id
int32 0
25k
| text
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| label
int64 0
3
| Generalization
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
23,050 |
Vanilla Sky is a 2001 remake of the 1997 movie Abre Los Ojos (Open Your Eyes). And in my opinion, a much more human and emotional version. Tom Cruise plays David Aames, a selfish egomaniac who takes other people's emotions for granted, and thinks only of himself. Jason Lee plays Brian Shelby, David's best, and in many ways, only friend. Penelope Cruz plays Sofia Serrano, Brian's girlfriend whom accompanies him to David's birthday party. Cameron Diaz plays Julie Gianni, David's occasional bed buddy. Kurt Russell plays Dr. Curtis McCabe, a psychologist interviewing David. All of their interactions, and the consequences of them, make Vanilla Sky one of the most emotional, and complex thrillers ever made. I won't explain anymore of the plot, because it's far more compelling, the less you know. Ignore all people that call this film too confusing to follow. If you pay attention, you won't be confused. The film is very complex, but not confusing. And in my opinion, one of the best movies ever made.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
15,610 |
Not many reviews, hence thought i would add one.<br /><br />DO NOT GO BY THE OTHER REVIEWS! This was a excellent movie.<br /><br />RKS is one of the very few Indian directors that can actually put together a really good movie.<br /><br />AB and Akshay given yet another example of great acting, as does bhoomika too, which was a little unexpected, but great to watch.<br /><br />Am surprised there has not been much hype around release.<br /><br />Or filmfare/other awards nominations, considering how good the movie was.<br /><br />Better then Khakee i thought and i thought Khakkee too was good movie.<br /><br />Is a fairly long movie, but definitely worth it and while watching it, definitely does seem long.<br /><br />Cant wait for RKS next movie and the next AB, Akshay movie they always seem to do well together... e.g. waqt.<br /><br />Bhoomika too has acted really well in the movie and should do really well if she continue in the same fashion in the future.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
21,736 |
Not a bad film. Somehow I was made to actually root for the Iranians to win the game played in the movie even though I don't know anything about soccer and am not a fan. The ending on the bus was exhilarating.<br /><br />The film itself deals with the issue of women in Iran, and how they are not allowed to go into sporting arenas amongst men because their swearing is inappropriate for women to hear. Despite this law, some women try to sneak in, but many of them get caught and detained. It's really astonishing that any society could still have such antiquated notions of gender. In an interview, Panahi says his films are documents of history and its injustices, and that one day in the future we can watch these movies and see how Iran once lived. One hopes that future will come sooner rather than later.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
23,717 |
This is the best of Shelley Duvall's high-quality "Faerie Tale Theatre" series. The ugly stepsisters are broadway-quality comedy relief, and Eve Arden is the personification of wicked stepmotherhood. Jennifer Beals does an excellent job as a straight Cinderella, especially in the garden scene with Matthew Broderick's Prince Charming. Jean Stapleton plays the fairy godmother well, although I'm not sure I liked the "southern lady" characterization with some of the lines. Steve Martin's comedy relief as the Royal Orchestra Conductor is quintessential Martin, but a tiny bit misplaced in the show's flow.<br /><br />As is customary with the series, there are several wry comments thrown in for the older children (ages 15 and up). With a couple of small bumps, the show flows well, and they live happily ever after. Children up to age 8 will continue to watch it after the parents finally get tired of it -- I found 3 times in one day to be a little too much.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
12,211 |
I don't quite get the rating for The Amati Girls and I think I was REALLY kind giving it a 4 out of 10. What could otherwise have been a wonderful story with actually a set of more or less decent actors became a total farce in my eyes. There are so many clichés in that flick, the women's hair is just awful and most of the scenes are more than unrealistic or seem fake. There's no real passion in this movie but a bunch of actors over-acting over any limits that it hurts. It's not funny enough to be a comedy, it's too fake-sad to really touch, so in my eyes it's just not good. Watching it I couldn't believe how something like that made it to my TV set in my living room in Switzerland. But.. maybe it still was OK and it just got lost in translation? Who knows. Definitely one of the oddest movies I've ever seen and this certainly not in a good way! Sorry.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
17,101 |
Freddy Krueger the dream stalker from elm street returns,the great character actor Robert englund is back in this sequel of nightmare 5, dream child.i hope i got the number correctly.there's been so many,and this one is one of the best,especially for the cameos by;Rosanne Barr (then Arnold)tom Arnold,johnny depp,(who did the very first nightmare in 84)alice cooper(singer)you will see Freddy as a tormented child,a teenager who loves pain,and as a family guy(creepy)the effects are very funny and creative,the cast also includes Lisa Zane(Billy's sister) breckin Meyer(road trip)yaphet kotto(alien,live and let die)and Amanda Donahue(father knows best)i was one of the people 3who saw this in 3d,well the ending.i love 3d movies.i missed the first 3d wave in 1953(i wasn't even born yet)the second wave was in 1983.i like all the Freddy movies.this one stands out as one of the better ones not counting the first which was absolutely brilliant,Freddy became the new monster of the 80s and 90s,along with Jason voorhees,chucky,Micheal myers,and leather face.can you imagine a film with all of them?i recommend this to all Freddy fans and horror fans alike.that Freddy is such a cut up.8 out of 10.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
12,936 |
This is what the musical genre was made of. Humor, talent, romance, and action all rolled into one.<br /><br />Frank Sinatra was wonderful. Nothing else needs to be said. Marlon Brando, although not a singer, did a great job winning the hearts of many with his portrayal of Sky Masterson. The fact that he couldn't sing added to his character. The ladies in the film were alright, but the men in the movie definitely stole the show.<br /><br />It is a true classic that can be appreciated at any age. It connects with all audiences and makes you smile and laugh.<br /><br />Definitely a movie to be watched and enjoyed!
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
1,713 |
Wow, what a total let down! The fact people think this film is scary is ridiculous. The special effects were a direct rip-off of "The ring." The story? Was there one? Not in my opinion..Just a bunch of flashy imaging. The entire film was a boring, stupid, mess. I guess there is always a market for bad films with good marketing campaigns. However, this is the worst horror film I have seen in years. And that Buffy chick? Well, she's a bad actress! As plastic as Barbie and just as talented..No, wait, that would be an insult to the talents of Barbie! I suppose many kiddies helped this film at the box office as it was PG-13, and had it been rated R, it would have bombed IMO! Stupid movie!
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
22,813 |
After watching the rather sloppy WW1 spy thriller, Madam Lili (1969)starring Julie Andrews on tv this afternoon, I suddenly thought I had seen a far superior WW1 spy thriller. All I could remember was that it was produced by Dino De Laurentis. It only took a short search on IMDB to find Fraulein Doktor. Once I recognised the title the memories came flooding back. It is, for its time, a reasonably well crafted story revolving around true events such as the death of Kitchener and the German offensives of 1918.It also has a female spy who is much more believable than Julie Andrews! As with other reviewers the first and strongest memory was of the well produced battle scenes and of men and horses in gas masks. If you have an interest in war films and particularly WW1 it is a film well worth seeing if you have the opportunity.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
12,625 |
I don't know why some people criticise that show so much.<br /><br />It is a great, funny show - probably not the right material for mainstream prime-time, but still...<br /><br />The family dynamics are funny, and all in all the same you see in most comedy shows. The supporting characters are absolutely hilarious. The plots of the individual episodes and the frequent Siegfried & Roy jibes are only just above average, but ever so often you have sub-plots or one-liners that make you roll on the floor laughing.<br /><br />This show was well worth the 8 Pounds I paid for it.<br /><br />rating: 8/10
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
7,575 |
An interesting idea (four African American women crushed under society's boot heel take their revenge by robbing banks) is ruined by F. Gary Gray's horribly slow direction and an excruciating script (by Takashi Bufford and Kate Lanier) full of unintentionally funny moments. Instead of delivering a pointed commentary about the role of urban women struggling to stay afloat in a world where men cruelly abuse and humiliate them, Gray, Bufford and Lanier prefers to pummel their unsuspecting audience with highbrow notions of operatic tragedy. It's melodrama at its worst. Gray has his actors linger over every tired line and John Carter's lazy editing refuses to pick up the slack, choosing instead to keep his camera trained on the performers' bemused faces. And bemused they are: although actors such as Jada Pinkett, Kimberly Elise and Vivica A. Fox have some raw talent (Queen Latifah is the fourth and as an actress she's an excellent rapper), they need a surer hand than Gray's to guide them and as a result they come off as shrill and uncomfortable in front of the camera. Steer clear.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
12,225 |
I managed to grab a viewing of this with the aid of MST3K, and oh boy, even with the riffing this movie was excruciatingly bad. Imagine someone whose competence with a camera could be out done by a monkey.<br /><br />The highlights (what little there were) came from the special effects, which were "OK". The acting for the most part was also "OK"; though nothing special, it was of a higher quality than other B-Movies I have seen in the past.<br /><br />The rest of this movie is dismally bad, The camera work often looks like they've just put the camera man on roller skates and pushed him along. The story (if it can be called that) is so full of holes it's almost funny, It never really explains why the hell he survived in the first place, or needs human flesh in order to survive. The script is poorly written and the dialogue verges on just plane stupid. The climax to movie (if there is one) is absolutely laughable.<br /><br />If you can't find the MST3K version, avoid this at all costs.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
9,655 |
This movie is now my gauge against which all other movies will be compared...as in, "was it as stupid as Revolver?" I too was in the Toronto International Film Festival audience last night where a room filled with over 2000 people walked out in an eerie silence after being absolutely dumbstruck by 2 hours of sheer nonsense. Jason Stratham would have been amazing if only he had a purpose. Within the first 10 minutes he's given a proposition by Andre 3000 and Big Pussy (of Soprano's fame) which makes NO SENSE AT ALL! Then there's some shooting and then there's Ray Liotta wearing embarrassing bikini briefs, then there's some animation, Ray Liotta's naked butt, lots of shooting, teeth gnashing, art house wanna be pretensions and more of Liotta's embarrassing body that elicited laughs at every showing...which I'm not quite sure was the reaction he was looking for...not 5 times anyway. Everyone in this movie thinks they're smarter than the average bear and Guy Ritchie thinks he's Yogi Bear incarnate. The story lines might have went nowhere but the posturing was outta sight! The only way this movie could have been worse is if Madonna herself was in it.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
9,174 |
If you like bad movies, this is the one to see. It's incredibly low-budget special effects (you'll see what I mean) and use of non-actors was what gave this film it's charm. If you're bored with a group of friends, I highly recommend renting this B movie gem. It's mulletrific!
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
21,700 |
After seeing the terrible, terrible, terrible BATMAN: DEAD END I knew I had to see this as soon as I heard about it.<br /><br />Pressing play to view the trailer I thought I was in for another hideous short from what so-far looked like another bad wannabe film-maker trying to bring new depth to an existing character. But was instead greeted with a GREATLY put together trailer for a movie that sadly doesn't exist, as I would LOVE to see a finished movie even if it was only 30 minutes long.<br /><br />WORLD'S FINEST makes up for BATMAN: DEAD END and then some.<br /><br />I look forward to the next short!
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
11,077 |
There is something in most of us, especially guys, that admires some really working class small town "real men" populist fare. And Sean Penn serves it up for us with a cherry on top. Hey, A lot of people use Penn as a political whipping boy, but I don't rate movies or actor/directors based on politics or personality. That is what right wing commentators like excretable faux movie reviewer Debbie Schlussel does. While acknowledging he is one of our best actors and a good director, I think this picture was a simplistic piece of aimless dreck that he has atoned for since. <br /><br />Okay, you have the gist of this there is this good cop, a small town trooper, Joe, played against type by David Morse, who in the opening scene chases some guy on a country farm road in big sixties cars. The bad guy stops, gets out, shoots at him so Joe has to blast him dead. There was no explanation what drove this man to do such a desperate violent thing and the dead man's parents do some redneck freak out at the police station while Joe feels real sad and guilty that he had to kill someone. So we know that Joe, the farmer forced off his land into a cop job, is a good basic sort of guy. Then his brother Frank shows up, he is a sadistic, amoral bully, fresh out of the Army and Nam where the war got his blood lust up. Some people here and in other reviews called him just an irresponsible hell raising younger brother and Sean was trying to make some point about what our John Wayne tough guy culture and war does to otherwise good people but what I saw was an amoral, sadistic bully who enjoys hurting and ripping people off. Then there is mom and dad, Marsha Mason and Charles Bronson, who do the requisite turn as old fashioned country couple, then die off; she by illness and he by shotgun suicide, to advance the story for us. Both times Frank the bad guy is away being a miserable SOB. But good Joe brings him back to Podunksville from jail so Frank can straighten his life out by welding bridges and living with his utterly stupid screaming trashy pregnant wife. But Joe has a nice wife, played by Italian actress Valeria Golina, who is Mexican and Sean uses this as an exercise in some affirmative action embellishment of goody Joe and his real soulfulness underneath his uniform and crew cut. For me, that was an utterly pointless affirmative action subplot that Sean uses to burnish his tough guy creds by sucking up to Mexicans because Mexicans are so tough and cool.<br /><br />But Frank is bad and we get the requisite events like stealing friend's car, robbing gas station by beating the clerk over the head then torching the car and all those cool things that hell raisers do. Then there are the mandatory 8mm film childhood flashbacks of young Joey dutifully moving the lawn and cowboy dressed Franky jumping on his back and wrestling him and yadda yadda so we all know what deep bond there is between the two of them.<br /><br />So the film meanders around with a lot of small town schlock to warm the heart of any red stater. Accompanying the film was a great soundtrack of good sixties songs like Jefferson Airplane and Janis Joplin which were totally inappropriate, except for the 60's era effect, to win the hearts of old hippies. The worst offense is that, since the movie was inspired by a Springsteen song, "The Highway Patrolman", that song was not included. <br /><br />So Joe's brain dead wife goes into labor and Joe runs off to the bar to get loaded and spout some populists drunken victim's spiel about how tough things are while good Joey comes to drag him back to his wife. The bartender is good Ole Ceasar, played by Dennis Hopper. So Viggo - Frank whigs out for no particular reason and beats his pal Ceasar to death after good Joe the Cop leaves.<br /><br />So Joe has chase his bad brother down and I was so hoping that he would do the right thing and blow that menace to society away. Instead we get a scene where his brother stops ahead of him in some old 50's junker on some lonely road at night, and little Franky in his cowboy suit and cap guns gets out of the car to face good Joe, the kid from the 8mm flashback home movie sequence. Oy, such dreck! Then to top off this drecky sap fest, there is some Zen crap about the Indian runner, who is a messenger, becomes the message, ala Marshall MacLuhen? See what I mean, Sean has done much better than this so don't be afraid to miss this one.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
11,432 |
This movie is horrible. THe acting is a waste basket. No crying, no action, hopeless songs. Though the scenery is great. I have always wanted to go to Greece.<br /><br />Anyway, as for Saif, you'd expect a great performance, but even he let down the people.<br /><br />Akshay Kumar, recognized as the pimp of Bollywood and the voice of Singhs. He was sensational in this movie. For only this performance, Filmfare should introduce another award. The toiletries award for the worst performance. By the way the trophy should be a toilet seat.<br /><br />Kareena Kapoor. She first of all is not comparable to her sister Karisma. In acting, in looks, or in body. She now wants to prove to herself that she surpasses her. She comes into this movie wearing bikini's and tank tops and short shorts. I really wonder why Saif Ali Khan is letting his wife-to-be dress like that. But, she must've impressed some people dressing like that. And if you ask how, then consider every man is having an erection watching this movie. They are dreaming of having Kareena Kapoor in bed naked with a condom. Including me. Personally I think that she dressed like a whore, but I really liked it.<br /><br />I am forced to give it a 1/10, but I'd really give this movie a 0/10. An unachieved film.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
6,281 |
Shown in Australia as 'Hydrosphere', this incredibly bad movie is SO bad that you become hypnotised and have to watch it to the end, just to see if it could get any worse... and it does! The storyline is so predictable it seems written by a high school dramatics class, the sets are pathetic but marginally better than the miniatures, and the acting is wooden.<br /><br />The infant 'muppet' seems to have been stolen from the props cupboard of 'Total Recall'. There didn't seem to be a single, original idea in the whole movie.<br /><br />I found this movie to be so bad that I laughed most of the way through.<br /><br />Malcolm McDowell should hang his head in shame. He obviously needed the money!
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
2,439 |
"I went to the movies, to see 'Beat Street' / it wasn't bad, it was kinda' neat / 'Krush Groove' was a flick, that I didn't mind / but when it came to 'Rappin', I drew the line." Word to your mother.<br /><br />Want me to stop?<br /><br />That's just a small sample of the stupa-fly style of rhymin' on display in this waste of film and location permits. This movie is seriously wack (thats 80s-speak for just f*cking awful). As an emcee, Mario Van Peebles is one hell of an actor. And as an actor, Mario Van Peebles is one hell of a bodybuilder.<br /><br />Any film calling itself "Rappin'" had better deliver at that genre's highest standard of the time. So why were 6 year olds rolling in the aisles, even back in the day when standards were so knee-high-to-"Webster"-low? Because this rap is weak. So weak that not even B.E.T. or Comedy Central will touch it with a 10-foot gold-rope chain.<br /><br />Blondie's "Rapture" is def poetry next to this bit of Dr. Suess in the hood. So don't be a boobie, avoid this movie!<br /><br />
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
24,153 |
My abiding love of Italian actress Lucianna Paluzzi, who helped jump-start my puberty with her performance in 1965's "Thunderball," has led me to some fairly unusual places. Case in point, this British curiosity from 1959, "Carlton-Browne of the F.O.," which features Lucianna in one of her earlier roles. She plays a princess in this one, although the picture is actually a showcase for the talents of Terry-Thomas and Peter Sellers, both of whose stars were certainly on the rise at this point. In this cute, often very funny film, we learn of the Madeira-like island nation of Gaillardia, which had been a British colony until 1916 and then universally forgotten. Forty-three years later, however, it becomes the center of worldwide attention and international espionage when valuable cobalt deposits are discovered there, and Her Majesty sends the bumbling Carlton-Browne of the Foreign Office to take charge. Terry-Thomas underplays this part nicely, as does Sellers in his role as Prime Minister Amphibulos of the tiny country. (This was Sellers' second film of 1959 concerning a tiny country matching wits with the world, the other being "The Mouse That Roared," of course.) Ian Bannen almost steals the show here as Gaillardia's suave king, and my girl Lucianna is as appealing as can be in her minor role. The film exhibits much in the way of very dry humor, although there ARE some belly laughs to be had (the reception at the Gaillardian airport, for example, and especially that May Day-style parade of Gaillardian strength). And Sellers' seedy prime minister, with his cracked English and seemingly perpetual sweat stains, is yet another memorable character in this great actor's pantheon. Despite the occasional instance or two of indecipherable, stiff-upper-lip British gibberish, I found this picture to be a winningly modest entertainment, and well presented on this crisp-looking Anchor Bay DVD.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
4,136 |
It is a good film for kids who love dogs. It runs a bit slow early on but ends if a flurry of gooped up De Vil. The basic plot is the same as the first movie. The bright side of the movie for adults is the talking bird that thinks it is a dog. The bird talks like a human(Eric Idle of Monty Python) and barks like a dog. It is the comedy that the film needed more of. See it in the matinee so you don't have to pay full price or wait for it to appear on Disney.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
24,380 |
I thought that this film was very well made, Heath Leger was very convincing and his Irish accent was flawless. Orlando Bloom and Naomi Watts were also really good and believable. How true it is to what really happened I have no idea, but it did portray why people sometimes become what they do. Maybe those in authority have always been corrupt and I did find it interesting that over 30,000 signed a petition for Ned Kelly NOT to be hanged, so maybe there was more truth in this film than at first thought? In many ways it reminded me of Cold Mountain which was another good historical film. All in all I would highly recommend this film and I am somewhat baffled why it didn't do better in the cinemas.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
11,760 |
*Possible Spoiler*<br /><br />'Return to Cabin by the Lake' is a useless movie. The acting was not good and the plot wasn't even remotely interesting.<br /><br />'Cabin by the Lake' is a good TV movie. The sequel was not. Judd Nelson was very good in the first film and put a whole lot more into his character than in this. It seemed as if HE wasn't even interested in doing the sequel. His acting was good but it could have been better. I really don't want to comment on the rest of the cast because in my opinion, they're not even worth mentioning. But I'll do it. The character of Alison isn't even hardly shown in the first part of the film. All of a sudden she's the center of attention next to Stanley Caldwell. The role didn't make sense and it should have been thought out a little better. Dahlia Salem was absolutely terrible. Her acting was way below decent and the casting people should have looked for somebody else, anybody else. The director, Mike, was a confusing character. He seemed to have a purpose for being there but it didn't seem like his death was necessary. The acting for this role was good, nothing great but better than Salem's.<br /><br />The plot was real lousy if you think about it. Stanley, who is presumed dead, makes his way onto the set of 'Cabin by the Lake', the movie based on his script. He stumbles upon the director and in a short time, the director is dead and Stanley is running the show. Yeah, out of nowhere the crew is just going to let this stranger come into the picture and finish the film not knowing anything about him. There's some killings, not a whole lot, and the one's that are shown are ridiculous. One of the actresses on the set gets electrocuted while filming a scene. Another character gets chewed up by a motorboat. And one gets tangled up in a plant before drowning. These writers must have been hard up for excitement.<br /><br />I just have to say that I was not impressed with the filming of the movie. The way that it kept changing from looking low budget back to normal started to become irritating very fast. Also, the new cabin by the lake was poorly created. We aren't shown it but only in a few scenes, and the whole thing with the chain in the basement was useless. It worked in the first film only because we were shown the room a lot more, but it didn't work in this one.<br /><br />There were too many characters in this sequel. All of them except for a few had no reason to be there. The acting of what little is showed was really bad and...they just didn't have a purpose in this movie.<br /><br />All in all, 'Return to Cabin by the Lake' is a sequel picking up from where the first left off. 'Cabin by the Lake' I can take but this was just not impressive. Judd Nelson should have avoided this one and so should you. It's nothing like the first and it went entirely too slow. Nothing happened in the first hour and it continued to drag on for the second. Not to mention that the writing was horrible. Put this on only if you need some help getting to sleep.<br /><br />So, we see that Stanley defies death and is still alive and well. By the way he talks, it sounds like there could be a possible third installment to a movie good just by itself. Quit throwing in sequels and we may be alright!<br /><br />(Did the film makers not realize that they showed us how they filmed the lake scenes from the first one? They were all done in a tank. Never, never reveal the secrets of filming.)<br /><br />
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
283 |
Well I'm blowed, a Woody Allen film that I walked out of after half an hour (I'm aware of the moral fragility of commenting on a film of which I've seen less than half, but I hope you'll understand why). Basically, it became apparent very early on that we were going to be patronised from the screen with: a script that set out its conceit as if with bullet points; a cast that were all trying to be characters from Hannah and Her Sisters (with the exception of Chloe Sevigny), and were badly directed into doing so; and a camera that sat around portentously, only for there to be nothing to film but chat and the actor delivering it. Drama? None; it's partially pre-narrated, but the action does nothing to develop a dramatic situation.<br /><br />Maybe I did leave too early in this case, but by then I'd decided against another hour and a half of one-liner-Allen clones. The script has its funny moments I went almost entirely on the back of Will Ferrell's excerpts in the trailer (trailer-hooked again, doh!) but there's little pace to let them fly off nonchalantly, as is best. Worse than this there's no fluidity. Saying this film's wooden makes a forest look like a jelly: the opening café-bound discussion being the most abject case-in-point. The only thing that should be done by numbers is potted reviewing 2/10.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
839 |
I love a good sappy love story (and I'm a guy) but when I rented "Love Story" I prayed for the end to come as quickly and painlessly as possible and just the opposite for Ali McGraw's character.<br /><br />Ali McGraw as Jenny alienated and irritated the heck out of me within the first 15 minutes. When we learn that she has been diagnosed with a life threatening illness I couldn't help but wonder if her death would be such a terrible loss for poor Oliver or if anyone watching this film would even care. If she didn't die her grating personality would probably have pushed Oliver over the edge and eventually landed them in divorce court.<br /><br />People love this movie but it's one of the worst of the 70's.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
12,655 |
Sure, he became rapidly uneven after this film, but from "Knife In the Water" up till "The Tenant", Roman Polanski could always be counted on to deliver something fascinating and unique. Despite many running themes (alienation, paranoia), no two of his films are really alike. The story of this is somewhat similar to his own "Repulsion" from ten years earlier, but the tone is completely different. "The Tenant" manages to balance darker than dark absurdity (I'm a bit hesitant on calling it humor, even though the protagonists bizarre behavior and dialog was occasionally funny) with some truly suspenseful paranoia. Polanski was always a master at building unease, and moments in this film are almost unbearably creepy. The overall weirdness of the film is also a plus.<br /><br />In addition to Polanski's exquisite as usual direction, the rest of the cast and crew offer great contributions. Polanski the actor is often overshadowed by Polanski the director, but his performance here truly captures his characters awkwardness and sense of being an outcast. The themes of social discrimination make this film more than just strangeness for the sake of being strange. The rest of the cast offers strong performances also, especially Isabelle Adjani's sympathetic turn, and Melyvn Douglas and Shelley Winters' appropriately annoying ones. "The Tenant" is often underrated because of how ready people are to heap praise on both "Repulsion" and "Rosemary's Baby", but its just as brilliant as either of those classics. (9/10)
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
9,446 |
This is one of the worst movies I have seen recently. When a man says that he wishes he had a super power of being able to orally pleasure himself I pretty much consider the movie to be in the realm of childish 14 year old male fantasies. The bed room scene was over the top and reduced an intimate moment into a farce of biological functions akin to passing gas in public. From the first every other scene was a discussion about how little sex they where getting, how long its been since they got some, when their next sexual liaison will be, and with whom it should be with. On top of that the dialogue and acting was very poor and very forced, not felt, and they filled their lack of content with sleazy sex scenes. This could have been really funny because the concept is actually interesting but it is poorly executed here. Please, do not even think about taking anyone under 16 if you have to go and see it.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
6,389 |
Ugh! Another one of those "fooled by the cover" DVDs. I expected some kind of action at least with bears, cats, & such on the cover. I got NOTHING! Bad movie!.<br /><br />I forced myself to watch this all the way through thinking that eventually SOMETHING would happen...no luck.<br /><br />Now the reason I gave this a 2 is because of the scenery; otherwise it sucked.<br /><br />The kid was terrible, talking to himself (although I suppose they couldn't just run a movie with dumb music and no dialogue at all), doing his lame karate stances to a tree stump, threatening a raccoon, munching on worms, and (what a dumbass) kicking a porcupine. And he wouldn't be pulling those quills out that easily either...they stick like fishhooks. At least he fought the bear (weakly) a couple of times.<br /><br />What was up with the flashback thing? It made a bad movie even worse. I wanted to see a survival movie, not some dramatic bs about a kid suffering thru divorce.<br /><br />What else can I say? Well, maybe they should have had the bear eat the kid or something. At least that would have been more exciting.<br /><br />People, don't waste your time on this one.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
15,317 |
If you like films about school bullies, brave children, hilarious toddlers and worm eating, then How to Eat Fried Worms will appeal to you.<br /><br />The film is about a boy named Billy, who when arriving on his first day at a new school, discovers that some of his classmates have played a prank on him by putting worms into his lunch. The school bully, Joe and his "team" of friends start teasing Billy and calling him "worm boy".<br /><br />Billy decides to play along by saying that "he eats worms all the time". Joe and his friends don't believe him but Billy assures them and bets Joe that he can eat ten worms in one day otherwise he will come to school with worms in his pants.<br /><br />The boys take Billy up on his bet, leaving the weak stomached child with a mission to gain respect from his classmates by eating worms cooked, fried, or alive.<br /><br />The film may sound gross but there are a lot of messages in it. For one, it portrays true friendship and how to accept people for who they are. It also shows you why some bullies resort to bullying other children.<br /><br />The film's protagonist, Billy is a strong minded and brave person who all of us can relate to. It is easy to empathize with him as we silently cheer for him to reach his goal, even though we might not always agree with what he's doing or the choices he makes.<br /><br />The children in the film are portrayed exactly how children are in real life and the film deserves a lot of credit for that. The child actors are the stars of this show, showing true emotion and feeling than most other children's movies portray.<br /><br />Some adults may not enjoy this film but kids will, perhaps even teenagers.<br /><br />There are hardly any other good movies on circuit at the moment, so if you're not in the mood to see snakes on a plane, try worms on a plate in How to Eat Fried Worms. It is a feel good fun film and not just Fear Factor for kids.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
20,841 |
A remarkable example of cinematic alchemy at work, with a trite'n'turgid lump of lead script (penned by numbingly mediocre Hollywood hack nonpareil Jole Schumacher, no less) being magically converted into a choice chunk of exquisitely gleaming 24-carat musical drama gold thanks to brisk direction, fresh, engaging performances, spot-on production values, a flavorsome recreation of 50's era New York, an infectiously effervescent roll-with-the-punches tone, and a truly wondrous rhythm and blues score by the great Curtis Mayfield.<br /><br />The story, loosely based on the real life exploits of the Supremes, prosaically documents the arduous rags-to-riches climb of three bright-eyed, impoverished black teenage girl singers who desperately yearn to escape their ratty, unrewarding ghetto plight and make it big in the razzle-dazzle world of commercial R&B music. All the obvious pratfalls of instant wealth and success -- egos run destructively amok, drugs, corruption, fighting to retain your integrity, and so on -- are predictably paraded forth, but luckily the uniformly excellent work evident in the film's other departments almost completely cancels out Schumacher's flat, uninspired plotting. The first-rate acting helps out a lot. Irene Cara, Lonette McKee, and Dwan Smith are sensationally sexy, vibrant and appealing leads -- and great singers to boot. Comparably fine performances are also turned in by a charmingly boyish pre-"Miami Vice" Philip Michael Thomas as the group's patient, gentlemanly manager, Dorian Harewood as McKee's venal, aggressively amorous hound dog boyfriend, and perennial blaxploitation baddie Tony ("Hell Up in Harlem," "Bucktown") King as a dangerously seductive, smooth operating, stone cold nasty gangster. The tone dips and dovetails from funny and poignant to melancholy and blithesome without ever skipping a beat, deftly evolving into a glowing, uplifting ode to the human spirit's extraordinary ability to effectively surmount extremely difficult and intimidating odds.<br /><br />Veteran editor Sam O'Stern acquits himself superbly in his directorial debut. Bruce Surtees' luminescent cinematography and Gordon Scott's expert editing are both flawless. O'Stern's firm grasp of period atmosphere, keen eye for tiny, but telling little details, and unerring sense of busy, unbroken pace are just as impressive. No fooling about Curtis Mayfield's impeccable soundtrack contributions, either. "Jump," "What Can I Do With This Feeling," "Givin' Up," "Take My Hand Precious Lord," "Lovin' You Baby," and "Look Into Your Heart" are all terrifically tuneful, soulful, almost unbelievably fantastic songs, with the sweetly sultry love jones number "Something He Can Feel," which was later covered by both Aretha Franklin and En Vogue, clearly copping top musical honors as the best-ever song in the entire movie. The net result of all these above cited outstanding attributes persuasively illustrates that sometimes it's not the screenplay so much as what's done with said script which in turn determines a film's overall sterling quality.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
9,635 |
He really lost the plot with this one! None of his distinctive trademarks here at all, an uninteresting plot and completely terrible acting make this his worst film (in my opinion). Even his trademark gore is gone, bar one scene in an operating theatre. Oh well, at least his next film 'Nightmare Concert' showed that he could still shock when he wanted to...
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
3,236 |
Because 'cruel' would be the only word in existence to describe the intentions of these film makers. Where do you even begin? In a spout of b*tchiness, I'm going to start with the awful acting of nearly everybody in this movie. Scratch that. Nearly does not belong in that sentence. I can't think of even one character who was portrayed well. Although, in all fairness, it would be nearly impossible to portray these zero dimensional characters in a successful way. Still, the girl who played Katherine (whose name I purposefully don't include - I'm pretending she doesn't exist) remains one of the worst actors I've ever seen, only eclipsed by the guy who played Sebastian. The story was God awful. It attempted to mirror the brilliance that was the first one but failed in so many ways. Pretty much every part of it was pointless - though I will admit (grudgingly) that the plot twist was quite good it its surprise. And the ending was at least slightly humorous. But this film is up there with the worst I've seen. Don't watch it. Just don't. There is absolutely no value in watching it. None. It only takes away the enjoyment of the first.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
8,215 |
I went into this film expecting it to be similar to The Matrix or Pi. Boy, was I wrong. Yes, there is a poorly written, poorly acted plot in the movie (with CG animated cells and peptides to boot). However, the real focus of the film are the "expert" talking heads spewing out new age feel-good hogwash in between plot segments.<br /><br />Sure, it stars off innocently enough. There is a little bit of real quantum physics in the beginning. It states, for example, that electrons exist as both particle and wave, and that an atom is mostly empty space. However, the movie takes a giant (and unscientific) leap, saying that sub-atomic quantum effects happen on large scales as well. The talking heads take it even further. According to them, the following are true:<br /><br />-When Columbus arrived in the Caribbean, the natives were unable to see his ships because their minds were incapable of perceiving something so different. -Meditation can reduce the murder rate. -With positive thought, you can walk on water. -Your thoughts can change the formations of ice crystals in bottles of water.<br /><br />And hey, that's only in the first 40 minutes!<br /><br />Watching the movie was torture. This film felt like a movie they would show you to get you to join a cult. After doing my homework, I realized that it basically is just that.<br /><br />On the other hand, this could be seen as a campy comedy (albeit one that's not funny).<br /><br />Save your time and money: don't see this movie.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
16,091 |
Made only ten years after the actual events, and set in the Bunker under the Reichstag, Pabst's film is wholly gripping. It reeks of sulfurous death awaiting the perpetrators of world war. Haven't seen this in over three decades, but it remains strong in my visual and emotional memory. The characters seem to be waiting to be walled up in their cave. Searing bit of dialog between two Generals: "Does God exist?" "If He did, we wouldn't." Shame this is not more readily available for exhibition or purchase because it would be interesting to view and compare this film with the documentary about Traudl Junge, "Im Toten Winkel" {aka "Blind Spot: Hitler's Secretary") and "Downfall" with Bruno Ganz.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
4,741 |
I absolutely love all of Tom Robbins books, so I was very excited and interested to see a movie made after one of his books. I knew that there would be no way that the movie would capture even half of Robbins' magic, but after seeing the movie, it made me never want to read the book again. The movie Even Cowgirls Get the Blues doesn't include an eighth of the content in the book, and it seems to focus more on the love connection between Bonanza Jellybean and Sissy than anything else. Along with the incredibly weak plot line in the movie, I think that better actors definitely could have been chosen to play the characters. The only actors in the movie that I thought played their roles fit to Robbins' descriptions in the book were Julian's friends, in their five minute clip in the beginning of the movie. Those who haven't read the book might enjoy the movie, but as a huge Tom Robbins fan, this movie was nothing but a disappointment.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
15,438 |
Well, maybe not immediately before the Rodney King riots, but even a few months before was timely enough. My parents said that they saw it and the next thing you know, the police got acquitted and LA got burned to the ground. It just goes to show the state of race relations in America. The plot has white Mack (Kevin Kline) and African-American Simon (Danny Glover) becoming friends after Simon saves Mack's life in the black ghetto. Meanwhile, movie producer Davis (Steve Martin in a serious role) thinks that gratuitous violence is really cool...until he gets shot. There's also some existentialism in the movie: Mack and his family come to realize that they aren't living as they really want.<br /><br />It seems that "Crash" has somewhat renewed people's interest in race relations, but this one came out much earlier. Maybe we'll never be able to have stable race relations in this country. But either way, "Grand Canyon" is a great movie. It affirms Kevin Kline as my favorite actor. Also starring Mary McDonnell, Mary-Louise Parker and Alfre Woodard.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
18,736 |
I've recently went back and watched this movie again from not seeing it in years. When I first seen the movie I was too young to understand what the movie was about. Now that I've seen it again I couldn't believe what I've missed all these years. For me being able to see movies for what they are, I think that this movie was great. Most people feel as though the music are the best part, but I don't think that's true. Most people don't realize how good the story is because it's judge by the acting. The truth of the matter is that no one in the movie were really trying to act rather they were just being themselves. The entire main cast were just playing themselves. They weren't trying to be anyone else, but themselves.<br /><br />I've actually watched and analyzed the work and effort put into the movie. Now from my perspective, the situations shown in the movie are pretty much based on what actually went on musically in Minneapolis at the time and it's most of the things that happen are actually true events that happened in Prince's career and who can tell it better than him? The music that was coming from the city at the time was starting to be recognized and be revolutionary. It was interesting to see how the music was very influential mainly at the club "First Avenue & 7th St Entry" where in fact Prince, among other musicians, got their career started. It's also a known fact that Prince and Morris Day always had a competition with each other in real life, but it was a friendly competition. They were always friends. So the story basically plays off of that competition aspect of their rivalry rather than their friendship which shows the true competitive side of what occurred at club "First Avenue" for it's time.<br /><br />Another reason why this movie is good is due to the fact that some of the situations that occur in the movie are actually based on events that Prince has gone through in his life with the music aspect and the personal. To me, this made the movie more realistic as far as the emotion because he's telling his trials and tribulations pre-superstardom. Plus, his dedication he puts into his performances is phenomenal. Prince made sure that every moment in the movie was done perfectly. Anytime you hear a song play in the movie it's in perfect sync with the situation at hand.<br /><br />Prince is in all a musical genius and he has proved it on many occasions. This movie is what really put Prince on the map officially and he hasn't slowed down since. Anyone who has watched this movie or still (unbelieveably) hasn't watched it yet, when you sit down and view this film you have have to watch it with intellect or you will miss the whole aspect of the movie. If you really love music this is definitely the movie to watch. Above what anyone else says I think it's a great movie to watch and own.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
10,165 |
Wow. Watching this film today, you can't help but be appalled by the writing of this film. Spencer Tracy and Loretta Young play a couple who, in modern times, might be featured on "The Jerry Springer Show"--as they have a sick and abusive relationship...and inexplicably, the writers appear to be endorsing it! <br /><br />The film begins with a hungry and homeless Loretta being shown the ropes by the poor but very resourceful Spencer Tracy. He shows her how by conniving you can do very well with little money and takes her home to his shack to stay. It's never clear whether or not they marry--and considering it's a Pre-Code film, you can assume they aren't even though they are cohabiting. Their relationship is very strange...and rather sick. While you can see that Tracy cares about her by his actions, he is verbally abusive and a total jerk---and Young comes running back for more like some sort of dog. He calls her "skinny" or "ugly" and these are, in a sick way, his way of using endearments! Later, when he starts fooling around with another woman (Glenda Farrell), she tells her friend that if that's what he wants, it's okay with her!!! It sure smacks of a sado-masochistic relationship and you can't help but feel a bit horrified. Sure, he doesn't hit her but the relationship is very abusive. To show how sick it is, when Young gets pregnant, she tells him "...it's your baby and it's mine, but you don't need to worry, I'll take all the blame for it"!! Yikes! Doesn't this all seem a bit like looking through a peephole into a sick and dysfunctional home?! Later, in a case of art imitating life, Tracy proves what sort of man he is and disappears. After all, he can't be burdened with a baby--even if it's his. But, he changes his mind and decides to return home. Wow...that's bit of him! And, when he returns, he's nasty and acts like IF he stays, he isn't obligated to care for the kid!! And, she tells him he's "a free man...free as a bird"! Wow, I was almost in tears at this tender moment...NOT! Soon, this crazy pair are married...and, naturally, Young is depressed because he seems to be staying as long as it suits him--not because of any love or sense of responsibility. So how can you salvage anything with this sort of sick characters? What would you do? Well, as for the writers, they have Tracy soon commit a robbery to help pay for the brat! The romantic aspects of the film are underwhelming to say the least! During the robbery, Tracy behaves like a chump--doing almost nothing to take precautions not to get caught--like he was secretly hoping to get sent to prison. And, to show what sort of nice guy he is, the guy he tries to rob is one of his best friends.<br /><br />While there's more to the film, the bottom line is that Tracy is a jerk and Young is an idiot in the film. Despite both being very good actors, there's absolutely no way they could make anything of this crap the writers produced. Nice music, nice sets, good acting...and a script that is 100% poo. How the film is currently rated 7.4 is beyond me and I wonder how anyone can ignore the pure awfulness of the characters. A horrible misfire that somehow didn't destroy the careers of those involved.<br /><br />Oh, and if you wonder if Loretta EVER gets a backbone in this film or plays a person who is the least bit strong, the answer is NO! By the end, she's learned nothing and hasn't changed one whit for the better.<br /><br />They sure don't make films like they used to...and in this case...thank God!
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
17,226 |
I don't want to bore everyone by reiterating what has already been said, but this is one of the best series ever! It was a great shame when it was canceled, and I hope someone will have the good sense to pick it up and begin the series again. The good news is that it is OUT ON DVD!!!! I rushed down to the store and picked up a copy and am happy to say that it is just as good as I remembered it. Gary Cole is a wonderfully dark and creepy character, and all actors were very good. It is a shame that the network did not continue it. Shaun Cassidy, this is a masterpiece. Anyone who enjoys the genre and who has not seen it, must do so. You will not be disappointed. My daughter who was too young to view it when it was on television (she is 20) is becoming very interested, and will soon be a fan. She finds it "very twisted" and has enjoyed the episodes she has seen. I cannot wait to view the episodes which were not aired.<br /><br />This show rocks!!!!
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
7,076 |
Don't get me wrong - I love David Suchet as Poirot. I love the series as well as the movies but enough already re: Death On The Nile. Everyone has done this one! We know who dies. We know why they die. We know who the killer is. We know how it was done. So I say enough already! Mr. Suchet could have used that awesome talent in another one of Agatha Christie's novels. I will say that the acting by all the actors was superb. The sets were terrific and very realistic. I especially liked David Soul but I was surprised at how 'awful' he looked. I hope he doesn't look that way in 'real' life! I honestly can't remember from other movies whether the very end was the same. Somehow I don't think so. I thought that was a rather brilliant touch whether or not Ms. Christie wrote it that way. I would much rather have that ending then wasting away in prison!
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
2,899 |
But I got over it. To me, it seemed that even the Author of the book favored Caroline. I felt so sorry for the character Louise, and she was constantly compared with Esau who was evil, I just felt the comparison was a bit harsh and un-realistic. Really though, the movie was bad. I wouldn't really see it unless you're ready for a big let down.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
1,520 |
Absolutely one of the worst movies of all time.<br /><br />Low production values, terrible story idea, bad script, lackluster acting... and I can't even come up with an adjective suitably descriptive for how poor Joan River's directing is. I know that there's a special place in Hell for the people who financed this film; prolly right below the level reserved for child-raping genocidal maniacs.<br /><br />This movie is a trainwreck.<br /><br />(Terrible) x (infinity) = Rabbit Test.<br /><br />Avoid this at all costs.<br /><br />It's so bad, it isn't even funny how bad it is.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
2,173 |
This movie was absolute torture. First of all, it's a whopping 4+ hours long! True, the Kargil war may have had several points that were captured and fought for, but every single one of those battles need not have been shown. So maybe this is a documentary, not a commercial film as advertised. Sure didn't seem like it, as enough background information was not given and there were some flaws. The battle sequences were so poorly executed. I am terribly disappointed from the man who gave well done sequences in Border. Each battle was the exact same as the previous. It was so predictable. (This might be a spoiler.) The whole army marches uphill, five or so soldiers curse five thousand times each (they also use the same cussword every time), one of the lead actors is shot, someone yells for a stretcher, the actor says, "No, don't get a stretcher. That will take 6 men from the battalion," and then an actor dies. That exact same thing happens over and over and over again. Oh, and the songs are so bad and so long. The cast of the movie is too big for its own good. Despite such a long movie, none of the characters were well developed. The actresses had the most miniscule roles. They all are dressed and portrayed to be the same. Two of them were weeping synchronized. It was so comical. They moved their hands and heads at the exact same time and then bit their dupatta together.<br /><br />The list just goes on and on. I know I'm still forgetting something . Anyways, I think I have bashed the film enough that you get the picture.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
17,463 |
as a habit i always like to read through the 'hated it' reviews of any given movie. especially one that i'd want to comment on. and it's not so much a point-counterpoint sorta deal; i just like to see what people say on the flipside.<br /><br />however, i do want to address one thing. many people that hated it called it, to paraphrase, 'beautiful, but shallow,' some even going so far as to say that norm's desire yet inability to help his brother was a mundane plot, at best.<br /><br />i'd like to disagree.<br /><br />as a brother of a sibling who has a similar dysfunction, i can relate. daily, you see them abuse themselves, knowing only that their current path will inevitably lead them to self-destruction. and it's not about the specifics of what they did when; how or why paul decided to take up gambling and associating with questionable folks; it's really more how they are wired. on one hand, they are veritable geniuses, and on the other, painfully self-destructive (it's a lot like people like howard hughes the same forces which drive them are the same forces which tear them apart) and all the while you see this, you know this, and what's worse, you realize you can't do a damn thing about it.<br /><br />for norman maclean, a river runs through it was probably a way to find an answer to why the tragedy had to occur, and who was to blame. in the end, no one is, and often, there is no why. but it takes a great deal of personal anguish to truly come to this realization. sometimes it takes a lifetime. and sometimes it never comes at all.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
9,617 |
From the very opening scene you will notice just how hard they tried to mimic the very smart and powerful 'Cruel Intentions', and how flat it landed. You'll also notice what a terrible choice they made by casting Robin Dunne as Valmont... Then in the second scene, you meet the two best things in this movie, Amy Adams and Mimi Rogers as Kathryn and her mother. That is, if you can get past the fact that Kathryn wasn't blonde in the first film... Then the movie goes on, you see the cheap romantic story from miles ago, and you notice Sebastian has already met an Anette in the past, here called Danielle, and a Cecile, here called Cherie... How original is that for a prequel. Then it turns into a low budget 'Wild Things' type of film with lots and lots of oh-my "twists". As I mentioned, Robin Dunne was a very bad choice. Not that he is a bad actor, he's good.. He just doesn't have the charisma Ryan did. Amy Adams, who is in my opinion one of the most talented young actresses of our time, once again delivers. But with all the talent in the world, there is no way one could save this trash. As a whole, this "movie" feels like a 'Beverly Hills, 90210' episode. The score has been stolen from 'Cruel Intentions' and 'Jawbreaker'... Yes, they used the score from JAWBREAKER... Couldn't they at least leave that one alone?! You'll want to pass this one. If you want more Cruel Intentions, watch Stephen Frears' Dangerous Liaisons.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
14,547 |
I was about 12 years old when I saw this classic "Casper the Friendly Ghost" cartoon. Figured it was an early one since Casper didn't look *right*, the same way Porky Pig doesn't look *right* in the old 1930's cartoons. But I digress...<br /><br />Anyway, this episode in the friendly phantom's afterlife concerns him befriending a young fox todd whom he names Ferdie. I remember being happy to see Casper have a friend, as those who have watched the cartoons are wont to know that most people run away from him, screaming "A Ghost!"<br /><br />Casper and Ferdie have some fun together until someone else shows up... I hate to leave you with a semi-spoiler, but the cartoon is only seven minutes long, so you can't really be too ambiguous. Besides, anyone who reads the IMDb synopsis of the cartoon can deduce what happens next...<br /><br />The finale is a bit heartbreaking. In fact, it's probably the saddest I've ever felt watching a cartoon. But that only means that it moved me, which probably explains why I decided to write a comment on this particular cartoon and not very many others. Or heck, the fact that I actually REMEMBER this cartoon at all is due to its emotional effect on me -- I haven't seen it since. But the cartoon does end on an upbeat note, and I was pleased to see Casper and Ferdie happy again.<br /><br />I'd give this cartoon 8 out of 10 stars. Second only to the Warner Bros. cartoon "Peace on Earth," this is the most I've ever been moved by an animated short.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
2,735 |
Well, what can i say about this movie. I'm speechless. I could go on about how stupid this movie is forever though the one thing that REALLY pi*sed me off was the music. And to top it all off someone commented on how much they LIKED it. To them all I have to say is that it was ripped off from one of the best martial arts movies of all time Fistsof fury starring Bruce Lee. IF he was still alive and ever came across this movie he'd be horrified. the rest of the movie is absolutely ridiculous and a waste of tape. I say tape because a movie like that couldn't possibly have been shot on film.I now feel more stupid for wasting 30 minutes of my life watching it. The only reason why i even saw it was because my roommate downloaded it out of morbid curiosity. What is this world coming to.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
10,478 |
If you want to checkout a good Jason Scott Lee film, I recommend the following:<br /><br />Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story<br /><br />Rapa Nui<br /><br />"Timecop 2: The Berlin Decision" is an awful film. Awful production values. Awful acting. Awful script. I would not recommend this film to be watched by anyone who seriously believes that tripe like this is quality entertainment or advances Asian American awareness in Hollywood (This film does neither.).<br /><br />I would at the very least say that this film is passable entertainment on a rainy day if you ever come across it while channel surfing. If you are curious, perhaps a rental from Netflix, but this film is definitely not for keeps.<br /><br />If you are one of the few people who watched this film as a means to raise your Asian American film awareness, and came away disappointed, then I recommend the following films for your personal viewing. These are well-written films with high production values that feature a talented cast of Asian American actors:<br /><br />Better Luck Tomorrow <br /><br />Mulan
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
24,897 |
I really liked the movie. I remember reading it several times as a kid and was glad to see a movie had been made about the book.<br /><br />I was kid-sitting for a boy and a girl, ages 11 and 8 and had to talk the girl in to seeing the movie. But happily, at the end, she was glad she saw it and even said that she wanted to buy it on DVD as soon as it came out.<br /><br />There were some great laugh-out-loud moments and the movie was not as "gross" as I expected it would be ... tho it did rank pretty high up there on the gross-o-meter ...<br /><br />The only thing I cannot figure out is why they had to have the "dilly" line in there that was done by Woody in reference to his private part ... that to me was the only shocker moment (and you could hear the adults in the audience audibly gasp at that moment in the movie) ... I have no clue why that was put in the movie; it added nothing to the actual movie except for that shock/gasp factor ... other than that, a pretty good movie. Nice to see the "Pepsi" girl all grown up.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
8,159 |
Manipulative drama about a glamorous model (Margaux Hemingway) who is raped by a geeky but unbalanced musician (Chris Sarandon) – to whom she had been introduced by her younger sister (played by real-life sibling Mariel), whose music teacher he is. While the central courtroom action holds the attention – thanks largely to a commanding performance by Anne Bancroft as Hemingway’s lawyer – the film is too often merely glossy, but also dramatically unconvincing: the jury ostensibly takes the musician’s side because a) the girl invited assault due to the sensuous nature of her profession and b) she was offering no resistance to her presumed aggressor when her sister arrived at the apartment and inadvertently saw the couple in bed together. What the f***?!; she was clearly tied up – what resistance could she realistically offer? <br /><br />The second half of the film – involving Sarandon’s rape of the sister, which curiously anticipates IRREVERSIBLE (2002) by occurring in a tunnel – is rather contrived: Mariel’s character should have known better than to trust Sarandon after what he did to her sister, but Margaux herself foolishly reprises the line of work which had indirectly led to her humiliating experience almost immediately! The climax – in which Sarandon gets his just desserts, with Margaux turning suddenly into a fearless and resourceful vigilante – is, however, a crowd-pleaser in the style of DEATH WISH (1974); incidentally, ubiquitous Italian movie mogul Dino De Laurentiis was behind both films.<br /><br />It’s worth noting how the two Hemingway sisters’ lives took wildly different turns (this was the film debut of both): Margaux’s career never took off (despite her undeniable good looks and commendable participation here) – while Mariel would soon receive an Oscar nomination for Woody Allen’s MANHATTAN (1979) and, interestingly, would herself play a glamorous victim of raging violence when essaying the role of real-life “Playboy” centerfold Dorothy Stratten in Bob Fosse’s STAR 80 (1983). With the added pressure of a couple of failed marriages, Margaux took refuge in alcohol and would eventually die of a drug overdose in 1996; chillingly, the Hemingway family had a history of suicides – notably the sisters’ grandfather, celebrated author Ernest, who died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound in 1961.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
11,781 |
How can a major German TV station broadcast a mess like this? It's amazing how the main actors avoid every acting talent - Even the well-known Gottfried John is acting very poor - especially in the double murder scene - how amateurish.......! The screen plan is very , very extended - perhaps to fill out 2 parts of the movie. Be careful not to fall asleep while watching! The set is obviously very often a blue screen, f.g. the scenes on the ship with unreal sea in background...! In the German version the sound and the dubbing is very poor - probably reason: different languages of actors - but: other international productions do handle this much more professional. Advice: Do NOT watch - it's a diabolic waste of time!
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
11,533 |
it was the worst ending i have ever seen if some one can please tell me how and why the last chick goes crazy and eats the old women in the end. why dose the movie have all those cheap crappy scares in it in the beginning but yet when the first person dies they kill them all off in 5 minutes! most of the people could act but i do give so credit to the porn stars they did their best. also it had a couple funny parts and kills like when the care taker gets his organs riped out of his ass and then gets choked with it. if this movie had an ending that could make any since i would have given it a 8 out of 10 but the ending made no since. the ending sucked but the rest was great
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
13,958 |
In Iran, the Islamic Revolution has shaped all parts of life, including everyday things. But people still go on living their lives, generally just doing the things you'd expect, like go to soccer matches to cheer on the national team as it's in the running to qualify for the World Cup. Except women aren't allowed to go to the soccer stadium to watch the game.<br /><br />A frequently funny little film follows the small group of women that were caught sneaking into the soccer stadium and the little group of bored soldiers assigned to guard them in a holding pen just outside the stadium. The absurdity of the situation, the simple wish of these women to cheer on the team (nothing subversive there), and little human touches about the lives of everyone adds up to quite a fine comment on humanity versus the ideology.<br /><br />Amateurish acting, good script and dialogue, a really enjoyable film. Bend It Like Beckham, sort of - a warm heart and a joy in the daily interests and pleasures of people.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
1,836 |
Honestly, I went to see the movie, not because of the actors, not because of the plot but because it was rated 17 here in Luxembourg and a movie has to be really brutal or pornographic to be put in this category. Believe me, being a movie-freak, I have seen quite a lot of brutal films in my lifetime (Ichi the killer, Irreversible, Hellraiser) but this movie was by far the most disturbing and brutal picture I have ever seen. <br /><br />The plot is plain stupid, the directing is awful, acting was mediocre even the music was a cheap copy of so-called "Horror Soundtracks". There isn't a single intelligent aspect in the whole movie, and some of the scenes are really hard to stand. (especially the scene, where you see the embryos in the glasses and hear the baby cries--horrible). I can't understand why the movie was rated 16 in Germany, where normally the criteria are real tough (e.g. kill-bill (brutal but it made fun of itself and had great allusions to Asian cinema and besides a magnificent directing) even a movie like state of grace is rated 18). No one can call this a Horror movie, because actually it was more about showing gore than about scaring the public (Showing the "Creep's" face in the middle of the movie was a very bad decision); for me (excuse my expression) it is just one insane director living out his disturbing fantasies. In some scenes you see violence, that has absolutely nothing to do with the plot nor does it explain anything. The plot has holes and flaws, the dialog is boring, honestly I can't mention a single positive aspect of the movie except for the British and Scottish accent.<br /><br />If I had something to say, I would ban this movie from the theaters, I fully understand why none of the big production companies invested their money in this crap.<br /><br />I'm looking forward to getting feedbacks to my thread and I'd be happy to discuss about one or the other topic.<br /><br />"Livin' the dream baby, livin' the dream" David Aames
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
3,281 |
Contrary to another reviewer, I think that this is WELL-written, especially the more fictional it is, because greater imagination would be required; and well acted, because there were no other characters with whom to share the focus of these dozen-minutes-plus, well-done monologues. But I'm just not entertained by such solemn, pious rememberances. Everybody has a story to tell and some are more interesting than others. Everybody has problems and some are more intense than others. These are just ten, not-very-atypical stories and problems, exemplifying how anybody's life (or part of it) is fodder for film. Then again, I think poorly of TV's reality shows, too. So, if that's your bag, you may like this. It's the kind of stuff that would make for good 'phone and/or internet gossip; but absolutely without other-than-verbal action. And, although each of the speakers is female, I'm gonna leave gender outta this.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
10,704 |
I read the reviews of this movie, and they were generally pretty good so I thought I should see it. I'm a big Francophile and art film lover, but I believe this is yet another case in which the critics make something "arty" or "intellectual" into something it is not. I will be blunt: it contains scenes of sexual perverseness that I never, ever wanted to actually see. Obviously, the piano teacher has some major psychological issues, but I really did not want to see them displayed so graphically. The film is, in essence, disgusting. I mean, when I saw Requiem for a Dream, I was repulsed by the last sort of scene with Jennifer Connelly, but that was not anywhere near the sort of disgust and repulsion I felt during this film.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
17,447 |
I'd read about FLAVIA THE HERETIC for many years, but I only got to see it early last year, when I went on an insane movie-buying binge, and, for whatever reason, it has been on my mind lately, though it's been some months since I watched it.<br /><br />It's a striking film, set in Italy somewhere around the 15th century. Definitely Medieval-era (though I don't think any specific year is ever given). This being the time of Christian ascendancy, the age is a time of utter madness, and the movie captures this very well.<br /><br />Flavia, our protagonist, is a young lady who encounters a fallen Muslim on a battlefield. He seems a warm and intriguing fellow, and she's immediately taken with him. Her father, a soldier of a a family of some standing, comes along, almost immediately, and murders the wounded man right before her eyes. But she'll continue to see him in her dreams.<br /><br />Her father ships her off to a convent that seems more like an open-air insane asylum--the residents, so harshly repressed by unyielding Medieval Christianity, slowly go mad. Flavia comes under the influence of one of the nuttier nuns. But in a mad world, only the sane are truly mad, and this sociopathic sister clearly recognizes the insanity around her. Her take on the times in which they live strikes a chord with Flavia, who, being young and apparently sheltered, is beginning to question everything about this world in which she finds herself trapped.<br /><br />The movie is unflinching in its portrayal of that world, showcasing a lot of unpleasantness. We see a horse gelded, a lord rape one of the women of his lands in a pig-sty, the pious torture of a young nun. Through it all, Flavia observes and questions, rejecting, eventually, the Christian dogma that creates such a parade of horrors in terms that would gain the movie some criticism over the years for seeming anachronistic. I disagree with that criticism. Flavia's views, though sometimes expressed in ways that vaguely mirror, for example, then-contemporary feminist commentary (the movie was made in 1974), revolve around what are really pretty obvious questions. It is, perhaps, difficult to believe she could be so much of a fish out of water in her own time, but that's the sort of minor point it doesn't do to belabor. Flavia is written in such a way to allow those of our era, or of any era, to empathize with her plight. Getting bogged down on such a matter would be missing the forest for the trees.<br /><br />Flavia is heartened when the Muslims arrive, invading the countryside, and she finds, in their leader, a new version of the handsome Islamist who still visits her dreams. Smitten with her almost immediately, he allows her to virtually lead his army, becoming a Joan of Arc figure in full battle-gear, and directing the invaders to pull down Christian society, and wreak vengeance upon all those she's seen commit evil.<br /><br />Is she the herald of a new and better world? She may think so, but Muslims of that era weren't big on feminism, either, as she soon learns the hard way. As they say, meet the new boss...<br /><br />This is really just a thumbnail of some of the things that happen in FLAVIA THE HERETIC. The movie is quite grim, and with a very downbeat, rather depressing ending. Not a mass-audience movie at all, to be sure. It's quite good, though, and doesn't belong on the "nunsploitation" pile on which it is often carelessly thrown. I think there's much value in the final film, and I'm glad I saw it.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
20,017 |
A delightful gentle comedic gem, until the last five minutes, which degenerate into run of the mill British TV farce. The last five minutes cost it 2 points in my rating. Despite this major plot and style flaw, it's worth watching for the character acting and the unique Cornwall setting. Many fine little bits to savor, like the tense eternity we all go through waiting for the bank approval after the clerk has swiped the credit card...made more piquant when we're not - quite - sure the card is not maxed.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
14,844 |
Sunday would not be Sunday without an action movie, and when you want intense combat, you turn to Tom Berenger (Platoon).<br /><br />Here he plays a sniper in the jungle going after rebels and drug lords. Life's a bitch, so he gets a green office type (Billy Zane) to help on the mission.<br /><br />The film is in the hands of Luis Llosa, who stunk up Anaconda. he doesn't do much better here, but Berenger makes the movie worthwhile.<br /><br />Sure, it may be a little long - who wants to see a lot of walking through the jungle, but is is good, tense action when the time is right.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
3,596 |
This is a classic stinker with a big named cast, mostly seniors who were well past their prime and bedtime in this one.<br /><br />This is quite a depressing film when you think about it. Remain on earth, and you will face illness and eventually your demise.<br /><br />Gwen Verndon showed that she could still dance. Too bad the movie didn't concentrate more on that. Maureen Stapleton, looking haggard, still displayed those steps from "Queen of the Star Dust Ballroom," so much more down to earth from 10 years earlier.<br /><br />I only hope that this film doesn't encourage seniors to commit mass suicide on the level of Jim Jones. How can anyone be idiotic enough to like this and say it gets you to think?<br /><br />Why did Don Ameche win an Oscar for this nonsense?<br /><br />If the seniors were doing such a wonderful thing at the end, why was the youngster encouraged to get off the boat? Why did Steve Guttenberg jump ship as well? After all, he had found his lady-love. <br /><br />This would have been a nice film if the seniors had just managed to find their fountain of youth on earth and stay there.<br /><br />Sadly, with the exception of Wilford Brimley, at this writing, Vernon, Gilford, Stapleton, Ameche, Tandy, Cronyn and lord knows who else are all gone. The writers should have taken the screenplay and placed it with this group as well.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
6,628 |
The director Sidney J. Furie has created in Hollow Point a post-modern absurdist masterpiece that challenges and constantly surprises the audience. <br /><br />Sidney J. Furie dares to ask the question of what happens to the tired conventional traditionalist paradigms of 'plot' and 'characterisation' when you remove the crutches of 'motivation' and 'reason'. <br /><br />The result leads me to say that my opinion of him could not possibly get any higher.<br /><br />One and a half stars.<br /><br />P.S. Nothing in this movie makes any sense, the law enforcement agents are flat out unlikeable and the organised criminals are full on insane.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
24,733 |
For someone who remembers Jane in the Daily Mirror strip cartoon, viewing this film is an exercise in nostalgia. In that context it is wonderful, but younger viewers would undoubtedly find the comedy limp and would miss the point that the actors are cartoon characters. The plotline is also a bit limp for today's audience, but reflects the naivety of the 40s and 50s very well. Jane, you must remember, was part of the escapist fantasy of the wartime years, created to boost the morale of the troops. She gave a double meaning to the "strip" in strip cartoon.<br /><br />The story has something in common with the tales of Edgar Rice Burroughs and Rider Haggard. The theme would have been a familiar one to readers in that era, a bunch of bumbling Nazis thwarted by a few equally bumbling Englanders, and set in the African jungle of course.<br /><br />For Jane fans, a must see. For the rest of you, a damp squib.<br /><br />
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
2,798 |
They sell it as a horror movie, it's supposed to be a thriller, but I found it pretty funny (comedy?, don't think so), I laughed the whole movie I think it was because of the ridiculous acting and plot. I don't blame the actors, I think they were not very good, but O.K. I think Cillian is a very good "bad guy" I loved his acting in Batman Beggins, and Rachel McAdams.. whoa! she's a beauty, and a good actress as well, but let's try to be a little objective here, the story mm mm... the direction mm mm... it lacks a lot of good suspense in fact is a really boring movie, but there's one good thing tho, it's a short movie, only 1 hour and 30 minutes (FOR ME IT WAS LIKE 10 MINUTES UNDER THE WATER!!!)<br /><br />I just don't know why this movie is rated so high, and in rotten tomatoes, even higher, what's wrong with good, rational and objective criticism?
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
11,017 |
This movie is supposed to be a "lighthearted" tale about Santa Claus and his "magical and mystical" wonders. But instead it comes off as being downright creepy. Two things in this movie that stand out in my mind as horrifying are 1) the way Santa looks.- Have you ever seen a more horrible looking Santa Claus? and 2) the "evil rep. of Satan" Pitch's just plain odd dances are just sickening to watch. Only watch this movie if it happens to be the MSTed version or if you like a very good laugh. I can't believe this is a children's movie.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
3,817 |
Really, the use of stock nature documentary of swarming bats employed by THE BAT PEOPLE is some of the most effective ever. There are shots of teeming bats hanging from the ceilings of caves, swarming bats flying out of caves or swirling about near the mouths of caves. That alone is enough to be unsettling: Imagine all of them swarming after you? And they do indeed swarm in what should have been a show-stopper sequence that happened at about the forty minute mark, a downright inappropriately hilarious sequence where a teeming swarm of bats seem to attack a police car, splattering across the windshield like bloody broken eggs. The problem is that this sequence happens about fifty minutes too late to save the film, most of which consists of one or more people running around, screaming, waving their arms about at jabbering excitedly about some poor goofball who managed to get bitten by a bat during his vacation.<br /><br />The fear is that he is coming down with rabies, which does indeed suck, so their vacation is ruined, as the plot synopsis on the top of THE BAT PEOPLE's reference page does indeed point out. So here is an effective summary of the movie: A young couple goes on a romantic getaway which is ruined when the guy is bitten by a bat. They bravely try to stick it out but he starts raving, trying to convince those around him that it's a bit more involved than rabies, that he can't control himself, and they everyone should KEEP AWAY.<br /><br />Now, when some one is frothing at the mouth, covered with sweat, eyes boggling about like one of the cheaper Muppets and screaming at you to GET AWAY FROM ME, you get away from him. You don't try to give him drugs, you don't try to tell him you love him, you give the guy his space, go home, and try that scenic getaway next year.<br /><br />But no, the people in this movie all behave like morons, insist on pushing the guy to his brink, and he flips out, mutates into a part man part bat type creature, and kills a bunch of non-essential secondary characters. Nothing wrong with that, but the movie forgets that it's a low budget Creature Feature and tries to be some sort of psychological study. Instead of a monster movie, we get lots of people running around trying to get this guy to take a chill pill, and eventually he runs off into the hills looking very much more human than he should have, people insist on trying to chase him down and pay the expected price.<br /><br />The main thing wrong with the movie is that this should have happened in the first fifteen or twenty minutes, thirty tops, and the movie should have been about the guy AFTER he had turned into a Bat Person, rather than about the journey there. It takes a good eighty minutes to really pick up steam on that front, with some interesting character sketches along the way involving the always entertaining Michael Pataki as a small town cop who's lost his moral edge, and the late Paul Carr as a physician friend who doesn't quite get the message.<br /><br />The movie is dreadfully boring, about fifteen minutes too long and missed the opportunity to be a nice, forgettable little Creature Feature about a mutant run amok like the Italian horror favorite RATMAN, which I watched today and was sadly inspired to try this one after seeing. Me and my bright ideas, though the scene with the cop car was a howler: Too bad we couldn't have had another twenty minutes of that.<br /><br />3/10
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
5,790 |
Incarcerated train robber near Yuma breaks free his chain-gang and heads for the retired sheriff responsible for killing his wife (as well as a hidden stash of gold which remains hidden thanks to the screenwriter). Attempt to bring the western genre up-to-date with 1970s-style violence and brutality isn't even in the same league as some of the new-fangled westerns which came out of the late-'60s. It is impossibly simple and square, with the female characters merely around as punching-bags and possible rape victims. As the former sheriff back in command, Charlton Heston gives one of his laziest, least-inspired performances ever (he has one good moment, attempting to read a letter and fumbling for his glasses). James Coburn, as the half-mad half-breed, is pretty much on auto-pilot as well, but Coburn has a way of turning even the hoariest dialogue and situations into something prickly and unnerving. It's his show all the way. *1/2 from ****
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
20,949 |
Thomas Ince always had a knack for bringing simple homespun stories to life with fullness and flair. "The Italian" is such a film. Solid acting, particularly by George Beban, father of silent child actor George Beban, Jr., and wonderful sets convey a realistic feeling of early immigrant tenements in New York. These give this 1915 film an authenticity which is unusual in features of this vintage.<br /><br />The film begins with the modern day and a man (George Beban in modern clothes) reading a story about an Italian immigrant, and then we transition into the story with George playing the immigrant. He raises enough money to bring his fiancée from Italy to America, marries her, and has a son with her. But times are hard and the family struggles to survive. I found myself wondering why the mother didn't breastfeed her child, and avoid the complications with the dirty formula, but oh well, even the early Dream Factory was pushing political correct behaviour for women in 1915!<br /><br />The best scene in the picture is when Beban has a chance to seek revenge on a crime boss who inadvertently put him in jail, and at the last minute he decides against his planned course of action. Very neat. I loved the curtain effect, it was great. Wonderful use of lighting in this film.<br /><br />I give "The Italian" an 8 out of 10.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
15,554 |
In a little town in Montana two brothers grow up. One of them is Norman (Craig Sheffer), the other is Paul (Brad Pitt). Their father is Reverend Maclean and they grow up with his lessons that has to do with religion, and the lessons of fly-fishing. In this movie fly-fishing represents life, a little.<br /><br />The story is good and keeps your attention although there are some moments you need a little action. Probably the movie has this moments because it is not really about the events that happen, but about the message. Some things do happen though. Norman goes to Dartmouth to study. After six years he returns and gets involved with a nice girl named Jessie (Emily Lloyd) and he is invited to teach in Chicago. Paul has become a reporter and is known as the "fishing reporter". He is famous and it seems he has a nice life, but he drinks a little too much and gambles too much.<br /><br />The movie is very well directed, it has a nice score and all of the actors are good. The most beautiful thing in this movie is the cinematography. The mountains, the woods and the river all look very beautiful. If the movie was only made for these things it was good enough to watch. Fortunately there is more.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
656 |
The film "52 Pick Up" simply does not work. See it if you are at all interested in Elmore Leonard or John Frankenheimer, or anyone in the terrific cast, especially John Glover who's admittedly brilliant. But the book--a slow-burning, noir thriller with lots of pulp--should have translated into an Oscar-contending film instead of this dud that couldn't figure out whether it should faithfully portray the hard-boiled, gritty crime story of the book, or opt for a 1980s Schwarzenegger shoot-em-up spree. Shifting the scene from the original locale in the book, Detroit (an area where Leonard has resided for years and knows very well), to Los Angeles makes for a substantial problem that Leonard tries to fix in his script, but ultimately can't. It was, for example, a clever device making Mitchell's wife a City Councilwoman (she had no job in the book), if you think about it: that's the only way you could ever plausibly blackmail someone in a sex-crazed city like 1980s Los Angeles for adultery, or any type of potential sex scandal. Even then, it's more plausible in a more conservative Eastern state like Michigan to believe that a) its tiny porno "industry" is a sleazy, money-grubbing hell where three losers could desperately set up a not-so-stupid upper-middle-class fellow going through a mid-life crisis, and b) adultery alone might be something you could blackmail someone with, if their upstanding careers and old-fashioned wives couldn't handle the shock. As consultant Ron Jeremy will tell you, 1980s Los Angeles was a colorful, stylish porno Mecca, more like the movie "Boogie Nights" than Leonard's dark, shadowy world of hijacked tourist buses, grimy apartments, and drug deals in depressed urban squalor. Then again, Los Angeles could be the backdrop of such a tale if one arranged the scenery more carefully--there are still plenty of dark crannies and psychopaths there. Unfortunately, Roy Scheider's Harry Mitchell comes off in the film as a sexy, handsome Uebermensch dancing through his problems without even working up a sweat. In the book he was fending off a jerk union official while struggling with a business that was failing. He also had a skeleton in the closet during the war involving friendly fire that he was responsible for, but never appeared to come to grips with. Elmore Leonard's stories usually have a central image involving a bizarre civility between criminal and law-abiding citizen. Here, Harry Mitchell sitting in his office with his blackmailer, Alan Raimy, turning over his financial books to him and negotiating a more practical ransom, makes for such a central image. Glover's blackmailer plays the scene with convincing intelligence, but Scheider portrays the victim here as a cocky "good guy," in charge of the situation as if he were more a Rambo with an M-16 than the everyman barely staying afloat as his world crumbles around him. "52 Pick Up" ends with one of the worst throwaway conclusions ever, considering all the thought that went into the original story and then the film. Trapping Raimy inside Mitchell's Jaguar and blowing him up with marching band music blasting out along with a sadistic monologue by Mitchell, plays to an audience wanting the "sweet revenge" conclusion of a Chuck Norris movie, not the intelligent balanced world of Leonard's book, where Mitchell barely escapes in the end and the conflict between good and evil could easily go either way. I left the theater shaking my head and depressed. What a waste of talent.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
19,643 |
This is a straight-to-video movie, so it should go without saying that it's not going to rival the first Lion King, but that said, this was downright good.<br /><br />My kids loved this, but that's a given, they love anything that's a cartoon. The big shock was that *I* liked it too, it was laugh out loud funny at some parts (even the fart jokes*), had lots of rather creative tie-ins with the first movie, and even some jokes that you had to be older to understand (but without being risqué like in Shrek ["do you think he's compensating for something?"]).<br /><br />A special note on the fart jokes, I was surprised to find that none of the jokes were just toilet noises (in fact there were almost no noises/imagery at all, the references were actually rather subtle), they actually had a setup/punchline/etc, and were almost in good taste. I'd like my kids to think that there's more to humor than going to the bathroom, and this movie is fine in those regards.<br /><br />Hmm what else? The music was so-so, not nearly as creative as in the first or second movie, but plenty of fun for the kids. No painfully corny moments, which was a blessing for me. A little action but nothing too scary (the Secret of NIMH gave my kids nightmares, not sure a G rating was appropriate for that one...)<br /><br />All in all I'd say this is a great movie for kids of any age, one that's 100% safe to let them watch (I try not to be overly sensitive but I've had to jump up and turn off the TV during a few movies that were less kid-appropriate than expected) - but you're safe to leave the room during this one. I'd say stick around anyway though, you might find that you enjoy it too :)
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
13,245 |
"Le Locataire"("The Tenant")is without a doubt one of the most important horror movies ever made.Polanski stars as a Trelkovsky,a timid file clerk living in Paris,who answers an advertisement for an apartment,only to find that the previous tenant attempted suicide by leaping from the apartment window.Trelkovsky is compelled to visit her in the hospital and there he meets Stella(Isabelle Adjani).Trelkovsky immediately moves in when the previous tenant dies and,at first,is quite pleased with having found such a nice apartment.His happiness is soon replaced by waves of paranoia as he becomes increasingly suspicious of his neighbours,who seem to be trying to provoke Trelkovsky into repeating the previous tenant's suicide.This film is great.Polanski manages to create a surreal atmosphere of dread and paranoia.Plenty of brilliant moments such as the classic scene where Trelkovsky discovers the previous tenant's tooth in a hole in the wall,or the fever dream where he wanders into the building's bathroom to find the walls covered with hieroglyphics.The photography by Sven Nykvist is truly beautiful."The Tenant" is a neglected gem.It may be difficult to track down,but it is more than worth the effort.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
8,102 |
I have to say many people have argued that some of us need to get with the times cause the new "Dukes" movie is a modernized version. OH PLEASE. If this is what you consider modernized then Hollywood can keep it. Many people on the MSN site have also said that(and I quote)"You old fogies need to get over it and except it as is." Well let me tell you something, I am 24 so I am a long way from being and OLD FOGIE, and I won't get over it, it was a DISGRACE TO ALL THAT IS HAZZARD COUNTY. The only thing right in the movie title was "HAZZARD." Was all the profanity, smoking, and drinking really necessary. The cast was terrible. Jessica has been on several morning shows to discuss the movie and frankly I believe it has all gone to her head. She is in NO way a Daisy Duke, a fluke maybe, but definitely no Duke. I love Sean Williams Scott, but not as Bo. They should have included the original cast as at least cameos, but even Hollywood knew they wouldn't approve of the script. I mean come on people even todays actors and actresses are voicing a negative opinion so why are some of you giving positive remarks.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
8,253 |
this movie was just plain dumb i do not think it was scary at all i went in hoping to be shocked and scared but was mostly laughing some of the scenes were just to fake and thrown together blood scenes were extremely over cg and some of the mutants were ridiculously gay looking it also sucked because the acting was just plain horrible u think they could get some good actors and most of the characters i hated just because how stupid and lame they acted even though they were supposed to be in the military i get to watch movies for free and seen many people walking out im guessing because it was so dumb kinda glad i didn't have to pay for it in short DUMB ASS MOVIE don't see it...but then again thats my opinion
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
11,382 |
My interest in Dorothy Stratten caused me to purchase this video. Although it had great actors/actresses, there were just too many subplots going on to retain interest. Plus it just wasn't that interesting. Dialogue was stiff and confusing and the story just flipped around too much to be believable. I was pretty disappointed in what I believe was one of Audrey Hepburn's last movies. I'll always love John Ritter best in slapstick. He was just too pathetic here.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
22,038 |
This movie is among my favorite foreign films, some of the others are Amilee and My Life As a Dog. The similarities with those movies as with so many great foreign films, is that it takes a mundane slice of life and transforms it into a profound heartfelt lesson. <br /><br />In Japan, a man who is bored with his mundane life and the rut of his married life, sees a beautiful Japanese woman staring out the window of a dance studio. In the instant that it takes his train to pass, he is enthralled by her. But is it only by her beauty, by her faraway glance, or a connection that they will both discover that they share? <br /><br />Shall We Dance has memorable wonderful characters who have to deal with painful realities by transcending them through the world of dance. Breaking traditional moulds and stereo types of Japanese society, they risk all for happiness and find that joy is not too far away. It is one of those movies that is so magical and meaningful and, in itself, transcends the mundane by showing the true magic and miracle that life can be.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
20,074 |
When the US entered World War I, the government forced Hollywood to churn out propaganda films. THE LITTLE American is probably the best of the lot because it stars Mary Pickford.<br /><br />Pickford plays a young woman torn between two men: Jack Holt (German) and Raymond Hatton (French), but her decision is delayed because of the war as both men enlist.<br /><br />When the ship Pickford is sailing on is sunk by the Germans (think Lusitania) because it is carrying munitions, Pickford has a great scene as she stands on the lifeboat and yells at the German commander. Later on, of course, she runs into both Holt and Hatton when she is being held as a war prisoner at a château.<br /><br />Director Cecil B. DeMille provides one truly great scene in this film as Pickford and Holt are wandering through a bombed-out village. They pass a destroyed church of which only one wall remains standing. Against the wall is a very large crucifix. As they stand and watch, the wall collapses but the Jesus figure remains, suspended in mid air. It's a very surreal moment in a film that is otherwise very straightforward and un-artsy.<br /><br />Pickford is, as always, a pleasure to watch. She was always a very natural actress who avoided the arm-waving histrionics many other actors of the day used. She's also very very pretty. Holt is very good here in a leading-man role. Hatton is OK. Among the list of name actors in "extra" parts are Wallace Beery, Ramon Novarro, Colleen Moore, Ben Alexander, Hobart Bosworth, Norman Kerry, Walter Long, James Neill, and Edythe Chapman.<br /><br />Not a great film, but interesting to see US propaganda at work.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
24,502 |
This has to be one of the best comedies on the television at the moment. It takes the sugary-sweet idea of a show revolving around a close family and turns it into a quite realistic yet funny depiction of a typical family complete with sibling and parent spats, brat brothers, over-protective fathers and bimbo sisters. I'm almost surprised it's Disney!<br /><br />To its credit, '8 Simple Rules' knows it's a comedy and doesn't try to be more. Too many shows (eg, 'Sister, Sister' and 'Lizzie McGuire') think just because its lead characters are now teenagers then they should tackle social issues and end up losing their humour by being too hard-hitting. This is a trap '8 Simple Rules' has avoided; it does tackle some issues (such as being the school outcast) but it has fun while doing so. In fact the only time it has really been serious was understandably when it sensitively handled the tragic death of John Ritter and his character.<br /><br />And I think, although John Ritter will be sadly missed since he was the reason the show made its mark, '8 Simple Rules' can still do well if it remembers its humour and doesn't make Cate's father a second version of Paul Hennessy.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
5,417 |
What a wasted opportunity to actually make an interesting film about a complicated subject. There is very little exploration about what it really feels like to be a straight (or gay) man working in a gay sexual environment.The dancers keep talking about their art as if it has no erotic component. They may not all be prostitutes for hire, but they are indeed sex workers playing out fantasies and selling private sessions where more than dancing is offered. From the film one would get the impression that they mainly appeal to the women who go to the gay clubs and then end up hiring the "dancers" for private sessions. Even the shots in the club only show women in front of the stage and the "dancers" only playing to the women in the audience. This just isn't the reality of these clubs. It would be pretty hard to make a living doing private dances for straight women and couples. So what do they really feel about their gay admirers and clients? We learn very little. Instead we get filler. A gay activist who adds nothing to the study of straight dancers. A manager who tells us about the costumes for the drag acts but offers no insight into the dancers' lives and attitudes.<br /><br />The pictures of Mexico City are generic. The phallic montage showing sausages roasting is ridiculous.<br /><br />This is a totally simplistic film which should be of interest only to those who want to see a few pictures of pretty boys dancing. The rest of the movie is an insult to gay men.
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
16,681 |
I absolutely love this show, but I saw the second episode first. After watching the first episode I could see why people were turned off at first. The first episode's humor is not the best, and they struggle to properly start the series. However, I still like the light and humorous attitude of the show. The characters develop much more after the episode and become truly enjoyable characters. As a first episode, it really doesn't accurately represent the rest of the show which is really quite good. The episode is not bad by any means, but as the show progresses it becomes better and better, so watch more episodes before passing any judgement on the quality of the show.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
7,576 |
This movie was poorly written, poorly acted and very predictable. It was very low-budget and I can understand why it was never released and went straight to video. It wasn't even campy fun, it was just a complete disaster and I wish I could get the 1-1/2 hours back! The colors were horrible along with the plot which has holes so big in it you could drive a mac truck through them. <br /><br />The plot itself had the young bride doing things that she absolutely was not physically capable of doing -- what a stretch! Skip this movie and watch something better in the horror genre. Just about any movie comes to mind that is better than this.<br /><br />ejames6342
| 2 |
trimmed_train
|
7,936 |
This is a bad B movie masquerading as a mockumentary. The porn documentary filmmaker in the movie has almost as much screen time and dialog as any other character. That completely destroyed any "documentary feel" that they may have wanted to create.<br /><br />The fact that the film is not actually a mockumentary is the least of it's problems. The film is not funny. The film is not sexy. The film doesn't have anything insightful to say about the porn business. It's not even particularly salacious. While there's simulated sex, the amount of nudity is mild for an R rated film.<br /><br />Someday, someone will make a good mockumentary about the porn industry. This is not it.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
22,315 |
I truly enjoyed the movie, however, I did not realize that Little Richard had so many things going on in his life. First of all I was not aware of Lucille. There is very little (hardly any) mention of females being intimately involved with Little Richard. Even in his life today there is no mention of any involvement of females in a romantic way. I wonder why this part of his life was not mentioned. Overall the movie was great. I also did not like Leon playing the part of Little Richard, he is a good actor but I feel that the part of should have went to a different actor. Visually he did not remind me of Little Richard. I also was totally unaware of the promiscuity that Little Richard was a part of. From the movie he was pictured as a sexual addict. In todays time he would be referred to counseling for his sexual addition. He was a voyeur. I don't want to ruin the movie for someone that has not seen the movie however there were several things about the movie that I feel should not have been a part of the final cut.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
21,498 |
I saw this movie a few months ago on cable, and it was fantastic. William H Macy is one of my favorite actors, and his performance was just amazing. He makes you care for his character, even when he is clearly doing the wrong thing, and Neve Campbell gives a performance that is with out a doubt the best performance I have seen by an actress this year. She is fantastic as a wild young woman who is wise beyond her years.<br /><br />Donald Sutherland is just plain creepy as Macy's father, and John Ritter is fine as a shrink stuck in the middle of everything that is happening.<br /><br />I wish that this was in the theater because I feel that it's a movie that should be view by a wider audience. That's a shame, because it's a hell of allot better that most of the new movies coming into the theater now.<br /><br />
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
1,297 |
It should come as no shock to you when I say that Alone in the Dark is a crappy movie. To put it bluntly, it's as if a dung monster defecated, ate the result, and then vomited. The final product would still outshine this movie.<br /><br />Seemingly based on an ancient (!) Atari video game, the movie has something or other to do with a portal to the bowels of the earth, the unleashing of demons, and ancient civilizations. Something about there being two worlds, that of darkness and that of light. (Guess which one's ours.) Oh, and 10,000 years ago a really super-duper advanced civilization opened the portal, demons came over and had a blast, then wiped out the civilization. Which is why we've never heard of them, conveniently enough.<br /><br />Christian Slater, perhaps pining for the days of Heathers and Pump up the Volume, plays Edward Carnby, a paranormal researcher to whom Something Bad happened when he was 10 years old. He's hot on the trail of one of the artifacts of said advanced civilization. Carnby used to be part of a secret institution called 713, which has been trying to figure out what happened to that long-ago civilization. But Carnby believed he wasn't going to be able to find the answers he sought, so he left the group.<br /><br />But see, these beasties are out, and they get their prey in varying ways, such as gutting them, splitting them down the middle, implanting neurological control devices in them, or just turning them into killing zombies. Yes, it's another zombie movie.<br /><br />That's about as distilled I can make the plot. It's pretty convoluted and incomprehensible. In similar movies, one might see the intrepid researcher/adventurer figure things out a step at a time, and when we the audience are mentally with the researcher, it's a lot of fun. But when the scenes shift from attack to attack with no perspective or context... not so much fun.<br /><br />The acting is dreadful, save for Slater, who (although he almost seems embarrassed to be in the movie) showed he was capable of carrying the acting load. He had to; get this - Tara Reid is cast as a museum curator! Honest to goodness, I thought I'd seen the casting of a lifetime when Denise Richards was cast as a nuclear physicist in Tomorrow Never Dies. But Reid here matches Richards, crappy emoting for crappy emoting. Hightlights include Reid pronouncing "Newfoundland" as "New Fownd Land," Reid delivering most of her lines in a dazed, throaty monotone (kinda like she'd been on an all-night bender for the past week before filming), Reid - a museum curator, mind you - spending a lot of the movie in a midriff-bearing top and hip-hugger jeans. Oh yeah, she was as believable as Jessica Simpson giving stock quotes. Oh, why must the pretty ones be so dumb? (Note: I don't think Tara Reid's all that good looking. She looks like she's in perpetual need of food.) Almost everyone else in the cast is completely forgettable, except perhaps for Steven Dorff, who played Burke, one of the leaders of 713. Dorff's character wasn't terribly well developed, but nothing in the movie was, from the sets to the characters to Tara Reid. But I digress.<br /><br />Anyway, the perplexing and utterly preposterous storyline is tough enough to follow with the film moving at such a breakneck pace, but director Uwe Boll tosses in a pounding, mind-deadening soundtrack; it's so loud you can't hear what the actors are saying in some of the scenes! That can't be right. Given the acting level, however, perhaps thanks are in order to Mr. Boll.<br /><br />Oh, and a fun note. The opening moments of the movie include narration... of the words that are crawling across the screen at the same time. Remember the first Star Wars? You heard that now-familiar Star Wars theme while the prologue crawled. There was surely no need for narration; why do I need some doofus to read what's on the screen for me? Were the producers simply looking out for blind people? Maybe that also explains why the soundtrack was so loud - they were also looking out for hard-of-hearing people. Also, the narrator inexplicably had a lisp for the first few lines of the crawl - then lost it. Bizarre.<br /><br />Alone in the Dark is a loud, dopey mishmash of dreadful acting, an incoherent script, and ham-handed directing. Hardly a note rings true. There's so much chaos that the audience simply gives up caring about the characters and roots for their demise. Even in the dark, the demonic creatures seem cooler and much more developed by comparison.<br /><br />Ironically, since there were only three other people in the theater, I watched this Alone in the Dark. I wonder if Uwe Boll planned it that way? I can't quite give this the lowest rating, because I had low hopes for it to begin with - and because it never grabbed me enough for me to get worked up about it. It's atrocious, although Slater redeems himself a tiny bit.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
22,652 |
Though I really didn't feel anything for Lance's character, and felt his wife could have done much better with anyone else. It could have been a much stronger movie if they had spent more time on character development, perhaps with Lance- I would have liked it better.<br /><br />However, I have to completely agree with DoyleLuver, when they said "And to quote Glenn Quinn's character Ben: 'I'm the star here in it, that's right I'm the talented one!'" If you watch the movie, just watch him, even when he's in the background... just his facial expressions, all in the eyes, you KNOW for sure what motivates Ben, exactly how he feels about comments, even if it's a quick look behind a character's back. Great acting in a fair film.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
6,772 |
This is one of the worse movies that I have ever seen in my entire life. I wish I could travel back in time and do the following:<br /><br />1) Find out where the "movie" "War Games- The Dead Code" was filmed 2) Watch the original WAR GAMES with my current computer knowledge AND the eyes of a 1983 preteen. 3) Break into the pentagon computer in the 80's with the knowledge and perspective learned and remembered. 4) Reprogram the WHOPPER to NUKE the location of THE DEAD CODE minutes prior to its first day of filming 5) Come back to the present, have a beer and get Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones to "flash" my memory blank of the whole event, especially my original viewing of "The Dead Code" 6) Have another beer and watch WARS GAMES 7) Be happy until the next bad remake of a GOOD 80's movie.<br /><br />8) Did I forget the have Jar Jar killed. I am not sure if I would have to travel into the future for that. Maybe I need access to a wormhole.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
6,851 |
Tim (Gary Daniels) wants desperately to break into serious television reporting. When a job he begged for goes awry, he is fired. His beautiful but empty girlfriend (Elizabeth Hurley) says sayonara, too. Coming home, Tim is startled to discover his house has an uninvited visitor (Christopher Lloyd) from the planet Mars! Calling him Uncle Martin, Tim soon tries to help his new friend navigate life on earth. But, Martin gets in trouble wherever he goes, from the bathroom to the laundry room and more. Lovely Lizzie (Daryl Hannah) finally sees an opportunity to make time with Tim but the course of true love does not run smooth in this case, either. Soon everyone in television is stalking Tim, hoping for a story about a true alien. What's a man to do? For those who loved the old television show of the same name, with Bill Bixby and Ray Walston, this film is not worthy to tie the proverbial boots. Its truly, undeniably awful, with no plot and a reliance on supposed special effects which fall flat, too. Daniels is okay as the earthling but Lloyd is simply terrible as the alien, overacting up a storm. The rest of the cast is adequate, as are the costumes, set, and production details. Even if your children see the cover and beg for this film, convince them to pick out another flick at the video store. Be assured, kids and adults will find this movie a colossal bore, so opt for A Night at the Museum or Around the World in 80 Days instead.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
8,784 |
Laughed a lot - because it is so incredibly bad - sorry folks, but definitely one of the worst movies I have ever seen... I know it is low budget, but anyway: the actors behave like playing in a soap, the dialogues are absolutely crappy and the last time I have seen such odd pictures was at a trash nite at some youth video festival ten years ago. I really appreciate that people gather together and shoot cheap movies, but at least a certain amount of quality should be accomplished. But at least one good thing: the first three minutes of the movie were quiet interesting and looked okay - and the score was really worth listening to. The DVD cover promised a lot, but that is by far the best this film has to offer...
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
23,595 |
Whoever said that horror wasn't an educational film genre, huh? Thanks to this marvelous Hammer short movie, I now at least know NEVER to offer a strange visitor any wine and a slice of bread with salt in my own house, because he might just be hypnotist and this combination will give him the power to control my thoughts & mind forever! Thank you Hammer! The tenth episode in the House of Horror series is another one I've been looking forward to seeing, mainly because the guy in the director's chair was Don Sharp; one of Britain's finest filmmakers but still sadly underrated. Sharp was responsible for some very cool Hammer films, like "Kiss of the Vampire" and "Rasputin: The Mad Monk", as well as some overlooked independent productions like "Dark Places" and "Psychomania". His contribution to House of Horror is easily one of the best in the series, with a complex yet fascinating plot outline and revolving on delightful occult themes. The plot centers on two antique dealers that stumble upon a strange object resembling a mirror, but it's actually an ancient scrying device that can be used to summon Choronzhon; the demonic guardian of the abyss. The mirror is heavily desired by a satanic cult since they need it for their ceremonies, but Michael is reluctant to sell it before knowing the real value of the device. When he picks up a clearly petrified girl who's running from the cult to avoid being sacrificed, Michael is drawn even deeper into an occult conspiracy. Satanic cults and the carnal sacrifice of young women are typical British horror topics, but David Fischer's screenplay is never dull and offers plenty of neat plot twits, among which a highly inventive climax. There's also plenty of tension to admire, the dialogs are wit and the acting performances are splendid (especially John Carson as the leader of the cult is genuinely eerie). Recommended!
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
1,876 |
Body Slam (1987) is a flat out terrible movie. The low budget reeks, the direction is pedestrian (at best) and the writing and acting is lame. But if you're into old school wrestling (circa 1970's through the mid-80') then you'll be more entertained than the average viewer. I have to warn you, this movie stinks on ice. I gave it a two because I felt like being generous. This turkey was "directed" by stunt master Hal Needham. The stars are Roddy Piper, The Tonga Kid and a bunch of scrub wrestlers and c-list actors (Dirk Benedict).<br /><br />The synopsis of this "movie" is about a promoter who wants to combine "hair rock" and wrestling. But their are others that don't want him to succeed. There's more but I don't want to SPOIL it for you. If you can stomach the bad acting and inane storyline, there's a few surprises near the end for die-hard wrestling fans. <br /><br />I wouldn't recommend this to my worse enemy (and I mean it).
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
3,683 |
As others have noted, this movie is criminally inaccurate in its portrayal of the artist's life and I for one was very annoyed and offended... by its transformation of her rape into a tragic love affair, by the implication that her rapist was responsible for 'awakening her talent,' by its complete disregard for her work, by the way it turned her into a sex object, on and on, you get the idea. Also, I find it disturbing that people who aren't familiar with Gentileschi will see this film and walk away with that kind of impression of her.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
11,714 |
Dont let the MPAA fool you with their "Rated R for extreme violence" there is definatly no extreme violence in this boring peice of s*t. I expected some cheap rambo 3 type action that the trailer promised, however its just boring boring nonsense with tons of lame slow mo flashbacks that make no sense. AVOID!
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
19,949 |
First time I saw this movie was in the eighties, but reviewed now this thriller is still actual. Some newer movies focus on similar topics, but they do not match this french milestone.<br /><br />A president - obviously JF Kennedy - gets shot in an open car during a public appearance. The resulting huge investigation finds the "Lee Harvey Oswald" figure of this movie guilty, but one member of the jury insists in further inquiry. He reveals some surprising evidence ...<br /><br />Unlike Oliver Stone's JFK - a movie with the same plot - this one does not play with emotions, but concentrates in a exciting description of a conspiracy and how everything fits together, drawing a new picture of the assassination. Even a real psychological experiment is used for this explanation of the crime scene. Compared to JFK this movie is more reasonable, intelligent and thrilling. Parts of the plot can be found in a lot of newer movies, I had a kind of deja vu sometimes sitting in the cinema.<br /><br />"I... comme Icare" is a "must see". Its unique and brilliant, and the music by Ennio Morricone is wonderful. This movie deserves a very good ranking, if it was a Hollywood production it would be famous for sure.<br /><br />
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
5,209 |
Normally when I write a review for a movie online, it is for one of three reasons. Either, I have found something exceptionally lacking in a film that otherwise would have been excellent, I feel that the public's perception of a film before viewing it is inaccurate for a number of reasons, or I believe that the purpose or message of a film needs to be clarified or explained with the help of other reviewers. While all of these reasons may appear to be somewhat negative, I find that writing a review that lavishes nothing but praise and statements such as, "This is one of the best films of all time!", does nothing to enlighten a potential viewer on its merits and downsides, nor does it often give reasoning as to why a movie is so good, which should be the point of the review in the first place. With that being said, War of the Worlds is nothing more than a hurried, incompetent attempt at a money grab; piggy-backing its loathsome carcass on the multi-million dollar advertising campaign of the film of the same name directed by Steven Spielberg. Many people will buy this DVD in anticipation of the summer blockbuster and many more poor souls will buy it looking for more material on the same subject. This movie is not even "so bad" that it becomes funny or endearing, rather the audience will be so unbelievably disappointed as to reach the point of anger. Now with most of the insults out of the way, allow me to give some arguments as a warning to those more fortunate than I. <br /><br />Judging from the cover and the lack of any publicity for this film (I found it as SAM's Club for 8 bucks), I assumed that the cast would be no-names and that the special effects would be nothing too spectacular. Check. This is not a big deal for me, as I find a large budget and an over-reliance on big name stars and SE can diminish an otherwise decent movie. I also did not expect to be blown away by great dialog or a moving score. Check again. What I did hope for was an actual serious attempt at a classic theme and a few alien/battle scenes. <br /><br />Now, as per IMDb's policy any spoilers must be announced in advance, no matter how small, so here is fair warning. The movie opens with a lot of inane small-talk, followed by a trip to an observatory to look at a red dot. Seriously, it is a pictures of a red dot in a tube. It is very hard to describe every little issue in depth, but by the end of the first ten minutes, the combination of shaky camera-work, spliced scenes, and a LOT of walking begin to frustrate the viewer. However, the costuming is surprisingly not bad and the hope that the pods will reveal something mysterious keeps you going. The next 30 minutes basically go as follows: one of the main characters walks to one of the pods, he looks at the pods and talks to another main character about looking at the pod and it may be hot. They both walk back to town. These walks aren't two seconds or added so that dialog may be exchanged. They are twenty seconds or more and are there simply to add filler to an already bloated three hour movie. In a particularly grueling scene, the main character is shown looking at a pod, then he is shown pacing and panting, then he looks at the pod, then he takes a one minute walk through a field to town, then comes in to town and walks into a building, then he has a cup of coffee and says "Thank you Mary" to a random maid that serves him coffee, then he puts down the coffee and walks out the building, then he walks a minutes through the field and back to the pod. I apologize for the extreme run-on sentence, but it is perhaps the best way to summarize this entire film. Characters speak way too long about mundane things, they walk a lot, they send other people to walk, the camera fluctuates between high speed and slow speed, but for no dramatic effect, simply the camera man is a sophomore at Tech somewhere. The editing is mind-bogglingly bad. People actions make little sense. For instance, when the professor goes to a farmer's house and says that he needs the farmer to give him a ride to town, the farmer stutters and paces around. When the professor says that there is a pod and that men might be trapped inside, the farmer locks him in a shed only to see the professor grab a pitchfork and open the weak shed a second later. Nothing of any consequence of course comes from this entire scene, as the professor runs into the main character a moment later so they can begin their afternoon walk. The entire film feels as if someone at one point had a good idea about making a film, but absolutely no idea how to put that in motion. I have seen better high school video productions. Finally, the special effects are laughable and do nothing to advance the story. I get the feeling that the director really wanted this film to become somewhat of a cult classic of campy garbage. However, it is so awful in technical aspects, and in sheer common sense that it only makes people mad. Avoid this film at all costs.
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
16,702 |
I actually really like what I've seen of this cartoon so far. Sure, the animation isn't the best, but frankly, I'd rather see this type of more cartoony style done quickly and cheaply than the old type of style done quickly and cheaply (which was starting to happen more and more often--it's only a style that looks good when a lot of time and effort is put into it). There's nothing wrong with the angular lines and the little black-dot eyes--in fact, I think it's really cute. As a kid I never thought Scooby-Doo's design was particularly adorable, but I think I might like it better know.<br /><br />Anyway, Shaggy has always been my favorite character, and believe it or not, but I think he has the most potential for some depth. Sure, the show doesn't center around the original "Mystery-solving" theme, but that was just a tired old formula anyway. Don't get me wrong--I'm sure there are writers out there who would be able to bring a lot more interest to Mystery Inc.'s traditional pursuits (which has been lacking as late), but in the mean time this show is a fun deviation from the standard. Shaggy and Scooby are still funny, but no longer only comic relief. They're still cowardly, but finally have the opportunity to use what seems to be (shock!) intelligence. They're the same old over-eating slackers as ever, but now actually seem to be getting on with their lives with the help of Uncle Albert's inheritance.<br /><br />I used to find most original Scooby-Doo jokes to be pure cheese and unintentionally hilarious at best, but this show actually exercises a capacity for real humor. Also, I never really like Casey Kasem as Shaggy anyway, so the new actor doesn't annoy me as much as he does other people. (I still think Billy West was the best, though)<br /><br />Overall, while not a great cartoon in the scope of all of cartoon history, still an achievement among other Scooby incarnations.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
24,853 |
It could have been better had it been directed by someone with more experience. Shumlin didn't do a bad job but it is not a great work of cinematic art.<br /><br />It is, however, a beautiful movie. I have loved it since local channels used to show it. Graham Greene is one of my favorite writers of the last century. Some pretty bad movies were made from his novels and stories. (Many love "The Fallen Idol" but I am not among them. I think I saw "Brighton Rock" once many years ago and liked it but maybe I'm simply thinking fondly of the novel.) This is superbly cast. Charles Boyer does not, it's true, come across as Spanish. But he seems to have the perfect temperament for this character -- tired, wary, caring. Lauren Bacall is appealing as the British girl who falls for him. But the supporting players are the best: Katina Paxinou is excellent. Her performance is a little Grand Guignol, but I attribute that to the director. Peter Lorre, whom we first meet as he gives Boyer a lesson in an Esperanto-like universal language, is excellent -- as always.<br /><br />And Wanda Hendrix could break the hardest heart. She comes across as a precocious early teenager. The character wants to be helpful. She does her best.<br /><br />I recommend this movie highly. Not without reservations. The reservation is, primarily, that it is a little stolid. But the story and acting can scarcely be bettered.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
21,823 |
Shower keeps within itself in so many ways. Almost all of the movie takes place in an old- time bathhouse, with the denizens supplying the humor, pathos, and emotional touches. The love and friendship between the proprietor and his retarded son is deep and moving. The way the older brother is drawn into this tiny world seems unforced and persuasive. The plot is meandering, full of surprises and ironies, and touched overall by a sense of what I'd have to call neighborliness in the relations and conflicts of the performers. This is a film I pull out when I want to believe in the world again.
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
6,543 |
My wife and I started to watch this movie with anticipation. It looked warm and touching. It started out well; but, soon became boring and frankly idiotic after a while. It got so bad that we turned it off The movie was poorly acted and honesty, we couldn't really understand or wanted to understand what exactly why or how the hell they could put up with this woman! You lost sympathy for her after she was rude and acting wackos singing and cleaning. I would have had her committed. And, of course, like most movies and T.V series made in Hollywood we have to throw it a token "gay" character! This movie was boring. I was expecting more from Diane Keaton!
| 0 |
trimmed_train
|
20,351 |
Canadian director Vincenzo Natali took the art-house circuit by storm with the intriguing and astonishingly intelligent Cube, which is my personal favourite SF film of the 90s. It framed the basic conceit of a group of strangers trapped in a maze shaped like a giant cube, shot entirely on one set, and took this idea in fascinating directions. <br /><br />I've been eagerly awaiting Natali's follow-up, and although its taken five years for him to mount another project, I'm delighted to say it was worth the wait. Cypher is a fascinating exploration of one man's place in the world, and how through a completely logical chain of events, finds himself in a situation beyond his control.<br /><br />I don't want to reveal too much about the plot, because one of the joys of Cypher is the different avenues it takes us down. It is so refreshing in this day and age to see a SF film that has more than one idea in it's head. Cypher is such a film.<br /><br />Morgan Sullivan (Jeremy Northam), one of the blandest people to ever walk the planet, is hired by the company DigiCorp. They send him to different parts of America to record different seminars. To his bewilderment, they are unbelievably boring. Covering topics as mundane as shaving cream and cheese.<br /><br />While Morgan is waiting for one seminar, he runs into Rita Foster (an impeccably cast Lucy Liu), the definition of an ice maiden. She gives him the brush-off, but there is something to her he finds irresistible. That's not too surprising considering the dry marriage he is in. <br /><br />When Rita turns up at another one of Morgan's seminars, she tells him his life is not what it appears. And I'm not saying anything more about the plot. To do so would cheapen the impact the rest of the film has on us, as well as the tortuous path that's so much fun to follow.<br /><br />As with Cube, Natali shows quite a talent for encompassing seemingly ordinary people, taking them out of the familiar, and basically seeing what will happen when they're thrust into the unknown. And Cypher follows similar patterns. But it's not a carbon copy of Cube. It has it's own inspiration.<br /><br />Cypher is a film that has more in common with conspiracy thrillers and paranoia stories. One of the great things about Cypher is the way these themes creep into the story without your knowledge. When Morgan realises his false identity is a piece of a much larger puzzle, it's as much of a shock to us as it is to him.<br /><br />One thing that distinguishes Cypher from Cube is how much more polished it is. Where Cube was confined to a minimalist setting and a shoestring budget with a cast of unknowns, Cypher is also on a low budget, but Natali economises it as much as he can, allowing him to broaden the horizon, and launching Morgan on an amazing journey through the labyrinth of his own identity.<br /><br />Natali's direction is exceptional, with a deft hand on the reins. There are some amazing camera angles from above, such as the enormity of the DigiCorp building as a vast, robust office block in conjunction to the insignificant speck that is Morgan standing outside. All the colour appears to have been bled out of the picture, which compliments the tone of the film perfectly as a modern day film-noir.<br /><br />The acting is uniformly excellent throughout. Jeremy Northam is a sympathetic figure from his loveless marriage to questioning his own identity. His performance is excellent because it's so modulated. He literally seems to transform right before our very eyes. From a clinical, spineless wimp to a confident man who will do anything to preserve his new identity.<br /><br />David Hewlett puts in a welcome appearance who made such an impact in Cube. He resides in a secret silo that looks like it was borrowed from Men in Black. His scene is one of the best because it's an exercise in carefully calculated suspense and paranoia. He is a supposed expert in identifying double-agents, and it's a fantastic piece of writing, brilliantly acted by Hewlett. All he has to do is look at Morgan, and we're drawn into his complex mind game.<br /><br />But it's Lucy Liu who's the scene stealer here. Too often she is cast in films where her potential is not utilised to full effect. But in Cypher, she is finally given a character that fits her like a glove. Rita is an aloof, guarded femme fatale that Liu inhabits with relish. I perked up every time she appeared because she is always in control, and can reduce a room to silence by the power of her icy stare alone.<br /><br />Things come to a very gratifying end, that doesn't conclude on an ambiguous note the way Cube did. But Morgan deserves his happy ending. After he's been put through the ringer like this, I cheered for him in the final scene. It's a perfect final moment because it comes as a ray of sunshine after a gloomy 90 minutes.<br /><br />Cypher succeeds on all counts. Engaging, shocking, always entertaining, it's everything that Total Recall wanted to be but wasn't. And it comes as a refreshing antidote to the overwhelming and inexplicable Matrix.<br /><br />A fine follow-up from Natali. And now I'm a committed fan of the man. Superb stuff!
| 3 |
trimmed_train
|
19,039 |
We watched this on "The Wonderful World of Disney" on ABC last night, and I came to the conclusion that things must be tighter there at "the Mouse" than usual. <br /><br />Since this movie only runs 74 minutes, and they had to pad it out to 2 hours of broadcast television time, they had, and I'm not making this up, commercial breaks that lasted 6 to 7 minutes. And during these commercial breaks, they had another advertisement in the guise of a "TV show" hosted by the oh-so-annoying Kelly Rippa that loudly proclaimed the magical wonders of "Cinderella 2: Dreams Come True".<br /><br />Again and again, break after break, Disney took time out of the real movie to tell us, the loyal viewers, that we needed to get a copy of the sequel. Thank you, Disney, for doing us the service of creating a sequel to your beloved gem of a movie.<br /><br />Anyway, all this commercialism and cash-register-ringing made it a difficult task to get into the actual movie of "Cinderella", because by the time the commercials were over, I had forgotten where the story had left off.<br /><br />But of course, the original "Cinderella" still maintains its magic, and the story is still a good one, though we've all seen it countless times. It's a shame they had to cheapen it with all the marketing for what looks to be a lame follow-up.
| 1 |
trimmed_train
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.