id
int32 0
25k
| text
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| label
int64 0
3
| Generalization
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
188 |
I was always curious about this film because it is so tough to find, so when I stumbled upon it on Ebay I forked over the $10 and bought it, now I understand why its so rare! This film is SO bad, so terribly written and hopelessly low budget that the ending credits, which show all of the cut scenes where they fumbled their lines, are literally the movie's highlight. The film is about a psychic (Pettyjohn, cast for one obvious reason, her topless scene) whom uses her powers with an experimental machine to pull objects from another dimension into this reality. When she pulls in some kind of box like object the military nonchalantly throws it into the open back of a truck with one soldier to guard it, and gee, what do you know? SURPRISE! A kid in a foam-rubber monster costume pops out, instantly kills the soldier with a scratch across his face, then escapes to a nearby city. But rather than deploy half the armed forces of the county to find it and protect the public those in charge just leave it up to Pettyjohn and Ray to find it on their own, but no matter, this movie blows all its credibility LONG before then. This barely escapes being voted a 1 by me only because of unintentional laughs, somebody needs to alert the producers of "Mystery Science Theater 3000" if they don't know about it already! 2 out 10, really, REALLY bad!
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
7,272 |
[I saw this movie once late on a public tv station, so I don't know if it's on video or not.]<br /><br />This is one of the "Baby Burlesks" (sic) that Shirley Temple did in the early 1930s. It is hard to believe that anyone would let their daughter be in this racy little film which today might just be considered this side of "kiddie porn".<br /><br />Shirley Temple stars in a cast which probably has an average age of 5. They are all in diapers, and are in a saloon which serves milk instead of alcohol. The "cash" is in the form of lollipops.<br /><br />Shirley playing a "femme fatale" sashays up to the bar and talks to soldiers who make suggestive comments about her (!). But Shirley doesn't need really their lollipops/cash because her purse is full of ones from other "men".<br /><br />Meanwhile a little black boy does a suggestive dance on a nearby table (!).<br /><br />What a strange film . . . infants using racy dialogue playing adult roles in a saloon. Who thought up this stuff any way?
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
19,242 |
This is a trio of tales, "Shakti", "Devi", and "Kali", about an experimental commune (or some such thing) called the Taylor-Eriksson group, which took people on journeys inside themselves and into the realm of the unknown, and left a bit of damage here and there, I'd say. Many years later some of that damage is still lurking and waiting for the right moment to show itself. Shakti tells the tale of a woman whose husband died mysteriously, in fact, he was torn apart, and the suspect was a man that may not have existed. Seems this woman is able to project some inner demon, or so finds out the sister of the man who was killed when she attempts to talk to this woman while posing as a reporter. Devi tells the tale of a young man who wants to "jump out of his skin". He's a skinhead, a speed freak, and is sent to see a psychiatrist who just happens to be a former member of this commune, which results in the good doctor helping the young man to realize his desire. This is probably the best of the three segments. Kali tells the tale of a healer, who attempts to "heal" this woman who was a part of this commune and lets loose some kind of demon that has lived in this woman, but one wonders if he did it or if SHE loosed it because it could not survive in her any longer. All three of these tales are pretty creepy and suspenseful because you're never really sure what to expect, and the premise and the settings are so unlike those of conventional horror films that it adds to the strangeness. This has a sort of low-budget look and feel to it but it also manages to conjure up a pretty creepy atmosphere throughout, much to its credit. I watched this with my mouth hanging open a good portion of the time and when the real scares (and gore) came it hit pretty hard. I found this to be a very interesting and disturbing film and liked it a lot. A good little find, this one, I'd give it 8 out of 10.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
15,052 |
I just watched "The Last Wave" in my school's fine arts library. It's intriguing, like all Peter Weir's stuff, but it's not always as attention-holding as I would have liked. I found myself fascinated by the ideas being thrown at me (because they are very well handled by the film's director Weir)but at the same time I was not stimulated enough by them. AKA I got a little bored in spots.<br /><br />The plot surrounds an Aussie lawyer who becomes obsessed with certain dreams he has which link him to an Aborigone group he is defending.<br /><br />It starts out with an intense weather sequence and has some very awesome mood effects throughout (most notably the bizarre, "belching" sound design)and strong direction; but it just didn't entertain me like Weir's later films do. I might just need to watch it again though.<br /><br />Good film about obsession and mystery. Because, in the end, the mystery that exists between the whites and the Aboriginies offers some very severe consequences.<br /><br />God bless Peter Weir, though. For him alone this film is worth watching ... very organic director. Like an Aussie response Malick! I'd give it a 7 because it's got enough great ideas to overcome its boring moments.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
3,996 |
The premise sucked me in, but it was clear about 30 seconds in that this was either David Lynch or something seriously terrible. Interesting to watch just to run through the fundamentalist laundry list. I can be a sucker for a stirring spiritual piece (Romero comes to mind), but there was nothing spiritual whatsoever about this one. The message seems to be that we must all pretend we have an iq of 80 (or simply get a lobotomy - Jennifer what happened to ya?) and blindly follow the Bible without any sort of self-examination whatsoever or we'll trigger the second coming. It's the kind of attitude that makes people fly jumbo jets into 110 story buildings (I work around the corner from the site of the former WTC). I like to think that God is a little greater than that.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
14,220 |
The Ogre doesn't seem to have won itself a very good reputation since its release in 1988, and I guess a reason for that may be down to the fact that it was given the subtitle 'Demons 3' in order to help it sell better. Well, the film is directed by Lamberto Bava; the man behind the first two Demons films, and ogres and demons are somewhat alike (in that they're both 'monsters' anyway)...but other than that, this film has no connections to the other two films. It is, however, rather good! Italian filmmakers are famous for ripping off popular films, and while it's not completely obvious; it seems to me that this one has taken a fair bit of influence from Hellraiser. The plot focuses on a female horror writer who moves with her husband and son to a castle in Italy. She is haunted by memories from when she was a child and found an Ogre living in her basement. It's not long after moving into the castle before these visions return...and it may be more than just a coincidence as she comes to believe there's a murderous ogre living in the basement.<br /><br />The film was obviously shot on a budget and it was made for Italian TV, so it would be unrealistic to expect something brilliant; but for what it is, this is certainly a very decent horror film. Lamberto Bava may not have as keen an eye as his father Mario did; but he takes time in building up a foreboding atmosphere that really compliments the film well. The central setting, a large castle, makes the perfect place for a story like this to take place in and Lamberto makes the best of it; even if it does involve ripping off superior films at times; such as the Inferno-style pool scene. The plot itself is not quite as good as the atmosphere as several scenes are drawn out far too long and the relationship between the characters is rather strange (particularly between the husband and wife). There's not a great deal of bloodshed, but Bava does get to do a little bit with the special effects. The ogre itself looks really silly and it's a good job that we don't get to see it very often. We do boil down to a fitting, if highly predictable, ending and overall I have to say that this film is much better than expected and comes recommended.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
15,262 |
Farrah Fawcett gives an award nominated performance as an attempted rape victim who turns the tables on her attacker. This movie not only makes you examine your own morals, it proves that Fawcett can excel as a serious actress both as a victim and victor.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
19,784 |
I'm a rather pedestrian person, with somewhat lowbrow tastes. However, I occasionally try to raise the bar on my cultural awareness. This movie was one of my attempts. I was in awe throughout the entire movie. I liked it so much that I got my own tape so I could see it again. This is a very thoughtful and emotionally striking movie. I saw it as a huge question to the viewer: What is the depth of sacrifice to duty one can accept, can be asked to accept, should accept? As a military member, this is of course an important question to me. This question weighs heavily on the viewer of this movie.<br /><br />Recommended.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
20,796 |
Firstly, I have heard great things about this film, not least among the retro/vintage scene and the stockings lovers who absolutely love Bettie Page and it did not disappoint. Shot in very clean black and white with colour added for key scenes, the film gives a documentary feel to the early life and career of Bettie Page.<br /><br />There are many things I did not know about Page. Firstly, there was the gang rape, later on, there is her early attempts at developing an acting career and then glamour pictures, firstly with a camera club peopled with men who can't get enough of her and later with the Klaws, Paula and Irving, who despite their taking of bondage and fetish photos, come across as extremely pleasant and friendly people. If only modern pornography producers were like that, perhaps better porn would be a consequence! For the most part, the film is neither a diatribe against the evils of pornography but an attempt to show the kind of environment that existed in the 1950s for those producing fetish and nude pictures of women. This environment was extremely repressive, perhaps in a good way because it meant that there was none of the 'saturation' effect that we have today, when it comes to pornography. It also appeared to be much less harsh. Page comes across as someone who enjoys her work and doesn't appear to be degraded by it. In many of her photos she is seen tied up and gagged (and trying to hold a conversation), brandishing a whip with a flourish, thus exciting the photographers taking her pictures and seen in 'initiation style' girlie bondage movies which look quite tame compared with the hardcore stuff we have now.<br /><br />Page never became an actress and instead deserted pinup when she was in her thirties for 'Jesus Christ'. Her belief in God and Jesus never goes away, even when bound and gagged she still insists that she has been given a 'gift' by God to do 'this thing'. Seeing this film, I am more knowledgeable about Page and in awe at her modesty, beliefs and demeanour. She is one of a kind, compared with the identi-kit clone blondes we have today and someone who can actually say 'There is life after porn'.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
37 |
MINOR SPOILERS!<br /><br />Well i just sat up late and watched this film, mainly because i enjoyed and rated some of Singleton's earlier work like "Boyz n the hood". However, i have to say this was a major disappointment and is everything i hate about contrived, clichéd, so-called "message" movies. <br /><br />The acting is mainly poor,(pop stars and models do NOT necessarily make good actors...take note), the situations hard to swallow, (rape victim becomes overnight lesbian?...please!), but worst of all it reinforces every screwed up stereotype you can think of. By the second half of the film it has become cartoon like in its characterisation, making you lose any shred of empathy you may have had for its one-dimensional players.<br /><br />Not once is any valid point made about the inherent causes of racism and cultural, sexual and political ignorance. As a result it merely ends up sensationalising the results of these problems. It's message is contradictory, resulting in a sense of confusion and a general lack of plot cohesion. As for the films conclusion i found it predictable, embarrassing, exploitative and mildly offensive. For a film called "Higher Learning" i have to say all i learned is to avoid seeing this ever again.<br /><br />If you want a true comment on some of the themes that this film completely fails to elaborate upon then go hire "American History X"....unless you were just watching it for Tyra Banks then go hire a life.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
15,376 |
The only explanation I can muster as to why this film isn't widely distributed is because it hits too close to home for some. This movie was a genuine happy surprise, the satire is genius. This film turns the lights on in the dark that is organized religion and big media, and the roaches scurry for cover. Rent the DVD and watch it for yourself if you haven't yet, this film succeeds where many have failed (Dogma comes to mind) to poke it's nose under the tent, both by using humor and very clever analogies coupled with telling backdrops and locations. Can't comment in depth without revealing some significant spoilers, there are some surprises in this film which even the seasoned film buff will be caught off guard by.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
15,701 |
The fourth in the "Dirty Harry" series, this film features one of the most despicable, ugliest, unlikable, profane, disgusting females I have ever seen on film: "Ray Perkins," played by Audrie Neenan. She is the modern nasty low-life version of the 1945 "Detour" character, "Ann Savage."<br /><br />Her foul mouth and gutter attitude turned me off so much I never watched this film again until I acquired a profanity filter which shut her up....and least some of her! Then I could enjoy the rest of the movie.<br /><br />Everywhere "Harry Callahan" (Clint Eastwood) goes, violence immediately follows.....within minutes! It happens so often it's almost laughable but it makes for a fast-moving, entertaining film with a satisfying ending as all the scumbag villains are eliminated one-by-one.<br /><br />This is a very sophomoric film that appeals to our base instincts.....and connects, sad to say. Most of us like to see these dirtballs get it in the end, and who does it better than Dirty Harry?
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
10,569 |
This is the worst show. Buntch of grown up acting like kids no humor nothing. Even Sesame Street has better humor and more adult than friends "Friends" may be the worst thing I've ever seen on television and I've been sitting in front of the tube observing Friends" simply does not stack up well to other, contemporary series. It lacks the smartness of "Seinfeld" and the wonderful self-ridicule of pomposity that is the hallmark of "Frasier". The characters in "Friends" seem designed to make them repellant dullards. This incestuous group of neighbors makes my flesh crawl.<br /><br />The unintelligent show is completely without an edge of any sort. The characters are caricatures of caricatures and the writing is sophomoric -- though intentionally so. (It might be interesting to observe a writing session since the writers may have to slave to aim lower than their capabilities so as not to confuse the loyal friends of "Friends".)
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
12,159 |
Wow. What a terrible adaptation of a beautiful novel. Here are just a few gripes. - The screenwriter eliminated two major characters from the book. - Plot has been grotesquely altered. - Voiceovers sound as if they were directly lifted from written passages (which may read well but are not the same when spoken, especially with Chabon's writing style). - The acting is more wooden than a log cabin. (Esp. Bechstein) - This is supposed to be set in 1983??? Feels more like 2003... <br /><br />To be fair I couldn't bring myself to finish watching this movie, so it's possible that it redeemed itself... (sarcasm). I truly hope that no one paid to see this, or at least anyone who read the book hoping for something decent (a la Wonder Boys). I like Chabon as a writer but he should be ASHAMED of this adaptation.<br /><br />No stars.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
20,780 |
This Raggedy Ann and Andy Movie is so adorable. We love watching Ann and Andy sing and dance, along with the camel with the wrinkled knees. This movie is what made the Camel with the Wrinkled Knees so popular, singing his song, "I'm nobodies I Love You". If you love Raggedy Ann and Andy Watch the movie and you will see why it's a movie the kids love, and adults!
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
21,643 |
Ever since I remember, I have loved airplanes and flying. I am now in college with a private pilot's license and looking to become a commercial. I could never remember why I was so obsessed with the subject until I came across my old Tail Spin tapes in my basement at home and it hit me, this was it. My parents bought every single tape they had and this was the only show I would watch as a kid. I had the theme memorized as I grew up and I can still re-cite it today. It is absolutely amazing and I plan on buying the DVD's soon! It really is great for children and adults and is absolutely timeless. I cannot get enough of this show.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
19,410 |
I watched this movie expecting what I got: good sci-fi cowboy stuff. What really surprised me was that Kurt Russell did such a great job with an extremely limited role.<br /><br />Imagine trying to act under these two restraints: you have hardly any dialogue, and because you are playing a hardass, military robot, you are not allowed to show emotions using facial expressions! Howzat? Kinda like asking a diva to perform a great aria while gagged and duct-taped. In spite of being verbally and expressionally handcuffed, Russell pulls off an incredible characterization. His robot becomes human, in spite of the constraints. Great job!<br /><br />As usual, Jason Isaacs insures that he will go down in history as a great portrayer of the consummate villain--the one you'd love to see drawn and quartered. Connie Nielsen was sweet, soft, motherly, and gorgeous. I'm not sure how much of my impression is based on her acting and how much on her physical beauty, but it was hard to take one's eyes off her. Unfortunately, Gary Busey's role was too small and limited. <br /><br />Much of the plot is quite standard, with a fair amount of weaknesses, but as it does have a sci-fi comic book feeling, I don't see what's wrong with a few weaknesses. By the end of the story the good guy wins, and the appreciative audience receives a great deal of emotional satisfaction. Yes!<br /><br />The sort of feeb who thinks that Russell didn't do a good job of acting is the same sort of feeb who missed the whole point.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
352 |
The concept of the legal gray area in Love Crimes contributes to about 10% of the movie's appeal; the other 90% can be attributed to it's flagrant bad-ness. To say that Sean Young's performance as a so-called district attorney is wooden is a gross understatement. With her bland suits and superfluous hair gel, Young does a decent job at convincing the audience of her devout hatred for men. Why else would she ask her only friend to pose as a prostitute just so she can arrest cops who try to pick up on them? This hatred is also the only reason why she relentlessly pursues a perverted photographer who gives women a consensual thrill and the driving force behind this crappy movie. Watching Young go from frigid to full-frontal nudity does little to raise interest, but the temper tantrum she throws standing next to a fire by a lake does. Watching her rant and rave about her self-loathing and sexual frustration makes Love Crimes worth the rental fee, but it's all downhill to and from there. Despite her urge to bring Patrick Bergin's character to justice, her policing skills completely escape her in the throes of her own tired lust and passion. Patrick Bergin does a decent enough job as a slimy sociopath; if it worked in Sleeping With the Enemy it sure as hell can work in this. But I can't help but wonder if the noticeable lack of energy Young brings to the film conflicts with his sliminess. I'm guessing it does and the result is a "thriller" with thrills that are thoroughly bad and yet comedic.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
4,210 |
With Knightly and O'Tool as the leads, this film had good possibilities, and with McCallum as the bad guy after Knightly, maybe some tension. But they threw it all away on silly evening frill and then later on with maudlin war remnants. It was of course totally superficial, beautiful English country and seaside or not.The number one mistake was dumping Knightly so early on in the film, when she could easily have played someone a couple of years older, instead of choosing someone ten years older to play the part. They missed all the chances to have great conflict among the cast, and instead stupidly pulled at the easy and low-cost heartstring elements.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
18,723 |
I have been a Hindi movie buff since the age of 4 but never in my life have a watched such a moving and impacting movie, especially as a Hindi film. In the past several years, I had stopped watching contemporary Hindi movies and reverted to watching the classics (Teesri Kasam, Mere Huzoor, Madhumati, Mother India, Sholay, etc.) But this movie changed everything. It is one of the best movies I have ever seen. I found it not only to be moving but also found it to be very educational for someone who is a first generation Indian woman growing up in America. It helped me to understand my own family history, which was always something very abstract to me. But, to "see" it, feel it and understand it helped me to sympathize with the generations before me and the struggle that Indian people endured. The film helped to put many things into perspective for me, especially considering the current world events. I never thought that a movie could change the way I think like this before... it did. The plot is fantastic, the acting superb and the direction is flawless. Two thumbs up!
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
23,086 |
It's a cooking competition show, Americanized. It's not going to be the Japanese version.<br /><br />The show is great. I could care less about cooking but this show is just entertaining to watch... From the intensity put into the dishes by the chef to the goofy chairman. Truly a good way to spend some time watching TV. <br /><br />You could critique the show for having guests like Marc Ecko as a judge... But... Meh. It's entertaining enough to watch and generally the winner deserves the prize. <br /><br />Oh yeah and I'm bitter John Besh isn't the new Iron Chef... <br /><br />Ala Cuisine!
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
5,186 |
Going into this I was expecting anything really good, but after the damage this inflexed on me, I'm just happy to think strait. It's hard to think what the film-makers( HA!) this was a good movie. the stories, and I use the world loosely, are incoherent and do make any sense at all. There just stupid things that happen at random. the acting, if can be called acting is horrible I've seen batter acting in toy ads! I know it's a low-budget video-bin garbages, but still even it's not like they tried. Will after stetting thought it, I feel very sleepy and still #yawws# do, I'm going to go lie down.<br /><br />WARNNING: DO NOT ATEMP TO DRIVE, WALK, READ OR DO ANY AFTER Watching CHILLERS. OTHER SIDE AFFECTTS MAY ENGULED LOSE OF ANY OR ALL METAL FUNKIONS.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
3,103 |
As someone who lived through,and still remembers that decade vividly,if the actual '70s had been half this funny and (semi)normal,they would have been so much more enjoyable.Actual kids in that era did not act or behave anything close to as bright-eyed and normal as these kids did.The country's youth was still under the influence of the hippies and the drug culture all that '60s rebellion that it spawned,especially in the behavior department;the petulance,the smugness,the self-righteousness,the childishness,the unreasonableness of them - none of the characters exhibit any of that.<br /><br />Someone compared to "Happy Days",and I can see why:They were both sitcoms that take place 20 years before the current time they were broadcast,and they both offer only surface ,cliched depictions of the actual eras,not even close to the full scope of it,just showing the obvious things - the fashions,toys,music,contraptions,etc,and that's it.For those too young to remember,or weren't born then,trust me,the '70s weren't like that,any more than "Happy Days" were like the actual '50s,as "M*A*S*H*" didn't accurately portray life at a US Army medical base during the Korean War,etc.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
8,459 |
An archaeologist (Casper Van Dien) stumbles accidentally upon an ancient, 40 foot mummy, well preserved underground in the Nevada desert. They are determined to keep this a secret and call in a Jewish translator to assist in figuring out the history of it. The mummy, as explained at the beginning, is the son of a fallen angel and is one of several giants that apparently existed in "those days". In order to save his son from a devastating flood which was predicted to kill everything, he mummifies his son, burying him with several servants for centuries - planning to awaken him years from then. In our present, the fallen angels still walk the earth and the mummy is resurrected and a ritual is expected to take place. Most of the movie is slow, having to do with a lot of biblical crap and a couple lousy, air-punching fights. The mummy is decent looking but isn't shown nearly enough. It should have had more to do with that but it dragged on a great deal so... eh. Don't bother.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
17,871 |
Being the Beatlemaniac that I am, I approached Two Of Us with a combination of fear and fascination. Having seen 'In His Life: The John Lennon Story', I was quite concerned that Two Of Us will turn out no better. The fact that Aidan Quinn and Jared Harris look absolutely nothing like John Lennon and Paul McCartney even with some make-up and proper hairdos didn't help one bit.<br /><br />But I was more than a bit pleasantly surprised. It's probably thanks to the involvement of Michael Lindsay-Hogg, who directed Let It Be in 1970 and consequently probably knew John and Paul quite well, that the characters and the dialogue came across as convincing as they did. (The writing credit for Two Of Us is given to a man named Mark Stanfield, of whom I know absolutely nothing; I feel confident that director Lindsay-Hogg had more than a bit to do with the script.) Two Of Us is not a biography of the Beatles; it has very little plot, in fact, and takes place all in one day in New York City. What it does is imagine a meeting between John and Paul in 1976, while John lived in New York. That meeting is entirely fictitious, of course though it can't truly be disproved that such a meeting actually took place. But through that imagined conversation it gives us a glimpse into the personalities of these two great musicians their intelligence, their sense of humor, their different reaction to stardom, and most of all their relationship; what made them such a great team, and what broke them up.<br /><br />Since it's a talk movie, nothing much except for dialogue between two characters for an hour and a half, it's likely to bore all but true fans of the Beatles; but it's a fantastic piece of writing and storytelling, and is both informative and touching. For those interested in these two musical giants, very quickly you'll get over the shock of how different the actors look from their counterparts and feel like John and Paul had come to life so intimate and convincing is the script, and so committed are the actors. Two Of Us gives you priceless insight into the lives of two geniuses, and a tale that is both sad and funny. Most certainly recommended.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
10,908 |
It started out with an interesting premise. I always like Civil War stuff and ancient secret societies. The more the film progressed, the more I realized that this was a B movie at best. In the latter half, it quickly became a C movie, then D, then F, then "I wish that this wasn't a rental so that I could put it in the microwave!" I can't say that the acting in all cases was awful, just most. The writing, however... I never read the book. Maybe the book is well written. The screenplay was written by a 10 year old. It was ridiculously shallow, the dialog drab and uninteresting, the characters about as interesting as a 5 pound bag of fertilizer. I really hated this movie, as did my wife. I am a Christian and I have no problem with movies that promote or support Christianity. This movie did a great disservice to the cause. Awful, terrible, worthless. If you liked it, I strongly recommend Superman 4.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
22,944 |
'I only wanted to see you laughing in the Purple Rain.' This is an excell film. It should have been re-rated to PG-13. But anyways, Prince's first film and greatest. The follow-up sucked. But I haven't seen for years so here's what I can remember about it. The Kid (Prince) has to juggle with winning over the love of his life, Apollonia (herself), keeping his band together (The Revolution as themselves) and the tension in his family. But his rival band (The Time as themselves) is ruining his life. Like Morris (himself) is trying to steal Apollonia from The Kid. Just like Saturday Night Fever, Flashdance and 8 Mile. Really good. Rent it, laugh and cry and if you luv it, buy it.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
4,573 |
it was and a simpler time ( the seventies ), a simpler place ( San Francisco ), where a man could make a simple movie about a drug crazed psychotic re-Crucifixion of Christ as a woman on acid with never ending dream sequences and inter cut flashbacks while having a multi-racial inter gender orgies regardless of financial responsibilities or moral repercussion.<br /><br />this movie, tedious, slow, boring, is the worst example of the kind of pretentious heavy handed art school dreck that passed as art in the midst of the 70's. and i love it ! once this train wreck of endless slow motion zoom ins and heavy reverbed echo chamber acid guitar licks starts you can't take your eyes off of it until the ridiculous and absurd end. its kind of a cross between Jesus Christ superstar, beyond the valley of the dolls, and a really crappy acid trip with your parents on a water bed. its simultaneously a train wreck, completely fascinating, and also a great snapshot of the worst ( or best ) elements of b-grade seventies phychadelic film genre.<br /><br />the plot.<br /><br />I'll just tell you the plot because you will hardly be able to tell whats happening due to the constant cross edited flashbacks to events that may or may not have happened to characters that may or may not be themselves, and the face painted hippy freak nicks endlessly cavorting about in banal sequences of performance art level mime like street theater.<br /><br />"Logan" is a really annoying iconoclast film maker who yells at people allot and is surrounded by a mostly silent film crew who are always dropping acid and having what seem like really bad orgies. Richard Dreyfus has an ancillary role as what seems like the accountant. the film crew seems to hate him for some reason and break out into maniacal laughter perhaps to torment him. "Suzanne" the titular character is a willowy blond who stairs vacuously into space and comforts the totally insane "artist" character. "the artist" is going completely mad, by the way. either from his hamfisted overacting or the incredible awfulness of his paintings. all of course terrible nudes of Susanne. there are some other characters that randomly show up, a cigar chomping "the man" character. who also is all hot for Suzanne i guess. he has a monologue. i couldn't really ever figure out what he had to do with the story except everyone had to hate "the man" back then and you couldn't make a movie without one. there is also a mute girl. the mute girl pays off in the end trust me, its incredibly stupid.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
11,980 |
Saw this piece of work at a film fest in CA. My god, what was the director thinking? Film professors should use this film as a case study on what NOT to do when making a short film. First off, this project makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The film takes place partially in "The Waystation", some stupid vapid bar in the middle of nowhere, where nothing really takes place.<br /><br />THe acting is beyond bad. So bad in fact that I almost thought it was a comedy. The lead actress Julia Reading is a step below the acting in most amateur porn films. There is one or two decent performances, including the guys who played Jacob and Fenner but it's like the director had no clue on how to work or use his thespians. The only thing worse than the acting was the dialogue, which bordered on absurd. The writer (whom I assume is also the director) writes each character like they are auditioning for a comic book villain.<br /><br />The overall production value is pretty good, but to be honest, with a film this bad it's easy to overlook it. The production design is pretty good, although the Waystation looks like any ordinary bar. The costumes and make-up are okay, and I understand the production was working with a low budget. It's just when the characters speak, or they try and push the plot forward, the film unravels into a muck of crap.<br /><br />As I've said, this film is god awful. It's like the director/writer watched a lot of sci-fi films and threw all the parts he liked into a blender and came up with this. My only hope is that he used other people's money on this, because if he used his own, he's a total sucker.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
22,028 |
This one will get reviews all over the map because it doesn't comfortably fit any mold. It's horror-- but not a splatterfest. It's equal part Suspense as well as Horror-- yet without the usual Hollywood screams and jerky camera. <br /><br />The feel of the movie is spare and lean with next to no special effects because I think you should listen and watch the faces of the characters.<br /><br />Forget that Brendan is a graduate of the Buffy universe. That's a red herring. He IS acting here. 'Camp' is a misreading of the tone of this story. Adrienne Barbeau is giving a rock solid performance-- so she must believe the script has something to say. We all know the sorry excuses where the actors plainly don't care anymore and are just waiting for the director to snap "Cut" and get their paychecks. This is Not the case, here.<br /><br />Forgive the fact that the bodies begin to fall with almost mondo-funny regularity. I don't think the intent was humorous-- but to keep you off balance. <br /><br />Think of it less of a Horror 'Movie' and more of a Horror 'Play' on a stage-- that decrepit whitewashed house. Then you might see it's really about paranoia, fear, and spiralling madness set in an isolated someplace, USA.<br /><br />And it is twisty. Time travel, Mind Control, secret experiments and Nazi's who may NOT be dead. . .yet.<br /><br />I say rent it and give it a try if you're in the mood for something a little cerebral. This would be a good choice for a Saturday Midnight sit down.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
20,325 |
This final Voyager episode begins 23 years in the future. Voyager has made it back home. In the many years it took to return tho, the Vulcan Tuvoks' mind has been destroyed. He carried a disease they were too late getting home to cure.<br /><br />Captain Janeway comes across aliens who have time travel technology. She realizes, there's a Warp Conduit in the Delta Quadrant that could bring Voyager home immediately - if she could go back in time and notify Voyager. There's one problem. The Conduit is deep inside Borg Space.<br /><br />Janeway visits Tuvok. He's like a child. He scribbles tho, obsessed, working on math problems or movie reviews or something, he's convinced are important somehow. In the institution, Tuvok cries, asking for 'Janeway' to please, please come back to him.<br /><br />Janeway decides to commandeer a federation shuttle and equip it with weapons technology 20 years ahead of the Borg, in the hopes of going back in time and using this new technology to guide Voyager to the Warp Conduit.<br /><br />When she goes back in time and links up with Voyager, Janeway meets her younger self. The two captains disagree, arguing about the plan. The real-captain visits Tuvok asking him if it's true he has a brain disorder. Tuvok admits it's true, but it can't be cured by the facilities on the ship so he's kept it to himself.<br /><br />The young Captain agrees to the older Captains' plan. To increase their chances of success the older Janeway plans to distract the Borg with her shuttle craft. The Borg actually capture Janeway and her shuttle. The Borg Queen personally assimilates Captain Janeway. But Janeway's expected this! the Borg Queen has assimilated a virus into herself that kills her. With the Borg Queen dead Voyager makes it thru the Warp Conduit back to federation space.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
10,566 |
...Or, more precisely, so bad that you are going to have the time of your life laughing your ass off when you watch it! James Sbardellati's "Deathstalker" of 1983 is certainly one of the most awful productions the Sword & Sorcery sub-genre has brought along, but it is highly amusing. The acting is terrible, the plot is pure crap, and the effects and photography couldn't be more amateurish. But it is the bad acting, the cheesy effects, and the many errors, that makes this movie so hilarious.<br /><br />- SPOILERS AHEAD -<br /><br />Deathstalker (Rick Hill) is an extremely strong and skilled warrior. One day, a good witch tasks him to unite the three powers of chaos and creation, a sword, an amulet and a chalice, in order to free the country from its brutal ruler, the evil king and sorcerer Munkar. Obtaining the sword is quite easy, but the amulet and the chalice are in Munkar's possession. Fortunately, the evil king has arranged a tournament in which the county's most skilled warriors fight each other until death. The winner is then to take the king's place. Of course, the king doesn't want anybody to take his place, an therefore he has planned to kill the winner (instead of just not arranging the tournament in the first place). Deathstalker is not only to obtain the the three powers of creation, but also to save the old, good king's gorgeous daughter (Barbi Benton) from the claws of evil Munkar. Luckily, he doesn't get bored on his way to the tournament, since he is allowed hump the gorgeous female warrior Kaira (Lana Clarkson) in the meantime...<br /><br />The film has many great, incredibly stupid and funny scenes. Some of my favorite scenes include: <br /><br />- Deathstalker beheads a bad guy with his sword. The head that falls down, however, is not that guy's head. The falling head has a red goatee, while the guy beheaded by Deathstalker had dark hair and no beard.<br /><br />- When the character of female warrior Kaira (Lana Clarkson) is introduced, she is first seen in a black robe, hiding her face and body. Deathstalker's traveling companion Oghris (Richard Brooker) fights her, and during the sword fight her robe (under which she is, of course topless) opens, exposing her breasts. Her breasts are the first thing we see of Lana Clarkson, even before her face.<br /><br />- The last warrior Deathstalker has to fight in the tournament, is a giant guy with the body of a man and the head of a pig.<br /><br />- Evil Munkar has an ugly little creature locked in a chest. He feeds that little creature human eyeballs and fingers.<br /><br />... There are many other unintentionally funny, hilarious, and great scenes. The acting is terrible but Barbi Benton and the late Lana Clarkson are eye-candy, and although I described this movie as 'unintentionally funny', I sometimes had the impression that some of the actors were absolutely aware of how crappy the movie is. There is a fair amount of gore, and lots of female nudity to keep the viewer entertained. "Deathstalker" is an incredibly awful movie, but I still highly recommend it. People with a sense of humor will have the time of their lives!
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
801 |
1st watched 4/29/2007 - 4 out of 10(Dir-Mick Garris): Campy vampire-like Stephen King movie has so many strange and goofy elements that you start laughing over the extreme weirdness about 3/4 the way into the movie and you wonder if this movie might have a cult following for King fans. It's the story of a mother and son who are sleepwalkers(a shape-shifting feline-like, flesh eating, life needing, near extinct breed of humanoid) who move from town to town searching for virgins to feed on to keep themselves alive. They come across as pretty normal upper-class folk except they are secret lovers and cats hang around the outside of their home, day and night. Cats are deadly to them, so they set traps in their yard to try and keep the population down. We get to see them break a couple of their necks when they attack(which is also a first in my movie-going experience) --- hopefully no real cats were harmed in the making of the film. The boy is after a sweet girl that he has a crush on until he turns into a "sleepwalker" and then he just wants her body. There is so much campy uniqueness to this movie that it might have been better if it was an all-out satirical comedy on suburban life, but the director instead tries to scare you every couple minutes until you wish he'd just get over it and bring out the gore. Eventually that happens and the movie winds down to it's typical Stephen King downbeat ending. The movie is interesting because King's humor comes thru more than usual but his weirdness is also very present and what you have is a movie that his fans will probably like and should have in their collection, but as a worthwhile movie experience it really doesn't cut it.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
12,295 |
Good actors and good performances can't mask a pointless script, bad dialogue, and patterns of behavior spiraling into nothing you'd care about. The most interesting character is David Berkowitz. No character development - no growth, no interest, just some suffering for no particular reason, teaching us nothing and not even bothering to entertain.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
1,779 |
Dark Wolf (Quick Review) Let's get right to it: This is a repugnant piece of rotting roadkill with cow sh*t on it. It's just an awful movie. It's an urban werewolf movie with some of the worst acting imaginable and a story as weak as any gangly nerd from an 80's high school drama film. What's worse is that poor Kane Hodder was duped into playing the gigantic evil werewolf. Kane f*cking Hodder. Someone's trying to ensure that playing Jason Voorhees is the height of his film career...<br /><br />Anyway, former Playmate Jaime Bergman is also in the movie and she eventually becomes a werewolf, too. It's kind of a crappy cop drama with the world's worst looking werewolf in it. But it does have moments of near-rampant nudity. But that's about all. Want to know more? Okay, the werewolf is generally an ugly-looking black blur zipping around the screen. And when we're privileged enough to actually see a transformation sequence, we're presented with something that resembles a full-motion video from a video game made during the early stages of the Playstation. The first Playstation. The CG animation is really that primitive. Only good for horror hardcore fanatics that want to see small moments of nudity surrounded by rampant visual vomit. 2/10<br /><br />www.ResidentHazard.com
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
17,509 |
Yesterday I attended the world premiere of "Descent" at the Tribeca Film Festival in NYC. I had a great time. It was sold out and attended by all the major stars including fellow my-spacer Marcus Patrick.<br /><br />I give the movie 7.5 starts out of a possible 10 stars.<br /><br />The movie begins with Maya (Rosario Dawson) at college. You can envision the typical college environment with wild parties and flirtations going on. The photography in this film was excellent. She meets Jared (Chad Faust) and they become sweethearts. It appears like any other relationship in the beginning. The man is in quest of the woman's attention and affection and the woman is playing hard to get. Both played this well. Very innocent flirtation between the two. He invites her to his apartment and everything falls apart.<br /><br />The apartment is very dreary and dark. They eventually end up in the basement which is extremely dark and lit by numerous candles. This actually reminded me of a dungeon. Here is where he shows his true colors and proceeds to rape her. This is a very dark and gritty rape scene. This scene is not for the young or weak at heart. The rape scene is a little long and hard to take, but it is necessary for the rest of the movie that follows.<br /><br />Maya now starts to lose her soul to drugs and sex. She falls into her own abyss. She starts attending the wildest of parties and wakes up one morning in a room with no recollection on how she got there. She is told to go see Adrian (Marcus Patrick). The first thing I remember about this character is that they say "he is the person who saves anyone who needs saving". He is actually the one who introduces Maya to drugs. They begin a relationship of dependency which comes into play later in the movie. The club scenes at this point of the movie are photographed with extreme expertise. I thought they were well done and I noticed that the director of photography was applauded at the end of the showing during the credits by the audience.<br /><br />Maya is then back in college as a TA and who is in her class -- Jared her rapist!! You could see the confusion and emotion on Maya's face. What should I do?? What do I do next?? The shots of her face and the emotions are priceless.<br /><br />What unfolds next is not actually whats happening. She acts interested in Jared. She appears to be looking to revive the relationship and be sweethearts again. I was sitting there saying could this really be happening. It wasn't. Nothing could be farther from the truth.<br /><br />She invites him to her apartment and of course, he shows up. Now her apartment is dark and gritty. She has him strip down completely. He thinks he's going to get "lucky". She then teases him like any woman can. She's caressing him everywhere and he's getting excited. Note:: for anyone who plans on seeing this movie this scene is full frontal nudity - may not be right for the younger viewer.<br /><br />She then turns the situation around and she becomes the beast and proceeds to rape him. Once again, the scene is dark, gritty, and very rough.<br /><br />If you are going to see the movie and don't want to know what happens next, skip this paragraph and go on to the last paragraph.<br /><br />This is where Adrian reenters the picture. Maya has Adrian save(?) her by performing extremely rough male sex with Jared. She thinks this is the final revenge. Adrian continues to take all of Jared's manhood and strips his dignity to nothing. Marcus, as Adrian, plays this scene as believable as anyone can. He is a strong actor playing a strong character and the strength comes out all over the screen. After the movie, during a Q&A session, Marcus explained that this scene required a lot of trust between him and Chad. Maya believes that this revenge will save her but I don't think it does. One of the final scenes has a closeup of Mays's face and you see a tear roll down her cheek. This was a fabulous closeup scene and evokes constant discussion from anyone who goes to see this movie. Did she get the revenge she wanted?? Was it as satisfying as she expected?? In my opinion, it does not. It only makes matters worse.<br /><br />This is an excellent movie, will well acted roles, and I recommend it to anyone who is thinking about going to see it. I would just be a little hesitant if under 17 years of age. Rosario, Chad, and Marcus should be commended for jobs well done. The directing and photography must also be commended. It was a night that I enjoyed.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
20,220 |
I have seen this movie a while back, after ordering it for my friend, who is a big Dominic Monaghan fan. The movie itself was very interesting, though it had its positive points, which for me was the Donnie Darko kind of "wtf?" factor after the movie had ended.<br /><br />Of course, with positive also come negative points. To me, the young girl in the film was incredibly good, and Dominic Monaghan did a good job as well. Unfortunately I don't have this opinion about Daniel Burke, who played Lonnie. This might just be me, and I'm not claiming to be a serious critic, in the way that I don't find myself skilled enough, but he just didn't seem convincing as an actor. But perhaps it's even more striking then, for although I am not a critic, this does get my attention.<br /><br />To conclude, over all I think it's definitely a film worth watching. It's interesting, confusing, and you just should have seen it.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
18,149 |
Having worked in downtown Manhattan, and often ate my lunch during the Summer days in the park near City Hall, I would see the mayor come and go. It was great being able to go beyond the doors of City Hall and see what it looked like in the lobby and through out the entire building. Al Pacino,(Mayor John Pappas),"Gigli",'03, gave an outstanding performance through out the entire picture, and especially when he gave a speech at an African American Church for a little boy who was slain. John Cusack,(Deputy Mayor Kevin Calhoun),"Runaway Jury",'03, was a devoted servant to the Mayor and worshiped him in everything he attempted to accomplish. Bridget Fonda,(Marybeth Cogan), starts to fall in love with Kevin Calhoun and gives a great supporting role. Last, but not least, Danny Aiello(Frank Anselmo),"Off Key",'01, played a mob boss who had some very difficult choices to make towards the end of the picture! Great film with great acting and fantastic photography in NYC!
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
9,727 |
THE WATERDANCE (1991) The main character of The Waterdance, played by Eric Stoltz, finds himself in a rehab center with some others similarly injured. And there he must face an harsh new life, confined to a wheelchair. It's an interesting, and promising premise, but unfortunately, it fails to deploy. What ensues instead is largely Hollywood schmaltz, with some interesting moments. Certainly the cast (Eric Stoltz, William Forsythe, Wesley Snipes, et al) is brilliant, and perform well here as one would expect, but their talents are wasted. The characters are mainly stereotypes of one kind or another, and most of them are thoroughly unlikeable (the Snipes character being the exception). I suppose this is some kind of attempt to break through people's ideas about the handicapped being "crippled" or "weak", by depicting them, for the most part, as in-your-face pricks, but it makes for an entirely annoying experience. Admittedly it will show you something of what those with permanent disabilities go through, in a way that is not softened or romanticized, which is useful, and a good idea, but while the process being depicted can make one a difficult person to get along with, and that's worth dealing with, it is not part and parcel to that that these characters must be, to varying degrees, despicable. They wouldn't have to be Disneyfied, either; surely there's a middle ground somewhere. By the film's conclusion, the Eric Stoltz character has come to accept his status as a handicapped person, but since he is such a flaming narcissistic monster from the beginning of the film to the end, we couldn't care less. <br /><br />In addition to its character problems, the film suffers from that weird syndrome that so many Hollywood movies suffer from; the syndrome doesn't really have an official name, but you might call it "Inexplicable Forgiveness Syndrome". It goes something like this: characters abuse the crap out of each other, and then without so much as an apology, all is forgiven (an especially obnoxious example of this is in the movie The Breakfast Club, in which one character spends most of the film verbally bullying everybody within earshot; as a result
they love him. In one of the the latest examples, Spiderman 3, supervillain The Sandman lays waste to a chunk of Manhattan, then wails on Spiderman for what seems like about 15 monotonous minutes before being waved off with what amounts to "bye, now"). The most egregious example of IFS in The Waterdance is a sequence in which, after being called the n-word by William Forsythe's racist biker character and his friends in the previous scene, the Wesley Snipes character whoops it up with the same Forsythe character in the next scene, as if nothing had just happened just a short time hence. Again, without so much as an "Oh yeah, sorry about that business back there where I, you know, called you the n-word". It makes me wonder, do these people actually watch these movies before they release them, or do they just film them with their eyes closed, kind of slap them together in the editing room according to scene number, and call it a day's work?
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
1,936 |
Oh dear, Oh dear. I started watching this not knowing what to expect. I couldn't believe what I was seeing. There were times when I thought it was a comedy. I loved how the government's plan to capture the terrorist leader is to air drop in one man, who is unarmed, and expect him to capture him and escape with a rocket pack. If only it were really that easy. I've finally found a movie worse than "Plan 9 From Outer Space".
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
7,534 |
I'm sure deep in the recesses of Jack Blacks mind the character of Nacho Libre is absolutely hilarious but no it isn't. You can tell ol Jacks having a whale of a time hammin it up playing a smarmy, slimy Mexican friar with dreams of becoming a wrestler but this movie is a total misfire in just about every single department.<br /><br />I just sat there through most of the movie thinking "Is this supposed to be funny" and "This is the guy from Tenacious D right?". The truth is this film has NOTHING to offer. AT ALL! It's a lousy script with crappy characters and really naff acting and direction. You'll watch endless moments where you think something funny is surely about to happen but it just doesn't. I was bored stupid about 10 minutes in but though it would surely pick up. It didn't. 90 minutes later I'd barely managed to stave off an aneurism it was that painful.<br /><br />It's like, remember years ago when you'd see anything with your fave actor in it, even some of their really early pap from before they were famous, and you'd be really embarrassed that said actor was actually in such a load of plop. Yeah it's like that.<br /><br />I've enjoyed some of Jack Black's earlier movies like Shallow Hall and I'm really looking forward to seeing Pick of Destiny but come on man. If you do this to us again Jack I'm gonna have to come round there and hammer your kneecaps or something. At the least give you a serious talking to.<br /><br />I know it's a cliché but this is one of the worst movies I've ever seen and for so many reasons....
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
19,237 |
Excellent political thriller, played much quieter and slower than other, higher ranking films in this genre. When people talk about Pacino and Cusack how do they manage to skip over these amazing career topping performances? A story of friendships, father-son relationships, corruption and deceit. The two actors gel amazingly well together, and the supports from Aiello and Fonda are equally as impressive, although Aiello is brilliant, especially when the papers run to press. Instead of focussing on an over complex corruption scandal, it creates wonderful characters who show the human side of failure an political bribery, The final scenes with each of the main characters are wonderfully written and acted.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
14,134 |
Normally, I don't watch action movies because of the fact that they are usually all pretty similar. This movie did have many stereotypical action movie scenes, but the characters and the originality of the film's premise made it much easier to watch. David Duchovny bended his normal acting approach, which was great to see. Angelina Jolie, of course, was beautiful and did great acting. Great cast all together. A must see for people bored with the same old action movie.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
20,402 |
This movie is excellent and I would recommend renting it for anyone whose local video store owns it. Or, even better, you could buy it because chances are you're going to watch this over and over. I can remember watching this movie as a kid and it was great back then. But after watching it again yesterday I've found it to be amazing.<br /><br />A good blend of comedy (although not as great as "Mr Magoo"-another one of my favorites) and action. This deserves 10/10 and I'm hoping that they will make a sequel soon (fingers crossed). If you do babysitting or have to look after young children for anything then I'd recommend renting this movie as it will keep them entertained for hours :).
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
6,920 |
Diana Muldaur appears on Star Trek for the second time, but this time as a different character. No one on board seems to notice--maybe it was the hair. Regardless, this time she is not the receptacle for a god (see the previous episode) but is a very famous lady with magical powers that enable her to communicate and see a Medusan without going crazy (the standard human response). Unfortunately, the man that is most in love with her is a few cards short of a full deck and he tries to kill the Medusan ambassador (who, oddly, lives in a small crate--this is a lousy way to travel). And, unfortunately, Muldayr isn't wound all that well herself. What happens next is kind of dumb and by the time the episode was over the first time I saw it, I was pretty relieved. Watching all the men on board go ga-ga over Muldaur was pretty silly and the acting of Spock when he briefly went crazy was pretty campy. Do yourself a favor--if you haven't seen the show before, pick a different episode.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
17,291 |
I like David Hamilton's artistic photographs of nude women at the border of womanhood, sometimes erotic, though never pornographic. Someone else liked them, too, because my David Hamilton books were stolen. In one book were seen a few pictures of a young boy, obviously nude, intimate with a young woman older than he, also nude. Though discrete, there was strong sexual connotation. New territory for David Hamilton which proved to be either stills from the movie Tendres Cousines or perhaps photos taken on set.<br /><br />The art of still photography unfortunately does not automatically translate to cinematography. Soft focus becomes out-of-focus and discrete angles become confusing, perhaps because, in motion, they cannot be considered. You either see it or miss it and there's no time to observe, to comprehend. The movie is supposed to be a farce, and funny things do happen, but it doesn't "hang together," perhaps because the story develops so slowly and one may wonder just what's going on. Eventually, the 14-year-old Julien has intercourse with his cousin, but it's soft core, with no genital contact shown on camera. Since it's a farce, we have a disappointing virgin and an embarrassing caught in the act gag and, having caught them, Julien's father even gives him a cigarette to complete the experience. In fairness, the film is in French and conforms to French cinematic forms, which may just be too subtle for most Americans even with English subtitles to help us Phillistines along.<br /><br />It's been suggested that this film is child pornography and that certainly results from today's climate where sexual exploitation of children is clearly a serious problem. Nobody in their right mind wants to endorse or appear to endorse the sexual abuse of children, so there's practically no room left for children to be seen in even the mildest erotic context without immediately activating alarms over sexual violence and exploitation. Guys will think "Lucky Julien!" even as they agree that sex and children in the movies is a "bad thing," all the while still wishing they could have been a Julien at that age. Women, too, may have similar thoughts, but all such considerations must be pushed out of one's conscious mind. Hysterically, the worst assumptions have become automatic and matters of children and sex are rigorously avoided. Too bad, since sexual awakening is a real human experience. Afer all, children do grow up and become sexual beings as Julien does. It's a fit literary subject, cinema included, but taboo under the threat of sexual violence against children. David Hamilton, I think, was taking a risk to make a movie on this topic even in 1980. He was somewhat successful at exploring this sensitive topic, and, unfortunately, we're unlikely to see better in the near future for fear of the child pornography label.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
22,466 |
Like most people, I've seen Jason Priestley on TV and I think he's great. But I didn't know he had a sister! Justine Priestley is simply "mah"velous as the scorned other woman. Good music, intrigue, and a death scene involving Amanda's revenge on an abusive Dr. that will stay with you for weeks. I'll leave it at that. Kudos.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
3,698 |
So, this movie has been hailed, glorified, and carried to incredible heights. But in the end what is it really? Many of the ways in which it has been made to work for a hearing audience on the screen do not work. The fairly academic camera work keeps the signing obfuscated, and scenes that are in ASL are hard to follow as a result even for someone who is relatively fluent. The voice interpretation of Matlin's dialogue, under the excuse that Hurt's character "likes the sound of his voice", turns her more and more into a weird distant object as the film goes on. Matlin does shine in the few scenes where her signing is not partially hidden from view. But nonetheless, most of the movie, when this is a love story, is only showed from a single point of view, that of the man. As Ebert said, "If a story is about the battle of two people over the common ground on which they will communicate, it's not fair to make the whole movie on the terms of only one of them."<br /><br />The idea that an oralist teacher who uses methods that have been imposed in many deaf schools for decades would be presented as "revolutionary" is fairly insulting in itself. His character becomes weakened as a credible teacher as the movie goes on. Drawing comedy from a deaf accent is, quite honestly, rather low. And his attitude towards the male students of his class is pretty symptomatic of how he seems to act with women: as an entitled man. A party scene involving a number of deaf people including a few academics meeting together leaves him seemingly isolated, in a way that's fairly inconsistent with his credentials: I have seen interpreters spontaneously switch to asl between each other even when they weren't aware of a deaf person being in the area, and yet somehow he feels like a fish out of the water in an environment his education should have made him perfectly used to. As a lover, he seems like a typical dogged nice guy, including his tendency to act possessively afterwards. And yet the movie is, indeed, only really seen through him, as everything his lover says is filtered through his voice. <br /><br />The scenes involving the other deaf kids are, in general, wallbangers. The broken symbolism fails, the dance scene, the pool scene, even the initial sleep scene which is supposed to carry some of it - all these scenes that try to hint at the isolation of the deaf main character are broken metaphors, at best: many hearing people I know do dance on the bass beats that deaf people feel (instead of squirming like copulating chihuahuas), and going to take an evening dive for a hearing person is rarely an excuse to make a deep statement on the isolation of deafness (no, seriously, when I go swim, I go swim)...<br /><br />It also fails at carrying the end of the play, instead making it a story of a deaf woman who submits to a strong man. Even though the original play ended with a more equal ground, where both have to accept each other as they are, and where he has to finally recognize her real voice is the movement of her hands, not the vibrations in her throat.<br /><br />And for all the breakthrough that it may have seemed to be, Marlee Matlin remains Hollywood's token deaf woman to this day.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
10,062 |
We have all been asking ourselves "why don't they remake the slasher films that were only OK instead of remaking the ones that were great already, that way they can only make it better?" well with Prom Night they have remade the average but trashy fun 80s Jamie Lee Curtis film and made it even WORSE. Its a paint by numbers slasher film which is clearly trying to attract the young teens (hence no violence etc), the knife in this slasher flick is blunt.The director spends so much time focusing on trying to make the rather attractive killer look somewhat creepy that anything else goes out of the window.The cast who include Britney Snow (who was superb in Hairspray) try their hardest but the material gives them nothing to do but pout and look scared.More annoying is how the death scenes are handled (we will hear the attack but wont see it). It also looks like the only place the knife in this film worked was in the editing suite since the film looks like it has been butchered (im guessing anything remotely scary ended up on the cutting room floor so as not to scare the kids) Yet in pours the money from Americans sending this film to number 1 at the box office!!! Slasher movies are a lot of fun but in Prom Nights case it made me want to download the original.I've seen scarier OC and Dawsons Creek episodes
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
19,698 |
Those who know who know the Kelly "legend" & are hoping that this film would be an accurate depiction of his life may be disappointed with the creative license taken with this film (eg. Naomi Watt's character never existed in reality), but if you look at it purely as a piece of entertainment, it holds up pretty well. Ledgers performance in the title role is quite solid, taking the mantle of cinema's best Ned (not hard considering the previous Ned's include Yahoo Serious, Mick Jagger & former Carlton champion (Australian Rules Football) Bob Chitty, a great footballer but a poor actor. Some location shooting film in the area I live, Bacchus Marsh outside Melbourne as well as Clunes & Ballarat.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
3,318 |
This film looked promising but it was actually pretty bad. The premise was O.K, but the plot itself was terrible. The actors tried their best with limited material, but they could not rise above the mean spiritedness of this tacky college film. Jason Schwartzman was once again immensely irritating - even more so than in Rushmore, the rest of the cast were quite non-eventful. Scenes that should have been fun turned out to be off-putting & incredibly juvenile. Tries to be a Road Trip/American Pie but fails dismally on all levels. A total waste of everyone's time.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
16,344 |
Emma is a horribly flawed film based on Jane Austens classic novel. I have not read the book so I really didn't know that much about the plot, and yet I still predicted nearly the entire plot. There were also many scenes that frustrated me because of the bad writing or directing. The film is though for some reason very entertaining and I loved it. Of course there were all the scenes I disliked but the majority was well acted and funny. Gwyneth Paltrow gives one of her best performances as the heroine in Emma. The film also stars Toni Collette(Who has okay but has been much better) Ewan Mecgreger(Who has also been better but he is still very good here) Alan Cumming(Who I have never really been impressed with and is pretty much the same here) and Jeremy Northam(Who's performance is rather wooden at first look but actually fairly subtle, even if that was not what it needed) There have been much better adaptations of Jane Austen books but this one is still very entertaining and worth watching.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
24,687 |
If you delete the first twenty minutes or so of this film, you will be left with a fantastic comedy. As it is, I still found it to be a pretty good movie, which is no small feat considering the coma I was put in by the opening scenes. To put it mildly, this film has a dreary beginning that wasn't even remotely funny, or even upbeat. Once things get sillier, however, you are left with a comedy that still holds up well after more than three decades. Definitely worth checking out, especially if you're a younger fan of Lemmon and Matthau who wants to see their earlier work.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
4,902 |
Tierney's an authentic tough guy, but this movie misfire from normally competent RKO undercuts his impact at every turn. The script is about as plausible as OJ Simpson at a Ten Cmmandments dinner. Just count the times Tierney's incredible car companions swallow one lame excuse after another for his evasive and violent acts. The old cliché about it "only happening in the movies" applies here in spades. Then there's the guy playing the watchman, who appears to have wandered in from a boozy WC Fields comedy, ruining the menacing mood in the process. The static one-room sets don't help either, and neither does director Feist's obvious lack of feel for the material. Then add a final car chase missing both imagination and pay-off, and the results are pretty flat. In fact the movie only picks up in the station-house scenes where hard-bitten cops discover the hidden powers of innocent-looking gas station attendants. Too bad that Tieney's career never really gelled. I gather that was due largely to being as big a tough guy off-screen as on and getting in one sleazy scrape after another. His ice-cold manner and clarity of emotion remind me at times of Lee Marvin at his tough-guy best. Anyway this project might have worked as a radio play, but as a movie with a promising noir title, it's a disappointment.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
16,847 |
The question is, can a movie this entertaining really be considered a "bad" movie? My husband and I picked this up at a used video store for 99 cents simply because of the title and the fact that the box had the words "Vestron Pictures" on it (Vestron has been highly regarded as a mark of quality ever since I first acquired the legendary films "Suburbia" and "Class of 1984"). We were not expecting a movie as full of win as this one was. Your basic plot as is follows: Grange, this goombaesque thug from planet Earth, robs "the bank of the Moon" and is sentenced to a penal colony on a remote planet (I don't even remember the planet's name) to mine for bauxite and other minerals. The "governor" of said colony and the owner of the mine are exploiting the prisoners for labor. Walker, a bounty hunter (apparently one of only three on the whole planet) reminds the prisoners that there is no escape, because there's only one shuttle out of the whole planet and they'd have him to deal with. Then there's the nameless "Colonel", a retired bounty hunter who suffers from a haunting reoccurring nightmare. Much of the movie centers around "futuristic" car chases (dunebuggies with plywood slapped to the sides) with explosions galore. The planet itself looks suspiciously like Hemet, CA or one of those other dusty Inland Empire outposts. But what makes the movie truly shine is a surprisingly awesome soundtrack featuring several LA punk bands of the mid-80s. I seriously doubt that this soundtrack was ever pressed to vinyl, but it's definitely worth buying the movie just for the soundtrack. I can't even remember the names of the bands (they're listed in the credits) other than Exploding White Mice, because that was the only one I'd heard of before I saw this movie, but I'm definitely looking into them.<br /><br />Basically, the movie is definitely not a waste of your time and would be best enjoyed with a 12 pack of beer and a few of your closest friends.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
13,674 |
'The Shop Around the Corner (1940)' is a pleasant romantic comedy, not the sort that I will hold dear to me until the end of my days, but nonetheless a film thoroughly deserving of its reputation. By 1940, director Ernst Lubitsch had long ago taken Hollywood by storm, and his famed "Lubitsch touch" had become a sparkling commercial trademark. This film was planned for a 1939 release, but scheduling conflicts meant that James Stewart and Margaret Sullavan were unavailable for filming. Rather than substituting either of his main stars, Lubitsch decided to postpone production, in the meantime directing Greta Garbo in 'Ninotchka (1939).' When it was finally completed, 'The Shop Around the Corner' appears to have been met with relative indifference, receiving zero Oscar nominations despite an excellent screenplay by Samson Raphaelson and fine performances from its two leads and Frank Morgan in a supporting role. Time, nevertheless, has betrayed the film's massive and enduring influence, with high-profile remakes including 'In the Good Old Summertime (1949)' and 'You've Got Mail (1998).'<br /><br />At its surface, one might assume 'The Shop Around the Corner' to simply be the story of two lovers, Klara Novak (Sullavan) and Alfred Kralik (Stewart), who love each other without knowing it. However, Lubitsch's film runs much deeper than that. It's the story of Matuschek and Company, a stylish gift shop in Budapest, and the various human relationships that make the store such a close-knit family. When store-owner Hugo Matuschek (Frank Morgan) begins to suspect his oldest employee of having an affair with his wife, we witness the breakdown of two families, both at home and at work. There's absolutely no reason why the story should not have been set in the United States perhaps in the blustery streets of New York but Lubitsch was deliberately recreating the passions and memories of his former years in Europe, the quaintness of love and life before war brought terror and bloodshed to every doorstep. This subtle subtext brings a more meaningful, personal touch to the film in fact, even as I write this review, I'm beginning to appreciate the story even more.<br /><br />Sullavan and Stewart are both lovely in their respective roles, but I think that it's the supporting cast that really make the film. Each character brings a distinctive personality to the mix, and their interactions are always believable and enjoyable. I especially liked how Lubitsch knowingly directed much of our sympathy towards Hugo Matuschek, who, in any other film, would have been restricted to an underdeveloped, two-dimensional portrayal. Matuschek may have lost the love of his family, but he recaptures it in the affection of his employees, and you feel a heartwarming glow when, in the bitter cold of a Christmas Eve snowstorm, he finds companionship in a freckle-faced young errand-boy (Charles Smith). This genuine warmth towards a supporting character strikes me as being similar to several of Billy Wilder's later creations, for example, Boom Boom Jackson in 'The Fortune Cookie (1966)' or Carlo Carlucci in 'Avanti! (1972).' Of course, it doesn't really need saying, but Billy Wilder learned from the best.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
10,845 |
I went to the movie as a Sneak Preview in Austria. So didn't have an idea what I am going to see. The story is very normal. The movie is very long , I believe it could have cut to 1/2 without causing any problems to the story. Its the type of movie you can see in a boring night which you want to get bored more ! Ashton Kutcher was very good . Kevin Costner is OK. The movie is speaking about the US Coast Guards, how they are trained , their life style and the problems they face. As there aren't much effects in the movie. So if you want to watch it , then no need to waste your money and time going to the Cinema. Would be more effective to watch it at home when it gets on DVDs.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
3,219 |
HORRID!!<br /><br />The special effects make the TV version of "Tremors" look real!<br /><br />No one in the cast can act.<br /><br />Kind of like the '62 "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea" meets the cartoon ocean going electric eel cartoons.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
11,345 |
This is really a new low in entertainment. Even though there are a lot worse movies out.<br /><br />In the Gangster / Drug scene genre it is hard to have a convincing storyline (this movies does not, i mean Sebastians motives for example couldn't be more far fetched and worn out cliché.) Then you would also need a setting of character relationships that is believable (this movie does not.) <br /><br />Sure Tristan is drawn away from his family but why was that again? what's the deal with his father again that he has to ask permission to go out at his age? interesting picture though to ask about the lack and need of rebellious behavior of kids in upper class family. But this movie does not go in this direction. Even though there would be the potential judging by the random Backflashes. Wasn't he already down and out, why does he do it again? <br /><br />So there are some interesting questions brought up here for a solid socially critic drama (but then again, this movie is just not, because of focusing on "cool" production techniques and special effects an not giving the characters a moment to reflect and most of all forcing the story along the path where they want it to be and not paying attention to let the story breath and naturally evolve.) <br /><br />It wants to be a drama to not glorify abuse of substances and violence (would be political incorrect these days, wouldn't it?) but on the other hand it is nothing more then a cheap action movie (like there are so so many out there) with an average set of actors and a Vinnie Jones who is managing to not totally ruin what's left of his reputation by doing what he always does.<br /><br />So all in all i .. just ... can't recommend it.<br /><br />1 for Vinnie and 2 for the editing.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
6,260 |
Les Visiteurs, the first movie about the medieval time travelers was actually funny. I like Jean Reno as an actor, but there was more. There were unexpected twists, funny situations and of course plain absurdness, that would remind you a little bit of Louis de Funes.<br /><br />Now this sequel has the same characters, the same actors in great part and the same time traveling. The plot changes a little, since the characters now are supposed to be experienced time travelers. So they jump up and down in history, without paying any attention to the fact that it keeps getting absurder as you advance in the movie. The duke, Jean Reno, tries to keep the whole thing together with his playing, but his character has been emptied, so there's not a lot he can do to save the film.<br /><br />Now the duke's slave/helper, he has really all the attention. The movie is merely about him and his being clumsy / annoying / stupid or whatever he was supposed to be. Fact is; this character tries to produce the laughter from the audience, but he does not succeed. It is as if someone was telling you a really very very bad joke, you already know, but he insists on telling that joke till the end, adding details, to make your suffering a little longer.<br /><br />If you liked Les Visiteurs, do not spoil the taste in your mouth with the sequel. If you didn't like Les Visiteurs, you would never consider seeing the sequel. If you liked this sequel... well, I suppose you still need to see a lot of movies.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
9,711 |
This has an interesting, albeit somewhat fanciful sci-fi plot, but it's wasted with poor direction and shlocky special effects. Rae Dawn Chong is appealing, despite the lack of a believable story and direction consistent with her talent.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
24,034 |
Splendid film that in just eight minutes displays an unusual genre mix: mystery, thriller, musical. Briefly, we are allowed to tell about the story: a girl comes into a European Cafeteria and then... Soft transit from nonsense mystery to narrative logic. In a no time, no place way Vigalondo managed a delight in B/W by means of imagination and despite (thanks to) the tightest of budgets.<br /><br />Because of the unity of time-space the film reaches the intensity of a short poem (almost a haiku). Spain, land of quick poetry in B/W (¿remember the early Buñuel?).<br /><br />A must see for reassuring our belief in young cinema outside the States.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
8,843 |
It seems like this is the only film that John Saxon ever directed, and that he had the good sense to stop after that and stay in front of the camera. This movie is a dog, from start to finish, and it's dull and wooden with nothing much going for it. A Viet Nam war hero takes a job working for a mob boss, gets a bit too friendly with the wife and then the wife is killed by the mob boss himself & the war hero framed and sent to prison, death row, specifically. Now, this particular prison has been experimenting on inmates and is testing some formula that will turn men into the ultimate killing machine (a zombie). Of course, everything goes wrong and then there's all these infected people trapped in the prison, some of whom are turning into zombies and the rest who suddenly just don't want to be there anymore. This just goes on and on and on with nothing particularly much to show or say for itself, and I stopped it before the end, which seemed like it was coming a few times but no, it was apparently only getting set to take off on a different and equally dull path. If one watched to the end they may well become a zombie themselves, so don't risk it. 2 out of 10.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
1,572 |
This is one of those movies that apparently was trying to ride the martial arts wave craze. Kind of like Billy Jack I guess. However, whereas Billy Jack did have one notable martial arts scene there are none in this one unless you consider some gentlemanly grappling and roughhousing as such. We are introduced to the star who is described as having learned Judo in the marines. I was in the marines and while they are pretty established in boxing, I really don't remember any emphasis on Judo. As a result the antagonist, James Macarthur, makes reference to the Judo when he offers an excuse for why he, a state champion wrestler was so easily defeated. Lame.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
21,123 |
As a kid I thought this movie was great. It had animals, it had beautiful music, and it had my favorite actor: Michael J. Fox. Now, I still love this movie, for different reasons. It has well trained animals that are put through various stunts and scenes that look excellent on camera. It has beautiful, well-written musical that fits the scenes perfectly, with rousing fast-paced melodies and the heart wrenching main theme, that still makes me cry. Even when people hum it. And it has my favorite actor, Michael J. Fox. <br /><br />Based on a book, this is the story of three house pets, an intelligent, overly-trusting and considerably paternal lab by the name of Shadow, a witty and vain - but still smart - cat with a fear of water named Sassy and a street-smart ridiculously curious and slightly neurotic bulldog, Chance. The three are taken to a friend's farm when their family goes away. Dismayed and worried, the pets break out and plan a trip across the Sierra mountains for the trip of their lives. A truly incredible journey. So what, maybe home IS just over that mountain. But what if it isn't? <br /><br />I suggest Homeward Bound for people that like the three amazing actors providing the voices for the lead animal characters, and for anyone else that ... yeah, everyone go watch it.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
24,116 |
A Bug's Life is a very good animated feature. This movie is for younger children, but it is also a great movie for people my age. The story is about an ant named Flik. He brought havoc onto his colony when he destroyed the food that were for the superior grasshoppers. He gets banished and he must find bigger bugs to fix the mess. This movie is a classic because it is a good movie and it is a Pixar movie. The animation is brilliant especially for the late 90's. The story is good, but a little more detail would be suffice. The voice acting is good as with most animation movies. The music is nice to listen to. Nothing special, but it earned an nomination for one of the music categories. Overall, this movie struck me as awestruck. This is a good movie for all families. I rate this movie 10/10.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
11,915 |
I was attracted to this movie when I looked at cast list, but after I watched it I must admit that I felt a bit disappointed. The main problem of this movie is that actors aren't capable of holding this movie on their back. Why? Because of bad script. Although Dillon, Lane and Jones try very hard to take this movie on another level, there is no innovative storytelling and the direction is too ordinary. So for Matt Dillon fans this is watchable movie, just like for admirers of beautiful Diane Lane. Legendary Tommy Lee Jones is always great but this is not movie for him; far below his level. So if you get hooked up by this great cast watch it but don't expect anything big or extraordinary. The only thing that you'll remember about this flick is Diane Lane scenes; rest of it is very forgettable.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
6,871 |
I have seen poor movies in my time, but this really takes the biscuit! Why oh why has this film been made? There just is nothing here whatsoever. Please put your trust in me, flick the off switch and destroy your copy of this film. There is a plot... that could take about 5 minutes to show on camera. This is the key problem, the story 'based on a true story' (mmm... whatever) just in no way lends itself to be padded out for 80 minutes. And so we therefore have to sit through over an hour of watching people walk around. That is it! In the whole first half an hour absolutely nothing happens, apart from watching someone walk to a shop... and then 3 guys walking through a wood. This time could perhaps have been spent on developing character... but no. And so there is absolutely no connection to the people on screen, and so when they start to get shot, we couldn't care less! In fact I was in the end vouching for the baddie so that the film would end! On top of this the camera work is truly horrific! This director/editor/writer/producer, Ti West is rubbish. I hate to hit a guy, but really, his work is pants! These dull close ups continuously, and then long single takes following people as they walk - I'm sure he thinks he's clever, but the results are so dull I just wanted to stop the film and slit my wrists! How this man has been brought on to direct the next cabin fever movie is beyond me! To finish, the acting is also woeful,... which goes for the film as a whole. Preserve your sanity, stick clear of this heap of total excrement!
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
16,826 |
Example of how a World War 2 documentary should be made,using first hand accounts from actual troops and civilians whom participated in this awful conflict,and archived footage gathered from around the time .I caught this on a re-run on the History channel about a year and a half back,with no knowledge really of the Second World War at the time,but it enveloped me,and now I consider myself a World War 2 buff,watching and reading any and all that I can find about it,but nothing comes close to this landmark documentary,definitely worth buying the boxed set of.............<br /><br />This is quite simply documentary making of the very highest standard.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
18,213 |
I thought that it was a great film for kids ages 6-12. A little sappy, but the story is uplifting an fresh. It proves that the dreams of an adolescent can truly come true. I think that it's a great story for any kid who is feelings down, or feels as if there trying to juggle too many things among them. Very 'cute' film. Bravo.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
11,938 |
Someone mentioned editing. This is edited badly and what started out as somewhat intriguing became an incomprehensible mess. For starters, let us know what it is you are trying to do with these experiments. Why are these people the best choices for the type of experimenting they are involved in? And, what exactly are they testing? Apparently there is some grand plan that some agency is going to exploit. The acting is pretty bad. Everyone is emoting. Everyone is keeping secrets. They frequently mention that if it weren't for the money, they'd hang it up. There's a deranged minister who spouts scripture. On and on. But, again, the biggest hang up is the lack of laying out a playing field for the actors. There are some really cheesy elements. Those little rooms and those chaise lounges. The awful wallpaper (was it wallpaper?). It was interesting, but didn't seem to go anywhere.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
1,794 |
I caught this movie on Sci-Fi before heading into work. If you've any interest in seeing Dean Cain dive and avoid being enveloped in flames at least a dozen times, this movie is for you. If that doesn't peak your interest, well, I'm afraid you'll wish that YOU were the one about to be enveloped in flames, because this movie is pretty bad. The acting, to begin with, is awful, awful, awful. The characters are all completely obnoxious, and the dialogue is worse than your typical Z-grade, Sci-Fi movie. Towards the end, the movie began to remind me of 'Hollow Man' (complete with escape via elevator shaft), except with a Dragon, not a naked, invisible man. Unlike other similar flicks, however, this one wasn't even awesomely bad...it was just plain bad.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
18,348 |
This is the best Emma in existence in my opinion. Having seen the other version (1996) which is also good, and read the book, I think I can safely say with confidence that this is the true interpretation and is the most faithful to Jane Austen's masterpiece. The 1996 movie with G. Paltrow is good too, it's just that it's almost like a different story altogether. It's very light and fluffy, you don't see the darker edges of the characters and if you just want a pleasant movie, that one would do fine but the intricacies of some of the plot points, such as the Churchill/Fairfax entanglement is so much glossed over as to be virtually non-existent. But if you want the characters fleshed out a bit, more real and multidimensional, the 1996 TV version is the superior. Emma is a remarkable person, but she is flawed. Kate Beckinsale is masterful at showing the little quirks of the character. You see her look casually disgusted at some of the more simple conversation of Harriet Smith, yet she shows no remorse for having ruined Harriet's proposal until that action has the effect of ruining her own marital happiness at the ending. You see her narcissism and it mirrors Frank Churchill's in that they would do harm to others to achieve their own aims. For Emma, it was playing matchmaker and having a new friend to while away the time with after having suffered the loss of her governess to marriage. For Frank Churchill, it is securing the promise of the woman he loves while treating her and others abominably to keep the secret. In the book, she realizes all of this in a crushing awakening to all the blunders she has made. Both Kate Beckinsale and Gyneth Paltrow are convincing in their remorse but Paltrow's is more childlike and stagnant while Beckinsale's awakening is rather real and serious and you see the transition from child-like, selfish behavior to kind and thoughtful adult. Both versions are very good but I prefer this one.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
20,624 |
Just kidding about the weight loss thing; well, you might lose weight you never know. Anyway, what can I say, I love this film. It has that same sense of youth and innocence found in films like Stand By Me and The Goonies. Jake's Closet illustrates the beauty of life's simple things and how often we overlook them. The film reminds us what it's like to see the world through children's eyes and all the magic, mystery, and horror they perceive. Jake's Closet presents a tale uniquely human in its compassion that anyone who's had a childhood can both relate to and fall in love with. Watch it with friends; watch it with loved ones; build a fort - wine optional.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
20,216 |
Of course if you are reading my review you have seen this film already. 'Raja Babu' is one of my most favorite characters. I just love the concept of a spoiled brat with a 24*7 servant on his motorcycle. Watch movies and emulate characters etc etc. I love the scene when a stone cracks in Kader khans mouth while eating. Also where Shakti Kapoor narrates a corny story of Raja Babu's affairs on a dinner table and Govinda wearing 'dharam-veer' uniform makes sentimental remarks. Thats my favorite scene of the film. 'Achcha Pitaji To Main Chalta Hoon' scene is just chemistry between two great Indian actors doing a comical scene with no dialogs. Its brilliant. It's a cat mouse film. Just watch these actors helping each other and still taking away the scene from each other. Its total entertainment. If you like Govinda and Kader Khan chemistry then its a must. I think RB is 6th in my list by David Dhawan. 'Deewana Mastana', 'Ankhein','Shola or Shabnam', 'Swarg', Coolie no 1' precedes this gem of a film. 7/10.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
15,027 |
Well, would firstly like to clarify that Kaakha Kaakha is a part of a Tamil prayer and roughly translated it means "to protect". Khakhee on the other hand refers to the color of the police uniform (which is Khakhi!).<br /><br />Also, the Tamil film industry is rather full of purely commercial ventures , any Rajnikanth or Vijay movie would stand testament to that statement.<br /><br />Now Kaakha Kaakha is an EXCELLENT movie with a great soundtrack. Certainly very stunning in the final scene, especially love the ending (which is certainly unexpected!). The gore is rather too much at times, but certainly this is a great movie!
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
22,615 |
I saw this movie on TV when it came out, and never seen it again. For the life of me, I couldn't remember the title and just stumbled across it while checking Roy Thinne's movie credits. Excellent, dark, and spooky TV horror movie in the same class as "Crowhaven Farm"; "Don't Be Afraid Of The Dark"; and "Satan's School for Girls", all lost Satanic classics. I also think it has many parallels to Clint Eastwood's classic, "High Plains Drifter". Why don't they release these great little movies, especially when you consider all of the more recent garbage that fills the discount DVD racks at Wal-Mart? Most of these flicks have a cult-following, so sales shouldn't be a problem.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
8,013 |
Cheap and manipulative. This film has no heart.<br /><br />It's also got dire dialogue, unconvincing characters and a preposterous, or rather non-existent, story. It just lurches from bad to worse in a cynical effort to wrench some kind of emotion from an insincere and unengaging hysterion-afest!<br /><br />And the HEDGEHOG!!!!How many cheap shots can a film take? The hedgehog, by the way, gave the most convincing and watchable performance in this ninety-minute cringe-athon.<br /><br />If you have considered watching this film, don't. I'm sorry but I cannot find a single redeeming feature to this movie. It scores a big, fat ZERO with me. Strictly for sub-Dogma knicker-wetters. Yawneroony!<br /><br />Still, if you liked Dancing In The Dark...<br /><br />
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
14,715 |
One of the things that makes this Ealing comedy so outrageously funny is the clever editing. Shots that would be considered absolutely essential to most modern comedies are deliberately left out. (This is what was known as British understatement.) <br /><br />Three instances: A comic fight is edited like this. Alec Guiness has invented a new cloth that will ruin the industry. Half a dozen businessmen invite him to their office to try to get him to sign a contract relinquishing his control of the cloth so that production can be suppressed. When he catches on to this, Guiness stands up and turns to walk to the door. Two men block his way. "Excuse me," he says quietly, taking a step forward. The two men move between Guiness and the camera. Cut. A secretary is sitting outside at her desk. There is silence until the buzzer begins signaling her frantically. She takes up her notebook and opens the door to the inner office where a full-fledged noisy Donnybrook is in progress and the room is half wrecked. Guiness dashes out the open door.<br /><br />The following example would be unthinkable today. During the research phase of his invention Guiness sets up an elaborate chemical apparatus but instead of converting the experimental liquid into the new cloth, the device explodes. Again and again it explodes. The laboratory is cleared of all other work. The blasts continue. Ceilings fall down. Windows are blown out. The director of research is seated at his desk in a tiny office cluttered with debris, a bandage on his head. When the door behind him opens he jumps a foot in the air. "Sit down," he tells his visitor, "there's another one due at any moment." It is excruciatingly amusing -- and there is not a single shot of any explosions. This would be unimaginable now without a fireball, and maybe a building collapsing in slow motion.<br /><br />Last example, consisting of a series of quick, relentless cuts, put together precisely. Guiness is being pursued and is cornered in the lobby of an office building by people who want him to sign the contract. Faced with two men about to grapple with him, Guiness backs up with a determined expression. He bumps against a pedestal with an iron bust on it. The bust topples backward and bumps against the wall. There is a shot lasting about one second of the bust hitting the wall. Another brief shot of a metal shield hung above the bust being jarred loose and falling down. Quick cut to Guiness's head rising into the frame. Cut to the two men staring into the camera while horrible brass banging and thudding sounds are heard off screen. Cut to Guiness flat on his back. Nobody today would have the cojones to NOT show Guiness being crowned by that shield.<br /><br />I won't go on with this. It's a comedy alright but a pretty bitter one underneath all the hilarity. In solving one set of problems, Guiness has created dozens of others. He is opposed both by management and labor, neither of which is shown to much advantage. And of course the economic implications have to do with more than cloth. "What about that car that runs on water with a pinch of something or other in it?" one of the workers asks. "Vested interests," comments another worker, as Thorstein Veblen nods in his grave. What WOULD happen if our problems with energy were solved overnight? If I owned shares of Exxon -- and I think I do -- I'd shudder at the thought. Where would the oil industry be if there were no more need for oil? For that matter, where would the police force and the FBI be if crime were to suddenly disappear? This is a thoughtful and very amusing movie, superbly directed and edited. The roster of performers is peerless. Joanne Greenwood with that husky voice. The blithering Cecil Parker. The wheezing mummified Ernest Thesiger. <br /><br />A first-rate job all around.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
82 |
Let's be honest shall we? Al Gore no more TRULY cares about the environment than most folks care about contacting foot fungus. It's a hook! Make no mistake, Al Gore is a POLITICIAN! Three years ago he was busted/ticketed in his home state doing 70 mph in a 55 mph zone driving NOT a hybrid, a Yugo, or even a GM Metro but a LINCOLN (go google it if you like)! Or how about the fact that Mr. Gore & his Hollywood buddies continue to use a private fuel-guzzling jets to attend the premiers of "An Inconvenient Truth." So much for conservation huh, Al? Anyway, it takes a mere minute to subjectively look at "An Inconvenient Truth" & discover the main fundamental flaw. While the film parades out many seemingly impressive scientists to tell the audience the EFFECTS of supposed "global Warming" there is not one scientist to tell us the supposed CAUSE of it. For example: I can take a hundred folks out to a parking lot & they can point out an automobile which is not running right. BUT can they tell you with any degree of certainty WHY? Generally not! A second flaw, just how accurate were the weather instruments 100 years ago (the toilet wasn't even invented yet)? What did they have, a June bug in a match box? Hell, even 50-60 years ago? Therefore, how do we know with ANY degree of certainty that the planet is "getting warmer" when the records of yesteryear are highly questionable at best? Or that man is THE sole cause of it? The answer is we don't & Science is NEVER a consensus. Thirty years ago, Time Magazine did a cover proclaiming a "New Ice Age". The truth is that any 6th grade science teacher well versed in Earth Science will tell you that Volcanic Erruptions, Solar Activity & El Ninos have more to do with our eradicate changes in climate conditions than supposed "Global Warming." Finally, what Al Gore fails to adequately address is; even IF America decides to follow the global gospel according to Al & implement everything he recommends, how are we going to get the rest of the world to follow suit when we can't even get them to agree on something so obvious as terrorism? Answer: It's wishful thinking, Mr. Gore & you being a former VP of the USA know it! If the folks who produced "An Inconvenient Truth" were really honest, they would have titled their film "Al Gore Wants Attention." But what I'd really like is for someone to ask the former VP this; why were two of the planet's biggest polluters (AKA China & India) EXEMPT from abiding by the Kyoto Accords? Anyway, I hear the producers of A.I.T are working on their next film entitled "Gnomes, Fairies & Elves: Our Endangered Friends."
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
4,045 |
SCHIZOPHRENIAC: THE WHORE MANGLER is another example of what happens when you get a bunch of untalented people together to make an "extreme" horror film. Any sort of acting, production, storyline, FX, etc...go out the window in an effort to create "shock-value". Now don't get me wrong - I consider myself a connoisseur of "shock" films, and the sleazier/gorier/nastier the better - but it's still nice to see SOME sort of talent from SOMEONE involved in the film.<br /><br />SCHIZOPHRENIAC chronicles the life of Harry Russo - a drug-addicted freak-show who takes orders to kill from his ventriloquist's dummy, Rubberneck. He goes on a few sprees killing hookers and other random people, and screaming about how much he hates "hoo-uhs" (that's "whores" for those of you that don't speak New York-ese...) and how he wants to rape them in the ass. There are a few weak necrophilia scenes, very little gore, and some nudity to mix things up a bit - but nothing that you haven't seen in a better film...<br /><br />The only redeeming thing that I can find in this retarded film are the often (unintentionally?) hilarious screaming-fits from our main man, Harry. He goes on-and-on-and-on about wanting to kill everyone and do them in the ass, and it really becomes quite comical after a while. In fact, I'm almost tempted to believe that there's supposed to be some sort of homo-erotic undertone to this film, with all the ass talk and constant shots of Harry running around with his dong hangin' out. In all honesty, that joker is nekkid more in this film then the few chicks that show some T-and-A (and some full-frontal, for good measure). SCHIZOPHRENIAC is mildly amusing as a 1-time watch, but I can really only recommend this to those that want to be able to say that they watched a film called SCHIZOPHRENIAC: THE WHORE MANGLER. To be honest - the title, by far - is the best thing about this trash...A generous 3.5/10
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
18,223 |
ATTENTION, SPOILER!<br /><br />Many people told me that «Planet of the Apes» was Tim Burton's worst movie and apart from that much weaker than the original film. So I decided not to see it. Another friend of mine who hadn't seen the movie yet, advised me to watch it in spite of this because `a Tim-Burton-movie is still a Tim-Burton-movie'. I decided to do it, and I found that he was right.<br /><br />It's clear that a remake of such a famous film as `Planet of the Apes' is automatically influenced by commercial thinking. Still, Tim Burton managed his film to represent his weird playfulness just as well as `Beetlejuice' or `Batman'. If you are already fond of Burton-movies, it's hard not to like one of his films, even if it has some flaws: nerve-racking monkey squeals, over-dressed apes and a leading actor who could have been, without difficulties, replaced by anbody else.<br /><br />What the film gives us in the first place, is an answer to the question: What's the result when Tim Burton is instructed to create a remake? First of all, Burton wouldn't be Burton, if he wouldn't refuse to call it a remake from the start; it's a `re-imagining'. On the other hand, Burton knows that almost every viewer of his movie has seen the very first film version starring Charlton Heston (as human), and he knows that a remake doesn't exist without its model and that the two films will not stop being compared. So all he does is playing with this comparison at every moment of his film, e. g. by referencing to quotes. Concerning the story-line, Burton does a brilliant job by answering open questions of the original first, and then driving the whole audience to despair by destroying this wonderful clarity and ending the movie with AND HERE IS THE SPOILER Leo coming back to earth and finding himself inside a world that seems to have been ruled by apes forever. <br /><br />Now, this is the burtonesque answer to people's expectations they hold because of the astonishing, shocking ending of the first `Planet of the Apes'. An ending, even more unexpected, more astonishing and: completely confusing, because and here I'm disagreeing with various `Planet of the Apes'-homepages and -platforms it does not make any sense. There cannot be a meaning to it, or just a so complicated one that it becomes ineffective. Tim Burton is playing his cruel games, he does it with a grin and he does it well. Burton fans will sure like it, others may feel betrayed and complain about some sort of manierism. Well, and I don't think producers will ever ask Burton to direct a remake again
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
11,229 |
Flat, ordinary thriller about a conniving woman who deceives all those she supposedly loves in order to boost her bank account. Nicole Kidman plays the deceptive Tracey, married to the doting Andy (Bill Pullman). When an old school friend of Andy's named Jed Hill (Alec Baldwin) turns up as the resident surgeon, trouble is not far behind him.<br /><br />Script fails in that it does not carefully develop the promising premise into an effective, tantalising thriller, and the severe lack of character motivation, background and development leaves the whole show reaching. None of the cast are able to generate interest in their shallow characters, especially Bill Pullman, whose own inexplicably curious Andy is impossible to believe.<br /><br />Poor director Harold Becker is left trying to resurrect an impossibly dead project, and is unable to make entertainment from any of it. By the time the 'secret' of the plot is revealed, you just won't care.<br /><br />At least the cinematography has Massachusetts looking good. Also stars George C. Scott, Peter Gallagher and Josef Sommer.<br /><br />Sunday, February 25, 1996 - T.V.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
17,506 |
I am going to go out on a limb, and actually defend "Shades of Grey" as a good clip-show episode, which delved into the life and death struggle of Commander William Thomas Riker who was battling a terminally fatal disease.<br /><br />The scenes from the flashback sequences were implemented quite well with the mood Riker was in such as when he was reliving his romantic episodes such as "11001001," "Angel One," and "Up the Long Ladder." Tragic moments were highlighted such as Tasha's death in "Skin of Evil," as well as elements of pulse-pounding danger in "Heart of Glory," "Conspiracy," and the aforementioned "Skin of Evil." Riker also exhibited courage under fire by telling some humorous jokes such as "An ancestor of mine was bitten by a rattlesnake once...after 3 days of intense pain, the snake died." This episode highlighted the psychological ordeal of Will Riker under extreme duress. And, YES, I am biased in my opinion in proclaiming "Shades of Grey" as a solid episode, because at the time of its original airing, my face was covered in sweat, wondering whether or not Riker would pullout of it alive and live to see other great, galactic, outerspace adventures beyond the final frontier...<br /><br />Of course, in subsequent years, I seem to have formed a singular opinion of this particular episode...but, if an award should go for "the best clip-show episode in the history of television," then I believe that this episode should be highly regarded in that respect.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
17,393 |
I saw this film premiere Friday (1/19) night in Park City for Sundance and was incredibly moved. Sitting in a theater and hearing first-hand the anguish soldiers go through was almost more than I could bear. Others in the audience were equally moved and while we wanted to turn away, the least we could do was bear witness as these men and women shared their experience with us. Robert Acosta, Paul Rieckhoff, Sean Huze, and Herold Noel, all veterans of the war in Iraq and featured in the film, were present. While they may be home now, you can tell this war is still inside them and probably always will be. Whether you support the war or not, it is OUR duty to support the troops with something other than a bumper sticker. See this film!
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
6,878 |
I thought this movie had absolutely no moral. I mean, how would you feel if your fiancé left you on your wedding day for your cousin??? I would be heartbroken!! It's classified as a comedy but I didn't find it funny at all. I thought it just mostly found cheap laughs and took them. I normally love Julie Stiles movies, but this is an exception. Jason Lee stars in another disgraceful show, which once again proves that class and decent morals are not relevant in todays society. It had a complete lack of taste and I despise movies like this. I understand that people will defend this movie and it's morals because it is 'Just a movie', but I still stand by my mark that this bad behaviour shouldn't be allowed on screen. I'm not trying to say that if you enjoyed this movie, you are a bad person, as everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and parts of this movie were enjoyable, I'm just saying that in real life, people acting like the characters in this film were doing is shameful.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
7,062 |
I suppose it was for Temple Matthews who written basically a remake even though there are few changes which just make it worse. SPOILERS: It is much similar to the original. Melody, Ariel's new daughter is threatened by Ursula's sister, Morgana. Morgana escapes, but keeps her promise to take Melody away from them. Did Ursula have a sister?! And she is not that great a villain as Ursula was. This is where there is similarity. Medoly is kept from the sea until Morgana is captured, but she doesn't know a thing about it, because it all happened when she was a baby. A wall surrounds the palace to keep her in and morgana out. She goes under the wall day to day to have a swim and talk with Sebastian, who is not as funny or fun as in the original. She finds a seashell with her name on it and runs away from home and to look for answers and finds Morgana. Here is a similarity; Morgana tricks Melody, making her happy by turning here into a mermaid. Meanwhile, Eric, Melody and King Triton look for her. To stay a mermaid she needs to steal the trident from Triton. So Melody does, because she does not know King Triton is her father. She makes friends with a penguin and a walrus and here is where it is awful. The penguins who live with them in an icy ocean, hate them because they are cowards. So they try to prove they are heroes and fail. That does not suit the little mermaid. And the dialogue during those conversations between the penguins and those two characters is ear-bleeding. you know why? Because the first had a great story. This one is not and is not magical. It is just an example of how bad many sequels are.<br /><br />Melody finds them and they help to take her to Atlantica to prove themselves. When they take the trident, Ariel finds Melody with Morgana. Melody is angry at her mother for keeping her from the sea so she gives the trident to Morgana, then she shows her true colours once she grabs it. Poor Ariel and Melody are in her custody. The penguin and the walrus begin to prove themselves when they fight Morgana's shark friend. Sorry I did not mention him earlier. They finally prove themselves. Eric, King Triton and his soldiers arrive but are forced to bow down before Morgana by the power of the trident. Melody takes it, throws it to Triton and he ices Morgana (literally). Then Ariel apologises to Melody and thinks it is all her fault. It was not! Ariel did the right thing to protect Melody, but they never say so. Triton offers Melody to live in sea or land. She in fact has a "better idea". She uses the trident to vaporize the wall so humans and mer-folk can be together. Then everyone sings an awful song. THE END.<br /><br />Whoever has seen it and likes this obviously has not seen the original. I do not dislike this because I am a teenager. I liked it when I was very very little. Then as I grew older I began to see what is bad about this film. young, young kids will enjoy it, but it is likely that when they are in primary school, they will forget about it. Normally I would think I over-judged a film and it was better than I remember when I watched it again, but not this one. It is even worse. Story is no exception. If you thought, by reading this that the story is good, read more of this comment and you will know the other bad points: Well, you know the story now. I am sorry for spoiling it for you, but I had to point out some bad parts of it. One of the worst things is the animation. Colour is awful. The original had beautiful colour. Watching this almost made me want to go blind. Even the illustrations and landscape design were not good. The original had beautiful, magical colouring and beautiful underwater landscape design and for land as well, making it a joy to watch.<br /><br />The music is unbearable. Compared to the first, the music here is crap. Songs are not that well composed and Tara Strong (I think that is her name) who did Melody can not sing. She at times either sang too high or did not keep track for the melody in the song. So much for having "Melody" as a name.And the music is not at all beautiful or moving. Little Mermaid 1 won an Oscar for it and it truly deserved it. This one deserved a razzie award for worst musical score in a sequel if it would exist.<br /><br />I did not like the voices. Several people who played characters from the first, did the same ones in this. Jodi Benson is a great singer, but now that she is older, no offence to her, her voice is too deep and not so beautiful anymore. And I am really disappointed in her and others who were in the first for being a part of this. If I was chosen for this film, just by reading the script, I can tell it would be a bad film. The characters are different now. Ariel is more wiser now, but annoying. They overdid her character, making her too mature. In sequels you are not meant to change the characters unless it is for a special reason. She was sixteen in the first. There is little chance she changes. That is the stage when you become the person you are going to be for the rest of your life. Screenwriters should think of that. They should think of the character.<br /><br />Well, I suppose that is it for me. I hope you find my comment useful, because I am sure a lot of you will agree with my point of view.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
4,276 |
This is a re-imagining of Tarzan in the era of the Soloflex and Apocalypse Now. There's nothing inherently wrong with using films eased moral constraints to portray an erotic side to the Tarzan legend. There's nothing inherently wrong with the premise that Tarzan doesn't speak. There's plenty wrong with suggesting a woman who could get herself to an African jungle in 1910, could be this offensively stupid and plastic. Bo has as few lines as possible when bodies are explored because this movie is merely a video-centerfold, as neutral as possible so that you can project yourself and your lecherous fantasies into the project. If it succeeds anywhere it's in the implication that National Geographic has influenced the way the imagery of a Tarzan movie might be constructed.<br /><br />It would be ridiculous to argue that movies shouldn't employ the sexual tease as ONE of many tools to draw in viewers. Some really great film moments incorporate it. But this move is at the opposite end of the spectrum - the tease is the only thing going on here; at the time of its release and now. You sit through awful, dumb scenes that offer no interest, and miles of footage of bad acting to drool over the next peek at either of two bodies. Yes... Bo Derek and Miles O'Keeffe are beautiful (um, congratulations on having a working libido.) but if that's your excuse for giving this schlock a good rating you really should visit a porn store and stock up. There's only a hairs-breadth difference between the two formats and (I'm just guessing here) a horny viewer would probably really enjoy the latter. The question is whether a mainstream movie is the best venue in the marketplace for viewers to seek out products that satisfy lust alone.<br /><br />As a showman, John Derek successfully capitalized on the sexual mystique developed over wife Bo in the movie "10"; and created a media event out of a shallow project whose only merit was the hotness of the two leads. The movie itself was beside the point. He was about 20 years ahead of his time in thinking audiences would applaud him for making an insipid, shallow movie that was only about showcasing superficiality.<br /><br />As a director, John Derek appears to require only that Mrs. Derek look pleasant, empty and hump-able in every scene. It's hideously shot. The camera placement is annoying. In terms of editing, the entire 'wipe' catalog is exhausted. The credit sequence is garish. And it's a toss-up as to who commits the worse screen offense; Bo Derek who's such a bimbo that she can't even figure out how to play a bimbo, or Richard Harris who shouts every line (as he likes to do) until you want to shoot him. At least with Bo you can imagine her blaming some horny writer for shortchanging her.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
16,250 |
"Der Todesking" is not exactly the type of film that makes you merry
Jörg Buttgereit's second cult monument in a row, which is actually a lot better than the infamous "Nekromantik", exists of seven short episodes one for each day of the week revolving on unrelated people's suicides. In between these already very disturbing episodes, Buttgereit inserts truly horrifying images of a severely decomposing male corpse. The episodes aren't all equally powerful but, as a wholesome, "Der Todesking" is ranked quite high on the list of all-time most depressing art-house films. Particularly the episodes on Wednesday, involving a man explaining his sexual frustrations to a total stranger in the park, and the one of Sunday, focusing on a younger man molesting himself to dead, are extremely intense and devastating to observe. The added value of this film, or any other shockumenary like it, is debatable and I'm not even sure whether or not Buttgereit had any type of message to communicate here. There's the vague mentioning of an eerie chain letter that encourages its readers to commit suicide but mostly we remain uninformed about these people's motivations to end their lives so dramatically. Entirely unlike I expected, "Der Todesking" isn't exploitative or repulsively graphic! On the contrary actually, I never could have hoped Buttgereit would be so subtle and thoughtful regarding the portrayal of pure human misery. The Thursday episode is a perfect example of this, as it stylishly shows different viewpoints of a famous German bridge while the names, ages and occupations of persons who jumped off appear on the screen. The production values are inescapably poor and the editing often lacks professionalism, but this isn't what really counts in this type of cinema. The subject matter is strong and forcing us to contemplate about the less cheerful but also indispensable aspects of life. GREAT use of tragic music, too!
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
24,181 |
If you liked Roman Polanski's "Repulsion", you should probably check out "The Tenant" since it's a similar concept, just with Polanski stepping in and playing the schizophrenic wacko. This is actually one of my favorites of his movies - second, after "Rosemary's Baby", of course - and is a straight forward journey into the mental collapse of a man who moves into the former apartment of a suicide victim. The other residents of the building are all flaky and sticklers on keeping the noise level down - even the slightest 'titter' becomes a big deal and Polanski, who stars, becomes increasingly paranoid and succumbs to his loony hallucinations further and further as the film carries on. It gets to the point where he is dressing and acting like the former tenant and you realize it's only a matter of time before he decides tor re-enact her fatal leap out the window... The film is a bit slow and dawdling for a while, but if you have ever seen a Roman Polanski movie, you should know it's going to end with a bang and this flick doesn't disappoint. It's also best if you don't question the intricacies of the premise and just take it as a descent into madness, because it's pretty trippy surreal at times. Polanski is very good as the timid, deranged resident who, somehow, attracts the ever illustrious Isabelle Adjani. We also get to see him running around in drag, which is disturbing and hilarious all at the same time! Damn, he makes for one ugly chick! So, Polanski fans - who can actually look past his thirty year-old pedophile charges - should enjoy "The Tenant" as an entertaining psychological head-trip...
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
17,577 |
A Brother's Promise is a wonderful family film. This is a biography of Dan Jansen, a champion Olympic speed skater. The movie depicts this athlete's life from a young age through full adulthood. The love and support of the family members is evident throughout. How Dan and the rest of his family handle winning and losing races is a life lesson for all of us. The commitment and determination of Dan's coach and his teammates, shows what it takes to make a real team. How Dan and his family deal with a devastating illness of a loved one is depicted without undo sentiment or sugarcoating. The faith of the family is shown in basic terms and is obviously a major part of their lives. This is a powerful family film which can be meaningful for a person of any age.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
15,549 |
Anyone who thinks anime is nothing but sex and violence will be silenced forever after watching this movie. This is a fine movie that tells about Tetsuro's quest to avenge his mother's death, but also grows up in the process. The journey on the train sort of represents Tetsuro's journey from boyhood to manhood. The music and visual styles of the movie are a bit dated (you can tell it's a 70's movie) and the animation is only slightly better than your average "Star Blazers" episode. But the story and the characters are so strong, it really doesn't matter. A must-see for any animation fan!
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
3,505 |
Just saw this at the Chicago Film Festival - avoid it at all costs unless you have sleep problems. It is a film filled with pretensions - it opens with a minor quote from "Hiroshima mon amour" and it's all downhill from there. Camera work - imagine a child trying to imitate Wong Kar Wai. Story line - Smokey Robinson and the Miracles' "The Love I saw in You Was Just a Mirage" expanded from 3 minutes to over 2 hours but filled with repetition. For butt numbing pain this film ranks with the benches at the Methodist church my parent dragged me to when I was a kid. I want 2+ hours of my life refunded. Julian Hernandez's promoter prefaced the viewing with comment that the film was "controversial" - that is true only for the film's narcotic effect.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
18,027 |
I've watched this movie a number of times, and found it to be very good. This movie is also known as "Castle Of Terror", "Coffin Of Terror", and "Dance Macabre". Barbara Steele, is her usual beautiful/creepy self. George Riviere, the male lead, does a good job with his role. The whole movie is dripping with atmosphere, and there is a good deal of tension throughout. The camera angles are good and the acting, for the most part, isn't bad. This film is quite suitable for a rainy day or evening. I have the DVD uncut version, which is far superior to the edited TV version. Grab some popcorn, turn out the lights, settle back and enjoy. John R. Tracy
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
18,873 |
Many neglect that this isn't just a classic due to the fact that it's the first 3D game, or even the first shoot-'em-up. It's also one of the first stealth games, one of the only(and definitely the first) truly claustrophobic games, and just a pretty well-rounded gaming experience in general. With graphics that are terribly dated today, the game thrusts you into the role of B.J.(don't even *think* I'm going to attempt spelling his last name!), an American P.O.W. caught in an underground bunker. You fight and search your way through tunnels in order to achieve different objectives for the six episodes(but, let's face it, most of them are just an excuse to hand you a weapon, surround you with Nazis and send you out to waste one of the Nazi leaders). The graphics are, as I mentioned before, quite dated and very simple. The least detailed of basically any 3D game released by a professional team of creators. If you can get over that, however(and some would suggest that this simplicity only adds to the effect the game has on you), then you've got one heck of a good shooter/sneaking game. The game play consists of searching for keys, health and ammo, blasting enemies(aforementioned Nazis, and a "boss enemy" per chapter) of varying difficulty(which, of course, grows as you move further in the game), unlocking doors and looking for secret rooms. There is a bonus count after each level is beaten... it goes by how fast you were(basically, if you beat the 'par time', which is the time it took a tester to go through the same level; this can be quite fun to try and beat, and with how difficult the levels are to find your way in, they are even challenging after many play-throughs), how much Nazi gold(treasure) you collected and how many bad guys you killed. Basically, if you got 100% of any of aforementioned, you get a bonus, helping you reach the coveted high score placings. The game (mostly, but not always) allows for two contrastingly different methods of playing... stealthily or gunning down anything and everything you see. You can either run or walk, and amongst your weapons is also a knife... running is heard instantly the moment you enter the same room as the guard, as is gunshots. Many guards are found standing with their backs turned to you, meaning that you can walk up behind them and stab them... nearly silently. In your inventory, you can get no less than four weapons and two keys... more about the weapons later. The keys unlock certain doors. Most doors in the game aren't locked... only two kinds need keys, and these keys are only introduced in later levels(you restart in levels, resetting weaponry, health, score and lives in each chapter). Much of the later game is spent looking for them. Now, as I just alluded to, this game, like many of the period(late 80's, early 90's), is based on collecting extra lives... personally, I think it's completely and utterly useless(it was mercifully dropped from here on end... I think(?), from the next 3D shooter and onwards), since you can save anytime you want and 'using a life' resets weaponry, health and ammo, like starting on a new chapter(which is a real pain in later levels, where you *need* heavier artillery). Now, I shall beat around the bush no longer... moving on to the guns! You start with aforementioned knife(which is silent but only effective up close) and a pistol... nothing special, but good for conserving ammo, unlike the next two bad boys. Your third weapon is a German SMG... a sub-machine-gun. It's faster and automatic, and some later enemies use it. And the last one... is nothing short of a Gatling gun! Oh yeah! Think T2. Think Predator. Think about unloading massive amounts of lead into Nazi fiends with such a gun. It's every bit as entertaining as it sounds. Most of the boss enemies use this, though, so be prepared. I won't reveal the identities of these boss enemies, however... that's for each player to discover for him(or her)self. The sound is excellent... very crisp and realistic. As you hear the tear of a machine-gun firing, the deafening metallic clank of a door slamming shut behind you or a Nazi yelling surprised or a warning in German, you truly feel like you are there, trapped in these dark and depressing bunker systems. That segues me nicely into the level design... as you run through seemingly countless, nearly identical hallways towards the next elevator leading you further, you are grasped by the claustrophobic mood. I almost got motion sickness more than once(though that might also have something to do with little sleep, lots of humidity and unusual warmth...) from playing. Though the level of detail isn't terribly high, what there is is great. Remains of victims, guards' quarters and countless Nazi symbols... the list goes on. The game also features quite a bit of gore... for it's limited graphics engine, John Romero and crew certainly put in all the blood and guts that they could for the game. What is there left to say... the first of its kind, and it's no wonder this spawned countless others 3D shooters. Sure, weapon bobbing and different height levels(stairs and such) didn't come around until the next entry into the genre... Doom... and it was Duke Nukem 3D that introduced the feature of switching your view(so it goes beyond simply left and right, adding vertical dimensions to it), and jumping didn't come around until a third, later title(the first Quake, possibly? Fellow gamers, help me out here)... but all of those games, as well as the rest of the genre, owe their existence to this one. So load up the Luger, open the door to enter the bunker and step into B.J.'s shoes... he deserves the recognition, even(or maybe even especially?) nearly fifteen years after he first appeared. I recommended this to all fans of 3D games. 8/10
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
10,127 |
OK, I have watched the original French version. But I can't imagine this being better with subtitles.<br /><br />All I have to say that this is the most boring movie I have seen in a long time. There are almost no redeeming qualities to this film. That's why I can't understand all the positive reviews. It might be realistic in a sense but some real stories are best left untold.<br /><br />I usually like slow paced movies as long as it serves the purpose of the movie. Tarkovsky's Solaris is extremely slow paced but it allows introspection and sets the mood of the film for example. But in this case, the movie is just filed with mindless dialog that manage to tell us little about the characters. None of which I could identify with or care for. In a lot of the scenes I found myself thinking: "When are they going to shut up"? The acting was pretty bad. Not in an overacting obvious kind of way. But It seems none of the actors cared about their characters and they all looked like they wanted to be elsewhere in most of the scenes. This might be due to the uninspired dialog they were given. Also the whole flow of the movie felt quite mechanical. Going from one scene to the next. It seems this movie was just written (badly) but never directed.<br /><br />This is one of the few films that I can say generated no emotional response from any of the scenes. No suspense, no fear, no anticipation, no sorrow, no introspection, no intellectual stimulation, no interest what so ever.<br /><br />A perfect example of what I call an anti-movie.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
6,781 |
Dumb is as dumb does, in this thoroughly uninteresting, supposed black comedy. Essentially what starts out as Chris Klein trying to maintain a low profile, eventually morphs into an uninspired version of "The Three Amigos", only without any laughs. In order for black comedy to work, it must be outrageous, which "Play Dead" is not. In order for black comedy to work, it cannot be mean spirited, which "Play Dead" is. What "Play Dead" really is, is a town full of nut jobs. Fred Dunst does however do a pretty fair imitation of Billy Bob Thornton's character from "A Simple Plan", while Jake Busey does a pretty fair imitation of, well, Jake Busey. - MERK
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
2,805 |
In 1972, after his wife left to go her own way, Elvis Presley began dating Linda Thompson. Miss Thompson, a good-humored, long haired, lovely, statuesque beauty queen, is charted to fill a void in Elvis' life. When Elvis' divorce became final, Linda was already in place as the legendary performer's live-in girlfriend and travel companion until 1976.<br /><br />This is a gaudy look at their love affair and companionship. Linda whole-heartedly tending to her lover's needs and desires. And even putting up with his swallowing medications by the handful and introducing her to her own love affair with valium. At times this movie is harsh and dark of heart; a very unattractive look at the 'King' and his queen.<br /><br />Don Johnson is absolutely awful as Elvis. Over acting to the hilt is not attractive. Stephanie Zimbalist lacks the classiness of Linda, but does the job pretty well. Supporting cast includes: John Crawford, Ruta Lee, and Rick Lenz. Watching this twice is more than enough for me, but don't let this review stop you from checking it out. For most Elvis fans that I have conferred with, this is not a favored presentation.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
9,312 |
I like animated shows. I enjoy the Nick fare pretty much, including Hey, Arnold. But moving a TV show to the Big Screen isn't easy and this just didn't feel big enough. It was more like a long episode of the show, and it just didn't move along that well. Judging by the behavior of the kids we had with us, it didn't score that well with them either.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
8,933 |
This is possibly one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I don't care what the critics say, it's bad. I think the problem is with Kundera's novel. It's not that it's unfilmable; it's just that like 99% of his work, it's pretentious and overdrawn. He seems to be enamored with himself,his characters come off as navel-gazing, and his novels as a whole are misogynistic. I have read many of his works (even his Socialist Realist poetry. That was truly awful) -- I just don't understand what the fuss is about. Characteristics (like the self-absorption) in his novels make for infuriating reading. In a movie, all the things that I dislike about Kundera were magnified. Maybe I just missed something, but I don't think so. On a side note, I cannot believe that this is a Criterion Collection DVD. No way is this movie THAT essential.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.