id stringlengths 7 11 | text stringlengths 52 10.2k | label int64 0 1 |
|---|---|---|
train_47 | It breaks my heart that this movie is not appreciated as it should be. its very underrated. people forgot what movies are really about, nowadays they only think about bum bum movies, which can be quite fun watching with popcorn and friends, like transformers, movies which are oriented, with hyper mega high budget like 300mln or even higher, on special effects only and which are dumb movies without storyline. Its the kind of a movie what i despite most. Of course it is fun watching greatly made CGIs, but we do not gain anything essential from that kind of movies.I honestly think that performance was excellent. Especially Busy Philipps, alongside with Erika Christensen and Victor Garber(whom i respect) made this movie an Oscar worth. Emotional performance by Busy Philipps was astonishing, its such a shame we wont see Oscar in her hands, which she deserves. | 1 |
train_8519 | Astounding.....This may have been A poor attempt at remaking the already recreated Omen Movie, but I sure enjoyed it.That last Man who commented is a fool, This Movie was one of a kind, And the Music Dark, Jerry Goldsmith Himself, would had applaud this Movie.Great recommendations from Myself to Watch or Buy this Film.I collect horror Movies and Soundtracks, So listen to what I have to say, not that other idiot.There is only one thing that do not fascinate Me, the endings.According to Prophecy it is all inaccurate, Including Final conflict, and Left behind.But My conclusion being.... There great Movies...and should be seen, before the Great Depression falls upon Us, and Before the Democrats Take over the Presidency too.So Signed....Jacob Eder...A Farmer, with A Mastermind. | 1 |
train_16246 | As hard as it is for me to believe, with all of the awful reality shows out there over the past few years, this one has to take over the top spot for worst one yet. I am still wondering if this was actually just a spoof done by the SCTV gang. If Andy Kaufmann were still alive I'd be sure he was behind this. Can a rock band stoop any lower than has INXS to do such a shameful thing as this? The premise is simple and moronic. Audition a bunch of karaoke rejects to become the new lead singer of INXS, to take the place of Michael Hutchence (who committed suicide in 1997). Eight years and no hits later, the band commit the ultimate act of patheticness by subjecting themselves to auditioning a bunch of talentless wannabes to be the new lead singer of a band that is 20 years past its prime. So they trot all of these awful singers (I thought American Idol had its share of doozies) who do atrocious renditions of just about every classic (and predictable) rock song imaginable. And then they cut to the INXS band members who are seriously discussing the merits of each of these candidates. You could see better (and more original) rock performers at just about any night club in any city in the world.It has all the usual uncreative elements of every other reality show. Lame reality participants, lame interviews, lame host/emcee, lame "judging" of performances, and the lame booting of one participant at the end of each show. Can these shows get any more predictable? It's clearly a publicity stunt on the part of the band; a last gasp of hope at rekindling their lost stardom before they are finally buried into oblivion. Michael Hutchence, if he had any shred of dignity when alive, has to be rolling over in his grave. Not that INXS were ever a great band, but I had no idea they were this pathetic. If INXS are at all representative of what rock and roll has become, this show would be the final proof that rock and roll is once and for all, dead. | 0 |
train_24666 | Angela Johnson (Pamela Springsteen--yes she's related to Bruce), the killer from the first film, is up to her old tricks again. She's one of the counselors at Camp Rolling Hills. As long as the girls at camp are nice and stay away from sex, drugs and swearing things are fine. But a few step over the line and Angela kills them--cracking bad jokes all the way.The original "Sleepaway Camp" was a vicious and nasty splatter film but had some good points to it. This is vicious and nasty too but has NO good points to it. The plot has been done to death and this adds NOTHING new to the formula. There are plenty of gory killings in here (people are burnt alive, heads are cut off, throats slashed) but all the gore is so obviously fake it actually become comical. This also has the smallest amount of campers I've ever seen and virtually everyone is far too old for their roles (especially Higgins). As expected there's the gratuitous female nudity (here provided by the tremendously untalented Valerie Hartman) and the obligatory good girl/good boy team (Renne Estevez and Tony Higgins). With the sole exception of Springsteen and Higgins the acting is lousy--even by slasher movie standards. There's also a cruel edge to this movie in which one character is drowned in an outhouse! Boring and sick with a stupid plot, pointless nudity and bad gore. Skip it. | 0 |
train_16285 | Spoken like a true hard-boiled u'an gangsta. The story is no worse than any number of gangster flicks, but never ever confuse this movie with The Godfather I or II, or Goodfellas. It is not in the same league.But what makes the film periodically painful to watch is all these Italian Americans swaggering around dropping bad gangsta lines in an even worse fake u'an accent. Pacino would have been great if they could just have dubbed him. I was looking forward to see Abrahams and Loggia, but their steenky accents spoiled the fun.Ah well, the script ain't too hot either. Don Corleone would have made this disappear five minutes after meeting him, smiling and patting him on the back all the while. | 0 |
train_1658 | If you've seen this movie, you've been to Puerto Rico. I've lived in Puerto Rico all my life, and have to shamefully admit that we (PR) are living a real chaos right now, drugs being the main reason for the shootings and killings we have almost every day. These people will shoot anyone, anytime and anywhere, and many innocent lives have been lost because of this. We don't feel safe anymore, and in addition to this, our so-called "justice" is no longer moved by truth and rightness, but by money, influence and power. "Ladrones y Mentirosos" is based on real, deplorable facts, and truly portrays Puerto Rico's three main problems: the drug-related killings, money and power manipulating our courtrooms, and innocent people and children being corrupted and even dying because of this. Ricardo and his wife Poli, with their true-to-life plot and their award winning direction(**), were brave enough to present all this as bad as it is: Puerto Rico is a beautiful and friendly country, living a nightmare that doesn't seem to end !!! ** They recently won the "Copper Wing Award" for Best Director in the World Cinema Competition at the 2006 Phoenix Film Festival. | 1 |
train_17408 | This movie is supposed to be taking place in and around Seattle. The, why is Porteau Cove P-R-O-V-I-N-C-I-A-L Park shown? Provincial parks are in CANADA, and not the United States. The Inspector uses a Palm Pilot complete with stylus to 'read' that someone has hacked into the computer of the bridal shop. I did not know that this was possible using a database storage device. A woman appears in the movie without any introduction and is never introduced. We learn half-way into the movie that this woman works in the District Attorney's office. Then, in the correctional center a guard actually PRECEDES Jenks through a door and keeps his back to the offender!! This would NEVER happen in a real correctional setting. The director really messed on this one -- this doesn't happen in real life. The acting is adequate. The Plot is good. The Cinematography is good. However, the many errors found in the continuity lead to a 3 out of 10 vote. | 0 |
train_10104 | The performance by Om Puri, Smita Patil, and Sadashiv Amrapurkar and the whole chemistry comes off nicely, along with the minimalist approach to story telling and direction by Govind Nihlani. The dialogues by Vijay Tendulkar is also great. I have not seen another movie like this. It is one whole, each piece so nicely fit in the plot. You cannot not be impressed by this movie. Amrish Puri comes off as the bossy husband and 'baap' of Om Puri. Om Puri is the young man caught between his sense of duty and his inability to fight the system. Sadhashiv as Rama Shetty gives just about the right touch to the movie with his smiling and soft speaking villain. The first meeting of Anand Velankar with Rama Shetty's at Sadhashiv's place is absoulely stunning. Smita Patil does not play a main role, but her part is also not distracting from the main plot. And to add to this all Kafi Inamdar plays the role of a cop who has come to terms with the system and its workings. Saying right things in the right places and knowing how to keep himself away from trouble. He is also the 'guru' of Om Puri and helps him whenever he gets into trouble.The movie not only brings to focus the difficulties faced by a police officer trying to do his duty but also the other side of brutalities in police custody. Om Puri captures hopelessness and the burning desire to break free in this exceptional performance in Ardh Satya. A treat to all avid fans of Indian cinema. | 1 |
train_4253 | really excellent movie, one of the best i've seen. Touching and simple - just like life, sometimes you cry sometimes you laugh and it's just beautiful. not too much of anything, just as it's suppose to be. Really loved the idea of the movie, noone is bad or good, all or just people, sometimes make mistakes mostly because of society's pressure, everyone tries to stay strong and some succeed more than others and the most important thing is that you don't have reasons to get angry - you can do it, but eventually the anger goes away and then you to need to let love come back in although it's hard, there lies the true happiness.Great actors and cast, the movie really gets you into the feeling of the movie.nice nice nice.I recommend to see it, especially if you like to see italians' life... | 1 |
train_22171 | I would perhaps give 6 or 7 to this propaganda film because it shows when and how a propaganda film becomes successful. If there are people who watch this piece and think that "well then Jews must have done something to be treated the way they were treated in WW2", then the movie is very cleverly made to conceal 'why's and 'how's as well as mix correct and false observations on how a people live. What more can a propaganda movie aim for? The part in which an American movie about the Rothschild family is included is re-used very shrewdly here, for instance. The question of why the Jew keeps his wealth away from the officer is never asked. No one mentions the system of taxation within that particular social strata.Besides, the level of excitement (or, the level of disgust) in the movie increases slowly and the solution-like end of the movie suits the aim and the musts of doing propaganda. The audience would leave in joy and gratefulness to the times that are coming up...well done.In the movie, there is a kind of simplicity that addresses the most basic emotional perception of the audience. The movie is kind of history today, so no need to fuss much about it actually. However, in this simplicity of words of ethnic degradation, a careful watcher can find relevance to today's cultural hatred, violence, decivilization as well as the problems of integration. Overall, fine trash. | 0 |
train_13221 | This film has got several key flaws. The first and most significant of which is the clear lack of a good plot! This sadly makes the film not only difficult to watch but also sends the watcher certain feelings of hopelessness, as if he or she is wasting valuable time of their short life. This means that the film cannot captivate it's audience, instead it encourages the viewing public to grow contempt for the film and everything associated with it! In short, it really is very very very very very very very BAD! Do yourself a favour and chew on a large rubber shoe, you'll find it far more interesting and enjoyable than watching Terminator Woman. | 0 |
train_5185 | I have watched this movie well over 100-200 times, and I love it each and every time I watched it. Yes, it can be very corny but it is also very funny and enjoyable. The camp shown in the movie is a real camp that I actually attended for 7 years and is portrayed as camp really is, a great place to spend the summer. Everyone who has ever gone to camp, wanted to go to camp, or has sent a child to camp should see this movie because it'll bring back wonderful memories for you and for your kids. | 1 |
train_23663 | We loved School of Rock and Jack Black. We couldn't wait to go and see this movie. It was the only time in my life the movie was so bad I wanted to walk out. My husband hated it too. The only funny parts were in the trailers. My husband and I wanted to stand outside the movie theater and tell people to save their money. The writing was awful. It had every terrible stereotype of Hispanic people who should be utterly offended. The movie wasn't that long but to us it seemed like an eternity. The people in the theater were so restless and silent it was like watching paint dry. I made my husband stay because I was sure there would maybe be some redeeming parts, but there weren't. Save you money and your time. | 0 |
train_20498 | Not only was he invariably annoying to listen to, but he had NO jokes. I swear, some fobby Asian guy telling yo momma jokes would've been funnier than Leary's crap. (Well, maybe funny for a couple minutes but at least I'll be able to laugh at least once!) Leary claimed he stopped taking drugs during one of his "jokes"... apparently he was still high on something; he was just some crackhead imprecating rants mostly drug related. One of his jokes was something like, 'I wouldn't use crack, especially having the same name as between my ass' - Oh man, how did he come up with that one?! I swear the only guy that needs to shut the f**k up is Denis Leary. Thank god I didn't have to see him live. This guy totally sucks.If you're easily amused by swearing, and "jokes" where you can come up with yourself, then waste your time with this junk. | 0 |
train_408 | I can't tell you all how much I love this movie. I have read reviews that say that this move is "too confusing" or "like swimming in drying concrete". I say that these reviewers have no imagination! For anyone who loves Fantasy Fiction, this movie is for you. If you ever loved playing Dungeons & Dragons... this movie is for you, (especially if you got into the Oriental Adventures) I'm just sorry that I did not get to see this movie on the big screen. (Just more incentive to get my own big screen t.v. :-) | 1 |
train_21009 | I saw this movie for a number of reasons the main being Mira Sorvino. With her on the cast it couldn't be so bad. And it even seemed like it had some mystery and Olivier Martinez was her boyfriend at the time and he was pretty good in `Unfaithful'. The story is set in Spain so it could be an exotic entertaining movie with one of my favorite actresses.If you're thinking about the same thing let me warn you: this is a truly awful, uninteresting, boring movie. The only adjective that comes to mind is pathetic.The story is contrived with sub-plots that add nothing to the narrative. They try to build a slasher/thriller with a look at fascism in Spain but fail horribly. The twists have no credibility and the so-called investigation leads nowhere.The characters are paper-thin! I didn't care about anyone. More than that they're irritating and pretty hateful people.The acting is atrocious. Mira what is wrong with you? Why Mira? You're an oscar winner! Keep some dignity! Her character was weak but that is no excuse for such an awful performance. She seems to be sleepwalking all movie long. Come to think of it, I actually think I saw her eyes slowly closing in some scenes. I used to think this woman was sexy. Well she isn't here. If you want to look at some skin try Romi and Michelle because there's nothing to see here. And that accent? My god...Olivier Martinez is even worst. It's too painful to remember his performance to describe it here. Im sorry but I can´t. Ive suffered enough with this garbage.This whole movie is depressing! It's so bad in every way it's a wonder how it was even made. A lousy team to produce a lousy script and make some money over the actor's name. Don't fall for it.Avoid it! | 0 |
train_11403 | Gene Kelly came up with some really grand ideas for musicals while with MGM. Here he's at the top of his creative powers working with the Arthur Freed musical unit. Hard to believe when you watch An American In Paris that the players never left the back lot at MGM. The magic of An American In Paris is due to the creative editing under the direction of Vincent Minnelli and the sets that MGM designed blended with some background establishing shots. The idea of the film originated with Kelly who wanted simply to do a film with a lengthy ballet sequence involving George Gershwin's tone poem An American in Paris. It sounded good to Arthur Freed who approached Ira Gershwin who said fine with him as long as they used other Gershwin material.Gershwin got the kind of deal for Gershwin music that Irving Berlin normally got. Not one note of non-Gershwin music is heard in An American in Paris. Listen to some of the background music and you will hear things like Embraceable You and But Not For Me which are not real musical numbers.Another guy who was a fair hand at writing lyrics, Alan Jay Lerner, wrote the story which admittedly is a thin one. All about an ex-GI played by Gene Kelly who after World War II never left France, just settled into an apartment on the Left Bank and proceeded to become a starving artist. He lives with eccentric composer Oscar Levant and does that ever sound like a redundancy. Two women are interested in him. Another expatriate American played by Nina Foch who wants to sponsor him as a painter if he'll reciprocate in other matters. But Kelly falls for a shop girl played by Leslie Caron in her film debut. Caron also has musical comedy star Georges Guetary interested in here.Of course the plot is just an excuse to sing and dance to the music of George Gershwin. An American in Paris happens to be the first film I ever saw as an in flight movie on the first airplane trip I ever took. I still remember flying back from Phoenix Arizona to Kennedy Airport seeing Gene Kelly doing I've Got Rhythm. My favorite number in the film however is Tra-La-La which Kelly sings and dances all over the apartment with Oscar Levant playing the piano. At one point Kelly dances on top of the baby grand piano.In a book about Arthur Freed, I read a quote where he said in the American in Paris ballet sequence was to be done with the background of the French impressionists which he felt the public would take to rather than a realistic setting on the streets or back lot. So it happened that way. Kelly had done lengthy ballet sequences in Words and Music, The Pirate, and On the Town. But this one topped them all. Still does in my opinion and that includes some of Gene Kelly's later films.In a surprise upset at the Oscars, An American In Paris was chosen best picture for 1951, beating out the heavily favored A Streetcar Named Desire. I guess fantasy trumped realism that year. Big budgets also have an upper hand in these things as well.Still An American in Paris is one of the best movie musicals ever done and since the studios no longer have all that creative talent under one roof, something less likely to be repeated. | 1 |
train_3626 | This effort is based on the true story of Jim Morris, a high school science teacher/baseball coach, who is inspired by his players to try out for the pros and fulfill his life-long dream of playing in the majors. Dennis Quaid, no stranger to sports films, plays Morris with enough conviction to make the part work and the producers do a credible job of recreating the real-world events that led to Morris brief stint as a relief pitcher for the woefull Tampa Bay Devil Rays. The first half of the film, dealing with his rag tag bunch of High School Baseball players (all of whom look way too old to actualy be in High School) is less effective and probably a bit too long. Overall the film does suffer from some pacing issues and a few extra subplots that we probably could have done without. However, it is still a fairly involving movie with an inspirational theme that proves once again that baseball is the national pastime for a reason. GRADE: B- | 1 |
train_9897 | Okay, sorry, but I loved this movie. I just love the whole 80's genre of these kind of movies, because you don't see many like this one anymore! I want to ask all of you people who say this movie is just a rip-off, or a cheesy imitation, what is it imitating? I've never seen another movie like this one, well, not horror anyway.Basically its about the popular group in school, who like to make everyones lives living hell, so they decided to pick on this nerdy boy named Marty. It turns fatal when he really gets hurt from one of their little pranks.So, its like 10 years later, and the group of friends who hurt Marty start getting High School reunion letters. But...they are the only ones receiving them! So they return back to the old school, and one by one get knocked off by.......Yeah you probably know what happens!The only part that disappointed me was the very end. It could have been left off, or thought out better.I think you should give it a try, and try not to be to critical!~*~CupidGrl~*~ | 1 |
train_12605 | There's tons of good-looking women in this flick. But alas, this movie is nudity-free. Grrrrrrrrrr Strike one.Ahem. One story in this film takes place in 1971. Then why the hell are the main characters driving a Kia Sportage? Hello? Continuity, anyone?As you might know, this movie was released in stereoscopic 3D. And it is the most hideous effect I have ever seen. I'm not sure if someone botched the job on this, but there WAS no 3D, just double-vision blurs. I didn't have the same problem with this company's other 3D movies, HUNTING SEASON and CAMP BLOOD. Sure, the 3D in those ones sucked too, but with them I could see a semblance of 3D effect.This thing is a big ball of nothing.And whoever that women was who played the daughter of the ear-eating dame, yum! I'd like to see more of her. In movies, as well. Looks like Janet Margolin at a young age. Purrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr | 0 |
train_20728 | The problem with this movie is that it is shot on the worst possible camera and the film is blurry and grainy. Maybe it's just the fact that whoever was holding the camera couldn't hold still because they were having a seizure or something. There is also way too much poop and vomit in this movie. There is someone vomiting every twenty minutes and it makes me think that this was made by some bulimic or something. It was disgusting. Then there is the annoying high pitched screaming that goes on and on and on and doesn't stop until the credits roll. I also didn't like when all her friends were being shot (or not I don't know)and she goes in the van and puts band aids on. That was just really really stupid to even have that in a movie. How much gas can a person siphon to get a van going? It must be a whole lot because they don't run out of gas for the rest of the movie. It was a terrible movie and I would highly suggest not ever seeing it in your whole entire life. | 0 |
train_9688 | I approach films about talking animals with care. For every wonderful one like Babe, you get an equally poor one like the dreadful remake of Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journey. Or in the case of Cats & Dogs, you have a great idea for a film not living up to its potential. When I heard about Paulie, the premise of a wisecracking parrot didn't exactly fill me with confidence. But I found the film a pleasant surprise. And it manages to sneak its way into your heart without you realising.A Russian janitor, Misha Vilyenkov (Tony Shaloub) gets a job in a research laboratory. One day, he hears singing coming from the basement. And when he investigates, he finds a parrot in its cage singing its little heart out. Misha becomes fascinated with the bird, especially when it turns out the parrot can not only sing, it can talk. And not a few phrases either. Its a parrot you can actually make conversation with.The parrot is called Paulie (voiced by Jay Mohr), and recognises a fellow castaway in Misha. Wondering how this world to the wise bird ended up in a dusty basement, Misha convinces Paulie to tell him his life story. Which all began when he was a baby, and in the care of Marie, a five year old girl with a stutter. The two of them became birds of a feather (OK, bad pun!).When Marie's parents became concerned about her close friendship with a bird, they considered sending him away. And they finally did after Marie nearly injured herself in a fall after teaching Paulie to fly. Desperate to be reunited with her, Paulie begins a long journey across America, which includes a diverse number of new owners, flying great distances, and even ending up behind bars. Of a cage that is!Paulie was one of a number of talking animal films released by DreamWorks in the late 90s. And although it wasn't afforded the same recognition or box-office success of Babe, Paulie succeeds on quite a few levels, and is an occasional work of striking intelligence.Jay Mohr's stand-up style of acting is well suited to the part of Paulie. He never plays the part as too smug, even if he is a bit of a smart Aleck. Paulie's worldly, but he is also naive in his way.Because he's lived a rather sheltered life with Marie, when he's taken away, he has to fend for himself for the first time. And when he falls into the hands of different owners, they make promises to Paulie to reunite him with Marie, which he believes. Only for those promises to be broken time and again.Paulie is admittedly a little episodic. It follows the eclectic people Paulie ends up with, and how he slowly gets brought closer and closer to Marie. He first winds up in a pawn shop, where he is adopted by Ivy (Gena Rowlands), a kindly woman who teaches him the meaning of manners. She sympathises with Paulie's situation, and drives an RV across America to find Marie.Paulie is an occasionally very touching film. His scenes with Ivy are some of the best. Wonderful moments of Paulie perched on her shoulder singing Tom Jones numbers. The way she instills in him the need for hope is great, and some of the dialogue is quite well written and even thought-provoking: "There are things in life you put off, because you think you're gonna do them later. But the real thing Ivy taught me is you gotta live like there may not be a later."The scene where Ivy passes away en route leaving Paulie all alone is a very heart-rending moment. And the sequence where he plucks up the courage to fly for the first time across the Grand Canyon, soaring majestically is such a beautifully composed scene it stays with you for hours after the film's over.Despite the occasional sad moment, there are plenty of laughs to be had. Paulie falls in with a group of performing parrots at a Spanish outdoor restaurant. The animatronic effects here are really excellent as four birds do a perfectly choreographed dance number. And Paulie even gets to have a romance. Which is dashed when he falls in with a petty thief (played by Mohr as well). That may be the only complaint I have. As soon as you get comfortable with one situation, the film then moves Paulie on to another.The scene where Paulie is taught to steal money from ATM machines is funny, but a little disturbing too. I'm amazed DreamWorks were granted the chance to include such a scene in a kids film. And Paulie's diamond robbery is very Mission Impossible. He's caught in the act, and shipped off to the lab for animal testing, where he's remained ever since.The story finally comes full circle at the lab, where Misha vows to help Paulie. Of course they do find Marie. But the final revelation is a scene of such shocking intensity, I was left numb for several minutes. Paulie may never get the longevity Babe has, but I believe its an equally brilliant film. The same laughs. The same flawless effects. And the same surprising intelligence.A minor gem. | 1 |
train_14178 | I am wanting to make a "Holmes with Doors" pun but I can't quite string it all together. Suitably grubby and over edited WONDERLAND gives Kilmer a role that channels Morrison at the same time....but how coy is this film about the famous 14 inches! Australian crime films flash it all the time and skip the graphic violence instead.....as someone famous said once about US cinema double standards: "kiss a breast and it's an X, stab it and its an action PG 13"... WONDERLAND is 14 minutes too long too, and at the end the tawdry spiral we were all glad to escape the cinema. How many films called WONDERLAND are we going to get? There must be six in the last decade. The pixilated violence and muted color sets the seedy tone but the wobble-cam gets tiresome, as if we are gawking at their nostrils all the time. Taking a few cues form THE DOORS and TAXI DRIVER it all becomes forgettable the next day. | 0 |
train_5589 | Dripping with symbolism and filled with marvelous cinematography, Extase is so much more than the erotic drama we've all come to expect. This is almost a silent film, with what dialogue there is in German, and highly simplified German at that. Perhaps the filmmakers intended the film to reach the widest possible European audience, as anyone with even a little high school level Deutsch can easily dispense with the subtitles. The story is of little importance anyway, with the film succeeding on a cinematic level, not a narrative one. Symbols of fecundity and the power of nature overwhelm the human characters--there are even scenes where flowers obscure the face of supposed star Hedy Lamarr--and there are moments here that will remind viewers of the works of Dreyer, Vertov, and Riefenstahl. If the film has any message to convey, I think it's a political one: bourgeois man is timid and impotent; working class man is a happy, productive creature; and woman is the creator, destined to be unfulfilled until she has borne a child. This blend of Soviet socialist realism and National Socialist dogma doesn't overwhelm the film by any means--it's a beauty to watch from beginning to end--but it does place it in a very distinct artistic era. And, oh yeah, Hedy does get her kit off. | 1 |
train_12701 | Iberia is nice to see on TV. But why see this in silver screen? Lot of dance and music. If you like classical music or modern dance this could be your date movie. But otherwise one and half hour is just too long time. If you like to see skillful dancing in silver screen it's better to see Bollywood movie. They know how to combine breath taking dancing to long movie. Director Carlos Saura knows how to shoot dancing from old experience. And time to time it's look really good. but when the movie is one and hour it should be at least most of time interesting. There are many kind of art not everything is bigger then life and this film is not too big. | 0 |
train_10455 | This has to be one of the most sincere and touching boy-meets-girl movies ever made. While "Rebel Without a Cause" and "Say Anything" deliver nice portrayals, this movies strips down useless subplots and Hollywood divergences. This movie focuses purely on watching the budding of a beautiful romance. You never doubt for a second that the film will lead towards the romantic pairing of these two people. You almost immediately sense the synergy and the chemistry between Jesse and Celine, and it is simply pure joy to watch them find it. This movie is mostly all dialogue -based. But, every conversation between these too is greatly intriguing. What makes this pairing so romantic is how real it is. How in all that conversation, while often having no real bearing on anything critical, you can sense the nuances as these two become more fond and trusting of each other. This is exactly they way you would dream that you meet that special someone. And what makes it so true is that it is not even too fantastic to believe. This could be what would happen if you had been confident enough to strike up a conversation with that person you noticed somewhere random. And what puts the icing on this film is the magnificent backdrop of Vienna in which this film takes place. It just adds to the feeling of romantic nirvana that the film suggests. And no matter how many times I watch this film, I don't think I will ever tire of that. | 1 |
train_10448 | If you are a traveller, if there is a fire burning into your heart, if you'd call "home" every place on earth, but none of them can give you enough, if you are always looking for the next thing and if you believe the other part of your soul is somewhere out there, see this movie and you'll find out a little, but wonderful, piece of life sitting next to you. | 1 |
train_2431 | Famous was "famous" for their tension and release style of cartoon where the semi-main character is in terrible peril, only to be rescued by the hero at the last second. This particular Casper is the only one I can remember where death actually takes a hand. But even in death, there is still a happy ending.The constant in Famous Studios cartoons is that "virtue always triumphs". Popeye always gets to his spinach in time, Baby Huey always out-foxes the fox, Little Audery always "learns her lesson". And some FS cartoons ARE really dark and depressing.You have to give them credit. as much as I love Looney Tunes and "Tom and Jerry" I don't think anyone was putting out a better cartoon product at that time than Paramount. Color, animation, music (the great Winston Sharples), editing, voices. They were consistent and a glowing example of the best that the art form had to offer. | 1 |
train_14451 | Scooby Doo is undoubtedly one of the most simple, successful and beloved cartoon characters in the world. So, what happens when you've been everywhere and done everything with the formula? You switch it up right? Wrong. You stop production and let it rest for a decade or so and then run it again, keeping the core of its success intact. That is to say, stick with the formula for the most part but add your particular flavour to it. This to me is why "What's New Scooby Doo" worked, they want back to the classic Scooby Doo formula which had only successfully resurfaced a decade earlier in "A Pup Named Scooby Doo" but for the most part had not been tapped since the original "Scooby Doo Where Are You".The first sign (to me) of a weak offering is the inclusion of extraneous characters; there might be a few fond memories from past iterations but generally if you think "Scooby Doo" you aren't thinking of Film-Flam, Scrappy Doo or Scooby Dum. Even worse, the exclusion of the other core members of "Mystery Inc" generally indicate a group of production people who don't understand from a kids point of view how the show works. The basic premise has always been a group of people who are diametrically opposed getting together and through their own individual, stereotyped qualities manage to surmount the tasks given at hand.This next paragraph is just my theorizing so skip it if you want: I hope that I can explain why I think fiddling around with the basic elements of the show are detrimental with my interpretation of what the gang represents and how they contribute to the whole; Fred represents the Driver, I think in general it is the purpose of Fred to give the group direction, organization and sub-tasks. Fred isn't a happy-go-lucky teenager, he's your boss, your teacher, your dad, your authority figure. Fred moves without hesitation and is driven by tasks (problem always equals solution for Fred). In many ways Fred is the antithesis to Shaggy. Shaggy is your best friend, that guy who is just a little more afraid of things than you are, he enables you to be brave, to not be at the back of the pack. Shaggy represents emotion and is frequently showing emotional extremes from elation to fear. Velma represents rational thought, she applies logic but as we see time and again on the show she requires clues that for the most part are collected in pieces by the other members of the show. Left on her own would Velma solve a mystery? The group often finds itself in situations where truths aren't obvious and only through chance encounters do they achieve the necessary information to complete their task, chance is represented by Daphne. At one point (I think it is the first Scooby Doo series) she was known as "danger prone". Writers have used Daphne to link unrelated events together through accident. She frequently is the one who finds the secret door, collection of objects or some other detail that can help the gang link clues together. Finally Scooby himself represents us, the participant. He is always in the centre of events, capable of all the things the rest of the gang are capable of, yet handicapped because he is not human and much like us the television viewer is unable to truly participate. Scooby Doo works because all these personified elements of problem solving are immediately identifiable and entertaining.Maybe I'm over thinking things but, in my life I've seen a lot of Scooby Doo (being a 30 year old self-proclaimed nerd, it kind of rolls with the territory). To me there is a magic with the classic "Scooby Doo" formula that should never be messed with.As many have pointed out; Scooby Doo is not a great work of art nor is it completely trite, it falls into the category of programming that can be watched by young eyes with a hearty bowl of breakfast cereal. Messing about with the raw simplicity transforms it into something else, something lesser. | 0 |
train_6911 | While "The Kiss of the Spider Woman" cast Raul Julia as a political prisoner in an unidentified Latin American country, this time he works for a dictator in a fictional Latin American country. Specifically, the dictator suddenly drops dead, so Julia replaces el presidente with a Broadway actor (Richard Dreyfuss) shooting a movie in the country. From there, Dreyfuss has to figure out how to be a dictator, all the while balancing it with his own life.Is it appropriate to turn the tense situation in Latin America into comedy? Well, "Moon Over Parador" does a good job with it. No matter what they do in this movie, they pull it off. It just goes to show why Richard Dreyfuss is one of the greatest actors of our era, and what we lost when Raul Julia died. Definitely worth seeing. Also starring Sonia Braga (who co-starred with Raul Julia in "TKOTSW"), Jonathan Winters and Sammy Davis Jr.I agree: the first lady is hot. | 1 |
train_18249 | This is surely one of the worst films ever made. Each scene is painful. You will groan at the flimsy attempts at humor, the awkward camera work, the sexism and racism, the ridiculous story line, the wooden acting. Poor Joan Bennett; she is the only one in the movie who is not an embarrassment. In all, dreadful. | 0 |
train_12129 | This is a well directed film from John Cromwell who was not a great director but who did make some fine films including the 1937 version of 'The Prsoner of Zenda'. Set in a London that only Hollywood could manage, atmospheric but nothing like the real thing, it is a story of obsession and thwarted love, from the novel by Somerset Maughan.I was looking forward to seeing it on DVD as I had never seen it before and being a great admirer of Bette Davis wanted to see her in a role considered one of her early great ones. So I bought it. Well she looked fine but I'm sorry to say her London cockney accent just made me laugh. Bette Davis was one of the greatest film actors, make no mistake, but here she did make one. It was impossible to take her character seriously. It wasn't as gruesome as the Dick Van Dyke 'Mary Poppins' cockney accent but close.In the other major role was Leslie Howard and he did it superbly. He was a subtle and intelligent actor The supporting actors acquit themselves well. Worth watching despite Ms Davis' vocal gymnastics. | 1 |
train_2659 | The Shining starts with Jack Torrance (Jack Nicholson) driving to an isolated hotel named the 'Overlook' situated high in the Colorado mountains for an interview with it's manager Stuart Ullman (Barry Nelson) about becoming the Winter caretaker. Ullman tells Jack that he will be responsible for the basic upkeep of the hotel but will be almost totally isolated from the rest of the world for six months as the harsh Winter sets in. Together with his wife Wendy (Shelley Duvall) & young son Danny (Danny Lloyd) Jack moves into the hotel & at first everything seems fine, it's a beautiful hotel, absolutely huge & whatever they need is at their disposal. However the Overlook hotel has a murky past with a previous caretaker murdering his entire family before committing suicide & Danny has the ability to 'shine' which means he has psychic powers that let him see & hear things 'ordinary' people can't. As the days, weeks & months begin to pass Jack become more & more insane, Danny keeps 'seeing' things & people while Wendy becomes frantic as she doesn't have a clue what's happening to her family, as a heavy snowstorm leaves them trapped Jack finally loses it...This English production was co-written, co-produced & directed by Stanley Kubrick & is a fine horror film. It appears that The Shining is another film that exists in two distinct different versions & the one I will be commenting on is the shorter European cut that runs just under 2 hours in length. The script by Kubrick & Diane Johnson, is based on the novel by Stephen King which I have not read so I can't compare them, goes for psychological horror rather than visual with only one murder during the entire film. There are very few character's in The Shining with Jack, Wendy & Danny the only ones that really matter, since the film concentrates on them almost exclusively you care for them, become involved with them & what they go through. The pace is somewhat slow but this is one film that didn't feel that long & keeps you interested throughout. On the negative side I don't think the reasoning behind Jack going crazy & wanting to kill his family was strong enough to convince me, the fact that Jack escapes from the freezer without any explanation bugs me & I don't know if I missed something but that ending didn't make any sense to me whatsoever, I'm still trying to work out what that picture is all about! There is very little in the way of violence or gore, a couple of rotten zombie ghosts & someone is killed with an axe but The Shining is a horror film that doesn't need to rely on blood & special effects as it has a gripping story. With a budget of about $19,000,000 The Shining is technically flawless as you would expect from an obsessive filmmaker such as Kubrick, the cinematography is brilliant with some fantastic free-flowing & smooth steadicam shots as the camera effortlessly follows the character's around the maze of corridors, the sets look absolutely real & instead of clichéd old haunted house themes like dark corners, basements & cobwebs Kubrick brings things right up-to-date with brightly lit corridors, massive open expansive spaces & a modern decor (well 80's modern, just check that red toilet out!). The acting is good from everyone involved although as usual in horror films the little kid is highly annoying & Nicholson seems crazy from the very start. The Shining is an absorbing film that I enjoyed watching although I'm not sure I'd watch it again anytime soon. For those looking for explosions & fancy special effects you will be disappointed, for those looking for a good haunted house type horror with a strong story I definitely think The Shining is for you, well worth a watch in my humble opinion. | 1 |
train_9442 | Deliverance is a stunning thriller, every bit as exciting as any good thriller should aspire to be but also stomach-churningly frightening. Though it is not a horror movie, it is just as terrifying as any classic horror film. The very thought of being a normal red-blooded male enjoying an adventure weekend miles from any form of civilisation, only to be captured and sodomised by a couple of violent hillbillies, is surely the worst nightmare of 99.9% of the world's population. It would have been easy for Deliverance to slip into exploitation territory, but John Boorman has cleverly avoided the temptation to go down such a route and has made a film that explores, questions and challenges the very meaning of masculinity. With so many films, you come away wishing to heaven that you could step into the hero's shoes, performing heroic deeds and saving the day and getting the girl.... but with Deliverance, you come away praying to God that you'll never have to experience what these four protagonists go through.Four city guys - Ed (Jon Voight), Lewis (Burt Reynolds), Drew (Ronny Cox) and Bobby (Ned Beatty) - head out into the wilderness to spend a few days canoing down a soon-to-be-dammed river. The guys are riding the rapids in pairs, and Ed and Bobby inadvertently get a little too far ahead of the others so they pull in to the riverside and await their pals in the adjacent woodland. Here, they fall foul of two local woodlanders (Bill McKinney and Herbert Coward), who tie Ed to a tree, while one of them strips and rapes Bobby instructing him, perversely, to "squeal like a pig". Lewis and Drew arrive unseen and Lewis, being a fair archer, kills the rapist while the other hillbilly beats a hasty retreat into the forest. Under great emotional stress, the four canoeists decide to conceal the event and get out of the area. But they find the river increasingly dangerous to negotiate as they journey downstream, and the risk to their lives heightens when the surviving hillbilly returns to take shots at them with his rifle from some unseen vantage point in the rocky cliffs beside the river.Deliverance is very powerful as a survival tale, but even more powerful (and disturbing) as a study of macho attitudes being torn apart and left in humiliated tatters. Though all the performances are remarkable, one must take particular note of Beatty's efforts in a role that many actors would've turned down. The film is very similar thematically to the 1971 film Straw Dogs - both films deal with terrifying sexual violence in isolated locales, and in both the eventual violent revenge exacted by the victim does not result in any sense of satisfaction. The backdrop of the rugged countryside in Deliverance is beautiful to look at, but it also adds to the tension by placing the four canoeists in a setting where they are at the mercy of the hillbillies and the landscape, with nobody to rely on other than themselves. This truly is suspenseful film-making at its finest. | 1 |
train_10518 | Wrapped in gorgeous English country backgrounds, Emma is a delicious confection to be relished for dreamy getaways.Emma (Gwyneth Paltrow) is a graceful, intelligent young woman who has just married off her governess--and confidant--to a marriage which Emma takes the credit in matchmaking. Eager to use her talent in arranging things for the people around her, she decides to match the vicar, Mr. Elton (Alan Cummings) with her pretty young friend, Harriet (Toni Collette).The result is a series of mixed signals and mistaken interpretations that end up sorting themselves out, with Emma learning that she did not have as much control over events as she thought.The film is full of Jane Austen's witty and wry characterizations. Gwyneth Paltrow is at her best, portraying this maiden of a restrained, polite society with wit and ease. Her growing romance with the unparalleled Mr. Knightley (Jeremy Northam) is the heart of this film. Mr. Knightley is one of the greatest romantic leading men in films. He is incredibly handsome, in a modest, relaxed way that is irresistible. He is certainly well-matched to Gwyneth Paltrow. Their charming friendship that began when he was 16 and she was an infant, has blossomed as he, a family friend, matches wits with her in an older brotherly fashion that grows into something more. With a wry look or understated jab at Emma, Northam's Knightley is a delight to watch.Other wonderful characterizations include the comic Juliet Stevenson, Greta Scacchi, Ewan McGregor, Polly Walker, and the talkative spinster, Miss Bates, who is very funny.Seeming shorter and more flowing than most Jane Austin adaptations, Emma has comic rhythm that promises true enjoyment. | 1 |
train_13534 | After the success of Scooby-Doo, Where are You, they decided to give Scooby and Shaggy their own show. But unfortunately, they added a new character that spoilt Scooby-Doo success forever. They invented a new show with a new title, Scooby and Scrappy-Doo. It was Scrappy-Doo that made this show a complete failure, probably for both adults and kids together. Scrappy was the stupid brave puppy that always looked ready to beat someone up. Scooby and Shaggy were getting scared of the villain, and they were also trying to stop him. Scooby-Doo doesn't need any little annoying bastard puppy nephews. If they wanted Scooby-Doo to be more successful, they should have either killed or never thought up Scrappy. This was just poor, maybe your kids will prefer it! | 0 |
train_14032 | Although properly warned I actually sat down to watch this movie. In part because I usually give every movie an even break, and because I thought that a single movie couldn't be that bad. I stand corrected. Not even George Kennedy, Barry Bostwick or Ben Stein could save this turkey from sinking like a ton of bricks. Only once during this humor forsaken travesty of a spoof did I laugh. Namely during the Simon says scene. The other jokes are either poorly carried out or simply plain unfunny. And some of them you actually see coming a mile away. This movie just hasn't got what it takes to be a good parody like Airplane! (I+II), Naked Gun (I+II+III), or Scary Movie. They all had A. funny gags, B. good dialog and most important of all C. unforgettable quotes. Men In White has got D. none of the above. To call this movie bad would be a gross understatement. AVOID THIS MOVIE ANYWAY YOU CAN! CONSIDER YOURSELVES WARNED! | 0 |
train_6802 | You better see this episode from the beginning, because if you start to watch it any later, you will be confused as to what is happening to Clark's life.Yet, that is the twist; Clark is stuck in an alternate reality. Lana is devoted to him. Lex lost most of his legs and is in a wheelchair due to the bridge accident when he swerved to miss Clark in the pilot of the series. Martha is married to Lionel. About the only constant is his most loyal friend Chloe, who still believes in who he is. And, oh yeah, he doesn't have any superpowers. He is in a mental institution for putting himself in a fantasy world where he does have powers, and is ridiculed for believing so. Aside from Chloe, there is one mysterious figure who believes in Clark: a black man who in the alternate reality is also a resident of the institution, who believes he is from Mars.Clark must stay true to everything he believes is actual reality, and not get brainwashed by the institution's psychiatrist, who is in fact the fourth Phantom Zone escapee.This episode is utterly mind-blowing and shocking. Plus, it provides a fresh twist from the usual type of "Smallville" episode. | 1 |
train_5715 | Karen goes into a Japanese house as a substitute nurse to Emma, a strange woman who sleeps at day and wakes at night. Karen goes upstairs after hearing noises when she encounters a frightening ghost. She will learn the house's secrets.It is very scary! The scenes are shocking and frightening! The characters are good. The settings are creepy. I love the whole plot! The ending was shocking! I paused at a scene where the little boy meowed so loudly to the man finding his sister upstairs and I was shocked. This is the scariest movie I have watched. I did not see the Japanese version. I recommend this to horror fans. 10/10 and 5 stars! | 1 |
train_17927 | A typical Goth chick (Rainbow Harvest looking like a cross between Winona Ryder in Beetlejuice and Boy George) gets even with people she feels have wronged her with the help of an old haunted mirror that she finds in the new house she and her mom (horror mainstay, Karen Black, the only remotely good thing about this travesty) buy. The acting's pretty laughably bad (especially when Rainbow interacts with the aforementioned mirror) and there are no scares or suspense to be had. This film inexplicably spawned thus for 3 sequels each slightly more atrocious than the last. People looking for a similarly themed, but far superior cinematic endeavor would be well advised to just search out the episode of "Friday the 13th: the Series" where a geeky girl finds an old cursed compact mirror. That packs more chills in it's scant 40 minutes than this whole franchise has provided across it's 4 films.My Grade: D Eye Candy: Charlie Spradling provides the obligatory T&A | 0 |
train_21586 | I was aware of Rohmer's admiration for the late works of the ones he considered like great cineasts, and that normal spectators generally considered as artistic failures (as Renoir's or Chaplin's very last movies ; yes, the "politique des auteurs" also has its dark side). But with "Les amours d'Astrée et de Céladon", it's as if Rohmer himself wanted, for what may be his last movie, to perpetuate this tradition of great directors, who made a last senile movie, by adapting Urfé's "L'astrée", with ridiculous aesthetic codes, witch just look like a parody of Rosselini's last movies (the ones he made for TV from Descartes or Marx's lives).In his version of "Perceval", Rohmer refused to film real landscapes in order to give a re-transcription of what may have been a middle age classical representation of things. The director apparently changed his mind when the XVII century is involved, and films actors, dressed like 1600's peasants reciting their antic text surrounded by contemporary trees and landscapes. But the all thing looks even more ridiculous than Luchini and its fake trees. It's not that the story itself is stupid, but the way Rohmer mixes naturalism with artifices seems so childish and amateurism that it rapidly becomes involuntarily funny (and I'm not even talking about the irritating pronunciation of the actors, the annoying and sad humorist tries by Rodolphe Pauly, the ridiculous soft-erotic tone, the poor musical tentatives, or the strange fascination for trasvestisment!).The radical aesthetic of the film ultimately makes it looks like a joke, which mixes a soft-erotic movie made for TV with theological scholastic discussions (sic !). At the beginning of the movie, Rohmer teaches us that the original french region of the story is now disfigured by modernity, and that's why he had to film "L'Astrée" in other parts of the country. However, I'm sure the movie would have look more modern and interesting, if Rohmer would have actually still filmed the same story in a modern area with same narrative codes and artistically decisions. This film may interest a few historians, but most of the cinephiles may laugh at this last and sad Rohmer's movie. | 0 |
train_16119 | Basically there's a family where a little boy (Jake) thinks there's a zombie in his closet & his parents are fighting all the time.This movie is slower than a soap opera... and suddenly, Jake decides to become Rambo and kill the zombie.OK, first of all when you're going to make a film you must Decide if its a thriller or a drama! As a drama the movie is watchable. Parents are divorcing & arguing like in real life. And then we have Jake with his closet which totally ruins all the film! I expected to see a BOOGEYMAN similar movie, and instead i watched a drama with some meaningless thriller spots.3 out of 10 just for the well playing parents & descent dialogs. As for the shots with Jake: just ignore them. | 0 |
train_642 | I was dragged to this movie about four years ago by a French actress friend of mine.For the first half hour I was sitting in my uncomfortable seat at the New Beverly theater in Hollywood, hating this film, hating myself and even hating the French actress. And then...I don't know what happened but I was pulled into the film in a way that I hadn't been in years. And this was despite the fact that one of the projectors broke and they had to do each changeover by hand. I was in the theater for close to four hours, but it was worth it. I believe that great movies pull you inside a world, make you a part of it and then drop you off to talk about with your friends over coffee or a drink. This film did that. It was one of the best filmgoing experiences I have ever had. | 1 |
train_1608 | Seeing "Moonstruck" after so many years is a reminder of how sweet and sensationally funny this film was when it first appeared. Who knew that Cher could act? Who had ever heard of Olympia Dukakis? Nicholas Cage was the beginning of his career, and Vincent Gardenia and Danny Aiello were not known for their comedic talents, nor was Norman Jewison the director.The only really flat note in this splendid work is "When the Moon Hits Your Eye Like a Big Pizza Pie, That's Amore," a song that is sung too many times in the movie (once is already too many) and that went on to have a long afterlife in popular music. Cher is -- forgive me -- sensational as Loretta Castorini, a widow who wants to be married and does not have to be in love with the groom. Aielo (Johny Cammareri) obliges by proposing, offering her his pinkie ring as a substitute for an engagement ring, then rushes off to Sicily to be with his dying mother. He charges Loretta with seeing to that his estranged brother, Ronny, attends the wedding. Loretta confronts Ronny and quickly falls in love with him. Meanwhile, her father (Vincent Gardenia) is cheating on her mother (Olympia Dukakis), which Loretta accidentally discovers when Ronny invites her to the Metropolitan Opera.Everything works out in the end, as it inevitably does in films of this genre. In the meantime, all the actors acquit themselves admirably and the audience enjoys itself. In its way, "Moonstruck" is how Hollywood used to be at its best: rollicking entertainment with no social significance whatsoever. If they'd only lost "That's Amore" along the way, it would have been perfect. | 1 |
train_13567 | Only a handful of the segments are engaging here. A segment with a garage attendant from Nigeria is heartbreaking. One with Fanny Ardent & Bob Hoskins makes its point, twist by twist until the final shot overplays things. The problem with this movie is that only a few of the clips invoke Paris. The others are so scatter-shot in theme, tone, volition & production that you may as well be watching "The Years Best Commercials, 2006." It's really all over the place. It doesn't develop over it's running time, and nothing reigns the directors in. No construct successfully joins the pieces... tedium sets in. I'm at the one hour, twenty minute point and Elijah Wood is in some dumb, over-commercial, overproduced vampire shtick. It has about as much to do with Paris as old ladies knitting in the Antartic. Fantasy shows up I think first in the Coen Brothers segment (Uh, thanks J & E for ruining another movie) and then makes way too many appearances. The point of being in Paris is that you don't need make-believe crap to make your days extraordinary. Why divide it by neighborhood if Quartier de la Madeleine is equated with vampires for some loser director? Has there ever been a genre more over-represented than the vampire film. Every three years we get the same lame vampire clichés.Making things worse is that the switch from segment to segment is pretty artless. The transitions get lost. This doesn't feel intentional, it feels sloppy. | 0 |
train_18197 | This is the most elementary sort of traditional ghost story, not even enlivened to any great extent by the use of Irish locations. If the great M.R. James had ever come up with a tale this thin -- doesn't James in fact have a story called "A Thin Ghost"? -- he wouldn't have bothered to have it published.Orson Welles appears in the limp endpieces as a favour to a brace of old friends, this film's producers. His presence and the one movie industry in-joke would have earned this will-o'-the-wisp its Oscar nomination. This is yet more proof, if any more were needed, that the Academy Awards have never been any guarantee of merit. | 0 |
train_2007 | My personal opinion is that this movie had no real story line to the first john carpenter's vampires but i don't care I LOVED IT. Jon Bon Jovi (Derek) was great in this movie. He really mad me believe that he was the person you would never think he was a famous ROCKSTAR. There were some bad things about this movie. Like the story line,there should have been more to the movie.there should have been a sequel to the movie that followed the movies story line and they should have kept the same main characters in all three vampires movies. i really liked the clothes that the people wore and the setting they pick in Mexico. i liked how it was old Mexico and not new Mexico. with the clay houses and the old fashion churches. i was a little confused with the vampires and how they were able to walk in churches but it was cool how they didn't follow Dracula vampire rules. | 1 |
train_20060 | How this film could miss so many of the fascinating, complex and mysterious aspects of the original story or the original movie is truly remarkable. An unbelievably thin and unengaging plot, ankle-deep characterisation/motivation and a really awful soundtrack (replacing tension with vast swathes of noise, replacing the arcane musical references of the original for digitised crashes and roars. Then there are the specific references to the original which are merely "plastered on" over the cracks... Dreadful. In a world where gormless, brain-dead Amerikan remakes of The Italian Job (a tear appears), Get Carter (sobs uncontrollably) and Alfie have desecrated our screens recently, this one takes the proverbial biscuit. Execrable nonsense. How Ellen Burstyn ever got involved is a wonder... Rubbish. | 0 |
train_1319 | This film is a great fun. I recommend you watch it yourself and then watch it again with your friends. I did last night and it was fascinating how well Norma Khouri could pull everybody into her world! I did feel a little bit strange watching my friends go through the same roller coaster as I did the first time. But they all thanked me and loved the movie. You know it is a great film if you spend 2 hours after the film talking about the movie! I once saw a con man almost up toNorma Khouri's level, but no where near the same size ring. He fooledtons of very gullible and rich folks at my old Berkeley CA A.A. group where everyone trusts everyone else. He would "sponsor" only people who seemed very well to do. Who knew he would have stolen in excess of 100k(in 1987 when that was real money) after being in town for only 1 month. His victims were very fragile as they were in their first month or week of being sober. He was evil with a great laugh and a great smile on his face.The above crime is nothing compared to what Norma Khouri did to her old neighbor. But I don't want to give anything away.I just found this one night on a late night movie channel,"Showtim" I think. This is always a movie fans greatest experience to be totally tricked into seeing something and having your mind blown. Just drag your friends over to see this and don't tell them a thing. It is a very entertaining film, it moves quickly and never bores you.This should be a international classic for all time. I believe all great movies eventually rise to the top. Time will be very good to this film. I am just sorry no one has heard of it yet,in some ways that makes the surprises even better.The director and editor were fantastic. They deserved winning the best documentary.JUST WATCH THIS FILM! | 1 |
train_24307 | When Samantha Eggar (as Phyllis Dietrickson) answers the door of her house swathed in a towel, you realize that as competent an actress as Eggar may be, she doesn't have the hypnotic allure of Barbara Stanwyck. And it is not entirely Eggar's fault. In the original film, Wilder had Stanwyck not only appear in a towel, but she enters the scene on the second floor balcony of the house. And she doesn't "come out"; she appears, almost as if by magic. Walter Neff is staring up at her from below on the first floor. There is a reason for this. Stanwyck is much higher than Neff (Fred MacMurray) when they are first introduced. It is not just the towel. The towel adds to the seductive allure. Her pose is like a Greek Goddess overlooking her domain, and, in a strange way, you feel as if, from the start, she is actually controlling the entire situation. She has sexual, even magic, power. This person is no ordinary housewife. This person is a mystery with secrets hidden within.Back to 1973. The remake has Crenna knock on the front door. Stanwyck's stand-in, Eggar, answers the door with a towel around her. There is no "appearance". She simply opens the door. The alluring superiority that grabs the audience at the first appearance of Stanwyck in 1944 is entirely absent in 1973. She opens the door with a towel around her. It may be sexy in a Charlie's Angels sort of way, but it's not nearly as mysterious. The filmmakers of the remake seem to misunderstand Wilder's point. The script may have said "Phyllis appears in towel" so the filmmakers of the remake simply follow the instructions and include the required towel. The point is not the towel. The point is the enigmatic quality of Phyllis, and the potential power she wields. Wilder gave her a towel to add to her mystique. The filmmakers of the remake gave her a towel because that's what Wilder did. And in the choice of shot, lost all of Phyllis' mystique.Richard Crenna also seems miscast. He seems like he's "acting" and not really in the midst of the dilemma. Part of the problem is Crenna appears so much like a 70's actor. He can't get into the 1940's. When MacMurray first speaks into the microphone, sweat begins to drip from his face. No sweat on Crenna. And they also changed one of the crucial lines at the beginning. In the original, Neff says, "I didn't get the money, and I didn't get the woman." In the 1973 version, Crenna says, "I didn't get the money, and I didn't want the woman." Did the filmmakers completely misunderstand the entire point of the story? Or were they dumbing it down for a "television" audience?This made-for-TV movie is a by-the-numbers rendition. All the sharp edge of the original is lost. The only stand-out, maybe, is Lee J. Cobb in the role made famous by Edward G. Robinson. But he cannot save the loss of intensity of the original. This 1973 boring remake is a forgettable TV-movie made probably by the same people who did "Gilligan's Island". They might as well have tried to remake "Citizen Kane" or "Gone with the Wind". If mediocrity is the best one can hope for, what's the point? The 1944 classic is a Film with a capital "F". This made-for-TV remake deserves an "F" grade, or, maybe a "D" for dumb. | 0 |
train_4845 | Hello Playmates.I recently watched this film for the first time ever and it is also my first experience of Arthur Askey, I have to admit I was very impressed by this film. As a fan of black and white films generally, passport to pimlico, the lavender hill mob and Tommy Trinder (who is apparently a distant relative), this film appealed in that it provided good old fashioned British humour. I notice that there are some on here who have criticised Askey's performance, however in my opinion it stands the test of time as a fine example of forties comic acting and if anything adds to the picture by creating characters that are more than the mere stereotypes which seem to so dominate films now.If you can get hold of this film I would recommend you get hold of it,shame these films generally aren't shown on Sunday afternoons anymore.I am also glad to have had the opportunity to watch another piece of work by Arnold Ridley (Private Godfrey in dad's army).I thank you | 1 |
train_13958 | The back cover of the DVD (missed this one when it came out) hails Hitler -the Rise Of Evil as "A Triumph" (The New York Post) and "Mesmerizing" (Newsweek).Well,never mind the Post but really, who ever wrote that word in Newsweek in the same context with this peace of, ahem, art should be sacked.I don't no where to start with. Why try to paint the picture of Hitler's evil with colors that did not exist? He was evil alright, but now his character is portrayed in way that is often historically inaccurate (compared to his love of animals, the gentle and subdued way he treated women) and so on.The actors are good, so you must feel sorry for them as they are imprisoned inside their one-dimensional characters. Some kind of curse here with Peter O' Toole: This is the second time in his honorable career when he has ended up playing an old and failed leader in a failed movie (or in this case TV-production, to be accurate). The first one was of course the legendary Galigula.The list of historically inaccurate scenes alone would fill the 1000 words allowed by IMDb, so I think I'll leave it here.This one is OK if it's on telly and you don't have anything else to do, but believe me - it's best left on the shelf in your local Virgin store. | 0 |
train_21090 | Ludicrous. Angelic 9-year-old Annakin turns into whiny brat 19-year-old Annakin, who somehow seems appealing to Amidala, 5 years his senior. Now 22-year-old Jedi warrior hero Annakin has a couple of bad dreams, and so takes to slaughtering children, his friends, and the entire framework of his existence because a crazy old man convinced him a) his precious wife might really die, and b) only he can prevent this. Ludicrosity squared.I think the people who like this movie are not paying attention. The story is ridiculous. The characters are unbelievable (literally, not the perverted sense of "fantastic", "wonderful", etc.).Obi-wan Kenobi was the wise and kind anchor for the entire series, but in the climax, he hacks off Annakin's legs, lets him burn in the lava, and leaves him to suffer. Doesn't anyone think that's a little out of character? Not to mention it was pretty stupid to take a chance on him living, as it turns out.I was expecting at least a story that showed consistent characters with plausible motivations. None of that here. The story could have been written by a 10 year old.Oh yeah, the CGI is pretty cool. | 0 |
train_9720 | 'How To Lose Friends & Alienate People' is a superb film. A hilarious film from start to end. A lovely entertainer. Enjoyed it. Thumps Up! Performances: Jason is fantastic. He's a treat to watch him from start to end. Jeff Bridges is excellent as the boss. He's a Legend. Megan Fox looks amazingly hot, and deliver a good performance. but dude, She's so hot man! Anderson is delightful. She doesn't look old at all, still hot indeed. Kristan Dunst looks lovely and does a pretty good job. Others are also pretty good.'How To Lose Friends & Alienate People' is a excellent entertainer. Don't miss this flick! | 1 |
train_23517 | A woman's nightmares fuel her fear of being buried alive.The cheating husband wants her dead and decides to make good use of her phobia by sticking her in a coffin and leaving her in the basement.Of course B-horror movie queen Brinke Stevens transforms into hideous ghostly creature.The only reason to see this amateurish junk flick is Michael Berryman in a really small cameo and two sex scenes with Delia Sheppard.And the last twenty minutes of Brinke's bloody rampage are quite fun to watch.The special effects for example laughable decapitated head are truly awful.Better watch "Scalps" or "Alien Dead" again.Of course I ain't expecting classy entertainment from Fred Olen Ray,but "Haunting Fear" is too dull to be enjoyable. | 0 |
train_1215 | This is my favorite of the three care bears movies. Once again I liked all the songs. The big problem however as most people have pointed out was that this story contradicts the original. For those that saw the first movie recall the bears met their "cousins" who they apparently never knew about. It wasn't of course until the end that the cousins received their tummy symbols after proving how much they cared. In this story however the cousins grow up with the care bears and have tummy symbols all along. That being said this isn't a bad movie as long you keep it separate from the first. I thought the Darkheart character much more evil then the Nicholas of the first. But at the same time I felt it added a sort of balance to the sweetness of the care bears. I also liked the we care part at the end, although I know other people had mixed feelings about that scene. And of course I LOVED the songs. My favorites being Growing Up and Forever Young. The care bears movies have always had such good songs. Ten stars for a very good movie. | 1 |
train_17370 | The movie is bad. Nothing special - just a "kid" movie with no serious thing in it. There is though one reason to watch this for: the animal talk. Some of them are so funny in what they say, you just can't stop laughing. So if you want to hear a dog in the dog pound saying "I'm Keyser Soze", or another animal saying "You're a dead cat walking", or many other funny one liners, see it. Cause there's no other good movie to watch it. Vote: 4 out of 10. | 0 |
train_12465 | I definitely recommend reading the book prior to watching the film. This book won National Book Council Award in 1978 and is a very gripping read (pun not intended). It's not too difficult to read for those out there that don't read often so don't be afraid! The book seems to capture the passion of the relationships more so than the movie and the movie will make more sense after reading the book. Having grown up in Melbourne I could really relate to this book and movie. Very few Australian female writers were around the in the 70's therefore very little is documented about the way of life for a women in an urban city in Australia during this era or class. It's a precious piece of Melbourne history. It's a shame that it is documented as some sort of 80's soft porn movie. It's far from that and as the other reviewer has mentioned please do not read the DVD jacket, it does not represent what the movie is about at all. Those that rent the movie based on this description will only be disappointed. Just remember this movie was made in 1982, so don't expect the Hollywood over dramatization that they seem to incorporate these days. This is what I like about it. It's also great seeing Noni Hazlehurst in this role, she is just fantastic as Nora and it's great watching her really acting, for if you're close to my age you will best remember her for her stints on Playschool and Better Homes and Gardens. Who knew she hid this talent? This movie will give you an entirely new impression of her. A classic Australian Story! | 1 |
train_11827 | If Dick Tracy was in black and white, the pope wouldn't be religious. Giving a new sense to the concept of color in a movie, we are offered an unique experience throughout a comic-strip world, and it's one of the few movies which succeeded in doing so, thanks to a serious script, good direction, great performances (Al Pacino is astonishing) and most importantly a powerful mix of cinematography, art direction and costume design. Using only primary colors, the experience is quite different from anything we have seen before. And there is also a quite successful hommage to all the gangster-movie genre, pratically extinct from modern cinema. Overall, I see this movie as a fresh attempt and a touch of originality to a cinema which relies more and more on the old and already-seen formulas. 7 out of 10. | 1 |
train_14720 | What the hell is in your minds ? This film sucks ! Each minute I was getting more and more bored. I strove to watch the end because I hope something at least would at last happen ! But instead of that, I got amazed how dull the end was treated... What is this story about this bloody "bogeyman" ? How comes he doesn't die ? He is a bloody human being for God's sake ! A mere boy that killed his silly sister 15 years ago. Then what ? His stay on a psychiatric hospital made him immortal ? This film a fascinatingly stupid... It's a must of silliness. I'm gonna resell it right now to some silly guy who will understand this silly film. | 0 |
train_11114 | It probably isn't fair that I have got to see the majority of all the interesting reviews on the Sopranos and then get to add what people have forgotten, but oh well.......From a standpoint of acting, how could any actor fail with these characters? Each one mesmerizing and intense in their pursuits of life. Tony Soprano-while a mob "Capo" and suffering from mental illness, still sees his life in front of him and knows what has to be done to survive. Each of his men, you see their lives virtually from the inside like the truest form of voyerism. It definitely brings out a sort "nosey" side in each and every viewer, and I include myself in this!While some above don't care for Bracco, I have to say this is the freshest role she has had in years since Good Fellas. She is the side of Tony that makes him listen to reason, that makes him decent, that offers him respite when dealing with his human emotions that he has failed to feel for so long, if ever. She is simply put, his savior. (Not speaking in religious tones)But the knockout performance here is without doubt, Edie Falco. To see her prison guard role in the other acclaimed HBO series, "Oz" and then see her as Livia is the ultimate compliment for any actor or actress. She has transcended the boundries of a recognizable actress, something only actresses like Merle Streep can get away with. A sort of chameleon quality to transcend roles. But as I have mentioned before, with a characters a strong as these, how can any actor fail?Livia's strength is in her daily affirmation of faith in herself. She is a survivor, as she hopes her husband and family will be survivors. She is prepared for the worst because she knows the hazards of her husband's business, yet knows the lifestyle she has is more then most women from Jersey. She is wise if not wiser and more street savvy then Tony himself.All in all, the biggest crime from the Soprano Family is that we the viewer have to wait until January 2000 to see the next season. This in my opinion is the worst thing about the HBO series. It was what brought The Larry Sanders Show, Sex and the City, Dream On, and others back down to earth in popularity and eventually killed them. Too much space in between seasons and very sporadic. Until then, I will watch the reruns with the hope that this gap in programming is filled. | 1 |
train_13792 | Okay.. this wasn't the worst movie I've ever seen, but I had heard lots of good things about it and I was sorely disappointed. I could see where the film makers were coming from and that they were trying to express the fact that the two sides in this battle weren't a whole lot different from one another, that the individuals were getting lost in the fighting, etc, etc. (well, that's my presumption, anyway =^_^=)At any rate.. the movie kind of bored me. I've watched a lot of really long movies, but this one just seemed to drag on and on and on.. basically because I just couldn't bring myself to care for any of the characters. I just kept thinking.. who cares??? I also found the acting to be rather dead pan and the dialogue strained. I understand that this was the 1800s and all, but most of the conversations just seemed rather unnatural. No one seemed to have any emotion throughout most of the film except during melodramatic events.The "romance" in the story didn't seem to be supported by anything other than "I'm a guy and you're a girl", which I don't consider much of a romance, and yet I felt I was being steered to the belief that these people were in love. Oh well.. I guess it's the whole "all this horror around us, we have each other to cling to" type thing, or whatever. I was also hoping for some sort of dynamic between the two best friends (who both initially seemed to have an interest in the girl) but that was just sort of dropped. Maybe avoiding a cliche love triangle. I don't know.Oh well.. Daniel Holt was about the only character I really truly liked. And Sue Lee was all right. I didn't exactly dislike Jake, but he seemed a bit too... spineless, I guess. Jack Bull I did not care for at all. And I'm pretty sure you're *supposed* to hate just about everyone else, with the exception of the poor normal people who just get mowed down left and right. It was pretty graphic and had that whole "the horrors of war" thing down, but I've seen plenty of other movies with the same theme, done better. (I enjoyed The Patriot a lot, for instance, even if it was a bit emotionally manipulative) But, as I've already stated, I'm a cynic. What can I say? :) | 0 |
train_14974 | As I was watching this movie I was thinking,OK it'll get good any moment...I was wrong. The real best part of this movie was when it was over. A complete waste of 92 minutes. All seriousness aside the best part was when the Wendigo finally showed up which was at the end and you couldn't really even see him that good. And the tail end was really kind of dumb as well. There was too many sections in the movie where you thought something was going to happen but was a let down. The worse part is there was more talk of the Wendigo then there was Wendigo. For the creature to be so bad,you definitely couldn't tell it by this movie. | 0 |
train_22396 | The DVD version consists of 2 episodes, the parricide of Caesar being the juncture. In addition, the language was Spanish without subtitles. Hence, it's hard for me to review in depth this movie because because i didn't understand what was said.Cleopatra being an historic icon, the part is very difficult and i found that for a newcomer, Leonor Varela just plays fine. She is strong-willed but also a very supportive, tender soul mate. Thimothy Dalton as Caesar is perfect and their romance is the main thing of the first episode. So, it is not really a documentary, nor a peplum but a great love story.After the parricide, a new lover comes (Marc-Antoine) but the flavor is gone: we remember always our first love. So, i found the second episode dull and their tragic fate isn't told powerfully.Nonetheless, the production is luxurious: the sets are big, tastefully decorated; the Moroccan live location exotic and the wardrobes splendid. The producers have a lot of money for sure, but they spend nothing on the special effects. They are so poor (blue screens, ships, Sphinx) that it's funny.Finally, I would like very much to hear it in french or English to make a definitive opinion about this two movies. | 0 |
train_11761 | Kurt Russell is at his best as the man who lives off his past glories, Reno Hightower. Robin Williams is his polar opposite in a rare low key performance as Jack Dundee. He dropped the Big Pass in more ways than one.You'll see some of the most quotable scenes ever put into one film, as Jack hisses at a rat, Reno poses, and the call of the caribou goes out.Don't miss this classic that isn't scared to show football in the mud the way it should be played (note to the NFL). | 1 |
train_11815 | At the time I am writing this I see out of over 15,000 votes it has a 5.8 rating. Something is wrong with that picture. Personally I give it a 10. I can see a 7 at the lowest or a possible 8 if it was rated by people that see this movie for what it truly is. It is a movie based on a comic book hero. This movie won more than it's share of awards. Won 3 Oscars. Another 5 wins & 26 nominations .... right there tells me it's better than a 5.8. Some great acting from some very good actors, some great special effects and in my opinion will be if not already a classic for years to come. If you're looking for pure entertainment be sure to check out Dick Tracy. Definitely a movie you can watch more than a few times. Al Pacino is great as Big Boy Caprice. | 1 |
train_21701 | This is the movie that epitomizes the D&D fear of the 80s (and even today). The fear being that people who play D&D (or any other role-playing game for that matter) will be "sucked in" and lose their ability to distinguish reality from fantasy (and go on killing sprees, child sacrifices, suicide, etc). Great movie for anyone who likes to blame the problems of society on inanimate objects, but anyone who has played a role-playing game, a video game, or even acted in a play will see this as an insult to their intelligence. It is to D&D what Wargames was to computers. Plus as a movie, it just kinda sucks. | 0 |
train_12785 | It's not really about gymnastics; swap out the occasional training montages and it could just as easily be about archery, or microbiology, or a booger-flicking tournament. Instead, like every other Rocky/Flashdance derivative that flooded the 80s market, it's about conquering adversity with stick-to-it-iveness, rendering all social/personal realities irrelevant by your lonesome - with love interest standing by of course. Ronald Reagan top to bottom, in short; so as a piece of cinema it's down to the details. Some of the actors are quirky enough to liven things up - especially the love interest, brought to you by none other than Mr. Keanu Reeves, warming up for Ted; heroine Olivia D'Abo's hateful alkie dad and big-hair stepsister are more interesting than the sickly mom or her utterly inert bitch-nemeses/teammates, one of whom appears to be made of porcelain. It's my instinct to be appalled by the comic-relief black guys, but on the other hand at least they're in the movie. But D'Abo doesn't quite convince with her awkward-girl shtick, and in the absence of any other narrative focus the lack of interest in the gymnastics themselves really does matter; it's all just bodies hurtling around, and not only is the outcome of the big tournament a foregone conclusion, it's all performed by an obvious double. | 0 |
train_9269 | I probably doubled my knowledge of Iran when I saw Secret Ballot (2001). Now I know about four times as much (I doubt I learned a whole heck of a lot from Not Without My Daughter (1991)).Offside is a splendid budget Iranian comedy about a group a girls (working individually) to attend a decisive soccer match for their country's place in the World Cup. Women are not allowed to attend soccer matches, so the nation's armed forces have been mobilized to save any women who try to enter from themselves. Some (teen?) girls try to crash the party by dressing as boys, but are caught. The movie is mostly set at this holding pen where the girls are detained by soldiers, awaiting some unspecified punishment (although, the girl who dressed as a soldier claims that she was one insignia away from being executed!)The movie explores the absurdity of the situation. The thinking that bars women from football matches comes down to it being too raunchy an experience for the fairer sexa philosophy not unknown in the west less than 100 years ago. This farce comes to a head when a girl needs to go to the bathroom, so a soldier escorting her demands that she cover her eyes so she can't see the graffiti. The conflict is not entirely about the battle of the sexes: at one point some friction arises between a solider who is rural and the girls who are urban.Fortunately, this movie was not too culturally esoteric that the comedy was lost on this neighbour and cultural cousin of the Great Satan. You have to be in the mood for it, but no one should avoid this movie because they think that they won't get it. | 1 |
train_18098 | Saw it at the Philadelphia Gay and Lesbian Film Fest.What can I say? Against my better judgment, I liked it, but it seemed to me that that acting was a little...weak (mostly I noticed this from the family of the teen boy). I mean, the script wasn't stellar to begin with, but the actors didn't make me believe the relationships.The plot is also predictable.Nonethelss, I liked it. The characters are likable, and the plot is not challenging or upsetting. It's sweet, the characters care about each other, and I don't count it as fifty minutes ill-spent. But I don't recommend it. | 0 |
train_2501 | I'm a fan of both actors/singers especially Gackt and when I first discover this movie and watch the trailer,I just think this is a silly one.After a long waiting time,I watched it at last and here's my comment...I consider everyone knows the storyline and not going to mention about it,instead of it my first applause goes to acting,generally that Japanese movies hasn't got brilliant and acting.Yet in MoonChild's all cast is simply wonderful and got into it,especially Gackt reflects his characters emotions and changes pretty well,I like many of his scenes both dramatic and humorous ones,as for HYDE part,his acting is good but he deliberately staying in background as an actor,respectively as his character do,throughout the movie.I didn't like some cinematography especially lighting and some colors but due to small budget,it still has brilliant moments,but the real jewel of the film is story.It has some cheesy moments but it's OK for me,and the friendship theme of the movie is really well developed and touching at sometimes,on the other hand story points out a cruel world which no ones life guaranteed and with some memorable death scenes it reflects this theme to the visuals.An interesting note aside,this movie has some similarities with excellent vampire movie Interwiew with the Vampire which is also played by the most beautiful(not handsome,beautiful)actors of American cinema,actually Moon Child is somehow can be seen as brother with Interwiew,yet original on it's own.Only problem that MoonChild is it's a bit slow sometimes,I'm a Japanese movie fan and I used to that but it's not change MoonChild has some useless scenes or characters.But all in all;this movie is really good and very emotional sometimes,as for actors/singers duo I hope to see their other movies in future,and I recommend this to everyone who likes vampire-action-sci-fiction and romance films 8/10 | 1 |
train_16441 | This is what happens when you're living in China and the local video store is running thin on English-language titlesyou are blessed with this work of what appears to be, yes, Romanian cinema. Nevertheless, I think that it has real comedic potential.Spoilers technically follow:Though I don't think that it would in fact spoil anyone's viewing pleasure to ask why a film set in a casino has a scene of beach archery, even in flashback. That mystery, and many other conundrums, remain to be exploited by desperate comedians, perhaps when they're stuck in Bucharest.Let me also wonder aloud why perfectly good-looking people allow themselves to abuse themselves on film like this. It's sad. | 0 |
train_20469 | OK another film bought by me and Joe Swatman. OK this isn't the worst film i've reviewed this week but it still sucked royaly. we had a lot of fun watching this piece of crap.The Monster Jigsaw is a mish mash of all these dysfunctional students ideas, u just know ur in for trouble when someone equips him with a buzzsaw and a sawed of shotgun, the film wasn't as gory as we hoped, i mean on of the deaths is a heart attack. Again i think the acting sucks, sum of the actors must be porn stars and one get into her undies for what ever reason. The absolute worst part is the ending, it leaves it open for a bit of a Jigsaw 2 but thats never gunna happen lets face it.My ratings:funny 4/100 mock (how much fun we had mocking it) 73/100 acting 8/100 generally 12/100 | 0 |
train_24810 | Steve Martin should quit trying to do remakes of classic comedy. He absolutely does not fit this part. Like the woeful remake of the Out Of Towners, this movie falls flat on it's face. How anybody ever thought Steve Martin could even come close to Jack Lemmon's wonderful performance is beyond me and the same is true for this movie. Dan Ackroyd could have played the Bilko part better. Martin is great when doing his own original characters but fails miserably trying to recreate other people's classic work. It's a sad statement when the funniest part of a movie is contained in the first line of the credits when the movie is over. The line "The producers gratefully acknowledge the total lack of cooperation by the United States Army" was just about the only line that actually made me laugh. If you want to see the real Bilko, get hold of the original episodes of the Phil Silvers Show. Those are guaranteed to make you laugh, unlike this mistake that should never have happened. I put this movie in the same category as the aforementioned Lemmon classic and the remake of Psycho. None of them should ever have happened. | 0 |
train_1915 | This show is awesome. I thought that the two episodes where Paul died were so sad; I actually cried. But the other shows were awesome; Kerry was my favorite character, because she was in "the dark side." I also thought that Bridget was funny because she was all perky. I also thought that guy who played Kyle was really, really cute. I loved it when Kerry made sarcastic remarks about everything. The guy who played Rory was cute, and Paul, played by John Ritter, was really funny. This whole entire TV show is funny, and I wish they still showed it on TV. when they did show it on TV, though, I watched it every single time it was on. The next time it shows, I will watch it over and over again. | 1 |
train_24032 | I rented this movie the other night because neither my girlfriend or myself had ever seen it, even though we had heard from a mutual friend how "great it was".Now, I am pretty conservative in my views, but I knew going in it would be pretty liberal given who directed it. I figured before the movie started Michael Douglas would play a compassionate popular liberal beloved by the masses, and there would be a stodgy conservative opponent as his antagonist. But I thought thats where the political statement would begin and end.OK, the plot was solid: Single president falls for a lobbyist. OK, this has potential I thought to be pretty entertaining, since the plot was unique. But then the movie turned into a liberal infomercial. The movie became more about gun control and environmental issues than it did about the relationship between the President and Sydney(Annette Bening).There were several ridiculous premises in this movie: 1) The character Sydney playing this six figure lobbyist who is a "closer". Could she have been more flighty? She was constantly disorganized and seemed in awe of everything. Hardly a "closer". I am an sales, and she could not "close" selling a glass of water to a man dying of thirst.2) Secondly, is there anything more ridiculous than Richard Dreyfuss playing a right wing fanatic? This is the most liberal man in Hollywood and her is playing some right wing ideologue. Give me a break. I liked how he took his conservative character and made him as sinister as possible.3) The speech at the end was simply ludicrous. The line about "I am a proud card carrying member of the ACLU" was a joke. First, no president would ever admit something like that, being an active member of an ultra fringe group. Second, why even bring something like that up. You just alienated off over half the movie going audience who is moderate or conservative.I thought the plot was great and unique. I thought Michael Douglas was a good choice as president. But the movie went from being a "movie" to a left wing political statement, which is why the movie failed.Its a shame to see a great plot ruined by Hollywood having to force their political views on the audience | 0 |
train_11546 | First ever viewing: July 21, 2008Very impressive screenplay and comedic acting and timing in this film. Now 40 years old, it has lost none of it's power. Neil Simon displays excellent insight into human nature and relationships as well as how to create genuine comedy from unusual situations. Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau give great comedic performances. Neil Simon was inspired by actual events in his own life to write the play this film is based on.One of the best written and acted Hollywood comedies of all time!Surprisingly, only nominated for 2 Academy Awards: "Best Adapted Screenplay" and "Best Film Editing". Hollywood rarely awards comedies, no matter how well they are made. | 1 |
train_21289 | i checked this one out on DVD for a dollar so I could easily smile as this dreadful movie unfolds. every time that you think it cannot get any worse, it inevitably does. The acting is absolutely horrific. the plot makes no sense at all. The title "cold vengeance" in the US DVD version has absolutely nothing to do with the script. The action scenes are so obviously taken in their first take. There are lots of mistakes during dialogues indicating that there is just no intend to do another take to at least try to make this movie bearable. I cannot remember having seen a worse movie and I do occasionally get bad ones--well, except for unstoppable with Wesley Snipes. No, who am I kidding, while a bad one, Unstoppable deserves Best Picture awards at the Oscars when compared to this piece of crap. | 0 |
train_8146 | I cannot stop saying how much I loved this movie. This movie is one of the least known and one of the funniest movies I have ever seen. The movie follows the exploits of a rap group, NWH (Ni#$%rs with Hats) It goes from the beginning of the group to the end of the group, after it's tragic break up. Following the group is documentary maker Nina Blackburn. The movie is on a shoestring budget, but it does not seem to matter, this is a very well made, well produced film and the performances by all of these actors and actresses are excellent. The main strength of this movie is the writing, there are so many brilliant lines and takeoffs on rap in this movie, it is unreal. SPOILERThere are takeoffs on actual rappers, like MC Slammer, Vanilla Sherbert, Ice Cold, Tone Def, Tastey-Taste, and songs (Booty Juice, Grab Your Dick, Etc.) Rusty Condieff has made an excellent film. In the movie he plays rapper Ice Cold. The movie does not quit, it is funny from the beginning to the end. The movie works so well because it becomes outlandish on occasion, but it strikes that line where it is funny without going too far out there. Listening to the three leads try to talk some kind of philosophy was one of the best parts of the movie, like Tone Def telling a record producer, when you take the bus, you get there', and the producer responding, that's deep!'The group portraying N.W.H. has some sort of natural chemistry to them. They work so well together, and they manage to pull this movie of to where there is not a week moment in the film. What really makes this movie so good is how true to some of the rap groups of the time this movie is. Many rap groups had problems with violence, with censors, and like NWA, the group only became popular when the establishment began to make a big deal out of the controversial lyrics.I like this movie because it is offensive. There is something here to offend everyone in a good natured way. The movie has a takeoff on a good number of people too outside of rap, the funniest being of Spike Lee. Where they came up with this dialogue I cannot imagine. The movie has line after line that will have you rolling on the floor. As I said before the writing is just excellent.I am not surprised that this movie met such limited release. It is an intelligent, controversial, and even thought provoking film. This is too much for mainstream, despite the fact it is hilarious, and nearly flawless in it's production. There are no major stars, but a lot of familiar faces, including Marc Lawrence, who plays Tone Def. Watch this movie, at the very least you will definitely have an opinion of it. | 1 |
train_12273 | I think it's one of the greatest movies which are ever made, and I've seen many... The book is better, but it's still a very good movie! | 1 |
train_3097 | This show was Fabulous. It was intricate and well written and all the characters where likable with out being horribly sweet. Even Jonathan Cake the philandering boyfriend was likable. Since our airwaves are filled with crap like American Idol and Dancing with the Stars, it was nice to see a drama that was not too soap opera like. It was always intriguing to see how each character would be connected to the next circumstance. It really is annoying that we finally get a show that makes you think a little bit and have it thrown out because of some mysterious number that most of us don't even pay attention to. Some of us are not sheep. This show will be missed maybe not by a lot of people but by some pretty loyal fans. | 1 |
train_19912 | I love cheesy horror flicks. I don't care if the acting is sub-par or whether the monsters look corny. I liked this movie except for the bewildered feeling all the way from the beginning of the film to the very end. Look, I don't need a 10 page dissertation or a sign with big letters explaining a plot to me. But Dark Floors takes the "what is this movie about?" thing to a whole new (annoying) level. What IS this movie about?This isn't exceptionally scary or thrilling but if you have an hour and a half to kill and/or you want to end up feeling frustrated and confused, rent this winner. | 0 |
train_13084 | This film, like the first one ("The Man From Snowy River") has the same good and bad features, perhaps even more so than the original. Unfortunately, the bad outweighs the good. The GOOD - Magnificent scenery, better than the first film. I love those high country shots in Australia. Tom Burlinson is still a likable guy, as "Jim Craig." Bruce Rowland did a nice job with the music, too.The BAD - Once again we get an extremely obnoxious feminist heroine "Jessica" (Sigrid Thornton) who is a world-class pouter with an extremely annoying face and manner about her. In this film, we also get a big downgrade in who pays the father. Previously it was Kirk Douglas, now replaced by the always -profane Brian Dennehy. Speaking of that, it is a disgrace that a Walt Disney film would includes usages of the Lord's name in vain. That was one reason was almost totally down the tubes in the 1980s. This film, like the first one | 0 |
train_19953 | Wonderful actors. Lousy script and not too great direction either. My main problem was I simply didn't CARE about any of these people. Not the killer not the victims. The settings were pretty drab. Dennis Quaid's character was so poorly written in, I didn't even care when the end came. He got his kid back. Big deal! I wanted my money back. | 0 |
train_18761 | A couple move into their dream home, unaware that it and its neighbours have been built over land formerly used as a cemetery. The film is said to have been based on a true story, although how much of it is supposed to be true is not disclosed. The plot is hardly unique - see Spielberg's 'Poltergeist' (1982). Within a short time, they experience various supernatural phenomena: these range from the disturbing - mysterious shadows, the serious illness of the daughter - to the frankly ridiculous - toilets continually flushing and garage doors going out of control. There is little depth to the story: once it has become established that the land had been used as a cemetery, we do not learn anything more. The plot does not seem to develop. The characters are not particularly well drawn or in any way memorable, nor is the atmosphere particularly special. The film could be disturbing to some viewers. There is no sense of catharsis or any kind of positive message from it. | 0 |
train_10214 | To me, this review may contain spoilers, but I like watching movies with NO idea of what is going to happen, so therefore I think many of the other reviews here of this movie contain spoilers!I just watched this movie again, and I must reiterate that it has the BEST ending to any movie. Ever. Ever. Ever. The real translation, 'The Beating of the Butterfly's Wings', is oddly not used as the translated title. I suppose they thought most Americans wouldn't know what Chaos Theory is (except for those who saw or read "Jurassic Park"). The movie is based on chaos theory, and how one small event can affect the outcome of seemingly unrelated events, which all lead back to one event. The movie is a whirlwind of wondrous cause and effect, as we follow the chain of chaos as it intertwines between several characters (about 20?). In a way, the ending seems inevitable despite this, but if you think about it, it is a perfect ending. Think to yourself, "what else needed to be said"? It is at the same time a very brave ending. Too bad we have to go overseas for a gem like this one, but an ending like this would NEVER come out of Hollywood. | 1 |
train_5388 | I saw this movie yesterday on Turner, and I was unable to stop watching until it was over, even though I sort of could guess what would happen. Farrell was great in her role, and everyone else did a super job. Some of it seemed to stretch the limits, but all in all, I loved it!! If you get the chance to see it, please do! I actually cried at a few scenes, but then I guess if you are a mom you would. Loretta is beautiful, and I was just in astonishment at the very idea of their being unwed moms there, it seemed ahead of its' time. I say, WATCH IT if you can, and don't listen to criticisms. As they say, I laughed, I cried! I thoroughly enjoyed it! | 1 |
train_14565 | Rented it last night. The opening(2001) ran WAAAAAAAAAY too long. The hitchiker scene served no purpose. Some skits were just retarded. I knew beforehand, Chevy Chase was on for less than 2 minutes. No problem. Here are the best parts:KOKO, URANUS, BABS COMMERCIAL, Curtis Mayfield songTotal: 7 minutes of good material out of a 75 minute movieEverything else was either unfunny or stupid as hell.Let me give you some advice: If you want a crude movie spoofing TV and movies, rent "Kentucky Fried Movie". If you want a less crude movie spoofing TV and movies, rent "AMAZON WOMEN ON THE MOON" or "UHF"Otherwise, don't bother renting this movie. You'll save 2-3 dollars.IMHO: Ken Shapiro's best movie is STILL "Modern Problems" | 0 |
train_4932 | In Panic In The Streets Richard Widmark plays U.S. Navy doctor who has his week rudely interrupted with a corpse that contains plague. As cop Paul Douglas properly points out the guy died from two bullets in the chest. That's not the issue here, the two of them become unwilling partners in an effort to find the killers and anyone else exposed to the disease.As was pointed out by any number of people, for some reason director Elia Kazan did not bother to cast the small parts with anyone that sounds like they're from Louisiana. Having been to New Orleans where the story takes place I can personally attest to that. Richard Widmark and his wife Barbara Bel Geddes can be excused because as a Navy doctor he could be assigned there, but for those that are natives it doesn't work.But with plague out there and the news being kept a secret, the New Orleans PD starts a dragnet of the city's underworld. The dead guy came off a ship from Europe and he had underworld connections. A New Orleans wise guy played by Jack Palance jumps to a whole bunch of erroneous conclusions and starts harassing a cousin of the dead guy who is starting to show plague symptoms. Palance got rave reviews in the first film where he received notice.Personally my favorite in this film is Zero Mostel. This happened right before Mostel was blacklisted and around that time he made a specialty of playing would be tough guys who are really toadies. He plays the same kind of role in the Humphrey Bogart film, The Enforcer. Sadly I can kind of identify with Mostel in that last chase scene where he and Palance are being chased down by Widmark, Douglas, and half the New Orleans Police. Seeing the weight challenged Zero trying to keep up with Palance was something else because I'm kind of in Zero's league now in the heft department.Kazan kept the action going at a good clip, there's very little down time in this film. If there was any less it would be an Indiana Jones film. Panic In The Streets won an Oscar for Best Original Screenplay that year.Kazan also made good use of the New Orleans waterfront and the French Quarter. Some of the same kinds of shots are later used in On the Waterfront. In fact Panic In The Streets is about people not squealing when they really should in their own best interest. Very similar again to On the Waterfront.Panic In The Streets does everyone proud who was associated with it. Now why couldn't Elia Kazan get some decent New Orleans sounding people in the small roles. | 1 |
train_12892 | Besides being boring, the scenes were oppressive and dark. The movie tried to portray some kind of moral, but fell flat with its message. What were the redeeming qualities?? On top of that, I don't think it could make librarians look any more unglamorous than it did. | 0 |
train_3533 | Sadly not available on DVD as yet, but worth pursuing on TCM or VHS. A secretary believes her boss is wrongly accused of murder, and courageously takes on many dangerous characters in an effort to establish the truth. A movie with many twists and dark alleyways, none of which I will mention! The jazz band sequence where our heroine seeks the information about the killer, is one of the most erotic scenes in Hollywood history, despite being at very low budget and made during WWII in black and white. Despite the low budget - Long Island looks somewhat mountainous - this is a movie of original style and outstanding vision. Ella Raines was a great actress discovered by Howard Hawks who knew much about these matters, casting the feistiest women - Joanne Dru, Hepburn, Angie Dickinson, Lauren Bacall, Ann Sheridan - of their era. Robert Siodmak was of one of several German, Hungarian & Czech film-makers - Sirk, Wilder, Zinnemann, Lubitsch, Curtiz,Lang, etc - who émigrés relocated to Hollywood, and brought a highly original fresh vision with them. Sadly Ella Raines was never given such a great part again, and eventually ended up in poorly produced westerns. | 1 |
train_4447 | Barbara Stanwyck gives this early Douglas Sirk-directed, Universal-produced soap just the kick that it needs. Not nearly as memorable as Sirk's later melodramas, it's easy to see by watching "All I Desire" where Sirk would be heading artistically in the next few years. Stanwyck is a showgirl who returns to her family in smalltown, U.S.A, after deserting them a decade earlier. Her family and community have mixed emotions in dealing with her shocking return. Some of the cinematography is amazing, and Stanwyck is tough-as-nails and really gives this film a shot of energy. Overall, a fairly good show. | 1 |
train_21594 | Okay, let me break it down for you guys...IT'S HORRIBLE! If Roger Kumble did such a fancy job on the first Cruel Intentions then why did he do such a bad job on this. I'm sorry but this movie is stupid, true it may have improved if its series was ever aired but lets be realistic...this movie a crock! A lot of bad acting *NOTE The Shower scene* "Kissing Cousins" ?????? What kind of line is that? "Slipery when wet" ?????????? Can we say DUH-M! This movie had effort, I'll give you that, but it was too stupid! They even tried to make it funny by giving the house servants stupid accents which actually....WASN'T FUNNY! It was pathetic. Not to mention that they made everyone in the this one look Absolutely NOTHING like the original cast. It's as if they made them look different on purpose or something! I like watching it when I'm really really really board which doesn't happen occasionally. For those of you who did like it...Okay, what were you thinking? Could you possibly choose this movie over the other one which had great acting and the fabulous Sarah Michelle Gellar? A movie is gold if it has Sarah Michelle Gellar in it, DUH! But this movie doesn't, no offense Amy Adams. Oh, yeah since when does Sebastain have a heart????? UGH! | 0 |
train_20561 | May I start off by saying that Casey Affleck is a very talented actor and I respect his work very much. I wish he was in more movies that showcased his talent. With this said, Soul Survivors was a very, very bad movie. Very bad.I would have to say that I lay almost all the blame on the poor script. Affleck is a very talented actress, Wes Bentley had an outstanding performance in American Beauty, Melissa Sagemiller did well, and Eliza Dushku is currently the it girl in Hollywood. I don't think any of the actors really got into the script, and I understand why. To say that this movie belongs to the horror genre is an overstatement. It did have the twists and turns you would expect, but they just didn't lead anywhere... except to more confusion. I just found the ending very anti-climatic, because it just didn't seem to make any sense or really answer any of the questions that I had about the storyline.I wish I could give this movie a good review, but I can't. In all honesty, the only thing I think you will find scary about this movie is that you paid for it. | 0 |
train_17728 | I saw this movie the other night. I can't even begin to express how much this movie sucked. The writing, the voice acting, even the claymation. Terrible, Terrible, Terrible. It's like watching 24 hours of C-Span for the sake of comedy. It just doesn't work. It literally falls flat at about every spot possible.Also, the movie's animation is very poor quality. I know that this is an movie made by one person, but to think that he could make 97 minutes worth of crap, maybe he could at least make 1 second worth of funny.This show may take the cake for being the worst film of all time. Yikes. It really was that bad. If you're looking for a movie that will make you laugh, steer clear from this abomination. My advice: Don't even buy it, or look it up for that matter. Your brain will than you. | 0 |
train_14563 | Hearing about how hilarious this movie is, I finally rent it atthe video store and for 75 minutes maybe I laughed 3 times. Thismovie, a collection of skits that make fun of television is anincoherrent mess. The jokes fall flat, the humor deals withissues from the 1970's that just aren't relevant anymore, andthe jokes go on way too long (almost like the new SNL skits thepast few years). Yeah, Chevy Chase is in this but maybe of allabout 1 or 2 minutes. I liked the fact that this was veryraunchy and had nudity galore but couldn't it be funny? Doyourself a favor and rent Kentucky Fried Movie which is a farsuperior film made in the | 0 |
train_19536 | I'm not ruining anything when I inform you that you get to see a woman have sex with a goat in this movie. If that is your thing, then your movie has arrived.A woman and her husband go to see her estranged sister in the family mansion in the woods. Her sister is a creepy lady to say the least, and she seems to have interests that go beyond family love. On the side a group of unsavory characters show up and begin enacting all kinds of pagan rituals.The plotting is pretty weak and the characters are pretty dumb. The woman sticks around even after her husband starts turning into a jerk and hanging out with the pagans, even continues the have sex with him. On the exploitative side of things, there is much bared flesh and a couple of kinky couplings, but nothing that hasn't been better somewhere else. Oh, and the aforementioned goat-sex scene.Most viewers won't make it to the end. Exploitation fans will ride it out, but will be left wanting more.4/10 | 0 |
train_13977 | I have seen Dolemite and also (Avenging) Disco Godfather, two other fine works of the blaxploitation canon from our friend Rudy Ray Moore. But this film, The Human Tornado (aka Dolemite 2) will always hold a special place in my heart. For sheer goofiness, lack of skill in film production, and absolute enthusiasm (frankly a little too much), The Human Tornado cannot be topped.The opening scene sets the tone. Our old pal Dolemite is shacking up with a white woman, when some racist local cops raid the house for no good reason, and wouldn't you know it! The woman in bed with ol' Dole is none other than the sheriff's wife. Her cry when she sees him: "He made me do it!" Dolemite's cry: "&$*@$ are you for real???" Subtlety was never his strong point.Highlights? The cameo by a very young Ernie Hudson (of Ghostbusters fame), the continuity errors (characters looking one way in one shot, and another in the next, Dolemite's suit changing colors in every single shot of his nightclub act), and Queen Bee's demonic eyes in her first scene.But the real joy here is Rudy Ray Moore himself. Did the man really think he looked cool in this movie? I certainly don't know why, but you have to admire the sheer enthusiasm he has. Whether it be jumping totally naked off a cliff, or barking orders to his gang in rhyme (e.g: Quick! Into the cave! I have a plan to let that mother $*@(%& dig his own grave!) the man commits totally. Certainly he goes overboard, nevermore so than any time he's doing kung fu. The climactic battle is filmed at high speed, but occassionaly slows down to let Rudy pose and grits his teeth. I'm not sure if they wanted it too look like they sped up the film as an effect or if they really wanted us to believe he was that fast. In any event, "The Matrix" it is not.Human Tornado, much like the original Dolemite, is an incompetent film of enormous proportions. But at least it's fun, and certainly you have to give credit to these people for the effort. Just not that much. Enjoy with my hearty recommendations. | 0 |
train_6840 | the fact that the movie is predictable is not a problem. this movie is like a beautiful painting to be enjoyed. the museum scene is like a nice music video. the apres sex scene is an all too familiar scene in all of our adult lives. but the movie would not hold any interest for me without keith gordon. keith gordon is maybe one of the most underrated actors of our time. almost everything i know about acting came from studying mostly his eyes. he had the most compelling face. his character possesses the qualities i look in a guy, sensitivity and dedication. keith gordon is gorgeous. BTW, i kinda wish he'd shave his beard now as his lips, jawline and adam's apple were his prettiest set next to his eyes. | 1 |
train_20339 | Serge Farnel made a very precise critics of this film in the revue "The Rwandese night" (www.lanuitrwandaise.net)A critics which shows how France was behind all the situation undergone by the United Nations in Rwanda.The UN soldiers were in a dangerous situation while the french soldiers were warmly welcomed by the genocide forces.The day before, ten UN soldiers had been killed by the genocide forces.That is why the UN soldiers decided to protect their own lives by driving behind the french trucks.By doing so, they gave up the Tutsi which is unforgivable of course.But we must keep in mind that the french soldiers organized this situation. | 0 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.