id stringlengths 7 11 | text stringlengths 52 10.2k | label int64 0 1 |
|---|---|---|
train_21553 | Simply, I found the TV show "Mash" trite, preachy, oh ever so "politically correct", repetitious, pretentious and biggest sin of all, and that is,? that it is (was) incredibly dull. You have Alan Alda as the main lead, "(star)", who is so in love with himself and his cleverness, that it actually made me uncomfortable to even try and sit through an episode. The original series had both McLean Stevson, and Wayne Rogers, whom I'll happily admit had a certain panache and style to their character presentation. However, Harry (Henry) Morgan, and Mike Farrell, both singularly and compositely together is like eating caviar and fresh oysters with Wonder Bread. Loretta Swit, which I also found dull, also to no fault of her own wasn't a wonder to look at, and Gary Burghoff, who was good in the movie got tired looking and acting as the show wore on. Seeing one show a year showed that to me. Jamie Farr was just low brow "comedy" and is not even worth really mentioning here at all. The reason I did not give it a (one) rating, which anyone reading this by now would be wondering, is that ratings of any sort is not only a subjective call, but a relative one. Television, except for relatively few exceptions, is such crud. That relatively speaking, Mash had some production quality, (by television standards) of that era and today, and therefore it is deserved of a two. Rob Ritter | 0 |
train_2763 | People tend to complain about the number of films being made about mentally disabled people. I don't see this as a valid criticism, no more than complaints of too many films about any sort of people. Jaco van Dormael does a wonderful job with the script and direction. Daniel Auteuil and Pascal Duquenne work perfectly together, with Duquenne basically playing himself. The film covers a surprisingly large ground of events, and isn't simply content to go over what was seen in "Rain Man". The ending is rather depressing, but it doesn't ruin the wonderful story that has come before.7.8 out of 10 | 1 |
train_18232 | I'm all for a "bad" horror movie but this was just a pile of dog sh!t! How anyone can call this movie cool or decent is beyond me. If you like rushed editing to cover the special effects, bad acting and a bad script then go for it! There was no suspense whatsoever and the gore factor was laughable because it was so fake. I'll take Hostel or Wolf Creek over this pile any day. My partner gave up after about 20 minutes, she knows a stinker when she sees one. I on the other hand stupidly sat through the whole movie just to wait and see if it got any better. No such luck! I haven't sen his other movie Torched and I doubt if I'll bother now. | 0 |
train_23167 | Don't get fooled with all the big names like Burt Reynolds,James Woods and Anne Archer. They are just glorified extra's. Their scenes were probably filmed in one day or so. Whatever their motives for being in this movie, if you have an actor like James Woods you better make good use of him. To me this is a sign of bad direction through and through. The plot itself wasn't that bad. And the acting from most of the actors was above average. Cuba Gooding Jr. however was terrible. He was so unbelievable that I almost laughed at his dramatic scenes. And since this was meant as a serious movie that can't be a good thing. The action scenes were not bad,but they lacked that special punch to make it more exciting. Again better direction was needed. Also the pacing was wrong for a movie like this. It took the main character almost half an hour to get in action. For an action thriller of only 90 minutes that is far too slow. The only redeeming factor is Angie Harmon. She does her best to make it all work. Too bad the director left her hanging. Yes,this movie could have been much better with a great director. Andy Cheng is far too inexperienced as a director to pull it off. And for an action/stunt coordinator of his caliber you'd expect at least more exciting action scenes. Don't waste your time with this one. Avoid! | 0 |
train_22133 | Is rich, ailing Elizabeth Taylor courting the Angel of Death on her island fortress in the Mediterranean, or is she just overreacting--or more precisely, overacting--as usual? Actually, both are applicable in director Joseph Losey's wandering, meandering mess called "Boom", appropriately titled since tempers in the lush, luxurious setting are nearly ready to explode. Richard Burton climbs Taylor's mountain uninvited; she dresses him in a samurai's robe complete with saber. Though great-looking in widescreen, the picture is otherwise quite deadly, a failure even Liz 'n Dick-philes should shun (the stars' collective "what the hell!" attitude to their late-'60s film careers reached an ego-mad nadir here). Pointless, confused, and maddening, "Boom" is a catastrophe--although screenwriter Tennessee Williams, who adapted his own unsuccessful play "The Milk Train Doesn't Stop Here Anymore", was said to be quite fond of it! * from **** | 0 |
train_18832 | I looked forward to seeing this movie when it came out, since I was a huge SNL fan. When my boyfriend and I went to see it, the people coming out of the early show were yelling, "Don't waste your money!" But of course we had to find out for ourselves.While there were a few funny bits (Laser Bra 2000, Root Boy Slim), most of it felt like it could have been severely edited down to an amusing 1 hour show. It was pretty bad.When the opera singer came on, many people got up and walked out. This made me laugh, because I realized that O'Donoghue was just pressing people's buttons on purpose with this movie. Or else he was just insane. Whatever - you don't need to waste your time watching it, it's that bad. | 0 |
train_20421 | The plot of Corpse Grinders 2 is very much similar to the original Corpse Grinders, what is left that is different from the other film consists of weird aliens.It is my belief that this film would be the #1 worst film on IMDb - if anyone had actually watched it. The plot is disconnected and, in several (way too many) instances, makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The real wonder here is why in the world was this sequel created to such an unsuccessful and horrendous (but still somewhat better) film.I would highly recommend this film if you enjoy watching terrible movies for a good laugh. | 0 |
train_24885 | This film is so ridiculously idiot that you may actually laugh at it. But no, even this is too much for this lost meters of celluloid. I found it as an offer in a magazine and that's why I've seen it. I regret the time I lost to see this. 1 out of 10 (because they don't have a lower grade). | 0 |
train_21550 | I saw this film in its entirety in the 1960s & 70s, yes it IS gruesome, and could be the progenitor of the "Faces of Death" series popular in the 80s & 90s. Considering the state of so-called "driver education" these days, this one should be required viewing for everyone preparing to learn to drive. When you see violent death in all its gore & horror, you certainly (if you have any sensibility at all) get a truer perspective on the responsibilities required to drive safely, what one instant of thoughtlessness or inattentiveness at the wheel can do. I worked for Bell Telephone in the 70s & 80s, and at one point was assigned to conduct a safety class. I found this film in the company library, showed it at the session, a number of people got physically sick and had to leave the room! Incredibly, most of them later said "I never knew a car accident could be so terrible!" This film, and another, "RED ASPHALT", is certainly reality in its most graphic form. I'll never forget it, I only wish I could have found a copy when my children were attending "driver's ed" in high school! | 0 |
train_18332 | I can appreciate what Barney is trying to achieve, but after sitting through this last night at a college movie house, I couldn't help but think...when is this gonna end? A very long and ponderous two hours and fifteen minutes. I had only seen a part of Cremaster 3 on DVD and thought I knew what to expect. That said, experimental films such as this are better digested in small increments. There are a couple of beautiful/horrible images...including the title sequence (no kidding), but if you go into this expecting any kind of plot or meaning, then you are in for a long, snooze-inducing ride. I managed to stay awake for the whole thing (if that's a compliment) but more often than not, I was waiting for some kind of meaning or narrative...big mistake. Among the collection of images are a very ornate gift-wrapping ceremony, the creation of a disgusting dish of what appears to be petroleum jelly slabs formed with a cookie cutter and sprinkled with shrimp (this is served to the crew of the ship which is shown throughout the film), a large blubber cheesecake with a large tentacle turd placed in the center of it, and the mutual evisceration of Bjork and director Matthew Barney which eventually culminates in some bizarre kind of communion, followed by their transformation into whale-like creatures. The soundtrack is at times beautiful and annoying...sometimes even maddening. At one time, there is a song being sung by Bjork to go along with the ephemeral rituals being played before us, and at other times there is just a constant droning of a high-pitched instrument, which we see a mysterious woman playing at the beginning and end of the movie. If this sounds like it doesn't make sense, that is because is DOESN'T! If this sounds like your cup of tea, then you will absolutely LOVE it! If this sounds like something that you probably won't like, then stay far away from it, because you will most likely walk out of the theater during the halfway mark like several people at the screening I attended. This is the very definition of an art film. You get from it what you take from it. But otherwise, there really isn't much there, other than a few oddities and constant construction and deconstruction rituals. I'm glad that there is a place for films such as this, but I can't say I would want to sit through it again. However, I can't say I wouldn't want to see one of Barney Cremaster films from start to finish and compare it with this. I think, perhaps now that I know what to expect I might enjoy something like this more. To give you an idea of what kind of comprehension factor this film has, I probably would've liked it better if I had gotten stoned. Then again, it could've felt twice as long as it was, and then it would've REALLY gotten ponderous. Definitely not for everyone. | 0 |
train_12538 | or anyone who was praying for the sight of Al Cliver wrestling a naked, 7ft tall black guy into a full nelson, your film has arrived! Film starlet Laura Crawford (Ursula Buchfellner) is kidnapped by a group who demand the ransom of $6 million to be delivered to their island hideaway. What they don't count on is rugged Vietnam vet Peter Weston (Cliver) being hired by a film producer to save the girl. And what they really didn't count on was a local tribe that likes to offer up young women to their monster cannibal god with bloodshot bug eyes.Pretty much the same filming set up as CANNIBALS, this one fares a bit better when it comes to entertainment value, thanks mostly a hilarious dub track and the impossibly goofy monster with the bulging eyes (Franco confirms they were split ping pong balls on the disc's interview). Franco gets a strong EuroCult supporting cast including Gisela Hahn (CONTAMINATION) and Werner Pochath (whose death is one of the most head-scratching things I ever seen as a guy who is totally not him is shown - in close up - trying to be him). The film features tons of nudity and the gore (Tempra paint variety) is there. The highlight for me was the world's slowly fistfight between Cliver and Antonio de Cabo in the splashing waves. Sadly, ol' Jess pads this one out to an astonishing (and, at times, agonizing) 1 hour and 40 minutes when it should have run 80 minutes tops. For the most part, the Severin DVD looks pretty nice but there are some odd ghosting images going on during some of the darker scenes. Also, one long section of dialog is in Spanish with no subs (they are an option, but only when you listen to the French track). Franco gives a nice 16- minute interview about the film and has much more pleasant things to say about Buchfellner than his CANNIBALS star Sabrina Siani. | 0 |
train_528 | If you want to be cynical and pedantic you could point out that the opening where a RAF Lancaster bomber is mortally wounded on the 2nd of May 1945 is somewhat unlikely since German air defences were as lively as Adolph Hitler on that day but this isn't a movie that should be viewed by a cynical audience and I guess a character being killed in literally the last hours of the war adds to the poignancy . In fact you'd have to have survived the second world war to fully appreciate the intellect , beauty and soul of Powell and Pressburger's masterpiece . The scenes of heaven are painfully twee when viewed today ? Again you have to view the movie of the context when it was made . RAF bomber command lost 58,000 men during the war , the same number that America lost in 'Nam but during a shorter period and a far , far smaller pool of active combatants , there's no atheists in a fox hole and I doubt if you'd lost a relative during the conflict you'd view material atheism as being a sensible thing . When Richar Attenborough's young pilot looks down in awe at the sight below him many war heroes must have openly wept at this scene as they remembered much missed comrades who didn't survive the war . Also bare in mind that despite losing several million people from 1939-45 there seems to be very few people from Germany passing through the pearly gates . it's obvious Nazis don't go to heaven The plot itself where dashing young pilot Peter Carter arguing for his life in front of a celestial court wouldn't have had much appeal to me if it wasn't for the subtext , you see A MATTER OR LIFE AND DEATH is a highly political and visionary film that laments the end of the British empire as it's replaced by American ambitions . There's little things that show up the film as being made by people aware of American history and culture . One is the ethnic mix of America , even today many Britons think that the USA is overwhelmingly composed of White Anglo Saxon Protestants when in fact only 51% of Americans are " White European " . The film rightly contains a scene where a multitude of different races confess " I am an American " as Peter is judged by Abraham Farlan , an Anglophobe who was the first revolutionary killed by British forces in The American War Of Independence . As for the " special relationship " between Britain and America - What special relationship ? Powell and Pressburger know their history when it comes to Britain and America . They obviously know their future too So remember to watch this movie with some of your mind in the past and some of your mind in the present . It's strange , beautiful , poignant and clever but most of all it's a film that would never ever work if it were made in the last 40 years . Can you imagine if the story was set in 2003 and revolved around a British soldier killed in Iraq ? | 1 |
train_9328 | The Perfect Son is a story about two 30-something brothers, one who is seemingly "perfect" and the other who is basically a screw-up, frequently landing himself in drug rehab centers. After the death of their father, the two are brought together after a long absence and the usual sibling rivalry resurfaces. It isn't until the "perfect" brother makes the startling revelation that he has AIDS that the irresponsible younger brother finally makes a move to get his life in order, and take some responsibility.The movie does a nice job of chronicling the younger brother's "comeback", though it may seem a bit far-fetched at times (beating drug addiction is never so easy). What makes the film more tender is the treatment of AIDS, a topic that has become somewhat passe in cinema over the last 5-10 years. And also the development of an almost sweet relationship between the two formerly feuding brothers is very believable and well-done. The two main actors were both very competent, if not terribly charismatic.A solid first feature effort from director and writer Leonard Farlinger whose own brother died of AIDS. The ending is nicely done as well. | 1 |
train_9749 | I watched this movie with my mother when I was in high school many years ago. I definitely was not the least bit interested in opera at the time, but he changed my views. I enjoyed this movie very much and have truly enjoyed opera ever since. I even bought several of his CD's. Who cares what his acting abilities were, he basically just played himself, which was adorable. He was so charming, so charismatic; I honestly just wanted to hug him. I feel very sad that so many are criticizing him so harshly. It was so straight, did not accept people pushing him around or judging him for his actions. He deserves to be respected and admired for his talent. He will definitely be missed!!! | 1 |
train_543 | This movie is the best horror movie, bar-none.I love how Stanley just dumps the women into the lake.I have been a fan of Judd Nelson's work for many years, and he blew me away. Its a blend of horror, and drama ,and romance, not so much comedy. His evil, yet charming look captured me right then and there. That look in his eyes, I will never forget. There's something about him, I cant describe. | 1 |
train_3911 | Eddie Izzard is a one-in-a-million comic genius. He goes from squirrels to WWII to Stonehenge to religion to Englebert Humperdink and it's absolutely hilarious and it all makes sense! Get a copy of this now, you won't regret it! I give this an 11 out of 10. | 1 |
train_7461 | Comparable to Fight Club, The Matrix, A.I., Sixth Sense, among others. This film approaches the psyche in a way never done before. The first 30 minutes builds a interesting love story between Diaz-Cruise-Cruz. The rest of the movie is, well, confusing, you'll pick more every time you watch it (i've gone to the movies to see it 3 times now) | 1 |
train_16656 | Yes, this movie is bad. What's worse is that it takes no advantage whatsoever of its own title!! In the ENTIRE movie, zombies and vampires fight each other ONCE OR TWICE. On top of that, we're never really sure if the main character in the movie is DEFINITELY a vampire. One might argue they were trying to "tone it down" or make it "realistic," but it ends up just boring. More than half of this movie takes place IN A CAR. The scenes that take place anywhere else aren't much to brag about, either. Also, there's no clear antagonist, and in the end you have no idea what really happened for the last 30 minutes of the movie. However, I will say that for a film this low in production value, the soundtrack was surprisingly appropriate and instrumented (with either an origonal score or sampled music from elsewhere). I'm all for independent films, but it doesn't look like this was ever intended for a mass audience (if any). "worse than Scarecrow slayer." | 0 |
train_425 | I would like to comment on the movie April Love. It's one of my all time favorites because my father, Nelson Malone plays the horse trainer. I remember distinctly when Hollywood came to Lexington, KY, where we were living at the time to make April Love. My Dad had been in numerous plays and was a talented man. I talked him into going to try out for one of the bit parts offered, and lo and behold he came home w/the script. How exciting is that! Also, a number of my classmates were in the crowd scenes -- especially the ones shown at the amusement park. It's very nostalgic every April when I see the movie being shown once again, and the song April Love by Pat Boone is still played on the radio. Timeless and reminiscent of a time long gone when you see the movies they make today w/all the sex, foul language and violence. It would be refreshing to see more movies like April Love come back into focus... | 1 |
train_3054 | "Panic" is kind of a crime comedy-drama with William H. Macy, Donald Sutherland and Neve Campbell in the leading roles. Alex (played by Macy) is a guy who kills people for living. But for the moment he's facing a depression and that's why he is seeing a therapist. That's where he meets Sarah (Neve Campbell) and he falls in love with her. He's also facing another problem: he wants to quit the family business (the killings), but he doesn't now how to tell this to his father.What follows is the story of a guy during he's midlife-crisis, facing the regular problems: falling in love with a pretty young girl and everything that goes with that.Pretty good acting performances by the cast. Macy is excellent as the depressed Alex. I had high expectations for this one and it was a good movie but he doesn't completely deliver. The story was rather flat and cliché..7/10 | 1 |
train_9772 | Theodore Rex is possibly the greatest cinematic experience of all time, and is certainly a milestone in human culture, civilization and artistic expression!! In this compelling intellectual masterpiece, Jonathan R. Betuel aligns himself with the great film makers of the 20th century, such as Francis Ford Copola, Martin Scorcese, Orson Welles and Roman Polanski. The special effects are nothing less than breathtaking, and make any work by Spielberg look trite and elementary. At the time of it's release, Theodore Rex was such a revolutionary gem that it raised the bar of film-making to levels never anticipated by film makers. The concept of making not just a motion picture featuring a dinosaur, but adapting an action packed, thrilling detective novel, co-staring a "talking" dinosaur with a post-modern name such as "Theodore", and an existential female police officer changed humanity as we know it. The world could never be the same after experiencing such magnificent beauty. Watching Theodore Rex is much akin to looking into the face of God and hearing Him say "you are my most beloved creation." This is one of the few films that is simply TO DIE FOR!!! | 1 |
train_16972 | 'A Smile LIke Yours' is a pathetic comedy that actually makes no sense. I don't mean that the story was complicated, but the entire plot is based on one thing: a couple's desperate and expensive unsuccessful attempts to conceive children. People who tried that hard must've forgotten of the option of the adoption, to which this movie is not kind to.Lauren Holly plays Jennifer Robertson, a complete contradiction to anything offered by the women's liberation movement, exhibiting almost no sense of independence. She is quite a boring character as the dreamy housewife with absolutey nothing else on her mind but to have kids. Like a dumb 50's romance comedy, Greg Kinnear is her submitting husband who likewise displays no personality, no independence, and from us, no interest.They are the two most boring and often annoying characters, and they hardly make for topics of a comedy that should present itself with many mishaps, which should arise from a couple doing all they can to get pregnant. Except, they really don't do anything except go to a fertility clinic and shell out a whole lot of money to do what they could do in the privacy of their own (except for that in vitro fertilization number). The plot hardly allows for any mishaps, because well, the couple don't do anything to create any sort of bizarre situation. They just go to this clinic. So what?The subplots are meant to test the faithfulness of the couple, a necessary moral element of the story since the couple does plan on conceiving children together. Jennifer works at a new age shop with her friend (played by Joan Cusak), and they are in the business of developing aphrodesiacs. Christopher MacDonald plays the intrested buyer and Jennifer is the promising negotiator of a pretty price for her and her friend's product. The subplot hardly offers much to keep you interested (although Joan Cusak is pretty funny in the restaraunt scene).Danny (Kinear) is an architect, who finds an opportunity to make some extra money to cover the clinic bills, by taking on a job in Seattle, where his boss is the crass seductress (also another hopeless, helpless female character) who tries to influence Danny (as dumb as he is) to have an affair with her once things are conveniently rocky with him and his wife (for reasons I don't care to give away). Jill Hennesy is good in the role, but her character is too predictable, and too formulaic as a much needed element to create conflict for Danny. It is stupid and once again, hardly interesting. The overall movie itself is utterly boring, and hardly funny at all (save the restaraunt scene and the airline flight). The plot offers nothing that is really attention-grabbing. Even if the story was entirely about two people trying to conceive, the writers could've figured out several hilarious mishaps to develop out of that. Second, the main characters are completely boring. They are complete silouhettes of dumb 1950s comedies with happy wife and clueless husband. So, even without mishaps present in the plot, the characters themselves offer nothing interesting, let alone funny.Joan Cusak should've been in the lead and someone else should've taken Kinnear's part. Cusak would've made even a lousy story outrageously funny (as she sometimes does in her co-starring role here). This is definitely one to pass up. | 0 |
train_13214 | This is a movie of tired, yet weirdly childish, clichés. There's a Nazi witch master performing sf-related experiments in the basement? Oh please! Aiming for a creeping sense of horror and fear, the general impression of the film is that of a very immature conception of fright. Not having any expectations beforehand, I am left with: an aged Xander from Buffy and a heroine with ape-like face who doesn't seem to know how to act. Said Adrienne Barbeau have I only only encountered before in the much more enjoyable "Cannibal Women in the Avocado Jungle of Death".Camera and editing adds to the general impression of lame. | 0 |
train_12064 | "The Woman in Black" is easily one of the creepiest British ghost stories ever made.A young solicitor,after arriving in a small town to handle a dead client's estate,is haunted by a mysterious woman dressed all in black.The film is loaded with extremely eerie atmosphere and the frights are calculated for and deliver the maximum effect possible.The action keeps the viewer deeply involved and the finale is quite disturbing.The acting is excellent and the tension is almost unbearable at times.So if you want to see a truly creepy horror film give this one a look.I dare anyone to watch "The Woman in Black" alone at night with the lights off.Highly recommended.10 out of 10. | 1 |
train_20427 | This movie is AWESOME. I watched it the other day with my cousin Jay-Jay. He said it was alright, but i think it RULEZZZ! I mean, it's so cool. Ted V. Mikels is so brave and smart. He made a movie totally unlike those terrible Hollywood films, like the Matrix and STop or my Mom will Shoot. It could have been better, though. I like ninjas and pirates. I also like that big talon that the funny man wears. I think he's the coolest guy since that Domino Pizza claymation guy. Not only does this movie look really cool, like those out-of-focus movies my dad made of my birthday when I turned 6. BUt it tells a complex tale with dozens of characters that seem to be totally unrelated, but they all meet up in the end. It's genius how this web is woven to make everything meet up. I wish Ted V. Mikels would make a sequel. But it needs more aliens. And a pirate. | 0 |
train_23793 | This movie was a real torture fest to sit through. Its first mistake is treating nuclear power as so self-evidently a 'bad thing' that it barely needs to convince the audience of it. When it does stoop to putting in its argument, it has the participants breathlessly deliver barely substantiated facts ; all that's missing is someone crying "when is someone going to think of the children!". While watching this movie, I kept thinking "where'd you hear that?" or "that can't possibly be true" - yet little of the info was backed up by any reliable sources. And bless 'em, the 'regular folks' in the movie came across more like Luddites than people with any understanding of the pros and cons of nuclear power; to be fair, that might be the fault of the film-makers, but equally fairly, it's a condition shared by the movie's rock stars.As for the performers........... Now some of these people are highly respected musicians whose music I've enjoyed, and I'm sure a few of them really did believe in this cause. But they all come across as wheezing old hippies desperately searching for something to get worked up over, now that the 60s have passed them by. Particularly embarrassing are Graham Nash and James Taylor. Nash seems to be trying too hard - he looks like he can't possibly believe the things he's being told (not that I blame him), but desperate to feel noticed and included. James Taylor performs what has to be the wimpiest protest "anthem" ever, "Stand and Fight", in the most sickeningly cheerful way you can imagine. In fact, most of the performances are pretty bland when they're not being patronizing. Nobody seems worked up by this event, as if it really doesn't mean much to them at all. It's worth noting that the driving force behind this whole event seems to be John Hall, of the band Orleans, and responsible for some of the wimpiest MOR pop of the 70s. (Remember, if you dare, "Dance With Me" and "Still the One".) It's worth noting because that's symbolic of how the cause here fails to inspire any real passion in the music. The cause is supposedly life-or-death, but everybody sleepwalks through their numbers like they're playing the Catskills. Except maybe Gil-Scott Heron - his protest number "We Almost Lost Detroit" is on topic at least, but delivered with all the smugness of a high-schooler impressed with how 'controversial' he's being.Only Bruce Springsteen's performance raises a pulse; I've never been a big fan of the Boss, but he absolutely smokes, no question. Part of me thinks he was taped separately, at another event, and edited into this movie to give wake the audience. Compared to the general blandness and air of self-satisfaction here, it's no wonder Bruce was hailed as the savior of rock'n'roll.But even his performance is hobbled by the lifeless concert shooting. I don't expect a lot of flashy camera movement from a '70s film, but the shots are unnecessarily static, broken up only by split-second cutaways to a back-up singer's tonsils. Now, some of this may be because the performers are lifeless to start with; and *maybe* the film-makers are more skilled at shooting documentaries than concert footage - but all you have to do is watch "Rust Never Sleeps" or "The Last Waltz" to see a movie like this done with more skill. And with more exciting musicians. So really, there's only two things to watch this movie for: Springsteen's stellar performance, and as a sad snapshot about a counter-culture in decline. | 0 |
train_6939 | I was very impressed with this film. I would have to rate it as one of the better classic-era westerns. I say that for the whole thing: the acting, mature dialog, no- nonsense story and excellent cinematography.Director Anthony Mann, who did several well-photographed film noirs around this same era, also made some westerns such as this one. It has that same film-noir look. Mann and Jimmy Stewart collaborated on several westerns during this period. . If you like this movie, I recommend the Mann-Stewart film "Bend Of The River."In a nutshell, the story is about a man, "Lin McAdam," (Stewart) who owns this prestigious Winchester 73 rifle, a weapon he won fair-and-square in a contest. It is then stolen and passed on from villain to villain. All of those villains are interesting characters.Aiding Stewart act out this interesting tale are Shelley Winters, Dan Duryea, Stephen McNally, Millard Mitchell, Charles Drake, Will Greer and J. C. Flippen. All of them are fun to watch. It was a bit of a stretch, however, to see Rock Hudson playing an Indian ("Young Bull"), but you can't have everything. | 1 |
train_18765 | I happen to be the director's nephew. It's taken me years to get my hands on a copy of this film and I can confirm that it is indeed one of the worst movies of all time. My uncle doesn't even have a copy of it anymore (I asked). I'm looking forward to bringing him a copy.Currently the film's average rating is 1.9/10. As far as I can tell, that should put it somewhere in the mid-30s in the IMDb "bottom 100," however with only 206 votes, it hasn't yet placed.It's sad that the film doesn't even get the respect of a bottom 100 title.Anyhow, I'm giving copies of the movie to family members this year for holiday gifts. Best/Worst gift ever? | 0 |
train_971 | This film is a bit reminiscent of the German film, THE NEVERENDING STORY because a child is magically transported to a strange land in order to be a hero. However, due to far superior modern technology, puppets and CGI are used to make an amazingly realistic looking world--one that will blow your socks off due to its realism and scope.I enjoyed this film, but boy was it a chore at first! Unfortunately, for most Westerners, this film is one you might give up on very quickly or dismiss it since everything in the film seems so odd. However, give it a chance. Don't think or try to understand everything you see--just allow the story to unfold and you will most likely enjoy the film.In many ways, this is exactly the sort of advice I'd give to adults who watch Miyazaki's SPIRITED AWAY because it is very similar and features tons of Yokai (Japanese mythical spirits). The big differences between the two is that THE GREAT YOKAI WAR is live-action and SPIRITED AWAY is much more child-friendly. While I do think THE GREAT YOKAI WAR was intended mostly as a kids' movie, in the USA, most parents would not want to show this to younger kids because it's so violent, scary and features some adult behaviors. So who is the audience in the West? Well, older kids and adults who appreciate foreign films with non-Western themes and composition. This is a rather narrow audience, indeed! While you are watching, look for all the strange little touches. In fact, you could watch the film dozens of times and notice different tiny things each time. A few of the funny references I liked were the comment about Gamera, the scene that came with the comment "KIDS: Don't Try This At Home" as well as the use of Kirin beer to allow a person to actually see the Yokai (hmm,...perhaps that scene should have also contained this warning)! By the way, director Takashi Miike is a hard one to pin down stylistically, other than to say that none of his stories I've seen have seemed "normal". Some of his films are rather disgusting and disturbing and I hated them (especially AUDITION and ICHI THE KILLER)whereas some of them are magical and among the best films I've ever seen (THE HAPPINESS OF THE KATAKURIS). One thing for sure, it's hard to watch one of his films and not have a strong reaction one way or the other. | 1 |
train_21435 | Seldom seen since theatrical release in 1970, MYRA BRECKINRIDGE has become a byword for cinematic debacles of legendary proportions. Now at last on DVD in an unexpectedly handsome package, it is as unlikely to win wide audiences today as it was when first released. Gore Vidal's 1968 bestseller was a darkly satirical statement. Most filmmakers felt that the novel's story, structure, and overall tone would not translate to film, and industry insiders were surprised when 20th Century Fox not only acquired the rights but also hired Vidal to adapt his novel to the screen. But studio executives soon had cold feet: Vidal's adaptations were repeatedly rejected and novice writer-director Michael Sarne was brought in to bring the film to the screen.Studio executives hoped that Sarne would tap into the youth market they saw as a target for the film, but Sarne proved even more out of synch with the material than the executives themselves. Rewrite upon rewrite followed. The cast, sensing disaster, became increasingly combative. In her DVD commentary, star Raquel Welch says that she seldom had any idea of what Myra's motives were from scene to scene or even within any single scene itself, and that each person involved seemed to be making an entirely different film. In the accompanying "Back Story" documentary, Rex Reed says that MYRA BRECKINRIDGE was a film made by a bunch of people who hid in their dressing rooms while waiting for their lawyers to return their calls.The accuracy of these comments are demonstrated by the film itself. The basics of Vidal's story are there, but not only has the story been shorn of all broader implications, it seems to have no point in and of itself. Everything runs off in multiple directions, nothing connects, and numerous scenes undercut whatever logic previous scenes might have had. And while director Sarne repeatedly states in his commentary that he wanted to make the film as pure farce, the only laughs generated are accidental.Chief among these accidents is Mae West. It is true that West is unexpectedly well preserved in appearance and that she had lost none of her way with a one-liner--but there is no getting around the fact that she is in her seventies, and her conviction that she is the still the sexiest trick in shoe leather is extremely unsettling, to say the least. But worse, really, is the fact that West is outside her era. Her efforts to translate herself into a hip and happening persona results in one of the most embarrassing self-caricatures ever seen on film.The remaining cast is largely wasted. Raquel Welch, a significantly underestimated actress, plays the title role of Myra very much like a Barbie doll on steroids; non-actor Rex Reed is unexpectedly effective in the role of Myron, but the entire role is essentially without point. Only John Huston and cameo players John Carradine, Jim Backus, William Hopper, and Andy Devine emerge relatively unscathed. Yes, it really is the debacle everyone involved in the film feared it would be: fast when it should be slow, slow when it should be fast, relentlessly unfunny from start to finish. It is true that director Sarne does have the occasional inspired idea--as in his use of film clips of everyone from Shirley Temple to Judy Garland to create counterpoint to the action--but by and large, whenever Sarne was presented with a choice of how to do something he seems to have made the wrong one.The how and why of that is made clear in Sarne's audio commentary. Sarne did not like the novel or, for that matter, the subject matter in general. He did not want to write the screenplay, but he needed the money; he emphatically did not want to direct the film, but he need the money. He makes it very clear that he disliked author Gore Vidal and Rex Reed (at one point he flatly states that Reed "is not a nice person"), and to this day he considers that Vidal and Reed worked in tandem to sabotage the film because he refused to play into their 'homosexual agenda'--which, when you come right down to it, seems to have been their desire that Sarne actually film Vidal's novel rather than his own weirdly imagined take-off on it.Although he spends a fair amount of commentary time stating that the film is widely liked by the gay community, Sarne never quite seems to understand that the appeal of the film for a gay audience arises from his ridiculously inaccurate depiction of homosexual people. When taken in tandem with the film itself, Sarne emerges as more than a little homophobic--and quite frankly the single worst choice of writers and directors that could have been made for this project.In addition to the Sarne and Welch commentaries and the making-of documentary, the DVD release includes several trailers and two versions of the film: a "theatrical release" version and a "restored" version. The only difference between the two is that the final scene in the "restored" version has been printed to black and white. The edits made before the film went into general release have not been restored, but the documentary details what they were. The widescreen transfers of both are remarkably good and the sound is quite fine. But to end where I began, this is indeed a film that will most interest film historians, movie buffs, and cult movie fans. I give it three out of five stars for their sake alone, but everyone else should pass it by.Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer | 0 |
train_3414 | This interesting documentary tells a remarkable tale of an expedition to take blind Tibetan children trekking in the Himalayas; but also of a personality clash between two remarkable people. On one hand, there is Erik Weihenmeyer, the first blind man to climb Everest, and the team of (sighted) mountaineers who are guiding the kids. On the other, there is Sabriye Tenberken, a blind woman who runs the first school for blind Tibetans, who agrees to the expedition but subsequently has doubts about how it is progressing. At some level, Sabine simply doesn't understand the mountaineer's philosophy (with it's emphasis on summitting); she is probably right in identifying the mismatch between the mountaineers goals and the desires of the children but her certainty in her own correctness makes her a hard person to sympathise with, especially as she has an effective veto. In the background to this (reasonably well-mannered) clash, we get an insight into the lives of the children themselves. I enjoyed the film, although it delivers a message clearly designed to be uplifting - even though it details the quarrel, the film somewhat relentlessly asserts how amazing all those who feature in it are. But it's hard to argue with that assessment, even if it is presented to the viewer somewhat unsubtly. | 1 |
train_11919 | This movie is perfect for families to watch together. It is a great film and it deserves more credit. The special effects are stunning and spectacular. Everyone who has children should share this with theirs. | 1 |
train_10207 | This film has renewed my interest in French cinema. The story is enchanting, the acting is flawless and Audrey Tautou is absolutely beautiful. I imagine that we will be seeing a lot more of her in the States after her upcoming role in Amelie. | 1 |
train_17625 | As a youth pastor I heard good things about this movie. Then I watched it. The acting wasn't the best. That's forgivable. It's the message that's not: Give Jesus your life and everything will change - you'll tackle better, make amazing catches, stop fumbling, start making touchdown passes, and even make the playoffs. All because Jesus magically turns horrible undersized weaklings into All-American athletes. I laughed out loud when a coach quoted scripture to explain to the kicker why he was missing field goals. But wait, that's not all. You'll get a brand new truck, a $6000 raise, and you and your wife's struggle with infertility will suddenly end in pregnancy - twice. THEN you'll win the state championship because God helps a weakling kick the winning field goal 12 yards further than he's ever kicked before - and into the wind, no less - all because "God wanted him to make it." Then you'll win the state championship again the next year. None of this good stuff would have happened if the team hadn't chosen to follow Jesus will all their hearts.Here's what I took away from the movie: God can do anything he wants to do whenever he wants to do it - and it's all about making our lives better, easier, and more enjoyable. He chooses his favorite team and helps them win games. Which bible is this story based on? I'll bet Saint Stephen wished he'd known the keys to such a safe life before he was stoned to death. Someone should have made this movie before 10 of the 11 apostles were killed for following Jesus. It would have saved them all a lot of trouble. | 0 |
train_21631 | I can hardly believe I watched this again last night after more than 25 years...Some time back, I watched 6 Fu films in a row... Boris Karloff, and all 5 Chris Lees. The last 2 Lees, both directed (and I use that word loosely) by Jess Franco, were abominable. At the time, I skipped this one, remembering that, in some ways, it was EVEN WORSE.Well, I watched it. NEVER again. You know what's worse that an abominable film? A really WELL-MADE piece of S***. And that's what FIENDISH PLOT is. It is a VERY good-looking movie. GREAT production design, sets, costumes, music, photography, editing, mostly good cast, some decent acting......and absolutely, positively, one of the WORST SCRIPTS in movie history!!!!! AAAUGH!!!!! The first minute of the film is so deceptive... one might mistake this for a decent movie. And then they start singing "Happy birthday to Fu"... and it goes downhill. Having Burt Kwouk (of whom his master says, "Your face-- is familiar.") accidentally pour out Fu's elixir vitae to put out a fire, resulting in his being condemned to torture, burial and having one of his ears cut off, was the closest thing to funny they had. It was like someone decided they wanted to do a "campy" film-- so ridiculous it would be funny. RIDICULOUS, it is... FUNNY... it AIN'T. At all.It's sad, because it's clear in the first few minutes that someone did a LOT of research into the Fu Manchu series in order to get so much of it "right". With a different script-- either a really FUNNY one, or a dead SERIOUS one, they might have-- could have-- SHOULD have-- had a classic on their hands. A film that could have made one forget the horror of those Jess Franco atrocities... instead of making one want to dig them out as masterpieces, by comparison.There was a period in the late 70's when a whole slew of classic 30's characters were revived in movies that were universally awful. Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon, Tarzan, The Lone Ranger, Charlie Chan, even Doc Savage. I'm not sure, this one may be the worst of the lot. It took great self-control not to fast-forward over whole sections of it, especially any scenes containing Sid Caesar (FBI chief who was also Al Capone's cousin-- you see what I mean?). It isn't just that the ideas in the film aren't funny... they often make NO SENSE whatsoever. Like when they "audition" police officers to impersonate the King and Queen, and we wind up seeing people "audition" dance-hall routines like singing, dancing, and riding a unicycle. How many drugs did the writers of this thing have to take for any of this to make sense to them? As I said, a shame... and a real waste of all that talent, including that of Peter Sellers (who played both Fu and Nayland Smith), Burt Kwouk (who'd been in a Chris Lee Fu film in his time), Helen Mirren (the police woman who shockingly falls in love with the villain and damn near steals the last half-hour of the film!). I begin to wonder if anyone will EVER make a "proper" Fu Manchu film, or if fans will have to settle for Karloff's being almost the ONLY one? | 0 |
train_21722 | I really love the sexy action and sci-fi films of the sixties and its because of the actress's that appeared in them. They found the sexiest women to be in these films and it didn't matter if they could act (Remember "Candy"?). The reason I was disappointed by this film was because it wasn't nostalgic enough. The story here has a European sci-fi film called "Dragonfly" being made and the director is fired. So the producers decide to let a young aspiring filmmaker (Jeremy Davies) to complete the picture. They're is one real beautiful woman in the film who plays Dragonfly but she's barely in it. Film is written and directed by Roman Coppola who uses some of his fathers exploits from his early days and puts it into the script. I wish the film could have been an homage to those early films. They could have lots of cameos by actors who appeared in them. There is one actor in this film who was popular from the sixties and its John Phillip Law (Barbarella). Gerard Depardieu, Giancarlo Giannini and Dean Stockwell appear as well. I guess I'm going to have to continue waiting for a director to make a good homage to the films of the sixties. If any are reading this, "Make it as sexy as you can"! I'll be waiting! | 0 |
train_7016 | Although I can understand the bad things someone has to say about this movie, I still found it to be absolutely amazing. It will touch you, and unless your a critic searching deep into the flaws and mishaps of every movie, or you just simply aren't touched by anything, it is worth seeing. Don't come into the movie expecting anything, just have a box of tissues and an open mind. It is beautiful and the acting is brilliant. I think Will Smith, despite that he's yet again playing another lonely depressed individual, is amazing. I believe a good actor is someone who can truly portray feelings and emotions we all have at our worst/best experiences in such a way that it reaches out to you and makes YOU feel something. And that's exactly what this movie does. Give it a chance. | 1 |
train_733 | How can you go wrong with the amazing Ramones? What a crime that two of them are already dead. It reminds me of the Dennis Leary joke about great musicians dying in kitchen fires while useless ones live forever. I'm paraphrasing here, but you get the idea.ROCK AND ROLL HIGH SCHOOL tells the story of a group of disenfranchised kids fighting against their oppressive high school's administration. It's extremely silly stuff, but there's an optimism about it that's refreshing (even if they do resort to blowing up the building). Who knew that this would actually become a concern for students around the world? ROCK AND ROLL HIGH SCHOOL is a time capsule of an era when people still believed that music mattered and that it could make a difference to the larger society. It's full of kids who know authority doesn't have the correct answers. Rather, rock and roll is the only thing they can trust.But most important, this is pure exploitation.Take none of it seriously. Just go in and have a good time. If this wasn't what high school life was like in the seventies, then it should have been. | 1 |
train_19762 | There are some really terrific ideas in this violent movie that, if executed clearly, could have elevated it from Spaghetti-western blandness into something special. Unfortunately, A TOWN CALLED HELL is one of the worst edited movies imaginable! Scenes start and end abruptly, characters leave for long stretches, the performances (and accents) of the actors are pretty inconsistent, etc.Robert Shaw is a Mexican(!) revolutionary who, after taking part in wiping out a village, stays on to become a priest(!)...ten years later the village is being run by "mayor" Telly Salavas. Stella Stevens arrives looking for revenge on the man who killed her husband. Colonel Martin Landau arrives looking for Shaw. They all yell at each other A LOT and they all shoot each other A LOT. Fernando Rey is in it too (as a blind man). The performances aren't bad, but they are mightily uneven. Savalas has an accent sometimes as does Landau (who is really grating here). Shaw and Rey prove that they are incapable of really embarrassing themselves and Stevens looks pretty foxy (if a bit out of place amongst the sweaty filth). | 0 |
train_6824 | Watching John Cassavetes film, Opening Night, I was reminded of something that Quentin Tarantino said once in an interview about personal experience in being a creator of art or acting. He referred to an example of, say, if he ran over a dog while on his way to act in a play that it wouldn't be the end of his life but that it would affect him, and that, without a doubt, he would have to bring that experience with him on stage even if it was a light comedy. "Otherwise," as he said, "what am I doing?" I couldn't help but think of his words when watching Gena Rowland's character, Myrtle Gordon, who for almost a whole week or so goes through a very similar scenario. There is more to this in Cassavetes' film, of course, since it's about how the theater works around a star actress, what emotion and human nature mean when looking at playing a character, and how one lives when all one has (like Myrtle Gordon) is the theater.Near the beginning of the film, after exiting a performance, Myrtle is signing autographs and one such fan named Nancy comes up to her favorite star and pours her heart out to Myrtle. It's a touching little moment, but it doesn't last as she has to get in the car (pouring rain and all). She then watches in horror as the girl, who stood right next to the car as it drove off, gets hit by another car in an auto accident. She's not sure really what happened, but then finds out the next day that in fact the girl did die from the hit. From then on she's sort of stunned by this even after she thinks it's out of her system. At first this shows in small ways, like when she rehearses a scene with her fellow actor (played by Cassavetes) and can't seem to stand being hit - she blames it on the lack of depth in the character (the writer: "What do you think the play lacks?" "Hope," says Myrtle)- but then Nancy starts to show up to her, an apparition that to Myrtle is all to real, until she's suddenly gone.Cassavetes, as in the past films, is after a search for what it means to have emotion, to really feel about something and feel it, or the lack thereof, and how it affects others around the person. This isn't exactly new ground for Rowlands, who previously played a woman on the edge of herself in Woman Under the Influence (in that case because of alcohol), nor would it be alien territory for costar Ben Gazzara, who just came off starring in Killing of a Chinese Bookie. But the actors express everything essential to their characters in every scene; Cassavetes doesn't tell them how to get from A to B in a scene, and he doesn't need to. There's a mood in a Cassavetes film that trumps the sometimes grungy camera-work. You know Myrtle, for example, should be content somehow, even if it isn't with the plot. But she's haunted, and is unsatisfied with her character's lack of depth and the tone of the play ("Aging, who goes to see that?" she asks the playwright), and it starts to affect those around her too.The question soon becomes though not what is the usual. A conventional dramatist would make the conflict 'Will she be able to go on stage, will the show go on?' This isn't important for Cassavetes, even if it's there, as is the question 'Will she be alright?' Perhaps going through such a grueling play as "The Second Woman" could help her work out her personal demons and her losing her grip on reality (seeing Sara and attacking her in front of total strangers, who wonder what the hell is going on)? Or will the play's lack of hope strain everything else wrong with her? The depths Rowlands makes with her character are intense and harrowing, and that it's expected doesn't mean it's any duller than Woman Under the Influence- if anything, it's just as good as that film at being honest about a person in this profession, and consequently the other performances are just as true, from Gazarra to Nancy played by a subtle Laura Johnson. Cassavetes answers to his own posed questions aren't easy.One of the real thrills of Opening Night, along with seeing great actors performing an amazing script, is to see Cassavetes take on the theater the way he does. We see the play performed- and it's apparently a real play- and we only know slightly what it's about. When we see the actors on the stage performing it, we wax and wane between being involved in what melodrama is going on (relationship scuffling and affairs and the occasional slap and domestic violence) and the improvisation of the actors. I wondered watching how much really was improvised, how much Cassavetes allowed for the other actors to do in the scenes where Myrtle starts to go loopy or, in the climax, is completely smashed. He's on the stage, too, so it must have been something for them to work it out beforehand and let what would happen happen.It's funny, startling, chilling, and edge-of-your-seat stuff, some of the best theater-on-film scenes ever put in a movie, and we see the lines between actor on stage, actor on film, actor with actor, blur together wonderfully. Opening Night is a potent drama that is full of frank talk about death and madness, reality and fiction, where the love is between people, and really, finally, what does 'acting' mean? | 1 |
train_10757 | **Warning! Mild Spoilers Ahead!**(Yes, I realize it's tough to spoil an historical documentary, but I do reveal some of the backstory and methods.)This is an exceptional documentary not just because of the remarkable footage, but also due to the story behind it. Because the Naudets did not set out to tell the story of 9/11, but rather that of a rookie firefighter, the men's emotions and the viewer's connection with them are more real and powerful than they would be in a standard retrospective. In a filmmaking sense, "9/11" is textbook. If the events were an actual script, they would be superb, as the characters are established, then thrown a curve to which they must react. This is all the more amazing considering the pain and emotion of the raw footage that the directors had to wade through to piece this story together. The first portion of the film provides a glimpse of life inside a fire station; specifically, how a rookie assimilates himself into a crew of veterans. That part alone is quite good, and had the documentary been allowed to run its intended course, it probably would have been solid. The brothers appear to realistically portray the process of becoming a NYC firefighter. Then of course, all hell breaks loose. The chaos following the WTC attacks is vividly seen, as various characters that we have gotten to know are thrust into terrifying situations. Seeing not only the attacks, but also the first-hand reactions is a very moving picture of extreme human emotion. The aftermath, in which firefighters are discovered to be lost and found, is human drama at its peak. Life and death hang in the balance. Unlike many movies, the viewer not only doesn't know who will live and die, but genuinely cares about them. The only negative thing I have to say about this is that the Robert DeNiro (whom I like) blurbs were uninformative, unnecessary, and didn't advance the story at all. They were probably added just to attract more television viewers.Bottom Line: The best documentary I've ever seen. Nonpareil portrayals of raw human emotion and drama. 9.5 out of 10. | 1 |
train_24069 | Even if you subscribe to the knee-jerk anti-free-trade politics of this movie, it is still just the same tired note, played again and again and again. Clink clink clink. Even if you can accept a preacher with peroxide hair who advocates a return to first principles, the Reverend Billy is pretty hard to look at as a serious figure. The clownish reverend is the sort who wakes every morning with no aspiration more ethereal than to see his own face on TV before he climbs back into bed that night. He has a pretty wife, I have to admit, but it would take tons more than that to save this dreary mess of a movie. The interminable bus rides are the worst part--with progress shown--can you guess?--by a colored line moving across a map. Aww, you guessed. Oh well, it has the virtue of being short. Is that the only favorable thing I can say? Hmmmm. Yep, afraid so. | 0 |
train_16068 | The truth is that a film based on a Harold Robbins novel is not going to win any awards. This is no exception. "The Lonely Lady" is a pure B picture in budget, cast and execution. Technically, it looks like a made-for-tv film. The acting is very uneven. Joseph Cali is especially terrible. Anthony Holland is an embarrassment. As one reviewer said of a certain Katherine Hepburn performance, her range goes from A to B. Ms Zedora manages to get to G. The rest of the cast is solid (and wasted in their respective roles). Lloyd Bochner and Bibi Besch deserved better. Still, the whole thing can be a great deal of fun in a trashy sort of way. As befits Robbins, everything revolves around sex and nudity. If you're looking for some fun...and you're not too sober...this could be for you. | 0 |
train_13395 | but "Cinderella" gets my vote, not only for the worst of Disney's princess movies, but for the worst movie the company made during Walt's lifetime. The music is genuinely pretty, and the story deserves to be called "classic." What fails in this movie are the characters, particularly the title character, who could only be called "the heroine" in the loosest sense of the term.After a brief prologue, the audience is introduced to Cinderella. She is waking up in the morning and singing "A Dream is A wish Your Heart Makes." This establishes her as an idealist (and thus deserving of our sympathy). Unfortunately, the script gives us no clue as to what she is dreaming about. Freedom from her servant role? The respect of her step-family? Someone to talk to besides mice and birds? In one song (cut from the movie but presented in the special features section of the latest DVD) Cinderella relates her wish that there could be many of her so she could do her work more efficiently. You go girlfriend! In short, Cinderella is a very bland character. She passively accepts her step-family's abuse, escaping into her unspoken dreams for relief. She only asserts herself once by reminding her stepmother that she is still a member of the family. For this, she is given permission to go the ball if she completes her housework and finds something to wear, a token gesture that is clearly absurd to everyone except, of course, Cinderella. Can anyone see Belle or Jasmine being such a doormat? If Cinderella is dull, her male counterpart is nothing short of lifeless. The Prince in Cinderella gets no dialog and almost no screen time. We are given no indication if he is a good man, if he respects Cinderella or anything. All we know is 1) he is a prince and 2) he dances well. Heck, even the prince from "Snow White" got to sing a romantic song at least. Not only does this lack of development make the romance less interesting, it makes Cinderella look like either a social climber or an idiot, weakening her already tenuous appeal.Perhaps realizing how dull the main characters were, the animators chose to give excessive screen time to the movie's comic relief, Cinderella's friends, the mice. Granted, these characters are amusing. Even so, when the comic relief steals the show from the principals, well, let's just say your story has some problems.Dinsey loves to proclaim all its animated features as "masterpieces." While many of them are, there are some that do not deserve this appellate in any way. Cinderella is a prime example of this fact. | 0 |
train_8647 | If this is supposed to be a portrayal of the American serial killer, it comes across as decidedly average.A journalist [Duchovny] travels across country to California to document America's most famous murderers, unaware that one of his white trailer trash travelling companions [Pitt] is a serial killer himself.Rather predictable throughout, this has its moments of action and Pitt and Lewis portray their roles well, but I'd not bother to see it again. | 1 |
train_14001 | The only remarkable fact is the participation of Klaus Kinski who plays a priest. Don't ask me why he does it! A bad, bad movie overall. | 0 |
train_23461 | Though the movie may have been "true" to Lewis's book (in that the script was basically word-for-word, verbatim), it failed to capture any of the grandeur that would otherwise be associated with an epic story like this. The mythical creatures (unicorns, centaurs, griffins, ghouls, ghosts) are *drawn* in, and as in the previous review, the green-screen flying sequence was very hard to swallow. I nearly laughed to death when I saw the humanoid beavers with their giant stiff suits and buck teeth; I nearly cried when I heard the wolf's "howl--" a man in a grey fuzzy suit basically shrieking as loudly and as girlishly as he possibly could.All of the acting is tremendously forced, especially that of little Lucy Penvensie... I could only take so much indignation, desperation, and buck teeth in the (what felt like) fourteen hours of watching the movie. The actress who plays the White Witch, in all her histrionics, seems that she'd be more at home on stage, where a booming voice, spread arms, and a valiant effort at something Shakespearian would be more than welcome. The sets feel claustrophobic, whether the scenes are taking place indoors or outdoors. Indoors, it's as if BBC could only afford to spend $100 on constructing a set, and so it is very small, and all the characters are constantly huddled together. The White Witch's castle is a run-down, rotting countryside English castle filled with Styrofoam statues and bad lighting. When the Penvensie children are wandering through the woods-- actually, *any* scene in the woods-- feels like they are simply wandering around in circles. The only thing that looks decent in the film is Aslan, but you can bet that BBC probably blew the film's entire budget on building the mechanical feline. It looks great when it's standing still and before it starts speaking, but once it starts moving, you can't help but pity the poor man who has to be the rear-end in the lion suit. Yes, if you are a hardcore Narnia fan, you may want to see this version, simply because it preserves every word that Lewis ever wrote-- but Lewis was certainly no screenwriter, and a lot of the dialogue feels chunky and awkward when on screen. During the scene in which the children are at the Beavers' and getting ready to flee from the wolves, Mrs. Beaver's incessant, "oh, just ONE more thing, dearies, and then we will be ready to go," punctuated by the children's simultaneous cries and sighs and moans of "NO, Mrs. Beaver, PLEASE!" -- a scene of comic relief, so incongruous (they are supposed to be FLEEING from imminent danger, not wondering about whether to pack the sewing machine or not), detracts from the drama that the scene might otherwise have. In fact, the whole movie is peppered with directing faux pas such as these. I would recommend seeing the new Narnia (Disney 2005). The new movie, with updated effects, spectacular computer animation, great timing all around, and a gorgeous and scene- stealing White Witch (who plays her part with all the subtle evil of a seasoned politician, as opposed to a shrieking banshee) captures all of the grandeur and the magnificence of the world of Narnia without detracting the least bit from Lewis's original vision (I think). Lucy is a lot cuter (NO buck teeth, YAY!), as are the beavers (and realistically-sized), and bratty BBC Edmund has nothing on the divine, Desperately-Hungry-for-Acceptance-Insecure-and- Angsting-with-an-Inferiority-Complex Edmund that the new Disney version fronts. Unless you're the type who enjoys wasting time by making fun of campy movies, I would not recommend this film to anyone. | 0 |
train_4294 | There wasn't a dry eye amongst the audience yesterday afternoon after I left the cinema, having seen this gem of a film in a sold-out house as part of this year's Hamburg Film Festival. And the tears shed were all of laughter. This film was hilarious, there's no other way of saying this. There wasn't one boring bit in it, I laughed right through it and with me everyone else of us three hundred lovers of French cinéma.Alain Chabat was absolutely terrific. A great clown if needs be and serious if the situation calls for it. The performance was of course completely over the top, but this was exactly what the story needed and what made it work so well. Equally great was Charlotte Gainsbourg who I love to see a lot, and the mother was also a very strong performance. The sisters could have been a bit more detailed in character script-wise, but apart from that there is nothing to moan about. I had a great afternoon seeing this film while Hamburg was drowning in rain outside, and I wish films like this from France would get a regular release in Germany. But the distributors is this country don't seem to understand that the French make good films. I at least can't wait to find a DVD which offers subtitles (Hello Australia? Please?) because that film I need at home to watch several more times! | 1 |
train_15622 | I couldn't give this film a bad rating or bad review for two reasons: Robin Williams and Toni Collete. The film has the potential of being a thriller and there are some slight disturbing elements that lean to the psychological which was something the film could have focused a little on. Robin Williams plays Gabriel Noon, a storytelling night time deejay who is going through personal issues: his lover moves out and Gabriel is having what seems to be a case of storyteller's block. One day he receives and reads a story written by a dying 14-year old boy named Pete Boland (Rory Culkin). Pete tells the story of his life and the abuse he suffered at the hands of his parents. He lives with his adopted mother and social worker, Donna Boland (Toni Collette). Gabriel is fascinated and begins a friendship with Pete, but things seem strange when Gabriel attempts to meet him and discovers the possibility that Pete Boland may not even exist. I won't go into detail because I don't want to spoil the film, but I will tell you this: it is quite predictable. Fascinating atmosphere for telling a story and good performances from Robin Williams and Toni Collette, who I thought was the film's key character. Collette is without question one of the most talented and loveliest actresses. Her ability to tap into the psyche and personality of the characters she portrays is very uncanny and I hope to see her win an Oscar (hell, I think she might pull off getting a Best Supporting Actress nod for this one if the script were a little better). The film starts off as a psychological thriller, but a predictable one at that. If your curious to know the film's ending and twists, then see the film otherwise I would rent another predictable thriller called "Hide and Seek". | 0 |
train_16950 | Julia Roberts obviously makes a concerted effort to shake off her cotton wool Pretty Woman persona with this spurious spousal abuse thriller, but it's hard to imagine she'd end up putting in a performance as powerful and convincing (and oscar winning) as she did in Erin Brokovich based on the back of this rubbish. And make no bones about it, it's nothing more than a Julia Roberts vehicle, but unfortunately, her performance is not the most lacklustre thing about it.The plot has all the markings of a late night made-for-cable, and don't be under the impression that it will offer any insight into the dark world of domestic abuse because non of the characters are sketched out enough for you to really care. Ultimately disappointing and unsatisfying, without Roberts' name above the title, I'm sure it would have totally flopped, deservedly. | 0 |
train_24986 | Rich ditzy Joan Winfield (a woefully miscast Bette Davis) is engaged to be married to stupid egotistical Allen Brice (Jack Carson looking lost). Her father (Eugene Palette) is determined to stop the marriage and has her kidnapped by pilot Steve Collins (James Cagney. Seriously). They crash land in the desert and hate each other but (sigh) start falling in love.This seems to be getting a high rating from reviewers here only because Cagney and Davis are in it. They were both brilliant actors but they were known for dramas NOT comedy and this movie shows why! The script is just horrible--there's not one genuine laugh in the entire movie. The running joke in this has Cagney and Davis falling rump first in a cactus (this is done THREE TIMES!). Only their considerable talents save them from being completely humiliated. As it is they both do their best with the lousy material. Cagney tries his best with his lines and Davis screeches every line full force but it doesn't work. Carson has this "what the hell" look on his face throughout the entire movie (probably because his characters emotions change in seconds). Only Palette with his distinctive voice and over the top readings manges to elicit a few smiles. But, all in all, this was dull and laughless--a real chore to sit through. This gets two stars only for Cagney and Davis' acting and some beautiful cinematography but really--it's not worth seeing. Cagney and Davis hated this film in later years and you can see why. | 0 |
train_17344 | I am definitely in the minority opinion on this one. "The Hurt Locker" has won more "Best Picture" awards from the critic groups than any other film this year. However, not only did I not like it, I found it hard to sit through.There is minimal plot and little character development. They disarm bombs, fight, and disarm more bombs. That is the entire movie. But the worst part was that the camera never stops moving and is constantly shaking. This has been a recent fad in film making and it is supposed to make it seem more real because it has a cheap, documentary look to it. The camera was shaking so much it was making me nauseous to look at the screen.I normally don't care for war movies and "The Hurt Locker" was no exception. But you don't need to take my word for it because the critics love it. | 0 |
train_22019 | But I doubt many were running to see this movie. Or "Some Came Running Out Of The Cinema". Okay, that's a bit harsh.The film starts in an unintentionally comical way: Frankie-boy comes back to his hometown after many years (this already smells of clichés) and the whole town is shaken by his arrival: he is talked about, everyone wants to talk to him, and every woman he meets flirts with him like there's no tomorrow - even his niece hints that she would gladly have dropped her date to chat with Frankie-boy a little longer! Even his pretty niece wants a piece of him! Sounds like one of those laughable "Mike Hammer" episodes where EVERY single female wants Stacey Keach. And, like Stacey Keach, Frankie-boy is anything but a good-looking woman's wet dream. In real life, someone like Sinatra (without the fame) wouldn't get within 100 m of someone as beautiful as MacLaine. But in this Hollywood movie it's the other way around: MacLaine is absolutely nuts about Frankie-boy, but HE couldn't care less! Sinatra plays his "cool" shtick much too often in his movies, and it is rarely credible. Dean Martin is kind of miscast; he isn't miscast as a card-player, but rather because of the accent which simply doesn't suit him. MacLaine is charming as ever, but she plays a caricature - and this reliance on caricatures is one of the basic problems with the film. The main characters are all some sort of stereotypes out of bad or seen-it-all-before movies and cheap novels; Frankie is the "cool cat" who comes back to town to get all the women, and he couldn't care less about his writing (which, predictably, eventually garners recognition); Martin is a sleazy but friendly card-player; MacLaine is the dumb, but very likable bimbo; Frankie's blond love-interest is a snotty literary expert; Frankie's brother is the successful guy who married into his wife's business and has a lousy marriage; and so on. Clichés.The story contains a couple of coincidences which are a little too far-fetched for my taste: Frankie just happens to bump into his niece in a locale; his niece just happens to be meters away from her daddy when the latter kisses his secretary for the FIRST time; and then there is the awful, stupid ending.In it, a drunk guy bent on killing Frankie-boy somehow manages to find him in a carnival of all places! The place is utterly crowded, with the typical noise and chaos - plus it's happening in the evening - and yet the guy somehow finds Frankie (in spite of being drunk as a doorknob) and shoots at him. But guess who he kills? MacLaine. She jumps in front of the bullet to save Frankie: a cliché which comic-book writers might cringe at. This utterly pathetic, over-dramatic, and annoying ending certainly cannot please any, even semi-intelligent, viewer. And this happens on the same day that MacLaine and Sinatra got married! The writer of this nonsense seems to have read crappy dime novels his whole life - how else is the writing of this movie to be explained? There is even a card game in which a brawl ensues with Frankie & Martin vs. some cliché caricatures out of the writer's "vivid" imagination. (It was like a damn Western suddenly.) Another dumb thing is the way Sinatra was crazy about the boring snotty-nosed bimbo and pretty much ignored MacLaine. As the movie progresses we find out that Sinatra finds MacLaine to be too dumb for him, just as the blond bimbo finds Sinatra to be too low-class for her. There is a certain snobbism and disdain to be detected in the script regarding MacLaine. MacLaine is treated as worthless by everyone, while the blond bimbo is treated as a princess and an intellectual; the ironic truth is that the latter's character comes off as rather dumb and not at all as intellectual; her behaviour, comments, and opinions are mostly clichéd, silly, confused, pretentious, and primitive. At least MacLaine's character KNOWS that she (MacLaine) is dumb. There is another irony that I didn't fail to notice: Sinatra had trouble finding an ending for his latest story - much like the writer of this movie, and that's why he came up with the corny, crappy finale.The film basically has a solid cast, and the photography is nice, but the script, though sometimes okay, relies to heavily on silly nonsense instead of on reality-based characters and events.If you're interested in reading my "biographies" of Shirley MacLaine and other Hollywood intellectuals, contact me by e-mail. | 0 |
train_15285 | I know that some films (I mean: European films), that are very bad films, are being regarded as great cinema by certain "critics", only because they're non-American. I saw the 8.1 IMDB score for this film and noticed the fact that this was being selected for certain big festivals. Don't let this fool you! Unless you're one of those people that likes mind-numbing films like this, and call it great art afterwards, skip it! The film contains one hilarious scene after another (a similar, Italian, film popped into my mind, the terrible PREFERISCO IL RUMORE DEL MARE (I prefer the sound of the sea)). The problem with these films is that they're not only boring, like some other strangely praised films, but that they almost play like camp. I mean, let's face it, the acting is horrible (I mean: soap opera-level), the story has not one surprise (this has been done endless times before, connecting several storylines: SHORT CUTS, MAGNOLIA, PLAYING BY HEART, only much better), not one realistic character in it (some true freak-seeing along the way, notice the hilarious zombie-like daughter), and so on and so on.As if that's not enough, the film is 135 min. (count it!) long, and at the end the director opens his can of sentimentality. After a film with such hilariously bad dialogue and scenes that made the public at the preview screening laugh at so much incompetence, well... This is an insult to cinema, and only receives high ratings because it happens to be in "another" language, in this case Spanish. Strange world we live in...3/10 | 0 |
train_20679 | "A trio of treasure hunters is searching the West Indies for a hidden fortune. The lure of gold makes for a rise in tension as the men come closer to the treasure's location. The deep-sea divers hope to track down the gold, but find that greed and hatred leads to murder," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis. "Manfish" is the name of their boat, not a monster. The skeleton who gives muscular Captain John Bromfield (as Brannigan) his half of the treasure map is very good. Old salt Victor Jory (as Professor) provides the other half of the map. First mate Lon Chaney Jr. (as Swede) plays dumb, and sexy Tessa Prendergast (as Alita) guards the rum (not very well, obviously). Serious editing and continuity problems mar the picture, which otherwise might have amounted to something.*** Manfish (2/56) W. Lee Wilder ~ John Bromfield, Victor Jory, Lon Chaney Jr. | 0 |
train_15353 | Vic (Richard Dreyfuss) is a mob boss, leaving a mental institution, back to his world of gangsters. How can a director have a cast with Richard Dreyfuss, Ellen Barkin, Jeff Goldblum, Diane Lane (very gorgeous), Gabriel Byrne, Gregory Hines, Kyle MacLachlan, Burt Reynolds, Billy Idol and a make such a waste of time? This movie is a comedy that is not funny, having a constellation in the cast. My vote is four.Title (Brazil):' Prazer em Matar-te!' ('Pleasure in Killing You!') | 0 |
train_13898 | I bought this (it was only $3, ok?) under the title "Grey Matter". The novelty of seeing Sherriff Roscoe in a non-DukesOfHazzard role intrigued me. As the other reviewers warned, it's a pretty boring tale of a top secret government experiment gone awry.And yes, there are plenty of establishing shots, especially of a house with a pool in front of it. Some of the characters and interiors are so nondescript I guess the filmmakers worried we might forget who is who, so they keep tipping us off by first showing the outside of the buildings. It's actually kinda funny. After awhile the pool shot feels like a tv channel's station identification logo, reminding us that we are watching "Grey Matter".I also enjoyed two bouts of name-calling. At one point an angry test subject taunts somebody in charge by calling her a "Scientific b*tch!". It's just a very inadequate insult. Several scenes later a different subject lets off steam by muttering about that "scientific b**tard!". It just sounded very awkward to me.Someday this movie will disappear forever. Another decade from now it will likely be impossible to find any copies of it. Almost like it never happened. | 0 |
train_14197 | I am a great fan of David Lynch and have everything that he's made on DVD except for Hotel Room & the 2 hour Twin Peaks movie. So, when I found out about this, I immediately grabbed it and...and...what IS this? It's a bunch of crudely drawn black and white cartoons that are loud and foul mouthed and unfunny. Maybe I don't know what's good, but maybe this is just a bunch of crap that was foisted on the public under the name of David Lynch to make a few bucks, too. Let me make it clear that I didn't care about the foul language part but had to keep adjusting the sound because my neighbors might have. All in all this is a highly disappointing release and may well have just been left in the deluxe box set as a curiosity. I highly recommend you don't spend your money on this. 2 out of 10. | 0 |
train_7101 | Contrary to popular belief, this title , to me at least, is not so very bad. In fact. I regard it as a favoured film of all time. The welding of stories wasn't structured too well when you consider the differences between the series, however despite all this, you can watch it quite happily. For a feature film of its day, the scenes are well proportioned and the characters remain consistently believable.The sound/audio track is a personal favourite of mine. Nearly everything has a correct sound effect and many of the voices suit the characters much better than their, now badly cast US dub, counterparts. The sync is perfect in every shot. I had a few issues with the casting for the 'alien' voices (please forgive the crude naming, it has been a while since i've seen it). Otherwise however, the cast seemed perfectly balanced. I feel and believe in the characters of this movie. Dubs are often a subject i rarely agree with from so long ago. I loved the OSD's from back then but the castings often let series down.At this point i would like to add that this was one of the first anime i saw in my life. It has historical value to me, but even after seeing the original Megazone 23 it remained stronger and more watched in my collection.To my knowledge the title only ever made it to the US in Texas. Personally i think its a big shame. Had the correct audience been subject to it, i think Robotech the Movie would have been accepted and not tarnished over the years. I am involved with anime each day of my life and everyone i have shown this movie thought it was a nicely put together title.Watching the film after its separate components will allow the viewer to notice the evident plot holes between shows. However, without seeing the originals, a viewer wouldn't really notice. Since the animation is identical in style, there was no reason to question it back in its day. The UK had very limited access to anime. Laser discs were the most productive media. Personally i like the way Carl had the balls to at least push the genre. I mean Harmony wasn't going to put up the cash for the series to get publicised.Despite the few picky faults people have had with this film, The eighties feel of it keeps me in love. If you watch Megazone 23 now, to its original Japanese audio, or the new dub, i believe you will be greatly disappointed with the OSD. Cast your minds back to the original Bubblegum Crisis Dub soundtrack and imagine new eighties audio to E.V.E.Saying all this. This film's popularity nowadays is most likely down to its rarity on the open market. Personally, it spawned a collection for me. I'm now scouring the world for merchandise from the three components that made it up and if i ever get to meet Carl Macek, ill shake his hand for the effort, and buy him a pint or a crate for getting me into anime. | 1 |
train_1027 | I'm not great at writing reviews, so I'll just spout my opinions...I loved this series at first. The adventure, the action, the comedy, the drama... I thought it was all brilliant. Anderson, Tapping, Shanks, Judge, Davis... I loved them all. Davis, it seemed, was the fifth-most important person in the cast. Not a big deal. But when his character (General Hammond) left at the end of the seventh season, and Anderson's character (Colonel O'Neill) moved from the field to the office, the quality of the series suddenly fell off a cliff. I don't know whether it's because Hammond was more important that I realized or what, but for some reason, after the seventh season, the series turned to ****.The first seven seasons, though, were awesome. The movie Stargate seemed mediocre the first time I saw it, but it turned out to be, even if this wasn't the original intention, a brilliant setup to the series. I recommend that you watch the movie first, then watch the first season of the TV series, then watch the movie again (you'll have a whole new appreciation of it the second time around, believe me), and then watch the rest of the TV series.The last three seasons of the series aren't nearly as good as the first seven, but that doesn't mean they aren't good. It just means they're a letdown if you've gotten spoiled by the first seven seasons.After you have finished this series, be sure to watch the spin off series, Stargate: Atlantis. It is a worthy successor to this brilliant series.EDIT on 7-18-08: I just found out that Don S. Davis died a few weeks ago. It is a great loss. | 1 |
train_9910 | As with most Rosalind Russell movies, this one is very entertaining -- it's fun all the way through. It's definitely one of the last of this genre of film -- just good wholesome entertainment. Give it a try - I don't think you will be disappointed. | 1 |
train_3691 | The whole does not even come close to the sum of the parts. No problem. This film features a line-up of some of the most diversely creative directors of our time and some really famous names in the cast. The segments are devised around the same theme, "Love in Paris", but the resemblance ends there. Actually, considering that the approach to the theme from all these different directors takes so many forms, it is amazing that we can even feel we are still watching the same film. No great effort has been made to turn it into a comprehensive whole. This buffet has so many great ingredients, I am glad nobody tried to put them all in a single dish. | 1 |
train_4821 | One of those beautifully intense movies that draws us so intimately far in, it ends much to soon! Than were left looking at the screen like, "No they didn't!", lol. Good performances all around! The acting is marvelous with Emily Blunt simply outstanding! I knew she would give a solid, convincing performance catching young Victoria's regality, temper, and vulnerability through out the entire movie. Also, the production is outstanding in every way: style, substance and sensitivity. A remarkable glimpse at a remarkable time in Britian's history told via a very personal and touching biography of the school age princess until her reign as Queen, later marrying Prince Albert, than ending with the birth of their first of nine children. It had a well written screenplay and flawless editing. Rupert Friend as the ever so patient and compassionate young Prince Albert vying to win the young Queen's attention, than securing her love, before Lord Melbourne(Paul Bettany), was engrossing to watch. Just as engrossing was the relationship between the teenage Victoria and her mother, which was fury at times, as with her mother and King William (whom also disliked her mother). The acting and scenes were captivating, highly emotional. I would recommend this to anyone interested in the historical and political situation existing in that era, and indeed, anyone who loves a compelling true romance story | 1 |
train_9509 | Wow, this movie was absolutely brilliant. I really don't know why everyone says it has a slow pace. I thought the pace was perfect. The movie is about Michael Sullivan played by Tom Hanks with perfection who is a sort of hit-man/ killer working for John Rooney (Paul Newman). He disslikes this job but does it because Rooney payed for his house and helps him financially. He had nothing and Mr. Rooney gave him everything. But, his children are unaware that this is his job, and when one witnesses a cold blooded murder by him, he is placed in an awkward position. And when an atrocity occurs, he leaves with his son and is bent on revenge. They rob abanks and much more and build a bond. They're the perfect team. Hanks does a great job as always as well as Jude Law who plays his creepy role to perfection. This drama is highly recommended as it shows a beautiful story and greatly shows how the 1930s were. | 1 |
train_2957 | Witty and disgusting. Brash and intelligent. BASEketball redefines comedy/sports with a pot spoof of an easy target. Makes other so called comedies like dead boring. One of the best of all time! Trey Parker and Matt Stone play their roles as losers with apt perfection. | 1 |
train_2176 | A story of obsessive love pushed to its limits and of a lovely swan whose beauty is the very ticket to her own premature demise. Placed at the beginning of talkies, PRIX DE BEAUTE walks a thin line in being a full-on silent film -- which is still is at heart -- and flirting with sound and sound effects. The effect is a little irritating for anyone coming into this film because the recorded audio is extremely tinny and just doesn't help it at all. Hearing sound stage conversation edited over the beginning sequence which takes place in a beach, for example, is as part of the movie as the actress who dubs Louise Brooks' dialog and in doing so robs the audience of a fine performance. Other than that, the movie rolls along more or less well, with little jumps in continuity here and there -- something quite common in films from this era -- and has that vague sped up feel typical of silents. In a way, this is an experiment of a movie, and closer to the style of Sergei Eisenstein in visual presentation and near-intimate closeups that elevate it from what would be a more pedestrian level. Louise Brooks here plays a character less flapper than what she was known for: she's a stenographer who on a lark decides to enter a beauty contest despite the furious opposition of her extremely smothering boyfriend. Her role is quite Thirties and contemporary for its time; the last of the flapper/Jazz Baby roles were being shown on screen and now, with the onset of female independence, women as professionals were being represented in film. That Brooks's character decides to leave her boyfriend (even if she does "reconcile" with him later) is also a little ahead of her time. However, her character's fatal flaw is its willing to believe what isn't there -- that her boyfriend wants her to succeed -- and this is what leads to her end at the movie theatre. This final sequence looks like something straight out of Hitchcock in its heightened suspense (seen in THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH) and cuts from Brooks, her image on screen, and the murderous boyfriend. Even more dramatic is the placement of the still singing "live" Brooks with the now dead one -- a chilling effect to a chilling, powerful movie. | 1 |
train_19427 | Although I rated this movie a 2 for showing a complete lack of effort in trying to create a quality horror film it was a 10 on the unintentional funny scale. I couldn't figure out what was going on in the movie or who the people were but I didn't care because I knew every scene was going to have something to make me cry with laughter. Dialogue is a minimum throughout the movie but I believe this is because they started filming without a script. The fact that there is no plot line makes the movie extremely versatile. It doesn't matter if you sit down and watch the movie from beginning to end or if you watch it in rewind you will be confused with enjoyment. I particularly like the scene in which the inmates are taking turns running around outside beating each other with sticks. I believe the doctor refers to this as treatment. Genius! | 0 |
train_21559 | I'll just be vague about my potential spoiling comments. There are enough canned plot elements in this movie that it's essentially pre-spoiled.This movie derives a few ideas from a Southern classic, To Kill A Mockingbird. I suppose maybe TKOM got its ideas from some source.... at any rate, after you watch this, you'll say, "Oh yeah, that is a ripoff".I think the truly entertaining thing about these McMovies is once you've identified a plot element, is to figure out whether they'll stick with the original, or try to twist it around. Not a lot of twists in this one. | 0 |
train_8322 | IQ is a cute romantic comedy featuring two great actors that seem to click well on screen. Plot is a typical guy wrong for girl, guy gets girl format, but makes the solid point that one must love with the heart and not the the mind. Addition of Albert Einstein and his band of geniuses provides excellent comic relief. Overall, a good movie. Not great, but good | 1 |
train_23720 | For a film with so much promise it was disappointing, thinly plotted and the acting ranging between horrendous and unbelievable.The plot had more holes in it than swiss cheese and it's the worst clichéd ending I've seen in a movie for some time. The final scene would have ripped my heart out, if the entire movie hadn't been so painful to begin with. I was numb! From the very first scene - one was left wondering, if the sister was trying to reach out to her twin for help, or simply scare her to death which would have been better for the audience and saved us from two hours of the worst acting I've seen to date. It was a horror in the true sense of the word. | 0 |
train_12733 | This film is a calculated attempt to cash in the success of Sex in the City and Four Weddings and a Funeral. In fact, if they'd called it Sex at a Funeral, they might have done better at the box office.But the film falls between two stools and can't get up. The characters spout improbably bright dialog, but never act in any way remotely recognizable as human. One arbitrary, senseless action follows another to advance what passes for a plot, and one soon tires of the falsity of the whole enterprise.Andie MacDowell gets points for acting her little heart out, but the performing honors are stolen by Imelda Staunton, as of all things, a police detective (don't they have a height requirement over there?). Ms. Staunton seems unable to make a false move. Would that we could say the same about the writer-director.If Notting Hill annoyed you as being bogus, stay away from this one. Phonus bolognus on the half-shell. | 0 |
train_17170 | This adaptation, like 1949's *The Heiress*, is based on the Henry James novel. *The Heiress*, starring Olivia de Havilland, remains as a well-respected piece of work, though less true to James' original story than this new remake, which retains James' original title. It is the story of a awkward, yet loving daughter (Leigh), devoted to her father (Finney) after her mother dies during childbirth. The arrogant father holds his daughter in no esteem whatsoever, and considers her, as well as all women, simpleminded. When a young man (Chaplin) of good family and little fortune comes courting, the Father is naturally suspicious, but feeling so sure that his daughter could hold no interest for any man, is convinced that the young man is a fortune hunter and forbids her to see him. Leigh is a controversial actress most either love her or hate her and she always has a particular edginess and tenseness to her style, like she's acting through gritted teeth. She's not bad in this, and she handles her role relatively deftly it's just an awkward role for any actress, making the audience want to grab the character by her shoulders and shake her until she comes to her senses. While the character garners a lot of sympathy, she's not particularly likable. The very handsome and immensely appealing Ben Chaplin (previously seen in *The Truth About Cats and Dogs*) plays his role with the exact amount of mystery required to keep the audience guessing whether he is after her fortune, or is really in love with her. Maggie Smith is one of the finest actresses alive and raises the level of the movie considerably with her portrayal of the well-meaning aunt. Finney is marvelous, of course, as the father who threatens to disinherit his daughter for her disobedience, but the daughter is willing to risk that for the man she loves. But does her ardent suitor still want her without her fortune? This is only one instance where *Washington Square* differs from *The Heiress*. Another instance is the ability to stick with it. It is a handsome movie that is as tedious as a dripping faucet, offering too little story in too long of a movie. | 0 |
train_19287 | I'm sorry to report that I have seen this film several times. When it bombed at the box office, it was repeated nightly for about a month on HBO. And I watched it over and over because television in general is so bad--or was at that time. I no longer watch, so it might be wonderful now--like Samuel L Jackson says about swine, "It might taste like sweet potato pie, but I'll never know because I wouldn't eat the filthy mfer." Let's see. Dudley plays Arthur wandering in the desert, always a few steps behind Moses. It came out right after Life of Bryan, so you can guess where the inspiration for this came from. The few mildly funny bits go on way too long until you just close your eyes and grit your teeth. There's one scene where Arthur and Dom Deluise meet in the desert, both of them dragged out and dessicated, dying of thirst. Then they meet like old acquaintances who didn't really know each other very well, promise to do lunch. It could have been funny.But the scene that I remember most clearly is a meeting with pharaoh in which pharaoh is a black street kid done up in full King Tut regalia. He must have read the lines straight because at some point before the release, they overdubbed his scene with the Hollywood equivalent of black street lingo voiced by a Jimmy Walker wannabe (Kid Dyno-wannabe). Or it might have been Jimmy Walker--who knows? Who cares. They managed to turn an essentially boring scene into a very racist, very unfunny, very long piece of excrement, one of those legendary things that just won't flush, no matter how many times you try, so you leave it there for someone else to deal with.Well that's my review. If you rent this movie (DON'T BUY IT, WHATEVER YOU DO!) prepare yourself with a bottle of tequila and a six pack of Corona.Now that they've remade the Poseiden Adventure, this one is probably high on the list for remakes. Maybe they'll hire a comedy writer this time. | 0 |
train_23539 | All the funny things happening in this sitcom is based on the main character Jim being either a bad father, a bad husband or generally just enormously selfish. How can that be funny? Of course a character in a sitcom has to be flawed, but Jim's character is flawed in an extremely unsympathetic manner.And why it that? My guess is that it's because "he should now better". Jim's not a stupid guy, he can take care of things and he's got the opportunities to do so. But he chooses not to. It's a conscious choice he makes, when he chooses to not play with his kids, not go shopping because he doesn't want to buy "lady products" and it's a choice he makes, when he puts down his relatives.The other characters seems to only be in the series so Jim can have someone to be a jerk to. If the Cheryl character was a real person, she would have left him years ago, and not stay with the deadbeat for 8 years. But alas, she's just a catalyst for Jim's quirky middle-class extreme selfishness. | 0 |
train_2577 | My father grew grew up watching George Reeves as Superman and when I was a little kid he had episodes on VHS and let me view them including this movie (passing them down in the family if you will), and I loved it.Clark Kent and Lois Lane get sent to a small town with and oil mine and from the mine emerge mole men radioactive and targeted by the town assumed to be deadly and it's up to Superman to stop this mayhem.It's just so wonderful and fun to view. The old style special effects and sound - the crew pulled off such a beauty with such little technology. George Reeves was my hero when I was a little kid, and I'm 16 now, it just goes to show how timeless and classic these adventures are. | 1 |
train_2359 | I think if you were to ask most JW's whether they expect a miracle cure because of their faith, you will find they do not. I know I do not. What you will find instead is that they believe the promises Christ made of a resurrection. So, even even if the worst were to happen and we die while holding onto our integrity, Jehovah can, and will correct this.It really gets down to a simple question: is God real to you or is this all just make believe? If he is real, and you trust him, you will follow his directions no matter what the short term outcome may be.I had a heart attack about a year and a half ago. One in my family was horrified when she saw the words "NO BLOOD" written in large letters over my chart. I reasoned with her that if I were in a position that only a blood transfusion would save my life, would that be a good time to anger the only one could return me to life when the time came? She didn't get it -- God just isn't real enough to her. Too bad. I wish she could have the comfort a strong faith gives. | 1 |
train_3516 | Ella was excellent, Franchot was unavoidably over-the-top (But he played similar parts in other films such as "The Man on the Eiffel Tower") and Alan was nearly non-existent but the film certainly "thrilled".*mild spoiler ahead*: I wonder how many times Elisha Cook got strangled in his films but I seem to recall various other examples. I will avoid naming the murderer but I think it's necessarily obvious because of the plot "thriller" demands.A very well-done but dated film noire (for example: everyone smoked like crazy and the police were really stock characters. And no dead bodies were ever shown, unlike today's gore fests.) done in the familiar short-scene tableaux format of the period.8 out of 10. | 1 |
train_17555 | Two years ago at Sundance I loved Josh Kornbluth's directing debut-Haiku Tunnel. So I was looking forward to his brother (and frequent collaborator) Jacob's, The Best Thief in the World. This is a drama about a seemingly good kid growing up in a lower-class area of New York. The movie is not without its poignant moments. But at times it is as if Kornbluth is working way too hard to state the obvious: Life can be very difficult for some people. And life isn't fair.More subtle, and more important, is our understanding that despite all of these somewhat abhorrent cultural underpinnings and the anti-social behavior they may spawn, these characters have no shortage of goodness and humanity. We can recoil at their language and their living conditions, but we are cannot discount their intent. And in fact, their struggles to maintain a family under such adversity has a certain nobility that most of us can barely appreciate. Kornbluth grew up in this neighborhood, and his compassion for the people is evident throughout.Having said all this, The Best Thief in the World suffers from many painful flaws (including the title). The characters aren't very believable. The writing is uneven. And the plot-line is barely discernible. And for many the most disturbing is that Kornbluth uses two young black boys mimicking gangsta rap between scenes. To each his own: But while I don't question the potential realism of this phenomenon, it pains me to see 5-year-old children mf'ing and talking about having sex with a line-up of women. It's unnecessary shock value and is a forced bit of borrowed interest. | 0 |
train_16694 | This film started out very promising with the story about a director who loses his sight and a blind woman who is bound to help him. However, somewhere in the middle it seemed like the script writers didn't know where to go from there.One unbelievable event followed the next (Russia must be very small because they are all bumping into each other all the time), the motivation of the female lead character comprehensible (why does she still follow him after they got off the ship? Why doesn't she try to borrow a mobile phone on the ship to call somebody?), the side stories were completely ridiculous (was the story with the mother and the boyfriend supposed to be funny? And what was the story with the younger sister about?). Still with all this seeming arbitrariness of the plot, the movie managed to be completely predictable.The saddest thing about it is that there was a lot of potential. As I said, the idea of the film was good, the visuals and the score were very beautiful and the actors of the main characters were good, too. So this could have been a really good film... but it wasn't. | 0 |
train_20534 | I know slashers are always supposed to be bad,but come on,what the hell is this?It's like a bunch of 10-year-olds saved their lunch money and started filming this by the end of their week.Anyway,six young people all go to the same house to get killed off screen.We have the brainy one,the slut,the other slut,the black guy,the killer,stereotypes like that.After one gets eaten by a shaking boat,the others all get stalked by some guy who wears a mask the people at the poor box rejected.There's one pretty decent murder somewhere in the middle,but then it's back to even more boredom,and especially more false scares.Seriously,we actually know it can't be the killer when a person gets attacked because the guy sure loves to take his sweet time for everything.After every character you expected to die dies,the standard ugly blonde chick and her soon-to-be-boyfriend eventually get captured by the killer(they get like,pushed down and then faint)and the killer reveals himself.I think the writers of this movie just took a blindfold and a pen and put it somewhere on the list of characters.The motive is just lame and don't even get me started on the damn secret.The killer then of course takes way too much time to explain everything(and then about ten minutes extra in which he slices up his own arm for some reason)and eventually gets overpowered by a guy with a gun.Hey,no fair!Really one of the most awful movies I've ever seen.I could enjoy myself more by watching a Lindsay Lohan-movie,I swear.I mean sure,most 80's slashers sucked as well but at least they threw in some T&A.This movie just has nothing going for it. | 0 |
train_3851 | Paul Verhoeven has one of the strangest oeuvres of any major director: he started off making art-house films in his native Netherlands before moving to Hollywood where he began making subversive genre pieces which are often seen as mere entertainments by the mainstream crowd. 1983's The Fourth Man was the last film he made before moving to the U.S. and it seems to have been a transitional film for him.From the beginning of The Fourth Man it's clear that the film will be seen from the perspective of the famous albeit impoverished author Gerard. In a seeming homage to Carol Reed's similarly titled 1949 film The Third Man the film begins with an author making a trip to speak to a crowd of literature enthusiasts. The similarities end there, however, as Gerard runs into no major complications before arriving at the auditorium and the speech itself goes fairly smoothly. In spite of the relative ease with which he completes this function we know that the author is somewhat troubled as he has realistic fantasies about murdering his roommate before leaving his house and he also has a surreal fantasy involving a hotel he sees advertised and a detached eyeball growing out of a door's peephole. That he sometimes has trouble keeping his fantasies separate from reality is made all the more clear when an anecdote he tells is exposed as untrue and he admits that he "lie{s} the truth until {he} no longer knows whether something did or didn't happen." The Fourth Man is full of surreal fantasies and dreams which are made all the more disturbing because it's very easy to see how they relate to events which we have seen occur and because they sometimes foreshadow events which haven't occurred yet. Between the effectiveness of the unreal sequences and Verhoeven's careful editing style this ends up being the most atmospheric film this side of Don't Look Now and like that film this one is full of ambiguity. Unlike that film The Fourth Man is also perversely funny as Gerard's deeply held Catholic beliefs seep into every aspect of his life including sexuality. He naturally associates a female hair stylist he knows intimately with the Biblical Delilah though he fears she'll remove an even more important symbol of masculinity with her scissors. In an erotic fantasy sequence that would make Luis Buñuel blush he substitutes a man he's attracted to for a life size statue of Christ on the cross.The Fourth Man is a horror film which manages to bring the viewer into the mind of the protagonist while still maintaining a certain ambiguity: it certainly seems as if Gerard is in danger but it may just be more of his "lying the truth." The film is also full of both subtle and not so subtle visual symbolism which helps make it a unique and satisfying cinematic experience. | 1 |
train_4739 | Very good martial arts film and Jet Li is the best since the master himself Bruce Lee .Li is excellent as the low key librarian/cop who saves all time and time again . He has a presence and a look that is riveting and believable as the kung fu king that you don't mess with .Francoise Yip is simply beautiful in that mixed race original way that is unique because of her mixed heritage , she has an innocence and an allure all at the same time that I found unforgettable .The villain , the man with the sunglasses and long hair was very good as well but I can't find his name in the credits , can some one help me out with that ? Thanks ! Enjoy Hak hap or Black Mask , in any language its good entertainment ! | 1 |
train_20038 | I watched this movie because I like Nicolas Cage and well, I found it strange and completely pointless... so I decided to poke around a little bit and got my hands on the 70s copy of it. Wow. what a difference. The original one was way better. I'd like you all to know it did originally actually make a statement, it's existence did have a purpose. It was really the Christian public expressing their fear of paganism. If you dig deeper into it it also makes comments on life but I don't want to go into details, just, simply put, if you were disappointed and you'd like to know what it SHOULD look like, feel free to watch the 70s version, a little dated, but A lot better. | 0 |
train_19924 | Very, very humdrum movie fare here with Stella Stevens taking directions from someone in disguise(it didn't take me long to guess who it was) in Old Nevada Town outside Vegas for a money heist in the Circus Circus Hotel in Las Vegas. Stevens leads her girl gang of three, and they find out that they must act much quicker than had been anticipated. Despite some neat looks at Las Vegas in the 70's, very average yet credible acting from most involved, and a plot line with potential, Las Vegas Lady lays one big boring egg. It seems forever for the film to kick into gear,and when it does it just sputters here and there and never really speeds up. I was somewhat disappointed with this film. Sure, I wasn't expecting anything great, but I at least thought this might be one of those neat exploitation films from the 70's or something like it. Not even close. No one dies. There is a lame gunfight between creaky Stuart Whitman and officious George DiCenzo, one year prior to his grand performance as the prosecuting attorney Bugliosa in Helter Skelter. The gunfight has all the suspense of watching a waterfall. There is one punch and one head hit with a blunt instrument. Beyond that nothing in terms of action. And as for the girls, don't expect much there either. Stella and her girls(both very mediocre yet pretty talents, get in a sauna and a bath. What do we see? Nothing but a fleeting side profile. Stella wears these nice open blouses accentuating her real talents, but I wish she would have been a bit more open with her performance. That way I could write one thing that would recommend the film. Alas, it was not to be, and I have little to say in this film's favor. It isn't a horrible film in any way, it just has nothing going for it either. YAWN. | 0 |
train_5135 | Simply but imaginatively filmed studio-set performance short, a perfect match of music and images that defines the very coolness of cool and the hipness of hip. The precise visual and musical arrangements give the lie to its claim to be a record of a jam session: what it is, is a pop video - every bit as stylised and knowing as that implies, and all the better for it. Among the very best music films ever made, and almost certainly the most cinematic. These cats are solid gone, daddy-o ... | 1 |
train_13750 | I have to admit that this "re-imagining" of the original 1968 film was a huge disappointment. Specially when taken into consideration that this is a Tim Burton film. He is defenetly one of the most original and, might I say, cool directors Hollywood has produced.I am personally a great fan of his work, but something obviously went wrong with his latest flick, The Planet of the Apes. I really enjoyed the original film. When it first came out people expected just another cheezie 70's science fiction film, but a very surprise anding totally proved that theory wrong. It had indeed a clear cut message. An obvious anti-war message. Fear of the cold war, where it was taking the world and fear of the use of nuclear weapons played a big role in the mind of the film-makers. Those reasons made the film rise above all expectations and it became a instant classic. Although, the new film, the "re-making" or whatever, leaves us with nothing. No message, no ideals behind it. It is just another money-minded summer blockbuster.Visually Tim Burton does not let you down. The dark and creepy settings were excellent and of course the make up was terrific.Obviously that is not enough to keep people intrested in a film. There has to be an exciting plot or storyline. In this movie the plot is highly uninteresting and it is extremely badly thought out. The script is very lame and it is full of gaps. It looks like this film had been written in a big hurry. The explanation for why the apes where there, and why the ruled the planet was indeed very stupid and proved the script-writers ignorance.It raised a lot of questions, which had no reasonable answers to.For example; Why did the apes speak English?, why were there other ape-species than chimps on the planet (given that there were only chimps in the space ship that crash-landed on the planet) Where the hell did all of those humans come from? How were a few chimps able to evolve into a huge raise of all kinds of monkeys in only a few thousands years. (I mean it took a few million years for us to evolve from monkey to man!)And finally, the bad surprise ending was just plane dumb. It was probably just thrown in because the original film had such an end, then they felt that the audience were expecting the same kind of ending. The ending also raises a lot of questions, which I KNOW, don´t have intelligent answears. Did Theid learn to work the space ship?, which was power-less, and learnt to fly back in time and take over the earth single hand?, and, what did he do, breed with all the women? And lets say that that would happen, I higly doubt that history would stay the same, like Washington would be built exactly like it is today! (I mean wouln't there be a huge banana instead of the memorial?)Well, just to say something posative about the film. Some of the cast was great. Helen Bonham Carter's character was interesting and well-acted, as for Tim Roth as Theid. He was very good, a little exaturated at some points of the film. Michael Clark Duncan was also fine. I was not happy with Marc Whalberg. He is not much of an actor, and plays here a very macho colour-less character. Very unbielevable and is nothing compared to Hestons character in the original. And the main female character had no reason or place in the film. She was just casted for the looks. Hardly said a word throughout the entire film.Well, I think that in the future when people think about the Planet of the apes, they will think about the original one. The latest will soon be forgotten. | 0 |
train_1131 | This is a really fun movie. One of those you can sit and mindlessly watch as the plot gets more and more twisted; more and more funny. Sally Field, Teri Hatcher (in her hey-day), Kevin Klein, Elisabeth Shue, Robert Downey, Jr...It's all these well-known, quality actors acting as if they are soap opera stars/producers. If you have ever watched a soap opera and thought, "How on earth did they come up with THIS idea??", you will LOVE this movie. I have seen it multiple times; and each time I watch it, the more I appreciate the humor, the more I realize just how well-acted it really is. Don't expect Oscar quality. This is a fun movie to entertain, not some artsy attempt at finding "man's inner man", etc. Sit back, relax, and laugh. | 1 |
train_19540 | Just bought the VHS on this film for two bucks, Did I waste my money! Hey, I dig Adam "Batman" West and Tina "Giligan's Island" Louise, but hello! This third rate production is a rehash of a dozen other biker films; crazed bunch of bikers psychos ride into a hick town, beat up everybody and everything, and then are defeated in the man by a dashing hero. Adam West looks the part as a hero, but he's missing cape, and his Batman uniform. Sorry, just isn't the same. Tina L. looks really nervous and frightened the whole show, but at least we know what happened to "Ginger" once she was rescued from the island...LOL! The bikers are a motley group, and known of them ever acted again or at least shouldn't have. Hell Riders is Hell to Watch! | 0 |
train_3011 | One of the better Vance films succeeds more on interesting plot and artful direction by none other than Michael Curtiz. This time around a generally hated financier is found dead - shot in the head - in his locked and bolted bedroom on the upper floor. Philo Vance, hearing of the situation while about to set off for Italy, decides to end his vacation and try to solve what he thinks is a murder and what everyone else is considering a suicide. William Powell is as affable a Philo Vance as you will find. He never seems to press and is always very smooth in what he says and does. Powell is aided by a host of very talented actors - some first-rate character actors and actresses like Mary Astor as a niece that hated her uncle, Ralph Morgan as the dead man's secretary, Paul Cavanaugh as a rival dog fancier, Arthur Hohl as a mysterious butler, Helen Vinson as the next door kept blonde, and two really good performances by James Lee as the Chinese cook and portly Eugene Palette as a wise-cracking police detective. Add into the mix a wonderfully comedic turn by Etienne Girardot as a public coroner always missing his meal. It is this depth of suspects and a story that has many plots twists and turns that make The Kennel Murder Case a fast-moving, fun mystery. | 1 |
train_23351 | This movie was made for fans of Dani (and Cradle of Filth). I am not one of them. I think he's just an imitator riding the black metal bandwagon (still, I'm generally not a fan of black metal). But as I was carrying this DVD case to pay for it, I convinced myself, that the less authentic something is the more it tries to be convincing. Thus I assumed I'm in for a roller-coaster ride of rubber gore and do-it-yourself splatter with a sinister background. Now, that is what I do like.I got home and popped it in. My patience lasted 15 minutes. AWFUL camera work and DISGUSTING quality. And that was then (2002), that it looked like it was shot using a Hi8 camcorder. I left it on the shelf. Maybe a nice evening with beer and Bmovies would create a nice setting for this... picture. After a couple of months I got back to it (in mentioned surroundings) and saw half. Then not only the mentioned aspects annoyed me. My disliking evolved. I noticed how funny Dani (1,65m; 5'5" height) looked in his platform shoes ripping a head of a mugger apart. (Yes, ripping. His head apparently had no skull.) I also found that this movie may have no sense. Still, I haven't finished it yet, so I wasn't positive.After a couple more tries I finally managed to finish this flick - a couple of months back... (Yes, it took me 5,5 years.) So - Dani in fact was funny as Satan/Manson/super-evil-man's HELPER and the movie DID NOT make sense. See our bad person employs Dani to do bad things. He delivers. Why? Well I guess he's just very, very bad. As a matter of fact they both are and that is pretty much it.We have a couple of short stories joined by Dani's character. My favourite was about a guy, who STEALS SOMEONE'S LEG, because he wants to use it as his own. Yeah, exactly. The acting's ROCK BOTTOM. The CGI is the worst ever. I mean Stinger beats it (and, boy, is Stinger's CGI baaaaad). The story has no sense. And the quality is... Let's just say it is not satisfying. The only thing that might keep you watching is the unmotivated violence and gore. Blood and guts are made pretty well. Why, you can actually see that the movie originated there and then moved on. (Example - Dani 'The Man' Filth takes a stuffed cat - fake as can be - and guts it... and then eats what fell out. Why? We never know. We do know, however, that this cat must have been on illegal substances, as his heart is almost half his size.)You might think, after my comment that this movie is so bad it's good, but it's just bad. Cradle of Filth fans can add 3 points. I added one for gore. | 0 |
train_4627 | If you're going to put on a play within the prison walls why not go for the top playwright William Shakespeare? And if you are going to choose your cast from a whole lot of criminals serving long sentences for the most heinous crimes, you can be sure there will be plenty of time for rehearsals. In a Kentucky Correctional Prison a courageous project such as this was undertaken with amazing results. This film shows how it was all done
.the casting
.the rehearsals
.the set and costumes
and the final presentation of Shakespeare's play "The Tempest." It had not occurred to me before but there is an analogy between the setting of the play and the correctional prison. In the play the ship-wrecked characters are confined to an island with no contact with the outside world. Prison life too is much like that.With a simple painted back drop of a surrounding seascape, the characters in a most pleasing assortment of costumes bellow out their lines to an approving audience, may be not quite as Shakespeare intended but with good heart and true sincerity for sure.More interesting than the play itself were the little cameos of each man behind his character. One inmate saw the play as a lesson in forgiveness another as a redemption of his sins. It was quite moving to see the men wipe away a tear as they spoke of murder, shooting and strangulation. One had the feeling that they would all like to wind back the clock and reconsider their brutal actions. However (as someone said) the past was past, and the present was the beginning of a new future. At least the play gave temporary relief from the depressing thoughts of past events.The prison authorities should be applauded for allowing the play to take place. Such an event would put Kentucky on the map and hopefully other prisons might follow their good example. It seems to me that everyone stands to benefit
not only the Kentucky prison but the prisoners themselves who need to find new confidence and self esteem and be prepared for the day when they go out on parole. | 1 |
train_19911 | An interesting idea involving an alternative dimension inside a hospital. It recalled - Stephen Kings "Langoliers", "Kingdom Hospital" and old twilight zone episodes. Atmospherically strong, the set up was great. There were also some very clever 'time loop' moments which always have that head-melt appeal. The story had plenty of vague references which led me to believe that all the ensuing weirdness of - time slips / ghosts / a weird bat winged demon and a rather silly heavy metal attired ghoul-thing would be explained. And THAT was were Dark Floors severely let me down. Based on my viewing the movie gives NO EXPLANATION as to what is behind the events. Whilst, some ambiguity is always expected/welcome in these kind of films. Dark floors took it to new heights of vagueness. I don't expect things wrapped up in a pretty ribbon, but neither should I be left feeling "Huh? .. is that it? ... Did I dose off? Maybe, I hit chapter skip by mistake?" Dark Floors left me with a deeply unsatisfying suspicion that "It was all a dream" which is a shame because up until the last reel I was very much on board and enjoying the movie. | 0 |
train_24522 | The story idea is excellent. Unfortunately, the execution lets it down.The movie lacks pace, for one thing. It should be an exciting ride, but it is slow and more than a little boring.I think the problem's mainly in the screenplay and editing. There aren't enough obstacles and reversals to ratchet up suspense, and there are scenes which don't really move the story along very effectively.The producers should have seen this in the screenplay and insisted upon a major rewrite. Unfortunately, when the producer is also the writer and the director, this evidently ain't gonna happen.Much of the acting seems kind of flat, and that is down to the director - all the actors have been quite competent in other projects.It's a shame, because with better writing, editing and direction, this could have been a really good thriller. | 0 |
train_3074 | I recently caught up with this little gem of a film on cable. It took me by surprise, even though, I should have expected it from the team involved with this movie. Henry Bromwell directed this film with a sure hand, and it shows. One always wonders about the secret life of hit killers. One doesn't have to go too far to realize they probably are one's own neighbors, or social acquaintances, or even friends; they're no different from us, at least on the surface.In this story, the grandfather, is a despicable character who does not hesitate in eliminating anyone for the right price. He has no scruples in teaching the ropes to his own son, and even to the grandson!Alex, is a man living in turmoil. He knows what he has done in the past and suddenly is coming to realize the consequence of his actions. He has to see someone to help him find peace with himself. In going to Dr. Parks, he is trying to find absolution, although, he doesn't find it there. On the contrary, there is a dramatic twist when Alex learns about who is supposed to kill next.Alex, brilliantly portrayed by William H. Macy, mesmerizes us. Not only is he a fantastic actor, but he makes us believe he is that man. One of the best things in the movie is the late John Ritter. He is equally convincing as Dr. Parks, the man who unravels the mystery.Donald Sutherland, as the grandfather is perfect. He is a natural actor in everything he does. Neve Campbell surprised in her pivotal role of Sarah. She shows a capability and range that are incredible. Tracey Ullman is Martha, the suffering wife, and she doesn't get to do much. Also Barbara Bain, in a rare appearance, is the grandmother from hell. David Dorfman, is a delight in the film. He shows a maturity beyond his years. | 1 |
train_16044 | Vulpine Massacre should have been this movies actual title. And the tag-line should have read "Guaranteed to make your kids CRY!" This is a nature drama telling the story of a family of wild foxes in a remote region. Starting with the meeting and pairing of two young foxes and the eventual birth of a large family and the trials of raising them. The only speaking is done in narrative by a tree that stands over the den, giving insight into the animals loves and lives... Lovely scenery and gorgeous filming of the animals. Sounds good huh? Well from there things go straight to hell and then start drilling towards the core...*** Spoilers Below - Or they it may be a Warning!***Almost first off we learn one of the foxes is born blind. But seems to get along well enough and there's a beautifully cheerful musical score to accompany him... And then he dies... Next we have one of the siblings adventures. And then he dies... One of the sisters gets her screen-time... and then she dies...And so it goes like some horrific slasher movie as one fox after another is killed off by nature, in traps, just up and vanish, and even by a bunch of snowmobiles! By the end of the movie almost all the foxes have been massacred. Though mercifully no deaths are shown on screen. (Least not in the version we saw.) Unlike say "Tarka the Otter" the deaths in this movie are almost all pointless and border on the sadistic in the way hopes are built up and then snuffed out. One or two losses would have been acceptable. It is a nature film after all. But not nearly the whole family.Do not go to see this film deceived by the cheery box into thinking its safe for the kids. Watch it with some foreknowledge that things are *not* going to go well at all and that you or your kids may be left feeling very badly depending on how sensitive you or they are. You may enjoy it. Or you may not... | 0 |
train_16525 | Absolutely unwatchable, lowest quality film making. This film makes "Show Girls" look good. The acting is insufferable. The cinematography gives a bad name to amateurism. No wonder it went right to video and bypassed the theaters. This film wasn't released...it escaped. | 0 |
train_18250 | actually, it was pretty funny... in a "god, how the hell did this movie get made" kind of way. if you life making fun of movies... which i kinda do... go ahead and watch it... but if you're actually thinking "is this a good movie?" eff off.this movie sucked from the very beginning scene with the worst acting i've ever seen in any movie.... usually they get five minutes into it before you realize "this movie might suck".. but no, you know right off the bat. this movie talks about edgar allen poe... never tried to explain it though, to people who haven't memorized poe's life story... so i don't know if any of what was said is fact.this movie is about a writer "ethan poe" hookin up with his cousin "ann".... they're both descendants of edgar allan poe... or are they?!? apparently, people give a what their ancestors did. this guy ethan poe is actually ethan "usher", who is supposed to be descendants from the story "the house of usher" that was written by edgar allen poe. ann's brother shows up sometimes to try to rape her... ann's also being stalked, at one point in the movie, by three different people on the same street (seriously, three... they're like right behind her glaring at her and she doesn't even realize). the characters that are being murdered throughout, show up at the end to try to save the day.... but they can't. at the end, ann shoots ethan while he's trying to kill her best friend. of course, before she shoots him she has to scream out "nevermore!" this movie should be seen nevermore! | 0 |
train_14436 | Spoiler warning.When the main character's sister is pushed down the stairs, the killer breaks a glass of vodka next to her, to make it appear that she's been drinking. But right before she is killed, tells her sister's business partner (Teri Garr) on the phone that she hasn't had a drink in 4 days. Yet the police never mention the results of a toxicology report! And, the characters talk about her being drunk when she fell down the stairs. Huh? Really bad mistake in this movie, which is pretty awful, overall. Surprisingly bad, considering the great cast. Some faults: the writing isn't very good, the music is made-for-TV bad, and there is no tension at all because we already know the answer to the mystery from the first scene in the movie. | 0 |
train_2756 | I picked this film up based on the plot summary and critics' quotes on the back of the box. I'm not big into foreign films, and didn't know what to expect. I don't really care for subtitles either. But I absolutely loved it! It has a simple, lovable quality that leaves you feeling good about life. I found myself laughing out loud repeatedly. I'd recommend this picture to anyone, even those who abhor foreign films with subtitles. This one makes it worth the effort. | 1 |
train_24870 | They probably should have called this movie The Map because the majority of the whole stupid film is revolved around a map of a cemetery. Not to mention how many of the same boring shots of the map there are. The only thing they show more than the map itself is the little beads of sweat that is constantly building up on the forehead of our main character. This of course was the film makers way of showing us how incredibly tense things are getting up on the Immortal Hills Cemetery. Come on now , couldn't they have shown us just one of the death scenes? We hear a whole lot about how everyone who is listed on the map is dropping like flies but we don't get to see anything. Some how I Bury The Living manged to keep my attention so i was fairly generous with the rating i gave it but i will not recommend this movie to anyone. Unless you have a deep fascination with maps or sweat i recommend renting a better I movie , such as I Spit On Your Grave or I Drink Your Blood. | 0 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.