id int32 0 25k | text stringlengths 52 13.7k | label int64 0 3 | Generalization stringclasses 1 value |
|---|---|---|---|
23,873 | "The Mother" tells of a recently widowed mid-60's mother of two adult children (Reid) who, on the heels of her husband's death, finds herself awakening from a life of sleepwalking as she has an affair with a young carpenter who is also her daughter's married lover. The film dwells on the quietly passive Mom, her tenuous relationship with her grown son and daughter, the silent needs she attempts to soothe in bed with her young lover, and the convolutions arising therefrom. A somewhat antiseptic drama with rumbling psychodramatic undercurrents, "The Mother" does an excellent job of dealing with uncomfortable issues realistically while avoiding gratuitous sensationalism. Will play best with more mature audiences, possibly women, who may better empathize with the central character, her needs and issues. (B+) | 1 | trimmed_train |
13,404 | Fear of a black hat is a hilarious spoof of Hip-Hop culture. It is just as funny as This Is Spinal Tap, if not funnier. The actors are incredible and the documentary style is superb. Mark Christopher Lawrence is a tremendous talent that should be starring in a lot more films. This film is a true cult classic! | 3 | trimmed_train |
8,619 | Formula flick of guy who wants girl, guy who will lie to get next to girl, guy who will get best friend to help in outrageous way (comedus reliefus, no?) to help deceive girl, etc. This one's been done to death, and with rare exception of a few z-rated outings, it's been done better.<br /><br />Stale plot aside, the leads are attractive and there's a couple of good moments. Jonathon Schaech has done better, and his acting here came close to being phoned in. Not a complete loss, but nothing new here in this tepid affair. | 2 | trimmed_train |
6,653 | Me and a group of friends rent horrible videos to laugh at them, trust me it has lead to some horribly spent money but also some great laughs. S.I.C.K. is one of the better horror-but-funny movie we've rented. The plot is over-done, the whole take your friends into the woods and never return thing is very old. The goriest part of the movie looks like your visiting the local butcher shop except a little dirtier and with blood on the play dough looking meat. And if anyone has ever been scared of this movie at any time they should stick to Cartoon Network for the rest of their life, it's pathetic. The good aspects of the movie are that the two girls in it are reasonably hot, one better then the other and you see them both naked during the movie. The other good aspect is that this movie is so bad at times that you will laugh till you cry. I don't like watching horrible acting or renting these horrible videos, I don't find that fun but seeing the amount of effort these people put into it and still come out so bad is hilarious and worth renting.Unless you are too mature to laugh at someone's downfalls I would recommend it.<br /><br />If your renting/buying it to laugh at it I'd give it an 8.5. | 0 | trimmed_train |
11,257 | What this movie does well is combine action and horror with comedy and drama in a unique way that teases more emotion form the audience than a typical horror movie. Unfortunately with disjointed storytelling, frustrating plot-holes, and contradictory scenes this movie mainly caused me frustration and is hardly "the greatest monster movie ever." <br /><br />Let's start with the good stuff: comedy, acting and special effects. From the get-go, this movie starts off fast paced and cheeky. The opening scene - the monster's origin - is campy and quick, paying homage the the classic 'environmental' disasters that have given birth to so many other monsters. The pacing is fast, which was a welcome break from the long and often pointlessly dramatic opening scene from other monster flicks and allows the movie to jump right into the action. With in the course of 10 minutes you get the 'why', 'where,' and 'how' of the beast and are ready for action. In this the movie delivers.<br /><br />After another short and well shot sequence the characters are introduced: the lazy son and his precocious little girl, kind grandfather, and talented sister (aunt) and, of course, the monster. The characters are introduced in context to each other and their conflicts are instantly apparent, allowing the audience to feel for them when the monster shows up suddenly to wreak havoc in the river area where they live and work. <br /><br />The monster it's self looks great: alien yet familiar - kinda like a dog and fish pooped out by a squid. The effects of the creature are second to none and although it looks strange it is believable and at no point in the movie could you 'see it's strings.' Even the movement of the monster was horribly familiar, like a growing and excited rottweiler on linoleum the monster barrels through the crowd, slipping on surfaces, crushing and eating those in it's path. When the monster's path intersects with the family and tragedy ensues it truly is a painful moment, and you can feel the need for revenge but from there on out the movie's appeal begins to unravel.<br /><br />Following the dynamite beginning the movie quickly loses focus and continuity. Plot-lines are introduced, then abandoned, characters change their position for no apparent reason, and comedy is interlaced into dramatic scenes confusing intent, while obstacles appear and disappear seemingly at random. <br /><br />As for the comedy, let me say this: I'm willing to accept that a lot of the humor is probably cultural. I am not familiar with Korean humor so maybe things were lost in translation. However, as an Asian studies major in college and as someone who has been living in Japan for the last 5 years (still here) I'd like to think I have a better grasp on Asian humor than the average white-guy. That being said there were many parts of the movie that I understood were supposed to be funny, but, to me, weren't. <br /><br />*********** SPOILER************* For example: after the initial attack where the young daughter is lost the family is at the funeral; everyone is mourning. A new character is introduced - a brother - and tension is raised even higher as it becomes obvious that the two brothers are at odds with one another. They both begin to grieve for their loss and wind up competing with each other over who is grieving harder. This competition is, at it's core, funny: two brothers who dislike each-other so much they even compete at a funeral - it shows the prickly nature of familial love common in Asian comedy. This subtle slap-stick comedy poking fun at family and ritualized mourning is supposed to be funny but, seemed really out of place in the context of a lost little girl. ************** END SPOILER **************<br /><br />Then come the plot holes. there are so many points brought up in this movie that are never explained, or, worse, are explained and fretted over only to be proved impotent and pointless in the end. Finding out an obstacle isn't an obstacle can be a good thing for a character, but you'd expect some comment to that nature. Instead the audience is barraged by moments of anti-climax when problems just 'aren't there' anymore and no one gives an indication that it was ever a problem to start. So I ask you: why even bring it up in the first place? <br /><br />This was prevalent through out the film as problems gave rise to new problems, and suddenly the world of the movie is filled with opposing forces that never resolved each other. Of course introducing new and greater problems is a time-tested story telling tradition, but if the introduction of a new arc leads the the forced shortening of another you would expect at least that the new arc gets full explanation. Not in this movie. Instead it was as if you get several stories, each only explained 20% of the way and, in the end, the parts never converge to complete the whole.<br /><br />Again, I'm willing to accept that a lot of this might be 'cultural.' Maybe its in Korean story- telling tradition to put comedy inside a tragedy. Maybe it's normal for stories to go all over like a child who colors outside the lines on every-page, but never finishes one. Maybe it's OK to present a problem in order to develop the plot but then remove that problem randomly without any apparent solution or catharsis. Or maybe these are all hallmarks of sloppy work and bad storytelling rampant in a movie that seems to have a much better reputation than it deserves. | 0 | trimmed_train |
14,014 | I really enjoyed this movie. The acting by the adult actors was great, although I did find the main kid a little stiff. But he carried himself very well for being a new talent. The humor is very sublime and not in your face like most Hollywood comedy junk. I.e. The Nutty Professor. If you have a short attention span and are used to the typical Hollywood stuff you probably wouldn't like this as it is a bit slower paced. I picked it up on Blu-ray and I have to say the image quality is top notch. Probably one of the better looking Blu-rays I've seen so far. The extras were cool too. They deleted quite a bit, but that's probably a good thing as most of the deleted scenes didn't really add anything. | 1 | trimmed_train |
14,833 | Highly recommended!!<br /><br />A well written, funny film which will appeal to everyone out there with a sense of humour!!!. Give it a go, it's good to see an Independent British Movie more than holding it's own against the big established studios!! Definitely worth adding to any film collection. There are scenes in this film that I'm sure a lot of people will be able to relate to. You will laugh out loud at the antics and enjoy the great soundtrack. I especially enjoyed the Orb's version of Jimmy Cliff's Vietnam and The Tower of London's take on Freebird. <br /><br />Go on give it a go............ you won't be disappointed. | 3 | trimmed_train |
12,641 | "Margaritas and Cock..."<br /><br />This tremendously entertaining film grabs you from the opening scene and never stops delivering laughs, surprises and unexpectedly touching moments. I had more fun watching "The Matador" than almost any other film from 2005. It is a wacky film with an unforgettable character, played to perfection by Pierce Brosnan.<br /><br />Julian Noble (Brosnan) is a facilitator (hit-man) who specializes in high-end corporate gigs (assassinating rich dudes). He is also experiencing something akin to a mid-life crisis. After coming to realization that he has no real friends, no permanent home and no planned future, he stumbles into a Mexican hotel bar one night and runs into Danny Wright (Kinnear).<br /><br />Danny is a down-on-his-luck family man who is on the verge of losing the big business deal that just might turn things around for him. He loves his wife dearly, especially so since they lost their young son a few years earlier.<br /><br />The two men are chalk and cheese, hardly any common ground other than that they are in the same desolate bar one night. And somehow a conversation is struck that sets in to motion a chain of events that will change their lives forever.<br /><br />The friendship they form reminded me a lot of Laurel and Hardy. One is the straight man and the other is the persistent fool who gets them into trouble. The interplay is superbly timed and finely tuned, due in no small part to the wonderful performances from Brosnan and Kinnear.<br /><br />But make no mistake... This is Brosnan's film. He imprints one of the most memorable and despicably likable characters of the decade. He could shoot your mother and apologize immediately thereafter and you'd probably forgive him. Brosnan may be cinema's ultimate charmer, but this is his most endearing and complete performance to date. I wouldn't be averse to seeing an Oscar nod for this role.<br /><br />Consider one scene where he overtly ogles a high-school girl with the impurest of thoughts and utters the line, "All blushy blushy... No sucky fucky". He does it with the familiar Bond smirk and manages to get away with it. He manages to tell a young boy, "Tell your mother to lose 30lbs and 20 years. Then get back to me" without coming across as unlikable. In fact, it makes us like him even more.<br /><br />And yet the film manages to surprise us with some truly touching scenes, most of which come toward the end when the film takes some unpredictable turns. However, when Julian thumbs through his little black book to find someone to call on his birthday, or when Danny and his wife (Davis) console each other in their bedroom one night, the film reaches an unexpected depth of emotion.<br /><br />"The Matador" is stylish and energetic. It is constantly entertaining. And it contains a career-defining role for Brosnan as the lonely hit-man looking for normalcy, friendship and a means to do at least one good thing in his life. This is an overlooked gem in 2005 and you should make an effort to see this film as soon as possible.<br /><br />TC Candler of IndependentCritics.com | 3 | trimmed_train |
24,834 | The acting in this movie was superb. As an amateur rocketeer, I found very few mistakes. As a human being, it touched my heart and soul. To watch the actors, you would think that they are the actual characters. Laura Dern, a favorite actress of mine, left nothing out of her performance. The young actors playing the Rocket Boys showed talent beyond their years, especially young Homer. Homer's father inspired that eternal love/hate relationship between a father and son so that it felt real. If you don't get a lump in your throat or shed a tear when that first successful rocket goes up or when father and son come to terms, then get your pulse checked (you may be dead). | 3 | trimmed_train |
13,330 | I have to admit, this movie moved me to the extent that I burst in tears. However, I always think about things twice, and instead of writing a eulogy that would define the film as flawless and impeccable, I prefer taking the risk of a closer look.<br /><br />First what's first: The movie has an undeniable impact on the viewer simply because it starts out and continues as a slow-paced movie that doesn't try to blow you away with the actual scenes from 9/11. Thumbs up for this stroke of genius, because, unlike Stone's WORLD TRADE CENTER this film fortunately doesn't focus on the attack itself but on the fallout which, similar to the fallout of a nuclear explosion, is hardly visible but nonetheless dangerous and devastating. The psychological impact, the sheer devastation that 9/11 caused and the havoc it wreaked on the American people is almost palpable in this movie. I think Binder managed an astute observation of the American post 9/11 society and Sandler in my opinion sky rocketed from an average comedy actor to a real talent who delivers a performance worthy of an Oscar.<br /><br />However: In the film BLOOD DIAMOND, the Di Caprio character says and I quote: "Ah, these Americans. Always want to take about their feelings". Now, I don't want to belittle their sufferíngs, but I sure would like to make a comparison. Ever since 9/11 the entire world is confronted with mementos, memorials and commemorations of 9/11. The Hollywood industry and writers such as Safran Foer more than allude to 9/11 in their works. Now, this huge amount of cultural products, dealing with 9/11, turn the death of 3000 people into the biggest tragedy of this young century. The number of books written on the subject and the number of films directed on this subject, and I say this with all due respect, blow the importance of this atrocious crime somewhat out of proportion.<br /><br />Fact is: People die every day due to unjust actions and horrible crimes committed by bad or simply lost people. We have a war in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Birma and lots of other countries. On a daily basis, we forget about the poverty the African people suffer from and we tend do empathize with them to a lesser degree than with the American victims of 9/11 simply because they are black and because their lives don't have much in common with our Western lives. Africa neither has the money nor the potential to commemorate their national tragedies in a way America can. So, what I am saying is this: The reason why we feel more for the 3000 victims of 9/11 and their families is because we are constantly reminded of 9/11. Not a day goes by without a newspaper article, a film or a book that discusses 9/11.<br /><br />In conclusion: I commiserated with Charlie Fineman, but I wasn't sure whether I had the right to feel for him more than for a Hutu who lost his entire family in the Rwandan civil war.<br /><br />You catch my thrift? | 1 | trimmed_train |
1,105 | Can it ever be said that there are some movies that have no redeeming features whatsoever? Answer: Yes, and this is one of them. After helming the appalling 'House of the Dead' director Uwe Boll has now cast his less-than-talented eye towards yet another video game adaptation. Don't these guys get it? To anyone who can't understand, here it is in block capitals for you: VIDEO GAMES DO NOT MAKE FOR GOOD MOVIES! The acting here is, at best, sub-standard. The set design and special effects are poor. Unlike the video game (which did have its scary moments) the movie has no atmosphere of impending doom, no sense of danger or menace. Pacing and plotting is confused and the paper that the script is printed on would have been better used as toilet paper. The main culprit is the director. Uwe Boll uses the camera with the grace and skill of a monkey using a paintbrush. Hackneyed zooms, swoops and pans are spliced into the whole dreary affair at unpredictable moments leaving the audience disorientated and bored. Why this guy was ever let near a movie set in the first place must stand as one of modern cinemas greatest secrets. Avoid at all costs. | 0 | trimmed_train |
12,153 | This was talked about to death by the critics when it honestly isn't that great. Sure, "CHAOS" and "INSIDE MAN" are literally the same movie, just with variations in suspense. But I found "CHAOS" more enjoyable because it was fast paced kinda like the silly film "Swordfish." The reason this film is more popular is because this got released in the States and "Chaos" was aired all around the world at film festivals and foreign theaters, but has yet to find a distributor in the U.K. and U.S.A. <br /><br />It's true that this film makes lots of tributes to classic films like DOG DAY AFTERNOON and other Spike Lee films, but that doesn't mean that it is a pleasant film to watch. <br /><br />Watch it if nothing else is on T.V., but you'll probably get bored with after awhile. | 2 | trimmed_train |
2,088 | Reed Diamond plays a man suffering from amnesia who's been in a mental asylum for over a decade after he was found wondering the back roads with blood on his hands. The doctors want to test out an experimental new drug that'll return his lost memories if it works. But when the drugs give him hallucinations of a demon, he chooses to escape instead. While outside he befriends a young boy whose stepfather (Greg Grunberg) mistreats his mother, won't let her near the darkroom in his basement & acts suspicious in general.<br /><br />While the general 'mystery' of the film is a tad easy to identify way before it's revealed, I found Mr. Diamond's acting to be enthralling enough to keep my attention throughout. (In the interest of full disclosure, I've been a huge fan of his since Homicide and his brief, but extremely pivotal, role in The Shield up through Journeyman & Dollhouse) Not a great film nor a good one, but serviceable enough. Although I did like it better than the previous films that I've seen from Director/writer Michael Hurst (Room 6, Pumkinhead 4, Mansquito)<br /><br />Eye Candy: one fleeting pair of boobs in a hallucination<br /><br />My Grade: C- | 2 | trimmed_train |
14,812 | I saw "El Mar" yesterday and thought it to be a great movie. It starts with a childhood episode in the life of the 3 main characters: Ramallo, Manuel Tur, and Francisca. After that we jump about 10 years to an hospital where the 3 friends meet again.<br /><br />Religion, sickness, love, violence and sexuality rage throughout the movie creating and intense and tension-filled movie.<br /><br />I see people complaining about the film being too gory and i think they missed the point of the story. It's a violent, intense and sad story. People are expected to suffer. To cry. To get hurt. To bleed. And i think that what the film shows, isn't done for pure shock-value or presented in a distasteful way. I know that some people like their films "clean", even those with violence in it. But sometimes, a movie needs to make you feel unconfortable to work. This is one of those movies. And a great movie it is.<br /><br />The only fault i found was that there were 3 or 4 moments were some plot details weren't 100% clear, and only after thinking about them at the end of the movie, it all made sense. But it wasn't anything of much importance to the overall story, so i still give this movie a 9. | 3 | trimmed_train |
4,457 | The acting in this movie stinks. The plot makes very little sense, but from what I gathered it's supposed to be about this scientist who develops the ability to turn people's personal items into tiny steel balls that then fly into their mouths and turn them into zombies (or blow their heads up, whichever). And the effects are lousy, too. Most of the movie consists of bad music, with the actors dancing equally as badly to the bad music, interspersed with multiple boring sex scenes. This should be one of the worst things ever made, but for one thing. One element of shear brilliance that makes "Nightmare Weekend" stand above all others. And that special quality is the presence of George.<br /><br />George is the lovable interface device between the scientist's daughter, Jessica, and the home computer security system. With his green hair and nose, balding scalp, and heart-shaped mouth, George is the guardian angel/confidant to Jessica, who asks him for advice on how to meet guys in one of the most dramatic pieces of dialogue ever captured on celluloid. With his monotone synthesized voice, George tells Jessica what percentages of males prefer women in white dresses, and also that hitch-hiking is the third best way to meet guys after discos and bars. Of course, little Jessica just can't seem to stay out of trouble, causing George to execute "Emergency Program Code: Protection Jessica", which results in the violent death of Jessica's would-be assailant via one of the aforementioned steel balls.<br /><br />Kubrick was an utter fool for thinking he could give a computer personality using closeups of a red light. HAL should have been represented by our friend George in order to better translate compassion for his eventual demise. The light and sound show at the end of "Close Encounters"? Not bad, but how much better would that movie had been if the means of first communication with the aliens had been George the Hand Puppet. Bishop, Data, R2 kitchen appliances next to the Almighty George! He might only be in the movie for 8 minutes out of 90, but don't be fooled. This show is all about George. With even that limited amount of screentime, George joins the ranks of such luminous film characters as Hollywood Montrose, Majai, and Pappy from "New Moon Rising" as icons of American cinema. "George to Apache" you are my hero. | 0 | trimmed_train |
18,627 | First off, this is not supposed to be a brilliant and thought provoking film like so many other reviewers seem to compare it to. the first review says something along the lines of anyone who likes this knows nothing about horror cinema, apparently its the other way around. If one were to look back after the film it really wasn't meant to be convincing, it was a low budget ipecac. But really thats all it was aiming for, it was meant to blow viewers away with sheer shock value (and all the flaws it its visuals were much less noticeable back in the original VHS versions). <br /><br />I gave this one a high score because it reached its goal and even though it was not downright horrific (in non-shock sense) it did make me slightly sick and thoroughly paranoid/pessimistic(i didn't trust anyone for about a week because i didn't want to wake up strung up and tortured) | 1 | trimmed_train |
13,976 | This is undoubtedly one of the funniest movies ever made. Amitabh as a country bumpkin, Arjun Singh, is hilarious. The best thing is the laughter never stops. The plot is a same-old same-old story where child is separated from mother who sacrifices everything for her duty - with a happy reunion at the end. There are villains (Ranjit) and there are brothers (Sashi Kapoor) and there are vixens (Parveen Babhi) and there are lovers (Smita Patil) and there is a blind brother and a grandfather thrown in for good measure. But this movie is about Amitabh and thats all you remember at then end.<br /><br />Amitabh comes to the city to make a decent living and his dialogue delivery and mannerisms are hilarious. Later in the movie he turns into the Angry Young Man he is famous for but the humour stays. Memorable parts include his walking, talking and speaking english, the song (pad gungaroo re bhand, meera nachi thi) and everything with his dadoo.<br /><br />All in all I was rolling with laughter throughout the movie. If you want 3 hours of entertainment with Amitabh at his absolute best - this is it. It will easily give it a 10/10. | 3 | trimmed_train |
2,555 | Payback is the game being played in this drama and the revenge plot is undone by the absurd story line that sets the stage for the fireworks that come later. Why would a man become involved with the trophy wife of a ruthless mob boss in the gangster's own mansion with suspicious henchmen all around? Why would an unhappy wife encourage the attentions of a complete stranger and expect him to carry her away with him and leave her husband and boredom behind to live happily ever after with her new love? Surely the hero, here Kevin Costner, must have expected a reaction from the cuckold husband that gives the movie an excuse to indulge in senseless gore and violence. Anthony Quinn, great actor that he was, surely deserved better, and Madeleine Stowe is the tragic figure who suffers greatly as she latches on to her prince charming. Stowe is okay but her Spanish accent doesn't work. The cameos of the lesser players are good, especially Miguel Ferrer and John Leguizamo and Sally Kirkland is interesting as a fading rock star. | 2 | trimmed_train |
5,124 | I understand the jokes quite well, they just aren't good. The show is horrible. I understand it, and that's another horrible thing about it. The only cool character there EVER was on the show was that one hobo in that one episode, but then I see the other episode including that episode and the show is horrible. It's not funny, NOT funny! I don't want people to say "Only smart people get it" because if they're so smart why do they judge people they don't even know and say that they're not smart or intellectual enough to understand it? It's like saying "The sky is red" but never looking outside. But anyways, this is absolutely the worst show I have ever seen in my life, the jokes are terrible, I mean, you can understand them, they're just horrible, her controversy is very lame, her fart jokes and other jokes on bodily fluids are really dumb and usually consist of really bad acting. I'm not sure what these "smart" people see in this show, but judging others when they don't even know anything about any of us isn't exactly a smart comment. | 0 | trimmed_train |
9,311 | Broad enough for you? Wait till you see this heavy handed<br /><br />adaption of a little collegiate one act. What is shocking and wild in<br /><br />college rarely holds up over time, and this is proof. To take on the<br /><br />Catholic Church with broadside humor just isn't shocking or<br /><br />interesting or funny, it's kind of boring. The performers are all<br /><br />game, giving all they've got, but it's basically a play that doesn't<br /><br />open up to film well. Not a lot of fun. | 0 | trimmed_train |
2,390 | SCARECROWS seems to be a botched horror meets supernatural film. A group of thugs pull off a paramilitary-like robbery of the payroll at Camp Pendleton in California. They high-jack a cargo plane kidnapping the pilot and his daughter with demands to be flown to Mexico. Along the way one greedy robber decides to bailout with the money landing in a cornfield monitored by strange looking scarecrows. These aren't just any run-of-the-mill scarecrows...they can kill. The acting is no better than the horrible dialog. And the attempts at humor are not funny. Very low budget and shot entirely in the dark.<br /><br />The cast includes: Ted Vernon, Michael David Simms, Kristina Sanborn, B.J. Turner, Phil Zenderland and Victoria Christian. | 2 | trimmed_train |
4,322 | This is a weak film with a troubled history of cuts and re-naming. It doesn't work at all. Firstly the dramaturgy is all wrong. It's very slow moving at first and then hastily and unsatisfactorily moves to an end. But there is also (and that may have to do with the cuts) an uneasy moving between genres. It starts off with being a thriller to be taken at face value and then degenerates into a farce rather than satire. the ending may be funny but it's also so blunt that I almost felt it insulted my intelligence (what little there is). So the film tries to be everything but does not really succeed on any level at all. You can also see that in the very unsteady character development.You almost get the impression Connery plays three roles rather than one. | 0 | trimmed_train |
13,160 | This for me was a wonderful introduction to the talents and beauty of Marion Davies. She is not only gorgeous but hilarious in this film. (I believe that Lucille Ball may have modeled her later career on Davies' style, that could be termed "zany beauty".) Vidor's direction is light but sure-handed, the story is a chestnut of course but the acting is marvelously contemporary, and the star-watching element for fans of the silent era, with many cameos, adds to the overall fun. It combines the elements of slapstick with adult drama and good old timeless romance quite well. For all movie fans who have a knee-jerk reaction to watching silent films, sit through this one and it may change your attitude. <br /><br /> | 3 | trimmed_train |
578 | If you're a fan of the late Gram Parsons then this movie is definitely going to divide you! Part comedy, part road movie, but mostly a bad fictionalization of one of rock history's oddest tales.<br /><br />SPOILERS-- <br /><br />Basically the story concerns a well-known roadie named Phil Kaufman (played by Johnny Knoxville) who "supposedly" made a pact with cult rock/country/folk music hero Gram Parsons that stated when one of them died first (it didn't matter which one it was) that the other living one was to take the deceased out to the desert, Joshua Tree National Park in California to be exact, and set the body ablaze...so as to free the spirit and become one with the earth, and so on! Sure to keep his word the barely sober Kaufman, with the assistance of a self-hating, pot-headed buddy, jacks the body of the late Parsons -whom had fatally overdosed from a drug and booze bender a day prior- from the airport. And shortly after that what ensues is a cringe-worthy combination of fiction and truth where the late Parsons girlfriend, Kaufman's girlfriend, Parsons stone-faced father, and a gaggle of police officers and other pointless idiotic characters all try to beat the clock (so to speak) in trying to catch Kaufman and his pal before they get the chance to torch Parsons body! <br /><br />The film's incompetent direction, bad acting, and lame offbeat tone in general all sink this movie faster than the Titanic. And not to mention the huge fact that this movie is not even halfway telling the truth of the actual events that took place. The accuracies that should have replaced the inaccuracies, as far as I've heard them, include: number 1., Parsons was married at the time of his death and even had a child, so what the hell was that all about with the girlfriend's and the chasing and whatnot?, number 2., Kaufman's drugged-out buddy was a known willing participant (unlike what the movie attempts to portray) in the disposing of Parson's body, and finally number 3., Gram Parsons real-life father died when he was just a boy, and so it was Parson's step-father (who could have honestly cared less about Gram Parsons when he was still alive) in real-life that took care of the body after it was torched! Altogether though, what probably disturbs me the most about this movie is that the real Phil Kaufman was actually on set to help assist with the facts of the story. And yet still, the movie ended up becoming so untrue and so bad that it really boggles my mind, frankly! <br /><br />Also as the mediocre aforementioned acting in the film is concerned it's lead character, played by the ultra-grating Johnny Knoxville (Phil Kaufman), is not only a bad actor but it actually seems as if he were asleep throughout most of the movie, and the rest of the pathetic cast are for the most part either hysterical, brain-dead, or seem utterly clueless as to what they're actually doing there in the first place! Overall, if you like Johnny Knoxville and or really dig the so-bad-they're-not-even-good buddy flicks then I suppose you just might get a kick out of this movie! But, if you're like me and are a fan of the late Gram Parsons, enjoy films that attempt to tell the truth as much as they can especially if they're based on an actual real-life story, and or you just like good films, be-them road movies, or fictional slice-of-life stuff, you will truly loathe this film and advise others to do likewise. I obviously hated this movie and wished it had never been made in the first place, but since it was made I would have preferred it to have turned out differently than what it did, unfortunately! Maybe some day the real facts of the story will come through and be made into a really great biopic on all of Gram Parsons life...not just what happened to his body after his spirit left it. But, until that time comes all we as an audience, and or fans of the late performer get is this sad waste of film and an all-around terrible memorial (of sorts) to the musical legacy that Gram Parsons was known to have left behind. It should also be noted that they did actually use Parsons music, and a few others as well in the flick, but not surprisingly though, you never get to hear enough of it to really enjoy it even in the slightest bit. (Turkey-Zero Stars) | 0 | trimmed_train |
1,255 | A typical 70s Italian coming of age film, original and good music, but with some quirks, interesting but not fantastic photography, poor and at times confused storyline (e.g. the role of the wolf-dog, and where does the boy come from?) with poor dialogue, nice ambiance.<br /><br />The reason it is still (relatively) well-known and sought after is probably the nude scenes (including typical 70s pseudo-coitus) involving an 11 and 13 year old girl with an older teenage boy (Eva Ionesco and Laura Wendel) - it is interesting from a socio-political point of view to see how these representations of very young adolescents was considered acceptable and normal in the whole of Europe (and US) 30 years ago, whereas now it is more than taboo.<br /><br />The story revolves round bullying of one girl (Laura) by the other two characters, and her discovery of sex, a quite accurate representation of an aspect teenage life. The character of Eva (Silvia) does not evolve to the very end of the film and already appears very versed in the erotic arts - there is no "coming of age" for her: she is a very vain young girl who is already aware of her sexual charms, but ultimately is just used and ends the film crying like the little girl she really still is. The boy is an utterly despicable bully, while Laura comes across as a very naive and weak victim. | 2 | trimmed_train |
21,046 | I enjoyed every moment of this movie, even though I knew they could never really be together. With the life expectancy of a Bomber pilot being only six weeks, It made me feel for all of those women and men back in the 1940's who must have lived this story. | 3 | trimmed_train |
17,357 | It's a strange thing to see a film where some scenes work rather weakly (if only in comparison to other films in its legacy), and others in a 'sub-plot' or supporting story are surprisingly provocative and strong. Sudden Impact is one of those cases, where Clint Eastwood as star/producer/director shows when he can be at his best, or at his lessor of times when dealing with a crime/mystery/detective story in his Dirty Harry fame. We get that 'make my day' line, and un-like in the first film where his 'do I feel lucky' speech was playful and cool the first time and the second time at the end tough as nails, here it's switched around. He gets into another shamble with the department, as usual, when he tries to fight crime 'his' way, in particular with a diner robbery (inspiration for Pulp Fiction?) and with a high speed pursuit with a senior citizen bus. He's told to 'take a vacation', and that's the last thing on his mind. This whole main plot isn't very convincing aside from the expectancy of the story and lines, which just adds to the frustration. But soon his story merges with the sub-plot that Eastwood develops from the start.<br /><br />Enter Sandra Locke's character, Jennifer Spencer, whom we soon learn after some (appropriately) mysterious scenes that she and her shy sister were victims of a cruel, unjust sexual assault (err, outright rape), and is sleekly, undercover-like, getting revenge. Her scenes and story are the strongest parts of the film, the most intense, and finally when it goes into Callahan's storyline (he's getting facts in the same small town she's in on a murder), the film finally finds a focus between Eastwood's classic form of clearly defined good vs. evil (though sometimes blurred, to be sure). Eastwood films the flashbacks, not to say too much about them, expertly, in a fresh, experimental style; the trademark Lalo Schifrin score is totally atmospheric in these scenes and in others. It almost seems like a couple of times an art-house sensibility has crept into Eastwood's firmly straightforward storytelling style, which helps make the film watchable.<br /><br />It's a shame, though, that in the end it goes more for the expectable (or maybe not expectable) points, and until the third act Callahan doesn't have much to do except his usual 'it's smith...Wesson...and me' shtick. However, with Locke he gets out of her a very good performance (more subtle and touching than the one in the Gauntlet) and an exciting climax at an amusement park. In a way I do and don't agree with Ebert's remark that it's like a 'music video' in Eastwood's style here. I admit there is comparisons with the simplicity of both, the directness, but the scenes where Eastwood does break form are superior to those of any music video. It's cheesy, it's hard-edged, it's not up to par with the first two 'Harry' pictures, but hey, there could be worse ways to spend a couple hours with the master of the .44. | 1 | trimmed_train |
12,029 | I'm going to say first off that I have given this film a 3 out of 10 after some thought. I was going to give it a straight out 1 but it got a couple extra points for the body count. But that would be about it. Let me explain. I paid literally £1 for this DVD in a supermarket because I tend to have a lot of faith in bargain horror flicks, B-movies especially. But if this film was aiming for B status as I suspect it was for a number of reasons (which I'll touch on in a sec) then it failed magnificently. Not only did it shoot for B and miss, it landed somewhere around F. This film had so many opportunities to be good and it pretty much failed on all accounts. I say above that it's likely this film was aiming for B status and it seems to try and achieve this by trying to blend humour with horror, which can either be very good or very bad. For example, later Freddy films (Dream Warriors onwards) are all about Freddy's style and nose-thumbing, which works out great! But this film completely bombed in that respect because the times where they tried to inject humour were mostly just stupid. I will admit though that towards the beginning of the film the humour was good. In fact, for about half an hour I liked this film and was prepared to congratulate myself on another good find. BUT what really killed this film for me was the inappropriate kills. For instance, when 'Satan' smashes the cat against the board and writes 'boo' with it's blood using its body as a brush. Or when 'Satan' slams the door into the helpless disabled elderly woman. Now I'm not usually too against senseless kills in films-hey, thats the point, right? But in those two cases I just found it grossly offensive and unnecessary to anything in the film-plot especially. For me, the film went downwards from then on. One major bad point about this film is that I hated every character in it. The kid, Dougie was just ridiculously annoying!!! I'm at a loss to explain how he could possibly write off all those bodies and people being killed in front of his eyes as a trick! I mean, come on!!! I completely understand that to be in a horror film a character does have to be somewhat stupid, like running upstairs when you should blatantly be running out of the house screaming for help, but this kid took the biscuit! I wanted to kill him myself by the end of it! It was completely unbelievable and if I had to hear him say 'duh!' one more time I was going to bang my head against a wall-because thats what watching this film felt like. Why didn't i just turn the film off? Mainly because I honestly believe an ending can sometimes redeem a film. But I was wrong in this case. The ending did NOT redeem this film, it further irritated the hell out of me and was inadequate to the plot line. I get it already! The killer is always going to come back dressed as someone else, be welcomed into the house by the stupid kid and go on a killing spree again because no one suspects him in that costume! I GET IT! This film made me physically angry because it was so stupid! And if by some foul mistake you do end up watching this film, watch out for the intestines. Frankly, if that guy actually did have intestines that looked like that, I'd be surprised he wasn't already dead, let alone until someones rips them out and ties them to a chair.<br /><br />In fact, I'll even go so far as to say that the only character I liked at all in this film was actually the killer. Purely because when his 'comedy routine' worked, it did work. All in all, the plot line of this film dragged anything that might have been good down. Why was the killer killing? I don't know. I can live without knowing who he actually was, thats fairly typical, but without some kind of motive - hell i don't know, i'd settle for him having a bad Halloween as a kid! -it just seems more than senseless, just stupid. Stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid. In fact, i hated this film so much that i specifically registered with IMDb just so i could comment on it. Save your money, save your sanity. Stay away from it! | 2 | trimmed_train |
23,535 | Excellent farce! Which, of course, is all it is intended to be. Thankfully there is neither a social or political message, nor is there the slightest attempt in that direction. Could the plot actually take, or have taken place in any particular time or location? Unlikely, for, after all, this is simply, merely, a movie, and movies spring from imagination, not from reality. The only goal of this movie is to entertain, certainly not to educate, and entertain it does, with reality delightfully and lightheartedly tossed to the winds. I think most would agree that from documentaries we expect enlightenment and authenticity. But for entertainment I want what is nowadays described as a "no-brainer," which The Mating Game is in all respects. For a few chuckles and an outright laugh now and then, this is fine fare fantasy. | 3 | trimmed_train |
21,279 | I first saw this movie in my plays & playwrights course at Tulane. I was awed at how beautiful and raw this documentary was. It is a sincere look into the unedited reality of a life of solitude. The family is fascinating and I thought it really showed Little Edie at her core. **As a side note My professor even told me that throughout the filming, Little Edie became infatuated with one of the camera men.** The beauty, I find, comes from the naturalness of the family's dysfunction. It is evident in the relationship between mother and daughter that neither could function in society alone and you begin to wish for Little Edie's rehabilitation to society. In all, the film is gripping in its aesthetic quality and it's portrayal of surprising beauty. Two thumbs way up! | 3 | trimmed_train |
24,949 | Lisa is a hotel manager or owner and she gets on a flight to Miami. She ends up sitting next to an assassin named Jackson who tells her that she has to switch a room of a family or her father dies. The reason she has to switch the room is because Jackson wants to blow it up.<br /><br />It's a great suspense movie because Lisa tries several ways to escape this ploy that Jackson has set up. The whole storyline is great and I thought that they could have spent some more time on the plane. There could have more to the plane but other than that, the whole movie was pretty good.<br /><br />I especially liked the ending because it was heart-stopping. I didn't know what was going to happen and I was surprised by it. For me, this movie just took off. | 1 | trimmed_train |
18,704 | So fortunate were we to see this fantastic film at the Palm Springs International Film festival. Upon entering the theater we were handed a small opinion card that would be used for our personal rating of the film. Looking at the card I turned to my wife and said, "How many movies in your life do you think you can rate as superb? Only about 5 for me." But then watching the interaction between Peter Falk and Paul Reiser while viewing the spectacular scenery in the film's setting of New York state, I slowly starting bumping the movie up a category at a time. Certainly it was good but the totally natural repoire of the actors and an award winning performance by a man who will unfortunately probably be remembered for a raincoat wearing detective rather than this film, the movie jumped to the excellent level.<br /><br />By the end of the film there were few dry eyes in the house and my usually stoic and callous heart melted just like the Grinch's and I ended up giving this a superb.<br /><br />This picture is a must for anyone who has parents. No violence or nudity but some strong language. | 3 | trimmed_train |
10,372 | There's nothing new here. All the standard romantic-comedy scenes, even down to the taxi sprinting to the airport to stop the woman flying away. The only thing that saves this is the acting of Alison Eastwood & some of the minor characters (blink and you'll miss Gabrielle Anwar), who obviously had some fun.<br /><br />Turn it off when the pair are in bliss, and you won't have to go through the inevitable plot pain. | 2 | trimmed_train |
11,796 | This was an awful movie! Not for the subject matter, but for the delivery. I went with my girlfriend at the time (when the movie came out), expecting to see a movie about the triumph of the human spirit over oppression. What we saw was 2 hours of brutal police oppression, with no uplift at the end. The previews and ads made NO mention of this! Plus, for all that they played up whoopi goldberg, my recollection is that she is arrested and killed in the first 20 minutes! Again, the previews say nothing about this! (not that you would expect that, but it's just more of the problem). If I had known how depressing this movie would be, I would've never have seen it. Or at least, I would've been prepared for it. This was a bait and switch ad campaign, and I will NEVER see this movie again! | 0 | trimmed_train |
11,698 | I don't understand why making remakes has become the trend. Every remake I have ever seen is awful, and this is no exception. If any of you have seen the quote from Ben Jones, that it is a "sleazy" piece of trash, he is quite right. Why they would take a wonderful television show, which I loved, have never missed an episode, and own seasons 1-4 on DVD, and ruin it, I'll never know. The television show was a family show, and although Daisy has the body, it was really flaunted, or even addressed in the show, save the outfits. A family show has been turned in to a dirty piece of garbage, and I wouldn't recommend anyone go see it. Another thing I didn't like was that John Schneider and Tom Wopat are excellent actors (along with the rest of the original cast), and they are also extremely cute. The new Bo and Luke are not even a little cute. That was one of the drawers for the show. The casting is terrible. They could have at least gotten a brunette for Daisy. I don't think Burt Reynolds is a qualified Boss Hogg, either. Every other role he has ever played is totally opposite this role. The only role they cast halfway decent is Willie Nelson as Uncle Jesse, but still it is no comparison. Denver Pyle is an actor all his own, and that made him perfect for the role. I think that the casting is awful, the story is awful, and all in all ruined a wonderful show and turned it into a dirty, terrible movie. I wouldn't recommend anyone go see it. I only saw it out of curiosity, plus there was a free ticket in season 4 DVD. I would never have paid to see this movie, but it was free. DON'T PAY TO SEE THIS MOVIE. | 0 | trimmed_train |
8,839 | In a summer that also boasted such repugnant stinkers as Snakes on a Plane and The Da Vinci Code, that's a pretty bold statement. But I stand by it nonetheless. Superman Returns, like King Kong 6 months before it, is overlong, hyper-indulgent and with CGI up to the eyeballs. My God, this stuff is doing my head in.<br /><br />Richard Donner had the idea of 'keep it real' for his 2 outings. And I do find his approach to the special and optical effects to be the most appropriate. Brian Singer bombards us with so much CGI that it really takes you out of the story and constantly reminds you that you are watching a wannabe blockbuster that thinks that the only way to impress an audience is to spend $250 million (a totally irresponsible amount of money) on obnoxious visual effects that don't live up to the hype. We've seen everything and been everywhere that CGI can take us. There's no real atmosphere or involvement in this. And for a film that is 95% made up of this crap...well you figure it out.<br /><br />I've read so many reviews from fanboy critics about how the movie has 'soul' or 'a human heart' or 'tender character moments'. Puh-lease! We've already had brooding superheros silently screaming 'you'd love me if you knew who I am' dozens of times already in recent years and SR offers absolutely NOTHING new in this regard. Even the plot is recycled garbage. Lex Luthor (a seriously mis-cast and hammy Kevin Spacey) plotting to destroy the landmass of America was done in the first film already! And, well...that's your lot! It's amazing that they managed to draw out this junk to 2.5 painful hours! Even if the cast were likable it would make it less unbearable. But Brandon Routh has the on screen personality of a mahogany hat-stand, Kate Bosworth is completely unconvincing as a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, James Marsden is 250% wooden, as usual and Kevin Spacey really needs to either fire his agent or acquire some better judgement. The only cast member I liked was the lovely Parker Posey. But I'm into weird-looking girls.<br /><br />Every year films like this get bigger and more bombastic. Pretty soon we'll have $300 million films. Studios need to realise that maybe they should start looking down instead of looking up. For all the money that Warner spent on this pile of crap, for all the resources that this movie cost to make...was it worth it? In my opinion, certainly not! This garbage has put me of Superman for life! | 0 | trimmed_train |
6,067 | Your mind will not be satisfied by this nobudget doomsday thriller; but, pray, who's will? A youngish couple spends the actual end of the world in the hidden laboratory of some aliens masquerading as Church people.<br /><br />Small _apocalyptically themed outing, END OF THE WORLD has the ingenuity and the lack of both brio and style of the purely '50s similar movies. And it's not only that, but EOTW plays like a hybridnot only doomsday but convent creeps as well. The villain of the movie is a wellknown character actor.<br /><br />This wholly shameless slapdash seems a piece of conventexploitation, that significantly '70s genre which looks today so amusingly outdated. Anyway, the convent's secret laboratory is some nasty piece of futuristic deco! Christopher Lee is the pride of End of the World; but the End of the World is not at all his pride! | 2 | trimmed_train |
23,498 | Wow! The sort of movie you could watch ten times and still delight in its nuances. Absolutely incredible! If this was Visconti's debut film, i shudder to think what would happen if he got any better from film to film. The only other one of his i've seen (at time of writing) is Death in Venice - which was absolutely incredible: more dazzling visually than Ossessione (Obsession). One of the most beautiful films i've ever seen, but its story was not as involving as Ossessione. If you click on "miscellaneous" on this page's links, there are stills from the movie on those websites. They won't really do justice to the experience of the movie: such graceful camera movements, such beautiful composition, such wonderful faces, such terrific characters, such a great story development, the first movie adapted from James M Cain's "The Postman Always Rings Twice."<br /><br />I can't believe this was made in 43, eight years before Brando was supposed to have introduced realistic acting to the world with Streetcar Named Desire (1951). The actors in this may not have used the method technique, ie they may not have truly felt everything themselves (i don't know anything about it) - but they're some of the best, most genuine and realistic performances up to this date in cinema. Also, eight years before Streetcar Named Desire brought a new sensuality to the screen, Ossessione was electrifyingly sensual! The most sensual thing since the beginning of cinema! Yes, i'm being superlative, but Ossessione was just that terrific.<br /><br />The reason Ossessione didn't cause the impact Streetcar did was that it was made in fascist Italy and banned by Mussolini, and re-cut in America. American audiences didn't see its full glory till 59, eight years AFTER Streetcar.<br /><br />I won't say any more about it - just writing to tell you its one of the best, most beautiful and exciting movies i've ever seen, and tell you to go out and see it! Like another reviewer, i'm going to buy it as soon as i can find it! | 1 | trimmed_train |
5,958 | I read the book and the book was fascinating.<br /><br />This movie, it's direction, the screenplay, and the acting were totally insufferable. I cringed at the lack of a screenplay that could not follow the novel, a novel that has all the action, simplicity, and courage to illustrate a temerity of a great possibly fact based story.<br /><br />I can see why this movie was not released to the general public in most cities. Would not ever recommend this film to anyone I know. <br /><br />Simply, one of he worst adaptations I have seen transformed into a plot less exploration of heaven on earth.<br /><br />The cinematography was indeed the only highlight. But, how could that fail when filmed in an beautiful country such as Peru. <br /><br />To prospective viewers, do not waste your time or energy on this flop. | 0 | trimmed_train |
4,161 | i am very disappointed with this movie because i like these french actors and i liked "Buffet Froid" from this Director (bertrand blier) but the script of "Les Acteurs" is VERY POOR. why these actors they agreed to play this poor scenario. | 2 | trimmed_train |
10,021 | Alone In The Dark is one BAD movie and tied with Deuce Bigalow for worst movie of the year. I wish that was ALL I had to say but of course the IMDb stipulates a word count and all that.<br /><br />I'm in two minds about what kind of bad movie is a worse kind of bad movie. A low budget dreck like Red Zone Cuba, Monster A Go Go and Manos. Or a huge budget disgrace like Gigli, Superbabies or this guff. You see movies like Monster A Go Go and Manos happen because the director hasn't a clue. Movies like this happen because the director is a stupid, money grabbing idiot who simply doesn't care about his audience.<br /><br />It's more shocking when you consider that Uwe Boll (The mastermind behind this shocking crap and already has some real garbage under his belt) has created something that only happens once in a blue moon. The really terribly bad horror film. Everything about it is a mess. Cheesy CGI, bad plot, insane random camera cuts and appalling soundtrack.<br /><br />Alone In The Dark is a dreadful movie that should be watched by absolutely nobody. Woo hoo! Review over. Give me a bud, roll on 2006 and may I NEVER speak of this again.<br /><br />Don't watch this film. | 0 | trimmed_train |
4,088 | Music that grinds on the nerves like fingernails on a blackboard, acting that is so zombielike it was a shame to waste the cast by not making a second movie; casting everyone in it as true zombies---with the cast of Sabrina the Teenaged Witch as the heroes... a movie so downright awful that if "stoners" were still around it might be considered a cult movie---but, oh so amateurish, the scripts might as well have been carried around by the actors, their lines read as they slowly shuffled through the movie---banal, illogical sets modeled after LA subdivisions, props straight from ToysRus! Was a movie ever made that is so completely and totally inept??? Logic flies to the wind in this plodding, senseless, pointless and with a "monster" so stupid and uncoordinated that it couldn't catch a turtle in an icebox---lowcut, leggy---and amazon! It kept my attention all the way through; the way a terrible, ongoing chain accident in the fog involving multiple vehicles keeps one watching to the very end... as, after a ridiculous ray-gun fight in a prison on another planet, a pneumaticaly-disadvantaged sexy and mentally unbalanced bounty hunter chases a retarded extra-terrestrial fugitive---TO EARTH! Don't let anybody p**s on your popcorn, you might actually enjoy watching this one. It's that bad! | 0 | trimmed_train |
15,364 | In terms of the arts, the 1970s were a very turbulent era. In literature and the visual arts, it was the closing of a great fifty or sixty year period of creativity that has yet to be restarted. In music it was a decade that many see as a low point, due to corporate rock and disco. On television it was a Golden Age for situation comedies, from The Odd Couple to the Mary Tyler Moore Show to M*A*S*H to All In The Family, but in film it was even a greater period of creativity, in all genres, that saw the rise of the American auteur- directors like Robert Altman, Francis Ford Coppola, and Martin Scorsese- from the ashes of the old studio systems that had dominated Hollywood for over half a century. These directors wanted to craft literate, arts films for the masses, of the sort that had been staples in Europe since the end of the Second World War. Yet, the studios were trying to keep pace, with socially aware films of the sort not seen since the 1930s.<br /><br />But, unlike the films of the 1930s, starring actors like Jimmy Cagney and John Garfield (usually co-starring the Dead End Kids), that dealt with social issues in a gritty realistic way, or as realistic as one could get on a sound stage, the social consciousness of the late 1960s and early 1970s manifested itself most in science fiction films, which allowed the Left Wing of Hollywood to preach to the masses under the guise of what most considered little above comic strip entertainment. There was precedent for this approach, for several of the flying saucer films of the 1950s dealt with the political zeitgeist of the McCarthy era- most notably The Day The Earth Stood Still and Invasion Of The Body Snatchers. And the early 1960s saw Rod Serling constantly subverting the political conservatism of the time by casting social issues into science fiction settings on his classic sci fi television anthology show The Twilight Zone. Among the studio offerings of this time were the ecologically sensitive Silent Running; George Lucas's first film THX 1138, which dealt with consumerism, group think, and existentialism; and Logan's Run, which hammered away at Communism and state control versus the rights of an individual. Some of the film's references are quite heavyhanded- and reek of the then current Arab oil crisis and rampant inflation. A few jarred strawberries cost $150, and Soylent rations its assorted colored foods- Soylent Yellow, Soylent Red, and the new Soylent Green, reputedly made from 'the finest undersea growth,' in a manner not unlike the gas rationing of the time. Scenes of food riots are eerie echoes of the oil riots at many gas stations during the year of the film's release, and the scenes of crowding, and bodies, live and dead, lying all about are still chilling, as well as influential. A later film like Escape From New York is an obvious progeny. The rest of the script, by Stanley R. Greenberg, however, is rather pedestrian, and fairly standard for a dystopian flick, but Fleischer and cinematographer Richard H. Kline do a great job of filling the screen with interesting images and sounds, to spice things up. The use of soft, dimly lit visuals, murkily filtered, add a Stygian feel to the New York of the film, almost like a colorized version of Carl Theodor Dreyer's Vampyr. The only light in the film comes from artificial sources, and were it not for the fashion faux pas the film could truly seem timeless.<br /><br />The end of the film, where Thorn sneaks into the processing plant where human corpses are made into Soylent Green wafers, is both chilling, and oddly drama-less. In the end, the Soylent minions hunt Thorn down, but he survives long enough to utter the film's catchphrase to Chief Hatcher. Yet, one does not know if it is enough, for Hatcher has already been co-opted, and has a track record of taking the easy way out. Yet, that fact, and its ambiguity, shows that the film does not recapitulate its characters' dilemmas, and has a depth many later, better made films, sci fi or not, do not have. It is also why Soylent Green is still a film worth watching. | 1 | trimmed_train |
3,588 | Another in a long line of flicks made by people who think that knowing how to operate a camera is the same as telling a story. Within 15 minutes, the entire premise is laid out in just a few lines, so there is absolutely no mystery, which eliminates a whole facet of the suspense. The only half-way competent actor is killed 10 minutes into the film, so we're left with stupid characters running around doing stupid things. Low budget films can't afford expensive special effects, so the CGI portions are unsurprisingly unimpressive, but were at least a valid attempt. The creature suit is terrible, as seen when it falls to the sidewalk, and the director keeps emphasizing the eyes, which aren't even the red color shown in mirror shots. The dialogue is clumsy and uninspired, with some lines reminiscent of Aliens or Terminator. The last action sequence takes place in a police station, also a rip-off from Terminator, with everyone hiding in the one glass lined office that the Darkwolf doesn't smash into. In the end, the girl calls the hero "a good Protector", but he gets both his partners, the original Protector, and at least three other civilians, not to mention a dozen cops, all killed without getting a decent shot off, in spite of an arsenal of silver bullets and a submachine gun. But here's the real clincher for bad writing: They could have killed the beast right after the beginning credits when it was holding the stripper while flashing its red eyes. Instead, they took it into custody?!? | 0 | trimmed_train |
4,598 | When I rented "Unhinged", I was expecting a gore movie. The box even claimed that the movie had extreme scenes of violence that were cut from the theatrical release (I now have serious doubts about this being released in the theater). After finishing the movie, I wondered how it could even receive a video release.<br /><br />The plot is as follows: A group of three young women on a car trip crash their car into a tree. These women somehow manage to make their way to a mansion, which contains an extremely sexist woman. Beyond this point, the movie is mainly composed of useless scenes that are intended to make the movie long enough for release.<br /><br />One of the things that makes this movie awful is the acting. Lisa Munson, who plays the main character, looks as though she is reading her lines off cue cards. The others acting is bad, but not nearly as bad as hers. Another thing that makes this movie bad is the camera technique. Many shots are taken by cameras attached to the ceiling. This gets very annoying as the movie progresses. On top of all that, there is very little gore, which makes the box very misleading. <br /><br />Don't waste your time on this one. My rating: 1 out of 10 | 0 | trimmed_train |
23,830 | A delightful piece of cinema storytelling in a simple but effective way. Cinema after all is a visual media and Igor used its full potential. A young restless man boards a train with no destination in mind. In one of the compartments he meets with a girl. Words are not exchanged but their laundry washing are and from there we are taken on a ride with other peculiar characters and situations. The two leads are perfectly cast as their unique features tell you a story that needs no words. | 3 | trimmed_train |
18,737 | What can be said about Mr. Moore? He's the godfather of rap, he's the king of the Z-level blaxploitation flicks, and here, he is back as his most famous character, Dolemite! Can you dig it? This movie is one whacked-out roller-coaster ride of politically incorrect humor, trippy kung-fu, nudity, cheese, violence, and a whole lot of other stuff you'd never find in most modern movies (or any movies, really, haha!). The stand-up routine he gives early on is not to be missed! At any rate, D2 is definitely an entertaining way to waste an hour or so. Dolemite: "He think he's bad and ain't got no class! I'm gon' rock this shotgun up his *beep* a**!" | 1 | trimmed_train |
19,146 | Before films like 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre,' 'Suspiria,' and 'Halloween' changed the view of horror forever, there was a more Gothic and far less violent era in the genre. Films like the Hammer Horror series and 'Rosemary's Baby' were what scared and thrilled audiences throughout the 60s and early 70s. I can't tell you how many times I rented this film during my childhood, but I did because there was something about it. I didn't want to limit myself to the slasher and zombies movies of the 70s and 80s and films like this production from the famous, but sadly long gone Amicus film company were a good start.<br /><br />Pros: A grand, eerie music score. Strong performances from a stellar cast. Brilliant cinematography. Plenty good old fashioned thrills and chills, especially in the first and last vignettes. Some haunting moments and images. Moves at a slow, but stead pace. The house is one spooky, oppressive dwelling. Great production design and set decoration, which give the film a real old Gothic horror feel. Depends more on mood and bloodless chills than on gore and gratuitous nudity for it's thrills.<br /><br />Cons: Some pacing issues in the first half. Aside from the 'The Cloak,' the rest of the stories feel like they've been done before. Clichés galore. The second story, 'Waxworks,' has fine acting and it's moments, but is the weakest of the four in terms of scares and suspense. The low budget really shows at times.<br /><br />Final thoughts: After seeing this film for the first time in many years I can see why I rented it so frequently. It's not a masterpiece by any means, but it's a good example of a time when horror films were made with style and class. Watch this one with the lights off.<br /><br />My rating: 3.5/5 | 1 | trimmed_train |
10,076 | Tatie Danielle is all about a ghastly old hag who torments her loving and oblivious family out of sheer spite. There's a bit of subtext that might be about France's colonial past but it's mostly just Danielle doing the sorts of things (like deliberately abandoning a small child in a park) that would soon have a man picking up his teeth with broken fingers. Sadly, that doesn't happen here. It looks good and the acting is fine and there's nothing really wrong with the concept but it's just so SMUG. God, does this movie love itself. Pity it isn't nearly as clever or as funny as it thinks it is. The only impetus in the show - sorry, movie - comes from Danielle getting nastier and nastier, and the only surprise comes from watching the increasingly improbable ways she does this. That's right: just like in a sitcom, which is what this is, with the added 'bonus' of delusions of grandeur and a 110-minute running time. | 0 | trimmed_train |
18,967 | This movie is definately one of my favorite movies in it's kind. The interaction between respectable and morally strong characters is an ode to chivalry and the honor code amongst thieves and policemen. It treats themes like duty, guilt, word, manipulation and trust like few films have done and, unfortunately, none that I can recall since the death of the 'policial' in the late seventies. The sequence is delicious, down to the essential, living nothing out and thus leading the spectator into a masterful plot right and wrong without accessory eye catching and spectacular scenes that are often needed in lesser specimens of the genre in order to keep the audience awake. No such scenes are present or needed. The argument is sand honest to the spectator; An important asset in a genre that too often achieve suspense through the deception of the audience. No, this is not miss Marble... A note of congratulations for the music is in order A film to watch and savor every minute, not just to see. | 3 | trimmed_train |
3,909 | I should have trusted my instincts better: No expectations - no disappointments. Instead, however, I expected to experience a similar masterpiece like Koyaanisqatsi (1983) and was brutally disappointed. Powaqqatsi is in my humble opinion nothing but a cheap attempt to cash in on the cult success of its predecessor, and - artistically - it fails miserably. It appears some producer gathered up leftover material from Koyaanisqatsi, hurriedly threw it together, placed everything in slow motion and got some pop entertainer under the pseudonym of Philip Glass to hurriedly throw together some banal background music, which is incessantly repeated. Where Koyaanisqatsi entertains the viewer with clever fast and slow motion changes, Powaqqatsi is one long sequence of mundane images in slow-motion (if you view them on your VCR in fast preview mode, you'll see what I mean). What disappointed me the most, however, was Philip Glass's soundtrack. I couldn't - and still can't - believe that these commercial-sounding New Age type drones, which could easily have been composed in one afternoon by any 14-year-old on a Casio calculator, were from the same composer who so brilliantly composed the emotional and perfectly-synchronized music for Koyaanisqatsi. All in all, a big waste of time! My advice: Forget commercialism! Watch Koyaanisqatsi again instead! | 0 | trimmed_train |
12,130 | So why does this show suck? Unfortunately, that really is the only question, because there is no doubt that it does.<br /><br />For those unfamiliar with the premise of the show, the doomed-to-be-shortlived series Cavemen focuses on a number of Neanderthals and their struggle to exist in modern day America and is based on the characters featured in a series of television ads for Geico Insurance. The concept is solid and there is every reason to think it could be executed successfully.<br /><br />I had to think about it for awhile, but then the tagline from the commercials -- something to the effect of "We're not that much different from you" provided me with the key to the show's suckiness. Even though cavemen/Neanderthals are actually a different species than humanity, the title characters of this show, it turns out, are exactly the same as those of us who are boring jerks.<br /><br />Maybe its my background as a game writer -- rather than a soulless, hack, committee-based writer from California -- but this show had so much potential, and none of it has been realized. To start with, the producers should have focused on the fun things that would make cavemen different from us.<br /><br />What could conceivably be funny, for example, about giving them occupations like perpetual grad student and furniture store clerk, when they would have more compellingly been drawn to things like subterranean utility workers and guides at cave parks? Why would they play prosaic games like squash, when a whole episode could be devoted to them trying get hunting licenses to go after game with spears? A show like this could write itself, and it takes some willfully bad writing to make it quite so crappy and boring.<br /><br />Another tiresome aspect of this show is an attempt to portray the cavemen as being subjected to a number of stereotypes associated with various human minorities. Yawn! This has been done so many times before, and never more drearily than this. And, as noted previously, Neanderthals really are a different species, so using them as a metaphor for racial stereotyping is both uncompelling and off the mark.<br /><br />Responses are welcome, including those from anyone who wants to tell me why I'm wrong. I'd like to enjoy this show and am just sorry that I have thus far been unable to.<br /><br />Michael J. Varhola, Skirmisher Online Gaming Magazine | 2 | trimmed_train |
7,966 | Marlon Brando had long since lost interest in acting when he made this film. His performance as "The Swede" is the worst of his career, and that is precisely what he intended it to be. He doesn't overact. Instead, he simply acts in a bizarre fashion and pokes fun at his embarrassingly gargantuan girth. The scene where Brando climbs over the toilet stall is probably the worst, funniest moment in the history of cinema. As we witness him fall head-first into a toilet, it is hard to believe that we are watching the same actor who starred in A Streetcar Named Desire, On the Waterfront, and The Godfather.<br /><br />I guess the real question is why Marlon behaved like this in his later years. Was he sick of the movie business? Did he just like making a complete and utter fool out of himself? I guess we'll never know. But this film serves as a fascinating study as to what bad acting is all about.<br /><br />On that note, watch fellow acting veteran Donald Sutherland as he struggles to deliver his lines, embarrassed at himself for agreeing to participate in this travesty. | 0 | trimmed_train |
3,254 | Amateur, no budget films can be surprisingly good ... this however is not one of them.<br /><br />Ah, another Brad Sykes atrocity. The acting is hideous, except for Emmy Smith who shows some promise. The camera "direction" needs serious reworking. And no more "hold the camera and run" gimmicks either; it just doesn't work. The special effects are unimaginative, there's a problem when the effect can be identified in real time. If you're going to rip off an ear, please don't let us see the actor's real ear beneath the blood. The scenery is bland and boring (same as Mr. Sykes other ventures), and the music is a cross between cheap motel porn and really bad guitar driven metal (see the scenery comment).<br /><br />Did I mention the lack of any real plot, or character development? Apparently, the scriptwriter didn't.<br /><br />Whoever is funding this guy ... please stop. I've seen some of his other "home movies" (which I will not plug) and they are just as bad. Normally, a "director" will grow and learn from his previous efforts ... not this guy. It's one thing to be an amateur filmmaker, but anyone can be a hack.<br /><br />Definitely not even a popcorn film ... of course, chewing on popcorn kernels would be less painful than this effort.<br /><br />Award: The worst ever military push-ups in a film. | 0 | trimmed_train |
146 | If you read my review of SyFy's "Dinoshark", you know that I can appreciate the low-budget schlock that these made-for-television movies can provide. They're stupid...they're silly...but they're still pretty fun in a "so bad, it's good" kind of way. So, still smacking with guilt for liking (and recommending) the undeniably hokey "Dinoshark", I sat down to watch "Hammerhead: Shark Frenzy", a SyFy Original Movie about a half-man, half-hammerhead monster terrorizing people on an island. With the SyFy Channel's sure-fire recipe for creating B-movie creature features and a cast that includes William Forsythe and Hunter Tylo, how could it possibly go wrong? Well, to my surprise, it actually misses the mark...not by much, but enough to make me not recommend it. Why? Well, first of all, its titular monster, the dreaded hammerhead-human hybrid, takes a backseat to a bunch of faux-military thugs who really become the movie's primary villain. Though the hammerhead does rack up the body count, he (or it or whatever you call the thing) only arrives just before someone is going to be munched upon and leaves directly after. The rest of the movie is filler, pitting our heroes against the aforementioned soldiers. That, to me, is just not as compelling as watching a walking hammerhead eat people! <br /><br />Please Read The Full Review On My Blog: www.horrormoviejournal.blogspot.com | 2 | trimmed_train |
10,895 | When evaluating documentaries that focus a relatively small group of Ugly ultra right wing and conservative groups like this in the USA you must consider the following. The United States of America with its population of 270 million and its complex history as an aspiring democracy and its hopes and desires to uphold Human Rights that it has its failings and downside. It is of course expected that extreme right wing groups and ultra conservative groups exist in sizable numbers however relative to the size of its population they are very small and isolated . On a per capita basis Europe, Britain and even Australia have similar right wing groups in fact on a per-capta basis the actual size of Neo-Nazi groups in Australia is actually higher than in the United States of America. It is for the above reasons that it is unjustifiable to demean and vilify the American people and their level of debate in Educated American Society by very fraudulently and deceptively presenting this ultra-right wing bunch of psychopaths as being representative of American Society. By doing so Greenstreet, deliberately chose small and isolated groups at opposite ends of the spectrum to construct an image of America that is an outrageous and deliberate sensationalist lie. This film is clearly designed to inflame and pander to the views of people who harbor this subconscious and morbid hate the American people and way of life under the guise of spurist fashionable and cliché idealist left wing ideology. This film was made for profit not for furthering the truth about American Society and the Human condition. Greenstreet can make documentaries that focus on ultra right wing conspiracies, the Military Industrial complex but fail miserably to present an intelligent and balanced factual debate let alone alternative solutions to the failings of a vibrant democracy. Movie Show is exposed as Anti American by its support for this trash. SENSATIONALISM at its worst anti -USA garbage shameful. | 0 | trimmed_train |
13,972 | Although she is little known today, Deanna Durbin was one of the most popular stars of the 1930s, a pretty teenager with a perky personality and a much-admired operatic singing voice. This 1937 was her first major film, and it proved a box-office bonanza for beleaguered Universal Studios.<br /><br />THREE SMART GIRLS concerns three daughters of a divorced couple who rush to their long-unseen father when their still-faithful mother reveals he may soon remarry--with the firm intention of undermining his gold-digger girlfriend and returning him to their mother. Although the story is slight, the script is witty and the expert cast plays it with a neat screwball touch. Durbin has a pleasing voice and appealing personality, and such enjoyable character actors as Charles Winninger, Alice Brady, Lucile Watson, and Mischa Auer round out the cast. A an ultra-light amusement for fans of 1930s film.<br /><br />Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer | 1 | trimmed_train |
16,848 | While this movie has many flaws, it is in fact a fun '80s movie. Eddie Murphy peaks during his 80's movies here. While his character is indistinguishable from earlier movies, his timing is almost flawless with perfect partners and foils.<br /><br />Couple this with the hypnotic beauty of Charlotte Lewis, this makes for a fun rainy day action-comedy flick.<br /><br /> | 1 | trimmed_train |
15,374 | Another review likened this troupe to a cross between Monty Python and Twin Peaks, also aptly. Yet another review expounded on the differences between the comedy we enjoy non-critically and black comedy, also well worth consideration.<br /><br />Watch the whole thing, all three series. At the end, all the characters are tied up and the puzzle pieces fall into place just as well as a Douglas Adams novel. The detail and intricacies are staggering. Thoroughly post-modern. Wickedly funny, and startlingly tragic. Not for kids. Not for those with thin skins or who lack objectivity. Thought-provoking. At once literal, figurative, and surreal in disturbing ways. The blackest comedy I can recall.<br /><br />And very possibly the most wonderful thing I will ever see. | 3 | trimmed_train |
23,241 | Every once in a while the conversation will turn to "favorite movies." I'll mention Titanic, and at least a couple people will snicker. I pay them no mind because I know that five years ago, these same people were moved to tears by that very movie. And they're too embarrassed now to admit it.<br /><br />I just rewatched Titanic for the first time in a long time. Expecting to simply enjoy the story again, I was surprised to find that the movie has lost none of its power over these five years. I cried again.... in all the same places. It brought me back to 1997 when I can remember how a movie that no one thought would break even became the most popular movie of all time. A movie that burst into the public consciousness like no other movie I can recall (yes, even more than Star Wars). And today, many people won't even admit they enjoyed it. Folks, let's get something straight -- you don't look cool when you badmouth this film. You look like an out of touch cynic.<br /><br />No movie is perfect and this one has a few faults. Some of the dialogue falls flat, and some of the plot surrounding the two lovers comes together a little too neatly. However, none of this is so distracting that it ruins the film.<br /><br />Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet are wonderful. Leo is one of the fine actors of his generation. Wait 'til you see him in Gangs of New York before you call him nothing more than a pretty boy. Kate Winslet was so strong in this film. The movie really was hers, and she held it together beautifully.<br /><br />James Cameron managed what many believed was impossible by recreating a completely believable Titanic. The sinking scenes were horrific, just as they were that night. How anyone can say the effects were bad is beyond me. I was utterly transfixed.<br /><br />This film is one memorable scene after another. Titanic leaving port in Southampton. Rose and Jack at the bow, "flying". "Iceberg, right ahead!" The screws hanging unbelievably out of the ocean. The screams of the doomed after she went down. And that ending that brought even the burliest man in the theater to tears.<br /><br />The music, which has also been a victim of the film's success, was a key ingredient. James Horner's score was simply perfect. And the love theme was beautiful and tragic. Too bad Celine Dion's pop song version had to destroy this great bit of music for so many.<br /><br />I confess, I am a Titanic buff. As such, I relished the opportunity to see the ship as we never got to see it -- in all its beauty. Perhaps watching it sink affected me more than some because I've had such an interest in the ship all my life. However, I doubt many of those I saw crying were Titanic buffs. I applaud Cameron for bringing this story to the masses in a way that never demeaned the tragedy. The film was made with such humanity.<br /><br />Another reviewer said it better than I ever could: Open up your hearts to Titanic, and you will not be disappointed. | 3 | trimmed_train |
21,078 | "Citizen X" is the superbly told true story of the hunt for one of history's worst serial killers. What makes this story even more compelling is where and when it took place; the Soviet Union in the 1980's.<br /><br />** Mild Spoilers **<br /><br /> Viktor Burakov (magnificently played by Stephen Rea) is a newly promoted forensic investigator for the Rostov oblast militia. He discovers past and present unsolved murders, apparently by the same person. The murders are unsolved because no one has ever taken the trouble to properly investigate the evidence. He is driven to find and stop the killer. His only tools are his dedication, skill and honesty. His obstacles are the corruption and political ideology of the Soviet system that discourages the search for truth. His naiveté would have led to failure were it not for his boss, Col. Mikhail Fetisov (Donald Sutherland). Fetisov is a politically astute cynic who understands the game and knows how to deal with the Soviet bureaucracy. However, he also shares Burakov's desire to bring a murderer to justice, even if the official party line is "There are no serial killers in the Soviet Union!"<br /><br /> The cast is outstanding. The locations and sets are perfect recreations of latter day Soviet life. Randy Edelman's score is particularly good.<br /><br /> More important, this film shows a dark and disturbing criminal phenomenon with both intensity and poignancy. This was a made-for-cable movie by HBO Films and they have become a great resource for films that would otherwise never be made. | 3 | trimmed_train |
6,083 | I was browsing through Netflix and stumbled upon this movie. Having fond memories of the book as a child, I decided to check this out. This is a movie that you should really pass on.<br /><br />It is just not worth seeing. It is very boring and uninteresting. I feel that it would even be that way to small children. It has no magic that the book contains. This movie is not horrible, but you will just find yourself not caring ten minutes into it.<br /><br />There are moments that just come off as weird. The witch character is not very good. The family acts like it is no big deal that these odd things are happening. I know this is a kids movie, so as an older audience we must not look too deeply in things, but the whole movie just feels like it was written and produced by people who have never had any movie making experience before.<br /><br />The DVD that I had began skipping in the final moments of the film, and instead of trying to fix it I just turned it off and sent it back to Netflix. I really didn't care how it finished. Skip this film and read the book instead. | 2 | trimmed_train |
10,990 | Yes, In 35 years of film going I have finally viewed the stinker that surpasses all other ghastly movies I have seen. Beating 'Good Will Hunting' Baise Moi' and 'Flirt' for sheer awfulness. This is pretentious blige of the first order... not even entertaining pretentious bilge. The effects are cheap, and worse - pointless.<br /><br />The script seems to have been written by a first year film student who doesn't get out much but wants to appear full of portent! The acting is simply undescribably bad - Tilda Swinton caps a career filled with vacuous woodeness with a performance which veers neurotically between comotose and laughable 'intensity'. Apparently, some fool out there has allowed the director of this film to make another one... be warned | 0 | trimmed_train |
13,102 | This movie is not about entertainment, or not even a movie you want to see to pass the time. This movie is a genuinely a display of true love that can only come from God. One cannot help but be touched deeply by looking at this movie. We have several dimensions of love that contributes to the value of this movie. There is the divine love of God that is beautifully portrayed. God's love transcends the heart and mind and endures and is eternal. There is the love in a marriage. While the main character grapples with his wife's disease, he realizes through God's love that he loves his wife more than he could ever imagine. He knows that he and his wife are one and can never be separated. Finally, you have the love of child and parent. The kids in the family come together and realize that nothing else matters except that love conquers fear. Dear friends, love is not love unless it comes from God, because God is love and love comes from God. Talk to someone and let them know you love them. Love does no good unless it is given to another. I pray this movie can inspire and change the lives of everyone who sees it. Amen!! | 3 | trimmed_train |
23,684 | This musical is decidedly mixed, and none of the elements really fit together, but it somehow manages to be mostly enjoyable. The plot contains some of the elements of Wodehouse's novel, but none of its virtues, though he co-wrote the script. The songs, though charming, have nothing to do with this particular film, and are unusually crudely squeezed into the plot, even by pre-Oklahoma standards. Burns and Allen do their usual shtick quite competently, but it misses the tone of the rest of the film by about forty IQ points.<br /><br />There are a few high points. Reginald Gardiner does good work when he remembers that this is a talkie, and stops mugging like a silent actor. And there are a few bits of writing which could only have been written by Wodehouse, though most of the film feels like the production of one of the Hollywood meetings he later parodied. | 1 | trimmed_train |
8,337 | THE DECOY is one of those independent productions, made by obvious newcomers, but it doesn't have all the usual flaws that sink most such films. It has a definite story, it has adequate acting, the photography is very good, the hero and the bad guy are both formidable men, and the background music isn't overdone. This is a DVD New Release, so people will be looking here to see if it's worthwhile. I don't know where all the 10's come from, as there's no way this film is that good --- even if you're the filmmaker's mother. <br /><br />The last film we saw at a theater was Warner's trashing of J K Rawlings much-loved and excellent book, Order of the Phoenix. In comparing THE DECOY with PHOENIX, consider that PHOENIX (as made by Warners) had no story, certainly no acting was allowed by the director, the photography was dreadful, and the wall-of-sound overbearing musical score was just a mess. I rated Phoenix a "1" because the scale doesn't go any lower. THE DECOY is 4 times better -- in all regards.<br /><br />If you have the opportunity, give THE DECOY a chance. Remember, this isn't "Decoy 3 -- the Shootout" or any such nonsense. It's original. If your expectations aren't overblown by the foolish "10" scores here, you might just enjoy the film on its own terms. | 2 | trimmed_train |
13,753 | A fierce, shockingly intelligent piece of work from the gifted British writer Hanif Kureishi who wrote "My Beautiful Laundrette", (this is the best thing he's done since then). It's about intelligent people whose lives don't add up to much. They've squandered what they have been given and are largely empty vessels. The only character on screen who is alive is the mother of the title yet she feels dead inside until a rough handyman shows her some affection and awakens her to the joys of sex. He has his own motives but Kureishi treats him with a good deal of compassion. This is a film in which people and places feel familiar, where characters exist beyond the confines of the screen. In some respects it's a bit like "Sunday, Bloody Sunday" but it's an altogether tougher piece of work. The director, Roger Michell, allows scenes to build instinctively. And it is beautifully acted.<br /><br />As the eponymous mother Anne Reid betrays her wasted life in every gesture. There is not a false note in her extraordinarily lived-in performance, and that very fine actor Daniel Craig displays shadings to his character than even Kureishi hasn't tapped into. If the film strikes a false note it is, perhaps, in the character of the talentless daughter, caught up in a messy affair with the man her mother seduces (or should that be the other way round) and even messier life, but she is so well played by Cathryn Bradshaw she hooks you in nevertheless. The film is also extremely beautiful to look at (DoP Alwin Kuchler) and must rank, unhesitatingly, as the best British film of the year. | 3 | trimmed_train |
3,541 | Here's a horror version of PRISCILLA: QUEEN OF THE DESERT (they wish!) starring Melinda/Mindy (RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD 3) Clarke as Candy, a desert dweller who pulls off a bank heist with boyfriend Johnny (Jason Durr). He ends up in a South-of-the-border prison run by the sadistic Chief Screw (an overacting Robert Englund in a toupee). She and her beloved pet poodles end up in hiding at a gas station convent until they're transformed by a newly fallen meteor. The dogs turn into obnoxious drag queen "bitches" and Candy develops a VERY long, talking, killing forked tongue she can't control. Thugs looking for the stolen loot and other assorted numbskulls add extra complications.<br /><br />First off, Clarke is fantastic and makes what there is to make of this movie. You watch her and see someone very funny during the slapstick scenes, very convincing during the horror scenes and VERY sexy in various wigs and disguises, including an eye-popping, skin tight latex bodysuit...and wonder how come this actress isn't a huge star. It's too bad the rest of this cult attempt doesn't live up to her promise.<br /><br />Blame director/scripter Sciamma, who thinks the outlandish premise alone is enough to sustain laughs...but his vulgar gags, annoying supporting characters and stupid dialogue are no substitute for a real sense of humor. Another nail in the coffin; the film looks cheap, lots of garish colors and sets are strangely muted by muddy photography and the dusty desert locales. Luckily for Sciamma that Clarke is in his film, because she alone keeps you watching. | 2 | trimmed_train |
3,980 | Definitely the worst movie I have ever seen... Can somebody tell me where should have I laughed? There's not a single hint or shadow of an idea. The three leading actors are pestilential, especially the one (I think it's Aldo) from Sicily who _can't_ make a Sicilian accent!!! Not to say about the dream-like insertion about Dracula... just another expedient, drawn from the worst cabaret tradition, to make this "film" last a little longer. Massironi and Littizzetto do what they can, but this so-called movie was really too, too hard to rescue. I would have given it "0"/10, but the lowest mark was 1/10 and so I had to overestimate it by one mark. | 0 | trimmed_train |
8,726 | All Hype! What better way to describe a movie about people who are upset because they can't release their film through a mainstream distributor? Consequently, they do it themselves. Otherwise, the hype of the film doesn't justify the content in the film. The story is absent and could easily be a short. The acting is poor, but the animation and music is pretty good. Otherwise don't waste your time - don't believe the hype! However, if you have the chance to see the film for free, do so. Then you won't have to waste money. Still, the filmmakers do a good job of pressing their story and creating cliffhangers with their self-indulgent mini-series. Otherwise, they're one hit wonders who never had a hit. | 0 | trimmed_train |
16,975 | Ernst Lubitsch's contribution to the American cinema is enormous. His legacy is an outstanding group of movies that will live forever, as is the case with "The Shop Around the Corner". This film has been remade into other less distinguished movies and a musical play, without the charm or elegance of Mr. Lubitsch's own, and definite version.<br /><br />Margaret Sullavan and James Stewart worked in several films together. Their characters in this movie stand out as an example of how to be in a movie without almost appearing to be acting at all. Both stars are delightful as the pen pals that don't know of one another, but who fate had them working together in the same shop in Budapest.<br /><br />The reason why these classic films worked so well is the amazing supporting casts the studios put together in picture after picture. In here, we have the wonderful Frank Morgan, playing the owner of the shop. Also, we see Joseph Schildkraut, Felix Bressart, William Tracy and Charles Smith, among others, doing impressive work in making us believe that yes, they are in Budapest.<br /><br />That is why these films will live forever! | 3 | trimmed_train |
24,873 | Though derivative, "Labyrinth" still stands as the highlight of the mid-half of the six-year-old show. Finally a story allows Welling to show how he has grown as an actor. It's not easy playing a character that is the embodiment of "truth, justice, and the American way" on a weekly basis with very little variation. His performance, permitting him to show how one might react if he/she discovers that all that he knew may be a lie, was quite believable.<br /><br />Welling rose to the occasion marvelously.<br /><br />As always, Michael Rosenbaum, as the "handicapped" Lex, delivered, as did Kristen Kreuk as a too-sweet-to-be-believed Lana. Allison Mack, the ever-present Chloe, also scored as a slightly "off-her-rocker" version.<br /><br />The use of an annoying hum in the background added to the tone of the installment and made for an engaging drama. | 3 | trimmed_train |
15,449 | LOL!!! delirious was so funny.. i was in tears. Eddie Murphys impressions are absolutely spot on. The best impression was of James Brown and Mr T> SO FUNNY!! Its weird how Eddie Murphy was back then and how he is now DELIRIOUS is a must see but if u don't like foul language don't watch BUT AMAZING AND SO FUNNY.. i have seen it 6/7 times and still pee myself every time.. This is Eddie Murphy at his prime and you can see where he got the humour and ideas of movies such as nutty professor from. He does impressions of his family as well, which is real funny.<br /><br />if only i was there... | 3 | trimmed_train |
9,144 | Slaughter High is intrinsically your emblematic 80s slasher flick. A prank goes out of hand leaving a geeky guy horribly burnt. A few years later the geeky guy returns and starts killing the people who hurt him. Now the story might sound intriguing and very entertaining, but what makes this horrible film so different from the rest of the 80s slasher flicks is that it has some humorless flaws and continuation errors.<br /><br />The acting is horrendous, however, actually not as bad as one would suspect. Though it doesn't help that every character in the film are so grody and unlikable. The lead, Carol Manning (Caroline Munro) is the easily the biggest tormentor of them all and she's the one that we are ostensibly supposed to share compassion and root for. Not to mention, the geeky guy is almost too geeky and I think that even stereotypical geeks themselves would be rudely maddened and just downright antagonized by how geeky he his, so when he gets mauled, does anyone really care? <br /><br />There is much unintentional laughter potential. Munro's lack of acting talent is quite apparent, which puts her down at the same level as the rest of the awful cast. However, the most amusement is easily when the film poorly attempts to pose Munro, who is in her mid 30s at the time, as a teenager amongst a cast of teenagers. And then when it comes to later life and Munro is playing around her real age, the rest of the cast do not pass as adults. This all goes well with a theme song that is a hilariously pose of heavy metal thrash accompanied by maniacal laughter and a voice shrieking "I'll get you." With that being said, Slaughter High really isn't a very good slasher flick, but it does have a bad cheesy entertainment value to it. Perhaps an essential for hardcore slasher fans, but don't expect dilemma, suspense, or any credibility from it. Horrible!!! | 0 | trimmed_train |
11,693 | Using footage pillaged from Planet of Dinosaurs this shot on video (except for the stolen footage) concerns a bunch of people shot into space who land on a dinosaur planet that is...don't wait for it, is really earth. Its a five minute sketch stretched to 90 minutes. Slightly better than Chickboxer (another in the Bad Movie Police series)-having a nostalgic home movie feel coupled with good stolen effects, this movie is still an impossible slog to get through. I'm left to ponder the question are we becoming so uncreative that we're now pillaging old movies not only for plot but also for mismatched footage? Clearly low budget producers are getting so desperate they really will give us anything to take our money | 0 | trimmed_train |
7,402 | I had high hopes for this movie. The theater monologue is great and Nic Balthazar is a very interesting man, with a lot of experience and knowledge when it comes to movies. <br /><br />I am a fan of a lot of Belgian movies, but this movie is bad. It's completely unbelievable that actors who are 34 are suddenly playing the roles of teenagers. The "linguistic games" were hideous and over the top. Nothing about the film seemed real to me. The ending was way too deus ex machina for me.<br /><br />I am very disappointed and think I wasted an hour and a half of my life. | 2 | trimmed_train |
2,523 | I've noticed how all the other reviews of this film mention how "wholesome" and "entertaining" it is. These people need to get out of the house more often. I don't know why they're shilling for this vapid, insipid, brainless piece of fluff. Pat Boone has absolutely no acting talent whatsoever, and his ineptness is exceeded only by that of his co-star Pamela Austin, a former model (yet one more reason to outlaw the insidious practice of inflicting talentless models on an unsuspecting moveiegoing public, a foul habit that unfortunately persists to this day). A good supporting cast (Terry-Thomas, Edward Everett Hortyon, among others) tries hard to make some sense out of this, but to no avail. I noticed that two directors shared credit, although "credit" isn't the word I would use (neither is "director"). As for "wholesome entertainment," there are plenty of those types of movies available without torturing your loved ones by forcing them to sit through this. Find one of those films, and skip this one. | 0 | trimmed_train |
23,082 | In the history of movies based on comic books, "Mystery Men" is one of the most underrated ones. This is no regular comic superhero movie! It follows the exploits of a motley crew of well-meaning wannabes, which include Mr. Furious (played by Ben Stiller), the Bowler (Janeane Garofalo), the Shoveller (William H. Macy), the Blue Rajah (Hank Azariah) and the Spleen (Paul Reubens). "Mystery Men" spoofs several aspects of superhero movies like "Superman" or "Batman," such as the pithy sayings, and the questions about secret identities. Most of the superheroes aren't billionaires like Bruce Wayne, but blue-collar types with menial jobs and neurotic home lives. So it looks as if director Kinka Usher is making the heroes into something the average viewer can relate to. I found "Mystery Men" to be visually stimulating and very funny. Even if it doesn't turn into a franchise, it's still a joy to watch! | 3 | trimmed_train |
7,825 | I don't have much to say about this movie. It could have been a wonderful tour-de-force for Peter Sellers, but it is one of the most tragic misfires in movie history. That it was Sellers final movie makes it all the more painful.<br /><br />The terrible screenplay, direction and shockingly wooden performances all come dreadfully together to make this one of the most unwatchably awful movies ever made.<br /><br />I wish so much that I could find even a snicker or a chuckle buried somewhere in this pile of putrid blubber, but it's a lifeless, humorless disaster. The truth hurts.<br /><br />Peter, why couldn't you have stopped at BEING THERE? | 0 | trimmed_train |
13,217 | Since my third or fourth viewing some time ago, I've abstained from La Maman et la putain while I wait for the DVD. In the meantime, I've read the french screenplay as well as Alain Philippon's monograph on Jean Eustache. The latter ends with a frustrating filmography, eleven films, fiction, doc, and in-between, impossible to see or, in the cases of Mes petites amoureuses and Le Père Noël..., re-see.<br /><br />A few questions that hit me this moment: Polish Véronika's French is plenty colloquial (un maximum d' "un maximum d'"). Even so, does she have an accent? I think I can tell she does. What does the absence of color add, especially at the single spot the fringe of the city is glimpsed? How does this fringe differ from the sleep and journey that separates worlds of The Tempest and The Winter's Tale? Ditto Alphaville. We may imagine the elapsed years since have done it, but does Eustache deliberately circumscribe the film's milieu? Is this an enchanted isle? Is Alexandre's a fairy tale? Alexandre's always choreographing himself, worrying about how or where to stand or walk, what to say when, announcing these decisions to who have to care less than he does what he does. Or is this his way of trying to choreograph others by doing it to himself? How different is he from Vertigo's Scottie? (I say, I think, very.) What's the difference, and is there one, between Eustache's Léaud, and Truffaut's, and Godard's? How different is the present Léaud? Isn't he still doing it, whatever it is, in recent roles, Irma Vep, Le Pornographe, whatever, approaching old age? Once I arrived early for one in a series of mostly Antoine Doinel (Léaud's character) Truffaut films. For a long while, every three or five minutes, down the aisle would come a twenty-something male in scarf, tweedy coat, Léaud hair, with a direction-seeking nose. I have no idea whether this was conscious or unconscious mimicry. I was that age, but have no idea what I myself looked like then. No scarf, at least. I do have a brother, though, who seems to have learned his carriage from Bresson. | 3 | trimmed_train |
20,287 | This has to be one of the most sincere and touching boy-meets-girl movies ever made. While "Rebel Without a Cause" and "Say Anything" deliver nice portrayals, this movies strips down useless subplots and Hollywood divergences. This movie focuses purely on watching the budding of a beautiful romance. You never doubt for a second that the film will lead towards the romantic pairing of these two people. You almost immediately sense the synergy and the chemistry between Jesse and Celine, and it is simply pure joy to watch them find it. This movie is mostly all dialogue -based. But, every conversation between these too is greatly intriguing. What makes this pairing so romantic is how real it is. How in all that conversation, while often having no real bearing on anything critical, you can sense the nuances as these two become more fond and trusting of each other. This is exactly they way you would dream that you meet that special someone. And what makes it so true is that it is not even too fantastic to believe. This could be what would happen if you had been confident enough to strike up a conversation with that person you noticed somewhere random. And what puts the icing on this film is the magnificent backdrop of Vienna in which this film takes place. It just adds to the feeling of romantic nirvana that the film suggests. And no matter how many times I watch this film, I don't think I will ever tire of that. | 3 | trimmed_train |
17,609 | Ang Lee clearly likes to ease into a film, to catch action, characters and setting on the hoof, as they emerge. Covering the haphazard endgame of the American civil war via the haphazard actions of a young militia, unformed in mind or manhood, this is an ideal approach. The film turns out to be about the formation of personalities, adulthood and relationships. Lee also shows the beautiful panoramas of the mid-south as a silent character, enduring the strife like a hardy parent.<br /><br />James Schamus' script is probably the standard bearer for this film; close behind it are a number of well-appointed performances that carry it admirably. Jeffrey Wright's name alone could carry this film for me. He's brilliant here but in a slow burning role: instead we are treated to very good (if not revelatory) performances from a large, often recognisable ensemble.<br /><br />A noble, optimistic film. One to watch if you don't fancy the harder, more bittersweet Cold Mountain or The Claim, for example. 7/10 | 1 | trimmed_train |
7,871 | This production never really got off the ground for me. The plot is so cut up as to be disjointed and the production is so short that unless you've read the novel or seen a better adaptation (like the 1995 one with Amanda Root) you're going to be a bit lost since there's no time for character development.<br /><br />I liked Sally Hawkins as Anne, but the rest of the cast fell rather short of what they should have been. Mrs. Croft was far too old, as was Anne's elder sister Elizabeth. Mary uttered everything in such throbbing accents that the general peevishness and selfishness of her character was lost. Much better was Sophie Thompson's Mary, whose selfishness and sense of ill-usage is so well established that by the time Wentworth suggests Anne stay with the injured Louisa and Mary objects that she, as Louisa's sister in law, should stay instead, you can't imagine anyone less suited to do so. In this version, she might as well stay as she is insufficiently differentiated from anyone else in the production.<br /><br />Rupert Penry-Jones is nice to look at, but he made a much better St. John Rivers (1995 Jane Eyre), probably because that character required less implied depth of feeling. I agree with the comments made earlier about the gig scene: seemed more like he was trying to get rid of Anne than do her a favor. Likewise the accident scene: it happens so fast and with so little context, you wonder what all the fuss is about. And moving the speech that Wentworth overhears in the novel to the beginning of this production is a critical misstep that only contributes to the disjointed nature of the script. <br /><br />My other problem with this version was the lighting. Sometimes everything looked like a scene from the CSI morgue -- very very blue. Other times the lighting was so bad it was hard to make out the scene very well, like when Anne visits her old school friend, Mrs. Smith (who, by the way, is supposed to be more or less paralyzed. Having her run up to Anne on the street to tell her of Mr. Elliot's awful character was such a violation that for a minute I couldn't think who she was -- I thought she was one of the Musgrove girls. And she might as well have been. All the girls were pretty much interchangeable). And the running scene at the end...in an era where propriety was at a premium, it's hard to imagine gentle Anne tearing all over Bath like some demented hoyden. How silly can you get? It's too bad. Sally Hawkins had all the makings of a good Anne Elliot, but she was completely hamstrung by a poorly organized script and an over-truncated production. | 2 | trimmed_train |
12,033 | If you make it through the opening credits, this may be your type of movie. From the first screen image of a woman holding her hands up to her face with white sheets blowing in the background one recalls a pretentious perfume commercial. It's all downhill from there.<br /><br />The lead actress is basically a block of wood who uses her computer to reach into the past, and reconstruct the memories of photographs, to talk history's overlooked genius, Ada, who conceived the first computer language in the 1800s.<br /><br />The low budget graphics would be forgivable if they were interesting, or even somewhat integral to the script.<br /><br />Poor Tilda Swinton is wasted. | 0 | trimmed_train |
23,137 | Having never heard of this film until I saw the rental DVD I as a bit sceptical, there have been many films in the past with good ensemble casts that can't do anything film a bad script, and in some cases don't seem to care.<br /><br />Well having just watched it there was no reason not to give this movie a theatrical release, it IS good. The story like most in this genre can seem a little forced at times but there does appear to be a good amount of realism here too that allows the momentum to carry. I was pleasantly surprised at how good a job Justin Timberlake does here too with such a major role, OK he's not Oscar material yet, but he'll learn with each role and he shows a LOT of promise for the future here. Dylan McDermott too was amazingly good in his unexpectedly nasty role and is definitely the cream of the crop in this movie.<br /><br />Ultimately, just give it a go. you won't be disappointed, you won't be bored, in fact, I think you'll be more than happy with the end result. | 1 | trimmed_train |
13,629 | Some people loved "The Aristocrats" and others hated it, frequently walking out in the middle. Reactions to Eddie Izzard aren't likely to be that extreme -- if you can handle a transvestite comedian (who says he likes girls) and has a vocabulary that makes, shall we say, enough use of the "f" word that his program would be one long beep if presented on network television. Many of Izzard's fans are so devoted that they see no flaws whatsoever in his performances. On the other hand, I thought this show was occasionally flatter than Izzard's chest but also more often than not funny and, in spots, absolutely hilarious. He has a way of connecting references from routines early in the show to his later routines. He's not a story teller. He's not a joke maker. He's not a frenetic fantasist like Robin Williams. He plays around with ideas, some of which work and some of which -- a routine with the San Francisco cable car and Alcatraz, for instance -- are completely unfunny. He has a way, however, of moving gracefully past the flopped routines and extending the ones that connect. I gave this performance a 7 and might be persuaded to raise it to an 8. But a 10? No way. | 1 | trimmed_train |
5,649 | With a story and screenplay that seems to have been written by a high schooler, 'The Art of Seduction' fails to deliver the romantic, sophisticated experience it tries to bill itself as. The two main characters have the potential to be interesting - both male and female lead are "swinging singles (or in the female lead's case, engaged)", but 'The Art of Seduction' doesn't even try. Shirking from a frank examination of these two characters' personalities, 'The Art of Seduction' eschews anything of substance for a basis of thin, lean stereotype. <br /><br />'The Art of Seduction' is insulting - insulting to its characters, insulting to men and women, and insulting to its audiences' expectations. It takes the awful beautiful people we all know and plays out their painful interactions while expecting us to idolize them. Ji-wan is an immature, spoiled, manipulative bitch. The viewer is expected to like and forgive her flaws because she's pretty. Min-jun, well, he's exactly the same. Neither are nice people. The "humour" in this film primarily revolve around Ji-wan and Min-jun's outlandish attempts at outdoing each other in the honourable art of lying and manipulation. No character development occurs, and we never learn why Ji-wan and Min-jun are like this. We are simply expected to take them as they are, and not ask questions - they're cute!, and that's all that matters. The copious references to the celebrity of the main actors in azn cinema scenester's reviews may tip you off to 'Art of Seduction's shallowness. <br /><br />If you're still in high school, you liked Grease, or you are a yellow fever victim, you may like this movie.<br /><br />Despite its "Romance" tag, this is not a very good date movie. | 2 | trimmed_train |
19,378 | There is a certain genius behind this movie. I was laughing throughout. The scene in the phone sex office, discussing how love heals the doppelganger was a nice attempt at this genius/humor. Execution is poor, but you can see the writer's message and they do have some talent. The doppelganger split at the end was like... "ok, wasn't quite expecting that but let's see what the movie has to say". Certainly ridiculous, but a sweet idea and actually very coherent to the story in a strange way.<br /><br />Is the point of a movie to be logical or is it to be entertaining or communicate on an emotional level? i'm easily bored by many movies, but this one kept my interest throughout.<br /><br />I think the story may have some auto-biographical roots, but that's just a guess. Horribly bad, but good. I'm looking for other movies this person may have done (with more experience). | 1 | trimmed_train |
21,784 | The fourth of five westerns Anthony Mann did with James Stewart, this one involves a hard bitten cattleman named Jeff Webster who takes a cattle drive from Wyoming to Alaska, via Seattle. He hooks up in Seattle with his partners Ben Tatum (Walter Brennan) and Rube Morris (Jay C. Flippen) that he has sent ahead of time in order to make preparations for the boat trip, north.<br /><br />But first, he has to put up with insubordinate trail hands, cheating riverboat captains and the charms of coy, manipulative Ronda Castle (Ruth Roman) who believes Jeff could be a valuable ally in the future. That's why she hides him out on the boat while the captain's looking for him for the earlier (and justifiable) killing of a trail hand.<br /><br />Jeff also has the misfortune of running into sleazy Judge Gannon (John McIntire) who runs the town of Skagway, Alaska. Gannon locks Jeff up for disrupting his public hanging by running his cattle through town. He fines Jeff the ownership of his cattle and Jeff just has to eat crow for the time being. <br /><br />In the meantime, Jeff agrees to ride point for Ronda up to Dawson in order to deliver supplies. But this is just a ruse so Jeff, Ben and Rube can slip back into Skagway and steal his cattle back. Of course Judge Gannon finds out about this and is right behind but is delayed by Jeff with a rifle while Ben races the cattle over the Canadian border out of Gannon's reach.<br /><br />After avoiding an avalanche and another shootout with some other Skagway men, they finally reach Dawson where Jeff sells his cattle to the highest bidder, which just happens to be Ronda who then promptly sets up a new gambling house in Dawson. Jeff then takes his money and buys himself a claim and starts panning for gold. <br /><br />But then Judge Gannon comes up to Dawson to get in on the gold action up there, and tells Jeff that he was getting a little bored with Skagway and wants to try his luck up in the Klondike, himself. That involves bring some hired gunman with him and forcibly stealing some of the other miner's claims. Jeff and Ben now feel it's time to clear out while the goings are good, leaving Rube to fend for himself as a most ineffective sheriff against Gannon and his gang.<br /><br />They look for a back way out only to find themselves ambushed by Gannon's men because Ben made the mistake of opening his big mouth. Ben is killed and Jeff is severely wounded but that doesn't save Judge Gannon from his just due. The ending shootout at night on the muddy Dawson street pretty much takes care of that. First Jeff kills two of Gannon's best gunman (Jack Elam and Robert Wilkie). Then as Ronda comes out to warn Jeff that Gannon is trying to slip around behind him, Gannon shoots her in the back and she dies right there in Jeff's arms. Then Jeff kills Gannon as he's hiding under a wooden sidewalk. Revenge has spoken.<br /><br />This is another rip-roaring western that's right up there with THE NAKED SPUR and THE MAN FROM LARAMIE. Why the Universal DVD uses a pan-and-scan print instead of the widescreen print TCM uses, is beyond me. You'll wind up missing half the glorious Alberta cinematography by William Daniels. So if you like well-written 50s westerns, then this one's an A-list keeper. <br /><br />8 out of 10 | 1 | trimmed_train |
5,361 | Having been forced by my children to watch this at least 10 times for each of the last 2 Christmases, I feel adequately qualified to pass judgment on this version of Dr. Seuss' classic tale, and well... it's not very good. First off, following a classic act like Chuck Jones' animated TV special is going to be difficult for anyone, but this interpretation is so heavy-handed and padded as to be positively numbing. I will concede that there are a handful of inspired gags, but overall the film comes off as a calculated cash grab, at the same time as it is supposedly decrying the commercialisation of Christmas. Jim Carrey is typically over the top here, but that is completely at odds with the character of the Grinch. As characterised by Boris Karloff, he was a slow burn; methodical and sly. There is no method to Carrey's madness, and that is only the most obvious error made. Talented actors like Jeffrey Tambor and Christine Baranski are utterly wasted here. Why, Universal, why? I mean , I understand that Tony Hopkins will take just about any role offered (much like his countryman Michael Caine), but this one needs to be filed under "Films that should never have been made." This does not bode well for the Cat in the Hat, an even thinner tome that Universal is prepping for this Christmas. I get the feeling that I will be making the same recommendation for that one as I am with this one: skip it, and either read the book or watch the TV special. This is 2 hours you can never, ever get back. | 2 | trimmed_train |
20,453 | <br /><br />Superb film with no actual spoken dialogue which enhances the level of suspense. The whole approach gives a completely different twist to a war film.<br /><br />Well worth watching again if only it could be found. I saw it perhaps 20 or so years ago. - Fantastic! | 3 | trimmed_train |
18,025 | Such a film of beauty that it's hard to describe. Maybe it's the absence of superfluous dialogue, or maybe it's the absolutely stellar soundtrack, or maybe it's just Meena Mumari's feet, but it's a joy to watch this movie again and again. I've never seen another Indian movie that comes close to it, and few from any country rival its perfection. | 3 | trimmed_train |
20,852 | Man With the Gun is pretty much forgotten now, but caused a minor storm of media interest back in 1955 when Robert Mitchum turned down both Jett Rink in Giant (which had actually been written for him and which was subsequently substantially reworked) and Charles Laughton's intended version of The Naked and the Dead to make it instead. Despite some obvious production problems and some harsh lighting that occasionally renders both Mitch and Jan Sterling in unflattering tones, it's a terrific dark western that more than stands comparison with his earlier Blood on the Moon as his 'town tamer' sets to work on a town that never had the chance to grow up before getting run down by the local badmen before turning out to possibly be almost as bad as the men he dispatches. Certainly his way of dealing with news of a death in the family burning a saloon to the ground and goading its manager into trying to kill him doesn't inspire much confidence in his stability. As well as a good script and a surprisingly good supporting turn from the usually irritating but here well cast Henry Hull, it also boasts a strikingly good early Alex North score, which even includes an early workout for one of his tormented emotional cues that would later turn up in Spartacus. | 1 | trimmed_train |
18,680 | The poor DVD video quality is the only reason why I gave this movie a 9 instead of a 10. That could have been so much better, this movie deserves it.<br /><br />This is truly a movie that covers several themes simultaneously. If you do not like movies about serial killers, but are fascinated by the astonishing bureaucratic culture in the former Sovjet Union, this movie is a must-see anyway.<br /><br />I can't compare it to "Silence of the Lambs" for several reasons. The way the serial killer is portrayed, has been done far much better in Citizen X. You see several details of his private life, because you "travel" along with the killer, which gives you some idea of the source of his constant anger and sexual frustration.<br /><br />The only other movie I have seen that is as realistic as this one was "Henry - portrait of a serial killer". If you were fascinated by that movie you definitely need to take a look at Citizen X. | 3 | trimmed_train |
9,450 | I will start this off by saying I couldn't get all the way through it. I picked it up on a rainy day from WalMart like the rest of the reviewers on this site. I figured there wasn't any way I would regret my purchase. Was I wrong or what? Seriously now, who approved this project? They need to be forced to watch this movie over and over until the end of eternity. That's the only fitting punishment I can think of for releasing something this bad. The shooting reminds me of the movies I used to make for class projects on a big old VHS cam. The acting isnt much better. I think the only difference is that there are a few cool cameos. Yay, who cares... Shecky Moskowitz is unfunny, and the ships comedian is an even bigger loser. That's about as much of the plot as I understood.<br /><br />Overall it's the worst movie I've ever seen. I own it on DVD and have given it to many co-workers to watch. Each comes back and laughs and says "Wow I didnt think I'd ever say I shut off an Adam Sandler movie 15 minutes in...."<br /><br />My response is always "Well now you can"<br /><br /> | 0 | trimmed_train |
22,479 | I saw this film on television years ago, but here several years after, I wake up in the morning, and still remember her face.<br /><br />This film is the most profoundly terrifying film I have seen. | 3 | trimmed_train |
24,426 | Classic, highly influential low budget thriller that gave birth to a horror icon and launched the careers of both director Carpenter and star Curtis.<br /><br />Seemingly unstoppable murderer escapes from mental institution and returns to his hometown where he begins to stalk a local babysitter on Halloween.<br /><br />Halloween is a film that never fails to live up to its reputation as a horror masterpiece! Carpenter's frightening story and clever direction give this film such chillingly good life that it must be seen to really be felt! The direction often consists of such simple elements, shadows, dark streets, creaking doors, that it makes even the everyday setting of a small town neighborhood truly creepy. Carpenter well-times his suspense and his jolting shocks to make them the most effectively startling, that in itself is a feat few horror filmmakers ever manage! Plus, he is wise enough to give us some truly likable young characters and a very scary villain to keep the tension all the more strong. Highest kudos also go to Carpenter's simple, yet frighteningly unnerving music score. In a sense, Halloween is a fine example of a perfect horror film!<br /><br />The cast is excellent. Young Jamie Lee Curtis does a very nice turn as lovable babysitter Laurie Strode, she's so good that she would go on to be in a number of other horror films before breaking into bigger films. The great Donald Pleasants does a perfect performance as a Myer's doctor, who's desperate to capture him again. Supporting cast Loomis, Soles, Castle, and others are good too.<br /><br />So like its own villain, Halloween is an unstoppable force that never fails to thrill and chill. It is a MUST for all genre fans!<br /><br />**** out of **** | 3 | trimmed_train |
9,184 | I rented this movie yesterday and can hardly express my disappointment in little Laura Ingalls for getting involved in something so poorly produced. I am not sure if it was horrible writing or bad directing or both but it leaves a viewer very disappointed in having wasted the time to watch this swill. It consisted of a weak naive story line, very poor lines, and relied solely on pretty scenery, and pretty people to sell it. Unfortunately this was not enough. You would be better off to rent a tape full of static than to waste your time on this crap. Lindsey Wagner also played a pretty pathetic part as a ranch owner who apparently works very hard doing nothing, anybody who has ever been near a ranch knows that this was obviously written by a young person from los Angeles and not someone with much knowledge of the world. | 0 | trimmed_train |
1,925 | The acting is good, the women are beautiful, and the men are handsome, so if you're looking for well-acted soft porn, this movie is for you. Otherwise, you are wasting your time. The motivation of the main characters, in particular the eponymous lead, is often a mystery. She could have just told the truth - the truth as presented in the film, not necessarily the historical truth - and her lover would have been spared time in jail for a rape he did not commit. Was she protecting her father, who went off half-cocked, as it were, when he impetuously instigated a malicious lawsuit? Was she protecting herself, with her reputation suddenly of concern when heretofore only her art seemed to matter? During the trial, this strong-willed woman turns to mush before our eyes. Conversely, her lover, who starts off as a narcissistic jerk, becomes a selfless hero during the trial. At least his motivation is clearer: he sacrifices himself for love. Naturally, since no good deed must go unpunished, we are told that she never sees him again. | 2 | trimmed_train |
8,315 | This movie has not aged well. Maybe it's just the impact and artful characterization, acting, and directing that we've seen with The Sopranos, but I just viewed Prizzi's Honor for the first time, on DVD, alone.<br /><br />The experience of watching it with an audience 24 years ago must have been quite different, but I have to say, I was just appalled at the ending. Not just the violence of it, but the mere idea that somehow this would be a satisfying ending.<br /><br />I enjoy a good shocker, but this seemed so out of character... Also, when was this move supposed to be set? The cars all seemed like they were from the 1960s, and yet the World Trade Center towers {completed in 1973} were clearly visible in many cityscape scenes.<br /><br />Another way in which the film has aged poorly is the mere idea that a passenger could travel coast to coast with a knife on his person.<br /><br />Somehow, mid-1980s audiences found this film charming and funny. Mid-eighties, meet the late oughts: only of you can live. | 2 | trimmed_train |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.