id int32 0 25k | text stringlengths 52 13.7k | label int64 0 3 | Generalization stringclasses 1 value |
|---|---|---|---|
19,824 | At two and a quarter hours this is a sometimes slow moving thoughtful film interrupted by vast sword battles. The battle between darkness and light is signified by the constant motif of the blazing sun and is superbly demonstrated by a three way fight between 'demons', bandits and soldiers in a forest during an eclipse.<br /><br />Be prepared: following a stunning sword fight under lightning filled skies the end of this picture will have you scratching your head in puzzlement. | 1 | trimmed_train |
9,784 | With a title like "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes!", anyone going into this thing would be expecting either a) a bad science fiction movie or b) a comedy making fun of bad science fiction movies. It's supposed to be a mix of both, with a dose of parody splashed in. Unfortunately, it falls flat very soon.<br /><br />You're never supposed to take this movie seriously, I realize that, but you're supposed to think it's funny, right? I found only a few of the jokes or situations were funny (i.e, the side-by-side phone conversations, the Russian Olympic spy eating steroid cereal, Superman walking by Lois, etc.). "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes" strives to be a cult classic, but it doesn't make it. A cult classic is a movie that is so different that only a select group of people understand it (or a similar description). "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes" could be enjoyed by any 8-year-old with a bad sense of humor, so therefore, it does not qualify as a cult film.<br /><br />There is one good actress in the entire thing: Sharon Taylor as Lois Fairchild. She is a thin, gawky reporter, but has an endearing personality, loves to overact, and is a natural comedienne. Unfortunately, she is put to bad use here.<br /><br />"Attack of the Killer Tomatoes" is not as funny as, say, "Amazon Women on the Moon" or "Kentucky Fried Movie", but it does have a few hilarious moments, so I would still recommend seeing it once. Avoid the director's cut, it has interruptions by the producer of the movie and some supposedly "lost" footage dubbed in a pretend African dialect (it can be found in English on the out of print tape). | 2 | trimmed_train |
15,340 | I was about 11 years old i found out i live 0.48 miles from the uncle house. the uncle house is on Westway Dr, deer park, TX. they have added homes since the movie was made. i don't know the house number but you can go look it up. i am now 21 and i enjoy watching this movie. the bar on Spencer is no longer their. Pasadena ISD wants to build a school their. I drove by the house last week the house still looks great. My dad and uncle would go to the street where the house is and watch the actors come in and out of the house trying to make the movie. where john cross over the railroad cracks they have made 225 higher. when i hear about john loesing his son i start thinking about when he made urban cowboy he was 26 or 25 at the time. | 3 | trimmed_train |
13,775 | So, Fox pulled the plug midway through a drama/mystery...<br /><br />How lame is that? Do they expect us to invest our time in their new shows when there is a realistic risk of never finding out what happens? Why weren't the remaining, already filmed episodes aired in the US? They were broadcast elsewhere.<br /><br />Hey, Fox! Are you listening? This was a great show, but you left us hanging. If you're going to introduce new drama/mysteries, at least air a conclusion before abruptly ending mid-theme. Every time something like this happens (and it seems to happen a lot with you - i.e., Fox), there are more of those who will "wait and see" before investing their time. This means you will see an artificially low interest share, and are more likely to end the series. See? It is a vicious cycle. Don't let us down again... | 3 | trimmed_train |
2,550 | Painfully bad Christmas film that has an equally painfully bad performance by Vince Vaughn, who is paying his usual frat boy self but this time for a children's movie but with out the wit or charm that is in his R rated films. Vaughn seems like he's on autopilot though most of the film and he keeps running into walls with his lackluster performance. After 30 minutes into the film, you would be in touch your inner scourge and say "Bahumbag" at how unfunny this film is and after another 30 minutes, you will want to walk out over how unbearable the film has gotten during that point. Out of all the actors involved in this mess, only Paul Giamatti and Rachel Weisz brings some life to there perspective paper thin roles and that's manly because they are both way too good of actors to be in this film. Paul Giamatti brings some depth and warmth to the character of Saint Nick himself but he's forced to Vaughn's level of juvenile behavior when they are doing their sad sibling infighting. You can see in Giamatti face that he's not having fun with his role and it painfully shows in certain parts of the film. Rachel Weisz brings a sense of fun and spirit to her role but she really does not have much of a character to work with and you can see in her face that she's well aware of that, so much so that she seems irritated in certain parts of the film. Fortunately for her, she's not in the film much at all and is able to save some face, unlike Giamatti, who looks like he's about to fire his agent by the end of the movie. The direction also feels uninspiring, like there is no feeling or flow to be had and this is a supposed to be a holiday movie but it ends up feeling like you are just staring at a fancy widow display that is being torn down.<br /><br />I don't know what went wrong here but with only two actors involved (Giamatti and Weisz) trying their best to at least bring something to the table with a unfunny script they had to work with, spotty direction with no feeling for the subject at hand ( and this is a Christmas movie of all things) and a actor who just does not care about his performance (Vaughn), you have a very unevenly bad film that is very painful to watch. | 0 | trimmed_train |
20,906 | When I found the movie in the schedule for Christmas, its title did not sound familiar to me since I have not read the novel and had not heard anything about the film. Yet, having read the content, I decided to spend my Christmas evening on watching the movie. The effect surprised me totally: I do not remember when I last saw a film in which every single moment involved me. A VOW TO CHERISH is, without any doubt, one of the movies that now constitutes a real surprise I have received from cinema. Here are some arguments of mine why I consider this film a highly underrated piece of good cinema. <br /><br />First, the entire content is particularly educational. It has something to offer to the modern audience - pure right faith and some answers for the universal questions. Is there a need for Christ in our times? Does Love still matter? What for is there faith? What is the logics of burden and suffering in life? Is there really Someone by my side I can always trust? The movie provides the answers through the content since all that happens to the characters may as well happen to any of us.<br /><br />Second, the movie is exceptionally humane. The main characters experience inner struggles and cope with extremely hard decisions. Is it better for Kyle David Denman) and Teri (Megan Paul) to start their own lives and forget about the family or retain the values they were taught at home? Is it better for John (Ken Howard) to leave Ellen (Barbara Babcock), his sick wife, and start a new happy life with Julia (Donna Bullock), a woman he falls in love with? In fact, Ellen no longer recognizes him... Yet, he decides to vow HIS WIFE eternal fidelity. Had John's rebellious brother, Phil (D. David Morin), better go on his easy life although it does not bring him satisfaction or once start to think seriously of his life. Phil's prayer to God in the park is a psychological masterwork of universal aspect of humanity. These words could be as well said by everybody no matter of where, when or how they live.<br /><br />Third, the movie is a great portrayal of family, not very popular nowadays: there are problems, yet, there is always something more powerful that gets these people together. This "something" is love and trust. I know that it may seem a bit idealistic. Not all families can rely on fidelity and it may not be as simple as that. Nevertheless, it is a very educational aspect and a realistic one.<br /><br />Fourth, the entire film focuses on people's mutual help. If we want to live happy lives in our society, we must understand one thing: we have to help one another. Alexander (Ossie Davis) is an example of such attitude. At the beginning of the movie, we see him talk to John about praying. Later, he helps his brother. Alexander is a kinda "angel" that is sent to John and his family. Isn't it possible that we may become angels to one another?<br /><br />Fifth, the artistic features are also worth attention. PERFORMANCES: Barbara Babcock gives an authentic performance as Ellen and although she has a difficult role, she does a perfect job. Consider, for instance, the moment she appears at school and badly wants to teach again. Ken Howard is also memorable as the faithful husband. PICTURE: The most memorable for me was the scene of John and Ellen in the park walking on the fallen leaves (autumn) while the sunshine (love) spreads everywhere. I interpreted as a sort of symbol: even if there is sorrow, this can always be illuminated by light and joy...<br /><br />A VOW TO CHERISH is a wonderful movie that realistically showed to me what it means to love, what fidelity is as well it once again proved to me how beautiful it is to live and believe. At the end, I would like to quote the profound words from the movie I found very touching and hope you will also do <br /><br />Kyle to his uncle Phil: Yes, he (John Brighton) lives according to the Bible. But nobody forces you to do so. Yet, according to what rules do you live? | 3 | trimmed_train |
16,545 | How many of us wish that we could throw away social and cultural obligations and be free? Most of us, I suspect. Shall we dance? is not a movie about dancing. It is about learning about ourselves, recognising what we are looking for in life and having the courage to go in search of it. Mr Sugiyama is a middle-aged member of a Japanese society where ballroom dancing is viewed as unsuitable behaviour. <br /><br />One day Mr Sugiyama sees a beautiful girl leaning out of the window of a dancing acadamy. he is fascinated by her and eventually signs up for dancing lessons. He is ashamed of his dancing and afraid of ridicule. He hides the fact that he is attending dancing classes from his colleagues and family.<br /><br />There is a hilarious scene in the mensroom at the office when Sugiyama and Watanabe, a workmate who also dances, are interrupted practising some dance steps. There are many other funny and warm-hearted scenes.<br /><br />The ending is not a fairytale, but it leaves the viewer feeling good.<br /><br />This movie helped me to understand the Japanese people a little better. It is a warm and very worthwhile film to see. | 3 | trimmed_train |
12,303 | I'm a Christian. I have always been skeptical about movies made by Christians, however. As a rule, they are "know-nothings" when it comes to movie production. I admire TBN for trying to present God and Jesus in a positive and honest way on the screen. However, they did a hideous job of it. The acting was horrible, and unless one is familiar with the Bible in some fashion, one COULD NOT have understood what the movie was trying to get across. Not only was the movie terribly made, but the people who made it even had some facts wrong. However, in this "critique", those facts are irrelevent and too deep to delve into. In short, the Omega Code is the absolute worst movie I have ever seen, and I would not recommend it to anyone, except for comic relief from the every day grind. | 0 | trimmed_train |
24,670 | The Sopranos (now preparing to end) is the very peak of adult television and drama. When The Sopranos hits the mark, it really hits the mark. Using great writing and great actors (most of them being extras from Goodfellas) the series is aloud to progress in a satisfyingly unpredictable and exceptional way. Heading up the cast is James Gandolfini, who for all intensive purposes is Tony Soprano, and Edie Falco, who certainly holds her own. The series also boasts a great collection of regulars to push the plot along by any means necessary (usually violence and foul language). Tony Sirico, Michael Imperioli and Steve Van Zandt are great secondary characters that make every episode more interesting. Seasonal extras are also worth note including names like Steve Buscemi (great!), Joe Pantoliano (great!), David Proval (good), Robert Patrick, Robert Loggia and Frank Vincent.<br /><br />The Sopranos is a great family drama and a realistic interpretation of modern day mafia societies that despite the rare bad story lines manages to be unique TV. Symbolism and simple story lines, dreams and shoot-outs and many other things create intertwining stories and relationships that at the end of each season are resolved to create yet another perfect HBO package. Watch it... | 3 | trimmed_train |
6,353 | This is almost like two films--one literate and engaging, the other stupid and clichéd. It's really a shame all the problems weren't worked out with the writing, but considering how quickly most B-movies were written and produced, this isn't too unusual. It's a real shame, though, as this could have been a very good film.<br /><br />First the good. The movie is original and involves WWII code-breakers. This is pretty fascinating and I liked watching the leading man (Lee Bowman) go through his paces as a master code-breaker. In fact, the first two-thirds of the film was very good. But now for the bad, the film just went on way too long and lost steam at about 50 minutes. Additionally, Jean Rogers' role as the "kooky girlfriend" must rank as one of the worst-written and distracting roles in film history!! For every smart move made by Bowman, the idiot Rogers then stepped in to screw things up as some sort of misguided "comedy relief". If her role had been intelligently written, the overall film would have improved immensely! Instead, watching her, it's hard to understand how we actually won WWII!! | 2 | trimmed_train |
9,320 | After the reasonably successful MASTI which was tad better Inder Kumar returned again with a comedy PYAARE MOHAN based on the Hollywood film SEE NO EVIL, HEAR NO EVIL <br /><br />The film reminds you of HUM HAI KAMAAL KE(1994) where Kader and Anupam play the blind and deaf<br /><br />This movie is a tedious exercise<br /><br />The film has jokes of such nonsense that you don't feel like laughing like Snehal Dabi's head getting stuck in the back of the horse and all those type comedies which we don't laugh at now but mock <br /><br />The film starts off in a clichéd manner and some scenes are funny sadly such moments don't last long as the story never moves in this half even the comedy gets boring The twist is well handled and the second half becomes an action film where the blind guy and the deaf go to rescue the heroines and we have all OTT chase scenes and fight scenes<br /><br />Direction by Inder Kumar is bad Music is okay, one song stands out I LOVE YOU MY ANGEL<br /><br />Vivek is awful in the comic scenes, his timing is very bad and is okay in serious scenes For some reason he keeps doing comedy and ruined his career Fardeen Khan is tad better but too wooden Amongst the rest Esha and Amrita are the heroines Boman Irani annoys here Snehal Dabbi is okay | 0 | trimmed_train |
14,100 | The original title means "The Birth of the Octopuses". I must confess that I do not quite understand this title. The English title is "Water Lilies". But after having written this, I read the comment by another user: "The title in French is also suggestive: "prieuve", or octopus, suggest an individual having to juggle many pressures simultaneously." Thanks for your explanation.<br /><br />The basic theme is the first sexual emotions of girls, when it is not clear if they are directed toward the same or the other sex. It is no different for boys. I think that both Floriane and Marie will eventually have heterosexual feelings without any admixtures.<br /><br />Much of the movie is water ballet. Sometimes the girls will have their heads downwards, and nothing above the water except their feet and lowers legs, with which they will wave and kick in the air. To people like me who had never seen such things before, it was fascinating. - Floriane is the leader of one team of "water lilies". <br /><br />Marie tells her that she would like to see when Floriane is training. This seems to be their first contact that is not just ordinary. Soon they will walk together. Floriane takes Marie to a garage where a boy is waiting for her, and then goes away with him for an hour, while Marie is waiting for her to return. I took for granted that the couple slept with each other. But we will later learn from the movie that they do less than that. <br /><br />I can supply some information which few users will find elsewhere. There is a scene in which Marie secretly steals Floriane's garbage bag. In it she finds an apple, mostly eaten. And Marie proceeds to eat the rest. There is a parallel scene in another movie, "Kazetachi no gogo" (Afternoon Breezes) by Hitoshi Yazaki (Japan, 1980). This is about adult young females, and a clearly Lesbian woman is vainly in love with a heterosexual woman. She also steals a garbage bag of the beloved, and also finds a more or less eaten apple and eats the rest. <br /><br />Later Floriane tells Marie that she would like to have her first orgasm from her. Marie says she cannot do this. <br /><br />But still later Marie says that she is indeed willing to do it. And she masturbates on Floriane. There is no nudity in this scene. <br /><br />Probably only a female director could have made such a fine psychological show or study of I would like to quote Baudelaire, "Les amours enfantines".<br /><br />Floriane is played by Adèle Haenel, who made the excellent performance as the autistic girl in "The Little Devils" by Christophe Ruggia (2002) a very underrated movie. | 1 | trimmed_train |
19,028 | I will admit, I thought this movie wasn't going to be any good but I soon changed my mind. The movie was keep you guessing as which direction it's going. Pierce Broson is amazing in his role as a hit man, who suddenly becomes burned out & asks a man he met at a Mexican bar for help. Greg Kinnear is an awesome straight man, as his role as a mild mannered man from Denver, who starts a innocent conversation with Pierce at a Mexican bar. The movie will have you laughing as Pierce delivers hilarious one liners (mostly about sex).<br /><br />The imaginary in this movie is very well done, especially at the bullfight scene & when Pierce sees himself when trying to finish his last jobs. | 1 | trimmed_train |
1,271 | I have loved this book since my 5th grade teacher read it to our class many years ago. And I have read it to every one of my 3rd and 5th grade classes over my past 18 years of teaching. Supposedly a movie had been made in the past, but I'd never been able to locate it. Well, my students and I were all so excited when we heard that Disney had brought Madeline L'Engle's excellent book to the screen. <br /><br />As I watched the movie, I had the highest of hopes. As the film went on, I became more and more despondent. They had botched it badly! Never had I been so let down by a favorite book-to-film adaption. I understand that films can't stick strictly to a book, but they don't need to change things for the sake of it! Most, if not all, of departures from the book were totally unnecessary! <br /><br />I kept my opinion to myself at first and just listened to my students discuss the movie. Well, it wasn't just me. Nearly every single one felt the same way--cheated out of the great story that Madeline L'Engle had so skillfully created! <br /><br />Why, they wondered, did Aunt Beast look like Chewbacca from the star wars movie? Why couldn't Calvin's hair have been red? Why did Mrs. Which not have the proper "witch-like" outfit that was such a clever play on her name? Basically, we all wondered--why did nearly every single detail have to be changed? <br /><br />I have always dreamed of how wonderful a movie this book would make. I am still waiting for that movie. This one was A Wrinkle in Time in only the broadest of senses. I'm going to write to Peter Jackson and try to convince him to take on the task! | 0 | trimmed_train |
1,002 | This is is a thoroughly unpleasant, if slickly made, movie. I tried it because it stars Richard Dreyfus and Jeff Goldblum, two good actors, and because the plot line - a mob boss is about to be released from a mental institution - sounded promising. The movie is billed as a comedy, sorta. What we have is an endless series of shots - you should pardon the pun - of people in dimly lit and elegant, if somewhat surreal, interiors, shooting each other - in the head, stomach, kneecap, foot, heart (no part of the anatomy is avoided, it seems) while uttering vague and cryptic dialogue, some of which is supposed, evidently, to be humorous in a sort of post-modern way. Goldblum's dialogue for the whole movie could fit on a 3x5 card, and he wears a single facial expression - a sardonic grin - throughout. Ellen Barkin and Gregory Hines do the best they can. Burt Reynolds does a cameo. The credits list Rob Reiner and Joey Bishop, but I somehow missed them (good move on their part). The whole thing is cold, sterile, mechanical and unsavory; an heir, I suspect, to the style of 'Pulp Fiction', 'Fargo' and 'Natural Born Killers'. If you liked those, you'll probably like this. | 2 | trimmed_train |
10,509 | Something to Sing About was produced at Grand National Studios where James Cagney was working while under a contract dispute with the brothers Warner. He did two films for this B studio, neither of which rank high in the Cagney credits.<br /><br />One of the great losses to cinema is the fact that Jimmy Cagney did so few films that utilized his terrific dancing abilities. The two that come to mind immediately are Yankee Doodle Dandy and Footlight Parade. Two lesser films are The West Point Story and Never Steal Anything Small. Cagney himself said he never used to watch anything but his musicals in retirement. So why did he make so few of them?<br /><br />Well this one was all wrong. The plot of Something to Sing About concerns a hoofer who fronts for a band who's discovered and given a movie contract. There are the usual complications of a conniving studio boss and a conniving press agent played respectively and well by Gene Lockhart and William Frawley. His contract calls for a no- marriage clause, so Cagney and band girl singer lady Evelyn Daw marry in secret. Then we get the complication of a publicity driven studio romance with screen leading lady Mona Barrie. I think you can figure where this is going.<br /><br />The most disappointing thing about Something to Sing About is the lack of dance numbers for Cagney. He dances briefly at the beginning and the end of the film and nothing in the middle. Evelyn Daw had a nice singing voice and the charisma of a ham sandwich. She got the musical numbers such as they were. I'm sure the movie-going public was paying their tickets to see Cagney dance. <br /><br />Also in addition to giving him some dance numbers a female dance partner would have been nice. He danced well with Ruby Keeler in Footlight Parade and with Virginia Mayo and Doris Day in The West Point Story. Weren't Ginger Rogers, Eleanor Powell or Ruby Keeler available?<br /><br />No memorable songs came out of this. And Daw's voice is waisted as well. She has a Jeanette MacDonald soprano voice which was so out of place with a swing band.<br /><br />No wonder Cagney went running back to Warner Brothers. But they should have given him some decent musicals. | 2 | trimmed_train |
20,591 | Story says that on that on December 28, 1895, a small group of thirty-three people was gathered at Paris's Salon Indien Du Grand Café to witness the Cinématographe, a supposedly new invention that resulted from the work done by a couple of photographers named August and Louis Lumière. The small audience reunited that day (some by invitation, most due to curiosity) didn't really know what to expect from the show, and when a stationary photograph appeared projected on a screen, most thought that the Cinématographe was just another fancy devise to present slide-show projections. Until the photograph started to move. What those thirty-three people experienced in awe that cold day of December was the very first public screening of a moving picture being projected on a screen; history was being written and cinema as we know it was born that day.<br /><br />Of the 10 short movies that were shown during that historic day, "La Sortie Des Usines Lumière" (literally "Exiting the Lumière Factory") was the very first to be screened. The film shows the many workers of the Lumière factory as they walk through the gates of the factory, leaving the building at the end of a hard day of work. While a very basic "actuality film" (movie depicting a real event), the movie took everyone in the audience by surprise, as their concept of moving pictures was limited to Edison's "Peep Show" machines (the Kinetoscope), the brothers' invention was like nothing they had seen before and so the audience stood in awe, as the people and the horses moved across the screen. The idea wasn't entirely new (Le Prince shot the first movie as early as 1888), but the way of showing the movie was simply revolutionary.<br /><br />"La Sortie Des Usines Lumière" would become the first in the long series of "actuality films" that the Lumière would produce over the years. This primitive form of documentary was the brothers' favorite kind of film because they were more interested in the technological aspects of their invention than in the uses the Cinématographe could have. Despite the initial lack of enthusiasm, after the first showing the Cinématographe became a great success and "La Sortie Des Usines Lumière" quickly became an iconic image of that first screening. It definitely wasn't the first movie the brothers shot that year, and it probably wasn't the best of the 10 movies shown that day (personally I think that "L' Arroseur Arrosé" was the best of the 10); however, it is really meaningful that the very first movie was the opening of a pair of gates, as literally, this movie opened the gates to cinema as we know it. 8/10 | 1 | trimmed_train |
6,237 | All of David Prior's movies are terrible on all counts: bad writing, bad acting, bad cinematography, no budget (the director's brother is usually cast as the male lead). But they all have incredible entertainment value because of their unintentional hilarity. The plot of almost every David Prior "film" (as I like to refer to them) is basically the same. Manly all-American commandos team up to blow up Communist baddies. But unlike other Cold War-era garbage such as Red Dawn, Prior's movies are actually funny because of their over-the-top premises and acting. The best part of Jungle Assault is the scene in which Becker (or was is the other dude?) is being summoned by General Mitchell for a top-secret mission in South America. The funniest line in the movie is then delivered, something to the effect of "this is my roommate, I trained him well". WHAT. You trained your roommate? And apparently this is going to be their solution to avoiding eviction.<br /><br />If you can find these gems on video used anywhere, BUY THEM. They are all funny and even funnier after a few beers. Watch them with a group of your friends for a true MST3K-style experience. So far my friends and I have managed to get a hold of Night Wars and Aerobicide aka "Killer Workout". But the one I recommend the most over them all is Final Sanction, with the freakish-looking Robert Z'dar. | 0 | trimmed_train |
3,845 | A low point in human interaction was reached by the Maysles Brothers with this film. Do remember, you who used words like "masterpiece"when reviewing this film, that these Maysles creeps didn't just happen to drive to the Hamptons and happen to shoot film on some eccentric people. No, when they found these two poor pathetic people they then had to finance their project (and imagine what they told the money people to sell the project). Then they befriended the two extremely vulnerable women. No meeting of minds here or real consensual participation. These wretched Maysles smiled, kissed ass, did whatever they had to to get the Beales to cooperate and then exploited them as viciously as has ever been done. One would like to think that these hustlers had occasional thoughts of remorse and guilt. But the film-making process, given the preplanning, actual shooting and then editing took a lot of time and their goal had no provisions for actually relating to the Beales as human beings. An exploitation film perpetrated by the vilest of people. As time accrued their film-making reputation has been seriously stained by what they did here. Their reputation as human beings is execrable. That is what people will remember them as. Grotesque hustlers. | 0 | trimmed_train |
21,424 | "I have looked into the eye of this island, and what I saw was beautiful," proclaims one of the main characters in ABC's award winning television show "Lost". The series could be summarized as a drama story about a group of plane crash survivors stranded on an unknown island, but that would be doing the show a disservice. "Lost" follows a large group of characters who come into conflict with the island, each other, and ultimately themselves as they struggle with their new way of life and their dependency on each other. The situation becomes more complicated when it becomes clear this isn't an ordinary island, either - and that they may not be alone.<br /><br />My initial fear after hearing the concept of this series was the lack of new stories they could tell us after a certain period, but this proved to be unfounded. The narrative flows naturally, the dialogue is witty, the characters are memorable and the execution is superb. The island is a character all on its own, and to understand this comment you'd have to see the series for yourself, which only goes to show its originality and greatness.<br /><br />At the time of writing this review, only the first two seasons have aired, and they're filled with strong episodes. My only mild criticism is that the second season seems to slow down a bit halfway, but then fortunately comes back in admirable shape for the final episodes.<br /><br />If I can recommend one television series you should be following right now, it would certainly be this one. If you like excitement, adventure, character driven stories, an extremely strong cast and crew, beautiful locations, and an island that seems more spiritual than natural, "Lost" is for you. Just be sure you start at the beginning. | 3 | trimmed_train |
9,831 | This is truly an awful movie and a waste of 2 hours of your life. It is simultaneously bland and offensive, with nudity and lots and lots of violence. However, the nudity is not that exciting, and the violence is repetitive and boring. Also, the plot is flimsy at best, the characters are unrealistic and undeveloped, and the acting is some of the worst I have ever seen. <br /><br />I have heard that this movie is supposed to be funny, but it's not. I did not laugh once while watching it, nor did I even crack a smile. The makers of this film tried to combine a comedy movie with an action movie, and they failed on both counts. <br /><br />Some poorly made movies are funny because they are so bad, but this is not one of them. | 0 | trimmed_train |
1,684 | Watching Smother was perhaps the longest not-quite-90-minutes of my life. There wasn't a laugh to be had; in fact, I don't remember ever cracking a smile. Diane Keaton was horridly unfunny as a middle-aged chain-smoking dog hoarder, the textbook overbearing mother character, a relentlessly irritating woman who clearly suffers from some kind of personality disorder. She is manipulative, conniving, melodramatic, childish, narcissistic, and worst of all, boring.<br /><br />I suppose I should briefly mention the other characters, but why bother? It was just a long string of movie clichés--the dippy, socially inept distant relative who's just trying to break into "The Industry", the gruff and long-suffering but somehow still lovable father, the mild- mannered wife who just can't take it anymore (but eventually moves beyond the discord and resignedly comes home), the herd of unhousebroken dogs who like to chew throw pillows while everyone is away, etc.<br /><br />God, what a snore. I've never been a Diane Keaton fan and Smother only reminded me why. Overacting is overacting, no matter how many pictures you did in your prime. Her attempts at physical comedy were especially humiliating. What was the director thinking?<br /><br />While I like Dax Shepard and can even sometimes tolerate Liv Tyler, their performances were so lackluster and dull that it was clear that neither actor gave a damn about this movie. That was okay, because neither did I. Keaton's endless self-absorbed prattling was intolerable and at times Shepard's dislike for her seemed genuine. By the end of the movie I wanted to slap her myself.<br /><br />Awful. | 0 | trimmed_train |
9,066 | Disney has yet to meet a movie it couldn't make at least two sequels about. And this one was no exception to the people at Disney to give a weak story to receive a quick reward. Somehow, although I did not pay to view it, I feel cheapened by watching it.<br /><br />Ariel is grown up now and had a daughter. Yet doesn't allow the daughter to go into the sea because of some idle threat made by the sister of the deceased sea-witch. So here we go again.<br /><br />The daughter is tricked (of course) and helps the sea-witch. After a not-so-glorious battle, she is defeated and the mermaids and humans live in harmony. Yawn.<br /><br />There is nothing to view here. Go back to your lives. "D-" | 0 | trimmed_train |
23,447 | More eeriness and dark secrets released in the final parts of Lars Von Trier's fantastic horror satire The Kingdom... Much more is revealed and the ending just leaves you begging for more. Plus a great performance from Udo Kier in a more substantial role... | 3 | trimmed_train |
14,936 | 8 Simple Rules is a funny show but it also has some life lessons especially one mature lesson about moving on after a lose which was the episode where Paul died which was the first episode I have ever watched of the show that comes on ABC. The Hennessy clan -- mother Cate (Katey Sagal), daughters Bridget (Kaley Cuoco) and Kerry (Amy Davidson), and son Rory (Martin Spanjers) -- look to one another for guidance and support after the death of Paul (John Ritter), the family patriarch. Cate's parents (James Garner and Suzanne Pleshette) lend a hand. I am glad later in the 2nd season of this show they decided to put David Spade in this show since he was done with the NBC series, Just Shoot Me! But all and all this show is pretty good. This show reminds me a lot of the classic family sitcoms from the 80's and 90's that used to be on ABC. | 1 | trimmed_train |
12,162 | First of all, if you'r a fan of the comic, well, you'll be VERY disappointed I'm sure ! Low budget movie !!! Largo is supposed to be Serbian in the comic, now suddenly he becomes croatian, pfff! chicken producers, it gave some spice and guts to the comic ( By the way, in the film, his father speaks Serbian and he speaks croatian... Lol ). The striking N.Y. Winch building becomes a common average-small yacht in H.K. The good looking Largo becomes some unshaved Tzigan/Turkish looking guy. Freddy the cool 'scarface' pilot becomes some fat, out of shape, sad, average guy. Simon, Largo's good buddy, does not exist at all !? He gave some pepper ! Largo doesn't throw knifes at all, but just some snake stares... The whole story is confused and looks like a pretentious TV-film. French directors and producers, if you don't have the money, the ability or the technology to adapt correctly the comic, please stick to some romance shooted in Paris. Very very bad film, good thing I just rented it, don't count on me to watch the sequel ( If there is any ! ). | 0 | trimmed_train |
1,262 | Bad movie. It´s too complicated for young children and too childish for grown-ups. I just saw it because I´m a Robin Williams fan and I was very disappointed.( | 2 | trimmed_train |
8,885 | Revenge of the Sith starts out with a long action sequence that is impressive without being terribly exciting, then gets really boring for the next hour and fifteen minutes, with the same horrible dialogue and dull machinations that have plagued the rest of the prequel series. The only thing that improves the proceedings is the slow--and I mean slow--build-up to what we know will be the birth of Darth Vader. And when that finally comes, it's pretty all right. Not great. Not even good. But pretty all right. This movie is being vastly over-praised because it does not suck to high heaven like the previous sequels. Instead it's just turgid, dull, and routine. But you have to say, wow, those CGI environments are really impressive at times. Bu the lightsabre fights? They're all a blurry mess. I think the dark side took hold of Lucas when he started these prequels and no one noticed. This will make a ton of money, but thank god it's over, this once-worshipped franchise has been beaten down enough. I saw the 12:01 show, and after it, I heard a group of very small kids say, wow that was awesome! But everyone older than eight all grumbled the same thing: I fell asleep in the middle. It was kind of boring. I just thought seeing the birth of Darth Vader would be better. So said we all. | 2 | trimmed_train |
23,688 | Really, I liked it. The premise was good, the story fit where both respective series left off, and here's my favorite part. Mary and Valerie aren't bitter! They aren't like others who become synonymous with a certain series and then refuse to talk about it, or do possible reunions (A prime example is Susan Dey, "The Partridge Family"). In fact, Valerie was saying that she'd be thrilled to do another movie, and then Mary said the same thing later, so I would be on the look for another...but if that doesn't quite work out, then they can re-run this one. | 3 | trimmed_train |
19,951 | Belushi at his most ingratiating and Courtney Cox before Friends has a small role. I often think Belushi is under-used in Hollywood and this film role is one of his best. For those of you who watch his TV show, this is a very different and likable character. The movie itself is not earth shattering, nor is the message new but rather it is sweet and endearing. The supporting cast of familiar faces and unfamiliar names is a perfect balance although Lovitz's whining can get tiresome, and Michael Caine's charming spiritual guide has a slightly sinister if not well-meaning edge. Hamilton, as Belushi's wife is unfortunately two-dimensional and one wonders why he married her. In addition, Renee Russo is wasted and not terribly convincing at the "prom queen" who got away. Nevertheless, a nice way to spend two hours. | 1 | trimmed_train |
20,289 | For anyone who has only seen Disney Productions beautifully animated version of 'Beauty & The Beast', or even Jean Cocteau's surreal fairy tale vision will be quite taken aback by this 1975 French (but with a director from Poland) version. The plot concerns a French family of fading aristocracy that is marrying into a well to do English family. The major catch is that the bridegroom is carrying an ancient curse on the family. The film also includes many flashback sequences (potentially) explaining this family curse. From the opening credits, to the very end, it's a nearly non stop erotic fun house ride, with some VERY explicit & graphic sexual content (hence the film's X rating in the U.S. in it's initial run,which is now unrated). The film's somewhat contemptuous sentiment at the ruling class will probably remind one of Bunuel's flights into similar territory. If you have a taste for the truly bizarre, and are not offended by "taboo" material, then this film may just scratch that itch for you. | 3 | trimmed_train |
19,389 | Rock solid giallo from a master filmmaker of the genre, Sergio Martino. Fashioned from a marvelous screenplay by Ernesto Gestaldi, this shocking mystery often develops fascinating twists until the terrific finale which most might not see coming throughout the film. It's when everything has fallen into place that we can go, "Ahh.." The film revolves around the death of a husband(..in an airplane explosion)and the million dollars the wife receives from it. There are those with great interest in that money, one in particular being the dead man's mistress. The wife is Lisa(Ida Galli)and the mistress demanding half the money is Lara(Janine Reynaud). She tells Lisa she knows that the death was arranged by her to get the insurance money. Lara says she'll use her "lawyer", Sharif(Luis Barboo)to get that money. So already, the film produces two possible suspects in the later murder of Lisa, who awaiting someone in Tokyo. George Hilton portrays Peter Lynch. Peter works for a company that investigates those who gain inheritance to see if the pay day was gathered under suspicious means. When, on his watch, Lisa is killed by a man dressed from head to toe in black in her hotel room, he is a possible suspect. He decides to do a little investigating himself, while also assisting Inspector Stavros(Luigi Pistilli)and Interpol agent, Benton(Tom Felleghy)on their quest to find a killer. The killer strikes several times eliminating anyone revolving around the missing million dollars confiscated by the one responsible for the murder of Lisa. Soon, the film follows a journalist, Cléo Dupont(the delicious, luscious Anita Strindberg)as she and Peter meet for a dinner where she could try and sniff out anything that might break a story for her. Soon they fall deeply in love, but it seems like anyone who is near Peter is killed. Soon someone attacks Cléo with an intent to kill which pushes the investigation further into uncharted territory. Why would anyone wish to harm a journalist with no real facts to damage the one killing off people.<br /><br />This giallo is quite clever and exciting to follow. The film never lulls which is quite remarkable since so much happens leaving open the question of the identity of the killer. This film follows the path of gialli with knife slashings because of a certain pattern the killer has taken(the throat and lower torso). The film's conclusion wraps up all the complex loose ends and is quite satisfying. The film has some unique camera angles, but delivers the goods in terms of driving the plot and the execution of the mystery. | 1 | trimmed_train |
10,520 | Well, on it's credit side (if it can be said to have one), Timothy Hines DID manage to capture the original setting of H.G. Wells' outstanding novella. But other than that - well, to call a spade a spade - it sucks bigtime. What the Master Ed Wood could have done with the alleged $20 million dollar budget! Timothy Hines really does make Mr. Wood, who was a flawed genius anyway, look like the best filmmaker of all time. The special effects (I guess you'd call them that) are not even up to computer game standards. The acting is, well, perhaps about dinner theater comparable, and the accents are atrocious. At the risk of sounding offensive, a lot of the acting from the principal male characters is (especially Poor Ogilvy), well, ahem, . . . GAY! Poor Ogilvy minces and flounces about the bogus English countryside, waving his asbestos white handkerchief about as if it were heat resistant armor. Hey, the Stormtroopers in "Star Wars" had neat white body armor too, and it didn't work either, they still got blasted. Even when Ogilvy and Company get fried by the Martians' 'Heat Ray'(?), they flounce and mince in some weird kind of dance, even when they're theoretically DEAD and reduced to skeletons, which persist in unseemly dancing and writhing. Maybe Timothy Hines rented the skeletons from Ray Harryhausen, being left over from "Jason And The Argonauts". Or was it "Josie And The Pussycats"? I dunno. The soldiers, presumably because they're 'military', all seem to just rather unconvincingly explode, like the soldier on crutches and his unfortunate comrades carrying the stretcher just beyond him. Wow! I loved it! But the 'soldiers' all looked like they were either fascist troops from the Spanish Civil War, or Boer Commandos (which would be more or less correct for the period. Perhaps that was some bit of shrewd subtlety on the part of that wicked genius Hines?). Oddly enough, the character of the Curate looks exactly like he's drawn in the original illustrations by Warwick Goble, and he also turns in the most convincing job of acting. Oh, yeah. Musn't forget the THUNDER CHILD. In the book, the warship is described as an ironclad torpedo-ram. It was MEANT to RAM enemy ships. Yet, it's bow was crumpled after ramming the Tinker-Toy constructed Martian War Machines, with a tiny jagged hole in the forepeak, and she sank. An ironclad warship like THUNDERCHILD could've rammed the TITANIC and survived, but I guess the Royal Navy was bound by the same lowest-bidder constraints as our own Military. The costumes are all wrong, especially the British Army and Police uniforms, cobbled together mostly from USMC Alphas. And Timbo, in an obvious homage to Western Films Of Yore, has obviously set his movie in Wild Western England, because all his riders are using western saddles. The accents being used by just about everyone appear to be a mixture of some kind of Scottish regional accent used by Clan Macabre, and magically delicious Irish accents from County Malarky. On the credit side, and contrary to what one reviewer wrote, the only genuine, authentic feature of this Thing is the artillery. The guns are not from the Civil War, but appear to my eye and research as bona-fide British nine or 12 pounder Rifled Breach Loaders, perfectly authentic to the period. So was the ammunition shown being used. But the Artilleryman, who is a driver in the Horse Artillery, was not shown correctly driving his limber. You don't sit on the frigging limber box and drive a gun team, you ride the nearside wheel horses. The Opening, using what I believe is authentic period film footage, is okay, and the score's not bad. However, to the best of my knowledge Weybridge has never had an underground, and it certainly didn't in 1898.<br /><br />But growing up reading this novel, I am very disappointed. Even more disappointed then I was at Spielberg's zillion dollar, special effects laden version. Maybe his version would have profited by swapping Anthony Piana for Tom Cruise, and vice versa. I have a lot more to say, but I'll let it go at this for now: I wish somebody would make a GOOD version of "War Of The Worlds" that's faithful to the original. Timmy's vision is fine for a high school film class, or maybe I should say pretentiously stupid for a college-level film student, and about as bad, which is about the best I can say for this thing, but that's about it. Oh, yeah. Just where DID the budget go? And what happened to Michael Caine? I'd like to hear HIS comments! I have a sneaking suspicion that Timbo "Orson Wood" Hines' breathtaking, bound-breaking cinema masterpiece just might be the risk-taking director's ticket to cult stardom, because, I must confess a guilty pleasure at watching this movie, which I didn't pay for anyway but was thoughtfully sent to me by a friend who burned a DVD copy for me, with no malicious intent that I've been able to determine. I must add here that I thought Blackmoon's dubbed and abridged version was not only a vast improvement, but an absolute, hysterically funny (in a good way) treat to watch. I find it hard to watch Master Timbo's version after Blackmoon. Keep it up, Tim! Make your own version of "DUNE", now. It just awaits the hand of a master like you! And all you headupyourass snobs who hated Cloverfield? FORGET IT. It CANNOT BEAT TIMBO HINES ARTISTRY FOR SHEER HILARIOUS AWFULNESS! HEY GET A LIFE!TIMBO IS WORSE THAN THE MASTER ED WOOD! I KID YOU NOT! | 0 | trimmed_train |
14,143 | Wealthy psychiatrist Lindsay Crouse has just published her first novel and is feeling down about her profession feeling that it's hopeless to help her patients. A young gambling junkie client asks her to help him pay off his debts if he truly wants to help him get better. Here she gets involved with Joe Mantegna. To reveal any more of the plot would spoil one hell of a fun movie and 'House of Games' may very well be the best con movie I've seen. David Mamet wrote and directed this gem that's full of snappy dialogue, great one-liners, and enough twists to keep you guessing til the end. Crouse is perfect as the uptight psychiatrist needing a change and Mantegna tops her as the devilishly sly con-man. And with the exception of a coincidence in the last quarter of the movie, the film is in utter control of it's audience; and we are loving the con.<br /><br />*** out of **** | 1 | trimmed_train |
24,244 | It has been some years since I saw this, but remember it and would like to see it again. It kind of became a "therapy" for me with a personal experience of my own.<br /><br />A thirty-five year old man laments over a high-school baseball game in which he "missed the ball" and his team lost. He thinks about it 20 years later, "if only I'd hit that ball" and how his life would be better because of it. Then, he gets a chance to find out....and gets a little more than he bargained for.<br /><br />It reminds me so much of when I was in high school, I twice tried out for our drill/dance team and didn't make it. This team was the closest thing to a sorority in my school. If you were on it, you were "all that." I didn't try out till my last two years of HS and after the second time, I took it really hard. I'd hit and bruised my leg badly just before tryouts and wore tights to cover the bruise, and that caused me to not make it. That was in 1987.<br /><br />Through the years, even now sometimes, I think "If only I hadn't hit my leg I would've never worn those stupid tights." Now I don't sit and think my life would be any better or even any different had I made it, but seeing this movie made me realize that we never really know how different things may be by changing one little thing way back in the past. Who knows, it could have changed the course of events to the point that I wouldn't have met my son's father.<br /><br />I would recommend this movie to anyone who has that one moment in the past they wish they could change. Be careful what you wish for!!! | 1 | trimmed_train |
17,912 | I first saw this film in 1980 in the midday movie spot. After many subsequent viewings (and purchase of the video) it still makes me laugh out loud.<br /><br />Yes, it's a relic of another age - a domestic comedy set in affluent middle class America - but well executed is well executed. But it's also a document of its age - a celebration of post-war optimism, the baby boom and the nascent consumer age. This film is no "guilty" pleasure.<br /><br />Three wonderful sophisticated leads actors - urbane Melvyn Douglas; bemused Cary Grant; daffily determined Myrna Loy - complement each other and a memorable team of characters.<br /><br />My favourite scenes - "It means we gotta blast" and "Miss Stellwaggen" and "This little piggy".<br /><br />Love it. | 3 | trimmed_train |
1,621 | There was not one single redeeming factor in this movie. The girlfriend and I both love action films. Especially fight scenes (Bloodsport and Kickboxer was awesome), but this movie was not entertaining. Five minutes of action followed twenty minutes of talking and "angry" facial expressions. The main hero is a troubled character who has seen battle and thus is forced to look seriously constipated at all times. The Army has disrupted his bowel movements on top of perfecting his fighting technique. The music isn't good either. They fight to the rap and hip-hop style of the streets, 'cause these guys are thugs. The rest of the soundtrack is the usual background noise to low-budget dramas.<br /><br />Everything about this movie is classic B-style. The actors deliver their lines as if reading them from cue cards and the lines themselves should be set on fire and left burning in some rotten Hollywood alleyway. The film is called "Honor," but there was no honor in making this film. It was simply a waste of money, and spending wisely is something I consider to be honorable.<br /><br />Go see Felon instead. The fight scenes and situations are more real. | 2 | trimmed_train |
19,214 | This movie is ridiculous! That's exactly what I like about this piece of "Guilty Pleasure". It is easy to condemn this movie for not including Pat Priest and Butch Patrick, the original Marilyn and Eddie. But look at the year and do the math. Pat Priest and Butch Patrick had long outgrown their parts! Time does that to young stars. Yvonne De Carlo, who re-prised her role as Lili, was pushing the Big 6-0 (even though she still looked good and was still the perfect "Lili").<br /><br />It's a shame that Yvonne De Carlo wasn't given a larger part. Still, it was good to see Fred Gwynne and Al Lewis in the roles that made them so famous! During the 2 seasons that THE MUNSTERS was on prime time, it was the Gwynne/Lewis chemistry that made the series such a success. The rest of the cast were supporting cast members, not to say that they weren't needed. They were! The TV series wouldn't had survived as long as it did without them. Given the choice between Butch Patrick or Happy Derman (the original "Eddie"), the choice was too easy. Yvonne De Carlo was also the better choice over Joan Marshall.<br /><br />Though this movie doesn't measure up to the original TV series, it still measures up nicely and is one of the better "reunuin" TV specials that plagued the boob-tube during the late 1970s/early 1980s.<br /><br />' | 1 | trimmed_train |
2,419 | This movie starts slow, then tapers off. After watching for about an hour, and seeing absolutely nothing happen, I walked out. I mean, nothing happened. Zero. Zip. Nada. There is no story. The characters are vague representations of the most boring people any of us know. The producers of this film could be sued in a court of law if they try to sell it as a "motion" picture. There is no motion. I could have told the same "story" with a couple still pictures with captions. The script is a joke. It's just awful. I doubt that any script doctor in the world could save it. My biggest regret is not that I wasted 60 minutes of my life watching "Love In the Time of Money", but that I missed a great opportunity to be a leader. I could have been the first to walk out, but I waited a bit too long. Instead, I watched about 20 people walk out before me. | 0 | trimmed_train |
13,130 | Although DiG! was being hailed as being closest to what the music industry is like it is highly fabricated. The director has misled the audience into believing the Brian Jonestown Massacre disappeared off the face of the earth post-'98. And the rivalry between the Dandy Warhols and Jonestown has been milked. The truth of the matter is not really exposed in this film.<br /><br />That said this film is endlessly quotable and is an interesting watch as we get a look at two groups of very talented musicians creating their art. One of the best things this film has going for it is a unique perspective between the indie music scene and the larger corporate scene.<br /><br />Recommended mostly for the music and the two fantastic bands. | 3 | trimmed_train |
184 | Sky Captain is possibly the best awful movie I've seen in a long while. Rife with amazing CG and special effects, studded with an A-list cast (Jude Law, Gwyneth Paltrow, Angelina Jolie and the infinitely likable Giovanni Ribisi) and racing along with an overused but Indiana Jones-esquire storyline, this should have been a great movie to watch.<br /><br />'Should have' being the key term here, of course.<br /><br />Jude Law plays Joe the Sky Captain with a dashing accent and plenty of over-the-shoulder, heart-melting smirks, but you can't make something out of nothing, and even his flippant deliveries and boyish good looks can't save the movie's stone dialogue. (If he had slapped Giovanni Ribisi on the back and said, "Good boy, Dex," just ONE more time, I might have barfed all over the guy in front of me.) Gwyneth Paltrow, as Polly Perkins, is nothing less than nerve grating. Her nasal whining and not-quite-sarcastic comments get old in the first ten minutes of the movie. Perhaps she put too much effort into playing the stereotypical 30's comic book heroine- who knows? I expected more from her. An example of how a similar character was played (and played well) is in the late 90's flick "The Phantom," starring Kristy Swanson and Billy Zane. Rent the movie and you'll know what I mean.<br /><br />Giovanni Ribisi and Angelina Jolie were the saving graces in the film. (Angelina Jolie was incredibly hot in that eyepatch. I'll admit it.) In just a few short scenes, both actors somehow managed to rise above the tired material and deliver a more riveting performance than their dry, two-dimensional castmates.<br /><br />The plot and steady story progression were old, boring, and basically just a monotonous combination of every good scene from an action movie in the past thirty years. The pace is rapid-fire in the first half of the movie, and a snail's pace in the second, giving the audience enough time not only to guess the eventual conclusion of the film, but to figure out who the key villain is as well. The pairing is rather clichéd, also- Polly Perkins and Sky Captain apparently reunite after several years of separation from a bitterly-ended romance, and their story isn't so much charming and eclectic as it is annoying and mismatched. When they finally come to terms with their mutual feelings towards the end of the film, nobody's surprised, and nobody really cares either.<br /><br />Props to the director for appreciating Bai Ling enough to dress her in skintight vinyl for the entirety of the film, and also for the intriguing sepia tones that served as coloration throughout. But Sky Captain, despite having all the essential elements of being a great movie, falls flat on its face. Not even worth the $2.75 I paid to get into the theater. | 0 | trimmed_train |
21,574 | My what a director's intuition can bring on material that needs just the right nudge in the right directions. Young Mr. Lincoln is filled up with some 'old-fashioned' values, which in retrospect, despite its two-dimensional portrayal, is at least more respectably done than one might see in the pap in current cinema. What makes it work so extremely well as it does, in all its simplicity and grandeur, is that its a truly great courtroom drama in the guise of a history lesson. <br /><br />We all know of Abraham Lincoln as the 16th president that did the emancipation and after the Civil war got assassinated. But as the lawyer in his earlier years he was charismatic, funny in the most unexpected places, and a true gentleman. He's not some superhero that can do no wrong (which was Fonda's only apprehension to the part before signing on), but a figure with possible flaws that are surpassed by his innate goodness and clear sight of right and wrong.<br /><br />It's suffice to say that John Ford is exceptional as a storyteller almost without trying. Actually, it's a lie, he does try, but he makes it sort of effortless in the studio system; he worked in an independent manner while also pleasing simultaneously Zanuck, so he was pretty much left alone to his own succinct practices in "editing in camera", and not moving it around so as to not waver far off from the story. It's this strength of conventional wisdom that somehow works hand in hand with the material, as a kind of companion piece to the full-blooded Americana in 1939 as seen in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (only here it's the law and not politics). <br /><br />Fonda is terrific in the lead- his first with Ford- and never lets us loose sight of Lincoln past the make-up and extra boost in the shoes. Fonda's own personality, in a sense, as it would in Grapes of Wrath and My Darling Clementine, comes out in the character of Lincoln. However unlikely it might be, there's no one else from this period that could have played him then: he's mature and wise, but has the gumption to prove himself in this case of a convoluted he-saw-that-but-did-she murder case.<br /><br />Only in little bits and pieces, like that final shot which superimposes Lincoln walking down the road with his monument, and a couple of small instances during that big parade scene early on, seem pretty dated. As far as the goals set out with Young Mr. Lincoln, there were all met by Ford and his crew and cast; it's not as hokey as one might think going in, and it's got a strong balance of humor and genuine pathos. | 3 | trimmed_train |
5,331 | An Inconvenient Truth is as entirely simplistic and demagogic as the turgid slop created by the rabid and idiotic Republicans, it meanders along intangible lines until it attempts to gorge something into your face, namely that we'll all be dead in a few hundred years, which is already indisputable, but who cares, humans are selfish, destructive creatures, I frankly do not waste my time caring about human extinction. I'll just call it a "natural progression". Let the apocalypse begin, but meanwhile, we have to listen to the same brazen, slanted politicians who propose another "new society", well, don't be fooled, we'll all still be controlled by the wealthy, by those in power and by those idiots who created the catastrophes in the first place. Nothing will ever change.<br /><br />Al Gore, whose hypocrisy is quite evident in the film, as he is being driven in a gas guzzling car all alone using a consumerist computer, he also lives on huge acres of land in a rather large mansion, the land itself was used for destructive erosive purposes including cattle, tobacco, pig farming (which accounts for methane gas traces) and who knows what else, his wealth is predicated on exploitation, greed and his investments include numerous large companies in the world with disputable records. I hardly think this man is qualified to lecture the less fortunate, but his prestige is based on his opposition to another ludicrous political party, that is all, meanwhile he emits those very same rancid characteristics that make politics and politicians so appalling. This bozo happens to be living the comfortable life and yet he's lecturing poor people in Africa about crop farming and cut and burn techniques? He travels across the world in first class seats in fuel wasting jets, uses product placed computers in the documentary, and yet he thinks everything is a "moral issue". He's entirely absorbed in his own deluded nightmares, he says he came to these conclusions because of the death of his sister (from tobacco induced cancer and the near death of his son by an automobile of all things). Did he fight against the tobacco companies or propose that automobiles be banned because they are dangerous hulking machines? NO. Everything must serve the "economy", so why is he any different, the answer is he is not.<br /><br />His forlorn and exhausted attempts at humanistic philosophy are disastrous, all this while he's being filmed in the forest or along a little river eschewing stale life affirming quotes. Well Mr Gore, why don't you try living like the common people then? He is a politician, plain and simple, he has a career invested in the power structure. My question is, why doesn't he concentrate on the powerful industrial nations of the earth who are to blame for most of the complications? He doesn't do that because it would be unwise for "investments, stocks and corporations".<br /><br />Al Gore gives monotonous lectures about the subject in the documentary, namely to wealthy white people in the audience, who clap on cue, while showing them graph charts, numbers and percentages, and speaking in a dreary tone, no one without a Harvard (which the elites control) education can make sense out of it, but he tells us everything is going to hell. No kidding, but I think he fails to account for this problem precisely in the approach that capitalism has taken for the planet, namely that it is expendable and a waste dump. He never once mentions how industrialization has created these problems, he just wants to put mild bandages on them but not eradicate the whole oppressive system. Its obvious he was spoiled, sent to the schools for elites and has the same basic temperament for politics as any other back stabbing, inconsistent dullard in Washington. Whoever made this propaganda, as it is in no way different than what the Republicans have conceived, had only goals in mind that were directed by capitalistic impulse. That is to say, someone is going to benefit, and it seems the "new green" politicians who support venture capitalist companies who are buying up hordes of land in an attempt to develop the "new Utopian future" with "new technologies". It's the same old story, Al Gore is a believer in the elitist structure, he actually believes there is a "democracy" in the US which I find very naive. If we aren't paying wages to the oil companies, then we'll be paying them to the wind and solar companies.<br /><br />I find the speech at the end quite rancid, along the lines of something GW Bush would have oozed over to the dumb downed masses, Gore speaks about "people uniting together to defeat communism" in the 1990's, what it had to do with global warming, absolutely nothing but he attempts to get base emotions ruminating in people. With that said, he didn't understand that communism never existed in the world, the systems in Europe and USSR were merely a tyrannical form of authoritarianism and capitalism, no less different than what controls the US interests. Social ecology was not even mentioned here, which is really a travesty. If you want to change the world, then one must dispose of those antiquated systems that are based on greed, exploitation and violence. | 0 | trimmed_train |
17,785 | My Super X-Girlfriend is one hell of a roller coaster ride. The special effects were excellent and the costumes Uma Thurman wore were hubba buba. Uma Thurman is an underrated comedic actress but she proved everyone wrong and nailed her role as the lunatic girlfriend. She was just simply FABULOUS!!! Luke Wilson was also good as the average Joe but he was a brave man to work with one of the greatest actresses of all time. The supporting cast was also superb especially Anna Faris who was extremely good (A lot better than in the Scary Movie franchise).<br /><br />Ivan Rietman did very well in directing this film because if it wasn't for him and Uma Thurman this film wouldn't have done so well. This film is clearly a 10/10 for it's cast (Uma Thurman), it's director, it's screenplay and from it's original plot line. This film is very highly recommended. | 3 | trimmed_train |
5,883 | This film is really ONLY Bill Maher's interpretation of religion. There are several funny moments, and some interesting points, but don't go into this expecting an even-handed discussion of religion. This is what I consider to be the worst kind of documentary - Everything is arranged ahead of time and in editing to provide you with the opinion of the director, rather than letting you make your own decision.<br /><br />EDITING - It's very chopped up, inter-spliced with clips from pop culture and the media to reinforce the point. The interviewee barely has a chance to finish a sentence before he is interrupted by the editing. The only people given a fair chance to speak their mind are those who say what Bill Maher wants them to say. Once someone deviates from the gospel according to Maher, they get edited.<br /><br />INTERVIEWEES - They are meant to represent the absolute MOST extremist religions. From the TV evangelical to the ultimate Jewish stereotype, to a TRUCK STOP chapel (Seriously. A TRUCK STOP CHAPEL). He's picked the worst money-grabbers, the heavy extremists, and those who don't have the budget to say no to pick on. And when he does get a good person to interview, he edits the hell out of them.<br /><br />STEREOTYPING - All religions are portrayed as stereotypes. Especially hard hit are the Muslims. During the Muslim segment, he barely gives anyone the chance to speak before interrupting them either himself, or through editing in pieces with suicide bombers. ALL Muslims are portrayed as gun-toting extremists through the editing, and none of the people interviewed is edited fairly.<br /><br />ENDING - The message at the end is INCREDIBLY heavy-handed, and while it is an interesting idea, it's not presented with fairness to the countless people who are not religious extremists. Bill Maher explains himself while clips of destruction play in the foreground. This literally gives the message that religion is stupid and dangerous, and that it will destroy the world. He also states that everyone involved in religion is stupid.<br /><br />With the faults to the film, it has some good points, and the humor, while very unfair, is actually funny. But know going in, it is a very one-sided view, Bill Maher's view, of religion. He's not discovering anything. He's telling you what he thinks.<br /><br />4/10 - Some good moments, but heavy-handed with an extremely irresponsible documentary style. | 2 | trimmed_train |
12,008 | Is this the "worse" Star Trek TOS episode? Maybe, at least it gets my vote as being in the bottom 5. I mean, this episode makes absolutely no freaking sense. Seeing something that makes you go mad? Give me a break. This episode also has a different feel to it, the music is heightened, almost forced to enhance a feeling of distress, to the point that it sucks. Give me some Klingons, Gorns, Tholians, Romulans, higher beings like Triskelion's or anything but Medusin's, these are very boring aliens to make an episode around. McCoy gets to utter his famous phrase "He's Dead, Jim". Spock puts on the protective goggles when transporting the ambassador away but Kirk does not. They go through that freaking "barrier" now for the third time that I can remember, boring. At least season three's next episodes would be "Spectre Of The Gun", and "Day of The Dove" and others to follow, making Trek a decent show to watch in syndication where it would pick people like me up as avid fans. Personal observations, Trek loved to use the color purple, its kind of a pinkish purple, like when they are in the corridor outside the compartment, the gangway that is normally grey is now purple. We never had a purple bridge but its interesting to see, I noticed it in several episodes, it was done by a light filter and it works very well but in this episode, in the ships corridor is pretty lame. | 2 | trimmed_train |
6,879 | I'm not going to approach and critique the theories of RAW. I mean, this is a site about movies and whether the movie delivers or is well-made, and not a site debating philosophy.<br /><br />Having said that, this video really blows. It's one talking-head shot of RAW after another. Some of it is archival video, so you can see how he has aged over the years, and that's pretty cool. But, otherwise, the viewing experience is relentlessly monotonous.<br /><br />It's a strange comparison, but I kept thinking of the Sunday afternoon when I watched some of the Barbra Streisand star vehicle *Funny Lady* (another really bad movie). After a while, I was so OD'd on Barbra, I kept wishing there would be one scene that she wouldn't appear in: you know, a "meanwhile, other characters in the movie were up to something else..." moment. But it was all about Barbra. Well this video is RAW's *Funny Lady*. <br /><br />So, if your idea of a good time is to look at multiple takes and angles of the face of RAW while he prattles on with his theories, assembled in a lame structure that doesn't add any interest or insight, then be my guest. For me, I couldn't take it after 20 minutes. | 0 | trimmed_train |
16,436 | An independent feature can now be seen as both a work of film art and a video resume. Enter Broken, and aggressively promoted, twenty minute short with style and enthusiams to spare. But is it any good as a film, or does it only work as a demo piece? Ah, there in lies the rub.<br /><br />Broken is the story of Bonnie Clayton who is abducted after awakening from a reoccurring nightmare one night by "a sadistic stranger and his colorful entourage" (quote from the video box). As she's held captive, it becomes obvious that her abductors know things about her that even she didn't know about herself. While they question her, a black-clad soldier guns his way into their hideout in an attempt to rescue her. Mayhem ensues.<br /><br />Fortunately for us, director Alex Ferrari seems to know what he's doing, or at least he's very good at faking it. Broken does not suffer from any lack of visual flair, which is especially commendable considering its budget and the inexperience of all involved. What it does suffer from is weak and kind of derivative writing. Think Long Kiss Goodnight meets The Matrix, written ten minutes after reading Fight Club. The good news for Ferrari and producer/writer Jorge Rodriguez is that the story elements are easily ignored for the oodles of eye candy on display. Does the plot really matter that much in a twenty minute short meant to show off the technical skills of its creators? No, not really.<br /><br />Though it would be unfair of me to overlook any negative aspects in light of the films budget and length. Broken is no genre classic. The biggest problem was that it actually would have worked better as a full-length feature. The final "twist" doesn't get enough build up time to be shocking. If Ferrari were allowed the time to slow burn the feature as needed, plot elements would seem less random, and the film more complete. Here's to knowing he's getting the chance.<br /><br />Audio Broken's Dolby Digital 5.1 presentation is second to none in the indie world. I've never heard such aggressive surround from such a small feature. The Matrix inspired soundtrack is very rich and deep, gunshots have punch, and even the dialogue gets in on the surround effects. Of everything presented on this disc, it is the audio that speaks the praise for modern independent DVD production. Also included is an equally impressive Dolby 2.0 surround track, which is the menu default.<br /><br />Extras There are literally hours of making of features to be found on this disc. There are so many extras, in fact, that I find it unrealistic to list and describe each of them here, while still expecting my readers to continue reading. Whatever shortcomings the actual short may have, the DVD is unprecedented in its informational resources. People who enjoyed the film can learn all there is to know about its production, including everything from the conceptual art to the promotional campaign. Those with plans to make an indie film of their own can learn just about everything they need to know from these features.<br /><br />The extras are broken down into categorical menus. These include: pre-production, production, post-production, after the short, and cast and crew bios. From a critical standpoint, I found that some of the sections were quite short. Had they been edited into one featurette per menu option, they would've been less frustrating to navigate, as the curser defaults to the top selection with every return to the main section menu. This is, of course, just nitpicking, but perhaps for future DVD releases the filmmakers will take my advice to heart.<br /><br />It has six audio commentaries and hours of interview footage and talented people, and despite the consonant salesmanship, their true colours do shine through.<br /><br />The willingness to share their film-making secrets with anyone who picks up this DVD is quite generous. From the extras I learned what editing and effects software is most reliable and effective, what brand of camera creates the most professional look for the lowest price, even where to get cheap air soft weaponry. On top of this, I was given several alternate options, in case I found myself unable to locate any products used on this particular production. Wannabe filmmakers unwilling to read a book on the subject would do well to watch this DVD.<br /><br />Overall I've scored the actual short as a 6 out of 10, but wish there was an option for feature length potential and effort, because I'd have scored it an 8 or 9 in these fields. I recommend the DVD for its features and as a perfect example of what can be done with a mere eight thousand American dollars. Those who purchase the DVD can think of themselves as ghost producers for a larger project, as the more attention these guys get, the more funding the feature-length version will get. | 3 | trimmed_train |
11,640 | This movie was recently released on DVD in the US and I finally got the chance to see this hard-to-find gem. It even came with original theatrical previews of other Italian horror classics like "SPASMO" and "BEYOND THE DARKNESS". Unfortunately, the previews were the best thing about this movie.<br /><br />"ZOMBI 3" in a bizarre way is actually linked to the infamous Lucio Fulci "ZOMBIE" franchise which began in 1979. Similarly compared to "ZOMBIE", "ZOMBI 3" consists of a threadbare plot and a handful of extremely bad actors that keeps this 'horror' trash barely afloat. The gore is nearly non-existent (unless one is frightened of people running around with green moss on their faces) and the English dubbing is a notch below embarrassing.<br /><br />The plot this time around involves some sort of covert military operation with a bunch of inept scientists (ie. an idiotic male and his stupid female side-kick) who are developing some sort of chemical called "Death One" that is supposed to re-animate the dead. Unless my ears need to be checked, I don't even recall a REASON for the research of "Death One". It seems to EXIST only to wreak havoc upon the poor souls who made the mistake of choosing to 'star' in this cinematic laugh-fest.<br /><br />Anyway, "Death One" is experimented on a corpse (whom I swear looked like Yul Brynner), and after it is injected into his system, he sits upright and his head explodes! The sound effects are also quite hilarious - as the corpse's face bubbles with green slime, the sound of 'paper crumpling' can be heard. The "Death One" toxin is transported outside and is 'hi-jacked' by a group of thieves where one makes off with it, but infects himself after cutting himself on an exposed vial.<br /><br />Needless to say, the guy turns into a zombie, but not before he makes his timely escape to a cheap motel, infects a lowly porter and murders a maid by pushing her face into a bathroom mirror(!). The military catch wind of this and immediately take action before 'eliminating' everyone who is unlucky enough to be within the 'contamination zone' and turn the motel upside down. They find the infected thief and burn his body, only to have the smoke infect a flock of birds that are flying over the chimney stack(!).<br /><br />We cut to the introduction of a group of men who are on leave from the army, listening to 'groovy music' that is coming out of a little dinky boom-box while trailing a trailer-load of slutty girls who are leaning out of the windows and showing off their chests. Can someone say "zombie food"? We also have a sub-plot involving a girl and her boyfriend driving a car who stop to inspect a group of birds lying on the road... the same birds that were infected by the 'zombie' smoke! <br /><br />The birds attack the boyfriend and the girl drives off to a deserted gas station to seek water. This is one of the most incredibly hilarious moments of the movie. She walks around this old dirty, rusty and obviously abandoned building where she continues to ask aloud, "HELLO? IS THERE ANYONE HERE? PLEASE, I JUST NEED SOME WATER!" She encounters a group of zombies, one of which is chained to a wall (!) and the other is swinging a machete. After a bit of rumbling and tumbling around on the ground, she escapes but not before blowing up the gas station with her lighter.<br /><br />Meanwhile, the birds attack the trailer-load of whores and one girl gets pecked and infected. They all pull up to the same motel where the original infection took place, and this is where the second most hilarious moment of the film takes place. After a matter of hours (a day at the most), the same motel is now caked in dust, has vines growing throughout it, and looks like it has been sitting derelict for years. Anyway, what better place to take refuge than this particular building? Needless to say, the group begins to break down as several people walk off together to get themselves stuck in an incredibly stupid situation involving a zombie attack.<br /><br />The third most hilarious moment concerns a man and a woman who explore a deserted village, of which the woman comments, "THIS PLACE IS A DUMP!" She then proceeds to get 'pushed' off a balcony by a zombie into pirahna(?) infested water where she has her legs bitten off and turns into a zombie within seconds! Meanwhile, her friend back at the motel who got pecked and infected HOURS earlier is still TURNING into a zombie!<br /><br />Unfortunately, there are just too many inconsistencies in this movie that makes this movie just too stupid for words. For example, the time rate concerning infected people being 'zombified' differs greatly. Sometimes it takes seconds, other times it takes hours. Some zombies run, others drag their feet and walk really slow. Some even do kung-fu moves, while others hide under stacks of hay to surprise people. Some of the zombies even talk! The funniest moment of course is the infamous 'zombie head in the fridge' gag which 'elevates' itself in mid-air and 'attacks' a stupid man who goes looking for food. Funnily enough, his girlfriend gets her throat torn out by it's 'headless' counter-part (LMAO!).<br /><br />The biggest disappointment for me though was the lack of story-lines involving the people who are in fact killed by zombies. We never get to see them come back as zombies, in fact the only ones we do see 'zombified' are the ones pecked by the birds and the one girl who gets her legs bitten off. Other than that, I was at least expecting the couple who were killed in the kitchen and/or the guy who was killed on the bridge to come back as zombies. It is also amazing that these zombies only take a 'few bites' and then move on to their next victim. <br /><br />The most laughable moment was of course the zombie fetus. A pregnant woman who has been infected lies on a bed in a hospital. A woman who seems to have a lot of 'medical knowledge' tries to deliver the baby (!) and has her face pulled off by a zombie, before having her head pushed into the woman's stomach where a hand bursts out and proceeds to rip the rest of her face off. Timeless!<br /><br />As usual, all the characters are perfect stereotypes of this genre. The megalomaniacal military officer, the pathetic useless squealing women who scream to get killed, the obvious characters who are ABOUT to get killed (ie. watch for the man chasing a chicken!) I guess this movie really is a comedy. There were many laughable scenes, such as the shed that gets blown up with a hand grenade (obviously the scene where the entire budget was spent) and a climatic scene where a man screams, "I'M THIRSTY.... THIRSTY FOR YOUR BLOOD!". The costumes are really bad - the same zombies reappear throughout the course of the film, wearing the same 'Asian-like' clothing that may be found in a Bruce Lee film, and watch out for the blue 60's skirt the girl at the motel is wearing when she and her boyfriend bump into the infected man.<br /><br />The end of the film leaves open the door as usual for the apocalyptic story-line. A radio DJ who narrates throughout the whole movie turns out to be a zombie himself and warns his listeners about the 'beginning of the end' while the two survivors take off in a helicopter. Hardly "DAWN OF THE DEAD" material if you ask me.<br /><br />Regardless, this movie does deliver many laughs. The gore is minimal, and what gore there is, it is very unconvincing, let alone unimaginative. The usual mix of black blood, thick green goo oozing out of weeping sores and 'zombie make-up' consisting of green moss. "ZOMBI 3" makes for a good rental for a sleep-over party or a night of beer and popcorn. Other than that, horror fans should stay away.<br /><br />3 out of 10 | 0 | trimmed_train |
23,152 | This movie is a brilliant lesson on Japanese history set in at the end of the Tokugawa Shogunate shortly before the Shogunate lost a big battle against the loyalist, who wanted the emperor back on the throne to rule Japan. Really, I had to read a lot of history to get the entire background.<br /><br />Shintaro Katsu (also known as the original Zatoichi) gives a superb performance as Izo Okada, one of the four Hitokiri(=Human Slayer) of the Bakumatsu. He is a simple samurai who looses all of his wealth. In order to have a good life he becomes a retainer of Takechi Hanpei (played by Tatsuya Nakada = Ryonosuke out of Sword of Doom). Hanpei is a ultra-nationalist politician who lets his band of Hitokiri assassinate a lot of high ranking pro-west politicians in order to achieve his political goals. Izo Okada follows his leader without really questioning what they are doing. As long as he has money to go and drink and spend at his whore. Okada's killings get more and more brutal in the course of the movie and he is proud to have a reputation based on fear wherever he goes. <br /><br />It is a splendid portrait on the life of a simple samurai who gets caught up in political affairs and is really to naive to realize what is happening. First after being betrayed and tortured and always having talks with Sakamoto ( who is a samurai who rejects violence) does he change his ideas and views on life. But too late....<br /><br />Watch the movie to see the end of Izo Okada...<br /><br />Shintaro Katsu and the rest of the staff give a brilliant performance. Each actor reaches up to their role. The sword-fights a very unique and fast...probably faster than several movies nowadays...<br /><br />Check it out if you have the chance!!! | 3 | trimmed_train |
19,711 | I caught this movie on my local movie channel, and i rather enjoyed watching the film. It has all the elements of a good teen film, and more - this film, aside from dealing with boys-girls relationships and sex and the like, also deals with the issue of steroid use by young people.<br /><br />The film has that real-life feel to it - no loud music, no special effects and no outrageous scenes - which, for this movie, was right. That feel makes it easy to relate to the characters in the film - some of which we probably know from where we live.<br /><br />Overall, a good movie, fun to watch.<br /><br />8/10 | 1 | trimmed_train |
13,461 | The John Van Druten Broadway hit is brought to the screen with a maximum of star power in this romantic fantasy about a modern-day witch who beguiles a successful Manhattan publisher. James Stewart may get top billing, but it is Kim Novak who steals the show as one of the most alluring witches ever to cast a spell on the movie screen. The lead pairing is, in fact, one of the movie's few weaknesses: the gray-haired Stewart seems a bit old for the role, and while it is easy to see why he falls hard for Novak, it's a little harder to understand what she finds attractive about him, as they seem mismatched in temperment and outlook. (It is one of the story's amusing conceits that witches and warlocks are portrayed as Greenwich Village beatniks and bohemians.) Curiously, the Stewart-Novak pairing would generate a lot more heat in "Vertigo", released the same year as this film, but then "Vertigo" had a compelling suspense story, and the benefit of Alfred Hitchcock's direction.<br /><br />The film's comic moments are mostly provided by the stellar supporting cast, including a young Jack Lemmon (as Kim's warlock brother), Elsa Lanchester (their ditzy aunt), and Ernie Kovacs (!) as a befuddled writer. Hermione Gingold even shows up in a hilarious cameo as a sort of Grand Witch. There's lots to like in this movie--wit, romance, and a great cast--that is, if you can possibly take your eyes off the enchanting Miss Novak. I have seen the movie a half a dozen times, and I never can. | 1 | trimmed_train |
16,176 | Well, some people would say that this particular movie stinks...but hey! Thats not right, not right at al...The movie may not have the best special effects, and may not have the best actors (Except the exelence of the Barbarian Bros.) Dispite theese minor fact, I can honostly say that this is one of the funniest movies I´ve ever seen, and I´ve seen em al! | 3 | trimmed_train |
15,431 | Eyeliner was worn nearly 6000 years ago in Egypt. Really not that much of a stretch for it to be around in the 12th century. I also didn't realize the series flopped. There is a second season airing now isn't there? It is amazing to me when commentaries are made by those who are either ill-informed or don't watch a show at all. It is a waste of space on the boards and of other's time. The first show of the series was maybe a bit painful as the cast began to fall into place, but that is to be expected from any show. The remainder of the first season is excellent. I can hardly wait for the second season to begin in the United States. | 3 | trimmed_train |
16,287 | Just a note to add to the above comment. Fear of a Black Hat doesn't have the criminal who's image has been ripped off by the band, that's in CB4. Easily confused as the two films are so similar, but Black Hat is vastly the superior of the two..... yeah. | 3 | trimmed_train |
5,183 | okay, this movie f*ck in' rules. it is without question one of the most technically inept pieces of cinema ever made. absolutely terrible, but you GOTTA see it. rent this with your buddies and come up with a drinking game or just have fun, it's hilarious. and the behind-the-scenes featurette proves it, you can do anything with paper plates and finger paint. awesome. okay, rent it just for this one scene: two characters are actually WALKING IN PLACE for about 3 minutes in a shot. the director (on the commentary) says "yeah, the tracking was so smooth it looks like they're...". yeah, right man, they are totally walking in place. it's so funny. | 0 | trimmed_train |
12,331 | During the Civil War, there were many cases of divided loyalties; obviously, many occurred "In the Border States", where North met South by happenstance of geography. From the border, young father Owen Moore goes off to join the Union Army. Shortly, Confederate soldier Henry B. Walthall, separated from his regimen, wanders onto the enemy's property, desperate for water; he finds a supply where the Unionist's young daughter Gladys Egan sits. When the Yankee soldiers track him down, Little Gladys innocently helps the Confederate hide. Later, when he returns to kill her father, the little girl's kindness is remembered. A sweet, small story from director D.W. Griffith. Location footage and humanity are lovingly displayed. <br /><br />**** In the Border States (6/13/10) D.W. Griffith ~ Henry B. Walthall, Owen Moore, Gladys Egan | 2 | trimmed_train |
10,001 | Very unnecessary movie with characters that are acting so unsympathetically that I really didn't care who would fare the best (or was that the purpose of the film, to portray some smooth talking cold-hearted New York city folks?) No romance here, no comedy either. Acting is very flat and a very predictable plot. What annoyed me the most was this constant joking with quotes from classic movies. Man, can't you see that the more you quote, the less significant your own movie becomes? Try to be original yourself! A small budget is no excuse at all, first-time director neither. Crappy, crappy, crappy. No wonder it only cost me one buck... | 0 | trimmed_train |
20,633 | In 1942 a film TALES OF MANHATTAN told a set of stories that were basically unrelated, but tied together with a suit of men's evening wear. Each story began when the "tails" were passed from one owner (Charles Boyer, for instance) to another (Ceasar Romero). WINCHESTER '73, a superior film, and a great western, has a similar plot twist. Initially it is about how Jimmy Stewart is seeking Stephen (Horace) MacMahon for some deadly grudge. But in the course of the film the two men get into a shooting contest, the prize (given by Marshall Wyatt Earp - Will Geer) being one of the new Winchester rifles. Stewart barely beats out MacMahon, but the gun is stolen from Stewart, and the chase is on. <br /><br />The gun passes from hand to hand, including John McIntyre (as an arrogant trader who fatally does not know when to stop being arrogant), to Rock Hudson (in a surprising role - and a brief one at that), to Charles Drake, to Dan Duryea (as the delightfully deadly and psychotic Waco Johnny Dean), to MacMahon. Eventually it does return to Stewart.<br /><br />The film is expertly directed by Anthony Mann. Every character has a wide variety of experiences. Duryea gets the rifle literally over Drake's dead body (Duryea forces the issue). But he loses it to MacMahon, who is faster on the draw - not that Duryea is stupid enough to fight for the rifle. As he and Shelley Winter look at MacMahon in the distance, Winter (who watched Duryea kill her former boy friend Drake) drops her distaste for the gunman momentarily to ask why he put up with MacMahon's bullying for the gun. Philosophically, Duryea explains he can wait. Some opportunity will come up later on (i.e., when he can safely kill MacMahon and get back the rifle). <br /><br />The characters are remarkably human. Winters first appears as the future bride of Drake, but she sees a really big negative side to him - an unforgivable side. Drake is aware of this lapse, and it helps lead to his destruction. Other characters have realistic touches, such as J.C. Flippen as an army sergeant who fights an Indian attack with Steward and Steward's friend Millard Mitchell. Oh yes, and with Flippen's fellow soldier - Tony Curtis. Flippen makes one believe this soldier has been on a hundred battlefields before, since 1861 probably. Steward had showed emotions in other films. In IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE he showed a degree of anger at times, and also a near nervous breakdown when he thinks everything is wrong with his life. But here he showed a demonic anger - at the expense of a surprised Duryea (who normally would show such anger himself).<br /><br />The parts of this film fit very neatly together, under Mann's competent hands. This is one western that never wears out, as the audience watches the travels of a Winchester rifle. | 3 | trimmed_train |
17,683 | When I first saw "A Cry in the Dark", I had no idea what the plot was. But when I saw it, I was shocked at what it portrayed. When I saw it a second time in an Australian Cinema class, I realized a second point: communication issues. You see, when a dingo snatched Lindy Chamberlain's (Meryl Streep) baby, she and her husband Michael (Sam Neill) were grief-stricken but didn't show it. As Seventh Day Adventists, they believed that God willed this to happen, and so they couldn't mourn it. But when people all over Australia saw their lack of sadness, everyone started believing that Lindy did it herself.<br /><br />The point is, the wrong message got communicated to the public, and it turned people against Lindy. Even though this was a pure accident, it still happened. It may be one of the biggest disasters resulting from the existence of mass media, regardless of any media outlet's political views.<br /><br />As for the performances, Streep does a very good job with an Australian accent (no surprise there), and Sam Neill is equally great. You will probably get blown away just by what you see here. Definitely one of Fred Schepisi's best movies ever. | 1 | trimmed_train |
7,589 | I actually didn't mind the Geico commercials the first 50 of so times I saw them and even found them to be a bit wry and amusing, BUT SERIOUSLY! This is the BEST thing that these people could come up with?!? This show sucks! It is bland and feels like watching an episode of "The Office" with the characters disguised as cavemen (I know a lot of you will hate me for saying that but "The Office" just does not do it for me). Okay, I get it: we have the poor slob just trying to keep his nose clean and he has a crappy boss who hates him; the pseudo-intellectual who really just has a barely-functioning intellect; and the dopey one who just wants to be accepted, but SO WHAT!!! I have worked with these people and found them just as annoying in real life as I do on TV...why would I want to waste another 1/336th of my week watching more of those type nominates?!? Please call your parents and ask them if they dropped you on your head if after thinking about it, you still delude yourself into believing that this is entertainment. | 0 | trimmed_train |
5,089 | A bunch of women who can't act sit around, talk, smoke pot. They have another woman in a wheelchair they hide because she is deformed, and occasionally they kill some one to feed this person human flesh that really looks like some store-bought ham which they dressed up by sticking on a few plastic fingers. We don't see them killing anyone, suddenly there is a body on the floor, covered by a bloodied sheet. I can't eat Spam cover by a sheet anymore because of this. Just the thought of Spam cover by a sheet is enough to induce the same narcoleptic fit brought on by trying to get through all of this movie. Occasionally there are randomly inserted scenes of a guy who is "hunting" them by way of torturing some guy he strapped to a chair is his basement. Why he caught this guy and how he is connected to the Sit-On-The-Couch Sisters is never explained. There are also scenes of some "superhuman" guy freaking out. He p***es blood and punches through a wall, but who he is or what is wrong with him is neither explained nor even tied in to the story.<br /><br />There is no action, no special effects, no story. If you want to watch some boring people talk in a profound way about nothing while sitting around and eating ham and smoking, then here's 90 minutes of that, because, except for a scene where one chick does some hooking on a street corner and the aformentioned random scenes, absolutely NOTHING happens. (YAWN) Oh, I almost forgot, you get to see them move some stuff, including the deformed sister, when they move to their new apartment. Its one of the few times they're not sitting on a couch or lying in bed. | 0 | trimmed_train |
20,513 | Tony Hawk Underground came at a point where the series was really starting to lose its luster, Tony Hawk Pro Skater 4 did not live up to expectations and left the series really up in the air on what Neversoft and Activision could do with the series that would be different and interesting.<br /><br />Underground introduced the storymode, which was very cool because it made a whole new world for Tony Hawk Pro Skater fans. Another feature introduced which fans pretty much argued for and that was being able to get off the skateboard, which is nice because now you can actually climb, run, and do all sorts of new things.<br /><br />The levels are good, Neversoft also improved on an issue that started with Pro Skater 3 and that was the length of the level designs. The first two games for the PS1, N64 and Dreamcast were great because the levels were nice and long and some hidden features in some. Pro Skater 3 and 4 were shortened because of a handful of features that were added and really pushed the systems too their limits. In this version, they shortened those features, there isn't as many people wondering the streets, in fact there are almost none in some levels, and the graphics and the skating physics are toned down a little but not a lot.<br /><br />This game does have one con, the storymode is a little short, of course this is Neversofts first time doing this with Tony Hawk Pro Skater, so that is understandable. However, with that being said you will definitely finish this game within a day.<br /><br />Overall, a great addition that was very refreshing. | 1 | trimmed_train |
10,993 | After reading all of the rave reviews about this film and a few that give it a so-so. I finally decided to throw in my no cents worth. I agree with most on the point that if it hadn't been for Lauren Lewis and Chris Ferry it would have been a disaster. Filmed in Mariette OH. just north of Dogpatch where all the real talent fled south down I-77 years ago, at least as far as a tank of gas would allow. I did get a chuckle from reviewers who subtly claim that they cerebrate a little better than most by claiming they followed the plot without an inkling of confusion. This wee tale by the Brothers Crook is like an old record with a skip in it. As an American I understand the difficulties Ind film artists have to face. A trip to Romania would have wiped out the budget for sure. Lets face it this whole film was a loop de loop of Claire in the gas station, Claire on the side of the road, Claire under the bleachers, Claire in the house, Claire in the cornfield, Claire at school. Claire here and Claire there. It almost became monotonous and would have if she had not been the best actor in the cast. Josh and Jeff have to make a living but don't write a two page script and turn it into an hour,twenty flick. Before writing another screenplay about dreaming ghosts watch an episode or two of Ghost Whisperer or something and get a little background. All of the cast except the above mentioned and a couple of others were engaged in their first and last film. Also, there is an appearance by co-director Jeff as he is in all his films. Just like Alfred Hitchcock, eh? One thing the film had going for it is that the cameraman seemed to have a fixation on Lauren Lewis' derrière. Well, with all sarcasm now satisfied I still recommend the film for the horror buff just to see this young actress in the formative time of her career (I hope)and that Chris Ferry has established himself as a villain worth watching. | 2 | trimmed_train |
8,168 | OK, so obviously ppl thought this was a good movie in 1955.<br /><br />I pity the fools who still think so... Its absolute rubbish.<br /><br />The story is just ... ridiculous. The characters are absurd caricatures - but this film is not meant to satirise, im sure its meant to be a serious drama isn't it?<br /><br />Dean and others, are too old for their parts. People say Dean is great in this film, and well, maybe he did play his part as well as he possibly could've. His character is meant to be 16 or 17 or so. But Dean was a 24 year old man when he made this film. Seeing him agonise and throw little tantrums like a 4 year old boy... its pathetic.<br /><br />Natalie Wood is gorgeous, but the early scenes at the police station where she is crying and whining are very unconvincing. It sets a bad precedent for the film... and for the rest of it, you feel like cringing every time one of these badly acted emotional scenes comes along.<br /><br />It may've been good for its time, but, really, its drivel.<br /><br />It must've just been hype about Dean's death that has over-inflated the reputation of this film. | 2 | trimmed_train |
24,233 | Bill and Ted are back, only this time an evil dude from the future has sent back an evil Bill and Ted to destroy them, thus destroying 'Wyld Stallions' and the basis for human society in the future. This time Bill and Ted have to travel through the afterlife 'Totally Bogus' and save humanity 'Excellent'<br /><br />With much of the same zany humour and some wonderful new characters like the grim reaper, station and robot Bill and Ted (stations creation) Bogus Journey once again entertains, and is worth watching for its soundtrack alone.<br /><br />7/10 <br /><br />A most triumphant sequel <br /><br />Party on Dudes! Hehe | 1 | trimmed_train |
17,645 | This reminded me of Spinal Tap, on a more serious level. It's the story of a band doing a reunion tour, but things are not harmonious between them. I was especially impressed with the performance of Bill Nighy as Ray. You felt sorry for him, yet he had a certain creepiness about him. It's a great movie to watch if you have ever seen your favorite band get wrinkly,old and pathetic.Bittersweet, highly recommended.. | 3 | trimmed_train |
4,892 | Some very interesting camera work and a story with much potential. But it never comes together as anything more than a student's graduate thesis in film school.<br /><br />There are two primary reasons for this. Fist, there is not a single likable character, not even a villain we might admire for his/her chutzpah. Secondly, all the acting is awful - even from veteran Willem DaFoe. The ham is so plentiful here, you feel like you're at a picnic - but one of those wretched company employee picnics where you drink too much cheap beer and get your hangover before you even stop drinking. Then you eat an underdone hotdog and throw up.<br /><br />All right, I'm being a little rough on a young director who might still go places - as I said, the camera work is quite good.<br /><br />But I feel cheated - the blurb for this film suggests we will get to watch a "Modern western", and the DVD packaging has pictures on it that suggest this as well - but nobody actually connected to the film's making seems to know that this is the kind of film they're supposed to be making.<br /><br />That betrayal is what hurts; but even without it, the fact remains that we don't like these characters, we feel embarrassed for the actors, the story is hopelessly muddled, and in the last analysis, we just don't care.<br /><br />I took it out of the DVD player about half way through. but the rental store wouldn't give me my money back.<br /><br />Now, that really hurts. | 2 | trimmed_train |
8,817 | Lynne Ramsey makes arresting images, and Samantha Morton can summon feeling with a gesture. So what a drag to discover their talents wasted on this mannered, pretentious lark. <br /><br />Ramsey can't bring Callar to life. Her attempts are too arty and oblique. Repeatedly her camera lingers on long silent shots of the agonizing actress as if Morton's obliterated gaze alone could supply character. We are in a blank Warholian hell of self-indulgence: for a film that has minutes to spare on bugs crawling across the floor, you might think it could get round to fleshing out its protagonist. But how will it do so if she rarely speaks? Without the novel's interior monologue, the celluloid Morvern Callar is nobody. Small wonder Ramsey has Morton undress often.<br /><br />That said, the first ten minutes were so impressively acted, shot and edited that my hopes were soaring. Give the film that much: it knows how to make promises, if not how to keep any. | 2 | trimmed_train |
24,389 | 'Moonstruck' is a love story. There is not one romance, there are at least three, but they all have to do with the same family. Loretta's family. Loretta (Cher) is about to marry Johnny Cammareri (Danny Aiello). She doesn't love him, but he is sweet and good man. When he leaves to visit his dying mother in Italy Loretta meets Johnny's brother Ronny (Nicolas Cage). He and Johnny haven't spoken each other in five years and Loretta wants to invite him to the wedding. Of course they fall instantly for each other.<br /><br />How this story and love stories of Loretta's parents and uncle and aunt develop is something you simply have to see for yourself. Every seen is a delight to watch, with Cher as the bright star in the middle of everything. She won and really deserved the Oscar that year. Cage is pretty good, and goofy as well, and Olympia Dukakis as Loretta's mother and Vincent Gardenia as her father are terrific. This movie is funny, charming and therefore highly enjoyable. | 1 | trimmed_train |
8,430 | If you want to know the real story of the Wendigo, I suggest you pick up a copy of Algernon Blackwell's original story. This movie was not only bad but had nothing to do with the book.<br /><br />I loved the book when I read it as a kid (In "Campfire Chillers" by E.M. Freeman)and was so excited to see a movie based on it come out. I was so disappointed when I finally saw it. Another thing is that there were too many PC (Politically Correct) undertones throughout the movie that had no place in the film. When the book was written PC didn't even exist.<br /><br />My suggestion is don't waste your time or money!! If you see it on the video store shelf LEAVE IT THERE. | 0 | trimmed_train |
5,529 | The film was made in 1942 and with World War 11 around, the movie industry decided to capitalize on the fact that spies were around.<br /><br />The film is fun to watch due to the fabulous dancing of Eleanor Powell. The late Miss Powell was certainly a great hoofer in every sense of the word. She is again paired with a very young looking Red Skelton here. The two of them also starred in "I Dood It."<br /><br />Moroni Olsen, who 3 years later, was superb as the interrogating police officer in "Mildred Pierce" again appears as an officer asking Powell to deliver an item. Trouble is that Olsen and his rogues are really the Japanese spies.<br /><br />Bert Lahr is his usual brilliant self here and he gets ample support from Virginia O'Brien. | 2 | trimmed_train |
12,313 | Revenge is one of my favorite themes in film. Moreso, "the futility of revenge" is one of my favorite themes in film. Having seen Gaspar Noe's Irreversible (2002), I was expecting an even more relevant expression of this theme. Instead, this film is a weak half-hearted attempt which expressed nothing but the film's lack of conviction and focus.<br /><br />*SPOILERS* The end scene, a gratuitous male-on-male rape/torture scene, came across as nothing less than a female revenge rape fantasy. However, the film doesn't even follow through with this. Instead, the drawn out scene (which FAR exceeds the brutality of the initial rape both in the degree to which it was graphic and to which it was ritualized) is crowned with a shot of Dawson's face in an expression of either regret or "This didn't fix anything" while the rape of her rapist is heard continuing in the background.<br /><br />My problem with the scene wasn't one of shock, but one of confusion as to what such a graphic scene was trying to get across to the audience. I mean, do we feel bad for the rapist? Do we rejoice in Dawson's revenge? Are we disgusted by the brutality of it all? Do we feel Dawson's moment of regretful clarity? Aside from this failing, the film is really sort of awkwardly paced with more style than substance. Character's are thin, dialog is monotonous, etc.<br /><br />Normally I try to take films on their own terms but Descent didn't really seem to know what those were. Thumbs down. | 2 | trimmed_train |
19,613 | ******WARNING: MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS**************<br /><br />So who are these "Mystery Men?" Simply put, the Mystery Men are a group of sub-Heroes desperately trying to live out their adolescent fantasy lives while botching both their real identities and their super identities. The Shoveller (Bill Macy) works construction during the day, and at night, leaves his wife and kids at home while he cruises the street looking for crimes to tackle with his extraordinary and unique Shovel-fighting style. The Blue Raja (Hank Azaria) sells silverware to newlyweds by day and flings tableware at crackpot villians by night, if his mom isn't keeping him busy with the latest snooping. Mr. Furious works in a junk yard to earn his pay, then takes out his frustration on his friends at night, tossing ill-conceived one-liners at friend and foe alike and threatening to get really angry (leaving everyone to wonder, So What?). Ben Stiller breathes such life into this character, you can't help but love him.<br /><br />These three spend their nights trying to capture that 'moment of glory' they've dreamed about... becoming real Super Heroes. Obviously, it could happen. Champion City has Captain Amazing, after all... a flying, fighting super-cop with enough corporate logos on his costume to stop an extra bullet or two. Greg Kinnear turns in a stellar performance as a middle-aged sellout trying to recapture his fans attention in the twilight of his career.<br /><br />To bring back that 'extra magic' that might win the endorsements again, C.A. frees Casanova Frankenstein, a WAAAAAY over-the-top menace played to chilling perfection by Goeffrey Rush. This lunatic genius has created a 'psychofrakulator' to warp Champion City into a reflection of his own insanities... and ends up capturing C.A. within hours of his release from prison. This leaves only the Mystery Men to stop Frankenstein's evil plan, but with such henchmen as the Disco Boys protecting Frankenstein, the trio are going to need a little help.<br /><br />Recruiting commences, and after a painful recruitment party, the team settles in with The Bowler (Janeane Garofolo), who initially has the only real talent in the team, with her mystic bowling ball seemingly animated by the vengeful spirit of her dead father; the Invisible Boy (Kel Mitchell), who CLAIMS to turn invisible when ABSOLUTELY NO ONE is looking at him; the Spleen (Paul Reubens), granted mystically powerful flatulence by an angry gypsy; and the much underused Sphinx (Wes Studi), who is shown to be able to cut guns in half with his mind, then spends much of the rest of the movie spouting inane riddles and acting over-wise.<br /><br />This film really is a cross-genre romp. Anyone wanting to pigeon-hole films into neat little categories is fighting a losing battle. This is a spoof/parody of the superhero genre - from the pseudo-Burton sets recycled endlessly (and occasionally decorated with more spoof material) to the ridiculous costumes, the comic-book genre gets a pretty good send-up. But at the same time, it is a serious superhero flick, as well. Both at once. While not a necessarily unique idea in itself (for example, this movie is in some ways reflective of D.C. Comic's short-lived Inferior Five work), it is fairly innovative for the big screen. It offers the comic-book world that requires a suspension of disbelief to accept anyway, then throws in the inevitable wanna-bes - and we all know, if superheroes were real, so would these guys be real. If the Big Guy with the S were flying around New York City, you'd see a half-dozen news reports about idiots in underwear getting their butts kicked on a regular basis. Sure, the Shoveller fights pretty well, and the Blue Raja hurls forks with great accuracy - all parts of the super-hero world. But does that make them genuine super-heroes? Only in their minds.<br /><br />This movie is also a comedy, albeit a dark one. Inevitable, when trying to point out the patent ridiculous nature of super-heroics. One-liners fly as the comic geniuses on stage throw out numerous bits to play off of. Particularly marvelous is the dialogue by Janeane Garofalo with her bowling ball/father. Yet, it isn't a comedy in the sense of side-splitting laughter or eternally memorable jokes. It mixes in a dose of drama, of discovery and of romance, but never really ventures fully into any of it.<br /><br />What really makes Mystery Men a good film, in the end, is that it is very engaging. The weak/lame good guys are eventually justified and, for one shining moment, really become super-heroes; justice is served; and the movie ends with a scene that reeks of realism (as much realism as is possible in a world where bowling balls fly and glasses make the perfect disguise). If the viewer stops trying to label the film, then the film can be a great romp.<br /><br />Of course, no movie is perfect. Claire Forlani comes off as bored and directionless as Mr. Furious' love interest, in spite of having a pivotal role as his conscience. Tom Waits seems somehow confused by his own lines as the mad inventor Dr. Heller, although his opening scenes picking up retired ladies in the nursing home is worth watching alone. And the villians are never more than gun-toting lackeys (a point of which is made in the film). The cinematography is choppy and disjointed (such as happens in the average comic book, so it is excusable), the music sometimes overpowers the scenery, and the special effects are never quite integrated into the rest very well.<br /><br />Yet, overall, this film is incredible. You probably have to be a fan of comics and the superhero genre to really appreciate this movie, but it's a fun romp and a good way to kill a couple of hours and let your brain rest.<br /><br />8/10 in my opinion. | 3 | trimmed_train |
13,873 | I'm a big fan of fan of film noir, and this film by Otto Preminger easily stands as one of the best that I've seen! Preminger has reunited two of his stars from the hit 'Laura' - Gene Tierney and Dana Andrews, for an entirely different sort of crime film. Laura was based around love, and this film is based around hate; as we watch police detective Mark Dixon, a copper already suffering scrutiny from his superiors for his heavy handed tactics, accidentally kill a suspect and try to pin the murder on a known criminal; a man by the name of Tommy Scalisi. The plot is brilliantly worked, and Preminger excellently balances several plot points; but it all comes back down to the main moral implication surrounding our main character. The fact that the film is set in the criminal underground means that the plot is given an excellent base to work from, and director Otto Preminger expertly captures the sleazier side of life by showing the main characters gambling, beating one another (and their women), shooting and more - and this also helps to offset the film from the earlier 'Laura', which was very much set in upper class society.<br /><br />The role of Mark Dixon gives Dana Andrews one of the most interesting parts of his career. Here, we have a character that is difficult to like as he's so cold - but the fact that we can understand his motives ensures that he's easy to sympathise with, and that allows the audience the ability to plug into his plight. The character development is well timed, and as we've follows this character and his motivations throughout the film; everything makes sense by the end. His co-star is the beautiful Gene Tierney, who isn't given as much to do in this film as she was in Laura; a film that made Tierney its linchpin. She does well with what she's got, however, and the lead duo's chemistry is excellent and Tierney helps to complete every scene she's in. I can't say that this is a better film than the earlier Laura; that's a hard act to follow, but this film certainly fits into the film noir formula better than Preminger's earlier film. The film also makes a good comparison piece for Laura; as just about everything in this film is opposite to the 1944 movie, yet it's all strangely familiar. Highly recommended to all! | 3 | trimmed_train |
22,344 | A neat 'race against time' premise - A murdered John Doe is found to have pneumonic plague, so while the health authority and NOPD battle everybody and each other trying to find his waterfront contacts, the murderers think the heat is because the victim's infected cousin is holding out on them. <br /><br />This movie is freely available from the Internet Archive and it's well worth downloading. A lot (all?) of this movie was filmed in genuine New Orleans locations, which makes it interesting to look at for what is now period detail, though to me it does look under-exposed, even for noir - maybe mobile lighting rigs then weren't what they are. There is also a plenty of location background noise, which is slightly distracting - car horns in the love scene, anyone? There are a lot of non-professional supporting artists in crowd scenes, and this may explain why the pacing of the film is slightly saggy to begin with - not much chance for retakes or recasting, though the final chase is worth hanging on for. There's not much wrong with the lead actors either: Jack Palance is genuinely scary as a charismatic, intelligent psychopath - the later scene as he alternately comforts and threatens the sick cousin is terrific, while Widmark, as he often did, pitches the righteous anger of the man on a mission at a believable level - most of the time. <br /><br />Somebody should remake this - no supernaturals, no mysticism, no special FX, just a good yarn full of character conflict, and a topical theme. Another reviewer mentioned the writer John Kennedy O'Toole, and that's spot on with the number of oddball New Orleans types peppering this dark, sleazy, against-the-clock drama. There's even a midget newspaper seller.<br /><br />"Community? What community? D'you think you're living in the Middle Ages?" | 1 | trimmed_train |
23,440 | Love it or loathe it, it's hard to not find Warren Beatty's take on "Dick Tracy," the 1990 film adaptation of Chester Gould's famous comic strip, anything short of a genre classic. Superhero films have been coming out of the woodwork in recent years, and may soon become a genre all on its own.<br /><br />Beatty's film liberally uses Gould's source material to full effect, shooting in all six of the strip's primary colors, and thus giving this unique yet familiar world of trigger-happy mutant gangsters and loose, seductive women a lush visual style and tone.<br /><br />It can be stated that the film's strong visual aesthetics drastically short-change the characters and their acting abilities, which I don't think can be any further from the truth.<br /><br />"Dick Tracy" relishes in its look and ghastly characters, and Beatty himself, who plays the dogged and incorruptible detective of the title, is appropriately stoic and ready to bust the bad guys at any and all costs.<br /><br />Other than the visual treats and Oscar-winning makeup, there is a plot, and Big Boy Caprice (Al Pacino, deliciously over-the-top in an Oscar-nominated performance), seeks to eliminate Tracy in one well-planned move, but also seeks to gain control of all criminal action in the city by uniting all the feuding gangs under him.<br /><br />Tracy, meanwhile, is juggling his relationship with Tess Trueheart (Glenne Headly), who as her name would have it, remains faithfully by his side and cares for The Kid (Charlie Korsmo), who eventually finds a father figure to look up to in our crime-busting hero. Tracy's fidelity to Tess is tested by the tempting advances of Breathless Mahoney (Madonna), who is also Big Boy's main squeeze. At the same time that all of this is going down, things become heated when a new criminal figure arrives in town, and decides to play both sides against the middle.<br /><br />The performances are good, as Beatty's focus on the strained and romantic relationships between each of the leads becomes the center of the material, as opposed to just concentrating on pointless action and special effects. Pacino freely chews up the scenery in a role that's truly standout from the rest.<br /><br />"Dick Tracy" is one of the best and most overlooked of the comic book movie genre. I think that if Chester Gould was still alive, he would be proud of Warren Beatty's take on his beloved crime-fighting detective.<br /><br />8/10 | 1 | trimmed_train |
12,626 | It was in 1988, when I saw "The Ronnie and Nancy Show" for the first time (on Austrian television). At that time, I was already a very big fan of Spitting Image (since when it won the bronze rose of the Montreux Film Festival in 1986). Of course I recorded every show on tape and watched it again and again - especially "The Ronnie and Nancy Show". I remember that scene when Ronnie stood in front of a painting of Abraham Lincoln (thinking it was a mirror) and said to himself "I need a shave". Or most amusing of all, when he played ball with his dog - but vice-versa!<br /><br />It's such a shame, that Spitting Image seems to fall into oblivion; it was one of the most fantastic and most intelligent made TV-shows ever. Compared to other satirical broadcasts it was definitely the best of all. <br /><br />Well, almost 20 years have passed since then, and I wish I could see the show again. Is it possible to purchase it from someone... somewhere? | 3 | trimmed_train |
14,218 | I have seen this film on countless occasions, and thoroughly enjoyed it each time. This is mostly due to the lovely Erika Eleniak- a great actress with incredible looks. Plus, any film starring Tom Berenger and Dennis Hopper is bound to be entertaining. | 3 | trimmed_train |
18,153 | I found this movie to be very good in all areas. The acting was brilliant from all characters, especially Ms.Stone and Morissey. Tramell's Character just gets smarter and more psychologically twisted by the minute. The plot is interesting even though, this movie is more for the mind playing between the main characters and how Catherine continues her writing with new ways and twists for her novels. The setting was also fabulous and the whole atmosphere of the movie was that mysterious,thriller like masterpiece. Go see this film now , it deserves better than what it got from the audience ,which was misled by some faulty terrible reviews about the movie(Before it even started).....You won't regret it,if you go see it... | 1 | trimmed_train |
16,577 | I caught this movie by accident on cable in the middle of it and had to rent it to see it's entirety and I'm glad I did. I was immediately drawn by the storyline and cared about the girls involved. Naive high school graduates, best friends since childhood, take a high school trip and are taken in by a con man named Nick who get them into serious trouble. They are used as sacrificial mules in a heroin smuggling ring. Taken in to custody the girls learn to cope with their incarceration while trying to find a way out of their trouble. Everything that they try to help themselves falls short when the Thai criminal justice system shows shortcomings and the girls end up in more trouble and lose the trust of their American lawyer "Yankee Hank". Hank gives up trying to defend them after he feels betrayed by Alice(Claire Dane). However, the Thai native wife of Hank smells a rat in the case and does some further foot work of investigation and finds out the girls really were victimized. The end of the movie when Alice does a selfless act to save Darlene (Beckinsale) had me in tears. I really enjoyed this movie and would recommend it. | 3 | trimmed_train |
15,004 | It's really unfortunate that most people outside of Canada think that the only things that Canada produces are snow, mounties and hockey players. This film is the second superlative Canadian film I have seen within the past few weeks (the first was "The Red Violin"), far better than all but the best Hollywood efforts.<br /><br />Gustad Noble is anything but that; he is a middle-aged Parsi bank employee in Bombay in the 1970s. This film sensitively explores various things that happen to him concerning his family, his friends and his work, and their effect on him. At the same time, it is a fascinating, and, I would assume, accurate, portrayal of middle-class, urban life in India at the time.<br /><br />However, I was somewhat prepared for this, having read Rohinton Mistry's book a few years ago. The film, as might be expected, cannot capture all the complexities of the book, but, if you want to read a really good book, and see a really good film, read and see "Such a Long Journey". | 3 | trimmed_train |
3,188 | I can see little girls enjoying this show, but calling this a family show is ridiculous. I'm amazed how well remembered it is after all these years. It's an extremely unfunny and stupid show about widowed father of three living with his dead wife's brother and his stupid friend from school, and others as the seasons go on. All of the plot lines generally have a really dumb lesson. In the middle of each episode somebody is mad at somebody else and each episode they make up and it ends on a light unfunny joke. As for the actors, I didn't like them either. Bob Saget was painfully unfunny as the dad with the mom responsibilities. Dave Coulier is a one note joke 30 something year old that does cartoon voices and acts like a kid, and he's horrid. John Stamos was the most tolerable character but he was so clichéd it was hard to watch him. The oldest girl, DJ, on the show was a genuinely bad actress and showed no emotion ever. The middle girl Stephanie was too clichéd as the annoying little sister. The youngest girl Michelle showed what bad actresses the Olsen twins were. You can always tell when they are switching them off. The plot lines to too many story lines were so unrealistically stupid it's cringe worthy. This is a "family" show that tried to replace any good substance with cuteness and love, and though those are needed for a show about a family they overdid it way too much. This will be remembered as my least favorite sit-com from the 80's and 90's.<br /><br />My rating: Terrible show. TVG 30 mins. | 0 | trimmed_train |
2,298 | Ironic that Dr. Seuss' fable emphasizing the non-commercialization of Christmas should be one of the most hyped, marketed, and successful blockbusters of the holiday season. The general gist of Ron Howard's adaptation is that the Grinch's bane against Christmas stems from an early childhood incident and that the Whos themselves are caught up in the materialism of the season save for Cindy Lou Who (played very well by Taylor Momsen). This movie makes an ardent, ambitious attempt to capture the wackiness and sentiment of Seuss' story, but the end result is a movie that lurches and never quite packs the emotional punch of Chuck Jones' animated version. Jim Carrey is noteworthy in his performance as the devilish Grinch, but whether it's the dialogue, the pacing, or extraneous storylines heaped upon the initial plot, the transformation from bitter miser to gleeful benefactor just does not ignite convincingly. There are some wonderful visuals and the make-up work is amazing, yet beyond the technical triumphs there's an element or two here that's missing.<br /><br />Succinctness?<br /><br />Soul?<br /><br />Or maybe Jones did the initial adaptation all too well in his 25-minute cartoon that Howard falls short of in a movie that feels three hours long. Howard, Carey, and crew are all very capable and talented, but what would seem a winning combination is just weak and plodding in its final product. If you must see the feature-length version, rent it on video with Jones' animated version and you can see how bigger and glitzier is not always better. I give this film three cans of Who-Hash out of five. | 2 | trimmed_train |
7,834 | Oh what a condescending movie! Set in Los Angeles, the center of the universe from the POV of Hollywood filmmakers, this movie tries to be a deep social commentary on contemporary American angst.<br /><br />Stereotyped, smarmy characters of widely varying socio-economic backgrounds cross paths in their everyday, humdrum lives. The plot is disjointed and desultory. Numerous unimaginative plot contrivances keep the film going, like: a drive-by shooting, an abandoned baby left in the weeds, a gang of thugs intimidating a lawyer, a guy flying through the night sky over the city, a kid at summer camp.<br /><br />And through all these events, the one constant is the generous helping of sociological "insights" imparted through the dialogue, as characters compare notes on their life experiences. One character tells another: "When you sit on the edge of that thing (the Grand Canyon), you realize what a joke we people are; ... those rocks are laughing at me, I could tell, me and my worries; it's real humorous to that Grand Canyon".<br /><br />And another character pontificates about the meaning of it all: "There's a gulf in this country, an ever widening abyss between the people who have stuff and the people who don't have ... it's like this big hole has opened up in the ground, as big as the ... Grand Canyon, and what's come pouring out ... is an eruption of rage, and the rage creates violence ...".<br /><br />Aside from the horribly unnatural and forced dialogue, aside from the shallow, smarmy characters, aside from the dumb plot, the story's pace is agonizingly slow. Acting is uninspired and perfunctory. The film's tone is smug and self-satisfied, in the script's contempt for viewers.<br /><br />This was a film project approved by Hollywood suits who fancy themselves as omnipotent gurus, looking down from on high. They think their film will be a startling revelation to us lowly, unknowing movie goers, eager to learn about the real meaning of American social change. | 0 | trimmed_train |
15,261 | I was going to give it an 8, but since you people made 6.5 out of a lot better votes, I had to up my contribution. The river Styx was pure genius. Sure, Woody was his perennial stuff, but at least his role was appropriate. The first half hour was really hilarious, and then the rest of the movie was easy to watch. The dialog was clever enough, and Woody's card tricks at the parties, along with the reaction from the upper crust, were fun to watch. This was much better than the newspaper critics made it sound out to be. And a plus, a little Sorcerer's Apprentice to go along with it. And of course, did you notice that Johansen is getting a bit frumpy? Charles Dance is always entertaining, as was Hugh Jackman. | 3 | trimmed_train |
12,497 | Oh, those Italians! Assuming that movies about aristocrats with weird fetishes, castles drowned in gothic atmosphere, and back-stabbing relatives trying to get their hands on an inheritance are inherently interesting to all! If you've seen one film of this type, you've basically seen them all (the MST3K favorite "Screaming Skull" fits the mold, too)...and "The Night Evelyn Came Out of the Grave" is formulaic, by-the-numbers, and dull as hell. Even the luscious Erika Blanc is put to waste here.<br /><br />zero/10<br /><br /> | 0 | trimmed_train |
20,182 | Interesting way of looking at how we as humans so often behave we are sometimes blinded by our desire to achieve perfection that we some times destroy the foundation of what we are trying to achieve. It also addresses the issue how we tend to ignore those among us who are not as outspoken and by doing this may miss out on a great opportunity. The injection of comedy also makes watching the film an enjoyable experience..A must see for anyone who is interested in a reflective yet comical look at life. I am eagerly looking forward to your next product.Hope that you will continue to provide us with quality entertainment. Excellent work ......Joanne | 3 | trimmed_train |
13,902 | This film takes you to another time when there was a different pace to everyday life. We get an idea how families had to deal with the war and how quickly we sent young men off to fight. A very touching look at the past and a reminder that casualties of war don't just happen on the front.<br /><br />Luckily many of us have never had to go through what our great-grandparents, grandparents or parents went through during a war. This film, I think, is a small thank you. Peter Outerbridge looks amazingly like a young Peter O'Toole and Russell Crowe is absolutely charming and as Australian as he can be. It's definitely worth listening to him recite "High Flight" and makes me wonder what he might accomplish with Shakespeare. | 1 | trimmed_train |
8,687 | I really like slasher movies,but this one is truly awful.The acting is lame,the script is bad,and the atmosphere is non-existent.The plot is as follows:a deformed gardener Charlie Puckett slaughters people in a small American town.That's right-this is the plot.Very original,eh!"The Night Brings Charlie" isn't even gory enough-if the film ain't gonna be scary,at least they should make it bloody.Avoid this cheap piece of trash at all costs.If you want to see some good slasher flicks check out "Madman","The Burning","The Prowler","Just Before Dawn" or "Humongous"- just don't waste your precious time with this worthless piece of garbage. | 0 | trimmed_train |
4,102 | Uh oh! Another gay film. This time it's showing the black side. Bet your last dollar it's gonna have an unhappy ending! But WHY? With only less than a half dozen exceptions, ALL gay films have to end in death or an "addio" finale. It's like all the European Film Noir releases in the 40's, 50's, 60's, and 70's. The lead...male or female must die or ride off alone into oblivion. Why in God's name must writers, directors, and producers have the audience leave the theatre feeling depressed? After all, it's supposed to be gay...not glum. Maybe the category should be changed to a 'glum' film. A large percentage of gay relationships DO last and the couples DO ride off together into the sunset! No matter who writes or produces, he only shows the down side of gay life and gives the incorrect impression of gay lifestyle. This movie just proves my point. If you rent the DVD, take an antidepressant, for here comes another 'gay' film! This is WRONG! | 2 | trimmed_train |
21,948 | This movie is so wonderful, it's hard to find words to describe it. This is the only time I can't decide which was better, the book or the movie.<br /><br />Whoopi Goldberg is awesome, and Oprah Winfrey, such a good actress, she could be funny, happy and miserable all at the same time. All together the movie was well directed by Steven Speilberg, and should not be passed up. 9/10 | 3 | trimmed_train |
13,548 | OK, it was a good American Pie. Erick Stifler goes off to college with his buddy Cooze. During their arrival they meet up with Eric's cousin Dwight. The two pledge to become Betas and along the way they get involved with a whole lot of sex, tits, and some hot girls along the way. In a few words there is a lot more sex, nudity and alcohol. It is a good movie for those who want to enjoy an American Pie movie, granted it isn't as great as the first three is is a good movie. If you enjoy hot girls with really nice tits, get this movie. If you enjoy seeing a bunch of dudes making assholes of themselves, go to this movie. If you want to see the full thing, get the unrated addition. One last thing this is a better attempt than the last two American Pies. | 1 | trimmed_train |
18,956 | Two things haunt you throughout L'intrus (The Intruder): who's the intruder and is it a movie or a dream you're watching? The ending is so shocking that for a while you're at a loss for an answer to either of those questions. The intruder pops up as different characters, different men in different circumstances who don't belong in the scene, so they're expelled from it, kindly or brutally, but often without emotional involvement. The main character, Louis, is a contemptible man. He's got rough ways, some mean job and no heart. He needs one and goes after it. He has a heart transplanted and afterwards decides to start a new life. Can this man succeed in his quest for redemption? A guy like that could cut your throat at the drop of a hat. You know it but Claire Denis doesn't encourage you to judge him. Occasionally, there's a young Russian woman -a beautiful girl who seems to inhabit someplace between heaven and earth - who does judge him. She may even punish him. But not Denis. There's the character played by Beatrice Dalle who wants no business with him: don't touch me, she says. But Denis lets this man be himself, films him in his self-absorbed quest. I don't know if what she films is the heart or the mind but it isn't the traditional plot basics. Whatever she films, you get it in the end. You know who's "the" intruder, you know why, more or less, and some scenes come back to your mind with their full meaning. But was it a movie or a dream? | 3 | trimmed_train |
5,201 | Well, my goodness, am I disappointed. When I first heard news of a remake of Robert Wise's 1963 film, "The Haunting", I had a fear that it would be ruined by an abundance of summer-movie sized visual effects. But, deep down, I had faith. Surely, with such a talented cast intact...De Bont and company will not ruin a film, who's original was a fantastic and frightening movie that understood the delicate art of subtlety. Well, subtlety, where are you now!!?? My fears have manifested...a promising movie has gone wrong. Yes, Eugenio Zannetti's production design is jaw-dropping; the movie is wonderfully photographed; and composer Jerry Goldsmith can never EVER do wrong. But, the script puts it's fine actors to the test..asking them to deliver the kind of stilted dialogue that is only spoken in movies. In the end, the always wonderful Lili Taylor is the only performer to escape with some dignity...and that's just barely. But, the crime of all crimes is that the horror is shown to us. We can no longer use our imaginations, feel that horrible dread of fear of the unknown. No, we get some visual effects to SHOW US what we're supposed to be afraid of...and you know what? As wonderfully realized as they are...the visual effects come off as sort of silly. And the climax is a phantasmogoric mess...but things had gone terribly wrong long before that. <br /><br />Everything in The Haunting is overdone and overblown. I'm afraid there are no real thrills or creaks in this old haunted house monstrosity...only groans. Check out the original instead.<br /><br /> | 2 | trimmed_train |
14,590 | with very little screen time and money, Dan Katzir manages to do so much. This movie, in its heart-warming simplicity, touches the beauty of love from a fresh angle. rejuvinated lust | 3 | trimmed_train |
21,304 | So, finally I know it exists. Along with the other Uk contributors on here I saw this on what MUST HAVE BEEN it's only UK screening in the 70's. I remembered the title, but got nowhere when I mentioned it to people. It scarred me (that's 2 'r's) but when you go to bed with doom whizzing about your brain and listening all around for impending terror, then isn't that what a TRULY CLASSIC horror movie is all about?? I can barely remember the intricacies of the movie, but what I do recollect is my shivering flesh and heightened senses. Can anyone confirm my suspicions that this is black and white? Again, if anyone has any info on how to obtain a copy of this, please get in touch... | 3 | trimmed_train |
23,224 | I started to watch this movie expecting nothing, just another movie to watch, but since the first twenty minutes, the artwork and main character, who is enigmatic, doesn't talk much, really got me in this movie.<br /><br />I really liked this movie, it was dark, beautifully acted and really touching. It's a bit slow but the immersion was complete. The directing was awesome by letting us know bits by bits the story leading to the conviction of Joey and his life behind bars. The music was really great and very well incorporated into the scenes. The ending was unexpected with a twist I didn't see coming. It's not the kind of movie we see often. | 3 | trimmed_train |
24,802 | The famous international conductor Daniel Daréus (Michael Nyqvist) has a heart attack with his stressed busy professional life and interrupts his successful career with an early retirement. He decides to return to his hometown in the north of Sweden, from where his mother left when he was a seven year-old sensitive boy bullied by Conny and other school mates, to live a low-paced life. He buys an old school and is invited to participate in the church choir by the local Shepherd Stig (Niklas Falk), but the reluctant and shy Daniel refuses in the principle. However, he gets involved with the community and feels attracted by Lena (Frida Hallgren), a local woman with a past with the local doctor. His music opens the hearts of the members of the choir, affecting their daily life: the slow Tore (André Sjöberg) has the chance to participate in the choir; Inger (Ingela Olsson), the wife of Stig, releases her repressed sexuality; Gabriella (Helen Sjöholm) takes an attitude against her abusive and violent husband; the gossiper and frustrated Siv (Ilva Lööf) opens her heart against Lena; the fat Holmfrid (Mikael Rahm) cries enough against the jokes of the businessman Arne (Lennart Jähkel); even Daniel starts loving people and Lena as the love of his life. When they are invited to participate in an important contest in Vienna, Daniel finds his music opening the heart of people making his dream come true.<br /><br />"Så Som I Himmelen" is a touching and sensitive movie, with a very beautiful story. It is impressive how director Kay Pollak and the screenplay writers have been able to develop a great number of characters in 132 minutes running time. The performances are top-notch, supported by magnificent music score and at least two awesome moments: when Gabrielle sings her song in the concert, and certainly the last concert in Vienna with the audience, jury and everybody participating in the melody, and Daniel making his dream come true. Like in "Teorema", the stranger changes the lives, not of only a family, but of a conservative community. Further, like many European movies, the open conclusion indicates that Daniel actually died, at least in my interpretation, reaching peace with the success of his music. My eyes became wet in these two scenes. My vote is nine.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "A Vida no Paraíso" ("The Life In the Paradise") | 3 | trimmed_train |
1,546 | This film is a portrait of the half-spastic teenage boy Benjamin who has to visit a boarding school because of his lousy marks in Math. He didn't make the best experiences in life before and got serious self-esteem issues. After a rough start at his new school, he starts making friends, falls in love with a girl and does some American Pieish teenage stuff.<br /><br />Beside some comedy elements, the film is told in a very serious way, focussing on Benjamin and his problems.<br /><br />If you already don't like this story outline, save your time and watch something else. If you do, please be aware of the following:<br /><br />1) Benjamin is a total loser. Whatever he does, he does it terribly wrong and then he goes for self-pity all the time. For me he wasn't that kind of "charming loser" who you can feel sympathy for and laugh with. Instead he and his behavior really annoyed me and with my own teenage years not so far behind I could barely stand watching.<br /><br />2) The film hardly tries to be realistic and the story seems to be but from my experience the characters just aren't (except for Janosch maybe). And yes, I know this film is based on an auto-biography written by a 17-year old - but having some experiences with German schools and German youth myself, I don't believe him.<br /><br />3) Showing the sexual awakening really is an important thing for a film with this subject. But I doubt that teenage boys do an "Ejaculate on the cookie"-contest where everyone has to hit a cookie with his sperm during mass-masturbation in the woods and the loser has to eat the sperm-wet cookie afterwards. Although it kinda amused me in a contemptible way, it's nor funny neither underlining the serious attempts of this film.<br /><br />4) There's a sub-plot about Benjamin's family and his father betraying his wife - still, I don't know why it's there and where to put it. It just bored me.<br /><br />Well, I personally hated this film for having the character of Benjamin, being without a message, concept, scheme, whatever and it's failing attempts to be dramatic and serious. However, I can image that some people may find it sensible and touching. If you liked "The Other Sister" you'll probably like this one, too. I hated both.<br /><br />17-year old boys shouldn't write an autobiography and if they do, it doesn't seem to be the best idea to make a film out of it.<br /><br />2 out of 10. | 0 | trimmed_train |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.