers who have values and try the best for their family.<br /><br />John Goodman, Gary Cole (as Strauss' brother) and a few other co-workers are also affected. It is very disturbing and realistic. Some scenes between Emory and his father are moving. Emory hopes his local union will be able to re-open the mill, as they promise to do so.<br /><br />Emory's brother, Lee already sees the writing on the wall. There are no jobs left in the rust-belt (Ohio) and they must move on. However where in the U.S. can they move to?. Where will it be better for a blue-collar steel worker?.<br /><br />There is a triumphant scene at the end where Emory and his crew fill the loading dock with steel products. The guard allows them to do this as a final gesture, one of the men committed suicide and he has empathy.<br /><br />Overall, a good message film about hard times right here in America. Something that few care to face until personally affected. 8/10. | 1 | trimmed_train |
9,197 | This has got to go down as almost one of the worst movies of all time. Awful acting, awful script... and they were the good points! One to Definitely miss! The jokes, if you could call them that, were so predictable as to be pathetic. Pamela Anderson is still relying on her body to detract from the fact that her acting is just as plastic! I sat willing to give it a chance, hoping that it was going to improve which, alas, it didn't! If it was a choice between this and a book, I suggest you settle down for a good read! I like Denise Richards, which is why I gave this movie a go, but why she has let her self be cast in this movie is beyond me! | 0 | trimmed_train |
3,769 | This is the biggest piece of crap ever. It looks like they spent more time, effort, and money making the DVD cover than they did on the actual movie. I really thought the DVD had been switched out with someone's homemade porno until I recognized one of the actors from the cover. This movie looks like someone made it with a hundred bucks and a camcorder and they spent half of that on rats. The picture is really clear, but that, along with the very unfortunate lighting, cinematography, if you can call it that, production, acting, if that is actually what they are doing, and script, if they had one, makes this movie look worse than an old porno. At least the old porno has a point. This just looks like some PETA members got together and decided to make a really disturbing, pointless PSA about animals rights and feelings. This is so not worth the money or the time. It has nothing in common with the actual BTK serial killer other than the name of the killer and that of some of the victims. The people who made this movie should be glad he's not still free, or he might have come after them just for screwing up this movie so bad. | 0 | trimmed_train |
11,010 | ..IT'S THIS ONE! Very cool premise, right off the bat.<br /><br />Has an excellent first scene, gotta give credit where credit's due.<br /><br />Has solid characters and a decent enough script for a ghost story but here are the things that bothered me: Whenever the ghosts appeared, which I really liked by the way; how it was done, how it looked...the only thing was the ghost's relationship. Because of the way things went down in the first scene you'd think their dynamic would be different.<br /><br />Things slowed down a little too much in the middle I felt, and the crab/spider scene was just not good. BUT then the ending is actually very good! Sure, 'The Grudge' basically told the same story with a polished lens but no samurai's and that's what I liked about this movie comparatively.<br /><br />Please, someone one with a tempered style remake this movie.<br /><br />Fans of 'Silent Rage' would absolutely love this movie. | 2 | trimmed_train |
8,911 | A very ordinary made-for-tv product, "Tyson" attempts to be a serious biopic while stretching the moments of angst for effect, fast forwarding through the esoterics of the corrupt sport of boxing, and muddling the sensationalistic stuff which is the only thing which makes Tyson even remotely interesting. A lukewarm watch at best which more likely to appeal to the general public than to boxing fans. | 2 | trimmed_train |
6,401 | Having just recently re-viewed "Lipstick" for the first time in a few decades, I backed it with "Descent" even though I have heard more negative comments than good from other film friends with tastes as varied as mine.<br /><br />It's interesting to contrast how the unique niche of the Rape Revenge movie has evolved in the past 32 years, from the full-on gore of "I Spit On Your Grave," to the tawdry sensationalism of "Lipstick," to the tasteful handling of the issue in "The Accused." But "Descent," though making some important points, never really offers us anything truly new in terms of revelatory meaning. No, "Descent" is so poorly made in terms of picture and sound quality that it detracts from any significant message it could hope to make --- a message that, when examined closely, isn't that groundbreaking.<br /><br />I pretty much knew the plot going in. What I wanted to see *was* the "descent" or degeneration of Dawson's character. Being a big fan of Rosario's, I was anxious to see the layers being stripped away and her psyche being slowly twisted...you know, the kind of portrayal DeNiro brings to "Taxi Driver." Unfortunately, the script and the director/writer's choices don't provide any sort of believable transition.<br /><br />The biggest point of failure is the second act. It became obvious what the filmmaker's intentions were for this segment of club-hopping, drug use, and obsession with big black stallion Adrian (every white boy's nightmare, natch) from a Q&A on the DVD, but this excursion into Dawson's character is never believably rendered. We don't know exactly what the hell she's doing half the time, what she's after, or why she's doing it. The poor quality of the audio/video again don't help, but the sequence is just too damn long and pointless. It destroys any momentum and investment in the lead character set up during the otherwise exceptionally well-done first act. By the time we get to the finale, our interest has already waned.<br /><br />One point of success that Dawson does point out in the Q&A is that by the end "revenge" scene we are pumped for retribution, then realize just how drawn-out and ugly the reality is. While that's certainly valid, it doesn't make the scene any more intriguing.<br /><br />If you have the DVD, check out the deleted "classroom" scene. This is an excellent 8 minute plus outtake that crackles with energy and provocation (though all verbal) and really DOES show Dawson's slow crack-up materializing as she delightfully vivisects poor Francie Swift's prissy, condescending dorm counselor. If more expository scenes like this had been added and more of the middle third cut down, we might have an interesting psychological study of the impact of senseless acts of violence.<br /><br />As the film stands in the final cut, though, all we get is what we've seen before, only in a more graphic rendering. So what? | 2 | trimmed_train |
9,781 | Pictures that usually glorify a hero have meaning. As an example, Bonnie and Clyde glorified the dynamic bank robbers and you actually felt sympathy for them despite their evil deeds. Why? They were two people caught up in the depression when people were desperate to survive.<br /><br />This film has absolutely no substance. The Viggo Mortensen character soon emerges as a folk hero. Why? He speeds along an Idaho highway on the way to the hospital where his stricken wife has been taking. No one bothers to understand why he is trying to flee everyone. Even worse, when the realization becomes apparent that he is not a red-neck terrorist, no one in government wants to help him as they try to save their rear ends.<br /><br />Jason Priestley co-stars as a radio emcee who builds upon the story in support of our hero.<br /><br />The ending is absolutely unbelievable. | 2 | trimmed_train |
12,659 | This is one of my favorite films of all time. Al Pacino acting is at its best and the story is excellent. Too bad it didn't do to well in the 80's when it was first released because people didn't get a chance to experience this classic. | 3 | trimmed_train |
8,449 | by Dane Youssef<br /><br />A gang of crooks. The perfect plan. It all goes wrong. They're in trouble. The police are outside. They're cornered. What are they gonna do now?<br /><br />Sound familiar?<br /><br />The movie seems like it's trying to be a combination of the acting workshop, the "indie" film and the theater.<br /><br />It's the kind of things that actors love--it's kind of like a workshop or a play because it mostly consists of tight focusing on the actors acting... acting angry, tense, scared, conversing, scheming, planning--giving the performers a lot of free range to really ham it all up.<br /><br />A trio of crooks, one leader, one goon, one brother, come up with a big heist scheme... and a monkey wrench is thrown into the works. To top things off, there's a bit of a "fender-bender" and one of the crooks in flung through the back of the windshield.<br /><br />The cops are on their tail and they stumble into a bar named poetically (and leadenly) "Dino's Last Chance."<br /><br />Spacey, as a director, tries to keep the focus on the actors' performances and delivery of dialouge. He pans over to a bright passion-red cigarette ad of a smoking and smoldering Bogart. And he keeps all the violence off-screen, really.<br /><br />I think that was a mistake. Focusing on the intensity and gruesome violent scenes would have given the movie some edge.<br /><br />The problem with the movie is that it moves too slow and suffers from miscasting in almost every role. Matt Dillon ("Drugstore Cowboy" and "Wild Things") seems too young and too idealistic to be the leader of this gang.<br /><br />Gary Sinese seems to brooding and deep in thought to be a spineless tag-along with these guys and Joe Mantaga is effective as the traditional routine foul-swearing mad-dog police lieutenant who's all thumbs, but he isn't given anything to really do here.<br /><br />William Fischter is the only actor who is believable in his role as a brainless grunt who just wants to spill blood.<br /><br />And the crooks are in a tense situation where they either go to jail or they try to think of some way out of this.<br /><br />Spacey lacks the ability to create a lot of tension and keep it going. The characters are mostly chatting away, trying to think of a plan... and they're to calm and too articulate. There's even a scene where the crooks are playing pool with a whole swarm of armed cops right outside, ready to strike. At one point, one of the crooks even call the police who are right outside the bar. Oh brother. Oh bother.<br /><br />These cops are going to either blow them away or going to lock them up. Shouldn't the holed-up crooks be a little scared, a little uneasy? Meanwhile, all the real action is happening inside.<br /><br />Someone whips out a gun, a baseball bat, which leads to an ugly confrontation off-screen and there's one more casualty that happens that's... well, kinda sad. But...<br /><br />Faye Dunaway also should have spent more time with a dialect coach, improving on her New Orleans accent. Skeet Ullrich is fine in a smaller part.<br /><br />A cop listening in reaches for a pack of matches at the absolute worst time is a nice look. And so is a scene where someone goes right through the rear windshield. <br /><br />The dialouge is obviously trying to go for a David Mamet approach and it's as profane, but never as realistic or as insightful.<br /><br />The movie feels like too much of what it really is... a really low-budget movie with an actor behind the camera for the first time directing other actors from a script that's "not bad, but needs a few more re-writes." Spacey shows he's not a terrible director, but he lacks a sort of feel for "shaping a movie" and it feels like he's just filming actors act.<br /><br />These actors are all talented and could work with the material, but they all feel out of place. As I said before, the movie really suffers from miscasting. <br /><br />I don't mean that the wrong actors were cast. I think they found just the right cast, but placed them in all the wrong roles. I think switching some of the roles would've helped immensely.<br /><br />Having veteran mob actor Joe Mantagna play the leader of the pack, Gary Sinese as the angry police lieutenant outside on his bullhorn giving orders and barking at his troops, keeping Fischter in his "bloodthirsty goon" part and Matt Dillion as the sacrificial lamb. That would have been a big improvement.<br /><br />When some actors direct, it works. They can even win Oscars for it. But a lot of the time, when actors direct, they have a tendency to just focus on the performances. Just shoot the actors acting.<br /><br />Sometimes it works... but they need a good showcase for it. An excuse for it.<br /><br />Hostage situations are all pretty much the same in real life just like coming-of-age stories so it's only natural that movies about them will go from point A to point B as well.<br /><br />There are a few really great entries into this genre.' Spacey himself appeared in a similar movie about hostage situations: "The Negotiator."<br /><br />This certainly won't become a cult classic, let alone one of AFI's 100. Still, it does have a few nice moments and personal touches, but in the end, it's instantly forgettable and the kind of movie that would play best on regular TV. It's just not worth going out of your way to see.<br /><br />I give a 3 out of 10. <br /><br />Spacey's other directorial credit, "Beyond The Sea" was reportedly a better effort. Hmmm... maybe it's true. You need to fail before you succeed.<br /><br />by Dane Youssef | 2 | trimmed_train |
23,483 | Sidney Franklin's "The Good Earth" has achieved classic status thanks to a timeless story and superb acting, especially from Luis Ranier, who won an Oscar for her portrayal of O-Lan. Rainers performance is so complete, she is nearly unrecognizable. Having very little dialogue throughout the entire film (and it is a long one), Rainer relies instead on facial and body language. She looks and acts Chinese to the point that anyone unfamiliar with her work could easily mistake her as such.<br /><br />The film remains relevant today because it explores the rags to riches story and the universal themes that come with it. When Lung and wife O-Lan finally achieve financial success after years of famine and poverty, they find a life full of possessions but lacking in meaning. It is only when they return to the earth after fighting off a swarm of locusts (the special effects used to create them are still incredible and beautiful to watch) that they again find fulfillment. A common formula told with the unique perspective of a Chinese family (especially for 1937) makes the film a classic. Money isn't worth anything without friends and family, a point that the film drives home perfectly in it's last 10 minutes with an emotionally fulfilling conclusion. | 1 | trimmed_train |
7,721 | Uta Hagen's "Respect for Acting" is the standard textbook in many college theater courses. In the book, Hagen presents two fundamentally different approaches to developing a character as an actor: the Presentational approach, and the Representational approach. In the Presentational approach, the actor focuses on realizing the character as honestly as possible, by introducing emotional elements from the actor's own life. In the Representational approach, the actor tries to present the effect of an emotion, through a high degree of control of movement and sound.<br /><br />The Representational approach to acting was still partially in vogue when this Hamlet was made. British theater has a long history of this style of acting, and Olivier could be said to be the ultimate king of the Representational school.<br /><br />Time has not been kind to this school of acting, or to this movie. Nearly every working actor today uses a Presentational approach. To the modern eye, Olivier's highly enunciated, stylized delivery is stodgy, stiff and stilted. Instead of creating an internally conflicted Hamlet, Olivier made a declaiming, self-important bullhorn out of the melancholy Dane -- an acting style that would have carried well to the backs of the larger London theaters, but is far too starchy to carry off a modern Hamlet.<br /><br />And so the movie creaks along ungainfully today. Olivier's tendency to e-nun-ci-ate makes some of Hamlet's lines unintentionally funny: "In-stead, you must ac-quire and be-get a tem-purr-ance that may give it... Smooth-ness!" Instead of crying at meeting his father's ghost (as any proper actor could), bright fill lights in Olivier's pupils give us that impression.<br /><br />Eileen Herlie is the only other actor of note in this Hamlet, putting in a good essay at the Queen, despite the painfully obvious age differences (he was 41; she was 26). The other actors in this movie have no chance to get anything else of significance done, given Olivier's tendency to want to keep! the camera! on him! at all! times! <br /><br />Sixty years later, you feel the insecurity of the Shakespearean stage actor who lacked the confidence to portray a breakable, flawed Hamlet, and instead elected to portray a sort of Elizabethan bullhorn. Final analysis: "I would have such a fellow whipped for o'er-doing Termagant; it out-herods Herod: pray you, avoid it." | 2 | trimmed_train |
23,758 | Overall I found this movie quite amusing and fun to watch, with plenty of laugh out loud moments. <br /><br />But, this movie is not for everyone. That is why I created this quick question-ere, if you answer yes to any of the following questions than I recommend watching this flick<br /><br />(1)Do you enjoy crude sexual humor? (2)Do you enjoy alcohol related humor? (2)Do you enjoy amazingly hot girls? (3)Do you enjoy viewing boobs? (4)Do you enjoy viewing multiple boobs? (5)Did I mention all the nice boobies in this film?<br /><br />If you noticed the spoiler alert, that is referring the mass amount of nudity you can expect in the movie, I myself have no idea what the plot was about. Not that it matters. | 3 | trimmed_train |
8,235 | Mr. Mike was probably the most misanthropic comedian of all time, so I was interested to see what he'd do with total creative control over a movie. Sadly, it is unwatchable, though not because the jokes aren't funny--some (I won't say most) of them are, and in fact Mr. Mike did a good job translating his mentally unbalanced screeds into visual gags. The trouble is that the technical quality (sets, lighting, sound, editing, you name it) is so God-awful, the movie is intolerable. Some outfit called "PKO Productions" gets the producing credit, but it doesn't look produced at all; it looks more like Mike stole one of the cameras from the SNL set and made the whole thing in an afternoon. I realize Mike's goal was to torture the audience, but even that deserves some basic standards, such as the ability to actually see, hear or comprehend whatever it is that's supposed to be shocking. Still, the DVD isn't a total waste: it includes a eulogy for O'Donoghue by Bill Murray and three "Mr. Mike's Least Loved Bedtime Stories" from SNL. Plus, the "cat swimming" section of the movie is a great scene to be caught watching if you want to freak someone out. 3/10 | 2 | trimmed_train |
9,864 | I was lying on my bed, with a really bad cold or flu or whatever. I figure maybe I'd kill some time watching some horror movies my mom bought for me a little while ago. I wish I never picked this movie! After I watched it I felt even more sick and I wanted to throw up. Afterwords(when I got better of course) I did some research on Dennis L.Rader and I noticed that the Dennis in the movie was nothing like the real one. I hope that no one ever watches this movie but if they ever do don't eat or you'll feel the way I felt after I first watched it. I think you would have a better time watching The Santa Claus 3. At least that movie had better reviews on this site. | 0 | trimmed_train |
19,885 | I saw this 25 years ago on PBS. It was very difficult to watch. So real. To watch this small family struggle in the winter was heart rending. No time for courting: fate has thrown us together and we put our shoulders to the grindstone and make it work. This was based on the woman's actual diary, which I read many years later. She said in her diary that her parents died when she was little and all their bothers and sisters had to work the farm to feed themselves. She learned to mow, which was not lady-like. She was afraid that no prince charming would want a woman with sun-browned, calloused hands, but this husband was so happy that his new wife knew how to mow, and she was happy to do it. Both were widowed and together they worked to build a new home. It was so, so sad when the baby died. Of course, if they had it today, I am sure it would have been fine. That only makes the tragedy extra sad. I was crying so hard. But then they went out and successfully pulled out a new calf. Spring is on its way, and life goes on. In her diary, she did have two more boys and they lived. | 3 | trimmed_train |
683 | I have a piece of advice for the people who made this movie too, if you're gonna make a movie like this be sure you got the f/x to back it up. Also don't get a bunch of z list actors to play in it. Another thing, just about all of us have seen Jurassic Park, so don't blatantly copy it. All in all this movie sucked, f/x sucked, acting sucked, story unoriginal. Let's talk about the acting for just a second, the Carradine guy who's career peaked in 1984 when he did "Revenge of the Nerds" (which was actually a great comedy). He's not exactly z list, he can act. He just should have said no to this s--t bag. He should have did what Mark Hamill did after "Return of the Jedi" and go quietly into the night. He made his mark as a "Nerd" and that should have been that. I understand he has bills to pay, but that hardly excuses this s--t bag. Have I called this movie that yet? O.K. I just wanted to be sure. If I sound a little hostile, I apologize. I just wasted 2hrs of my life I could have spent doing something productive like watching paint peel, and I feel cheated. I'll close on that note. Thank you for your time. | 0 | trimmed_train |
21,390 | In many ways DIRTY WORK is a predictable L&H short on the surface with the boys going to sweep someone`s chimney . Guess what happens next ? That`s right slapstick at its most sucessful ensues .<br /><br />But there`s one or two things that seem untypical . Ollie for example is very unlikable , he`s arrogant , he`s rude , and not only to Stan look at the way he addresses the servant with " HEY YOU " and takes a childish huff very easily with his catchphrase being " I have nothing to say " . In short Ollie plays a bully in a very unlikable way and I much prefer to see him to play the arrogant coward where he`s always at his funniest<br /><br />DIRTY WORK also lacks the reportary regulars of the other L&H shorts like Finlayson , Long , Busch and Housman which means when we switch to the mad scientist plotline there`s a slightly creepy atmosphere that jars with the rest of the movie <br /><br />Having said that this is still a good short mainly down to Stan . Also watch out for a scene featuring a fish . Many jokes/plots from L&H feature fish and this is another one | 1 | trimmed_train |
24,785 | Steven Spielberg produced, wrote, came up with ideas for and even directed episodes of Amazing Stories, so naturally this would have to be the greatest anthology ever right? Unfortunately wrong. Some episodes are just fantastic, but all too often it was a mixed bag. In fact, that might have been it's downfall is it was way too mixed. Some episodes were light comedies, some were dramas, some were horror, and one was even animated, which made this a similar, but not as good 80s version of the Twilight Zone (which also was around).<br /><br />Normally I'd like having a mixture of stories in an anthology show, but they just didn't fully work here. Some of the more fantastical dramatic episodes felt like they would be better being shown late on night on the Lifetime network, like the episode "Ghost Train", which was directed by Spielberg himself. In that episode, it gave the message of hope, and gave us a fantasy story, but overall it was just a build up to the ending which didn't blow me away anyways. The horror episodes tended to work better than the drama, but there were far more dramatic ones, and they grow tiring to watch. Acting wise, this anthology got some big stars, similar to the original Twilight Zone. Kevin Costner, Kiefer Sutherland, Milton Berle, Dom Deluise, Harvey Keitel, Beau Bridges, Charlie Sheen, Forrest Whitaker, Tim Robbins, John Lithgow, Rhea Perlman, Danny Devito, Patrick Swayze, Christopher Lloyd, June Lockhart, Kathy Baker, Weird Al Yankovich and many other well knowns have been in episodes of the show. It's fun to see well known actors in almost every episode of the series. Great directors have also had part in episodes including Spielberg himself, Clint Eastwood, Burt Reynolds, Bob Clark, Joe Dante, Mick Garris, Paul Bartel, Joe Dante, Robert Zemeckis, Danny Devito and even Martin Scorsese. I'd actually recommend this more to fans of the directors and/or the 80s than anyone else.<br /><br />Amazing Stories was sometimes amazing, usually good, occasionally mediocre, and every once in a while a real stinker came out. But, this show has nostalgic value to me, and it's sort of fun to sit on boring afternoons and watch some episodes. John Williams' theme music for the show is sure to be caught in anyone's head who watches this, too.<br /><br />My rating: Good show. 30 mins. per episode. TVPG | 1 | trimmed_train |
19,439 | When tradition dictates that an artist must pass his great skills and magic on to an heir, the aging and very proud street performer, known to all as "The King of Masks," becomes desperate for a young man apprentice to adopt and cultivate.<br /><br />His warmth and humanity, tho, find him paying a few dollars for a little person displaced by China's devastating natural disasters, in this case, massive flooding in the 1930's.<br /><br />He takes his new, 7 year old companion, onto his straw houseboat, to live with his prized and beautiful monkey, "General," only to discover that the he-child is a she-child.<br /><br />His life is instantly transformed, as the love he feels for this little slave girl becomes entwined in the stupifying tradition that requires him to pass his art on only to a young man.<br /><br />There are many stories inside this one...many people are touched, and the culture of China opens itself for our Western eye to observe. Thousands of years of heritage boil down into a teacup of drama, and few will leave this DVD behind with a dry eye.<br /><br />The technical transfer itself is not that great, as I found the sound levels all over the meter, and could actually see the video transfer lines in several parts of the movie. Highly recommended :-) 9/10 stars. | 3 | trimmed_train |
11,225 | I watched Peter Jackson version of Lord of the Rings when I was half way through reading the Two Towers and I thought it was absolutely brilliant.<br /><br />At this time the animated version of the Lord of the Rings was released on DvD but I told myself that I will finish reading the Two Towers and Return of Kings before watching it (as I thought it showed the whole of the trilogy).<br /><br />So when I did finish the trilogy I went and brought the DvD, which was a stupid idea because it was absolutely rubbish.<br /><br />I was acturly bored 20 minutes in to it which was really strange because I love the book and I am shooked that the maker of this film could of even thought of fitting at least 1 and a half of the books in to a 2 hour 8 minute film.<br /><br />None of the characters had any emotions when they were talking and they seemed to be reading it of a page, even my favourite character who is Gandalf did not seem interesting at all. <br /><br />The animation was the only okay in parts of the film except for the orks (they looked awful) and Aragorn and Sam face.<br /><br />I don't know way this film was released because there was not even a proper ending, but maybe it was good that the maker ran out of money because the film couldn't of got any better. <br /><br />I just hope that nobody judges the books by this film.<br /><br />3/10 | 2 | trimmed_train |
9,245 | Weak,stale, tired, cliched; wants to be Basic Instinct, but misses opportunity after opportunity for fresh perspectives, new insights. Insipid, trite, grotesque, and without the possibly-redeeming value of brevity; oh, wait...it was only 90 minutes long...it must have just *seemed* a lot longer! I'd rather clean bus station toilets with my toothbrush than have to sit through this again. I'm expressing an opinion here: I guess this means I didn't like it. | 0 | trimmed_train |
14,245 | I first saw this movie about 4 years ago and i was expecting something funny, similar to CB4. I was blown away. I was on the floor laughing my butt off this movie is so great. Way better than CB4, the characters, the songs, the plot, everything. Top notch independent film that was given "Two Thumbs UP" by Siskel and Egbert (and if two old white guys can understand the humour in this flick, you know it's good). | 3 | trimmed_train |
21,755 | First an explanation on what makes a great movie for me. Excitement about not knowing what is coming next will make me enjoy a movie the first time I watch it (case en point: Twister). There are also other things that go into a great first viewing such as good humor (John Candy in Uncle Buck and The Great Outdoors), good plot with good resolution (Madeline and Matilda), imaginative storytelling (all Star Wars episodes-George Lucas is THE MAN), and good music (again all Star Wars episodes, Wizard of Oz, Sound of Music). What makes me watch a movie at least six times in the theatre and buy a DVD or VHS tape? Characters. With that said, I present Cindy Lou Who and The Grinch. Excellent performance Taylor Momsen and Jim Carrey. The rest of the cast was very good, particularly Jeffery Tambor, Bill Irwin, Molly Shannon, Christine Baranski, and Josh Ryan Evans. But, every single scene with Cindy and The Grinch-together is excellent and very funny and/or heartwarming. Cindy Lou is my favorite character in this movie and the most compelling reason why the movie is better than the cartoon. The Grinch has a strong plot, good conflicts, and a very good theme (I can't get started because I don't want to spoil it). Jim Carrey was very funny as The Grinch-particularly when he interacted with Cindy. And the music! Wow! Excellent music by James Horner. I loved his selection of instruments and the compositions. Very good job Jim Carrey-I didn't know you could sing. Taylor Momsen! Whoa! Your voice is reason enough to see the movie at least once. On your solo - Where Are You Christmas - is your voice really as high as it sounds? Sounds like an F#? That is an obscene range for a 7-year old (obscene meant in the best possible way). Great job. This is the best performance by a child I have ever heard in a movie(Taylor beat out the Von Trapp Children-no small feat!). And now to the actors. Jim Carrey was great, funny, and, surprisingly very sensitive (this really showed through in his scenes with Taylor Momsen). Taylor Momsen's unspoken expressions(one of the secrets to a good acting performance) are very strong-she really becomes Cindy Lou Who. And when she does dialogue she is even stronger.<br /><br />******************************danger:spoiler alert********************* ***********************************************************************<br /><br />Examples: expression when she first sees The Grinch. This is a classic quote ("You're the the the" and then filled in with the Grinch line "da da da THE GRINCH-after which she topples into the sorter and then is rescued by The Grinch). The "Thanks for saving me" quote and subsequent response by The Grinch was also very good.<br /><br />My favorite part of the movie is when Cindy invites The Grinch to be Holiday Cheermeister. This scene is two excellent actors at their best interacting and expressing with each other. Little Taylor Momsen completely holds her own with Jim Carrey in this spot. I sincerely hope we see Taylor Momsen in many more films to come. All in all everything was great about this movie (except maybe the feet and noses). | 3 | trimmed_train |
21,896 | I'm not kidding about that summary and vote! The video distributors have packaged this as just another typical '80s werewolf movie, but it is in fact the greatest parody of the horror genre that you can imagine, having done for the horror movie what "Blazing Saddles" did for the western. I have seen plenty of comedies - good, bad, stupid, weird, etc. (usually walking away unimpressed), and I think that comedy must be the most difficult genre for filmmakers and actors to work in - it takes just the right kind of touch to make things successful, and part of that is having good ideas. "Full Moon High" is bulging with good ideas - so many, in fact, that it can easily put the Zucker/Abrams team of "Airplane" and "Naked Gun" to shame. One of the best of these is the very presence of Ed McMahon in a starring role as a John Birch-style right-wing crackpot. The jokes, non-sequiturs, wisecracks and word-play are literally non-stop and everything, including the kitchen sink, has been thrown in. The ironic tone is very similar to that of "Back to the Future." <br /><br />Some people (i.e. almost every reviewer here) must have been turned off by the spirit of anarchy here, but I almost died of laughter, and this is one of those movies in which you never know what kind of insane situation will transpire next. Since B-movie extraordinaire Larry Cohen had not made a straight comedy before this, one gets the sense that he was making up for lost time by including any joke he or his collaborators could think of. If Mel Brooks had made this, the critics would have labelled it a comic masterpiece, but because it was made by Cohen, it has been dismissed as schlock. Critical reviews have called this movie too "silly." SILLY? What is a comedy supposed to be - serious?! Anyway, I laughed out loud more for this movie than any other I can think of. Cohen makes fun of everyone - himself included, with plenty of references to his usual brand of low-rent film-making; he and the actors must have had a complete blast making this.<br /><br />The humor is very Mel Brooks-ish, and anyone who loves Jewish humor or watches a lot of B-movies (especially horror) will love this. Trust me: the movie isn't too hard to find, and as long as you accept it for what it is - a roller-coaster of belly laughs with no pretense of social value whatsoever - then you'll truly enjoy it!!<br /><br />One sidenote: this movie should somehow go down in history as the one thing Bob Saget ever starred in (albeit briefly) that was actually funny. | 3 | trimmed_train |
14,721 | "Against All Flags" is every bit the classic swashbuckler. It has all the elements the adventure fan could hope for and more for in this one, the damsel in distress is, well, not really in distress. As Spitfire Stevens, Maureen O'Hara is at her athletic best, running her foes through in defiance of the social norms of the period. Anthony Quinn rounds out the top three billed actors as the ruthless Captain Roc Brasiliano and proves to be a wily and capable nemesis for Brian Hawke (Flynn). For the classic adventure fan, "Against All Flags" is a must-see. While it may not be in quite the same league as some of Errol Flynn's earlier work (Captain Blood and The Sea Hawk, for instance), it is still a greatly entertaining romp. | 1 | trimmed_train |
223 | Following the success of "Paris, Je T'Aime", a group of directors decided to get together and make a similar anthology style film based in New York. Unlike the original film, the stories in this film seem to sometimes come and go too quickly--by the time you think are getting into a story, it's over in too many cases. And, the often start up and stop and then begin again--with the stories woven together. As a result, there is no title to indicate that a story is complete and it is less formal in structure.<br /><br />Sadly, however, while "Paris, Je T'Aime" was hit or miss (mostly hit), most of "New York, I Love You" was miss. The stories tended to be much more sexual in nature but also far less sweet--and often quite terrible. It was an amazingly dull and uninteresting film with only a few exceptional stories--and perhaps the often depressing music made it seem more so. Now understand, it was good quality music but its somber tone really, really made me feel like cutting my wrists! Among the better ones was the story about the young man who took a girl in a wheelchair to prom, the couple talking about cheating outside a restaurant (though this was also in the first film) and the crotchety old couple. This is all so sad because I had loved the first film so much--and I really WANTED to love this film. I respected what they tried but simply didn't like it very much.<br /><br />By the way, and this is NOT really a complaint, but I was amazed how many people were smoking in the film. For a recent film, that was unusual in our more anti-smoking culture.<br /><br />Also, if you get the DVD, there are two segments included as extras that were not included in the film. One consists of Kevin Bacon (wearing a cool fedora) eating a hotdog....and absolutely NOTHING more for almost ten minutes. The other features a teen who spends the film videotaping the world--including a very unhappy couple. | 2 | trimmed_train |
12,915 | I loved Long Way Round and wasn't even aware of Race to Dakar until i saw it on the shelves of my local supermarket. I bought it and after a slightly 'hmm will this be as good' first episode i decided that it was. Charlie Boorman was great as were the other members of the crew. Great to see him with Ewan again. There was a fair bit of swearing in it but that didn't bother me. As for their being no mention of it on the package. Thats more to do with the silly Excempt from Classification certificate that the BBFC have. They should have given it a 15 just for the language alone.<br /><br />Highly recommended series, i want more!! | 1 | trimmed_train |
3,036 | Underneath the dense green glop of computer graphics there gleamed the astounding art and skill of Ichikawa Somegoro. Alas: it got lost in all the goo. The scenes of Old Edo -- with the courtesan, drifting on the Sumida, rehearsing and acting in the Nakamura-za -- were all exciting and engaging, taking you back to an interesting and rich era. The action on the Kabuki stage, in which Somegoro excels and excites, was more enriching than any of the absurd high jinks that followed. The skill, the energy in the audience, the colors of the sets, were far more satisfying than all the nonsense that took over plot and performance. What a wasted opportunity! One of the best kabuki actors alive, and he gets lost in the dreck. | 2 | trimmed_train |
20,629 | For starters, it's a very funny movie with a few crazy characters running around that are bound to make laugh (check out the two Russian bugs).<br /><br />A Bug's Life has a classical Disney storyline, but that's one of the good things about the movie. Family values are praised and the main characters of the film undergo some evolution in order to stand up against the grasshoppers in the end. And it also has a couple of great voice-overs by Dave Foley, Julia-Louise Dreyfus, Kevin Spacey (of course),... But actually, the most amazing thing about this movie is the animation. It's just wonderful. All the details, great colors, every ant looks different, beautiful backgrounds... And the guys and girls at Pixar made it all look so realistic. All in all, a very nice piece of work. This is the best animation by Disney since Aladdin. | 3 | trimmed_train |
23,557 | I read Holes in 5th grade so when I heard they were doing a movie I was ecstatic! Of course, being my busy self, I didn't get chance to see the movie in theaters. Holes was at the drive-in just out of town but, alas, We were just too busy. I was surprised to hear that all my friends had seen it and not one of them had invited me! They all said it was good but I've read great books that have made crappy movies so I was definately worried.<br /><br />Suddenly the perfect opportunity to see it came. It was out that week and my parents were going on a cruise and I was left to babysit. My sister, who is 9, and I watched it and absolutely loved it! I then took it to the other people I was babysitting's house and their kids, 9 and 4, liked it too. Even my parents loved it and they're deffinately movie critics. Overall, I recommend this movie is for anyone who understands family morale and and loves a hilarious cast! This movie should be on your top 5 "to See" list!!!! | 3 | trimmed_train |
8,565 | This movie is terrible. The suspense is spent waiting for a point. There isn't much of one.<br /><br />Aside from a few great lines ( "I found a tooth in my apartment" ), and the main characters dedication to killing himself, it's a collection of supposedly eerie sounds.<br /><br /> | 0 | trimmed_train |
18,145 | As winter approaches, our state-owned broadcaster, the ABC, has decided for some reason to have a partial Jane Austen Festival on Sunday nights. This commenced with a twelve-year old movie length version of "Emma" last Sunday; more recent versions of three other novels, "Persuasion", "Northanger Abbey" and "Mansfield Park" are to come.<br /><br />The curious thing about this production by A&E Television Networks, with script by the ever-reliable Andrew Davies, is that it appeared almost simultaneously with two much bigger budget movie versions, one starring Gwyneth Paltrow, and "Clueless", a "modernized" version, starring Alicia Silverstone, which transported the plot to Beverly Hills. Perhaps as a result, even with Kate Beckinsale in the lead, this production sank without trace.<br /><br />As a general rule, much is lost when novels are shrunk to fit feature movie length. The adaptations one tends to both enjoy and remember are those which have adequate room to develop both story and characters. An outstanding example is "Brideshead Revisited" which had 13 50-minute episodes back in 1982. You only have to compare the very ordinary movie-length version of "Pride and Prejudice" in 2005 with the brilliant 1995 six-part TV mini-series. It's not that a novel should be filmed page by page, and some novels (often not very good ones) adapt wonderfully to film ("Atonement" is a recent example), but novels of the Jane Austen sort need some time and space to exert their full charm.<br /><br />Given the shortcomings of this type of adaptation, this production is OK. Kate Beckinsale gives Emma the right mix of self-assuredness and vulnerability and Mark Strong is a forthright Mr Knightly (he reminded me that Jane tended to recycle characters Knightly is a more articulate version of the moody Mr Darcy of P&P). Samantha Morton was a rather limp Harriet but Prunella Scales got the blabbermouth Miss Bates perfectly Sybil Fawlty on speed. Bernard Hepton as Emma's feeble father was also excellent. We saw the damp countryside, the mud and the poverty as well as the posh interiors, in case anyone thought this was a particularly idyllic age for everybody.<br /><br />Even though this was a condensed adaptation it was oddly slow in places some of the conversations were rather stilted, even allowing for the formalities of the times. I'd have to look at the film again to be sure, but it might be due to the under-use of reaction shots.<br /><br />If you do like filmed period stuff this is a perfectly nice example, and compares well with the Paltrow version. Anyway, there is more to come! | 1 | trimmed_train |
2,040 | Horrible acting, Bad story line, cheesy makeup, and this is just the tip of the iceberg. I have never seen a worse movie in my life, 5 minutes in I decided to fast forward to see if anything redeeming would happen... It didn't. (Aside from a nice breast shot) The movie apparently was filmed in some furniture warehouse, and the same warehouse was used for at least 90% of the sets. You even see this same red chair in several different "locations" If you are going to make a film at least rent an office building and an apartment, not some warehouse which will echo all your actor's dialog.. (Note to producers) Renting a small office space and an apartment for a month is much cheaper than an entire warehouse, and both are quite a bit more versatile and believable) If you spend your money to rent this people I hope you got it with a return guarantee... You will be demanding your money back... I only spent $2.99 to rent this tonight and I feel ripped off. | 0 | trimmed_train |
10,346 | This Italian movie is basically a soap opera with skin.<br /><br />The VHS box said it was rated "R" but the into on the actual tape inside said it was "X." The latter makes a lot more sense because there is a short scene near the end that was shocking. Even in the dark, you could see Dutch actress Marishcka Detmers performing all sex on this guy - and, yes, you could see his penis in her mouth. I read somewhere that this was the first time where a "mainline actress" had done something like this on screen.<br /><br />Detmers parades around in the nude on several scenes but her face was even better than her body. She looked beautiful. Unfortunately, the movie is ugly....a real waste of time and certainly not recommended despite Detmers' looks. | 0 | trimmed_train |
7,085 | "Arahan" adds nothing positive to the Kung Fu genre. To compare this confused motion picture with the inspired craziness and quality of Stephen Chow's films is a mistake.<br /><br />Firstly the fight scenes are nothing new. All that is presented here has been done before and better by the likes of Yimou Zhang, Tony Jaa and Jackie Chan. Fights in intelligent Motion Pictures need logic. There seems no point serving blows that have no damaging effect as in the "Matrix" sequels.<br /><br />The attractive female lead So-Yi Yoon captivated the screen but she never convincingly conquered the physical demands of the role as Ziyi Zhang had done so easily in "House Of Flying Daggers". Having a Martial Arts background serves well in Kung Fu movies. To cast actors inexperienced in these skills is a serious mistake (See Aya Ueto in "Asumi") unless you are a very talented director which as "Arahan" proves Seung-wan Ryoo is not. | 0 | trimmed_train |
17,012 | This might be the WWE's 2nd best PPV of the year after Wrestlemania it was a good suprise! John Cena had an excellent match in which he upset Chris Jericho. Jeff Hardy retained his IC title in a short sloppy match with Willam Regal. Bubba & Spike Dudley won a fairly violent tables match over Benoit & Guerrero. Jamie Noble had a really good match with Kidman which was suprising to me. Booker T defeated The Big Show in a no dq match, at one point Booker T gave the scissors kick to Big Show and sent him right through the table. In a stupid decision by the WWE Christian and Lance Storm, the jealous anti-americans defeated Hogan and Edge with a lot of help from Test and Jericho. RVD and Brock had the match of the night it was filled with great high spots and RVD got to retain his ic title through a DQ so I was happy he kept the title. Triple H also signed with Eric Bischoff and Raw which means little to nothing. And in the main event the Rock became the first ever 7-time WWE world champion defeating both Kurt Angle & Undertaker in a triple threat match. Overall this is probably the WWE's 2nd best PPV of 2002! 7/10 | 3 | trimmed_train |
3,084 | There are some good things about the movie. The music and cinematography is great. Alex Wilson is hot and gives a great performance. Ryan Bauer is also hot. The production was very lucky to have casted them because they really give production value to the movie. Jonny Vincent (Sean) and a lot of the boys in the movie that don't speak are cute too. Why isn't the actress who plays Amy listed in the credits? Brandon Alexander gives a great comedic performance as Clitarissa Pink.<br /><br />The worse thing about the movie is probably the star, James Townsend. He can't act. He's also very scrawny, not nice to look at at all. His arms are like spaghetti. It's disgusting. They have no muscle tone at all. It's no wonder he has to make his own movie and cast himself in it. No one else would cast him in anything.<br /><br />James Townsend is not believable as someone who would even have a girlfriend because he acts so gay. They should have casted someone else as the lead if they wanted what's best for the movie. Then again, maybe he just wants to use this movie as a vehicle to launch a career in soft-core porn, definitely not real acting because he would have taken some acting lessons. Plus, anyone who does porn is blacklisted in Hollywood.<br /><br />The most ridiculous thing about the movie is probably the casting of a tan-skinned Latina as Devon's mother. Sonja Fisher does not seem like an actress at all. All in all, this movie is soft-core porn and is no better than something you would see on Skinemax. I think even Alex Wilson, probably the best thing about this movie, is embarrassed by it and doesn't want to be associated with it. There is no photo on his IMDb page and nothing else listed, so Alex Wilson is probably a disposable stage name. Plus, I ran into him in West Hollywood one time recently and when I mentioned this movie, he just turned around and walked away. I understand. If I had worked on this movie, I would be embarrassed and wouldn't want to be associated with it either. | 0 | trimmed_train |
4,719 | DR. SEUSS' HOW THE GRINCH STOLE CHRISTMAS / (2000) ** (out of four)<br /><br />If you desire to see a holiday movie that will inspire your seasonal spirits and continue the traditional Dr. Seuss classic fable, don't see "Dr. Seuss' How the Grinch Stole Christmas." If you are old enough to read this review, then you are probably too old to get any kind of enjoyment out of this motion picture. It contains lots of colors, creative production design and imaginative set and costume construction, joyous load noises, and the characters are made up to look like the actual inhabitants of the fictional village Whoville. Unfortunately that is where the movie's positive elements end; the rest of the production is nothing but an excuse for Jim Carrey to cackle on screen while giving a devilish grin, all while prancing through the overly broad screenplay with nothing much to do.<br /><br />Many people recognize the story of how the grinch stole Christmas from Whoville, so I will not waste my time in writing a detailed synopsis for you to read. However, I will say that the movie's story is executed in three major acts; the development of the grinch and setting, the Whoville festival, and the Dr. Seuss vision of the mean one robbing the Who's from their Christmas. There are many familiar names within the credits here, but no familiar faces. Like in "Battlefield Earth," I just do not see why the producers would hire expensive actors just to have their identities shielded by unrecognizable makeup and costumes. Regardless, there is SNL's Molly Shannon as Betty Lou, the wife of Bill Irwin, the later playing Lou Lou, the father of little Cindy Lou, played by Taylor Momsen. Jeffrey Tambor is the Whoville mayor, Anthony Hopkins lends his bellowing voice for the film's narrator, and Christine Baranski is the Grinch's lone lost lover.<br /><br />The filmmakers attempt to bring originality to the story by adding unnecessary subplots and focusing too much on the little Cindy Lou. The screenplay by Jeffrey Price and Peter S. Seaman just feels like it goes everywhere across the movie landscape; there is little if any focus by director Ron Howard and the screenplay is predictable, too extensive, and contrived. The only character given any distinctions here is the Grinch himself, all of the other characters are puppets of the plot, shapeless and uninteresting. And the dialogue is overzealous and too corny to be anything but pathetic. Example-Grinch: Oh, the Who-manity!<br /><br />The movie's redeeming factors go out to the gifted production designer Michael Corenblith, the costume designer Rita Ryack, and the ample makeup department. "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" is a very good-looking production. The sets and the atmosphere created by the filmmakers are detailed and imaginative; it is like the audience is visiting a world as in a dream. The people of Whoville are plastered with makeup, to the point in which we cannot tell the actor reciting the humorless lines. Although dazzling, I really can't give credit to the performances, for they are over looked to due the expensive technical department taking their place.<br /><br />Jim Carrey is one actor who I can talk about. His performance is what nearly destroys the movie itself He is way too egotistic as the Grinch, too exaggerated and comical to allow the story to be anywhere near recognizable as the work of Seuss. Surprisingly, although there are a few funny moments due to a few slyly clever sequences, no laughs come from Jim Carry's zany silliness. It is almost like the movie was wrote specifically for Carry to overplay his part. This factor only leads the movie to a wild but brainless comedy, which is only a pale shadow of the original Christmas classic "How the Grinch Stole Christmas."<br /><br />After this movie, historians should check the coffin of the late author, Dr. Seuss may have rolled over in his grave.<br /><br /> | 2 | trimmed_train |
22,465 | A young woman who is a successful model, and is also engaged to be married, and who has twice attempted suicide in the past, is chosen by a secretive and distant association of Catholic priests to be the next "sentinel" to the gateway to Hell, which apparently goes through a creepy old, but well maintained Brooklyn apartment building. Its tenants take the stairway up and can reincarnate themselves, but apparently can't escape as long as a sentinel is there to block the way. The previous one(John Carradine) is about dead, so she, by fate or whatever, becomes the next one, and the doomed must get her to kill herself in order for them to be free. Lots of interesting details lie under the surface, her relationship with her father, the stories of the doomed, her fiancé, so one can pass this off as cheap exploitation horror, but given the sets, the great cast, and overall level of bizarreness, this is definitely worth seeing. | 1 | trimmed_train |
16,730 | I myself feel this film is a rare treasure. Not only is it the beginning of Shirley Temple's career, but a rare look on how our society has changed. You have to understand, certain things we today would view as sexual, back then would be considered innocent. For example, the parents of the children in the film as well as the many parents who took their children to see this movie, saw this as just children mimicking adults. Most people didn't think of anyone viewing children sexually attractive, other than teenage boys lusting over teenage girls. To them it wasn't sexual. Mind you this was before we had internet, TV, etc... Most sex crimes weren't openly brought up. Occasionally there would be a whisper about the kid with the "funny uncle." But that was often all that came of it. Yes very sad. But it is kinda sad today, for even I too can see this film as anything other than what it was intended, innocent and funny. When I saw Shirley dance like that and the boys eye balling her, yes I felt disturbed. I have to remind myself the time this took place! Those children didn't know what sex was. The parents knew that, both those of the children in the movie and those watching it. The thought may not have even entered their minds. In the eyes of the average adult back then, this was no more sexual then if Shirley was playing house. Even today kids will enter beauty contest, many dressed up extremely maturely, for a three yr old. However the child is merely pretending. I don't blame the child for wanting to act like an adult. Or the old movies that display this. In all honesty, our media has made a lot of things seem back then seem sick and wrong. This sometimes can be for the best. But I truly believe this movie isn't one of them. It gives a rare look of an innocent mentality, that we have long lost. | 3 | trimmed_train |
20,714 | I really have to say, this was always a favorite of mine when I went to see my grandma. And it still is. It is very, very close to the book. The way it is filmed, and the players were just all excellent! I have to recommend this movie to everyone who hasn't seen it. Almost everyone I talk to hates TV movies, but this was really great! I gave it 10/10. | 3 | trimmed_train |
19,423 | This movie is tremendous for uplifting the Spirits.<br /><br />Every time I watch it, I see & hear funny little things that I missed before.<br /><br />The soundtrack is unbelievable. Mick Jones (Foreigner) and Chris Difford (Squeeze) penned the songs, making Strange Fruit the best thing that ever hit today's music scene.<br /><br />Unfortunately, Strange Fruit are a strictly fictitional washed up '60's to 70's band that were never good to begin with, due to drug use and inner fighting. One wonders what might have been, while listening to their fanatstic soundtrack.<br /><br />The Fruit draw inspiration from The Rolling Stones, Deep Purple, David Bowie, and The Who.<br /><br />Each member of Fruit are quite memorable. Stephen Rea stars as down-and-dead-broke Tony Costello, who is asked by a festival promoter to reunite his band for a reunion tour, with hopes of reaping monetary benefits. Costello haply approaches ex-roadie Karen Knowles, played by Juliet Aubrey, to help him rekindle the flame of a dream long past.<br /><br />Juliet gathers up the bitter Jimmy Nail (Les Wickes), blundering Timothy Spall (David 'Beano' Baggot), and extravagantly glamouresque Ray Simms (Bill Nighy). Tumbling in is another ex-roadie, the hippy-toker-jokester Hughie (Billy Connolly), who never let the flame burn out.<br /><br />As Juliet searches for the last member of their motley band, the elusive guitarist-songwriter Brian Lovell (played by the brooding Bruce Robinson), the reunited members squabble, just like old times, fighting over each others' rusty talent.<br /><br />The band is then given the chance to do a small Dutch tour, to prepare for the festival. With young Hendrix-like Luke Shand (Hans Matheson) taking the place of Lovell, the crew hits the road. The sparks fly as their memories flame forward, threatening to burn their unfinished goals...<br /><br />Be prepared to laugh, sing, cheer, and cry, as these memorable characters etch themselves back into your hearts... | 3 | trimmed_train |
20,544 | The mere fact that I still think of the movie a decade later is what really speaks volumes about the film. To me this substantiates Grand Canyon as a film that will touch you in one way or another. I truly believe that before the movie Crash there was Grand Canyon. The major difference between the two films in my opinion is the timing of their release. I'm not going to argue which one is better, but I will contend to the idea that they share the same message. I'd love to hear from those that have an opinion on this subject. I will start a commentary which you can find at http://www.myspace.com/62229249. You may also find me there to post any other topics about movies that we may share, because i have a true love for film. | 3 | trimmed_train |
212 | When I first tuned in on this morning news, I thought, "wow, finally, some entertainment." It was slightly amusing for a week or so... But we have to face it, these news reporters (if one can even call them that) have WAY TOO MUCH "playing around" time.<br /><br />At first, I thought Jillian was a breathe of fresh air. But seriously, this woman has got not the least bit of journalist in her. She is very unprofessional. She keeps on interrupting Steve when he starts informing the viewers about a certain news report. It's just really become annoying to the point that I can't watch it anymore.<br /><br />Jillian is NOT a good journalist. Hell, she's more of a celebrity who loves being a celebrity. Hence, she instantly transforms into a celebrity around celebrities whom she's supposed to be interviewing. She's not very professional and quite possibly perceives her relationship with celebrities more important than being a rightfully insatiable journalist- and that's all I can say about her.<br /><br />Also (disappointingly), this show has more entertainment news than necessary news reports about the world, the government, the US, or something that will benefit and/or serve the public's best interest. They're too focus on sensationalism that everything they talk about comes off as a commercial product. On the other hand, their field reporters are interestingly tolerable...<br /><br />I believe "Good Day LA" is for young teenagers and celebrities, and it is definitely not for people who actually CARE about the news.<br /><br />SIDE NOTE: (I'd really rather watch KTLA. However, they try so hard to be entertaining sometimes. They're still a bit dull though. Oh well, I'll stick to NBC's "Today." ABC's "Good Morning America" is also okay... as long as Diane Sawyer doesn't become way too serious.) | 0 | trimmed_train |
24,097 | Wonderful romance comedy drama about an Italian widow (Cher) who's planning to marry a man she's comfortable with (Danny Aiello) until she falls for his headstrong, angry brother (Nicholas Cage). The script is sharp with plenty of great lines, the acting is wonderful, the accents (I've been told) are letter perfect and the cinematography is beautiful. New York has never looked so good on the screen. A must-see primarily for Cher and Olympia Dukakis--they're both fantastic and richly deserved the Oscars they got. A beautiful, funny film. A must see! | 1 | trimmed_train |
1,186 | This remake of the 1962 orginal film'o the book has some very good parts to commend it and some fine performances by some fine actors - however Scorsese opts toward the end for the most formulaic of plot twists and an embarrassingly overacted shakespearean demise that had me looking at my watch.<br /><br />DeNiro is a superb actor, dedicated to giving his all in the work he does, however he needs direction to focus his talent, and this is sorely lacking in the last five minutes of the film.<br /><br />Gregory Peck's cameo is serviceable but nothing more whilst Robert Michum is always fun to watch, even with as few lines as this.<br /><br />Nick Nolte turns in a better performance than Lorenzo's Oil but is not on the same form as "Weeds". Joe Don Baker has some great lines while Juliette Lewis proves yet again that talent sometimes skips a generation.<br /><br />Some good points? The start credits(!), the first view of Cody's back when doing dips in the prison, the scene where Cody is attacked with baseball bats, Sam Bowden's decent into full-fledged panic, Cody's outwardly calm but unnerving prescence.<br /><br />The worst? The "Cleaning woman - BUT NOT REALLY!!!" part. Clinging bare-handed to the underside of a car for a hundred miles at high speed. (Are there no speed bumps in the US?) The "He's dead - BUT NOT REALLY!!!" partS and the aforementioned rambling ending.<br /><br />I may watch the original again, but I've yet to be tempted to watch the remake in four years since seeing it. | 0 | trimmed_train |
8,612 | I'll start by apologizing to filmmakers everywhere for using the terms "filmmaker", "film", or "movie" in connection with this, but "criminal" and "crime against humanity" seem a bit harsh.<br /><br />The writing: pathetic.<br /><br />The directing: pathetic.<br /><br />The acting: pathetic.<br /><br />The cinematography: too inept for words.<br /><br />The technical skills used to assemble this atrocity: NONE WHATSOEVER.<br /><br />This lump of waste could hardly be called cinema. The majority of family home movies come closer to earning that distinction than Revenge Quest. No, this is just a 10 car pile-up caught on video.<br /><br />We'll skip the plot in this review, because there are far too many holes to be covered at once. Let's just say that it stinks worse than the rest of this movie. To call the acting one-dimensional would be giving them credit. What little there is, is atrocious to begin with, and made much worse by the terrible video and editing.<br /><br />The worst part of this atrocity, though, apart from the plot, would have to be the effects... or rather the disturbing lack thereof. There are no blanks in the guns, no flashpots, and what few sound effects existed were either stock "gun" sounds, or they were generated by mouth (yeah, you read that right). The filmmaker actually had the audacity to record a "shh" sound for the elevator doors; I guess he felt it made them sound more futuristic. This is supposed to be set in the year 2031, after all. That doesn't explain the sounds he created by mouth for the fist-fight scenes, however.<br /><br />If it wasn't bad enough that the sound quality is terrible (he just used the microphone that was mounted on the video camera, and it shows), the use of stock gun sounds was almost worse than not using any sounds at all. The sound effects stand out from the rest of the soundtrack like a drunken yak in a herd of sheep, and they're just as clumsy. Picture this: The bad guy enters an office building searching for his prey. A lady starts to run in fear. He raises his gun (an uzi), and shakes it. We hear a sound that is clearly not an uzi. The woman runs away from camera, and suddenly a single blood pack (only 1) explodes on her back (looked like she was hit by a paintball), and she falls flat on her face.<br /><br />Bear in mind that my description does far too much justice to the ineptitude of the actual sequence.<br /><br />In another sequence, one which almost- but not quite- makes the movie funny enough to watch, takes place in a stairwell. The bad guy chases the good guy and the lady he's protecting down the stairs, shaking his plastic uzi all the way. You may wish to duck; there are badly timed sound effects flying all over the place.<br /><br />I supposed Alan DeHerrera can't be locked away for conceiving of this train wreck, but he did follow through all the way to editing and releasing it. If there's any justice, there's bound to be some karma out there with his name on it.<br /><br />Should you decide to watch this lump of industrial waste- and I would strongly advise against it- be sure to watch for the entire scenes lifted nearly verbatim from Bladerunner, and the AM radio that doubles as a walkie-talkie. Try not to focus too hard on the plot; it will only hurt you more if you do.<br /><br />0 stars of 10. And that's being generous. | 0 | trimmed_train |
20,631 | I first saw this movie when I was a freshman in high school, and the film has stuck with me through the years. It's not about the soundtrack, or cinematography, or even the dialogue and somewhat bad acting, it's about the educational purpose, and the message behind that is the most important. It's not a sin to have a child when you're a teenager and still in high school, and it's not really a bad thing, either, but it is a problem. Tons of girls I knew are all having children now, and I guess they never watched this great movie, and if they did, they clearly didn't get the message behind it all. It's about not taking chances when you're in a sexual relationship. Any girl can get pregnant the first time. It's not a myth. You don't necessarily lose out on your dreams, but they do have to take a backseat in your future because you have a child to think about first.<br /><br />This movie has a clear message behind it: JUST SAY NO! | 3 | trimmed_train |
2,639 | I was so disappointed in this movie. I don't know much about the true story, so I was eager to see it play out on film and educate myself about a little slice of history. With such a powerful true story and great actors it seemed like a surefire combination. Well, somewhere the screenplay failed them. It was so scattered - is this movie about his childhood? his love life? his own disability? his speaking ability? his passion for the disabled? I'm sure there is a way to incorporate all of those things into a good story, but this movie wasn't it. I was left cold watching characters that were unlikable not because of their disabilities, but because of their personalities. Other small gripes: 1. The heavy-handed soundtrack. It's the seventies - WE GET IT ALREADY! 2. If he's such a phenomenal public speaker, why weren't we treated to more than a snippet here and there - and even then mostly in montages? | 2 | trimmed_train |
6,479 | The box for "To Die For" suckered me in -- a shirtless hunky guy and the promise of some laughs and sex. There was plenty of Thomas Arklie (Simon), who's easy on the eyes, but no laughs and little sexiness.<br /><br />The couple, Mark and Simon, have allegedly been together several years, but neither character is interesting enough to care about, so it's hard to imagine that they care about each other. The fault seems to lie in the script, not the performances; both actors do the best they can with what they're given. <br /><br />The ending is sappy and unaffecting (well, not totally unaffecting; I felt relief that it was over). <br /><br />If you're looking for a movie about gay relationships and AIDS that's funny, "Parting Glances" is far better. | 2 | trimmed_train |
2,100 | Here's one you can watch with a straight face, with a script so bad, even Will Ferrell wouldn't be in it.<br /><br />There are two laughs in HOT ROD.<br /><br />1. The Punch-Dance. Rod "needs to go to his quiet place" and before anyone can say Kevin Bacon, he is footloosing a passionate, overwrought bodyswerve to the strains of a band who wishes they had the big-hair faux-metal chops of Europe.<br /><br />2. John Farnham's You're The Voice. In one of those epic sequences where the star and his cohorts do The Slomo Walk down Main Street and the townfolk follow on their heels in support, the soundtrack is the gag. How did the film-makers even come across this Aussie recording artist? A major Australian vocalist (and a genuine talent) who shot to fame in the early '70s covering Raindrops Keep Fallin' On My Head, then disappeared until 1986 for The Big Comeback with You're The Voice, John Farnham's anthem is so bewitchingly cheesy, it leveled mountains in Switzerland.<br /><br />Besides these two high points in the film - both ruined anyway with the slipshod writing - the rest of the film is like choking on someone else's vomit.<br /><br />Andy Samberg is Rod, a failed stunt jumper who has never made a jump. Maybe it's got something to do with the fact he's driving a moped into the heart of darkness. Or his fake mustache. Yeh, someone actually thought that was funny.<br /><br />Without one jump under his starry belt, he plans for a 15-bus extravaganza - which would surely kill a lesser bad comedian, like Jason Biggs or Rob Schneider - to win the day and save his stepfather and simultaneously wipe out cancer and whatever... who watches these movies for plot anyway? Along the way (as usual for moronic leads in these comedies), he scores a salubrious chick (Isla Fisher), who must surely be retarded to consider swapping chromosomes with this loser.<br /><br />Sissy Spacek (CARRIE, 1976) has so little to do she almost phoned in her performance - then changed her mind and just hung up. Ian McShane must've lost a bet to be here. | 0 | trimmed_train |
5,951 | I am, as many are, a fan of Tony Scott films. When this movie came out I had high hopes that it would be like 'Man On Fire'. To find out that the movie it's the furthest thing from it! The story was treading water from the get go, and the choice of Mickey Rourke was not such such a good idea. And the whole 'arm'scene was too gratuitous! <br /><br />The movie is centered around Kiera Kinghtly, and this movie reveals that she'll never become a movie star! The movie brought some of the worst acting ever.<br /><br />I like Tony Scott's direction 'n all, but this takes the whole friggin cake! Sorry Ton, 1 out of 10! | 0 | trimmed_train |
4,504 | Fans of creature feature films have to endure a lot of awful movies lately. Blood Surf shamelessly joins the list of stupid, redundant pulp-horror titles about ridiculously big animals that want to turn the food chain upside down. Crocodiles are particularly successful as we already had to struggle our way through the abysmal 'Crocodile' (directed by a disappointing Tobe Hooper) and 'Lake Placid'. Blood Surf is every bit as bad as these other films and on top of that it likes to exaggerate tremendously. The saltwater-crocodile supposedly is 90 years old, over 30 ft long (!) and it kills for fun! During the film, he amuses himself by devouring a bunch of utterly stupid surfer-dudes & dudettes who came to seek new thrills by surfing in a shark-congested area. The only beautiful aspect about this film is the tropical location. Even though it's a completely inappropriate setting for a film like this, the lagoons and nature looks marvelous. Every other aspect is simply disastrous. There's a quite a bit of gore but it all looks fake and laughable. The dialogues are downright painful to listen to! You won't believe some of the lines these actors have to say! I know surfers are supposed to be a mentally underdeveloped group but I hope for their own sake they're not that stupid! Early in the film, one of the characters refers to Jaws as being a 'mechanical toy' but the croc here looks at least 10 times less real than Spielberg's great white shark. The visual effects in 'Blood Surf' are amateurish and the massacres fail to impress. I won't say too much about the acting since it's secondary in flicks like this. The girls look sexy in wet shirts and their boobs joyfully bounce while running away from the beast. You guessed right: Blood Surf is a very bad film. So bad it becomes fun again. But 'funny' for a whole other reason than James Hickox intended. | 2 | trimmed_train |
5,634 | this seemed an odd combination of Withnail and I with A Room with a View.. sometimes it worked, other times it did not. tragedy that they changed the name for the US release though.. Keep the Apidistra Flying is much better than the nothing title A Merry War. acting was okay, script was okay.. overall it was a mediocre film.. | 2 | trimmed_train |
6,071 | Basically there's a family where a little boy (Jake) thinks there's a zombie in his closet & his parents are fighting all the time.<br /><br />This movie is slower than a soap opera... and suddenly, Jake decides to become Rambo and kill the zombie.<br /><br />OK, first of all when you're going to make a film you must Decide if its a thriller or a drama! As a drama the movie is watchable. Parents are divorcing & arguing like in real life. And then we have Jake with his closet which totally ruins all the film! I expected to see a BOOGEYMAN similar movie, and instead i watched a drama with some meaningless thriller spots.<br /><br />3 out of 10 just for the well playing parents & descent dialogs. As for the shots with Jake: just ignore them. | 2 | trimmed_train |
5,327 | A couple move into their dream home, unaware that it and its neighbours have been built over land formerly used as a cemetery. The film is said to have been based on a true story, although how much of it is supposed to be true is not disclosed. The plot is hardly unique - see Spielberg's 'Poltergeist' (1982). Within a short time, they experience various supernatural phenomena: these range from the disturbing - mysterious shadows, the serious illness of the daughter - to the frankly ridiculous - toilets continually flushing and garage doors going out of control. There is little depth to the story: once it has become established that the land had been used as a cemetery, we do not learn anything more. The plot does not seem to develop. The characters are not particularly well drawn or in any way memorable, nor is the atmosphere particularly special. The film could be disturbing to some viewers. There is no sense of catharsis or any kind of positive message from it. | 0 | trimmed_train |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.