id
stringlengths 7
11
| text
stringlengths 52
10.2k
| label
int64 0
1
|
|---|---|---|
train_10705
|
The trailer for this movie didn't do the movie justice. And while the movie didn't know what it really wanted to get across, the first half of the movie being a light, romance comedy and the second have a more serious, romantic drama, the overall impact was much better than I thought it would be. This movie was more of a date movie, but the trailer made it into more of a suspense thriller which it never really turned out to be. Kidman, being one of my favorites, of course I'm biased, but this movie proved to be a light, sensitive, if somewhat quirky movie that deserved better. Three out of four stars. 9/5/02.
| 1
|
train_18554
|
I'm not sure if Carpenter is looking to raise questions on abortion, and make the really heavy-handed and obvious point that a woman should be allowed an abortion if Satan is the father, but it drags on and on. Ron Perlman is laughable. The baby is really stupid looking, basically a crab with a baby head mounted on it. You can pretty much see the material on the Satan costume. What a mess. This episode has about five minutes of story and 55 minutes of tedium. Very, very bad. And the ending is just ridiculous. After learning his baby is dead, does the devil destroy the abortion clinic and kill everyone in a huge, bloody, gory, uproar? NO! He just puts his head down and sulks out of the room. Terrible.
| 0
|
train_18352
|
Bradford Dillman plays a scientist who wakes up one morning in the middle of a bloody crime scene; having partial amnesia (or "global amnesia", which one character claims to define as elective loss of memory), the scientist finds a private detective in the phone book in the hopes of piecing his life back together. Abhorrent concoction very loosely based on Walter Ericson's book "Fallen Angel" (filmed in 1965 as "Mirage" with Gregory Peck). It was probably too racy for television--what with drugs and hippies added to the mix--that NBC initially refused to air it, which is how this low-budgeter wound up in theaters. Director James Goldstone gets freaky with the hyperkinetic visuals and camera-tricks, while editor Edward A. Biery goes wild with the zig-zag cuts. Unfortunately, their admittedly-colorful gimmicks cannot cover up the weaknesses of this updated plot, and the acting is woefully overripe. Dillman, under pressure to recall the events of the night in question, goes through an Actor's Seminar of tics, stammers, nose-wipes, and crazy half-laughs while spitting out dialogue like, "Dream...a dream...drugs...yeah, drugs...that SOUND...bells...help!" As a villainous fellow scientist with a Cheshire Cat smile, Pat Hingle nearly upstages Dillman in the Grand Thespian department by continually addressing everyone in baby-talk, strutting about like a middle-aged peacock and twisting his mouth around in agony. Hope Lange's scientist/love-interest is given the short shrift, but not before she screams at indifferent-lover Dillman: "What do I have to do, talk Ape Man? Me want You!" This is one frantic "Jigsaw"! *1/2 from ****
| 0
|
train_20434
|
A family traveling for their daughter's softball league decide to take the 'scenic route' and end up in the middle of nowhere. The father is an avid photographer, and when he hears of an old abandoned side show in the town, he decides to take another detour to take some photographs.Of course, the side show is filled with inbred freaks, who promptly kidnap the women and leave the young son and father to fend for themselves.The only cool thing about this film is how the family actually fights back against their inbred captors. Other than that, there's nothing worthwhile about the film.
| 0
|
train_20075
|
A retired diplomat, played nicely by Michael York, goes to Russia to get revenge on the Russian gangster that murdered the diplomat's policeman son. There the diplomat meets an exceptionally strong and decent Russian cop who helps him bring the Russian gangster to justice.I remembered the old action flicks of the 1980s that always portray the Russians as evil bad guys out to undermine the righteous U.S. government. It's interesting to see this time the Russian guy as a hero.Not a great flick, it's really typically a "B" action flick. Michael York lends some class to this mediocre movie. Alexander Nevsky, who plays the Russian cop is kind of "blah" but surprisingly has some chemistry with Michael York. Face it, Michael York is such a good actor that he'd have chemistry with anyone he's doing a scene with. Disappointingly, the handsome Adrian Paul gets killed within the first 15 minutes into the movie. Now, if Adrian Paul was in this movie longer, it would've been an above average "B" action flick. All I can say about Adrian Paul is that he is real nice to look at for the first 15 minutes of the movie. The villain, played by Richard Tyson, is your typical bad guy. He's very blonde and very villainous in this movie.Rent this flick if there is nothing else on TV to watch. It's okay. It doesn't suck too bad. The action scenes are decent. The acting could be better, the plot could've moved much faster, but hey, you get to see what Russia looks like today!
| 0
|
train_6630
|
This is an important film. It challenges the viewer and encourages you to pay attention. There's a lot to like here. The director seems interested in taking apart some of the more tired cinematic conventions. Unlike a lot of recent American cinema, this film takes an interest in what it means to make a movie in the first place. The DVD includes a lot of bonus features, and there are two commentaries that explain the movie for the viewers still befuddled after an initial viewing. When the film screened at Sundance, it made more than a few audience members uncomfortable and angry. This is a Sunday morning coffee movie, not a Friday night party movie. For the dedicated viewer, it's a treasure trove.
| 1
|
train_24383
|
After waking up at 3:30 in the morning and not being able to go to sleep, I decided that I may as well be entertained while I suffered from sleep deprivation. This movie was on HBO and I decided to watch it. What a mistake!Here is the plot (potential spoilers, if you even care) : a neurotic man with an addiction to candy (Josh Kornbluth) works as a temp for some ridiculous company. Suddenly, he is offered the chance to "go perm," which seems to be the favorite catch-phrase of this movie. But with a secure job and a secure income within his grasp, Josh decides for whatever stupid reason that he doesn't want to do it. He hopelessly bungles several minor tasks and his laziness and lack of ambition fill me with contempt. His inability to send several "very important" letters within a given amount of time is supposed to be hilarious, but is merely stupid. Josh meets and deceives a lawyer woman and they wind up in bed together (obviously a fantasy of Josh's in real life, as such a thing would never happen). A bunch of other stuff happens, but it's too trite and inane to go into now.Despite the fact that this movie is billed as a comedy, I only laughed twice during it; the first time was the opening shot of Josh Kornbluth (my initial reaction was one of stifling fear) and the second was when he was in bed with the attractive woman (yeah, right). Josh Kornbluth is perhaps the most terrifying-looking person I have ever seen in my life. He is an unattractive, overweight, balding Jewish man who I am supposed to believe has sex with beautiful women. I do not at all sympathize with Josh's character. He is lazy and unmotivated and I just don't appreciate the failed attempts at humor. Skip it, even if your life depends upon it.
| 0
|
train_2514
|
I voted 8 for this movie because of some minor childish flaws. Other than that, this movie is one of my favorites! It's entertaining to say the least. The shooting scenes are ridiculous though, and I think Gackt (who wrote the book) takes a little bit too much of his "Matrix obsession" into it. It seems like their enemies just stands there...waiting to get shot at. However, this movie is touching and it always makes me cry. It has a lot of GREAT humor in it so it makes me laugh as well. Gackt is a superb actor I must say..he shows so much emotion. This was Hyde's first time acting and he did okay. The role fits him. Wang Lee Hom is absolutely great. The whole cast is what I would say, perfect for this movie. DON'T MISS IT! YOU'LL REGRET IT!
| 1
|
train_3100
|
By the end of the first hour my jaw was nestled comfortably between my feet. The movie never, and I do mean never, lets up in action. It may be mild action but it's action. Once again every member of the cast fits perfectly. The explosions were realistic, the chase scenes were feasible, and the fighting was incredible. Matt Damon will forever be Jason Bourne.All I really have to say is that every Bourne movie gets better and this is no exception. The action, the stakes, the plot. How they do it I will never know. I applaud the man who wrote the screen plays to every one of these movies. Because if he hadn't done such a great job with the first movie, we wouldn't have this one to talk about.So don't go see it in theaters, go experience it in theaters if it's still out where you live, but if not December 11th Bourne comes home to you!
| 1
|
train_19794
|
This is possibly the worst of all the Columbo movies. Andrew Stevens' acting is poor as the villain, and the plot is weak. In fact none of the cast seem able to act other than Peter Falk, who puts in a creditable performance as the Lieutenant.
| 0
|
train_8977
|
As a movie this barely rates a 4 but for movie fans of the 1940s period, it's almost a must-see and rates a 9 as a variety show! I was drawn to watch this by the presence of Richard (Captain Midnight) Webb who plays the Colonel in charge of the event. What surprised me was the stunning performance of Doris Day. Outside of 'Calamity Jane', I've never seen her put over a song better than she does here. Randolph Scott is memorable as well, even if he doesn't see much screen time. It's been a while since I saw the movie but I was almost sure Humphrey Bogart put in an appearance. With so many familiar faces, it's hard to keep track. If it ever turns up on a TV station near you, be sure to catch the Doris Day sequence, if nothing else!
| 1
|
train_5768
|
A meltdown at a nuclear power plant causes a majority of people to turn into lethal, rot-faced, shambling zombies who naturally go on a grisly rampage. A ragtag handful of uninfected folks do their best to survive this grueling ordeal. Director/co-writer/producer Todd Sheets displays an appealingly sincere love and passion for go-straight-for-the-throat lively and gruesome horror fare: he maintains an unflagging snappy pace throughout, fills the screen with wall-to-wall crazy action, and thankfully keeps the terrible dialogue to a pleasing minimum. Moreover, Sheets certainly doesn't skimp on the gloriously graphic and excessive over-the-top splatter: this picture delivers a tasty truckload of flesh melting, evisceration, lots of gut munching, one dude has his heart yanked out, and there's even a nice impalement on a tree branch. Sheets earns bonus points for keeping the tone grim and nasty to the literal bitter end (for example, almost all of the main characters wind up becoming zombie chow). Granted, this flick has its fair share of flaws: the ragged editing, several ham-fisted attempts at pathos, and the largely awful acting from a rank no-name cast all leave a good deal to be desired. Top thespic honors go to the pretty and perky Kasey Rausch for her winningly spunky portrayal of the resourceful Daria Trumillio. Frank Dunlay likewise does well as rugged take-charge army veteran Ralph Walsh. Best of all, Sheets' sure grasp of an infectiously slambang sense of unrelenting headlong momentum and obvious affinity for the horror genre ensure that this remains a total blast to watch from start to finish.
| 1
|
train_10764
|
It's a good movie maybe I like it because it was filmed here in PR. The actors did a good performance and not only did the girls be girlish but they were good in fighting so it was awsome! The guy is cute too so it's a good match if you want to the guy or the girls.
| 1
|
train_18884
|
I was recently online looking at a site that featured public domain movies. In their long list of films was this film and I thought I must be hallucinating at such an offensive title and premise. But, no, that's really what it was. And since the film was only about 27 minutes long, I decided to give it a try. If it had turned out to be some porno movie, I would have stopped watching. Instead, it turned out to be the most bizarre film I have ever seen. The Danish production crew tried, with a budget of about $49, to make a Star Trek-style film about a crew of very gay men traveling about the galaxy wiping out female oppression by killing all the women--like they proceeded to do on the Earth! And in every case, they were met with cheers and thanks from the now gay men of the planet.Subtle, this ain't. With some of the most obscene and juvenile names of characters I've ever heard, I don't even think I can write them on IMDb without having my review removed! However, despite the utter crappiness of it all, it was strangely watchable and worth a peek. But, as I mentioned already, due to the crude names and odd subject matter (though no nudity), it's a film for adults only. By the way, this movie left me with 1001 questions as to WHO would make this, WHY make it and WHO was the intended audience?! It may not be the absolute worst thing I have ever seen, but it probably is the weirdest and possibly the most offensive!
| 0
|
train_22472
|
PROBLEM CHILD is one of the worst movies I have seen in the last decade! This is a bad movie about a savage boy adopted by two parents, but he gets into trouble later. That Junior can drive Grandpa's car. He can scare people with a bear. He can put a room on fire! It is a bad movie as much as BATTLEFIELD EARTH. A sequel is an even worse fate. Rent CHICKEN RUN instead.*1/2 out of **** I give it.
| 0
|
train_15157
|
I waited for this movie to play in great anticipation. Assuming it would be more accurately portrayed like the movie, "The Christmas Box" based on the book by Richard Paul Evans. I sent out many emails to friends and family asking them to please watch this show, hoping they would better understand a tiny amount of my "new" life. After seeing this movie I was so disappointed. As a mother who lost her only child in November 2003 and REALLY knowing the pain, I had hoped that this movie would shed light to parents who "think" they understand the grief a parent goes through who has lost a child. This movie was a very light hearted movie and the silliness of Diane Keaton was a slap in the face to parents who have buried a child. It was VERY unrealistic from start to stop. I had a few calls after the movie, each call the same, "That was so off the mark and made it appear that in a short time you are back on the road and listening to songs on the radio and life is back" What a bunch of bull! It is clear that the director and Keaton have never lost a child because neither would have EVER made the movie to be so off the mark. I guess that's Hollywood.
| 0
|
train_24941
|
Some things need to be clarified. The picture of Mark Ferris is not the Mark Ferris who starred in this movie. I know that because he was my dad. Please remove that picture. Also, Mark Ferris was the writer, at least one of them. I have been trying to find a copy or a way to see this movie again. It has been years and if someone can point me in the direction of obtaining a copy, that would be great. The movie wasn't all that bad, and trying to compare it to todays world of Star Wars and other high tech sci fi's it futile. If you watch it, just enjoy it for the rediculousness and humor it possesses. Lighten up on being movie snobs and enjoy some less creative and innovated films.
| 0
|
train_12550
|
Three part "horror" film with some guy in a boarded up house imploring the viewer not to go "out there" and (unfortunately) gives us three tales to prove why.The first story involves a young couple in a car accident who meet up with two psychos. It leads up to two totally predictable twists. Still, it's quick (about 15 minutes), violent, well-acted and well-done. Predictable but enjoyable.The second involves a man on the run after stealing a large amount of money. His car breaks down, he's attacked by a dog and stumbles into a nearby clinic. VERY obvious, badly done and extremely slow. Even at 30 minutes this is too long. Good acting though.The third is just barely a horror story. It involves a beautiful, lonely woman looking for Mr. Right. It has beautiful set designs, a nice erotic feel and a nice sex scene. But (again) predictable and not even remotely scary.It ends very stupidly.All in all, the first one is worth watching, but that's it. Tune in for that one then turn it off.
| 0
|
train_7370
|
Some have compared this film to Deliverance. I believe Of Mice and Men is more appropriate. Our leading man, Heaton, definitely loves Spike. It is irrelevant and immaterial whether that is a sexual love. It is the reason Heaton does not leave Spike. He needs him. They need each other. As brothers, as family, as their only connection to humanity. The setting, scenario, minimal cast all add up to a fine film. Frankly, I did not care what happened to the characters. But, I did care about what the film maker did with them. He did well with them. I spent some time wondering how the ending would resemble Of Mice and Men. The soundtrack and cinematography were compelling and intriguing.
| 1
|
train_8165
|
The Dentist was made on the time when almost every profession had it's psycho. We had mad police officers, ambulance men, secretery's and that was just for starters. The Dentist came suprisingly late because going to dentist is usually everyman's nightmare.The plot is twisted. Super clean dentist Doctor Feinstone lives perfect life in his great "white house", he has beautiful blond wife and great place to work as a dentist. Dark clouds are coming to his horizon in the form of nasty IRS guy (Terminator's Earl Boen), dirty pool cleaner "cleaning" his wife and suddenly everyone's teeth seems to have gone through dark filter. He goes nutso and starts to take care of people teeth in the nasty way. And you don't want to come to his path.Crew were professional. Producer/director Brian Yuzna had produced stylish horror movies like Re-Animator and From Beyond. He directed the sequel to Re-Animator and his first movie Society was nice spinoff from John Carpenter's They Live. Film's producer Pierre David is known from movies like Scanners. Cast was great. Corbin Bernsen really suprised me. I knew him from LA Law and Major League, but I could newer dream him as a psycho dentist. He was actually great in his role and he was kind of sad person. Linda Hoffman was beutiful and dumb as Feinstones wife. Micahel Stadvec did not have much line's, but after I saw him with ladies of the neighbourhood I knew my future profession. Ken Foree (Dawn of the Dead, From Beyond) was nice sight as cop on the case. Virginya Keehne was the innocent teen who is about to be next client to Feinstone.Final warning: If you're like me and have problem with dentist's then maybe you should skip this one. But if you want to try than you should prepare yourself with dark humor and lots nasty drillings.
| 1
|
train_3488
|
WWE was in need of a saviour as Wrestlemania 14 rolled around. The departure of Bret Hart and subsequent evaporation of the Hart Foundation had left the Vile D-Generation X stable unchallenged in the WWE. Their despicable leader Shawn Michaels had stolen the title from Hart thanks to the interference of Vince McMahon and, with help from his cohorts Triple H and Chyna had systematically taken out anyone who challenged his supremacy. But at the Royal Rumble a new contender had emerged. Stone Cold Steve Austin. Hated by McMahonagement, Austin had DX worried. So worried in fact that they'd enlisted the help of "The Baddest Man on the Planet" Mike Tyson as a special enforcer. Austin would have the odds firmly against him in his title match with Shawn Michaels.But first, there was an undercard to get through which kicked off with the Legion of Doom winning a forgettable 15 team battle Royal to become NO.1 contenders for the tag titles. I'd actually forgotten this match existed until I rewatched the PPV. No very good and really highlighted the lack of depth in the tag division at that period in time.Next match saw the Light Heavyweight title defended by Champion Taka Michonoku against Aguila. The WWE had established the Light Heavyweight Title to compete with the strong Cruiserweight Division in WCW. It was not successful and this was the only time the title was ever defended at Wrestlemania. Short match, going about five minutes, and in fact too short for much to be achieved. What little they did was exciting and this was a nice little match which saw Taka retaining his title.OK, our next match saw DX member Triple H defending the WWE European title, which he'd won in farcical fashion from Shawn Michaels on RAW in December and hadn't defended on PPV, against Owen Hart, the Sole Survivor. Triple H got a big entrance with the DX band there to perform his theme song. Chyna accompanied Triple H to ringside, but was then handcuffed to WWE Commissioner Sgt Slaughter. Triple H and Owen have a nice little match, before Chyna interfered causing a low blow on Hart which leads to Triple H retaining the title. Good match, could have been great had it gone slightly longer.But of course we wouldn't want to take time away from our next match which saw real life husband and wife Marc Mero and Sable defeat Goldust and Luna Vachon in the first mixed tag match at Wrestlemania in 8 years. And, in all honesty, it wasn't worth the wait. While not terrible, the match was in no way memorable either. This was the nearing the end of Mero's only run in the WWE and the main purpose was to continue the disintegration of his relationship with Sable.Next up we saw Ken Shamrock flip out and cost himself the Intercontinental Championship as he destroyed IC Champion The Rock, but then refused to let go of his ankle lock submission hold, resulting in the referee reversing his decision. This was a short match, but decent for what it was.Next saw the first good match of the night as WWE Tag Team Champions the New Age Outlaws lost their titles to Cactus Jack and Chainsaw Charlie in a fun dumpster match. The decision was overturned the following night as Cactus and chainsaw had thrown the Outlaws into a dumpster backstage, rather than the one being used in the match, but this was still a fun match.NOw it was time for the highly anticipated first ever meeting between Kane and his brother the Undertaker. Kane had cost Undertaker the WWE Championship at the Royal Rumble and then "killed" him when he helped Shawn Michaels lock Undertaker in a casket and set him on fire as revenge for the Undertaker burning down their parents house and leaving him horribly disfigured years before. This was a decent match and told a nice story as the Underataker absorbed everything Kane could throw at him and then knocked him out with three tombstones to end the match.This left only the main event which saw WWE Champion face Steve Austin with Mike Tyson as the guest enforcer. Michaels had suffered a debilitating back injury in his match with the Undertaker at the Royal Rumble and was remarkable in this match despite his physical limitations. Triple H and Chyna were banished to the back in the early going after interfering from the outside. The match ended with Austin ducking an attempt at Sweet Chin Music and hitting the Stone Cold Stunner with the ref down. TYson then came into the ring to count the three, celebrating the win with Austin and then knocking out Michaels after the match. It turned out Tyson and Austin were together and the cat had been playing with the mouse all along.That was the final PPV match for Shawn Michaels for four and a half years. It helped establish Austin as the biggest star in the wrestling business and the mainstream publicity garnered by Tyson's appearance proved a crucial turning point in the WWE's battle with WCW. Austin would go on to become the biggest star in WWE History, and along with the Rock, Mick Foley, the Undertaker and Triple H lead the WWE through the period where they would gain their highest level of cultural relevance. And it all started here at Wrestlemania 14.
| 1
|
train_8655
|
"Kalifornia" is one of my all-time favourite movies, and it easily could be labeled as one of the best psychological thrillers of the 90`s. The film has a very stylish surface to it, but behind that are a lot of disturbing and honest depictions of homicidal maniacs and the terrifyng violence they inflict upon others. One of the film`s strongest aspects is it`s performances, Brad Pitt is startlingly great as a trailer-trash psycho named Early. Pitt potrays his frightening character almost flawlessly. Juliette Lewis is equally as good playing his naive girlfriend, her innocence is almost heart-breaking. "Kalifornia" has a very simple plot to it, that goes steadily and slowly forward for about an hour, but it suddenly plunges into a harrowing spree of murder, as Pitt unleashes his psychotic personality. There are alot of shocking scenes, and it all mounts to a power-house climax that will haunt you for days. "Kalifonia" is a film that should really be watched for it`s intense look at how monstrous a human being can be, and not only for it`s violence and gore.
| 1
|
train_1098
|
Modern viewers know this little film primarily as the model for the remake, "The Money Pit." Older viewers today watch it with wisps of nostalgia: Cary Grant, Myrna Loy, and Melvyn Douglas were all "superstars" in an easier, less complicated era. Or was it? Time, of course, has a way of modifying perspectives, and with so many films today verily ulcerating with social and political commentary, there is a natural curiosity to wonder about controversy in older, seemingly less provocative films. In "Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House," there may, therefore, be more than what audiences were looking for in 1948. There is political commentary, however subtle. Finding a house in the late 40s was a truly exasperating experience, only lightly softened by the coming of Levittowns and the like. Politics in the movie? The Blandings children always seem to be talking about progressive ideas being taught to them in school (which in real life would get teachers accused of communism). In real life, too, Myrna Loy was a housing activist, a Democrat, and a feminist. Melvyn Douglas was no less a Democratic firebrand: he was married to congresswoman Helen Gahagan Douglas, whom young Richard Nixon accused of being soft on communism (and which ruined her). Jason Robards, sr., has a small role in the film, but his political activism was no less noticeable. More importantly, his son, Jason Robards, jr., would be for many years a very active liberal Democrat. Almost the odd fellow out was Cary Grant, whose strident conservatism reflected a majority political sentiment in Hollywood that was already slipping. But this was 1948: Communism was a real perceived threat and the blacklist was just around the corner. It would be another decade before political activism would reappear in mainstream films, and then not so subtly.
| 1
|
train_23018
|
Oh boy, where do I go with this one? Herendous acting, weak plot, stupid deaths, pointless nudity...This isn't entertainment...this is hell.Hell.Don't waste your money, time, or life on this pit of evil.It's just...god damn is this movie awful! Tom Savini, WHY?! Why would you waste your life on this crap? This movie not worth it. I'd rather snort crack and smash my head up against a wall than watch THIS...this sinful act again!Please take my advice and stay the f#@k away from this elephant turd of a film. No, you know what? I shouldn't even have to call this thing a film! Just stay AWAY!
| 0
|
train_22325
|
This movie seems to send the wrong message. There can be morality without using Christ. Poeple of other religions, I believe, can get into heaven. I am a Catholic who goes to church every week, but I do not agree with such Christian arrogance. This is the worst time travel movie I have ever seen and I've seen Timeline.
| 0
|
train_11526
|
I rented this movie from blockbuster on a whim .. i like alan arkin and the cover was catching ... i read the back and knew right away it was going to either be the best or the worst movie i have ever seen ... i guess i got lucky .. i laughed from beginning to end .. alan arkin brings a great character to this movie. i have since bought a used rental copy for my own collection and watch it all the time .. i have recommeded this movie to loads of people and they all enjoyed it as much as i did ... i see complaints about the menus and dvd functions .. but it doesn't take away from the movie .. the disk was authored for Blockbuster exculsivley which is why they didn't allow you to skip past the previews .. aside from that you shouldn't let the functions of the DVD to deterr you from watching the excellent film.
| 1
|
train_23873
|
It is not obvious from viewing this film (so I recommend viewers research the people who present their case in it) but this presentation on the realities of Islam, and its encouragement of violence and intolerance against all non-Muslims is lacking objectiveness, and also completely fails to factor in the human condition. It is one thing to document that the Koran says many things about how a devout Muslim is required to interact with non-Muslims, but any realist is able to realize that not every human who feels himself or herself to be a follower of Islam, will agree with and comply with all tenets of that faith and system. There is reason to call much about the presenters into question, such that viewers need to see the presentation with a healthy skepticism; don't swallow it all, hook, line, and sinker, without some thinking of your own.One specific, for instance, is researching the person Walid Shoebat; who claims to be a former Muslim who perpetrated an act of terrorism in Bethlehem. There are many wise people in the world who believe neither of these assertions. I am not nor have I ever been a Muslim. I have never read the Koran. I am not a Christian, nor a member of _any_ faith. But I am an intelligent and discerning human. While the film is quite disturbing, in its presentation of how SOME Muslims view their obligation to Islam; I remind you that there is more to Islam than the views of the fundamentalists. Just as their are fundamentalists and evangelical Christians, so, too, there are variations in the intensity of belief and obligation among Jews and Muslims.When you watch this film, you need to have the salt shaker on hand. One grain will not be enough, you'll need more. Please use your own mind and think for yourself, research what is presented, and evaluate the state of the world and how Islam fits within it based on more than what is said in 98 minutes of video. There is a common thread of political affiliation among those who put this film together, indicating a definite bias. Be your own brain.
| 0
|
train_18834
|
I saw this movie in 1979, I was 17 or 18, when it was released. The theater was perhaps 1/4 full when the movie started. Ten minutes into the movie me and the friend who went with me to see the film were the only two people in the theater. The movie was really weird and had no plot or reason to its script and people demanded their money back. We decided to stay for the ENTIRE movie.... why endure such torture??... here's why. We wanted to be true movie critics... to have a standard to base all other movies on it is hard to justify saying you have seen the best movie (a 10)they always come up with something better. But, it is easy to be able to base all other movies off of the worst movie ever made (and this is it... a 1 at best). There may be other movies out there that truly qualify as a 1, but I have yet to see them. I now base all movies I see on a scale based on this worst....I AM A TRUE MOVIE CRITIC...he he.
| 0
|
train_15921
|
STAR RATING: ***** The Works **** Just Misses the Mark *** That Little Bit In Between ** Lagging Behind * The Pits Some plutonium's gone missing and some very nasty people now have the means to develop a bomb capable of wholesale destruction- so Josh McCord (Chuck Norris) and his cocky young protégé Deke (Judson Mills, a different actor from the previous film) with the assistance of Josh's adopted daughter Que (Jennifer Tung) set out to stop them.This was another film that dealt with terrorism a year after the events of 9/11. Filmed in 2001, Norris himself even commented afterwards how eerily the plot line to the film resembled what happened in downtown New York that day, so there'd have been those that would have been in the mood for a film where Norris and his side-kick kick some terrorist ass if nothing else. Other than that, it's as interchangeable as anything Norris has ever been in. It makes you wonder what the original did to warrant a sequel in the first place, and whether if this one could get made a President's Man 3 might come out sometime soon.If you've seen one Norris film, you've really seen them all and there's really nothing new or unexpected that happens with this one, but at least you know what you're getting and, like I said, it might have been just what some needed to let off some steam. **
| 0
|
train_14514
|
I remember loving this show when I was a kid. I thought the helicopter was the coolest thing I've seen. It was ultra high-tech for it's time. It could repel enemy fire, do all sorts of acrobatics in the air, and take down nearly anything in it's way. Now I go back and watch it today and am surprised how lousy this show really is. The casts members are hardly compelling, there are a lot of cheesy moments, and the fight scenes are incredibly fake looking. And nearly every ending has the same helicopter fighting crap with the obvious reuse of grainy low quality stock footage. Lot of the footages appear to date from the Vietnam War era.Airwolf has basically the same theme as Knight Rider, except the crime-fighting vehicle of choice is a helicopter instead of a car. After watching a few episodes, I found myself utterly bored. I do, however, love the theme music.
| 0
|
train_12363
|
This 1986 Italian-French remake of the 1946 film of the same name turns up the heat early, and doesn't let us come up for air. The story is about a high-school student (Federico Pitzalis) who can't keep his eyes off the mysteriously beautiful young woman (played by Dutch phenom Maruschka Detmers) who lives next door to the school. One day, he follows her, and his persistence pays off. There's only one problem: She's engaged to a sketchy character (Riccardo De Torrebruna) who may or may not have committed a heinous crime, and if he repents, will probably be let off with a slap on the wrist. Also, the young woman is a little "funny in the head", and this is corroborated when we discover she has been seeing the boy's father, who is a psychiatrist. Giulia's emotional instability is only equalled by her prodigious sexual desires. Hot, hot, hot, from the word go, with handsome leads and a bombshell performance from Detmers, who plays us like a yo-yo (as she does the boy) from scene to scene, with enough suspense to keep us guessing right up until--and even after--the end. Available in R and X (!) rated versions.
| 1
|
train_8538
|
This film lingered and lingered at a small movie theater in town, and the word-of-mouth buzz got me to see it. A comedy about disabled people - the subject matter keeps lots of people away from a funny and heart-warming film.
| 1
|
train_3993
|
"The Mother" is a weird low-budget movie, touching at least two uncomfortable themes not usually explored in the cinema: denial of love of mother for their own son and daughter, and lust and passion in the third age.The characters are awful: May is a disgusting old lady and I believe it is impossible to feel any kind of sympathy or sorrow for her. She confesses that she did not love her son and her daughter. She cheated her husband twice with an intellectual. She steals the beloved man of her daughter, not to protect her from a guy without moral, that does not love her, but just because she feel horny with him. She is trying to organize her life after the loss of her husband in the worst possible way, destroying her daughter delusions. Paula, her daughter, is a fragile loser, who accepts her life the way it is. Her brother Bobby is a man who lost his savings because of his wife, who insists in having her shop, a terrible business indeed. Darren is an amoral addicted jerk who does not like anybody, even himself.The acting and direction are excellent: the actresses and actors have outstanding performances and the direction is very precise. I liked this movie, but I recognize that it is recommended for very specific audiences. My vote is seven.Title (Brazil): "Recomeçar" ("Re-Start")
| 1
|
train_22647
|
I usually don't comment anything (i read the others opinions)... but this, this one I _have_ to comment... I was convinced do watch this movie by worlds like action, F-117 and other hi-tech stuff, but by only few first minutes and I changed my mind... Lousy acting, lousy script and a big science fiction.It's one of the worst movies I have ever seen...Simply... don't bother...And one more thing, before any movie I usually check user comments and rating on this site... 3.7 points and I give this movie a try, now I'm wondering WHO rate this movie by giving it more than 2 points ??????????
| 0
|
train_6035
|
I am decidedly not in the target audience for this film. I am a man nearly 50 who has only recently stumbled across the world of independent film. This happened quite by accident, with the discovery of a movie called Clerks late one night on television. The first two things I noticed about that film were that it was 1) technically amateurish and 2) brilliantly written. When I read an interview with the director in the local paper and he said that one of his influences was Clerks, I started to get interesting. When he said his main influence was The Station Agent, a movie I'd seen on DVD a week prior, I decided I had to go and check it out. The result could be described along the same lines as Clerks, although the two films are nothing alike content wise. Both films suffer from technical gaffes that are overcome through amazing writing. Whereas Clerks is a day in the life of a man who has nothing in his life at all and is afraid to ask tough questions about himself and his situation, Less Like Me is about a man who seemingly forces himself to be constantly busy, he's always running one way or another, filling his life with little things so that he will never have to deal with the big ones. The themes and ideas of this film are strong and poignant. I can tell from watching it that not much has changed since I was growing up, young men still have the same problems they always have. The writer dresses up these problems and themes in the modern vernacular, crafts wonderfully honest characters, and has them do completely believable things. As far as indie cinema goes, this may not be perfect from a technical standpoint, but from an artistic one, it is very close.
| 1
|
train_7408
|
I had the privilege to see this movie at the Intenational Film Festival of Rotterdam.'Xizhao' or 'Shower' is a $200.000 lowbudget movie about a father and his 2 sons. The father has a traditional bathhouse somewhere in a traditional Chinese village where local, mostly aged men, come to relax and to go bathing. The father has to sons: a 'retarded' son who lives with him and a son who lives in a big modern city and who comes to visit him. To this son the traditional village, the bathhouse and his 'retarded' brother seem strange and annoying, but this changes along the movie.Though the story may sound cheesy or cliche, it's not. With really great performances, especially of the father and the 'retarded' son (sorry, I don't know their names) and a great story the movie was touching and funny at the same time.If you got a chance to see this movie do it. It's a great alternative to mainstream Hollywood cinema.
| 1
|
train_18517
|
the only enjoyable thing about this highly mockable movie is playing "guess" that location. What Toronto landmark will stand in for what American/international location.who knew that the anti-christ would be russian? obviously he can't be american since we need the yanks to save the day - oh Buck... you'll tell us all the truth... you'll show us the light... and the way outta the building should those nasty anti-christers get their way.Five golden raspberries. Faith is not enough to hope they don't make another of this ilk! We don't gotta prayer.
| 0
|
train_2807
|
I caught the last half of this movie on cable one night and was struck by just how morbid it was. Even when one of the two victims is at his most deteriorated, the camera keeps going. the lingering shots of his corpse being uncovered and his concentration-camp figure being zipped into a body bag are both moving and depressing. don't watch this movie if your already depressed. then again don't watch it if your feeling really good.
| 1
|
train_5561
|
Ok, needless to say, this film is only going to appeal to a certain audience; namely stoners and like-minded people.That being said, if you are one of these aformentioned people, this film is a MUST. In fact, I think it should be mandatory for head shops to sell a copy of it to anyone purchasing their first bong. What Monty Python's Holy Grail is to geeks and nerds, so is this movie to potheads. I first saw this film 10 years ago or so, and I still crack up every time I watch it. The jokes perfectly lampoon the pothead lifestyle, far better than latter day knockoffs like Half-Baked attempt to.There isn't a plot, so to speak; the film is more of a collection of various skits; as the films protagonists wander around Los Angeles in their legendary haze. Despite this, the film has an excellent sense of pace, and doesn't drag at all. Many people cite Up In Smoke as C&C's best work, but I would have to say that Next Movie is superior.So if you're in the mood for an hour and half of belly laughs, light up, tune in, and let your mind float away =)Oh, and FREE TOMMY CHONG!
| 1
|
train_10105
|
Directed by Govind Nihalani, this is definite cop film of Indian cinema. May be the first one which portrayed the stark reality of corruption in the police force & politics with no holds barred & how it effects on a young cop. A man forced to join a career of a cop by his cop father. Agreed that we grew up watching lot of good cop/bad cop Hindi films but this is different. Today's generation, which grown up watching dark & realistic films like- 'Satya', 'Company' may be consider it inferior product in comparison but look at the time of its making. The film was made absolutely off beat tone in the time when people didn't pay much attention to such kind of cinema & yet it becomes a most sought after cop film in class & mass audience when it released. For Om Puri its first breakthrough in mainstream Hindi cinema & he delivered a class performance as Inspector Velankar. Its more than cop character, he internalized a lot which is something original in acting. Watch his scenes with his father whom he hates & Smita whom he loves. Smita Patil maintained the dignity of her character to the expected level. My God what a natural expressions she carried!!! Shafi Inamdar was truly a discovery for me & he's a brilliant character actor if given a chance & here in some of the scenes he outsmarted even Om. The movie is also a debut of a promising villain on Indian screen- Sadashiv Amrapurkar as 'Rama Shetty'. It's another story that he didn't get such a meaty role & almost forgotten today as one of the loud villain of Dharmendra's B grade action films. Watch the scene where Om 1st time becomes a rebel for his father (played by Amrish Puri) & next both are sharing wine together. How inner truth started revealing for both the character with confronting feelings of love & hate for each other. Two faces of Indian Police Force- Masculinity & Impotency and in between lies- half truth (ardh satya)
Kudos to Nihalani's touch. The film won 2 National Awards as Best Hindi Feature Film & Best Actor- Om Puri & 3 Filmfare Awards in Best Film, Best Director & Best Supporting Actor Categories. Recommended to all who are interested in nostalgia of serious Hindi films.Ratings- 8/10
| 1
|
train_23925
|
I don't know what it was about this film that made me react so viscerally against it. Perhaps it was the characters who so unlikable and were not compelling enough to care about. Perhaps it was the disorganized storyline. Perhaps it was the fact that Rob Lowe wore a long dangly earring and eyeliner. Perhaps it was because at some point in the movie they all break out in song. Perhaps it was because the 1980s were never that 80s. Perhaps it was because everything was a garish hyperbole. Perhaps it was because a character pumps his fist while driving away from the camera during a fade out. I don't know what it was that made me hate it so, but if it means trying to watch it again I'm not willing to find out.
| 0
|
train_21649
|
There is absolutely nothing in this movie that shows even the tiniest scrap of talent. Nobody in it has ever tried acting before, even the extras in the coffee shop look as if they've been glued in place. Nothing looks rehearsed.The film quality is terrible. Most of the 'action' takes place in narrow corridors or apartments with the cameraman crammed in as an afterthought, swinging some cheapo camera backwards and forwards between 'actors' as they deliver their lines. No tripod and no proper microphone either, there sound quality is terrible. Even 'Manos' fares better than this, at least they had proper equipment. What plot there is simply gets lost in the production mess.Stick to home videos, preferably made by some 5 year kid trying out the video feature on daddy's new camera phone. You will be in for a long search to find a movie more inept than this.
| 0
|
train_23098
|
this is a piece of s--t!! this looks worse than a made for t.v. movie. and i shutter to think that a sequel was even concieved and the results... war is prettier than this. jean claude van shame has done it again and he wonders why his career is where it is now. no script, no story and no time should be wasted on this. i mean that. 1 out of 10 is too high, way too high. goldberg should be jackhammered for this. van shame is no actor.
| 0
|
train_1831
|
this movie was rather awful Vipul Shah's last movie was good this one was just bad although it's a good story and is handled in a great way Aatish Kapadia who adapted this movie from another gujarati play "Avjo Wahala Fari Malishu" made a good but slow pianful 2 and a half hours to watch there are a lot of flaws in this movie but it's still a entertainer songs are rather bleaked out and don't work well but they're still good overall not a movie you would enthusiastically watch it's still a story to take in to account and it's good if you're the relationship type pretty good movie with loads of flaws and humor that's really not needed even one bit
| 1
|
train_15825
|
Hated it. If you believe that everyone in the South is dumb, morally bankrupt, stupid, violent, a religious nut, or a child molester, then this film may be for you. Everyone is poor and seemingly ignorant. In one scene, two older men are talking in a general store and one mentions that he had molested a set of sisters before they could tie their shoes. The man seemed proud of his actions, and the other man clearly took it as a normal part of life. Very nice. A teenage girl walks the back roads looking for her sister and no one offers to help her -- despite an obvious limp and lack of food or water (no backpack, etc.). Strathairn's character is not only thoroughly disgusting and slimy, but he is shown to be a religious believer who (typical for Hollywood) reflects the vile nature of Christians. A scene in the movie is highly reminiscent of the end of Cape Fear (the one with DeNiro) -- Bible verses being spouted by the bad guy. I am from the Great Northwest, but found this film offensive because of the wonderful people I know who are from NC, WV, AL, MS, KY, TN, etc.
| 0
|
train_20307
|
I picked this DVD up at the Dollar Store. The DVD was on the 2 for $1 rack, but since it had Michael Madsen in it, I thought that since I had never seen the movie, I bought it anyway.I must say that I didn't like the movie. The movie played more like a documentary or an advertisement for religion than anything else. I found that the director's use of flashbacks did not add to the story line for me. I would have preferred to view the story line in chronological order.I won't throw it away like one of the other commentators, but It may be quite awhile before I would consider watching this movie again.Who knows, since it was Michael Madsen's film debut, maybe it might have some archival value at some future date.
| 0
|
train_15400
|
I have a 5 minute rule (sometimes I'll leave leway for 10). If a movie is not good in the first 5 or 10 minutes it's probably not going to ever get better. I have yet to experience any movie that has proved to contest this theory. Dan in Real Life is definitely no exception. I was watching this turkey and thought; wow, this is not funny, not touching, not sad, and I don't like any of the characters at all.The story of an advice columnist/widower raising three young daughters, who falls in love with his brothers girlfriend. I suppose the tagline would be "advice columnist who could USE advice"? I don't know. Dans character in no way struck me as someone qualified to give advice. I guess THAT'S the irony? I don't know. He goes to see his parents, brothers, sisters and their kids at some sort of anual family retreat, which seems very sweet, and potential fodder for good comedy, story lines...none which ever emerge. The central story is basically how he loves this woman, but can't have her. Anyone with a pulse will realise that eventually he WILL get her, but you have to suffer through painfully unfunny, trite, lifetime movie network dialogue "murderer of love" to get to the inevitable happy ending.This is truly one of the worst movies I've ever seen.
| 0
|
train_6306
|
Idiotic hack crooks, a babe, a safe, a plan and a baby. Add them all up and you get the best comedy you've never heard of. Even with some a-list star power (at least a-minus...okay, b-plus?) this movie got very little publicity.But that does not diminish its genius.Terrific writing, solid delivery and a believable group of characters. Some truly classic lines, and a fun twist at the end.This is not some watered-down "Nutty Professor" comedy. These are low-life bad guys. They speak low-life bad guy language and they do low-life bad guy things. But they do it for your amusement and entertainment, and they do that well.One of the best comedies I've ever seen.
| 1
|
train_1143
|
I don't watch soaps. My grandmother still watches that one with the hour glass. I made fun of them it when I was ten (it was so easy).But this movie takes parody and spells it a new way. I found the story pretty damn funny. The fashions of the 80's - shoulder pads, sequins, and polyester - just top it off. The huge hair, the high heels, and the histrionics - what a combination.And all the actors just go to town, chewing up their parts and spitting them out in a big well scripted pile. Sally, Kevin, Elisabeth - wonderful! Whoopi - great! Robert Downey - refreshing to see him back when he had such potential, before the tabloids. And Garry: why did we have to wait so long to see him on film? Leesa Gibbons - hadn't been missing her, but nice to include her as a real life entertainment reporter (and where do you apply for THAT job, anyway?).Admittedly, I could have done without Sally climbing the drainpipe. Lucy Ricardo did it, how many times?, as has every comedienne from Carol Burnett to I don't know who and I'm so done with it now, I could spit peanuts if I had them. Apparently it's what you do when you're being funny in a tall building in New York. I'm just thankful they didn't pull out the flagpole bit.But it was cute, it was funny, it had plot twists, it had an after credits ending before that was common, it had clothes worthy of a second glance, it had a great cast and it's got personal memories for me. Really, what more do you need?
| 1
|
train_982
|
This is one of those westerns that, well, stands practically alone in the unrelieved quality of its dialog. Very few can hold up to it over the long haul. That said, the rest is pretty bad. Nevertheless I am giving it an eight because there is no other western with such consistently good dialog with maybe the exception of The Wild Bunch, Junior Bonner, and perhaps a few more. It is riddled with weaknesses, John Drew Barrimore the most glaring. However it does have one truly memorable scene. Nothing like it. Its right after Kid Wichita kills the sheriff, and goes to Jack Elams place trying to goad him into a fight. Wonderful stuff. Right up with the best in any western.
| 1
|
train_1023
|
This show has been my escape from reality for the past ten years. I will sadly miss it. Although Atlantis has filled the hole a small bit.The last ever episode of SG1(on television anyway)was beautifully done. Robert wrote something that felt close to reality. As though he was trying to explain what it was like on the set of the show. (Everyone working closely together for such a long time there are bound to up's and downs. But over the years they've turned into a family). I thought this was a wonderful way to end despite anyone else's criticisms.SG1 was something special and time and time again it took me across thresholds of disbelief and amazement. The wonderful characters, stories, directors, writers. From episode one I was hooked. The blend of action, science, drama and especially comedy worked so well that made me keep wanting more.There are no real words in which to completely express what this show meant to me. I can only thank those who kept the show so fresh and entertaining for so many years. It has inspired me to do many things that I thought was impossible.I look forward to the movies next year and I really hope there will be a number of them. I never want the show to die.Stargate SG1 - 1997 - 2007?
| 1
|
train_153
|
This film is, in short, a cinematic masterpiece. The film is moved along brilliantly by intense images that deeply move the sensitive viewer. The film opens during the Spanish Civil War as a group of children seek their revenge on another child. In fact, they are acting out in their world a version of what they have witnessed in the adult world around them. Later we meet three of these children again as adults at a sanatorium. Here we see what life has wrought on each of them. One is a reclusive sexually repressed patient. Another man is a hustler who has become ill. The third child, a young lady, has become a nun and is serving at the sanatorium. This film is an allegory about the effect of violence on the psyche.This film has a climax that is definitely not for the squeamish members of the viewing audience but it is logical as well as profoundly moving. The acting is excellent and the script is quite well written. There is a musical score that provides an undercurrent of dread throughout this film. This is not a film for thrill seekers but a film for a thoughtful audience.
| 1
|
train_16848
|
This was just a terrible movie. It hurt me to watch it. Almost every action was unmotivated within the context of the movie, the acting was really poor (P.Diddy was the best actor which really says something about the movie) and the plot was generally predictable. Some links to Carlito's Way were okay, for example his dream of one day moving to the Carribien, but on the whole they were weak. The love interest in my opinion was flat out wrong but hey that's debatable. Anyways I really wasn't expecting much before watching the movie and I guess you could say even those expectations weren't met. I feel bad for Jay Hernandez because he actually is a decent actor (Friday Night Lights). He's lucky though because I'm sure there won't be too many people watching this movie. I generally give movies a decent rating if they spark my interest at all so I'm gonna go ahead and give this one two stars. Better luck next time. And yes I did enjoy Carlito's Way.
| 0
|
train_11107
|
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.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...
| 1
|
train_6978
|
Well I have to say that I have waited for it to come.I won't try to spoil it and quite a few people have really brilliantly spoken of the pilot. On the other hand I'm not quite sure to understand the detractors who claim themselves to be BSG fans and not like the pilot.What the frack did they expect?!! The background is setting 50 years before BSG we are there o assist at the birth of the Cylons, see the life of the Adama family (has we already knew some of it from BSG), get a deeper explanation of the Caprican population and its perception of the other colonies, and potentially the origins of the Gods belief of the human and the unique God belief of the Cylons. I do not expect the same profusion of special effect or space opera as the in the previous series, I make the difference between the two although I know that Caprica will reinforce BSG.This is 1h30 of promising start, I believe as well that this will put pressure for the scenarios to be as good as BSG. I expect a lot from the following but I have no reasons to doubts that we will learn a lot more.Watching the DVD's deleted scene also gives more material for your brain to chew on.Looking forward to January 2010
| 1
|
train_24567
|
You know a movie will not go well when John Carradine narrates (a.k.a. reads the script & plot synopsis) over his character's funeral procession, a mere 5 minutes into the movie. The narration is his character's last will & testament. It stipulates that his estate be divided amongst his 4 children and servants. The children shall split $136 million equally, but if any should die then that share is split amongst the remainders. If all the children should die then it is divided amongst the servants. To be eligible, they must live in the family estate for a week. It sounds like the typical plot of a reality show.There is little subtext as to the nature of the Deans. They are a powerful and severely dysfunctional family, but the real trouble starts with the drowning of that dog. From the opening voice-over by John Carradine you expect this movie will lead to a Machiavellian cat and mouse game with a twist ending. That journey is painfully slow and pointless. We trudge through minutes of watching people sitting around, playing pool, throwing darts, the misuse of the "through the fish bowl" shot, dramatic conversations between silk cravat wearing men, constant bickering, misplaced circus music, bizarre flashbacks reminiscent of faux-German expressionism, the horror aesthetic of the 4th grade and heaps of dramatic overacting. This all inevitably leads to the expected & ungratifying ending. You will be happy to still be alive, but the pain might be too great to bear alone. Share children, share.-Celluloid Rehab
| 0
|
train_1643
|
This is a movie that should be seen by everyone if you want to see great acting. Mr. Torn and Ms Farrel do an outstanding job. I think they should have it on TV again so a new audience can enjoy it. Wonderful performances.It gives you a real feel of what the pioneers had to go through both physically and emotionally. Great unheard of movie.It was done when Ms. Farrel was very young. I had always thought of her as a comedian, but this certainly is not a comedy and she is just wonderful. There is very little dialogs, but that just make it seem more real. Mr. Torn as always is a great presence and just his breathing has great feeling. I must see movie.
| 1
|
train_23594
|
This movie is another one on my List of Movies Not To Bother With. Saw it 40 years ago as an adolescent, stayed up late to do so, was very annoyed to find that it was about 95% romance,4% everything else, 1% history if that. It's what I call a bait and switch movie, one with an interesting title, the actual movie is a scam. This is a subject which deserves a good cinematic treatment, this movie is almost an insult to those who served. The actual members of the Lafayette Escadrille were not on the run from the law nor were they the products of abusive homes, they were in reality idealists who wanted to do something to help France. And I suspect many of them came from a more upper class background than Tab Hunter's character. Flying school is not for the smart alecks and the know it alls, an individual such as the one portrayed here wouldn't have lasted two days, it would have either been the stockade or the infantry. Discipline in the French Army was often rather fierce. In short, another Hollywierd version of an historical episode that deserves proper treatment.
| 0
|
train_8745
|
After high-school graduation, best friends Alice and Darlene, decide to take a trip to Thailand. Whilst they are there, they meet a charming Australian guy named Nick. After spending some time with Nick, he asks them if they want to take a weekend trip to Hong Kong with him. They agree. At the airport though, they are get busted for smuggling drugs and then get convicted for 33 years in a Thai prison for something they say they haven't done. Not really knowing what to do they end contacting Yankee Hank, an American lawyer who lives in Thailand with his wife. Word has it that if you have the money he can help you. Things start of well, but they still can't get out.The movie is really good because it doesn't let on what's going to happen and it's interesting all the time. I couldn't believe the ending though. It was one of those endings where you don't know the 100% truth, but you still kind of know what really happened with Nick and the drug smuggling because of the 'owning up' etc. Claire Danes and Kate Beckinsale both give quite good performances here. Beckinsales performance was a little weak though. Both Danes and Beckinsales characters friendship is good but could of seemed stronger. Paul Walker even has a small uncredited role here. ;)Anyway, I thought Brokedown Palace was a good movie and I give it a 7/10.
| 1
|
train_24777
|
I found "The Arab Conspiracy" in a bargain bin and thought I'd uncovered a lost treasure. Folks, there's a reason why you don't hear much about this film. The plot is muddy, the pacing is slow, Cornelia Sharpe is about as vivacious as plain, cold tofu, and the ending leaves you flat. Not even Sean Connery can save this one.
| 0
|
train_10523
|
Emma is a true romance. If you love the soppy stuff, charged with wit and folly, you will love this movie! Its true to the novel, which is very important, with a few twists added for pleasure. Gwen is not one of my fave actreesess but she does justice to a role that required everything that she had to offer in spades. She shines in a role i think no other actress could have done proper justice to. Jeremy Northam, as the hero. how shocked are you? I never looked upon him as overtly handsome but heck! What the right role can do for you! He looks so good as the sensible, regal Mr. K, that i am literally looking at him in a new light. He makes and excellent romantic lead. The charm and character that he brings to his role is wonderful!Ewan McGregor, Greta Sacchi brings in the rest. a good cast. A good movie. If you are a fan of Jane Austen, see this movie, along with Pride and Prejudice - AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, buy the books. It enhances the movie to heights that are extraordinary
| 1
|
train_14752
|
So I had heard from a few people that this film had brought them to tears in the theater. As I watched it for the first time I was expecting another romantic, tear-jerking Barbra Streisand film; Something like The Way We Were. I was certainly wrong. The chemistry between the two main characters, Esther Hoffman and her John Howard, was nonexistent, making it impossible to get attached to the characters. There wasn't anything romantic about it. Streisand's character fell for an alcoholic drug addict who couldn't sing a single note without making me want to hit the fast-forward button. At one point her character finds her husband in bed with another woman and she forgives him about five minutes later. There's nothing romantic about a deadbeat rock star and a woman who can't seem to realize it until he actually dies. Parts of the movie seemed to drag on and on, and I kept asking myself when it was going to end.The death of John Howard was completely predictable. There was totally obvious foreshadowing of his reckless behavior early on in the movie, and when he died I felt no emotion whatsoever. It wasn't a tragic accident, it was him basically being an idiot. Not to mention throughout the movie I was distracted by his hideous beard.The only parts of this movie worth seeing are the Streisand songs. The ending of the movie when she sings "With One More Look At You/Watch Closely Now" was my reason for giving this film a whopping 3/10. Those 7 minutes were the only part of the movie I actually felt an emotion other than irritation and anger.
| 0
|
train_2005
|
Almost too well done... "John Carpenter's Vampires" was entertaining, a solid piece of popcorn-entertainment with a budget small enough not to be overrun by special effects. And obviously aiming on the "From Dusk Till Dawn"-audience. "Vampires: Los Muertos" tries the same starting with a rock-star Jon Bon Jovi playing one of the main characters, but does that almost too well...: I haven't seen Jon Bon Jovi in any other movie, so I am not able to compare his acting in "Vampires: Los Muertos" to his other roles, but I was really suprised of his good performance. After the movie started he convinced me not expecting him to grab any guitar and playing "It' my life" or something, but kill vampires, showing no mercy and doing a job which has to be done. This means a lot, because a part of the audience (also me) was probably thinking: "...just because he's a rockstar...". Of course Bon Jovi is not James Woods but to be honest: It could have been much worse, and in my opinion Bon Jovi did a very good performance. The vampiress played by Arly Jover is not the leather dressed killer-machine of a vampire-leader we met in Part 1 (or in similar way in "Ghosts of Mars"). Jover plays the vampire very seductive and very sexy, moving as lithe as a cat, attacking as fast as a snake and dressed in thin, light almost transparent very erotic cloth. And even the optical effects supporting her kind of movement are very well made. It really takes some beating. But the director is in some parts of the film only just avoiding turning the movie from an action-horrorfilm into a sensitive horrormovie like Murnau's "Nosferatu". You can almost see the director's temptation to create a movie with a VERY personal note and different to the original. This is the real strength of the movie and at the same time its weakest point: The audience celebrating the fun-bloodbath of the first movie is probably expecting a pure fun-bloodbath for the second time and might be a little disappointed. Make no mistake: "Vampires:Los Muertos" IS a fun-bloodbath but it's just not ALL THE TIME this kind of movie. Just think of the massacre in the bar compared to the scene in which the vampiress tries to seduce Zoey in the ruins: the bar-massacre is what you expect from american popcorn-entertainment, the seducing-Zoey-in-the-ruins-scene is ALMOST european-like cinema (the movie is eager to tell us more about the relationship between Zoey and the vampiress, but refuses answers at the same time. Because it would had slow down the action? Showed the audience a vampiress with a human past, a now suffering creature and not only a beast which is just slaughtering anybody). And that's the point to me which decides whether the movie is accepted by the audience of the original movie or not. And also: Is the "From Dusk Till Dawn"-audience really going to like this? I'm not sure about that. Nevertheless Tommy Lee Wallace did really a great job, "Vampires:Los Muertos" is surprisingly good. But I also think to direct a sequel of a popcorn movie Wallace is sometimes almost too creative, too expressive. Like he's keeping himself from developing his talent in order to satisfy the expectations of audience. In my opinion, Wallace' talent fills the movie with life and is maybe sometimes sucking it out at the same time. "Vampires: Los Muertos" is almost too well done. (I give it 7 of 10)
| 1
|
train_1091
|
I loved this film. I first saw it when I was 20 ( which was only four years ago) and I enjoyed it so much, I brought my own copy the next day. The comedy is well played by all involved. I always have to rewind and rewatch the scene where Mr. Tsanders explains why he found water at 6 ft in one area and 227 feet in another area. Also look for Jason Robards father who plays Mr. Retch. Talent ran in that family.
| 1
|
train_24538
|
Does anything at all happen in this movie. There are only the bizarre short scenes where I didn't know what the hell was going on so that doesn't count. This movie is sooo boring it hurts, and this is coming from a person who likes it when movies are about making movies. Confused?, well I was after watching this crap. What was Donald Sutherland on, because he missed it with this one completely. And what's with the "pedofile" scene at the beginning of the movie. Can put anyone to sleep! 4/10
| 0
|
train_23719
|
This was a movie about infidelity and revenge. A twin with the "twin" connection senses that something is wrong with her sister. This movie took forever to establish the plot. A plot that has been done many times. The acting was lousy for the most part. Once the plot comes together, the movie ends. Laura and Ashley are twins that live with an abusive father. The father seems to favor Ashley, so Laura gets the blame for everything. There is a promise made that the girls would never be apart, but as they grow up, their lives go in different directions. Ashley gets a job in a diner where she meets Barry, a married man. Of course no good can come of this. The fact that Barry had tinnitus was a poor excuse for a way to track him down. I kept waiting for this movie to get better and for there to be some resolution somewhere, but it never happened.
| 0
|
train_11197
|
Another silent love triangle film from Hitchcock, not a mystery, but very English, very well-paced and photographed. Smooth boxer Bob Corby (Ian Hunter) recruits circus boxer "One Round" Jack Sander (Carl Brisson) to be his sparring partner, partly to keep the pretty but fickle Mabel (Lilian Hall-Davis) nearby. There are lots of character actors and grotesquesat Jack and Mabel's wedding the verger, standing in the aisle of the church, registers shock at the sight of the very tall and the very short men, the fat lady, the conjoined twins who, of course, argue about which side of the aisle to sit, and the wedding feast is amusing. The rest of the movie has Jack losing Mabel and boxing his way back to her heart, or something like that. It was another era altogether, with the audience in evening dress, and the boxers dressing up, too, when out of the ring. The camera angles, the pace, the use of symbols, the cuttingall very stylish and masterful. The camera-work and editing of the last boxing match is very gripping. Brisson's good looks are well-used in this one; his smiling is not so oblivious of what's going on around him as he is in Hitchcock's The Manxman, and so is not annoying. But can boxers have such dimples?
| 1
|
train_19865
|
A not bad but also not so great heist film. Kirk Douglas is a recently released from prison safe-cracker who, after turning down an offer from the Mob, decides to pull the job himself. He recruits circus gymnast Giuliano Gemma. Mayhem ensues. Douglas and Gemma soon find themselves pursued by mafia goon Romano Puppo as well as entangled in a really goofy love triangle with Douglas's infinitely patient girlfriend (Florinda Bolkan). Director Michele Lupo keeps the pace moving quickly and there's at least one excellent and creative car chase sequence involving Puppo & Gemma. Though an Italian production, most of the filming appears to have been done in Germany. Douglas is fine, not just slumming it in an Giallo quickie. The striking Bolkan gives a terrific performance. The music is by Ennio Morricone and the cinematography is by the great Tonino Delli Colli, who managed to work with everyone in Italy (from Wertmuller and Fellini to Pasolini and Leone).
| 0
|
train_10074
|
quote by Nicolas Martin (nicmart) from Houston, TX: "Fine film, but DVD "reformatted for TV", 8 April 2002 - This is a charming and emotive film. On the other hand, the DVD I purchased has been "reformatted to fit your TV" by the clods at Columbia Tristar. There is no excuse for not providing the film in widescreen format, except that Hollywood treats all films like the moronic, disposable trash that it is so used to producing. What a shame."What a (criminal!) shame indeed. However, there is another version out though. See here for details http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCompare2/kingofmasks.htmWonderful performances by the two main actors (The King and Doggie) BTW.
| 1
|
train_5845
|
I enjoyed this film far more than anything had led me to anticipate; from reading other comments here, I suspect it benefits enormously from being seen on a full-size screen in the cinema, in the company of a cheerful and enthusiastic audience. I was lucky enough to have that experience, borne up on ripples of laughter from all around, and had an immensely good time with this undemanding comedy.For it is as a comedy that it shines, if it shines anywhere at all. The music is nothing special -- in fact, I hadn't realised it *was* a musical, and was very surprised when the assembled ancestors burst into half-spoken lyric -- but I do have to admit that the half-threat, half-promise of 'Oh, what I'll do...' has proved far more catchy than it ever seemed at the time, as it's still going round and round in my head!The plot, such as it is, largely pivots around the past history of the eponymous Francesca, a sixteenth-century portrait sporting a distinctly anachronistic hairstyle and fur-coat. Her idea on the sanctity of marriage don't quite jibe with those of her distant descendant, the Countess Angelina, and one can almost hear the storyline creaking at the seams under the strain of the Production Code in order to ensure that the heroine arrives unsullied in her much-delayed marriage-bed with the right man...The romance is scarcely earth-shattering, and in fact the first few scenes, played pretty well straight, verge on the tedious. But where script and film really come to life is in the battle of the sexes that follows. The impudence of Douglas Fairbanks Jr's courtship of Betty Grable's married Angelina is equalled only by Betty-Grable-as-Francesca's pursuit of him in turn, culminating in complete role-reversal in the hilarious fantasy sequence where she -- literally -- sweeps him off his feet. This is probably the comic climax of the plot, although the consequences of the Colonel's understandable confusion are worked out with a deft touch in the remaining two 'acts' of the operetta-structure, and the spectacle of Fairbanks' blissful, bemused awakening is more or less worth the price of admission on its own.Grable is entirely convincing in establishing her two contrasting characters, wisely gets almost all the (limited) singing opportunities, and shares the honours where the swathes of quotable dialogue in the various verbal duels are concerned. But in the field of unspoken reaction she is really outclassed by her male supporting leads; Fairbanks in particular is an absolute treat in a number of wordless sequences whose set-up and humour is worthy of the silent screen.This film is too uneven in style to be a classic, varying from sparkling repartee to hackneyed tedium. But at its best it is quite honestly very funny indeed, and brought a round of spontaneous applause and laughter across the auditorium at the end as the lights went up. Out of tune with its times, it may have failed to draw contemporary audiences -- but, on this showing, really didn't deserve to be disowned by both Grable and Preminger, the (uncredited) director. This is no masterpiece, but a thoroughly entertaining minor work, and I for one found myself grinning in remembrance all the way home.
| 1
|
train_19996
|
It's difficult to put into words the almost seething hatred I have of this film. But I'll try:Every other word was an expletive, the sex scenes were uncomfortable, drugs were rampant and stereotyping was beyond the norm, if not offensive to Italian-Americans.I'm not saying the acting was terrible, because Leguizamo, Sorvino, Brody, Espisito et. al, performed well. But...almost every character in the film I despised. Not since The Bonfire of the Vanities have I disliked every character on screen.
| 0
|
train_20237
|
Who in the world told Harrison Ford that this was a good role for him???And Josh Hartnett...how does a 19 year old who can't fire a gun become a cop? Over used cliches plus zero character development and about 15 pointless music industry cameos equal a surprisingly bad film!!!
| 0
|
train_13911
|
This movie was great the first time I saw it, when it was called "Lost in Translation." But somehow Bill Murray turned into an eccentric black man played by Morgan Freeman, Scarlett Johansson turned into a cranky Latino woman played by Paz Vega, and Tokyo, Japan turned into Carson, California. Instead of meaningful conversations and silence we enjoyed in Translation, we get meaningless blabbering in 10 Items that verges on annoying. Instead of characters that were pensive and introspective as in Translation, we get characters that spew pointless advice on topics they have no clue about. How can a character that wears hundred dollar T-shirts and has never been inside a Target department store expect to give advice to a working-class woman on how to prepare for a job interview as an administrative assistant? Don't think that stops him. If he isn't giving her clothing advice, he's telling her what she should eat. The most annoying part of the movie for me was how supposedly they were in a hurry to make an appointment, and yet the characters keep finding time to run another errand, be it washing the car, stopping at Arby's, or just laying around to list off their 10 Items or Less lists of things they love and hate. I kept wanting to yell at them saying, "Didn't you say you had somewhere to be? What the heck are doing? A minute ago you were practically late, now you're eating roast beef and pondering your lives!" Until I saw this movie, I never truly understood how something could "insist upon itself," but I think this movie does exactly that, and undeservedly so. The dialogue makes the characters cheesy and unsympathetic
with the exception that I felt sorry for both of the actors for having signed onto this project.
| 0
|
train_3275
|
I first saw this movie when I was about 10 years old. Unfortunately I could not watch it to the end because it was aired late at night. Now I bought it on DVD because I can remember that I liked it.This is really not an ordinary horror movie. It has some horror elements but I rather categorize it as fantasy. I liked it but I hoped for a bit more horror and scary scenes. Especially the scene when Anna's dad comes into the paperhouse trying to kill her is a bit short.Now to the plot. This movie is about a young girl named Anna who gets ill. While she is ill and has to lie in her bed because of her high fewer she turns on to finishing her drawing about a house - the paperhouse. When she fells a sleep, which often strangely happens just immediately, she finds herself near the house on a big green field. She realizes that the house is exactly like the one she has drawn and that every new detail also appears in her dreams. One day she draws a boy into the house to have somebody to talk to. As she forgets to draw his legs (because he is sitting behind a window) the boy cannot walk. Later she is being told by the doctor, that a boy also has this strange disease and she realizes that with the boy she has drawn, she also got that boy into her disturbing dreams. She also notices that it gets harder and harder for her to wake up from her dreams. As she misses her father who is ofter abroad she draws her father into the house. She makes a mistake and her father is looking very angry on the painting. She tries to rubber him out but realizes that she cannot change anything already drawn. And next time she falls asleep the horror begins. Her father is mad and blind (because she draw s*** on his head to mark him as 'invalid') and tries to get into the paperhouse and kill Anna and his friend. Her dreams became a horrendous nightmare. They manage to escape and to kill her father and Anna can finally wake up. Than Anna finds her self in the hospital where her parents are sitting beside her bed. The doctors thought that she fell into a coma or so. They tell Anna that the other boy died and that they want to travel to the ocean to get over those tragical happenings. Anna draws a watchtower and notices that the same watchtower can be found near the hotel they traveled to. She runs to the watchtower and meets the boy (I am just not mentioning his name because I cannot remember it and do not want to go back to the previous html page) and can say good bye to him and forget those terrible dreams forever.There were a few thing I did not understand in the movie. First of all it was the ending which I absolutely dislike. I think it is too long while the main part of the movie becomes a bit too short. How does the boy fly a helicopter and speak to Anna as he is supposed to be dead? Why did you have to put such a stupid radio on the wall? I hated that scene it was so dumb to me. It almost ruined the main horror scene.Things I liked were the scene with the photograph of Anna's dad which was the first real scary and horror scene. I liked the boy. The actor was awesome. He was even better than Anna. I also liked how Anna tries to get her father out of the painting while she is asleep and how she is looking for it in the garbage.Overall a good movie. I give it a 8 out of 10.
| 1
|
train_17834
|
After a few lean years, 1968 was a pretty swell time for Elvis: not only did he make that celebrated "Comeback" TV Special but he also became a father and starred in two pretty decent movies as well SPEEDWAY and LIVE A LITTLE, LOVE A LITTLE. Therefore, personally I can forgive him for the misstep that was STAY AWAY, JOE which, at best, emerges as an interesting misfire and is not all that bad considering. Sure, Burgess Meredith and Joan Blondell are indeed embarrassing as, respectively, a dopey Indian father to Elvis' character and a bawdy bartender who has her eye on Mr. Presley too - but one is glad to see Elvis surrounded by top veteran Hollywood talent like Katy Jurado (as Meredith's Mexican wife), the two Jones Henry and L.Q. - and Thomas Gomez who is particularly amusing as sarcastic Chief Thundercloud who is Meredith's stubborn father still donning his old chieftain clothes in the present day! While there is a surprising (if not unwelcome given their usual blandness) lack of songs, there seems to be no shortage of free-for-all parties were the male Indians hit the bottle steadily while Presley practices his womanizing skills behind their backs! As can be expected, the typically 'Western' Arizona scenery is a major asset here and the sleepy, snoring bull gag is not only a good one but a major plot point. On the other hand, the climactic 'destruction of the house' episode is one we've seen too often since and doesn't work too well here...
| 0
|
train_21566
|
This centers on unironic notions of coming to grips with guilt. Merrill berates the distraught boy to stop his 'whining' about Rennie's death. Old-style real men in action, here.The crashing model plane and car crash must have been impressive on the big screen.The storytelling itself, despite the flashback sequences, plays it straight -- all the narrators are trusted by us (regardless of the 'truth' or 'untruth' of the dialogue), so there's no game with the viewer about narrative structure. This would become a rough template for future retellings, such as "Fearless".So all we're left with is individual performance, and at that level, it's best for Wynn's bantering, a virtual one-man show.
| 0
|
train_22720
|
First of all, this film can be divided into three segments. A promising opening, with the ambushing of some cavalry by the Cheyenne. This is followed by what can only be described as a long boring middle section, with the totally miscast Candice Bergen and "Soldier Blue" traveling together to reach the safety of an Army garrison. Miss Bergen spews forth inappropriate four letter words every time she opens her mouth, and looks like she just walked out of a 1970s Jack Nicholson movie. I mean she maintains zero interest, with zero believability. The third and final section involves the totally gratuitous slaughter of an Indian village. This is so obviously overdone to lay on the anti-war propaganda, that it comes across as simply long, outrageous, and contrived. Not recommended. - MERK................................ Jacobe (comment above) Here's an idea. Why don't you actually watch the movie you are commenting on, instead of chirping your liberal nonsense. This is not a political site, it is for reviewing films. - MERK
| 0
|
train_22521
|
The worst movie I have seen since Tera Jadoo Chal Gaya. There is no story, no humor, no nothing! The action sequences seem more like a series of haphazard Akshay Kumar Thumbs-Up advertisements stitched together. Heavily influenced from The Matrix and Kung-Fu Hustle but very poorly executed.I did not go a lot of expectations, but watching this movie is an exasperating experience which makes you wonder "What were these guys thinking??!!".The only thing you might remember after watching it is an anorexic Kareena in a bikini.The reason why I did not give a rating of '1' is that every time I think I have seen the worst, Bollywood proves me wrong.
| 0
|
train_1594
|
What i like about you is one of those series you need to see but aren't sure you would see, the beginning is cool and its sucks you into the series just for fun, the second part i season 2-3 which are more stale, they come and go in what you want. what happens with many series is that they don't end with something special because the second part of the series always goes down into the drain, this one also somewhat did, the third part is the one to spoil and ruin the whole series, usually, but it doesn't, this ending is perfect for the series, it fits perfect, actually i was pretty angry about all these guys in Val's life, actually i wanted to end with Jeff in the end, but later on it changed, they chose to take Vic into the series after almost 3 seasons without him, and that was the biggest surprise and also what made the series go on top.see it many times the series is actually very cool just don't expect the second part to be that good it isn't but the third part does what was needed and made the series to one that was worth the whole thing, i am happy to say i was glad and happy about the series and now i will go over to see two guys a girl and a pizza place, when i have seen the whole series i will be back...
| 1
|
train_10536
|
Yes...I'm going with the 1-0 on this and here's why. In the last few years, I have watched quite a few comedies and only left with a few mild laughs and a couple video rental late fees because the movies were that easy to forget. Then I stumble upon "Nothing". Looked interesting, wasn't expecting much though. I was wrong. This was probably one of the funniest movies I have ever had the chance to watch. Dave and Andrew make a great comedic pair and the humor was catchy enough to remember, but not over complex to the point of missing the joke. I don't want to remark on any of the actual scenes, because I do feel this is a movie worth seeing for once. With more and more pointless concepts coming into movies (you know, like killer military jets and "fresh" remakes that are ruining old classics), This movie will make you happy to say it's OK to laugh at "Nothing".
| 1
|
train_4738
|
Now let me tell you about this movie, this movie is MY FAVORITE MOVIE!!! This movie has excellent combat fighting. This movie does sound like a silly story line about how Jet Li plays a super hero, like Spider-Man, or etc. But once you've seen this movie, you would probably want to see it again and again. I rate this movie 10/10.
| 1
|
train_24774
|
I'm usually not one to say that a film is not worth watching, but this is certainly an extenuating circumstance. The only true upside to this film is Cornelia Sharpe, looking rather attractive, and the fact that this film is REALLY short.The plot in the film is unbelievably boring and goes virtually nowhere throughout the film. None of the characters are even remotely interesting and there is no reason to care about anyone. I'm not sure why on earth Sean Connery agreed to do this film, but he should have definitely passed on this one.The only reason I could see for seeing this film is if you are a die-hard Sean Connery fan and simply want to see everything he's done. Save this one for last though.Well, if you by some miracle end up seeing this despite my review (or any of the other reviews on this site), then I hope you enjoy it more than I did. Thanks for reading.
| 0
|
train_20523
|
After watching this movie on DVD, I watched the trailer. The voice-over describes the movie as surreal. Well, there's surreal, and there's surreal. There was really only one part of the film that seemed surreal to me, but frankly, it was more confusing than surreal. The other unusual imagery, particularly the lunchroom scene where everybody is on the floor, were so nonsensical they had no meaning. I don't mind imagery that doesn't mean anything, but these scenes just seemed irrelevant.My impression is that the director was trying to convey Logan's inner monologue. I don't know what else would explain what was going on. Unfortunately, nothing I saw gave me any clue what Logan was thinking about, what his perspective was, or even his emotional state. All I could tell was that he wasn't particularly happy with his physical appearance, and that he had a crush on an older boy. I thought the ending signaled what the relationship between the boys had become, but not much else did. Purposely juxtaposing ambiguous scenes with those that were more straightforward seemed more like a cop out than an artistic decision. Still, as tiresome and as content-free the movie was for me, it was a definite change of pace. I very much liked Madagascar Skin, and I had the feeling this movie aspired to that kind of narrative, and perhaps even style. It didn't even come close. For me there's no question about it: this movie deserves an A for effort, but a D for execution.
| 0
|
train_14386
|
I once promised never to walk out of any film ( a personal policy that made me suffer through the most different kinds of dreck, such as Rambo 3, Baise Moi, Deep Impact) - but Mr. Seidl almost succeeded. Hundstage was a truly awful experience. Anyone who sees this movie will think that Austrians are a miserable, pathetic bunch of retards. It shows a world where love and humanity don't exist, a world where people humiliate each other only for one reason - to distract from their own miserable existence. By choosing a documentary-like style with non-professional actors (most of them look like straight from the imagination of Austrian shock-cartoonist Deix) director Seidl wants to make us believe that this is real life in Austrian (European? Western?) suburbs. The viewer is confronted with depictions of sex orgies, violence against women and handicapped people, madness and degradation. But this isn't social criticism. This is just pure shock without any aesthetic value. Instead you get bad acting, bad cinematography, bad filmmaking. If anybody needs a film like this to realize that there are things wrong in our society then this person must have walked through life with closed eyes. This is pseudo-social criticism with a sledge hammer. And it looks down on people in a disgustingly condescending way. It shows ugly people - that is not the reason why I hate it. But it depicts average people in an ugly, misanthropic way. And this is why this film is truly despicable.
| 0
|
train_9873
|
Lily Mars, a smalltown girl living in Indiana, dreams of making it big on Broadway and her aspirations are given a lift when successful Broadway producer John Thornway returns to his hometown for a visit. Lily tries everything she can to get Thornway to notice her, but he just gets annoyed with her antics. When Thornway goes back to New York to stage his show, Lily follows (unknown to John of course) and Thornway eventually gives her a small role in his next show, only as a favor to her family, however Thornway starts to fall for this young girl and a romance blossoms, which makes the show's leading lady, Isabel Rekay, jealous. When Isabel gets fed up with the John-Lily romance causing friction with the show, she leaves, and John decides to make Lily the star. Isabel returns later, and Thornway is forced to tell Lily that she is back to her small bit role in the play, which also may jeopardize the romance. Very charming film, and a refreshing change to see Garland put the comedic touches into her role (her reading of Lady MacBeth, while supposed to be humorous, never threatened her singing career) I enjoyed Heflin's character (Thornway) more when he was annoyed with Lily rather than be the romantic. The film got to be somewhat predictable and the scenes weren't assembled that well together, but a very enjoyable film. Rating, 7.
| 1
|
train_5451
|
I'd love to give this movie a 10/10, but in its existing state I can only go to 8/10 tops. The post-Code editing (read: destroying) of this film warrants a 2-point demerit.From my very limited knowledge of film history, Baby Face was apparently one of two movies that finally broke the camel's back and brought the full wrath and enforcement of the Production Code into play in 1934. (I don't know what the other movie was.) As a result, the movie in its original incarnation was never allowed to be re-released after 1934. It was chopped and edited to bits, and no original version is known to exist today. The best that we can see today is the version that TCM (Turner Classic Movies) shows, but that is blatantly edited in several scenes, and has a really disappointing "happy ending" slapped onto the end.All the above being said, the movie is still pretty darned great and lots of fun to watch. Barbara Stanwyck is, as always, absolutely amazing and wonderful. She is so beautiful and powerful; she just owns the whole movie! She plays a woman who's been used by men her entire life, starting with her father who pimps her out to the local Erie, PA steel workers as well as to local politicians in a quid pro quo of 'if you don't shut down my speakeasy I'll let you sleep with my daughter'. When the father dies in a fiery explosion near the beginning of the flick, the smile on Stanwyck's face is priceless.After the fire, Stanwyck leaves Erie with her maid and heads to New York City. She sets her sights on a skyscraper and starts literally working her way to the top. Starting out with the personnel clerk in the HR department, she sleeps with him to get an entry level position at the bank. From there, she sleeps with man after man after man (including a very young John Wayne) using each new man to help her land a higher paying job on a higher floor of the skyscraper, with increasingly powerful male bosses cum sugar daddies. Stanwyck stops at nothing in her rise to the top. It is great fun to see her and her maid in increasingly fancier clothes and apartments as Stanwyck works her way up the corporate ladder. Stanwyck is the ultimate femme fatale, manipulating, she-vixen in this flick! If you watch this movie, I recommend stopping when you see the George Brent character (Courtland Trenholm) die in Stanwyck's arms. Skip the remaining 3 minutes or so! The "happy ending" slapped on to the end of the movie for post-Code audiences is insulting to the audience's intelligence and lame beyond belief: the bank board members are sitting around a table expositing about Mr. and Mrs. Trenholm's million dollar donation to the bank and how they are living happily but poor in Erie, with former VP Trenholm now working in the steel mills - cut to the exact same footage of a steel plant that we saw in the beginning of the movie - "The End". PUH-LEEZE - HOW LAME! The movie originally ended with George Brent succeeding in his suicide attempt. I think that ending fits the overall mood of the movie much better than the slapped on post-Code ending.I certainly hope that a print of the original pre-Code version of this flick is discovered during my lifetime (update: the original HAS been found and should be out on DVD and/or TCM in 2006!). Until then, I'll enjoy the TCM version and switch it off before the lame-o post-Code ending.
| 1
|
train_19463
|
The Japanese have always had incredible ambitions in their fantasy movies. They have always been ready to destroy cities by huge plastic monsters coming from outer space and elsewhere. The problem is they have never had the money to succeed in making convincing special effects. This film, released in France under the title Les envahisseurs de l'espace, is no exception. Its ambition is to show three creatures from the giant octopus to the giant lobster trying to have the upper hand on the humans. It's extremely awkward and laughable, but well quite enjoyable too. After all, we do like these creatures and these films after all, don't we?
| 0
|
train_7598
|
"Lost", "24", "Carnivale", "Desperate Housewifes"...the list goes on and on. These, and a bunch of other high-quality, shows proves that we're in the middle of a golden age in television history. "Lost" is pure genius. Incredible layers of personal, and psychologically viable, stories, underscored by sublime cinematography (incredible to use this word, when describing a TV-show), a killer score, great performances and editing. Anyone who isn't hooked on this, are missing one of the most important creative expressions in television ever. It may have its problems, when watching only one episode a week, but the DVD format is actually an incredible way to watch this. Hope they keep it up (as I'm sure they do).
| 1
|
train_15776
|
The 1980s TV show, updated with fresh female flesh, and raunchy language. "The Dukes of Hazzard" passed me by; it was not repeated whenever I was in front of the television in either New York or California; or, I probably would have watched. Still, from somewhere (like the clips accompanying this film's updated 2005 release), I knew it was about a fast, orange Dodge Charger - and, the "General Lee" is still good to go. Hunky cousins Seann William Scott and Johnny Knoxville (as Bo and Luke Duke) are the New Riders of the Orange Sage. Beautiful Jessica Simpson (as Daisy) fills her skimpy short well - but, even her arousing pink bikini can't beat off the competition from a dormitory full of bouncing, topless coeds. The too stupid plot involves a graying Burt Reynolds (as "Boss" Hogg) threatening to turn Hazzard County into a strip-mine.** The Dukes of Hazzard (7/27/05) Jay Chandrasekhar ~ Seann William Scott, Johnny Knoxville, Jessica Simpson, Burt Reynolds
| 0
|
train_23831
|
With all due disrespect for this George Stevens Sr. "epic" of miscastings and misreadings, I can only wonder that the James Dean "legend" could survive this outing, I submit that then-studio obeisances to bankable box office "giants" came a cropper of its own 'gigantismoses'. Nor were Rock and Liz that much better off. Let us just say that the televised "Dallas" was the authentic "heir," even if contemp(tuous) latterday "Texans" like Lay and DELay, not to mention our putative "president" of these here Yewbenighted States of Amurrika, perform a one-upsmanship of dastardly global dimensions. I never read Edna Ferber's original, but will lay odds it is head and shoulders superior to what got on screen herein. And all those well-paid, I would imagine, "supporting" actors of note and celebrity notwithstanding, "Giant" is, to me at least, a midget of scant merit, never mind the promo campaigns.
| 0
|
train_8187
|
Anyone find it interesting that the Ood look strangely similar to the 'Great Cthulhu' of H P Lovecraft vintage? hmmm? Great pair of episodes (not referring to Billie Piper as most seem to do!) in The impossible Planet and The Satan Pit.Also the link to 'Legion' I think also used in Who before and also referring to Satan in various novels post Exorcist era...Great suspense episodes utilising fear and faith elements. The new team for these 'who's are working great magic for TV.This certainly creates new fears and 'hide behind the sofa' feelings not seen for many, many years in this continuation of a superb BBC series (pity it is confirmed by the BBC that Billie Piper is quitting - perhaps not permanently - after end of series 2) :O(((
| 1
|
train_2086
|
Faithful to the work of Pearl S. Buck whose years spent in China as a child of Missionary parents that provided her with deep insights into the Chinese culture and its philosophy, this film adaptation is brilliantly done, both in technically artistry and acting.Wang Lung is a humble farmer grateful for the basics of life: to survive off of his land and to be newly wed to Olan, a servant to a rich and powerful family in the village area. Despite Wang Lung and Olan's best efforts to farm the land, raise kids, and build savings and wealth, a famine threatens to wipe out everything they have worked for. Choosing not to sell their land, a traditional Asian belief, they instead journey to a major city to wait out the famine. While in the city, they are reduced to begging and being just one of hundreds of other unfortunate homeless families. Although not a looter, Olan gets caught up in a mob looting at a rich man's house. She's summarily rounded up for execution by the army, but is saved at the last minute. Her good fortune, however, is that she found valuable jewels at the looting site that affords her and her family the opportunity to return to their farm to start over again. The newly found wealth transforms Wang Lung. He becomes selfish, self-centered and takes credit for the find. He becomes a very rich farmer but that only makes matters worse as he increasingly becomes more unappreciative, arrogant and difficult to reason with. He loses touch with the basic things in life that money can't buy: loyalty, commitment, trust, fairness and honesty. As punishment, nature once again turns the table on Wang Lung by sending a plague of locust to destroy everything he has. Brought to his knees, Wang Lung enlists the aid of all friends, former friends, workers, and family. With all that help, he succeeds in saving the farm. From that experience, he once again returns to humbleness and an appreciation for the basics in life.
| 1
|
train_4550
|
Daniel Day-Lewis is the most versatile actor alive. English aristocratic snob in A Room With a View, passionate Irish thief in In the Name of the Father, an impudent, violent butcher in Gangs of New York (in a performance ten times stronger than Adrian Brody's in the Pianist) and as the outrageous Cristy Brown with cerebral palsy in My Left Foot (just to name a few). His roles all influence eachother, but each is seperate, and utterly unique. He changes completely, with each character he takes on. And I'm beginning to believe that he can act as anything. Anything.As Cristy Brown he is stunning. He does not ridicule the character, and he does not pity the character. A difficult achievement. And Cristy Brown comes to life. A smart man. An outrageous man. Human.This movie, despite small scene-transition faults and the like, is an inspiration. Yes, it's predictable. But is it stupidly sentimental? No. I laughed. I cried. Not a single moment of cheese. Proof that this isn't a Hollywood movie.My favourite scene is the scene in the restaurant, when Cristy is discussing painters with Eileen, Peter and her friends. Here's where Daniel Day-Lewis reaches an acting climax. "I'll kick you in the only part of your anatomy that's animated." "Wheel out the cripple!" And his performance never slows down, never falters, and is beautiful. Simply. He has a lot of screen time here. I watch it again again, and I never get tired of Cristy's perspicacious eyes, twitching and guttural speeches.A must-see. Fo sho, yo!
| 1
|
train_10814
|
Given the opposite circumstance of 2009 where the reality is we do have a black president, this movie takes on quite a powerful historical significance. For entertainment value I found this movie to be both engaging and repugnant. I was quite taken back of course by the blatant racism of the time, but also found the music and dancing incredible. Also it is quite cool to see Sammy Davis Jr as such a very young child actor. He plays Rufus Jones, a young boy who is being consoled by his Mammy. He is told 'Why some day you could be President'. This was so ridiculous in 1933 that it was mocked and thought to be endearing, charming and funny. The bulk of the movie is a fantasy sequence of what the government would be like if it was run by a black man. They depict the seats of government as being like a revivalist Baptist church.The fact was when I stumbled onto this movie one day it drew me in. It is really well done and very entertaining. I believe if we can look beyond the racism we can see this movie for all it brings us. In fact to realize that it is not only not ridiculous to have a black president, but that it is normal, just makes this movie that much more relevant. It clearly marks a moment in time for our collective consciousness.
| 1
|
train_11892
|
Pialat films people in extreme emotional situations, usually with several violent scenes. In La Gueule ouverte, he's dealing with the devastating effects on a woman's husband and son as she dies of cancer. In A nos amours, the teenage girl's sexual experimentation leads to violent confrontations with her family. Here we have a rather spoiled young woman who abandons her husband to take up with a sexy ex-con. Her motivation is a little cloudy, since Loulou is incapable of reading or discussing anything more challenging than TV shows; on the other hand, he's got a fabulous body (I wonder why Depardieu never made a sports movie to show off that physique--he would have been great as a rugby player).The casting is impressive. Isabelle Huppert isn't allowed to give a bland, inexpressive performance (she has given many); Depardieu plays Loulou with all the dynamism and charm you could want--see the scene in the bar, where he's stabbed in the gut, runs away and seeks treatment, then soon restarts with Nelly. Guy Marchand, with those coal-black eyes and distressed look, plays Nelly's husband beautifully; it's a fine repeat of the pairing in Coup de foudre.
| 1
|
train_8883
|
The film's design seems to be the alpha and omega of some of the major issues in this country (U.S.). We see relationships all over at the university setting for the film. Befittingly, the obvious of student v.s. teacher is present. But what the film adds to its value is its other relationships: male v.s. female, white v.s. black, and the individual v.s. society. But most important of all and in direct relation to all of the other relationships is the individual v.s. himself. I was amazed at how bilateral a point of view the director gave to showing the race relations on campus. Most films typically show the injustices of one side while showing the suffering of the other. This film showed the injustices and suffering of both sides. It did not attempt to show how either was right, although I would say the skin heads were shown a much crueler and vindictive (quite obvious towards the end). The film also discusses sex and rape. It is ironically this injustice that in some ways brings the two races together, for a time. Lawrence Fishburne does an over-the-top performance as the sagacious Profesor Phipps. He crumbles the idea of race favortism and instead shows the parallelism of the lazy and down-trodden with the industrious and positive. Other stars that make this film are Omar Epps, Ice Cube, and Jennifer Connelly. Michael Rapaport gives an excellent portrayal of a confused youth with misplaced anger who is looking for acceptance. Tyra Banks make her film debut and proves supermodels can act.Higher Learning gets its name in showing college as more than going to class and getting a piece of paper. In fact, I would say the film is almost a satire in showing students interactions with each other, rather than some dry book, as the real education at a university. It is a life-learning process, not a textual one. I think you'll find "Higher Learning" is apropos to the important issues at many universities and even life in general. 8/10
| 1
|
train_22828
|
I think the show had a pretty good concept to work with. But the execution was poor. The script is poor and acting is bad. There were many issues that could have been portrayed in a better way, like the protest against gay marriage or finding the graveyard. The show can't be properly termed as comedy show as it lacks humor miserably. I should say this show was barely successful in putting the life of Muslim community to some extent.Till now second season is worse than the first one. I had my hopes high regarding this show, but I was kind of disappointed. Still I appreciate CBC for putting up such concept in front of the viewers. Anyway I wish best of luck for the future.
| 0
|
train_15816
|
This was the first Ewan McGregor movie I ever saw outside of Star Wars. Since then I have become a very big Ewan McGregor fan but I still can't bring myself to forgive this movie's existence.My sister has always been a huge Jane Austen fan and because of that, I have been subjected to various of the classics, Emma being one of them. I've always considered them irritating, stupid and boring. However, after watching this terrible rendition, I was forced to admit that the original Emma was delightful and charming. Ewan McGregor scarcely serves a purpose in this film after they hacked and mutilated the part of Frank Churchill. Gweneth Paltrow is ridiculous in an already ridiculous character and the rest of the film is unremarkable and stupid.My recommendation to anybody who is remotely interested in English period drama... go see the originals. If you're a Ewan McGregor fan... believe me, by skipping this film, you haven't missed anything but five minutes collective of him in a silly hat and a bad haircut.
| 0
|
train_2677
|
This film takes you on one family's impossible journey, and makes you feel every step of their odyssey. Beautifully acted and photographed, heartbreakingly real. Its last line, with its wistful hope, is one of the more powerful in memory.
| 1
|
train_17943
|
Too bad, I really like Kristen Cloke and Gary Busey. But the director failed to put this together. There's a lot of action, a lot of promise, but it all comes off hokey. The director didn't do his job. Promising action comes off lame. So much seems contrived in a desperate attempt to save the film. This version of "The Rage" (DirecTV credits it as 1996) simply isn't worth the time to watch it. Another director would have done a better job.
| 0
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.