id int32 0 25k | text stringlengths 52 13.7k | label int64 0 3 | Generalization stringclasses 1 value |
|---|---|---|---|
20,087 | We could still use Black Adder even today. Imagine Rowan Atkinson resuming the role of assistant to the prime minister played by the wonderful Hugh Laurie. Hugh is sensational as the dimwit Prince George and Edmund as his brilliant assistant. I love the episode which Kenneth Connor guest stars as a British thespian. Every time, Edmund says Macbeth. The two thespians do a silly little act to ward off evil spirits. It's the funniest things that you will see. Of course, none of this brilliance and comedic genius could be without Ben Elton and Richard Curtis who are also behind the films like Love Actually, The Thin Blue Line, Four Weddings and A Funeral. Black Adder is funny and almost too good for television. Humor can be smart, sexy, and funny all at one. I was hoping last night on Saturday Night Live that Hugh Laurie would pay homage to his background in British humor. If the gang at SNL did some research, they would know what a treasure it was to have Hugh Laurie grace their stage. | 3 | trimmed_train |
20,813 | The movie is about Anton Newcombe. The music and careers of the two bands are simply backdrop. It's only fair that Newcombe have the last word about the film, which at this writing you can find in the "news" section at the brianjonestownmassacre website. I'd link it here but IMDb won't permit it.<br /><br />Documentarians are limited by what the camera captures, as well as by the need to assemble a cohesive narrative from the somewhat-random occasions when chance has put the camera lens on a sight-line with relevant happenstance. In Dig!, fortune smiled on the Dandy Warhols, capturing their rise to the status of pop-idol candidates, as they formed slickly-produced pop confections for mass consumption, most notably "Bohemian Like You," a song that made them global darlings thanks to a Euro cell phone ad. <br /><br />No such luck for Brian Jonestown Massacre. The film captures little of what made the original BJM lineup great, with the sole exception of a single montage, lasting a minute or so, showing Newcombe creating/recording a number of brief instrumental parts, unremarkable in themselves, and concluding the sequence with a playback of the lush, shimmering sounds that had to have been in Newcombe's mind and soul before they could enter the world.<br /><br />Three commentaries accompany the film; one by the filmmakers, and two by the members of the bands (the BJM track is solely former members, and without Newcombe). Both the Warhols and BJM alumni point up this montage sequence as the "best" bit in the film, and I'd agree that, given the film's focus on Anton Newcombe, it is the only part of the film that sheds proper light on his gift, and seems too brief to lend proper balance to this attempted portrait of the "tortured artist."<br /><br />Interesting thing about commentaries is that, unlike film, they are recorded in real time -- one long take -- which can be more honestly revelatory than a documentary that takes shape primarily through editing.<br /><br />The Dandies do not come off well in their comments. If the rock and roll world extends the experience of high school life for its denizens -- as I believe it does -- the Dandies are the popularity-obsessed preppy types, the ones who listen to rock because it's what their peers do, while the BJM crew come off as the half-rejected, half-self-exiled outsiders (to insiders like the Dandies, "losers") that are the real rock spirit. BJM's Joel Gion, who talks a LOT, nails the film's message for me when he says (paraphrasing): "You can't forget that Anton has been able to do the only thing he ever said he wanted to do. Make a lot of great music."<br /><br />The Dandies, meanwhile, laugh too easily at every outrageous display in the course of Newcombe's meltdown (all the BJM footage here ends at 1997, before Newcombe quit heroin). Courtney Taylor-Taylor's discounting of Newcombe's commitment to his vision is summed up as follows: "He's 37 and still living in his car. You can download all his work at his website. He was so tired of being ripped off by everyone else, he's giving it all away. He could be making a mint." You can practically hear him shaking his head in disbelief.<br /><br />The film's shortcomings can't be blamed on the filmmakers; rather it's the difficulties of the documentary form, and the loss of cooperation by the film's subject, that makes this portrait of Newcombe so fragmentary. But it's likely the best we will get, outside of his music.<br /><br />I only rented disc one, which has the feature. Most of the extras are on disc two. Not renting that, as I've put in my order to buy the set. | 3 | trimmed_train |
11,466 | You'd think the first landing on the Moon would be dramatic enough without needing to make up stuff about it. However, this documentary seems to need to cast everything in the scariest possible light. It talks about the risks associated with the lunar module and mentions Armstrong's nearly fatal accident with the training vehicle, as if the trainer and the spacecraft had anything to do with each other. It makes the computer overload problem (the 1202 and 1201 alarms) encountered during the final landing sequence sound like a near-catastrophe when it was just an annoyance and not a risk to the crew at all. And it takes the "thirty seconds" call to mean thirty seconds of fuel left before running out, when it's actually thirty seconds before an abort is mandatory.<br /><br />If you want to see a documentary or dramatization of Apollo 11, go for "From the Earth to the Moon" or one of the PBS documentaries, but skip this one. | 2 | trimmed_train |
10,724 | Film critics of the world, I apologize. It is your job to give advice to the moviegoing public so that they can wisely choose what to spend money on. But I ignored your advice and I have been deeply hurt. However, my decision to see "The Cat in the Hat" wasn't made haphazardly. You see, three years ago all of you critics said that we should all avoid the "calamity" known as "How the Grinch Stole Christmas". Then some friends of mine took me to see it and it turned out to be a colorful, funny and almost hypnotic yuletide treat. So when the critics unleashed their fury against "The Cat in the Hat", another big budget Seuss update with a big name star in the title role, I thought that it must be the same old song. How wrong I was.<br /><br />For five whole minutes I thought I was in the clear. The opening credits are clever, the kids are charming and the production values are top notch. Then the cat showed up. There are many problems from this point on, but the biggest one was the woeful miscasting of Mike Myers. Where "The Grinch" was saved by the inspired casting of Jim Carrey, "The Cat" was destroyed by Myers. He can be very funny when his energies are applied where they belong, comic sketches. Every movie he's made that was truly funny was really just a feature length comedy sketch, from "Wayne's World" to "Austin Powers". So he tries to do the same thing here, it's just that these comedy sketches are more like the stuff that they stick at the end of SNL, not funny, just painful. Not that the writers helped him out any. After the charming prologue the movie turns into an hour of repulsive bodily humor gags, poorly timed pratfalls and insultingly stunted attempts at hip humor. This movie was the most disheartening cinematic experience I have ever had. Period. So much talent and work went into something so vile. I know that the adult stars of this movie will be relatively unscathed by this mess, I just hope that the wonderful Spencer Breslin and Dakota Fanning will get more chances to show their charms in far better movies. If you are a parent, please avoid this like the plague. With movies like "Elf" and "Brother Bear" currently in theaters, you have far better choices. | 0 | trimmed_train |
2,091 | It's impossible for me to objectively consider this movie. Not that I haven't tried, mind you - but I sit down, and I pop in the aged VHS, and I watch the opening...and suddenly I'm five years old again and clutching my very own Care Bear and watching the movie with open eyes and an eager heart.<br /><br />I can see, objectively, that this movie is a BIZARRE combination of cuddly baby merchandising-mascots and creepy prepubescent children with evil powers that has a thin story and uninteresting animation. But my inner five-year-old goes, "Yay! Care Bears!" every time I think about it. So - I'd only (cautiously, reluctantly) recommend this movie for those who saw it during their early youth and can call on the awesome power of nostalgia while watching it (like me) OR those lovably cynical Gen-X/Y-ers who deliberately seek out the wonderfully bad/strange (a category in which this movie...definitely belongs). To those actually looking for a compelling movie or wholesome family entertainment: You might want to keep looking. | 0 | trimmed_train |
13,027 | (Question) What do you call 100 film critics buried up to their necks in sand? (Answer) A good start. Well, I don't know Peter Mattei from Adam but if he is the budding auteur his filmography suggests, "Love in the Time of Money" is a "good start". A classy shoot with whimsical music box style music, this flick looks at a chain of tenuous relationships as it moves from person A to person B to person C...etc...and back again ending with persons A & B in carousel fashion. The film gently probes the unhappy circumstances of nine people with finely rendered shadings beginning and ending with a street whore and her client. The downside of this film is the lack of a story which may have something to do with the many critical slams it received. I watched the behemoth "Angels in America" last night and was bored at the end while this little concatenation of character studies kept me spell bound. Use caution. I may be the only person who really liked this flick. (B) | 1 | trimmed_train |
4,654 | I'll admit that I liked the first one, and was really looking forward to the sequel.<br /><br />I was let down. Sure the special effects were technically amazing -- but they weren't believable looking. It looked more like a cartoon. Alright, I admit to liking 80% of the chase scene -- but the fight with all the Mr Smiths? It was too obviously animated.<br /><br />I can accept all of that. What I can't accept is that the non-action parts were crap. Every time Morpheus opened his mouth, I knew I was in for a speech that went on forever and signified nothing.<br /><br />I was also disappointed with the little plot that did exist. What this movie did was tell us that there was no truth in the first movie (except about the existence of the matrix). This movie was a little like seeing the episode of DALLAS where you find out that the entire previous season was a dream.<br /><br />Ugh! I want my $7.00 back! | 0 | trimmed_train |
18,245 | Reign Over Me is a success due to the powerful work by Adam Sandler and Don Cheadle. While comedic actors going dramatic has been seen as somewhat of a distraction, Sandler is no stranger to playing more serious roles. Most of the characters he portrays have an unstable temperament and a vulnerability that can burst at any moment. He might even be typecast for characters with such hidden anger problems. However, this performance has some considerable dramatic weight, unlike his roles in less comedic fare like Punch-Drunk Love and Spanglish.<br /><br />In the film, Alan Johnson (Cheadle) runs into his old college roommate, Charlie Finerman (Sandler), whom he hasn't seen in several years. Five years before, Charlie suffered the overwhelming loss of his wife and three daughters in a plane crash. Charlie barely even recognizes Cheadle's character due to the repression of his memories and consequent reclusive childish lifestyle since the accident. It isn't until Alan persists in engaging him in conversation that Charlie remembers who he is. Their renewed relationship that follows will allow Finerman to have a friend who doesn't speak about his loss, eventually enabling him to confront the thoughts and feelings he has suppressed on his own terms.<br /><br />Though writer-director Mike Binder doesn't show much sense of an individual style and some of his shots and transitions are a bit awkward, he does have a knack of getting decent to great performances from his actors while being a talented and funny writer. He shot this film with a digital camera, as more and more filmmakers are doing today, enabling the crew to shoot the night scenes with limited lighting. This kept the colorful backgrounds of New York City in focus, but resulted in creating frequent digital grain, which resembles blue specks scattered and moving on the screen.<br /><br />Almost every main character in Reign Over Me gives a great performance. Jada-Pinkett Smith and especially Liv Tyler are memorable in their respective roles as a frustrated wife to Cheadle's character and a psychiatrist. However, it is Sandler and Cheadle that give some of their finest work to date. They completely owned this movie. Sandler actually plays a character that doesn't outwardly resemble or act like himself at all, partially credited to his Bob Dylan-esquire wig. Though Cheadle's character has more screen time than Sandler, they both should be considered to be leading roles, as they equally support and help each other throughout the film.<br /><br />Music also plays a great part in this film, especially the title song "Reign Over Me," or "Love, Reign O'er Me" by The Who, and later covered by Pearl Jam. In one of the most powerful moments of the film, Binder shows Sandler using music to shut out his feelings and memories, but this particular song provokes such intense emotion that rather than diminishing his anger, it incites his emotions. All an all, Reign Over Me is an enjoyable, sad, yet many times funny film, driven by its amazing leading performances. | 1 | trimmed_train |
9,832 | This Paramount version/ripoff of OKLAHOMA!/ANNIE GET YOUR GUN/CALAMITY JANE isn't all that unusual or innovative. The marketing and intro comments may be there to salvage what is really a pretty bad movie musical western shot on a soundstage and like a live TV show. I don't find the use of the background cyclorama, lit in various scenes with yellow, or pink, or red, or....all that innovative. As noted, it looks more to me like a movie that was produced on a TV budget: All soundstage, with minimal sets backed by the lighted cycs! (Compare to NEW FACES (OF 1952). The actors come off reasonably well, though. And this style was much better realized when Paramount shot LI'L ABNER in 1959. Of couorse, this movie suggests the often repeated question: "what were they thinking?" | 2 | trimmed_train |
16,466 | Sitting on the front porch of his Burbank home, Ted Mapes told me that he and Reed Hadley wore the exact same size in every item of clothing except hat.<br /><br />Ted, one of the greatest of the stunt men, said that every time Zorro put on his mask, he was the one on the screen.<br /><br />That was a little bit of an exaggeration: There were times that Zorro was obviously Reed Hadley, but in the stunts we can be satisfied it was Ted at work.<br /><br />And what stunts! "Zorro's Fighting Legion" is, as witness the comments here, one of the greatest of serials. It is exciting and generally very well made.<br /><br />Reed Hadley was a fine actor, and, as someone else commented, he made a very good fop.<br /><br />But, admittedly, it is the action that makes this movie so great.<br /><br />And what else could we expect, with direction by that excellent team, Witney and English, with great music from the amazingly prolific William Lava (the listing here says he was uncredited, but that is incorrect; those other composers listed here were indeed uncredited, and I don't know if they did write any of the music -- it sounds like Lava), and with villainy from, among others, the great Charles King, and with dozens of bit parts?<br /><br />Also noteworthy was a villain played by the radio Tarzan, Jim Pierce, who was Edgar Rice Burroughs' son-in-law. (I urge you to read his mini-bio.) <br /><br />There is one chapter that slows things down depressingly, but, heck, it's only a few minutes long (maybe 20) and when you wade through it, well, you're back to the excitement.<br /><br />Turner Classic Movies deserves a great big THANK YOU for presenting this excellent serial, and we should ask TCM to bring us more.<br /><br />And we should thank everyone involved that we get to see it as a chapter-play, or serial, and not as a re-cut feature. | 3 | trimmed_train |
23,179 | It is wonderful to watch Roshan Seth (the strict father in 1992 "Mississippi Masala"), who once again takes on the role of a father and head of the family, and more, in SUCH A LONG JOURNEY, set in 1971 Bombay, India. Besides the closely knit family settings, subject matters include the lost and found of a friendship; the unexpected death of a friend (somehow the calm smiling face of a friend in death in the presence of prayers felt peaceful - so Gustad Noble, Roshan's character, similarly noted); a sidewalk artist's chain of events - "the wall as a latrine turned into a shrine
shrine into rumbles and ashes" was at once prophetic and philosophical. It's packed full of life lessons in different aspects of varying relationships: between father and son; mother and son; father and little daughter; little daughter and father and mother; longtime colleagues; long lost dear friends; even that of a man to man, one whose an innocent slow-witted "fool".<br /><br />In spite of the tone of the film's era, it's a colorful film rich in substance, and the strength of the story in textural layers with humor and suspense. For a director who is not Indian (Sturla Gunnarsson being Icelandic), he's made a political Indian/Pakistani film. He gets into the bone marrow of the life of this Parsi portrayed by Roshan Seth, whose performance has such nuances, subtlety, and joy. (There is singing, too.) The rest of the cast is equally strong: from Om Puri the mysterious friend of a friend; Soni Razdan the enduring wife; Vrajesh Hirjee the argumentative eldest son; Sam Dastor the longtime office mate; Ranjit Chowdhry the pavement artist; to a superstitious "witch" woman of a neighbor; an unbeguiling "fool" of a man; and a long lost bosom friend - it's a world of many faces and perspectives. Director Gunnarsson has demonstrated sensitivity in the treatment of that time period and subject was well researched with attention to details. He has the good fortune to have Sooni Taraporevala (1992 "Mississippi Masala", 1988 "Salaam Bombay!") wrote the script. This is truly a worthwhile journey of a film to partake.<br /><br />Along the lines of cultural exploration (road movie style), Fridrik Thor Fridriksson 1994 "Cold Fever" is an Icelandic sojourn about a Japanese young man who went across the globe in search of the specific spot to pay his last respects to his parents, dutifully following memorial rituals for the dead. Such demonstrated reverence and cross-cultural attention to family ties are heart-warming in this day and cyber age. | 1 | trimmed_train |
20,192 | "Bell Book and Candle" was shown recently on cable. Not having seen it for a while, we decided to take another look at this comedy. Based on the James Van Druten's Broadway hit, which was a vehicle for Rex Harrison and Lilli Palmer in the early fifties, the film was adapted for the screen by Daniel Taradash. The film was directed by Richard Quine, who turned the play into a delightful comedy.<br /><br />Evidently, judging by some of the comments submitted by IMDb, the big issue seems to be the pairing of the two stars, who had collaborated on "Vertigo", released the same year. Movie audiences didn't think anything about the age difference when this film was released. In fact, most of the aging male stars of that period were always involved with much younger women.<br /><br />The film set in Manhattan during Christmas is a delightful comedy that has enchanted viewers. Kim Novak was at the height of her beauty as it's clear the camera adored her no matter what was she playing. As the witch that becomes human, her Gillian is charming. James Stewart, who plays the publisher Shep' Henderson, is also seen at his best. Mr. Stewart was an excellent comedy actor who shows in here why he was at the top.<br /><br />In supporting roles the wonderful Elsa Lanchester, playing Queenie, is a welcome addition to any movie, as she proves here. Jack Lemmon's Nicky Holroyd, the brother of Gillian, is also good. Ernie Kovacs is also seen as the writer Sidney Radlitch.<br /><br />This is an excellent way to spend a winter night at home watching "Bell Book and Candle". | 1 | trimmed_train |
13,565 | Maybe I'm a sap but this is the sweetest movies ever! I saw it for the first time when I was around 4 or 5, and I cried my eyes out. Between then and now (embarrassed at age 15) I have seen it over 25 times and have sobbed each and every one of them. Don't worry they're tears of happiness! And it's not all sap! There's a lot of humor and comedy in it too. Usually the whole talking animal thing can be a huge drag but in this movie it's not the case. My only word of advice: Even if you love this-Don't see the sequal...cornyness! I suggest everyone checks this out...you won't be sorry, no matter how old or young you are! | 3 | trimmed_train |
2,623 | An expedition led by hunky Captain Storm (Mark Dana) travels to the Valley of the Kings in Cairo to find out what happened to an earlier expedition. They meet beautiful mysterious Simira (Ziva Rodann) who joins them. They soon find themselves faced with a blood drinking mummy...and only Simira seems to know what's going on.<br /><br />A real snoozer. I caught this on late night TV when I was about 10. It put me to sleep! Seeing it again all these years later I can see why. It's slow-moving, the mummy doesn't even show up until 40 minutes in (and this is only 66 minutes long!), the acting ranges from bad (Dana) to REAL bad (George N. Neise) and there's no violence or blood to be found. This movie concentrates more on second rate dramatics (involving a silly love triangle) than horror.<br /><br />This rates three stars because it actually looks pretty good, everyone plays it straight, there's some good acting from Diane Brewster, it's short and the mummy attack scenes (all three of them) aren't bad. They're not scary just mildly creepy. Still, this movie is pretty bad. A sure fire cure for insomnia. | 2 | trimmed_train |
12,543 | `Castle of Blood' (aka `Castle of Terror') is a well-crafted, surprisingly spooky entry from Italian director Anthony Dawson. Exquisite black and white cinematography, flawless dubbing, superb casting, fairly logical scripting, deliberate pacing and a surprise (though totally appropriate) ending set this one apart. Only the films sometimes hokey music and the rather abrupt `love at first sight' between Elizabeth (Barbara Steele) and Alan (Georges Rivière) mar an otherwise surprisingly entertaining movie.<br /><br />While visiting England, Edgar Allan Poe sits in a pub, telling one of his ghostly stories to Count Blackwood. Recognizing the great writer, Alan, a young news reporter, requests an interview with Poe. During the course of the conversation, Poe reveals that all of his stories are true. Incredulous, Alan expresses his skepticism about life after death. Count Blackwood offers to bet Alan 100 pounds that he cannot survive this night in Blackwood's castle, a night following Halloween when the dead walk. Alan cannot afford the bet, so he bets his life for a 10 pound wager.<br /><br />Unlike Mario Bava's overpraised `Black Sunday,' (aka `The Mask of Satan'), `Castle of Blood' is fairly restrained, making the few moments of violence even more dreadful, especially surprising from a director usually associated with those terrible Italian space movies from the 60s.<br /><br />It's a pity the only version of this film I've found is badly deteriorated (and recorded) pan and scan version. Even so, it is well worth seeing, and cries out for a modern remake, perhaps with Christina Ricci or Jennifer Love Hewitt in the role of Elizabeth. Watch it and enjoy a film that compares well with Robert Wise's `The Haunting'. | 1 | trimmed_train |
23,761 | The best martial arts movie ever made. This one movie is better than anything Bruce Lee ever did. A classic with a thoroughly entertaining and brutal climax. Jackie Chan is the king of martial arts movies and the true king of kung fu.It's a great pity that whilst Bruce Lee had been so overrated, it took Jackie Chan an eternity to become popular in Europe and America. Jackie rules!!!! | 3 | trimmed_train |
13,369 | I know that there are some purists out there who poo poo anything that is not exactly like the original, however sometimes spin-offs can stand on their own merits. I like the new Iron Chef because it is similar enough to the Japanese version but at the same time caters to American spirit. I love Alton Brown as commentator, because he explains things with flair. The Iron Chefs themselves are very interesting. I know the originals were probably the best chefs on the planet at the time, but Bobby Flay is the only American Iron Chef to beat them. Mario Batali seems to have the most fun when cooking, making comments and being flashy while creating. I have watched the series and find all the players work together well. The judges are not always the best choices, however. There are a few exceptions, like the lawyer turned foodie, but most of the judges are questionable in being able to handle what is served. I enjoy watching the chefs hustle and the challengers are surprising. The food at the end always looks amazing and sometimes it inspires me in the kitchen. Perhaps that is all anyone can ask, to want to really eat what is served. The only thing I would really change about the series is to ask folks on the show to lighten up a little. Sometimes the mood becomes a bit too tense, and that isn't always fun to watch when you are expecting more amusement. I liked the version with William Shatner (Iron Chef USA) because it was so over-the-top like the original, but I can tell it was a pretty expensive proposition. I wish he had stayed with this version and been the host - between Bill Shatner and Alton Brown, that would have me grinning for an hour. As long as you don't expect the original Japanese version and can accept this series on its own merits, you may find it to be an enjoyable hour. | 1 | trimmed_train |
4,292 | Haunted Boat sells itself as 'The Fog' meets 'Open Water'. In many ways this is accurate. There are scares and weird looking people to keep you interested.<br /><br />However the acting ability is poor at best. Showing clear signs that this is merely a bunch of friends making a horror film. Which in all credit they do to the best of their ability. When you accept the low budget makes it very difficult for special effects, with the ghosts looking pretty much like men with rubber masks on.<br /><br />Many aspects of the film are creepy and strange. But it suffers for using too many twists and turns in a short space of time which just leaves you bored and confused. In terms of keeping you awake the film does it very well. Ignoring the irrelevant twisting every 5 seconds near the end, you actually want to know what is going on. And are willing to wait the 1hr 35 minutes for the climax.<br /><br />This is no Ghost Ship but it'll definitely do for an evening in front of the T.V. | 2 | trimmed_train |
23,018 | What could be more schlocky than the idea of private detectives getting involved with the women they're supposed to be spying on? And most of the dialogue as written is perfectly banal.<br /><br />But the actors turn the dialog into something that makes sense. You can see real people behind the unreal lines. And the directing is wonderful. Each scene does just what it has to and ends without dragging on too long.<br /><br />I showed this to several friends in the mid-80s because I was perplexed at how such bad material could be made into such a good movie. The friends enjoyed it too. | 1 | trimmed_train |
17,944 | Given the opposite circumstance of 2009 where the reality is we do have a black president, this movie takes on quite a powerful historical significance. For entertainment value I found this movie to be both engaging and repugnant. I was quite taken back of course by the blatant racism of the time, but also found the music and dancing incredible. Also it is quite cool to see Sammy Davis Jr as such a very young child actor. He plays Rufus Jones, a young boy who is being consoled by his Mammy. He is told 'Why some day you could be President'. This was so ridiculous in 1933 that it was mocked and thought to be endearing, charming and funny. The bulk of the movie is a fantasy sequence of what the government would be like if it was run by a black man. They depict the seats of government as being like a revivalist Baptist church.<br /><br />The fact was when I stumbled onto this movie one day it drew me in. It is really well done and very entertaining. I believe if we can look beyond the racism we can see this movie for all it brings us. In fact to realize that it is not only not ridiculous to have a black president, but that it is normal, just makes this movie that much more relevant. It clearly marks a moment in time for our collective consciousness. | 1 | trimmed_train |
24,199 | It was only on my second viewing, years later, that I realized two things about this movie: 1) I enjoyed it immensely, and 2) that because its execution is decidedly sharper than the premise itself warrants. I had laughed my way through the movie before it occurred to me to renew my initial protests--valleyspeak and loogies and airheadedness (even *good*-natured airheadedness) just aren't inherently funny, especially when drawn out to feature length. But though the movie's momentum does begin to sputter out towards the end, Reeves and Winter and Sadler (and Hal Landon Jr. in an unforgettable scene) display such a remarkable sense of comic timing throughout that even the more clumsily-scripted jokes (e.g. Ted failing to recognize a certain inhabitant of Hell) work as effortlessly as the witter ones (e.g. the challenge). And the teaming of Winter and Reeves clicks so well that the teaming of Bill and Ted (who spend only one scene separated in the entire movie, disaster if they're not well-matched) appears utterly unstrained.<br /><br />(Side note: I found the first movie to be only sporadically entertaining--sightly different comic sensibilities there, it seems.)<br /><br />I give it a 7.75. Surprisingly good fun. | 1 | trimmed_train |
9,562 | awful, just awful! my old room mate used to watch this junk and it drove me crazy. the book is one of my favorites and its a shame that some people will never know what it is really like because their first impressions are from dribble like this. they changed so much it is hardly recognisable. which baffles me since the book reads like a soap opera anyway, providing enough fodder for modern day entertainment. it's like one of those Lifetime movies that say "based on a true story" but are completely fictional. there is none of the emotion or depth of the book, just mindless melodrama. if you are a high school student looking for a way to get out of reading, i suggest you try another version. | 0 | trimmed_train |
5,594 | I picked up TRAN SCAN from the library and brought it home. We have considered taking a trip out east and thought it would give us a feel of what it was like. The film was a total waste of time, if I went out to buy it I would call it TRAN SCAM when I saw that it costs $49.<br /><br />The DVD ran for 8 minutes and showed a roller coaster ride across Canada with my stomach feeling ill as they went up and down and around curve with the film at high speed.<br /><br />There was a lot of footage they probably shot on this and you would think that they could have made a better product. If I would of done this project I would of provided more footage, paused on road signs to let people know where they were and linger in places to view the scenery. To make a film like this it should of been 60 to 90min. Oh yes the case said it was in stereo, the whole film was a hissing sound from sped up car sound, thet could of at least put some music to it.<br /><br />If you want a good cross Canada film watch The railrodder / National Film Board of Canada starring Buster keaton (the one of the last film he made) in this comical film Buster Keaton gets on to a railway trackspeeder in Nova Scotia and travels to British Columbia | 0 | trimmed_train |
3,467 | I missed the beginning but I did see most of it. A friend got it on DVD in the cheap room at FYE.<br /><br />The skits are all very short, and yet most of them are still too long. The majority of them, they seem to have forgotten to have something funny! Quite a lot of racist/sexist/"homophobic" humor in it, skits based on stereotypes, or skits which use racist terms for people.<br /><br />I'm trying to remember anything I thought was funny in it, and I'm having trouble.... The logo for the Tunnel Vision network is a lipsticked mouth with an eyeball in it. The mouth opens and closes over the eye like eyelids. Kind of creepy.<br /><br />What a disappointment. Most of the actors went on to better things, and it's lucky this bomb didn't hold them back. | 2 | trimmed_train |
17,319 | Picked up the movie at the flea market for 4 bucks, sure did get my moneys worth!. Could care-less about the hot babes but the animation just blew me away after a steady diet of Simpsons (Sorry Mr. Groening). The best part, facial expressions. Recommend multiple viewings with some cool tunes, good friends and a couple of cold ones! | 1 | trimmed_train |
10,912 | I have seen some pretty bad movies, and this is right up there. No plot to speak of, it's like one of those bad coma episodes on a soap-opera. I just wanted to smack that little girl because, well lets just say, she's real suspicious all the way through the movie. The monsters running around wearing some bling was funny. I also saw a bit of "Silent Hill" in there. And I read that this was done by, and or stared a Finnish metal band, Lordi. So it's no wonder that it didn't make much sense. It seem to be a vehicle for promoting there band and nothing more. The FX are very good, the look of the movie, the monsters, and even the acting also good. But the story and the telling of it, just aren't there. | 0 | trimmed_train |
4,559 | STAR RATING: ***** The Works **** Just Misses the Mark *** That Little Bit In Between ** Lagging Behind * The Pits <br /><br />Some plutonium's gone missing and some very nasty people now have the means to develop a bomb capable of wholesale destruction- so Josh McCord (Chuck Norris) and his cocky young protégé Deke (Judson Mills, a different actor from the previous film) with the assistance of Josh's adopted daughter Que (Jennifer Tung) set out to stop them.<br /><br />This was another film that dealt with terrorism a year after the events of 9/11. Filmed in 2001, Norris himself even commented afterwards how eerily the plot line to the film resembled what happened in downtown New York that day, so there'd have been those that would have been in the mood for a film where Norris and his side-kick kick some terrorist ass if nothing else. Other than that, it's as interchangeable as anything Norris has ever been in. It makes you wonder what the original did to warrant a sequel in the first place, and whether if this one could get made a President's Man 3 might come out sometime soon.<br /><br />If you've seen one Norris film, you've really seen them all and there's really nothing new or unexpected that happens with this one, but at least you know what you're getting and, like I said, it might have been just what some needed to let off some steam. ** | 2 | trimmed_train |
1,461 | Twin brothers separated at birth (Due to the deaths of their parents) reunite twenty five years later to avenge their parents and take back their million dollar tunnel. Double Impact runs at two hours long and basically adds no real approach to the Corsican Brothers plot and Jean-Claude Van Damme while adequate as the evil twin brother is just embarrassing as the good twin brother. Also the action sequences aren't as exciting this time and Jean-Claude relies more on gunfire then on his martial arts. Also the supporting cast is wasted and at two hours the movie is just plain dull.<br /><br />* out of 4(Bad) | 0 | trimmed_train |
19,719 | I loved this movie. It was so well done! Great acting and drama and historically accurate. I love Romy Schneider movies. This one rocks, not as great as Sissi but still rocks! <br /><br />And Scorpiolina,she commented and said french dubbing. Well this is originally a German movie not french. So yea. Second of all there was a plot, maybe your not familiar with history. Oh and her mother played the part of her governess, not her teacher. And the storyline was actually not Cinderella but Queen Victoria, maybe u missed that detail.<br /><br />But anyway.... yea the history in this movie is great, I love historical movies and Queen Victoria is very fascinating! I love all the historical stuff. Like that guy that was trying to manipulate her mom. And when she ran away and met her future husband and he showed her the "new type of dance" waltzing. When waltzing was new it was considered kinda scandalous because the couples dance so close. Yea her governess was like oh my god!<br /><br />And also the clothes, I love the clothes. The styles are great, hoop skirts are awesome. And of course Romy always looks very pretty. | 3 | trimmed_train |
19,935 | This enjoyable minor noir boasts a top cast, and many memorable scenes. The big distraction is the complete disregard for authentic accents. The Spanish characters in the film are played by a Frenchman (Boyer), a Belgian (Francen), a Greek (Paxinou) and a Hungarian (Lorre)! And to top it all off Bacall is supposed to be an English aristocrat! Despite these absurdities, the performances are all very good - especially those of Paxinou and Lorre. But the scene in which Boyer, Paxinou and Lorre meet, and talk in wildly different accents, is a real hoot! And I guess, seeing as how they were alone, that they should actually have been speaking in Spanish anyway! It seems pretty weird that the Brothers Warner couldn't find any Spanish speaking actors in Los Angeles! Of course Hollywood has often had an "any old accent will do" policy - my other favorite is Greta Garbo (Swedish) as Mata Hari (Dutch), who falls in love with a Russian soldier played by a Mexican (Ramon Novarro). Maybe they should have got Novarro for "Confidential Agent" - he would have been great in Boyer's role or at least in Francen's (which would have saved greatly on the dark make-up budget). | 1 | trimmed_train |
12,489 | The Christmas Secret was touted as a wonderful film, but I was truly disappointed. They even sold VHS and DVD copies of the film when it was over, which leads me to think the producers were really proud of this project. As a screen actor myself I felt most of the performances were phoned in, although Beau Bridges, as Nick, did have a moment or two. If I were Richard Thomas I would not put this film on my otherwise fine resume. It was an embarrassment. I had been a fan since his Waltons days, but have found myself untempted to watch any of his subsequent work, so poor was this offering.<br /><br />In defence of the actors, the directing was stilted, mechanical, and thoroughly amateurish.<br /><br />I hope this is not considered a spiteful review and negative assumptions made about my qualifications as a critic. I turned the movie on because it had a good cast and I was prepared to enjoy the film. However I would challenge any one out there to watch this film and not wish for their money back, even though it was on T.V. | 0 | trimmed_train |
18,334 | Daniel Day Lewis in My Left Foot gives us one of the best performances ever by an actor. He is brilliant as Christy Brown, a man who has cerebral palsy, who then learned to write and paint with his left foot. A well deserved Oscar for him and Brenda Fricker who plays his loving mother. Hugh O'Conner is terrific as the younger Christy Brown and Ray McAnally is great as the father. Worth watching for the outstanding performances. | 3 | trimmed_train |
11,273 | I saw this movie, and at times, I was unnerved believing this movie 'saw me.' Munchie sullies the 'farce' for years to come. Re-watch Star Wars, Don't-watch Munchie.<br /><br />As a responsible parent (I'm speaking to those who are parents now), I (you) would not let my (your) child ever partake of this video festival of the pseudo-occult. To insinuate Munchie is satanic, to a co-viewer, is likely to illicit a chilled 'duh.' He is fiendish, alien, rodential, and wholly malevolent - like the Bogey man made flesh, invisible to adults, tempting children with lifestyles they could never afford (without the income made possible by years of self denial and prudent stewardship). He is a peddler of easy answers, and false ideals. He is everything the morally conscious viewer is not. He is the devil's own Ron Popeil.<br /><br />I pray (I mean this literally and figuratively, with an emphasis on the former) that this movie has not made the format jump to DVD. It is my hope that this type of 'yellow film making' died an un-mourned death in the cold nights of 1994.<br /><br />Munchie also loves pizza. I forgot to mention that. It comes up a lot. | 2 | trimmed_train |
15,772 | I watched this movie with some curiosity. I wanted to see if 1) Paul Muni could play Chinese and 2) Luise Rainer deserved her Oscar. I came away from the film thinking YES! Having seen Muni in only one film where he was quite hammy, I expected the same type of performance here. I was happily proved wrong. Although some might criticize him as being too childlike and stereotypically simple in the Hollywood idea of Asians, I thought he was just right in the role. Keye Luke, if he'd been given the chance to play a lead role, might have played him in much the same manner.<br /><br />I was particularly impressed by the camera work and the use of crowd scenes, especially during the sacking of the palace where O-Lan was once a slave. The graphic and grim atmosphere of the firing squad and the drought made this an epic quite unlike others of the same time where it was all glitz and glitter. I watched this film from beginning to end enthralled. I can't say the same for the "epics" of today. | 3 | trimmed_train |
11,543 | Look,I'm reading and reading this comments and there's a lot of it that I wanna say but I will try to make it short but clean...<br /><br />First of all, lets forget all of the things how bad this movie was made...How it didn't show anything of Notorious and I agree with the most people here saying that it was "Hollywood", I mean, what did you expect a real life story? When will people wake up and see that u will never ever find the real truth about 2pac and Biggie... Its all covered up and buried deep down.<br /><br />Second, I'm not against neither 2pac or Biggie I love them both but 2pac and Lil Kim DID get embarrassed in this movie for sure...<br /><br />Next, for all of ya that are saying that the movie is awesome and cant see the truth, either u are too blind too see it because u think u know something about BIG or you don't know anything about him at all and u love this Hollywood teenage movies. Use your mind and see though the clouds... There is a lot of it you could say when it gets to this topic, I did not say 60% of what I have to say because its a very wide topic but for the movie I can only say that it could have been a little bit, I mean a much better done. But anyways I'm just some person giving her opinion....No hard feelings...<br /><br />Look, I love hip hop and I live for it but after seeing this movie every person with a little intelligence could see that this is not how someone is suppose to live. With all do respect for 2pac and BIG, like all the other artists who are making for a living like this should turn the other page because u are ruining the youth....Bringing the wrong message to the children and that is: not going to school but living from the streets, hustling and just grabbing for the paper....<br /><br />The true hip hop is suppose to be about love and intelligence, be smart and all.<br /><br />OK I know that many of you will think that I'm crazy, but this is just my point of view. Look I am maybe wrong about something and Im not saying this is a completely bad movie because even if I'm in hip hop for 17, 18 years I still don't know anything bout 2pac or Biggie no matter how many articles I read or how much I support them and listen to their music...Like most of you all out there. Only people who were really close to them and the killers know the truth behind all this.<br /><br />And for the end I just wanna say for all of ya Biggie and Tupac fans and family, this two men were and will be the greatest of all time, no matter how they lived their lives but PLEASE IN THE FUTURE TRY TO BE BETTER, LEARN AND LOVE EACH OTHER, THINK GOOD EVEN FOR THE ONES THAT Don't LIKE YOU, BECAUSE AT THE END...ITS NOT ABOUT HOW MANY MONEY OR FAME U COULD GET AND HOW FAST U COULD GET TO THE TOP, ITS ABOUT ACCOMPLISHING YOUR SELF TO THE FULLEST AND FEEDING YOUR SOUL, YOUR BODY AND MIND...BECAUSE IF U MANAGE TO DO THAT, YOU WILL BE LIVING A LIFE EVEN AFTER DEATH!!!! PEACE AND LOVE TO YA ALL!!!! RIP BIGGIE,2PAC,AALIYAH,LEFT EYE,JAM MASTER JAY AND THE OTHERS WHO MAKE A CHANGE IN THIS WORLD!!!! | 2 | trimmed_train |
24,373 | The film gets my stamp of approval. The scene in the museum demands acting without dialogue. This is one of the most interesting and unique scenes in the history of film. Dickinson's character Kate is very well developed and her performance is felt throughout the entire film. The best work Angie Dickinson did since Point Blank! | 3 | trimmed_train |
24,836 | NB: Spoilers within. This great movie is "about" so many things, all of them successfully: sci-fi time travel, unstable psychologies, dystopian society, the what-is-real syndrome, gradual undermining of belief systems, worldwide bioterrorism, and a nascent love story.<br /><br />The ramifications of the story's twisted time line stir up loads of heated debate - witness the discussions within this site; or, as an extreme, check out the dissertation at www.mjyoung.net/time/monkeys.html. Whew! Such temporal emphasis speaks mostly to the brilliant plot, coming from the magnificent work of writers David and Janet Peoples, not to mention the inspiration of Chris Marker's "La Jetee." Without a doubt, this is one of the most successful, fascinating time-travel movies ever conceived. But there are many other levels speaking here.<br /><br />The movie's real genius is to focus on the nasty side effects of time-travel in the mind of James Cole (Bruce Willis, doing the best work of his career here). His journey progresses from gung-ho vaccine-hunting warrior to gradually unhinged victim and back again. The other broad sweep of the story increasingly emphasizes the personal tale between James and Dr. Kathryn Railly (the wonderful Madeleine Stowe). I love the simultaneous shifting/opposing viewpoints of these two characters. For me it all comes to a head in the fleabag hotel room scene. By this point, James once gripped by an unshakable determination now slumps in utter doubt about his own reality; while Dr. Railly the cool and rational scientist has finally become wildly convinced, after absorbing James's proofs, of his horrific predictions. Her desperation to get through to James and hang on to the mission shows how far she's come.<br /><br />Gilliam makes us care about these characters, especially through the crescendo of tension threading their lives. The balance held between emotional roller-coaster and mounting sci-fi puzzle/thriller is exquisite. And the denouement at the airport is heart-poundingly intense because we see it coming so clearly through James's dreams. It is here, just after James has decided to quit the whole mess and is fighting his insanity more than ever that he steps back up to the plate and does what is necessary for mankind. See Jose and the gun
(Just before this, the references to Hitchcock's "Vertigo" and identity switching/confusion are brilliant.) This is a movie to be hashed out between thinking people; it not only holds up under repeated viewings, it demands them. "Twelve Monkeys" is intelligent, provocative, bizarre, funny, and suspenseful stuff.<br /><br />The supporting cast is excellent, especially Brad Pitt stealing all of his scenes and showing great flexibility as Jeffery Goines, crazed and spoiled, but ever the survivor. And there is David Morse as Dr. Peters (interesting how the movie simply leaves to the viewer his wicked motivation) and Christopher Plummer as Dr. Goines. But the biggest accolades belong to Terry Gilliam, surpassing here - just barely - his outstanding "Brazil." (Lots of parallels, of course, especially the lonely combatant trying to escape his crumbling surroundings: lunacy within, lunacy without.) Every frame of this movie has his unique stamp and tone. The soundtrack is terrific, too.<br /><br />This is one of the great achievements of the 90s, a true favorite of mine, and sure to hold up for a long time to come. | 3 | trimmed_train |
4,642 | This is not a good movie. It's disjointed, all the acting is bad, and has a lame story you've seen a thousand times done much better else where. Not to mention you can see every plot point coming from a mile away. Worst of all, no one bothered to tell Lonette Mckee she can't sing. But who cares, she's sooooo damn good looking. But I digress, nothing new here. Bottom-line, hot girl group gets taken advantage of, some one gets hooked on drugs, someone gets hooked on a guy, some one gets the hell out, and then the horrible stuff happens. Surprise, surprise. Welcome to the music business. I can't believe so many people out there think this is a good movie. So many of you seem to want to use a sliding scale when it comes to grading Black Movies. I don't play that! If you want to support these films by going to see them - great! If you enjoyed it - super! To each his own. But don't try to tell me it was good. Pleeeease! I wish colored folks would not fawn over these kind of movies just because they feature black actors. Wanna see a good African-American movie? See Love Jones. Ray. Or The Color Purple. Those would be great movies no matter what the color of the actors skin. Why? Because they told compelling stories with great acting, that made you feel something long after you left the theater. Just because it's our experience does not automatically make it a good film. It's only good -- when it's good. Period. | 0 | trimmed_train |
20,740 | Anyone witness to our justice system - or lack thereof will find this film truly satisfying. There weren't too many shades of gray with regard to characters or plot. Virtually every character in this film epitomized what is best and worst about our society. The popularity of this film is probably due to the fact that most of us at one time or another have had to deal with scumbags along with the namby-pamby, lily-livered, melee-mouthed bureaucrats that empower them in the name of "political correctness". <br /><br />The performances across the board were compelling. I sympathized with the rape victim - while at the same, found it gratifying to see her wipe the smug, vicious arrogance off the faces of her former attackers. In particular, I found the dyke one of the ugliest characters in all of the films I've seen, so it was nice to see her former victim shut her mouth for good. The lead rapist and psychopath was equally ugly, so it was only fitting that Dirty Harry himself offed him in a loud grotesque fashion in the end. This was the only sequel in the dirty Harry saga that equaled the first. | 3 | trimmed_train |
24,111 | Who would think Andy Griffith's "Helen Crump" (Aneta Corsaut) had a Steve McQueen movie in her past? But that is only one of several weird and wonderful things about the ultimate 1950s teenagers-battle-creatures movie, which might best be described as Rebel Without A Cause meets God Knows What From Outer Space. The Rebel is Steven McQueen (who would shortly decide that "Steve" sounded less prissy), a good boy with just enough wild to be interesting; the very wholesome yet understanding girlfriend is the aforementioned Aneta Corsaut. It was bad enough when their date was disrupted by teenage hot-rodders, but they are considerably more nonplussed when they encounter a gelatinous, man-eating What Is It that rides down to earth on its own hotrod meteor--and begins gobbling up townfolk right and left. But will the grown ups believe them? Of course not, what do they know, they're just kids!<br /><br />The movie is teeny bopper at its teeny bopping best. The actors take the rather pretentious script very seriously, with many a soulful look into each other eyes, and the "adult" supporting cast probably says "Kids!" very third sentence or so. But the real pleasure of the film its creature, which is well imagined, well-executed, and often manages to generate a surprising degree of suspense. And although clearly on the cheap side (check out those miniature sets, guys!), THE BLOB is actually a fairly well-made film--and there's that catchy little theme song thrown in for good measure. The 40-plus crowd (myself included) will enjoy the movie as nostalgia, but that won't prevent them from hooting right along with the younger set at its whole-milk-and-white-bread 1950s sensibility, and the film would be a great choice for either family-movie night or a more sophisticated "grown ups only" get together. Make plenty of Jello cubes for movie snacking! Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer | 1 | trimmed_train |
16,147 | I first watched the Walking Tall movies when I was about 8 years old and I thought both Joe Don Baker and Bo Svenson did a great job, they must have anyway because since watching the movies, I have tried to learn as much about the real Sheriff Buford Pusser as I can. All 3 parts of the movie gave me chills and Buford Pusser was a true hero, I only wish he were alive today and that there were more people like him. I would love to thank him for getting rid of all the crime and being so brave. I am very sorry that his family had to go through such horror and pain. My heart goes out to them. So from a 30 year old fan of Sheriff Pusser and of the 3-part Walking Tall movies and the actors that portrayed him, please do not be negative about these movies and actors, they were only trying to let us know what a wonderful man the real Buford Pusser was and what a great family he had. And to all the young people who may have not heard much about Buford, I suggest you watch the Walking Tall movies and learn more about him. | 3 | trimmed_train |
2,202 | its awful i cant believe that one of the greatest nonsenses in the world can be a blockbuster and the favorite movie of millions of people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! a movie which has no story,again shahrukh khan has been appeared on the screen with nothing new the same as usual he is trying to make you cry by start scrambling his head for thousands of times,i think this is to much,pretty zinta spouse to act the character of a Pakistani girl i didn't know that there is enough facilities in Pakistan for the Pakistani girls to do so many plastic surgeries on their face and also there are enough make up facilities??!! and also i didn't know that an Indian can cross the March's between both countries,go to Pakistan and start dancing and singing may be Pakistani soldier's were sleeping!!!!!!!!! | 0 | trimmed_train |
6,254 | Way to go ace! You just made a chilling, grossly intriguing story of a necrophiliac cannibal into a soft, mellow, drama. Obviously a movie called Dahmer would be one of two kinds: Horror, or documentary right? This was neither. It wasn't close to any detailed facts, (in fact it barely had any substance at all) It wasn't really morbid or scary or didn't even try to be very disturbing.(as if you would've had to try!!) What the hell was this writer/director thinking?? Here's one of the most REAL examples of sick serial killers ever and we get badly shot, poorly acted gay bar roofie rapes and lengthy droning flashbacks to alone time in his old parent's house. I think Jacobson was actually trying to present (or invent) 'the soft side' of j.Dahmer. | 0 | trimmed_train |
19,821 | I used to watch this on either HBO or Showtime or Cinemax during the one summer in the mid 90's that my parents subscribed to those channels. I came across it several times in various parts and always found it dark, bizarre and fascinating. I was young then, in my early teens; and now years later after having discovered the great Arliss Howard and being blown away by "Big Bad Love" I bought the DVD of "Wilder Napalm" and re-watched it with my girlfriend for the first time in many years. I absolutely loved it! I was really impressed and affected by it. There are so many dynamic fluid complexities and cleverness within the camera movements and cinematography; all of which perfectly gel with the intelligent, intense and immediate chemistry between the three leads, their story, the music and all the other actors as well. It's truly "Cinematic". I love Arliss Howard's subtle intensity, ambivalent strength and hidden intelligence, I'm a big fan of anything he does; and his interplay with Debra Winger's manic glee (they are of course married) has that magic charming reality to it that goes past the camera. (I wonder if they watch this on wedding anniversaries?......."Big Bad Love" should be the next stop for anyone who has not seen it; it's brilliant.) And, Dennis Quaid in full clown make-up, sneakily introduced, angled, hidden and displayed by the shot selection and full bloomed delivery is of the kind of pure dark movie magic you don't see very often. Quaid has always had a sinister quality to him for me anyways, with that huge slit mouth span, hiding behind his flicker eyes lying in wait to unleash itself as either mischievous charm or diabolical weirdness (here as both). Both Howard and Quaid have the insane fire behind the eyes to pull off their wonderful intense internal gunslinger square-offs in darkly cool fashion. In fact the whole film has a darkly cool energy and hip intensity. It's really a fantastic film, put together by intelligence, imagination, agility and chemistry by all parties involved. I really cannot imagine how this got funded, and it looks pretty expensive to me, by such a conventional, imagination-less system, but I thank God films like this slip through the system every once in awhile. In a great way, with all of its day-glo bright carnival colors, hip intelligence, darkly warped truthful humor and enthralling chemistry it reminds me of one of my favorite films of all time: "Grosse Pointe Blank".......now that's a compliment in my book! | 3 | trimmed_train |
11,366 | Dear God! I kept waiting for this movie to "get started"... then I waited for it to redeem itself... and when it did neither, I just sat there, dumbfounded that: 1) it could possibly be this bad, and 2) that I had just wasted a couple of hours on just sheer stupidity. I had faith that Drew couldn't possibly have made this bad of a movie... and boy, did I ever lose my faith! Don't bother with this one! Drew tried, but the movie was poorly written, poorly acted, and just poorly conceived! I can't believe a script this bad ever got funded! It had a million chances to actually do something with the idea, (the word "concept" is too big for this movie to even qualify for!) and it STILL didn't go anyplace! Its just pitiful! Where the other reviewer got the idea that it wasn't the worst, baffles me! Because believe me, if it got any worse I'd have slit my wrists before finishing it! | 0 | trimmed_train |
19,464 | Saw this movie at the Rotterdam IFF. You may question some decisions of the maker - like choosing a mockumentary form for such a sensitive and horrible subject - but this movie sure hits you in the gut. Especially the last scenes were almost painful to watch. Hope it gets the distribution it deserves. | 1 | trimmed_train |
7,778 | Um... Okay, I guess I get the whole shaky-cam, gorilla-style filming technique but unfortunately I think a gorilla could have made a better movie... This thing was just a complete mess from the get go. Bad acting, bad directing, bad story and horrific cinematography. How this piece of garbage was released I will never know, but it has and unfortunately I watched it. Filmed on location in Tennessee by the directing team of Greg Swinson and Ryan Thiessen (Harry and Lloyd), "Five Across The Eyes" I'm assuming is supposed to resemble a "Blair Witch" type film but falls short... Okay it nose dives off a cliff. I was actually embarrassed for these young women, whom I'm sure were promised Hollywood stardom, but ended up in this dung heap. The dialog is ridiculous, and actually aggravates you as you listen to it. How this is supposed to be a horror flick is another mystery, as there is nothing even remotely scary about it, except for the fact that I watched it... Try this one on for size: There is 5 of you and 1 of her, do the math and beat her ass... "The End". Saddly it went on (and on) for 95 more minutes of mind-numbing stupidity...<br /><br />I saw it for free, and wanted my money back. | 0 | trimmed_train |
16,138 | My former Cambridge contemporary Simon Heffer, today a writer and journalist, has put forward the theory that, just as British film-makers in the eighties were often critical of what they called "Thatcher's Britain", the Ealing comedies were intended as satires on "Attlee's Britain", the Britain which had come into being after the Labour victory in the 1945 general election. This theory was presumably not intended to apply to, say, "Kind Hearts and Coronets" (which is, if anything, a satire on the Edwardian upper classes) or to "The Ladykillers" or "The Lavender Hill Mob", both of which may contain some satire but are not political in nature. It can, however, be applied to most of the other films in the series, especially "Passport to Pimlico".<br /><br />Pimlico is, or at least was in the forties, a predominantly working-class district of London, set on the North Bank of the Thames about a mile from Victoria station. It is not quite correct to say, as has often been said, that the film is about Pimlico "declaring itself independent" of Britain. What happens is that an ancient charter comes to light proving that in the fifteenth century the area was ceded by King Edward IV to the Duchy of Burgundy. This means that, technically, Pimlico is an independent state, and has been for nearly five hundred years, irrespective of the wishes of its inhabitants. The government promise to pass a special Act of Parliament to rectify the anomaly, but until the Act receives the Royal Assent the area remains outside the United Kingdom and British laws do not apply.<br /><br />Because Pimlico is not subject to British law, the landlord of the local pub is free to open whatever hours he chooses and local shopkeepers can sell whatever they please to whomever they please, unhindered by the rationing laws. When other traders start moving into the area to sell their goods in the streets, the British authorities are horrified by what they regard as legalised black-marketeering and seal off the area to try and force the "Burgundians", as the people of Pimlico have renamed themselves, to surrender.<br /><br />Many of the Ealing comedies have as their central theme the idea of the little man taking on the system, either as an individual as happens in "The Man in the White Suit" or "The Lavender Hill Mob", or as part of a larger community as happens in "Whisky Galore" or "The Titfield Thunderbolt". The central theme of "Passport" is that of ordinary men and women taking on bureaucracy and government-imposed regulations which seemed to be an increasingly important feature of life in the Britain of the forties. The film's particular target is the rationing system. During the war the system had been accepted by most people as a necessary sacrifice in the fight against Nazism, but it became increasingly politically controversial when the government tried to retain it in peacetime. It was a major factor in the growing unpopularity of the Attlee administration which had been elected with a large majority in 1945, and organisations such as the British Housewives' League were set up to campaign for the abolition of rationing. I cannot agree with the reviewer who stated that the main targets of the film's satire were the "spivs" (black marketeers), who play a relatively minor part in the action, or the Housewives' League, who do not appear at all. The satire is very much targeted at the bureaucrats, who are portrayed either as having a "rules for rules' sake" mentality or a desire to pass the buck and avoid having to take any action at all.<br /><br />I suspect that if the film were to be made today it would have a different ending with Pimlico remaining independent as a British version of Monaco or San Marino. (Indeed, I suspect that today this concept would probably serve as the basis of a TV sitcom rather than a film). In 1949, however, four years after the end of the war, the film-makers were keen stress patriotism and British identity, so the film ends with Pimlico being reabsorbed into Britain. One of the best-known lines from the film is "We always were English and we always will be English and it's just because we ARE English that we're sticking up for our right to be Burgundians". There is a sharp contrast between the rather heartless attitude of officialdom with the common sense, tolerance and good humour of the Cockneys of Pimlico, all of which are presented as being quintessentially British characteristics.<br /><br />Most of the action takes place during a summer drought and sweltering heatwave, but in the last scene, after Pimlico has rejoined the UK the temperature drops and it starts to pour with rain. Global warming may have altered things slightly, but for many years part of being British was the ability to hold the belief, whatever statistics might say to the contrary, that Britain had an abnormally wet climate. The ability to make jokes about that climate was equally important.<br /><br />There is a good performance from Stanley Holloway as Arthur Pemberton, the grocer and small-time local politician who becomes the Prime Minister of free Pimlico, and an amusing cameo from Margaret Rutherford as a batty history professor. In the main, however, this is, appropriately enough for a film about a small community pulling together, an example of ensemble acting with no real star performances but with everyone making a contribution to an excellent film. It lacks the ill-will and rancour of many more recent satirical films, but its wit and satire are no less effective for all that. It remains one of the funniest satires on bureaucracy ever made and, with the possible exception of "Kind Hearts and Coronets" is my personal favourite among the Ealing comedies. 10/10 | 3 | trimmed_train |
13,139 | This is by far one of my favorite of the American Pie Spin offs mainly because in most of the others the main character (one of the young Stiflers) always seems unrealistic in nature. <br /><br />For example AP: The Naked Mile. You have a teenage guy surrounded by naked college chicks , and has one in particular hot on his trail to rid him of his virginity "problem" and he ends up stopping mid-deed and rides a horse back to sleep with his girlfriend, who keep in mind gave him a "guilt free pass" for the weekend. I can appreciate the romantic aspect of the whole thing but let's be realistic; most people who are watching these movies aren't particularly searching for a romantic story.<br /><br />Whereas the most recent installment finally seems to realize who the audience is and good old Erik Stifler seems to wake up and smell the roses and as always Mr. Levenstein lends his "perfectly natural" eyebrow humor to the equation and scored a touchdown with this new movie. | 3 | trimmed_train |
7,742 | Just about everything in this movie is wrong, wrong, wrong. Take Mike Myers, for example. He's reached the point where you realize that his shtick hasn't changed since his SNL days, over ten years ago. He's doing the same cutesy stream-of-consciousness jokes and the same voices. His Cat is painfully unfunny. He tries way to hard. He's some weird Type A comedian, not the cool cat he's supposed to be. The rest of the movie is just as bad. The sets are unbelievably ugly --- and clearly a waste of millions of dollars. (Cardboard cut-outs for the background buildings would have made more sense than constructing an entire neighborhood and main street.) Alec Balwin tries to do a funny Great Santini impression, but he ends up looking and sounding incoherent. There's even an innapropriate cheesecake moment with faux celebrity Paris Hilton --- that sticks in the mind simply because this is supposed to be a Dr. Seuss story. Avoid this movie at all costs, folks. It's not even an interesting train wreck. (I hope they'll make Horton Hears a Who with Robin Williams. Then we'll have the bad-Seuss movie-starring-spasitc- comedian trilogy.) | 0 | trimmed_train |
21,384 | Weak, fast and multicolor,this is the Valvoline's movie in fact you can see always this brand of oil in a lot of scene. The real protagonist are the cars,weak performances of Cage and Duvall. A intresting Angelina Jolie is a unlikely mechanic. For the lovers of dream car(LAMBORGHINI and FERRARI over all). | 1 | trimmed_train |
8,284 | I can't believe that those praising this movie herein aren't thinking of some other film. I was prepared for the possibility that this would be awful, but the script (or lack thereof) makes for a film that's also pointless. On the plus side, the general level of craft on the part of the actors and technical crew is quite competent, but when you've got a sow's ear to work with you can't make a silk purse. Ben G fans should stick with just about any other movie he's been in. Dorothy S fans should stick to Galaxina. Peter B fans should stick to Last Picture Show and Target. Fans of cheap laughs at the expense of those who seem to be asking for it should stick to Peter B's amazingly awful book, Killing of the Unicorn. | 0 | trimmed_train |
23,634 | Return to Cabin by the Lake is Perhaps one of The Few Sequels that Can Live up to The Original. It Had Black Humor, Good Suspense, Nice Looking Girls, and Of Course, a Psycho Killer. What are We Missing? I Think Nothing. Except we Are Left with a Small Amount of Gore and Nudity because It Was Made for Television. Besides Being one Of The Best Sequels, it is one of The Best Thrillers to Watch as a Family. Recommended for Everyone. | 3 | trimmed_train |
13,916 | RKO had a reputation for making folksy, homespun pieces of Americana.<br /><br />Anne Shirley (as Dawn O'Day) had been in films since she was a toddler. By 1933 she was in limbo - having played Ann Dvorak as a child in "Three on a Match" (1932) and a "flower girl" in both "This Side of Heaven" and "The Key" both in 1934. George Nicholls Jnr remembered Anne's work from a previous film and that's how she got this part. She also adopted Anne Shirley as her stage name. The memorable stories are there - Lady of Shallot in a leaky boat, the "stolen" brooch, the "red hair" incident. Anne was so right for the role of the chatty, heartwarming orphan. She was heartbreaking in her intensity, her eagerness to please and also her fiery temper. O.P. Heggie was wonderful as the understanding Matthew Cuthbert and Helen Westley was fine as the firm Marilla. Tom Brown was an excellent Gilbert Blythe. Gertrude Messinger, who had also been in films as a small child was fine as Diana Barry. Sara Haden proved she could play someone other than Aunt Millie in the Andy Hardy series, was Mrs. Barry. | 1 | trimmed_train |
9,071 | The movie uses a cutting edge title for a lame story. Kill Kill, would have been nice. The movie incorporates taboo scenes to make the viewer move back in their chairs. The scenes are unnecessary and choppy. The movie is something a novice screen writer could have conjured. Just a waste of movie props and network money. I have to write 10 lines of text to critique this film when it is not worth 10 lines of my time, but I have to push on to let the people know to avoid the nonsense. If people are counting on you to choose a good movie for movie night, pick something else. If you have a soul don't damage it by subjecting yourself to this filth. | 0 | trimmed_train |
17,070 | The Five Deadly Venoms is easily the most memorable K.F. flick from the Shaw Brothers' stable (exc. maybe Master Killer). It has the artists who came to be known as simply "The Venoms", some of the best fight choreography ever, and, surprisingly for a Kung Fu movie, a great plot! One of my all-time favorites!!! | 1 | trimmed_train |
10,562 | The original is a relaxing watch, with some truly memorable animated sequences. Unfortunately, the sequel, while not the worst of the DTV sequels completely lacks the sparkle.<br /><br />The biggest letdown is a lack of a story. Like Belle's Magical World, the characters are told through a series of vignettes. Magical World, while marginally better, still manages to make a mess of the story. In between the vignettes, we see the mice at work, and I personally think the antics of Jaq and Gus are the redeeming merits of this movie.<br /><br />The first vignette is the best, about Cinderella getting used to being to being a princess. This is the best, because the mice were at their funniest here. The worst of the vignettes, when Jaq turns into a human, is cute at times, but has a lack of imagination. The last vignette, when Anastasia falls in love, was also cute. The problem was, I couldn't imagine Anastasia being friendly with Cinderella, as I considered her the meaner out of the stepsisters. This was also marred by a rather ridiculous subplot about Lucifer falling in love with PomPom.<br /><br />The incidental music was very pleasant to listen to;however I hated the songs, they were really uninspired, and nothing like the beautiful Tchaikovsky inspired melodies of the original.<br /><br />The characters were the strongest development here. Cinderella while still caring, had lost her sincerity, and a lot of her charm from the original, though she does wear some very pretty clothes. The Duke had some truly funny moments but they weren't enough to save the film, likewise with Prudence and the king. As I mentioned, the mice were the redeeming merits of the movie, as they alone contributed to the film's cuteness. I have to say also the animation is colourful and above average, and the voice acting was surprisingly good.<br /><br />All in all, a cute, if unoriginal sequel, that was marred by the songs and a lack of a story. 4/10 for the mice, the voice acting, the animation and some pretty dresses. Bethany Cox | 2 | trimmed_train |
11,785 | It's been a while since seeing this the first time, so I watched it again with the second movie in the series. While I realize there is a 3rd movie out that I haven't seen yet, I'll review under the original title...<br /><br />Just from the standpoint of production value, screen writing, and movie making, this movie fails on many levels, though it succeeds on a few as well. What can you expect from a low-budget, "B" movie? Not much, and it works from the standpoint of production. However, the writing is certainly disjointed, with little in the way of character development...exactly what I'd expect when there is an agenda to a film. I didn't have a problem with the acting...the cast is solid; however, the screenplay in both movies gives the actors little opportunity to really stretch themselves. Because the film is "Christian," this is predictable, as you can't very well portray violent chaos of the "end times" without also breaking some of the ethics which are normally associated with Christianity. In other words, the mistake comes in making this into a G-rated film when the content, even in the most conservative of Bible interpretations, would be R-rated by any measure. So, if the purpose of the movie is to scare people into Christian faith, then the movie should be somewhat scary, right? However, you can't comment on a film adaptation from a book without commenting on the book, or in this case, series of books. There are certainly plenty of Christian materials worthy enough to be made into movies...but not the "Left Behind" series...and these movies ultimately fail because, while being best-sellers, they are poorly written novels based on bad theology.<br /><br />As a Southern Baptist minister, I confess that the books were a guilty pleasure for me, though I have yet to finish the last two books of the series. I have described them as decent fiction, and if the books would take the point of view that this is one "possibility" or interpretation of the subject of biblical eschatology (study of the "end times), then I could live with that. However, this series is divisive in Christian circles because it promotes the "literalist" interpretation of all Scripture above a more proper hermeneutic. Inevitably, this leads to the "pre-trib, pre-millenial" dispensation point of view, which confines an all-powerful God far too by humanity's world. In other words, as I've always said, God shouldn't need our helicopters and bombs to do his ultimate work. But because many people, particularly unstudied Christians, can't think beyond their own world-views, we are left with a pro-conservative, fundamentalist stance with regard to Bible interpretation, and attempts to push it through as the "only" interpretation.<br /><br />Thus, the books carry with them an agenda, not so much to get the "lost" to understand their need for Christ, but to state that the fundamentalist point of view is the only valid way to understand the Bible. I recall very clearly reading (several years ago) in the second novel a scene where the characters reference a person who was "left behind" BECAUSE of his non-adherence to this point of view; as if "real" christians worthy to be "raptured" couldn't possibly hold to another eschatology. This is disturbing for several reasons, the least of which is because a "rapture" is only briefly mentioned in Scripture and it's connection to real, end-time prophecy is tenuous at best.<br /><br />But the real issue with these books is comes in the way they divide the Christian community and how they portray "true" Christian behavior. Ultimately, I feel they harden more people to an otherwise legitimate faith/religion instead of win people towards it. It turns all Christians into caricatures, equally disdained and laughed at by the world despite the fact that there is theological room for a wide diversity of believes within Christian thought and practice. As a Christian body, on the whole, we've done enough of that kind of damage to society over 2000 years of history...and we certainly don't need to promote it by film to thousands, maybe millions of others.<br /><br />Thus, the "Left Behind" movies fail because the "Left Behind" books aren't worthy to be interpreted into movies. | 2 | trimmed_train |
10,448 | I'm not sure what HK movies the other reviewers have been watching, but Enter the Eagles is nowhere near the top of the heap in HK action. Michael "Fitz" Wong should be glad he can get acting jobs in HK, because he couldn't act his way out of a wet paper bag in English. Shannon Lee looks good and is a fantastic fighter (even better with the leg fighting than her dad), but her acting skills are also sub-par. In fact, all the English dialog (90% of the movie--even more than in Gen-Y Cops) is so bad that I switched to Mandarin audio just to spare myself the misery of the bad dialog delivery and the redundancy of the English subs. Sure, there are some decent gunfights (but nothing we haven't already seen before) and good cinematography, but the cheesy visual effects really spoil the action.<br /><br />That said, it's worth the price of admission to watch Shannon and Benny "The Jet" Urquidez go at it. Spectacular, and almost worth watching the rest of the movie for.<br /><br />Finally, you might notice some scenes that seem "familiar" to you, notably a shootout at an outdoor market (think Matrix) and Fitz diving out of a helicopter wearing black fatigues (think MI:2). Guess someone thought at least a few things in this flick were worth ripping off. | 2 | trimmed_train |
9,285 | What boob at MGM thought it would be a good idea to place the studly Clark Gable in the role of a Salvation Army worker?? Ironically enough, another handsome future star, Cary Grant, also played a Salvation Army guy just two years later in the highly overrated SHE DONE HIM WRONG. I guess in hindsight it's pretty easy to see the folly of these roles, but I still wonder WHO thought that Salvation Army guys are "HOT" and who could look at these dashing men and see them as realistic representations of the parts they played. A long time ago, I used to work for a sister organization of the Salvation Army (the Volunteers of America) and I NEVER saw any studly guys working there (and that includes me, unfortunately). Maybe I should have gotten a job with the Salvation Army instead!<br /><br />So, for the extremely curious, this is a good film to look out for, but for everyone else, it's poor writing, sloppy dialog and annoying moralizing make for a very slow film. | 2 | trimmed_train |
3,626 | It's hard to believe, after waiting 14 years, we wind up with this piece of cinematic garbage. The original was a high impact, dark thriller that achieved "cult" status demonstrating the fine art of cinema as directed by Paul Verhoeven. This film adds nothing, delivers nothing, and ultimately winds up in the big box of failed sequels.<br /><br />The opening sequence could have triggered an intriguing set of plot developments using a considerably talented and able cast. Unfortunately we are treated to a 90 minute dissertation in the self-indulgent life of Catherine Tramell... or is it Sharon Stone. Possibly a copulation of both.<br /><br />If the desire is too see a continuation of the sensually provocative stying of sex as in "B.S.1", forget it. You wind up with soft-porn boredom which ultimately upholds the old adage that a woman can be more alluring in clothes than out of them. It's interesting to note that the wonderful Charlotte Rampling was romping around in her skivvies, via the 1966 GEORGY GIRL, when Ms. Stone was only 8 years old. A very talented actress and quite adept at holding her own even here.<br /><br />If you're a true cinema fan then you must see this film and judge it using your own rating system. If not, you might as well wait for the DVD release in the "rated" version, "unrated" version, "collectors" edition, or "ultimate" version, and perhaps in another 14 years we will be saturated with news of "Basic Instinct 3" at which point Ms. Stone will be 62 years old and nobody will really care. | 0 | trimmed_train |
7,388 | My original review of this film was simply the word sh*t written 2000 times over. Although this was a very accurate critique, I felt my review should be a little more descriptive.<br /><br />I will start with the lead actress; her facial expression doesn't change once in this film, she doesn't show fear, happiness or depression. Her skills in body language pretty much come down to darting her eyes left and right and looking like she don't know jack. She is an emotionless husk who I'm guessing has had too much botox. Her lack of facial expression through out the film is outmatched however by the deplorable love affair with the lead actor which seems to spring out of nowhere and has them making out on a beach and falling in love within a couple of hours of meeting one another. The lead actor, whose hair demands more attention than he did, was mediocre at best and did not once make me feel like he was genuinely in peril.<br /><br />The only thing that tops the hideous acting is the directing, storyline and inaccuracies in plot. I have seen tampon ads with more structure than this movie. The is no development in character, they just seem to say and do things that I could never believe a real person would.<br /><br />This film would not have been bad if it was trying to be crap on purpose like snakes on a plane but it was trying so hard to be a serious action flick that I couldn't even laugh. I believe I now have a brain tumour from watching this film and thinking up all the different ways I could have used that budget and cg team to create something far superior. If I bought this on DVD I would smash the DVD to pieces, burn it then dissolve it in hydrochloric acid for good measure. DON'T WATCH THIS FILM! | 0 | trimmed_train |
9,909 | I too like Dafoe as an actor but i wasted a few hours of my life actually watching this film, I still cant believe i managed to watch it in its entirety. Was there actually a point to the film?, and the ending, well, Im glad i never paid to see this awful pointless piece of pathetic excuse of a film!<br /><br />Im not sure without hunting the facts out but is Dafoe married or seeing the awful actress in this film in real life, if so was it an attempt to kick start her career?, if so im afraid it must have failed..<br /><br />I post this in the hope i can actually put someone off watching this film, even if 1 person takes heed of my comments and decides they would much rather watch paint drying i will feel i have made some good in the world, if only i had had the same advice... | 0 | trimmed_train |
17,608 | The accountant Shohei Sugiyama (Kôji Yakusho) is feeling bored with his routine life, limited to hard work and stay at home with his wife Masako Sugiyama (Hideko Hara) and his teenager's daughter. One night, while traveling home by train, he sees the beautiful face of Mai Kishikawa (Tamiyo Kusakari) in the balcony of a dance school, and a couple of days later, he decides to visit the school and secretly take ballroom dance lessons every Wednesdays night. However, he becomes ashamed to tell his family his secret. Meanwhile, Masako feels the changes in the behavior of her happier husband, and hires a private eye to investigate whether Shohei is having an affair.<br /><br />I have just finished watching "Shall We Dansu?" and I really loved it. What a lovely and delightful movie! The story is amazingly good, with drama, comedy and romance. The cast is excellent, and I was particularly impressed with the cold beauty and graciousness of the wife of the director Masayuki Suo and professional ballet dancer Tamiyo Kusakari. On last September 06th, I saw the American remake of "Shall We Dansu?" for the first time, and I found it a delightful entertainment. But now I can say that it is another unnecessary remake, and I recommend this original film instead. My vote is ten.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Dança Comigo?" ("Dance With Me?") | 3 | trimmed_train |
5,852 | This was another obscure Christmas-related title, a low-budget Mexican production from exploitation film-maker Cardona (NIGHT OF THE BLOODY APES [1969], TINTORERA! [1977]), which like many a genre effort from this country was acquired for release in the U.S. by K. Gordon Murray. Judging by those two efforts already mentioned, Cardona was no visionary and, this one having already received its share of flak over here, is certainly no better! The film, in fact, is quite redolent of the weirdness which characterized Mexican horror outings from the era, but given an added dimension by virtue of the garish color (which, in view of the prominence of reds apart from St. Nick himself, the Devil plays a major role in the proceedings throughout, was essential). Anyway, in a nutshell, the plot involves Satan's efforts to stall Santa Claus' Christmas Eve rendezvous with the Earth's children; there is, however, plenty more wackiness along the way: to begin with, our portly, white-bearded and chronically merry man-in-red lives in a celestial palace who, apart from accompanying toy-maker kids from all over the world on his piano as they sing (laboriously for the whole first reel!) in their native tongue, visits Merlin the famed magician at King Arthur's court, here bafflingly but amusingly prone to child-like hopping and mumbling gibberish! once every year to acquire potions which would bring somnolence to the young and render himself invisible (by the way, the Wizard's anachronistic presence here is no less unlikely than his being a cohort of Dr. Frankenstein in SON OF Dracula [1974]!!); incidentally, by this time, he always seems to have gained some excess weight
so Santa has to work out in order to be able to fit into each proverbial chimney! The Devil's antics (enthusiastically rubbing his hands together at every turn and generally hamming it up) to hold up St. Nick's delivery program, then, is perfectly puerile: indeed, their tit-for-tat shenanigans resemble an old Laurel & Hardy routine more than anything! To pad out the running-time, we focus on three sets of children: one, the lonely son of a rich couple who wants nothing more for Christmas than their company (projected as a wish-fulfillment fantasy where the boy finds his parents wrapped in extra-large packages!), a girl from a poor family who yearns to own a doll of her own (the horned one first tempts her to steal one, then invades the little one's dreams to no avail) and a trio of brats who, egged on once again by Satan, think of nothing but causing mischief and eventually fall out amongst themselves. There is definitely imagination at work here, but it is applied with little rhyme or reason, while the overall juvenile approach keeps entertainment (unless one counts the film as a guilty pleasure) well at bay! | 0 | trimmed_train |
7,228 | If I accidentally stumbled across this script in textual form i would read it and maybe laugh. I would not, however laugh at the points in the film where the director would seem to want me to laugh. Although I am still not altogether sure where these are. I don't care if this is Woody Allen, this writer cannot write dialogue, or at least he cannot knowingly write dialogue then draw performances from actors capable of drawing laughter from even the most ticklish of clowns. For example:<br /><br />(paraphrase) "I'm an art historian, i'm looking to get a job in an art gallery." <br /><br />OK, so it states the fact but honestly, do you know of any art historians who would say that? How would you answer? <br /><br />"Really? An art gallery? who would've thought it?"<br /><br />The entire script is littered with the kind of tawdry quasi-intellectualism that i would not have expected from such a respected character writer. I admit that I have no knowledge of Allen's other work and, judging by this one i don't want to start learning. The characters are loathsome without exception, an attempt to illustrate that we all suffer from the human condition? Or really really poor character writing? You be the judge. | 0 | trimmed_train |
12,745 | Definitely spoilers in this review! I **adore** American Gothic and have done since I first saw it late at night when it first aired on Ch4 in the UK when I was 14. The comparisons made to Stephen King are just about right. It's small town supernatural eeriness but with fantastic layered characters. Best of all, and the reason I love it so much, is it had the guts to never be black and white! Lucas Buck though lacking any conscience often works by, as he says, giving people enough rope to hang themselves with. His manipulation only works because of other people's weak morals. Caleb though generally a thoughtful, kind, insightful boy can at times show the latent dark side inherited from his father. None of the characters are wholly good or bad with even the angelic Merlyn showing a wrathful side through reckless vengeance in The Plague Sower. Not only that but having Gail, the closest thing to a mother figure for Caleb, not only sleep with but fall in love with Lucas despite all she knows made me realise this show would just go there and not apologise for it. I'm a huge Buffy fan, but when that show tried to go really 'dark' in later seasons it failed miserably because it lost it's humorous side and didn't commit fully to its ideas. AG shows that you can have a morally bankrupt character right at the heart of the show, and still have a hell of laugh doing it.<br /><br />I can't even think about why it was cancelled as I'll just get too angry at the ridiculousness of it all. So much rubbish on TV and good, original shows get kicked around and stamped on. Thanks to the emergence of DVD at least I can see the show in it's entirety! Yes some of the visuals look dated now, but the creepy strange atmosphere is provided well enough by the story lines. The actors also all give such perfect performances that it more than makes up for some odd camera work.<br /><br />The only reason why I think someone may not like this show is that it isn't like the X-files where there are cases to 'solve' or Lost where there's huge unanswered questions. It's pretty obvious from the get go that Lucas Buck has some kind of evil powers, and that the show is all about fighting for Caleb's soul. So this show might frustrate people looking for a purpose or an unknown 'truth' to find. Yes there are some mysterious unanswered aspects, with some such as the truth about Gails parents getting resolved, but unlike Lost and X-files this show isn't about trying to find out more 'facts' about what's going on IMO. It's all about the characters and the way they have to confront moral choices in the twisted world of Trinity. Personally I would just get such a kick out of seeing Lucas turn every situation to his advantage.<br /><br />All in all the main thing I have to say is CHECK IT OUT. I'm pretty certain most fantasy/horror fans will LOVE it. Also even though it got cancelled all characters have arcs and there is enough in the finale to give some small sense of closure. The only hanging thread I felt was Dr Matt. Having him not be in the final episodes is strange. <br /><br />I would have done anything for a second season, but at least the full 22 episodes exist and perhaps given how brainless some TV execs appear to be I should be glad this wonderful show got made at all!!! | 3 | trimmed_train |
18,735 | I last read a Nancy Drew book about 20 years ago, so much of my memory of the fictional character is probably faulty. From what I gathered, the books were introduced to me at an era when teenage sleuths were popular to children growing up at the time (for my case, the 80s and early 90s), with Hardy Boys, Famous Five, and of course, "Carolyn Keene"'s Nancy Drew amongst the more famous ones. I still remember those hardcover books with very dated cover illustrations, usually quite heavy (for a kid) to lug around, and the thickness of the book perhaps attributed to the fact that the words are printed in large fonts.<br /><br />Well, the character has been given some updates along the way, as I recall my sister's subsequent Nancy Drew books becoming less thick, of softcover, with updated and a more chic Nancy illustrated on the cover. I can't remember if those stories were the same as the old hardcover ones, but I guess these books, being ghostwritten, have their fair share of updating itself for the times.<br /><br />In this Warner Brothers release of Nancy Drew, the character no doubt gets its update to suit the times, but somehow the writers Andrew Fleming and Tiffany Paulsen maintained her 50s- ish small town sensibilities, thereby retaining some charm and flavour that erm, folks like me, would appreciate. Her fashion sense, her prim and properness, even some quirky little behaviour traits that makes her, well, Nancy Drew.<br /><br />Her family background remains more or less the same, living with her single parent father Carson Drew (Tate Donovan), who is moving his daughter and himself to the big city for a better job opportunity, and to wean his daughter off sleuthing in the town of River Heights. Mom is but a distant memory, and the housemaid makes a cameo. But what made Nancy Drew work, is the casting of Emma Roberts in the lead role. Niece of her famous aunt Julia, she too possess that sprightly demeanour, that unmistakable red hair and that megawatt smile. Her Nancy Drew, while in the beginning does seem to rub you the wrong way, actually will grow on you. And in almost what I thought could be a discarded scene from Pretty Woman, it had the characters walk into a classy shop with almost opposite reactions.<br /><br />While Dad Carson Drew tries hard to bring Nancy out of her sleuthing environment and to assimilate into normal teenage life, trust Nancy to find themselves living in a house whose owner, a Hollywood type has been, was found murdered under suspicious circumstances. Mystery solving is her comfort food when she finds herself an outcast of the local fraternity, and not before long we're whisked off along with her on her big screen adventure.<br /><br />There's nothing too Black Dahlia about the crime and mystery, and instead it's a pretty straightforward piece for Nancy to solve, in between befriending Corky (Josh Flitter) a chubby friend from school, and pacifying jealous boyfriend Ned (Max Thieriot), while hiding the truth of her extra curriculum activities from her dad. The story's laced with cheesy fun and an oldie sentimentality which charms, and together, it becomes somewhat scooby-doo like. With minimal violence and no big bag gunfights or explosions, this is seriously a genre which is labelled clearly with "chick flick" alert.<br /><br />I guess the movie will generate a new generation of fans, rekindle the memories of old ones, and probably, just probably, might spark a new fashion trend of sporting penny loafers. | 1 | trimmed_train |
22,645 | There are good ways to make a movie and bad ways and this very much the former. This short caper exacts nothing more than what it gives to the audience. It presents a simple story, told very plainly with enough wisecracks to keep you going, then just gets better and better. Clooney's cameo is funny and very welcome but the leads including Sam Rockwell and Luiz Guzman can easily make it on their own. Likeable and funny, hilariously so towards the end, Welcome to Collinwood is a welcome addition to the heist genre. | 1 | trimmed_train |
5,626 | All you really need to know about this movie comes after the opening scene, where a guy falls into a lake and gets eaten. Then they start rolling the title credits: You see "Slugs!" in big letters, followed shortly thereafter by "The Movie." WHEW! I was worried I had accidentally tuned into "Slugs: The Musical" or "Slugs: The Game Show." Anyway, from there the movie deteriorates into a kill-fest. You see a guy cut his hand off because he had slugs in his gardening glove, two people get attacked by slugs while having sex, and a girl falling on her back in an underground passageway get stung to death by killer slugs. It's a pretty silly movie, falling in the "so-bad-it's-good" category. It also is shot so poorly with such grainy film that you're shocked to learn it was made in 1988 (my guess was 1974). I'm VERY surprised it has received as high a score as it has here, because most people here don't give those types of movie any love. But if you want a movie that tries to be scary but ends up being laughable, this is one of your prime candidates. | 0 | trimmed_train |
1,646 | The Dereks did seem to struggle to find rolls for Bo after "10".<br /><br />I used to work for a marine park in the Florida Keys. One day, the script for "Ghosts Can't Do It" was circulating among the trainers in the "fish house" where food was prepared for the dolphins. There was one scene where a -dolphin- supposedly propositions Bo (or Bo the dolphin), asking to "go make eggs." Reading the script, we -lauuughed-...<br /><br />We did not end up doing any portion of this movie at our facility, although our dolphins -were- in "The Big Blue!"<br /><br />This must have been very close to the end of Anthony Quinn's life. I hope he had fun in this film, as it certainly didn't do anything for his legacy. | 0 | trimmed_train |
7,077 | The Good:<br /><br />Effective color scheme. Good costumes. Top notch set production. Well detailed CGI buildings and vehicles.<br /><br />The Bad:<br /><br />Horrible mixture of actors with all CGI actors mixes Fifth Element with Final Fantasy. The CGI actors look even worse than video games from a few years ago. Flawed logic. A giant pyramid shows up and no one researches it, no one really even questions it? And there is no explanation as to why the god Horus was even cast out, nor was there any reason why he must do something as trivial as impregnate Jill?<br /><br />The Ugly:<br /><br />Awful script. So many unnecessary subplots with too many ideas that are not fully realized. The dialog was almost laughable at some points. Random characters and events that are not needed. Dull characters. Jill is supposed to be this mystery, but apparently she was just a mystery to the writer. There is nothing to her. She is uninteresting and boring to watch. She has no substance, no texture. Her character has no redeeming qualities. In fact, there is not one character in the entire film who has any purpose, any goals (besides the obvious one of Horus), any motivation. They are weak and ill-conceived. There are no stakes - the key to screen writing. Horus will not become immortal, but, big deal, he is a bad guy. One cannot even decipher whether Horus or Jill is the main character. That is the problem: devoting half the movie to each character means the writer never fully explores one character, never brings one to fruition. They are cardboard cut-outs who walk around and talk and pretty much do nothing but explore the fine set pieces. First time director pacing. Slow, slow, slow. I am still watching the movie as I write this. I cannot pay attention because it is boring. Everything is flat. Even the action is not interesting because it is short-lived and sometimes unnecessary.<br /><br />Overall:<br /><br />Not worth a watch. Threadbare story, sub-par character development, corny CGI does not save the nice set production. | 0 | trimmed_train |
2,495 | This movie is a 90 minute Ramones concert with brief periods of stupidity and absolute boredom. What kind of high school is this anyway?<br /><br />Unless you are a major Ramones fan, DO NOT and I repeat DO NOT waste your time like I did. This is utterly unwatchable from start to finish. This movie should be called Ramone Fever. Everyone appears to like them in this movie. There is not a plot to be found in this flick. As far as teen comedies go, you are scraping the bottom of the barrel with this one. | 0 | trimmed_train |
18,861 | This movie is about this wimpy guy who decides to become a spy for a glamorous high tech company named Digicorp. This wimpy guy, Morgan (Jeremy Northam) is unhappy with his miserable suburban life and his demanding wife so he decides to become a spy. He is suppose to go to conventions from other high tech companies and find out all the companies' plans. Instead, Morgan finds himself attracted to a beautiful woman (played by Lucy Liu) and pretty much being double-crossed by these two companies that force him to become a double agent. How will Morgan get himself out of this? Can he trust the beautiful but mysterious Rita Foster (played by Lucy Liu)? And more importantly, can Morgan make it out alive? Wow! What a nifty movie! I was completely sucked in after 15 minutes of watching this movie. It is very suspenseful and you can feel Morgan's fear and confusion as he is doing his best to stay alive. The scene where they put this horrible contraption on Morgan's head to brainwash him is brilliantly creepy and frightening. Morgan slowly goes through a personality transformation that is not so readily apparent until you think about it after the film is finished. From a wimpy guy with bad hair and glasses, he turns into a man actively fighting for his life.<br /><br />The ending, wow, the ending is incredible! The twist is so much fun! It left me gasping and cheering like crazy! Good performances from all around, especially from Jeremy Natham, Lucy Liu and Nigel Bennett.<br /><br />I highly recommend this film! | 1 | trimmed_train |
17,901 | Okay, this film probably deserves 7 out of 10 stars, but I've voted for "10" to help offset the misleading rating from the handful of bozo's who gave this film zero or 1 star reviews. Each of the segments for this anthology shows great potential and promise for the talented filmmakers... three of whom have gone on to achieve notable success in big-time Hollywood productions. Performances range from rough all the way up to completely impressive, with notable turns by Bill Paxton, James Karen, Vivian Schilling and Brion James. Martin Kove may be a big melodramatic as the psychotic hypnotist with the bizarro strobe-lamp, and Lance August seems intentionally dimwitted as an unsuspecting lab victim. But overall, it's got some great laughs and some genuinely scary moments. Definitely worth seeing, so judge for yourself! | 3 | trimmed_train |
12,203 | "The Leap Years" is a movie adapted from an e-novella by Singapore writer Catherine Lim, which became the first Singapore novel/novella to be sold over the internet. The film had a tortuous post-production schedule: shot in early 2005, it was slated for release at the end of 2005, but only turn up eventually 3 years later, on the 29th February 2008, a leap year.<br /><br />Before I say anything, I must first admit I'm no fan of the romance genre, so I may be a little biased against this film - I watched it merely because it was a Singapore production, and that it's available for borrowing at my neighborhood library. Here's my two cents on the movie.<br /><br />Let's just start by saying that other than Qi Yu-wu's KS and Wong Li-Lin, everybody here of note seems to be a Eurasian. The love interest is a Eurasian (Ananda Everingham), and Wong's trio of buddies are all, er-hem, Eurasians. Does this film perpetuate the stereotype that falling in love and associating with Eurasians are more "in" than the common Chinese (or whatever Asian race you are?) I don't know, it sure seems that way. Also, everyone in the movie speaks in some mystical "anglified" accent which doesn't exist anywhere, certainly not in Singapore. It's the kind of "semi-perfect English" that authorities would like us speak, but which doesn't exist anywhere outside, say, the MTV Channel. The effect is that the dialog of the movie sounds forced and stilted, not helped by the lack of true-blue Singaporeans in the cast.<br /><br />The scriptwriter seems to be trying too hard to string one-liners after one-liners. After twenty minutes, the "wit" of the movie starts to pall and the film starts serving up its usual plate of clichés. <br /><br />I guess I didn't enjoy the movie because the entire premise of sustaining a love affair over 16 long years seems unbelievable. <br /><br />There are other incredulities in the film. I can't for one believe that KS (played by Qi Yu-wu) would fall for one of Wong's girlfriends. And the scene where the bridegroom says, "Go, before I change my mind," has been used in a hundred East Asian (Korean, Chinese, Hong Kong, Taiwanese etc) TV serials...<br /><br />So 4 stars for this film. The production value is fair, and Wong Li-lin tries her best, but she's not helped by the script. Joan Chen has a 15-minute bit-part in the movie as the older Wong and is perhaps the best actress of the lot, but, hey, her role is just cameo.<br /><br />If you come across "The Leap Years" in the rental or library, you may want to pop it in the DVD player for curiosity's sake, but otherwise, for people who don't exactly enjoy the romance genre, you can decide whether or not to give it a miss. | 2 | trimmed_train |
15,448 | This movie can be described in those 2 words "just unbelievable". This is the best movie ever made, I just cant see why this movie isnt in the top 250. I also can't see why anybody would not love Scarface. Anyways, if you havnt seen it, it is a must buy. | 3 | trimmed_train |
20,842 | Paris is the place to be to enjoy beautiful art and music, and to fall madly in love - as is the case in this film. Boy meets girl, they fall in love, but something stands in their way of eternal happiness, the classic story.<br /><br />The wonderful music of George Gerschwin complements the great dancing by Gene Kelly and Leslie Caron. "An American in Paris" is a humorous, light-hearted, loving film well worth watching.<br /><br />8/10<br /><br /> | 1 | trimmed_train |
20,525 | "Like the first touch of pleasure and guilt, like a spontaneous youthful flirt of fascination and fear, like a climax of contrary emotions" said one of the movie buffs after viewing LOVE AT THE TOP, the misinterpreted title version of stylish director Michel Deville's LE MOUTON ENRAGE. <br /><br />Vincent Canby in New York Times, however, just after the 1974 premiere of the movie stated: "LOVE AT THE TOP which opened yesterday at the 68th Street Playhouse, is a 1973 French comedy that dimly recalls a number of nineteen-fifties English comedies about the rise and rise of cynical young men possessingand possessed byambition." Yet, the significant difference that he mentioned was the fact that LOVE AT THE TOP is not concerned with the English class system...(January 27, 1975)<br /><br />Having left the evaluations up to single individuals, of course, the test of time has done its just job. What may be said with certainty after more than 30 years is that we can hardly find such movies like LE MOUTON ENRAGE where decadence appears innocent, where liaisons appear youthfully enthusiastic, where feelings occur so manipulative. <br /><br />For Romy Schneider's fans, it seems useless to point out that this film is a must see, not only because she gives a unique performance (as she did in all of her roles) at the heyday of her career (9 years before her sudden death) but because she is particularly attractive here. It is not TRIO INFERNAL where the, so to say, 'forced escape' from and the mockery of Romy's sweet image haunted for years by saccharine Sissi meets its most discouraging manifestation, but a film where the brilliant actress is given a fair role. She plays Roberte, a woman who becomes the object of lust for the story's lead, playboy Nicolas Mallet (Jean Louis Trintignant). It is him who takes financial profits from lustful liaisons. This movie can boast truly memorable and unique shots of Romy and she is given some of her very best scenes. Romy's sex appeal is unforgettable here.<br /><br />Another strong point of the film is its execution of the content with a development of individual perception. Immoral as it may seem, the director makes a perfect use of contrast: conventions vs pleasures, innocence vs decadence, genuine lust vs instrumental affair. Nicola owns most of the features that viewers may like or detest, may find attractive or disgusting; yet, his are the features the viewers must treat seriously, more to say, they are the ones we all must accept. That is why, one is led to a peculiar, gently wild, erotically unique world of the main character. Although he sleeps with lots of women, there are two women that represent a sort of contrary worlds for Nicola: Roberte Groult (Romy Schneider) and Marie-Paul (Jane Birkin). He manipulates them, makes love to them, cannot refrain from both desire for their bodies and desire for money; yet, he perceives them differently. Yet, despite all of this 'adult maturity,' he is emotionally like a little boy who plays with a toy-car on the table - a sort of 'detailed insight into male mind...' in a comedy-like way, of course.<br /><br />Finally, there are very good performances, which makes LE MOUTON ENRAGE slightly underrated. Not only the aforementioned Romy Schneider does a brilliant job supplying the viewers with an extraordinary insight into her role, but young Jane Birkin appears to be convincing in the role of young, inexperienced streetwalker Marie Paul, Jean Louis Trintignant makes it possible to see Nicola in the right way. This artistic merit lying in performances goes with terrific music by Camille Saint-Saëns, the tune that will ring in your ears for long. Therefore, apart from some flaws of the movie like dated colors, slow action (sometimes), possible clichés (noticed by some viewers), the merits should be found significant. <br /><br />LE MOUTON ENRAGE, in sum, is a clear manifestation of contrary manipulative tools in life. It is worth seeing as a moment in Romy's career, a prelude to strong eroticism, a chain of contrary emotions, of love and hatred, appreciation and disgust compared to the first orgasm and the first angasm... But aren't we, humans, 'viewers,' movie buffs built upon such contrasts? | 1 | trimmed_train |
20,344 | The Road Rovers was a great show about canine superheroes chosen by the Master to fight crime around the world. The show was hilarious to say the least. Simple and complex jokes that could appeal to all ages. Running jokes throughout the series that could spawn a drinking game. The action was mesmerizing, and cleverly set up. The characters were very original, each with a very different personality. But what made me enjoy the show the most was the depth of the characters. Each of them have struggles and emotional difficulties that are never expressed, but implied in subtext. Hopefully, one day, there'll be some way to watch the Rovers in action again. | 3 | trimmed_train |
23,069 | THE TENANTS began as a 1971 short novel by the now deceased Bernard Malamud - writer/philosopher - examining the conflicts between Jews and African Americans in the incendiary atmosphere of Brooklyn at the time the book was written. As a novel the story was gut wrenchingly real: as transcribed into a screenplay by novices David Diamond and Danny Green (who also directs) it is more of a cerebral dissertation that gradually erupts into action in the final moments.<br /><br />Harry Lesser (Dylan McDermott) is a Jewish novelist with one book under his belt but currently attempting to finish his 'newest' book ten years into the writing. Convinced that he must complete the novel in the same environment where it was started. he is the sole tenant in a condemned Brooklyn tenement owned by Levinspiel (Seymour Cassel) who constantly tries to 'buy out' Harry's lease so that the filthy dilapidated building can be demolished. Into this atmosphere enters another Black militant quasi-anti-Semitic writer Willie Spearmint (Snoop Dogg) whom Harry befriends, hides, and offers help to the nascent novelist's attempt to write about the death of all white people. Harry's attempts to help Willie lead to conflict, not the least of which is Harry's meeting Willie's girlfriend, the white Jewish Irene Bell (Rose Byrne) at a less than friendly gathering of Willie's militant black brothers and sisters. Willie and Irene are on the skids and Harry gradually falls in love with Irene and they plan to leave New York as soon as Harry finishes his novel. When Willie hears of the assignation and is further critiqued by Harry, Willie explodes and begins the downward descent of not only a delicate friendship but also a competition between writers. The ending 'reveals the slippery nature of the human condition, and the human capacity for violence and undoing'.<br /><br />The actors do their best with a script that is a bit awkward but despite scripted lines that border on preaching they create believable characters. The cinematography enhances the story, keeping the mood dank and dense and primarily confined to the condemned building. The musical score appropriately makes use of the solo jazz trumpet and blues piano to underline the tension and isolation of each of these groundless characters. Though it takes some patience to make it through the cerebral ramblings, the film in the end is worth watching. At least it attempts to recreate Malamud's bizarre look at life in the big city. Grady Harp | 1 | trimmed_train |
11,104 | I read the book a long time back and don't specifically remember the plot but do remember that I enjoyed it. Since I'm home sick on the couch it seemed like a good idea and Hey !! It is a Lifetime movie.<br /><br />The movie is populated with grade B actors and actresses.<br /><br />The female cast is right out of Desperate Housewives. I've never seen the show but there are lots of commercials for the show and I get the gist. Is there nothing original anymore? Sure, but not on Lifetime.<br /><br />The male cast are all fairly effeminate looking and acting but the girls need to have husbands I suppose.<br /><br />In one scene a female is struggling with a male, for her life, and what does she do??? Kicks him in the testicles. What else? Women love that but let me tell you girls something... It's not as easy as it's always made to look.<br /><br />It wasn't all bad. I did get the chills a time or two so I have to credit someone with that. | 2 | trimmed_train |
17,145 | Pakeezah has a very interesting history (which is well documented in the 'Trivia' section) about how it came to be. It seems as if destiny conspired to test Kamal Amrohi (the director) while at the same time secretly desiring to see him complete his masterpiece.<br /><br />Pakeezah rides on metaphors, poetry and visual elocution. As a result the intensity with which emotions come out achieve a dimension which may not be very real but are very effective and leave an impact on the viewer.<br /><br />Meena Kumari lives the tragedy of Nargis and Sahib Jaan like her own. The other stars of the film, besides her, are Ghulam Mohammed (the music director), Lata Mangeshkar, Naushad (background score) and Joseph Wirsching (the d.o.p). Their music and cinematography leaves you spell bound.<br /><br />Pakeezah is a classic in world cinema. It reveals new layers to you every time you watch it again. Kamal Amrohi is one of the rare poets of cinema and he left us all a gift. | 3 | trimmed_train |
9,842 | Reasons to watch the movie:<br /><br />1) Bo Derek at 16 looks good and occasionally gets naked. She does a pretty good job playing an immature, insecure 16 year old beauty, in fact<br /><br />2) Many shots of a pretty Greek island<br /><br />But:<br /><br />1) Peter Hooten turns in the worst performance by an actor since Brutus played Caeser's friend in "Roman Senate Proceedings of March 15." He delivers each and every line in a delightful baritone bellow. Turn down the volume whenever he speaks. Preferably all the way down<br /><br />2) Bo's fantasies are sadly tame, especially by today's standards. A few turns in the bath and as a fully clothed model<br /><br />3) The plot is skimpier than Bo's costumes | 2 | trimmed_train |
23,032 | Bette Davis' cockney accent in this film is absolutely appalling. I totally understand that Americans and other nationalities mightn't realise this and that's fine; but believe me, it's about half as good as Dick Van Dyke's cockney accent in Mary Poppins, and that was a right load of old pony (slipped into London vernacular there - many apologies).<br /><br />The remarkable thing to me is that the strange accents and exaggerated acting styles don't detract from the films' power. Of Human Bondage is a fascinating piece of cinema despite its superficial faults. It also has to be viewed in perspective. The technical and cultural limitations of film making at the time have to be appreciated, and given those limitations John Cromwell does a very good job directing the camera and allowing the narrative to develop cinematically rather than solely via the mannered acting and stilted dialogue. A fine example of his skillful direction is the scene set at Victoria Station. It is beautifully conceived, shot and edited. Note too the stark shots of the prostrate Mildred towards the end of the film; they owe more to the early days of artistic film making than the sanitised, formulaic world of the studio that was about to dominate.<br /><br />The themes of the film are universally familiar and compelling ones: sexual obsession, unrequited love, scorned passion, self-loathing, manipulative relationships, social divides and youthful folly. Though the dialogue is often rather hackneyed, the difficult task of portraying these themes and the inner lives of the characters is tackled well albeit in a low-key way. Some of the scenes of obsession and emotional rejection are uncomfortable to watch but the story doesn't descend into cliché; we're aware that the characters (even the poisonous Mildred) are both victims and perpetrators, and that their actions are motivated by their misunderstanding of each others feelings as well as by wilful selfishness. Whilst naive in style the story reaches to the complex heart of the human condition and the mannered nature of the acting and the occasionally grating exchanges don't diminish the veracity of the work.<br /><br />Of Human Bondage was one of the films that got Bette Davis noticed in Hollywood and whilst watching it you are conscious of being witness at the birth of a celebrated career. Her unconventional beauty and screen charisma (no one flounced or did disdain quite like Ms Davis) grab your attention from her first appearance. Whilst hers is definitely the memorable performance in the film, Leslie Howard is also excellent as the sensitive and fragile student Philip Carey. They are a good combination, though, why oh why didn't he help her with that terrible, terrible accent!? | 1 | trimmed_train |
10,333 | Herculis Puaro is, in general, a well established 'hero' we know well from books and movies. This movie or this story don't work and i felt its not Agatha's mistake. The cast isn't good, the actors are over exaggerating and making foolish gestures, the costumes are so clean and tidy that everything (even Arab clothes) look fake and for the serious spectator who thinks twice this movie can be seen as a comedy instead of mystery drama. The actor playing Herculis Puaro is doing a nice job but nothing fantastic. The scenes are, as said before, perfect and looking fake. The story is not very enchanting although a mystery of murder but who cares about the death of a loony and vicious blond 45+ woman in the iraqi desert?! The 'victim' is not likable. | 0 | trimmed_train |
3,922 | Sundown - featuring the weakest, dorkiest vampires ever seen, accompanied by one of the most unfitting, pretentious scores ever written - and with Shane the vampire, who's every move and spoken word was so ridiculous that I burst out laughing half the times and rolled my eyes the rest.<br /><br />The vampires don't seem to have any special powers at all - except for strength (sometimes), being able to switch off a lamp with their mind (one time) and... that's it, really. Ever imagine count Dracula worriedly recoiling from a fight 'cause he ran out of bullets? Neither did I. Practically any other movie-Dracula would eat this one for breakfast, skin his followers and use their bones as toothpicks.<br /><br />The main plot of the movie is that a human family of four gets caught up in a vampire gang fight - Dracula's vs. some old geezer's. It could have been some good old B-flick fun, but the overly dramatic music was clearly written by someone who took this movie a bit too seriously, and ends up ruining the remaining part of the movie not already ruined by clay bats, mediocre acting and the laughable screenplay.<br /><br />In the end it's just too silly to be funny. Sure, it has some amusing moments, but they're few, and far apart. | 0 | trimmed_train |
19,703 | I have just recently been through a stage where I wanted to see why it is that horror films of the 90's can't hold a candle to 70's and 80's horror films. I have been very public in this forum about the vileness of films like The Haunting and Urban Legend and such. I feel that they (and others like them) don't know what true horror is. And it bothered me to the point where it made me go to my local video store and rent some of the classic horror films. I already own all the Friday's so I rented The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, the original Nightmare On Elm Street, Jaws, The Exorcist, Angel Heart, The Exorcist and Halloween. Now the other films are classics in their own right but it is here that I want to tell you about Halloween. Because what Halloween does is perhaps something no other film in the history of horror film can do, and that is it uses subtle techniques, techniques that don't rely on blood and gore, and it uses these to scare the living daylights out of you. I was in a room by myself with the lights off and as silly as I knew it was, I wanted to look behind me to see if Michael Myers was there. No movie that I have seen in the last ten years has done that to me. No movie.<br /><br />John Carpenter took a low budget film and he scared a generation of movie goers. He showed that you don't need budgets in the 8 or 9 figures to evoke fear on an audience. Because sometimes the best element of fear is not what actually happens, but what is about to happen. What was that shadow? What was that noise upstairs? He knows that these are the ways to scare someone and he uses every element of textbook horror that I think you can use. I even think he made up some of his own ideas and these should be ideas that people use today. But they don't. No one uses lighting and detail to provoke scares, they use special effects and rivers of blood. And it is just not the same. You can't be scared by a giant special effect that makes loud noises and jumps out of a wall. It's the moments when the killer is lurking, somewhere, you just don't know where, that scare you. And Halloween succeeds like no other film in this endeavor.<br /><br />In 1963 a young Micael Myers kills his sister with a large butcher knife and then spends the next 15 years of his life, silently locked up in an institute. As Loomis ( his doctor) says to Sheriff Brackett, " I spent eight years trying to reach him and then another seven making sure that he never gets out, because what I saw behind those eyes was pure e-vil. " That sets up the manic and relentless idea of a killer that will stop at nothing to get what he wants. And all he wants here is to kill Laurie. No one know why he wants to kill her, but he does.( Halloween II continues the story quite well )<br /><br />What Carpenter has done here is taken a haunting score, mendacious lighting techniques and wrote and directed a tightly paced masterpiece of horror. There is one scene that has to be described. And that is the scene where Annie is on her way to pick up Paul. She goes to the car and tries to open it. Only then does she realize that she has left her keys in the house. She gets them, comes back out and inadvertently opens the car door without using the keys. The audience picks up on this but she doesn't. She is too busy thinking about Paul. When she sits down, she notices that the windows are fogged up. She is puzzled and starts to wipe away the mist, and then Myers strikes, from the back seat. This is such a great scene because it pays attention to detail. We know what is happening and Annie doesn't. But it's astute observations that Carpenter made that scared the hell out of movie goers in 1978 and beyond. <br /><br />Halloween uses blurry images of a killer standing in the background, it has shadows ominously gliding across a wall, dark rooms, creepy and haunting music, a sinister story told hauntingly by Donald Pleasance and a menacing, relentless killer. My advice to film makers in our day and age is to study Halloween. It should be the blue print for what scary movies are all about. After all, Carpenter followed in Hitchcock's steps, maybe director's should follow in his.<br /><br />Halloween personifies everything that scares us. If you are tired of all the mindless horror films that don't know the difference between evil and cuteness, then Halloween is a film that should be seen. It won't let you down. I enjoy being scared, I don't know why, but I do. But nothing has scared me in the 90's, except maybe one film ( Wes Craven's final Nightmare ). If you enjoy beings scared, then Halloween is one that you should see. And if you have already seen it a hundred times, go and watch it again, back to back with a film like Urban Legend. Urban Legend will have you enticed at all the pretty faces in the movie. Halloween will have you frozen with fear, stuck in your seat, not wanting to move. Now tell me, what horror film would you rather watch?<br /><br />And just to follow up after seeing Zombie's version, it makes you appreciate this that much more. This is a classic by definition. Zombie bastardized his version, but it doesn't take away from the brilliance of this one. | 3 | trimmed_train |
14,496 | This is a very funny movie! I have no idea whether it translates well into other languages or not. However, I do think men all over the world can identify with "Frank" and his thoughts to some extent! These thoughts are hugely entertaining and women will also enjoy this movie I'm sure!<br /><br />All cast members perform well, and this film could have been a tremendous hit all over the world if it was made in England or the US. But for those of you who are fortunate enough to understand Swedish, you are in for a treat!<br /><br />Highly recommended. | 1 | trimmed_train |
21,090 | Having just watched this film again from a 1998 showing off VH-1, I just had to comment.<br /><br />The first time I saw this film on TV, it was about 1981, and I remember taping it off of my mother's betamax. It wound up taping in black and white for some reason, which gave it a period look that I grew to like.<br /><br />I remember very distinctively the film beginning with the song, "My Bonnie", as the camera panned over a scene of Liverpool. I also remember the opening scene where Paul gestures to some girls and says, "Look, talent!" So it was with great irritation that I popped in my 1998 taped version and "remembered" that the film opens with "She Loves You", instead of "My Bonnie". When you see how slowly the camera pans vs. the speed of the music, you can see that "She Loves You" just doesn't fit. Also, in this "later" version when Paul sees the girls, he says, "Look, GIRLS!"..and somehow having remembered the earlier version, THAT word just didn't seem to fit, either. Why they felt they had to Americanize this film for American audiences is beyond me. Personally, if I'm going to watch a film about a British band, I want all of the British colloquialisms and such that would be a part of their speech, mannerisms, etc.<br /><br />Another irritation was how "choppy" the editing was for television. Just after Stu gets beaten, for example, the film cuts to a commercial break-LOTS of 'em. Yeah, I know it depends on the network, but it really ruins the effect of a film to have it sliced apart, as we all know. What some people might find as insignificant in terms of dialogue (and thereby okay to edit), may actually go the way of explaining a particular action or scene that follows.<br /><br />My point is, the "best" version of this film was probably the earlier version I taped from 1981, which just so happened to include the "Shake, Rattle & Roll" scene that my 1998 version didn't. I started to surmise that there had to have been two different versions made for television, and a look at the "alternate versions" link regarding this film proved me right. That the American version had some shorter/cut/different scenes and/or dialogue is a huge disappointment to me and something worth mentioning if one cares about such things. Imo, ones best bet is to try and get a hold of the European version of this film, if possible, and (probably even less possible), an unedited version. Sadly, I had to discard my old betamax European version because I didn't know how to convert it.<br /><br />All that aside, I found this film to be, perhaps, one of the best films regarding the story behind the "birth of the Beatles". Being well aware that artistic and creative license is often used in movies and TV when portraying events in history, I didn't let any discrepancies mar my enjoyment of the film. Sure, you see the Beatles perform songs at the Cavern that made me wonder, "Did they even write that back then?? I don't think so", but, nevertheless, I thought it was a great film and the performances, wonderful.<br /><br />The real stand-out for me, in fact, was the actor who played John, Stephen MacKenna. I just about fell in love with him. His look, mannerisms, personality and speaking voice seemed to be spot-on. He looked enough like a young John for me to do a double-take towards the end of the film when you see the Beatles performing on Ed Sullivan for the first time. I actually found myself questioning whether or not it was actual Beatle footage, until I saw the other actors in the scene.<br /><br />If you're looking for a dead accurate history of The Beatles' life and beginnings, you can't get any better than, "The Beatles' Anthology", as it was "written" by the boys', themselves. However, if you're looking for a fun snapshot of their pre-Beatlemania days leading up to their arrival in America and you leave your anal critical assessments at the door, you can't go wrong with the "Birth of the Beatles"--a MUST for any "real" or casual Beatle fan. | 3 | trimmed_train |
23,940 | House of Games is spell binding. It's so nice to occasionally see films that are perfect tens. There are few movies I've seen that can grip you so quickly. From the opening scene this movie just gets you.<br /><br />I'm trying really hard not to give to much away to those who may not yet have seen this but there will be a FEW SPOILERS SO DON'T READ ANYMORE IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW.<br /><br />I would say House of Games is not just a superb film but is the best movie about con artists I have ever seen-bar none. From the moment the movie is over it begs to be replayed.<br /><br />Lindsay Crouse as Margaret Ford is simply perfection, from her mannerisms to the inflection of her voice she gets into the role immediately. Joe Mantegna was also wonderful. The dialogue in this movie has an unforced almost unscripted quality and these two people communicate as much in a look as they do with their voices. I also loved the way the movie was filmed, in that grainy, surreal type of way, it fit perfectly and helped make the film what it was.<br /><br />There were a few movies I've seen and loved that this reminded me of including The Grifters and The usual Suspects but really, House of games is completely different in it's way. Margaret and Mike are two of the most absorbing characters I've seen on the big screen and not only do they have screen chemistry that is strong and palpable from the moment they meet, but the buildup that starts from the moment they set eyes on each other is electrifying. You know something's going to happen but you have no idea what. And just when you think you've guessed what the "something" is, you realize you haven't even scratched the surface....<br /><br />House of Games is one of those movies that may be lumped in to a certain genre of movie type but is essentially a movie about human nature. The character study is not just about the mind of the con artist but the victim as well. As the movie moves along and we get to know more and more about the main characters, we learn about them not just through what they say but how they say it. It is a great character study and is flawless in the way it speeds to it's conclusion.<br /><br />In closing, I'd rank this 10 of 10, call it (although not my absolute favorite film, pretty high on the list), most definitely outstanding and would go so far as to say it does rank as one of the best character studies and contains some of the best "twists" I've ever seen as well. Although I love all types and genres of movies, when it comes to movies of the human psyche, it really doesn't get much better then this. See this movie. | 3 | trimmed_train |
20,843 | Jess is 18, very smart and wants nothing more than to play football, when she joins a local team she has to lie to her parents again and again, as they would never approve of her chasing her dream, they want her to settle down with a nice Indian boy and learn how to cook.<br /><br />Bend it Like Beckham is a very funny feel good movie that doesn't need to be deep and complex, it's just fine as it is. The cast are all very good and they play their roles very well, the story is simple and predictable, but it works perfectly and the script is very realistic and very funny.<br /><br />A great Family movie 8/10 | 1 | trimmed_train |
23,670 | I love cinema so what I'm about to confess embarrasses me deeply. I had given a thumbs down to "Che, Parts 1 and 2" without having seen the film. Terrible I know. But I felt into a trap perpetrated by...who? I don't really know but there has been a negative word of mouth that spread like wild fire and, no matter how smart I think I am, I fell into it. But, thankfully, I bumped into an Argeninean film director, Martin Donovan, a man I love and admire. When I told him I wasn't going to see it because I knew the film was a failure he looked at me as if he was ready to punch me right on the face and Donovan is a pacifist! He took me aside and told me how much he loved the film and why. I went to see both parts straight away and, "Che, part 1 and 2" is the best film I've seen in 2008. It is, of such purity that it will remind you of the work of some of the great masters of the past. The regard for its audience is something that we're not used to anymore. I don't know if we ever were. Riveting, moving, without concessions and Benicio del Toro is just extraordinary. We can see his soul, we can actually perceive it. The humanity of the man is overwhelming. So, thank you Martin Donovan once again for educating me so honestly. Bravo Del Toro, Bravo Soderbergh and everyone involved in this landmark film. Don't commit the mistake I was about to commit. Go see it, now, on the big screen | 3 | trimmed_train |
5,851 | I rented this horrible movie. The worst think I have ever seen. I believe a 1st grade class could have done a better job. The worse film I have ever seen and I have seen some bad ones. Nothing scary except I paid 1.50 to rent it and that was 1.49 too much. The acting is horrible, the characters are worse and the film is just a piece of trash. The slauther house scenes are so low budget that it makes a B movied look like an Oscar candidate. All I can say is if you wnat to waste a good evening and a little money go rent this horrible flick. I would rather watch killer clowns from outer space while sitting in a bucket of razors than sit through this flop again | 0 | trimmed_train |
5,398 | Hollywood's misguided obsession with sequels has resulted in more misfires than hits. For every "Godfather II," there are dozens of "More American Graffiti's," "Stayin' Alives," and "Grease 2's." While the original "Grease" is not a great film, the 1977 adaptation of the long-running Broadway hit does have songs evocative of the 1960's, energetic choreography, and an appealing cast. When Paramount began work on a follow-up, the producers came up nearly empty on every aspect that made the original a blockbuster.<br /><br />Fortunately for moviegoers, Michelle Pfeiffer survived this experience and evidently learned to read scripts before signing contracts. Her talent and beauty were already evident herein, and Pfeiffer does seem to express embarrassment at the humiliating dance routines and tuneless songs that she is forced to perform. Maxwell Caulfield, however, lacks even the skill to express embarrassment, and his emotions run the gamut from numb to catatonic. What romantic interest, beyond hormones, could the cool sassy Pfeiffer have in the deadpan Caulfield? That dull mystery will linger long after the ludicrous luau finale fades into a bad memory. Only cameos by veterans such as Eve Arden, Connie Stevens, and Sid Caesar have any wit, although Lorna Luft does rise slightly above the lame material.<br /><br />Reviewers have complained that, because "Grease 2" is always compared to the original, the movie comes up lacking. However, even taken on its own terms, the film is a clunker. After a frenetic opening number, which evidently exhausted the entire cast, the energy dissipates. With few exceptions, the original songs bear little resemblance to the early 1960's, and the only nostalgia evoked is for "Our Miss Brooks" and "Sid Caesar's Comedy Hour." The jokes fall flat, and the choreography in a film directed by choreographer Patricia Birch is clumsy to be polite. However, worse films have been inflicted on audiences, and inept sequels will be made as long as producers seek to milk a quick buck from rehashing blockbusters. Unfortunately, "Grease 2" is not even unintentionally funny. Instead, the film holds the viewer's attention like a bad train wreck. Just when all the bodies seem to have been recovered, the next scene plunges into even worse carnage. | 2 | trimmed_train |
19,697 | Purple Rain is so cool for the dad. We Are Tracking 921 callers from Minneapolis. Hudson Horstachio prepares to ride a motorcycle , take a ride with Franklin Fizzlybear in the caddy. Let's go back to 1984 , it was a movie released and Prince tripped into stardom. You would think Hudson Horstachio will be a superstar for his new movie in 20th Century Fox Movie called "VP : Purple Rain" , starring Hudson Horstachio (voiced by Dan Green , who played Max's Dad , the Pokemon gym leader). 9 Tracks. Tina Turner's Private Dancer and Billy Ocean's Suddenly was headed for the album as Prince held more concerts. It is time we've pulled the plug on the 1984 movies. Our 20th Century Fox Fans are not watching anymore. The Kid yells out "Look Out For The Deer!" is such a danger in mind , Ralph Schuckett will be composing and conducting the new movie called "VP : Purple Rain" released on video. Tom Cruise jumps into his motorcycle , Brad Pitt jumps into his motorcycle and Hudson Horstachio jumps into his motorcycle. Thanks to Bette Midler from Beaches and the keyboardists. You Are Beholding The Heroic Horstachio , Hudson! Bart is writing "I shall not watch Purple Rain" on the chalkboard , Go On The Bloomington Ferry Bridge and enjoy The Kid's festivities. Hudson Horstachio is watching you! | 3 | trimmed_train |
3,639 | I rented this film out having heard of the fuss about it not being put up for an Academy Award, but after watching it, it's easy to see why it didn't. Despite the beautiful photography, the film is incredibly slow moving, despite having hardly any plot.<br /><br />The plot is about a young boy trying to come to terms with his parents' death in what may or may not have been an accident (the film is never clear on this), and how his grandfather used to tell him fairy stories. The fairy stories contain the only bits of interest in the plot, but they're very short, and don't really seem to have any point. <br /><br />The first fairy story in particular concerns a boy trying to get a magical flower to his dying girlfriend to save her life, but the boy delays by tasting the flower first to make sure it is not poisonous which results in him being a few seconds too late to save his girlfriend - the grandfather then pronounces that the moral is that the boy was too impatient, but that doesn't make any sense because it was overcaution and slowness which resulted in his failure. Perfect metaphor for this film really. <br /><br />The photography of Skye is beautiful though, but then Stardust which was released this year is another film about fairy stories filmed in Skye and beautifully photographed - and it's infinitely better than this one. | 0 | trimmed_train |
11,468 | I saw this film numerous times in the late 60's/early 70's whenever it reared it's head like a reindeer with rabies every November-December as a Saturday matinée kiddie show.It was always stiff competition for THE CHRSTMAS THAT ALMOST WASN'T (oops-can I SAY "Christmas"?), perhaps the greatest,most iconic Christmas-season film of all time.But that's another review.<br /><br />At the time,I marveled that the on-screen tint of SANTA CLAUS was almost "pink and white", so much had the color of the sprocket-torn prints changed color.<br /><br />The film is kinda creepy! I thought so then--and still do, actually. I was highly entertained then, as I still am! It's amusing in a "retarted-elf" sort of way. By the way,the image quality looks much better on the DVD I have now than it did in the theater, circa 1969-74.<br /><br />If you are expecting maybe "the lost RANKIN-BASS Christmas special-forget it! If you want FELLINI DOES Christmas--read on...<br /><br />By nature, the dubbing on these foreign films (the original version here was in Spanish)always makes them seem "surreal". This adds to the films inherent oddness. It is also pretty scary in that a "mishevious demon" (as described in the original US trailer) spends the entire film trying to turn decent kids "evil". One particularly nightmarish scene has a young "latch-key" boy wishing he had parents for Christmas-suddenly the "port-a-family" emerges out of giant "Christmas presents-of-the-mind" until he realizes he's just daydreaming! See this,Christmas lovers--and if you're a stoner, save your stash--this film will make you think you're hallucinating...without drugs! | 2 | trimmed_train |
9,962 | The Dukes of Hazzard will academy awards!! Best actor and actress 4 the persons who can say with a straight face that this was a great movie.<br /><br />This "movie" was a torture to watch. So sad how an weekly half hour entertainment was destroyed by these amateurs.The only good thing about this crap was the car! I remember when Daisy was a real threat to look 4ward 2. Who's the moron that decided that Jessica Simpson is hot?! We know she can't act but come on. In the TV show Daisy was a fox and brunette.<br /><br />All members who contributed in these waste of time please please please don't even think about makin a sequel, a prequel or anything that's got 2 do with a former TV show.<br /><br />I gave a empty DVD so this "movie" could be burned 4 me. I sat trough it and i want my money back! | 2 | trimmed_train |
15,997 | Actually this movie was not so bad. It contains action, comedy and excitement. There are good actors in this film, for instance Doug Hutchison (Percy from "The Green Mile"), who plays Bristol. Another well known actor is Jamie Kennedy, from "Scream" and "Three Kings". The main characters are played by Jamie Foxx as Alvin, who was pretty good and also funny, but the one who most surprised me, was David Morse as Edgar Clenteen. He plays a different character than he usually does, because in other films like "The Green Mile", "Indian Runner", "The Negotiator" or "The Langoliers" he plays a very sympathetic person, and in "Bait" the plays almost the opposite, a man without any emotions, which was nice to see. The only really negative thing about this film, are the several pictures of the World Trade Center, which makes this film perhaps look a little dated. Overall I thought this was a pretty good little film! | 1 | trimmed_train |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.