id stringlengths 7 11 | text stringlengths 52 10.2k | label int64 0 1 |
|---|---|---|
train_7856 | Mary Pickford often stated that Tess Skinner was her favorite movie role. Well said! She played the part twice and for this version which she herself produced, she not only had to purchase the rights from Adolph Zukor but even give him credit on the film's main title card. Needless to say her portrayal of this role here is most winning. Indeed, in my opinion, the movie itself rates as one the all-time great experiences of silent cinema.True, director John S. Robertson doesn't move his camera an inch from start to finish, but in Robertson's skillful hands this affectation not only doesn't matter but is probably more effective. A creative artist of the first rank, Robertson is a master of pace, camera angles and montage. He has also drawn brilliantly natural performances from all his players. Jean Hersholt who enacts the heavy is so hideously repulsive, it's hard to believe this is the same man as kindly Dr Christian; while Lloyd Hughes renders one of the best acting jobs of his entire career. True, it's probably not the way Mrs White intended, but it serves the plot admirably, as otherwise we would have difficulty explaining why the dope spent a fortune on defense but made not the slightest attempt to ascertain who actually fired the gun that killed his future brother-in-law! Needless to say, this particular quality of the likable hero is downplayed by Jack Ging in the bowdlerized 1960 version which also totally deletes the author's trenchant attack on smug, middle-class Christianity. Notice how the well-washed priest here moves forward a pace or two in surprise at the interruption, but then makes no attempt whatever to assist our plucky little heroine in the performance of duties that he himself was supposedly ordained to administer. This is a very moving scene indeed because it is so realistically presented."Tess" also provides an insight into the work of another fine actress, Gloria Hope, whose work was entirely confined to silent cinema. She married Lloyd Hughes in 1921 and retired in 1926 to devote her life completely to her husband and their two children. Lloyd Hughes died in 1958, but she lived until 1976, easily contactable in Pasadena, but I bet no-one had the brains to interview her. Another opportunity lost! To me, Forrest Robinson only made a middling impression as Skinner. I thought he was slightly miscast and a brief glance at his filmography proves this: He usually played priests or judges! But David Torrence as usual was superb.In all, an expensive production with beautiful photography and marvelous production values. | 1 |
train_6335 | Well , I come from Bulgaria where it 's almost impossible to have a tornado but my imagination tells me to be "very , very afraid"!!!This guy (Devon Sawa) has done a great job with this movie!I don't know exactly how old he was but he didn't act like a child (WELL DONE)!Now about the tornado-it wasn't very realistic but frightens you!If you want to have a nice time in front of the telly - this is the movie! | 1 |
train_11432 | Set in the Cameroons in West Africa in the 1950s, Claire Denis' Chocolat is a beautifully photographed and emotionally resonant tone poem that depicts the effects of a dying colonialism on a young family during the last years of French rule. The theme is similar to the recent Nowhere in Africa, though the films are vastly different in scope and emphasis. The film is told from the perspective of an adult returning to her childhood home in a foreign country. France Dalens (Mireille Perrier), a young woman traveling through Cameroon, recalls her childhood when her father (Francois Cluzet) was a government official in the French Cameroons and she had a loving friendship with the brooding manservant, Protée (Isaach de Bankolé). The heart of the film, however, revolves around France's mother Aimée (Giulia Boschi) and her love/hate relationship with Protée that is seething with unspoken sexual tension. The household is divided into public and private spaces. The white families rooms are private and off limits to all except Protée who works in the house while the servants are forced to eat and shower outdoors, exposing their naked bronze bodies to the white family's gazes. It becomes clear when her husband Marc (François Cluzet) goes away on business that Aimée and Protée are sexually attracted to each other but the rules of society prevent it from being openly acknowledged. In one telling sequence, she invites him into her bedroom to help her put on her dress and the two stare at each other's image in the mirror with a defiant longing in their eyes, knowing that any interaction is taboo. The young France (Cecile Ducasse) also forms a bond with the manservant, feeding him from her plate while he shows her how to eat crushed ants and carries her on his shoulders in walks beneath the nocturnal sky. In spite of their bond, the true nature of their master-servant relationship is apparent when France commands Protée to interrupt his conversation with a teacher and immediately take her home, and when Protée stands beside her at the dinner table, waiting for her next command. When a plane loses its propeller and is forced to land in the nearby mountains, the crew and passengers must move into the compound until a replacement part can be located. Each visitor shows their disdain for the Africans, one, a wealthy owner of a coffee plantation brings leftover food from the kitchen to his black mistress hiding in his room. Another, Luc (Jean-Claude Adelin), an arrogant white Frenchman, upsets the racial balance when he uses the outside shower, eats with the servants, and taunts Aimée about her attraction to Protée leading her to a final emotional confrontation with the manservant.Chocolat is loosely autobiographical, adapted from the childhood memories of the director, and is slowly paced and as mysterious as the brooding isolation of the land on which it is filmed. Denis makes her point about the effects of colonialism without preaching or romanticizing the characters. There are no victims or oppressors, no simplistic good guys. Protée is a servant but he is also a protector as when he stands guard over the bed where Aimée and her daughter sleep to protect them from a rampaging hyena. It is a sad fact that Protée is treated as a boy and not as a man, but Bankolé imbues his character with such dignity and stature that it lessens the pain. Because of its pace, Western audiences may have to work hard to fully appreciate the film and Denis does not, in Roger Ebert's phrase, "coach our emotions". The truth of Chocolat lies in the gestures and glances that touch the silent longing of our heart. | 1 |
train_7567 | An excellent film depicting the cross currents in the lives of a multi-ethnic mix of not so ordinary people in the rural Pacific Northwest. Solid directing and writing along with fine acting, especially the performances by Kwami Taha and Dan Stowe. Interestingly, this film was made in the same year as the highly successful "Crash," written and directed by Paul Haggis. The pace of the action may not be as frantic as that in urban Los Angeles, and the characters may seem to be better acquainted with each other in "Apart From That," but the personal relationships of the characters are as flawed and troubled and their stories as resonant as any of those in "Crash." For those viewers who appreciated "Crash" this is a must see film. Also, fans of Jim Jarmusch and John Cassavetes will like this movie. | 1 |
train_22259 | It's rare that I feel a need to write a review on this site, but this film is very deserving because of how poorly it was created, and how bias its product was.I felt a distinct attempt on the part of the film-makers to display the Palestinian family as boorish and untrustworthy. We hear them discuss the sadness that they feel from oppression, yet the film is shot and arranged in a way that we feel the politically oppressed population is the Jewish Israeli population. We see no evidence that parallels the position of the Palestinian teenager. We only hear from other Palestinians in prison. I understand restrictions are in place, but the political nature of the restrictions are designed to prevent peace.I came out of the film feeling that the mother of the victim was selfish in her mourning and completely closed minded due to her side of the fence, so to speak. She continued to be unwilling to see the hurt of the bomber's parents, and her angry and closed-minded words caused the final meeting to spiral out of control. It is more realistic, in my mind, to see the Israeli mindset to be a root of the problem; ignored pleas for understanding and freedom, ignored requests for acknowledgment for the process by which the Jewish population acquired the land.I have given this a two because of these selfish weaknesses of the mother, which normally would be admirable in a documentary, however in the light of the lack of impartiality, it all seems exploitative. Also for the poor edits, lack of background in the actual instance, and finally the lack of proper representation of the Palestinian side. Ultimately, it is a poor documentary and a poor film. I acknowledge this is partially the result of the political situation, but am obliged to note the flaws in direction regardless of the heart-wrenching and sad subject matter. | 0 |
train_1281 | This film is as good as it is difficult to find. The film's hero (and writer and director) is Simon Geist- a man "with an agenda." He creates a fake magazine just to have the authority to interview the swine of Los Angeles- the actors, the models, the musicians- who believe that their own defecation doesn't smell. With clever dialog, Zucovic succeeds in doing this. Sure, the budget for this film was probably what he paid for a used car, but this film is so solid and so well written that it works very well. Any person who can reenact Edward Munk's 'The Scream' in the reflection of a silver trashbin at a local coffee house should be nominated for some type of award. Give this film a chance and listen to what it says... because they HAVE been making the same car since 1986... it's called 'the car.' Bravo, Zucovic, bravo! | 1 |
train_8879 | *** SPOILERS *** this movie always seems very exaggerated, until i remember that my college campus had a former-student-turned-Nazi-racist-killer-who-then-committed-suicide, too: his name was Benjamin Nathaniel Smith.look him up in the wikipedia- i added a few photos to their article about him.it's hard to believe, but this stuff really does happen.i'm not a big fan of Omar Epps or Ice Cube, but Larry Fishburne, Kristy Swanson, Jennifer Connelly & Mike Rappaport were good. | 1 |
train_21871 | This low-grade Universal chiller has just been announced as an upcoming DVD release but, intended as part of a collection of similar movies that I already had in my possession, I decided to acquire it from other channels rather than wait for that legitimate release. Which is just as well, since the end result was not anything particularly special (if decently atmospheric at that): for starters, the plot is pretty weak even though in a way it anticipates the Vincent Price vehicle THEATRE OF BLOOD (1973)
albeit without any of that film's campy gusto. What we have here, in fact, is a penniless sculptor (Martin Kosleck) whom we even see sharing his measly plate of cheese with his pet cat! who, upon finding himself on the receiving end of art critic Alan Napier's vitriolic pen one time too many, decides to end it all by hurling himself into the nearby river. However, while contemplating just that action, he is anticipated by Rondo Hatton's escaped killer dubbed "The Creeper" and, naturally enough, saves the poor guy's life with the intention of having the latter do all the dirty work for him in gratitude! Although it is supposedly set in the art circles of New York, all we really see at work is Kosleck and commercial painter Robert Lowery (who keeps painting the same statuesque blonde girl Joan Shawlee over and over in banal poses how is that for art?) who, conveniently enough, is engaged to a rival art critic (Virginia Grey) of Napier's! Before long, the latter is discovered with his spine broken and Lowery is suspected; but then investigating detective Bill Goodwin gets the bright idea of engaging another critic to publish a scathing review of Lowery's work (I did not know that publicity sketches got reviewed!!) so as to gauge how violent his reaction is going to be! In the meantime, Kosleck deludes himself into thinking that he is creating his masterpiece by sculpting Hatton's uniquely craggy and recognizable visage which, needless to say, attracts the attention of the constantly visiting Grey (we are led to believe that she lacks material for her weekly column)
much to the chagrin of both artist and model. Bafflingly, although The Creeper is fully aware of how Grey looks (thanks to her aforementioned haunting of Kosleck's flea-bitten pad), he bumps off Shawlee who had by then become Goodwin's girl! in Lowery's apartment and, overhearing Kosleck talking to (you guessed it) Grey about his intention to dump him as the fall guy for the police, sends the slow-witted giant off his deep end
even down to destroying his own now-completed stony image. Curiously enough, although this was Hatton's penultimate film, his name in the credits is preceded by the epithet "introducing"! | 0 |
train_13586 | In spite of its impressive cast and crew pedigree Gingerbread Man crumbles early and often. The plot is unrealistically convoluted, the actors sport bad accents and director Robert Altman's participation amounts to collecting a pay check. Once again he has assembled an impressive cast (Like Woody Allen, everyone wants to work with Altman)that this time around to the letter is miscast. But that's only part of the problem.Kenneth Branagh is Rick Magruder a high powered Georgia lawyer who in the film's heavy handed opening scenes manages to get himself preposterously seduced by a mysterious catering company waitress who convinces him she is in grave danger from an ex-husband and a loony dad. With red flags everywhere the astute lawyer plods on even managing to get his children in harms way. Fights of gun and fist follow along with a requisite car chase and if that's not enough there's a hurricane thrown in for the ridiculous finale.Branagh plays MacGruder with a mealy and unconvincing Southern accent. Running around in a trench coat in all kinds of weather he's blind to the obvious in order to keep the story going. Hipster Bob Downey Jr. is every bit as bad as a P.I. but with a little more emphasis on the bad accent. Robert Duvall as the old man is Boo Radely all growed up en crazier than a bed bug serving some thick slices of ham but at least his twang is plausible. The female leads (Embeth Davidtz, Darryl Hannah, Famkhee Jansen)are lean leggy and unemotive. Even the celebrity lawyers doing cameos (Vernon Jordan) are wooden with the few throw away lines they have.In addition to paying little attention to his actors, Altman's mise en scene dripping with Spanish moss is murky and shapeless, his action scenes comic book. It lacks his offbeat touches and observations (he does inform the viewer that the Stars and Bars still wave in Georgia)that make a well done Altman so unique. Unfortunately, Gingerbread Man is Altman at his worst, even if the pay is the same. | 0 |
train_15892 | What's with Indonesian musical movies? Never have I seen Indonesian musical movies like the ones made in Bollywood. They miss the spirit of the story and just a bunch of 'what they called' poetic lines.This story about love of two kids who are separated and then meet again after a few years of changes has no special remarks. It's a simple story plot (but it's quite focused though) with 'meant to be' musical story lines here and there.Confusing characters that should be saved by brilliant acting are neglected. The main actress may try to live up the character, but it's the best that she could do, trying. As for the casting, I don't feel the necessity to put a Balinese student in that story and of course, that's not the only unnecessary characters.The strange thing is, why would I want to watch this movie? Maybe because of the mangoes... | 0 |
train_19787 | Back in his youth, the old man had wanted to marry his first cousin, but his family forbid it. Many decades later, the old man has raised three children (two boys and one girl), and allows his son and daughter to marry and have children. Soon, the sister is bored with brother #1, and jumps in the bed of brother #2.One might think that the three siblings are stuck somewhere on a remote island. But no -- they are upper class Europeans going to college and busy in the social world.Never do we see a flirtatious moment between any non-related female and the two brothers. Never do we see any flirtatious moment between any non-related male and the one sister. All flirtatious moments are shared between only between the brothers and sister.The weakest part of GLADIATOR was the incest thing. The young emperor Commodus would have hundreds of slave girls and a city full of marriage-minded girls all over him, but no -- he only wanted his sister? If movie incest is your cup of tea, then SUNSHINE will (slowly) thrill you to no end. | 0 |
train_8617 | "GI Samurai" sees Sonny Chiba and some other guys get transported back to civil war stricken feudal Japan for no particular reason, and much carnage ensues. It's a rather over the top essay of sword vs. machine gun that ultimately yields some interesting results.The plot essentially runs along the rails that you might expect from the title; initial fish-out-the-water antics ("what is this flying metal box?" etc etc), "aren't we better off here" discussions and ultimately a huge battle. The latter is proof that the film doesn't take itself seriously at all, the carnage taking up most of the second half as samurai army battles Chiba's platoon; a face off one would fully expect from the title but it still manages to overwhelm with its inventiveness and extravagance. It's certainly one of the most unique battle sequences of its time and doesn't drag despite its extended length.Chiba gives a gruff performance as Iba, initially a good leader but someone who finally finds himself questioning his own morals as the situation slowly has an effect on him. This is certainly one of his better vehicles from his terrific CV. By the final act the two worlds have had such an effect on each other you have to wonder if it was a bit of nihilism on the part of the writers, as they seem to be asking "weren't we better off back then?'. But this is maybe reading a bit much into was can generally be described as a hugely entertaining two hours of (almost) non stop action. | 1 |
train_21282 | John Rivers' life as an architect and family man has taken a turn for the worst when his wife has disappeared and has been concluded dead after a freakish accident that involved changing a tyre on her car. During the days she has been missing, he confronts a man that's been following and he tells him that his been in contact with his dead wife from the other-side through E.V.P - Electronic Voice Phenomenon. Naturally he doesn't believe it but then hear gets weird phone calls from her phone and so he contacts the man to find out more about E.V.P. Soon enough John is hooked onto it, but something supernatural doesn't like him interfering with the dead, as now other then contacting his wife, the white noise is foretelling events before they happen.Since this DVD has been sitting on my shelf for a while now, I thought I better get around to watching it since it wasn't my copy. But then again I don't think the owners were in a hurry to get it back, as they haven't question me about it. Oh well. So I decided to give it a play, as I was in an undemanding mood. After hearing and reading all the bad press on it, I wasn't expecting anything remotely good, but I was kept entertained for 90 minutes. Well, more so the 60 minutes, as the last half-an-hour was pretty much a blur of confusion. The film is nowhere as good as it could have been, but the time breezed by quick enough even though it's a rather tepid supernatural thriller. I thought it wasn't all a waste. The first hour I found some effective sequences rather interesting and there's a spooky awe generated with a slow progression of subtle stillness and tragedy that haunts you, but sadly that comes to a crashing halt later on in the film. That's when the predictably forced jump scares come into their own and somehow it just doesn't fit in with the context. It becomes rather hectic, loud and very muddled with its MTV style editing and kinetic camera-work that gets to close into the action. I couldn't understand what was going on within choppy and abrupt climax. The whole explanation how everything fits into the bigger picture is pure hokey. It's a very unsatisfying conclusion because it goes for something big, but hits rock bottom. I thought they did fine job up until that point with the lighting and showy camera-work. Other then the distinctively stark lighting, the score kept this flick atmospherically gloomy. All of it is very slickly done with its glossed up and fancy hardware, which makes it come across as very sterile and empty.You can easily see that the film's heart is in the technical components and not in expanding the characters and story. There's just no connection and lasting sentiment within this flimsy material. After a while, it just tries too hard to convince you that it falls into manipulative thrills and popping in many blood-curdling stuff from beyond the grave. It just got rather repetitious watching someone watch a fuzzy TV screen after while. The E.V.P machine was the star on the show. Well, it did have more impact than the limp performances. Michael Keaton is more than capable actor, but lately his disappeared off the map and here he provides a modest performance as the dangerously obsessed John Rivers. He really deserves much better, though. Everyone else is pretty brittle and forgettable. Not because of the performances, but of the lack of depth in their characters. This clunker wasn't bad to begin with, but it does go pear shape by falling away drastically.I wouldn't care to see it again and I wouldn't recommend to anyone, unless you got a interest for the subject matter and enjoy the recent crop of Hollywood produced horror/thrillers. It's just a damn shame that this over-produced flick couldn't put it together successfully, as it had promise in its idea and a more than decent cast on hand. I didn't hate it, but what a disappointment. | 0 |
train_9244 | If you only read a synopsis of the plot, this movie would sound like quite a typical one of the 1930's. The story would seem quite contrived, the subject matter maudlin. The strength and beauty of this film is in the direct, earthy performances of the cast.I have seldom seen Jean Harlow display such a range of feeling, rich and subtle nuances float over her face. If you watch their faces during the wedding ceremony in the chapel, there is such an obvious depth of feeling between the principal characters. The raw emotions are so sincerely portrayed, so true. The final sequence is almost unbearably poignant: when Clark Gable looks down with such joy and surprise at his son, lifts him up and proudly says, "My kid!", I couldn't help remember that Mr. Gable's own son was born to him posthumously. This is one of the finest examples of Depression era cinema. | 1 |
train_15585 | Description: Corny, utterly stupid and worthless. It's so cheap and lame, it'll make you wonder why these abnormally dumb people even wasted 2 months or so to spend a budget (I'm guessing this...) probably no more than 700 dollars to make this movie. It was just hysterical to watch with or without Mystery Science Theater. I am giving you the best advice in the world:Spare yourself, spare your time, life, and money, by NOT--I repeat, NOT even ponder about whether you should see this movie. This movie is so corny, it'll make your face turn purple of outraged boredom. If you have a one-digit IQ, then be my guest and watch this absolutely despicable movie. You might actually admire it. (Like I said before, IF you have a one-digit IQ)With about 12 actors of your own, a few puppets you bought at a garage sale, and of course cameras and music, I gaurentee you'll make a slightly more entertaining home video than this piece of absolute crap. | 0 |
train_16911 | Michael Rooker is a decent actor, but he has no business being the lead except in a low budget movie. He really does not have much charisma. Ryo Ishibashi has a lot more screen presence, and sadly he is not really the main character. Most of the screen time goes to the brick-faced Rooker.Danielle Harris (from the Halloween 4 and 5 movies) plays his daughter, and she is cute and entertaining but she is written as not being too smart and one of her dumb mistakes gets one of the main characters killed. Comedians Fred Willard, Bobcat Goldthwait, and Stephen Furst are here in interesting roles. Just watching what happens to these characters is priceless. Vincent Schiavelli plays the Consigliare to the local Mafia Godfather, and it is hard to tell whether or not he is working the movie as a comedy. Tim Thomerson is also in this movie. He seems to be in every extremely low budget direct-to-video action movie. Thomerson is also in some low-budget comedies. Seeing so many comedians and comic actors in this film made it feel like a spoof. Is it a parody of a Yakuza movie? It is hard to tell at some points. There is certainly very little Yakuza action. The supporting cast of Thugs and Goons is menacing and well cast. Some of these kinds of movies have Thugs that look like they work at the local Comic Book Store or as stock boys at Piggly-Wiggly. Overall this movie is very uneven. At some points it seems like a comedy or a parody. Then at other points it works as a good action movie. Then it sputters to an end. Without the contributions of Danielle Harris and Ryo Ishibashi this movie would rate a Zero in my humble opinion. | 0 |
train_21508 | There have been plenty of unknown movies or movies given bad reviews that I really liked. This was not one of them.It was overacted and used camera techniques that made me feel like I was watching a soap opera. It was ludicrously predictable and took most of the movie to get going then left you asking "that's it?". Once I decided not to take the movie too seriously and watch it from a purely corny point of view it became more enjoyable. This is one movie that would have wound up on MST3000 if it was still on. | 0 |
train_6454 | I saw this film back at the 2005 Palm Springs International Film Festival and of the 14 films I saw there I would rank this as my #3 film. I had an initial interest in seeing this being of Swedish descent myself with many of my ancestors coming from the Norrland region of Sweden where this was filmed. Also I grew up in an area of rural north woods America where many small towns were much like the setting of this film. It's nice to see more films using rural locations as their settings like Så som i himmelen. This was a very good film and I'm sure a very hard film to pull together with it's large ensemble cast but Director Kay Pollock really pulled this off after a nearly two decade absence from directing. Helen Sjoholm in her motion picture debut as an actress was fantastic and I would look forward to more of her on the big screen. I enjoyed Michael Nyqvist in the lead of this well-rounded cast. I would highly recommend this film and rate it a 9.0 on a scale of 10. | 1 |
train_6264 | The team of Merian Cooper and Ernest Schoedsack produced a documentary of 50,000 Bakhtiari people and their animals on the Summer migration to winter grazing. The basic worth of this film today is as a time capsule of a "forgotten people" and how they lived during what we in the West knew as the "roaring twenties." A more drastic contrast could not be imagined. Raging river and barefoot mountain crossings are brutally realistic and the animals that disappear under the water do in fact die. To make sure that the audience of the time believed that the story took place, a signed certificate of authenticity is offered up at the end. The version that I saw had fascinating Iranian music that can stand alone and be appreciated without the film. Having said all this, the film is probably of more value to the anthropologist than the casual viewer in search of a good evening's entertainment. The crew had just barely sufficient stock to take the shots that they recorded and there is no fancy camera work resulting from multiple re-takes. The Western inter-titles detract from the experience but are in fact a part of the record since they demonstrate how Hollywood tried to put their spin on the lives of an indigenous peoples lives so that they would be appreciated by the audience of the day. Off-duty entertainment by desert police becomes a "policeman's ball." The producers went on to make the docu-drama Chang (1927) and the totally commercial King Kong (1933). The migration theme is used again in People of the Wind (1976) and in Himalaya (1999). Recommended for those who know in advance what they are getting into -- and then highly recommended for them. | 1 |
train_12136 | Coming shortly before the imposition of a morality code darkened the spirits of writers, directors and actors, the first film adaptation of W. Somerset Maugham's "Of Human Bondage" titillated countless moviegoers. It has no shock value today, just fine acting.While the cast is excellent, this is Bette Davis's first great role and one of Leslie Howard's best performances. Howard is English wannabe Parisian artist Philip Carey who is gently and firmly told that he lacks any talent and that his dedication is no substitute for true genius. Taking the lesson to heart he returns to London and enrolls in a medical college (one, by the way, that seems to have no female students-at that time there would have been at least a few. Perhaps author/physician Maugham didn't care for distaff medicos).Having tea one day Carey is entranced by a waitress, Mildred Rogers, Bette Davis in a role as a morally loose and basically wicked farrago. Her Cockney accent is as sharp as Eliza Doolittle's. His repeated attempts to date her are greeted with the less than enthusiastic reply, "I don't mind," a sure sign for any man with his head screwed on straight that he's plumbing the depths. Maugham's Mildred supplemented her waitress tips with a bit of old fashioned street-walking, something not clearly brought out here.Carey's besotted prostration serves Rogers' avaricious need for support of the financial kind. He is desperately in love with her-she plays him as a Sunday church organist effortlessly plies her instrument. No sex here. Recognizing that he is getting nowhere, he begins a chaste relationship with Norah, a woman who adores him. Re-enter Mildred, replete with a baby, and in her usual need of being taken care of. Exit heartbroken Norah. Another separation from Mildred and Carey begins a long-term friendship with Sally, abetted enthusiastically by her dad who seems to view eventual marriage as both a good thing for the two young people and a chance to be relieved of one of his nine offspring.The movie reasonably but not entirely follows Maugham's excellent novel. Howard's Carey is naive and vulnerable and for much of the movie his sad eyes remind one of a doe facing a double-barreled shotgun. Mildred is unrestrainedly wicked, a user of the worst kind, her sole preoccupation with her own needs barely disguised when she tries to wheedle Carey with a thin patina of affectionate words (and offers-at one point she promises she'll do "anything [he] wants," a daring statement for the times and one I'm sure audiences fully understood.Pre-Code it may be but Mildred's quick-march dissolution would have satisfied the League of Catholic Decency. The ending is conventional-sin loses, principled behavior triumphs.Director John Cromwell wrought excellent performances from his two main stars, one well-established, the other established largely because of this film. The atmosphere is 1930s London and the trip back in time is worth taking.Available on DVD.9/10 (for Davis's and Howard's performances) | 1 |
train_21557 | What an absolutely crappy film this is. How or why this movie was made and what the hell Billy Bob Thornton and Charlize Theron were doing signing up for this mediocre waste of time is beyond me. Strong advise for anyone sitting down to catch a flick: DO NOT waste your time on this 'film'. | 0 |
train_8226 | We're talking about a low budget film, and it's understandable that there are some weaknesses (no spoilers: one sudden explosives expert and one meaningless alcoholic); but in general the story keeps you interested, most of the characters are likable and there are some original situations. I really like films that surprise you with some people that are not who they want you to believe and then twist and turn the plot ... I applaud this one on that. If you know what I mean, try to see also "Nueve Reinas" (Nine Queens) a film from Argentina. | 1 |
train_11624 | Red Eye, a movie that id had wanted to see for awhile...Cillian Murphy plays Jack Ripner (jack the ripper) a managerial pose to Assassins, and his literally killer plan to knock off a highly profiled man and his family.An everyday woman "Lisa" (I think) is a normal woman, goes to work, home...worries...hates to fly.The death of her grandmother sends her on a flight which delayed several times.a flight where she meets Jack...an ordinary seeming guy, until he suavely reveals his profession and plans, which coincidentally include her in them, she is the key to the Keefe's (sp?) death.She succeeds in saving them...but nearly the cost of her life is taken, Jack is beaten...the Keefs are saved...oh what a story *laughs* just kidding, the movie is really good actually, the best of last year...there are small things that you have to pay attention to earlier in the movie that play a GREAT importance to the movie later... (the Frankenstein pen) I watched it several times before catching all the little jokes and quirks...a must see for thriller fans no sexual, but there is a slight hint (the bathroom scene) (jack) "Thanks for the quicky" and the (female attendant) "Ohhh...its gonna be ONE of those flights" (second female attendant) "Hey! this isn't a motel" you get the idea... | 1 |
train_12398 | What was always missing with the Matrix story was how things came to be in the real world. Say no more, because this part of the story covered most of the bases. What was truly interesting was how political it was, maybe even a cheap shot at the current presidential administration. Fascism and violence were the only things man could think of in regards to fighting the robotic horde, who were meant as nothing more than servants to humanity. What I also found interesting was the use of fear and how it was perpetuated by the idea of the unknown. We as humans tend to fall into that trap quite often, letting the lack of logic and thought overtake us because people can't believe the contrary. Well represented and put together, this a true testament to how illogical humans can be. | 1 |
train_4872 | Before 'Zavet' there was similarity between Tim Burton and Kusturica artistic vision. They find their own, poetic style, and then they cowardly become prisoners of it. Burton has (and still have) Depp, Kusturica has Miki Manojlovic, and somehow they got critical praise for repeating same formula over and over again. However, there are persons like me who find joke funny only when they heard it first time. That's main reason why Kusturica's worst movies are 'Black cat white cat' and 'Life is miracle'. 'Zavet' is something completely different. You may like it, you may hate it, but this is NOT just another Kusturica poetic Balkanic dreamlike stuff. Of course, if you want to be praised, you have to play safe. It was very easy for Kusturica to make just another flying gypsies movie and get award. Fortunately, as a brave person he chooses to make movie that will be ironic look to his previous works. 'Zavet' can be described as a strong and very harsh parody on previous Kusturica movies directed by Kusturica himself. It is beautiful to see one big movie director to not take himself too seriously. This is quality that Kusturica have and even the biggest, like Bergman or Kubrick, didn't have. This movie is so meaningless that becomes absurd, so absurd that becomes deep, and so unfunny that becomes hilarious. Same stuff that make 'Plan 9 from outer space' cult would made this masterpiece to people who knows how to watch it. Average western viewer would not get few references. Most notable, tire shop owner is Srbljanovic , and this refers to Biljana Srbljanovic, famous Serbian dramatic writer. Politically, she is very active as left oriented liberal, and she despises Kusturica's political views and anarchism. Kusturica's 'everything but not subtle' take to her work was to castrate Miki Manojlovic in Srbljanovic shop. Second reference is made to Goran Bregovic previous Kusturica's composer. He formed 'Funeral and wedding orchestra' and start performing around Europe. Although he is praised as big composer, Bregovic is just performer and most of his songs (if not all) are poor covers of traditional Serbian songs. Kusturica's take on Bregovic was to confront one wedding and one funeral, with funeral mocking the wedding. Also, music is covering western classics as 'London Bridge is falling down' or French lullabies. You find this unfunny? Now you see how we feel in Serbia when listening Bregovic's horrible covers. I really liked this movie because it is not pretending to be deep, it is so overfilled with symbols that it becomes parody, and it is beautifully directed, as all of his works are. If you like previous Kusturica's movies, there is a big chance that you will hate this. If you don't like couple of his last movies, you may find this as pleasant surprise, because this is like Fellini directing 'Pink Flamingos'. On purpose. I have massive respect for this guy after 'Zavet'. Next Tim Burton movie would surely have main character with pale faces. Next Kusturica movies can easily be about aliens invading Earth. That's the reason why he is most interesting director on Earth, whether you like it or not. | 1 |
train_22809 | "CIA Codename:Alexa" is an absolute horrible rip off of Luc Besson's classic film "La Femme Nikita"(1990). The film is basically about a woman who is taken in and trained by the CIA and is forced to do a secret mission for them. (Pretty much the same story structure of La Femme Nikita) The acting combo of Lorenzo Lamas and O.J. Simpson is perhaps the worst in cinema history. Lamas' "acting" is simply a bad Steven Segal impersonation. Watching Orenthal act in this film is an excruciating experience.The writing and acting is so poor in this film at times it is laughable. There are so many action movie "conventions" in the film it is ridiculous: unnecessary car explosions, people flying thru glass windows, terrorists, bad ponytails, etc. The musical score resembles David Michael Frank's score for "Hard to Kill" (1990), which furthers the Steven Segal theme of this movie. There is plenty of martial arts in the film, and it is pretty well done for a low budget American production. The mindless action and over the top acting never lets up, and I have to admit I was mildly entertained. Lorenzo Lamas had the look of an action star back in the early 90's but he is certainly no action star, that is why he is doing soap operas and not action blockbusters. My recommendation is that you skip "CIA Codename:Alexa" and check out "La Femme Nikita" instead. | 0 |
train_20889 | So that´s what I called a bad, bad film... Poor acting, poor directing, terrible writing!!!! I just can´t stop laughing at some scenes, because the story is meaningless!!! Don´t waste your time watching this film... Well, I must recognize it has one or two good ideas but it´s sooooo badly writen... | 0 |
train_5699 | One of the most disturbing and tragic periods in American history began. The members of the Summer of Love culture, at the end of the seventies and onset of the 80's, were eventually tool old for love beads and all night parties and evolved back into mainstream life, whatever that meant. For those who could not out grow their youthful and sometimes irrational exuberance, their's was the culture of Wonderland. A love for drugs and a sense of entitlement coupled with a distaste for authority, values and "the establishment" is the world that the film captures. The sixties were a time of revolution and violent change that tore the American "house" apart. Once the battles were over, we all had to deal with the aftermath of the carnage. The characters in the Wonderland house are icons of the misfits of the Seventies; part biker, part hippie, part crook, all outcast. No ideology to express, just a sense of dissatisfaction with everything and allegiance to nothing. Ron, Billy and David fancy themselves as some sort of Robin Hoods with dope. They talk of love and behave violently; they take from the rich and sell to the misbegotten; they steal from everyone.Holmes and company are the end result of a strange collision of anti-matter like sex, and drugs and rock & roll, when the lab technicians get bored and move on. The film is skillfully directed and paced and captures the frenetic world of the drug fiends in their element. The fact that Holmes is a porn star is almost irrelevant. That story was told in "Boogie Nights". This is a story of a transitional and forgettable era. | 1 |
train_23941 | After a promising first 25 minutes that makes you feel all warm inside, you're pretty convinced that this will be a great romantic comedy. Then the movie takes a turn for the worse. The warm feeling might still be there, but as others has said: The plot becomes so unbelievable and artificial that it's almost unbearable to watch. The movie gets sped up, and you get the impression that you're either fast forwarding through it, or that the producers decided to fit it in less than 1h40m and had to cut a lot of scenes out.Realism isn't a goal onto itself, but as a viewer, I'm pretty convinced that this comedy isn't intentionally unrealistic, it just happens to be.On the plus side, this movie has a couple of nice interiors, and despite the bad script, I think that the actors performances are mainly good. If I could rate the first 25 minutes only, I'd probably give it an eight. As it is now, it gets a four. ...And that's being nice! If you're a sucker for romantic comedies you'll probably have a great time anyways. If not, I'd recommend that you watch something else. | 0 |
train_15931 | This is not as funny and gory as the DVD box claims. I really love twisted and wierd movies, but this one is really just dull! It's one hour of ripped off penises, flying Baby Born dolls and a lot of rape! I think the intention with this amateur sleaze, was to make a It's-so-bad-it's-good movies, but it fails. It's just bad! A few scenes are ok, but in whole it's a mess. If you like amateur splatter like this one (Only way better) I would recommend Andreas Schnass' Violent Shit 2 and 3. | 0 |
train_13162 | and rent a GOOD horror movie. It's like the writer had never seen a horror movie before and didn't realize every single thing he wrote was clichéd and hackneyed and has been parodied to perfection in movies like "Scream" and "Scary Movie".In between the scary bits is the most BANAL and BORING dialog ever written. Stupid "we're going to the prom" junk. I wanted to claw my ears off. Honestly, "The Hills" has better dialog.There really was no need to make this movie. Leading lady is uninteresting and I kept thinking "Her? Really? Guy is obsessed with her? Really?" All the characters act in stupid ways, including the police. (Cover the place in teams of 2! Front and back! Not one sleepy cop sitting in his car with the window rolled down just waiting for his throat to be slashed.) The serial killer just swans about murdering everyone he wants without the least bit of problem. No resistance from victims (or doors). Nobody has any protection or the least idea of fighting back (or flipping the security lock on the hotel room door). The people are like mentally disabled sheep.By the by, if you're a gore fan, you'll be disappointed too. All the killing is kept offscreen and is -- ahem -- tastefully done. (So boo hoo for you!) None of the killings is the least bit interesting. Most of the time they've already happened by the time we find out.The only cliché missing was the cat that always pops out in this kind of movies. "Oh kitty! You scared me! I thought you were the killer -- AIIEEEE!" And then at the end when it's time for the killer to die -- well, let's just say it's the easiest and most obvious choice. Snore.The audience was jeering and talking back to the screen throughout. It was too dumb to believe and not really scary enough. Don't encourage this kind of lazy film-making.(Oh, and by the way -- no crowning of a prom king or queen. No tiara. No bucket of blood.) So save your money and rent "Carrie" or "Friday the 13th" or "Halloween" or "Scream" or "Scary Movie" (any of them) to get a good scare with some original twists. | 0 |
train_3657 | This film is like a 1950-version of Ettore Scola's Brutti sporchi e cattivi. Less sex and less realism, but a tale with great humanism and warmth. I wouldn't call this a neo-realistic picture. It's very sentimental and more like a fairy tale, and should probably be classed as a comedy, although it deals with serious matters (a little like Chaplin or 1930-comedy). Typical Italian though, very emotional, and hard to resist except for a stone cold person. The sentimentalism is a letdown, although this picture was not meant to be a realistic drama. It's not a masterpiece like Umberto D or The Bicycle Thief. But it is a lovable and hilarious comedy, with good music.7/10 | 1 |
train_22365 | I picked up this movie in the hope it would be similar to the hilarious "The Gamers" by Dead Gentlemen Productions (which is highly recommendable, by the way). Boy, what a disappointment! The movie is shot in this fake documentary style made famous by the office but it fails to deliver. The reason is partly the stiff acting but mostly the writing and directing. True, it can be funny to use every singe cliché there is about role playing games, but here it is done in such a way that it becomes extremely predictable. Already at the beginning of each scene you know what the "joke" will be about. But maybe the biggest problem is that everything is depicted way over the top. There is no subtlety in this movie, if there would be captions "LAUGH NOW" or a cheap 80s-style fake-laughter track it would not make much difference. With some scenes you can't help to think "Yea, I get why they thought this would be funny" but the way it is executed takes all momentum out of the possible joke. | 0 |
train_17466 | I understand this movie was made on a very low budget but that is no excuse for the monstrosity that is Grendel. Deathstalker, The Throne of Fire, Barbarian Queen, Conquest, the Invincible Barbarian were all done on shoestring budgets and poor special effects yet they still managed to create cult classics by adding some scantily clad women warriors and a good sense of humor. The primitive costumes, dark castles and beautiful Bulgarian landscape gave Grendel the potential to be a very good low budget sword and sorcery film, but the makers completely ruined this opportunity by using extremely poor CGI effects and colorless characters. Compare this film to Beowulf (1999). It may not be Citizen Kane but it is a good example of how an entertaining low budget sci-fi/ adventure movie can be made by using credible special effects and appealing characters. | 0 |
train_19673 | I HATE plane crash movies...ALL of them! In fact, I hate them all with a passion! First of all, they are cheap-looking and have no craftsmanship! Secondly, they insult the airline industry and say to the audience that all planes do is...FALL OUT OF THE SKY AND CRASH!Why I wince at such a film? This could happen to any of us and with worser consequences than those suffered by the characters in said movie...which is the only chilling aspect of an airline disaster yarn such as this. I hate this movie because it's like all the 50,000,000 stupid-ass airplane chaos movies before it! Freefall is like all the others: nothing more than boredom before the clichéd bullshit dramatic scenes take place. First, off we have same cast of retards on this flying death trap: The Cleaver-esquire family of three, the yuppie baastard, and the bitch of a flight attendant complete with a big blond hairdo from 1987 scolding anyone who is the least bit frightened! My second gripe is this shouldn't be a full-length movie, but a documentary explaining everything about the Air Canada "Gimbli Glider" incident a.k.a "Freefall" right down to the safety precautions.My third and final gripe is with all airline films of this caliber(with the exception of Fearless) Why the hell did the male steward instruct the passengers to remove there shoes? (I could understand high heels and sharp, loose objects, but c'mon!)Like that's gonna' make them any more f#*king safer than they are now! This plane if they(the passengers) didn't know any better: knew they were going to crash land. Why would you force 100 injured people down a rubber slide that can cause skin to peel and bleed on impact only to walk in their stocking feet on a debris field! Does this make any sense to anyone?Fearless and the hit ABC series "Lost" had more depth and realism to air disaster than just "plane malfunctions-people panic-stewards become assholes-plane lands without wheels in a field-people wander without shoes and jackets, etc. The same old crap from Airport 1975! Freefall was so typical of a air-crash movie that I almost expect to see either Charlton Heston or Peter Graves burst into the damn passenger cabin at any moment. Could we at least see how these poorly-acted characters go back to normalcy instead of people rejoicing amidst the impending tragedy that is staring in front of them? Typical moronic Lifetime movie! Cheap and Stupid! The director of "Freefall" should stick to cheap made-for-TV movies with white middle-aged women with stupid teenage kids who do drugs and have marital problems. As for suspense...leave it to the professionals...you hack! Why should we the audience sit through over an hour and a half of this Airport wannabe rehash. I hope to god they don't make plane crash movies like this anymore. If this were like the ABC series "Lost" then it would be something to watch. But this is utter crap and then some. Stop turning every plane disaster movie into "Airport 1975"! This is not "Airport" this is cheap pathetic waste of my time. I would not recommend this movie or any made-for-TV air disaster movie to anyone not even my worst enemies. | 0 |
train_7399 | My choice for greatest movie ever used to be Laughton's "Night of the Hunter" which remains superb in my canon. But, it may have been supplanted by "Shower" which is the most artistically Daoist movie I have seen. The way that caring for others is represented by the flowing of water, and the way that water can be made inspiration, and comfort, and cleansing, and etc. is the essence of the Dao. It is possible to argue that the the NOFTH and Shower themes are similar, and that Lillian Gish in the former represents the purest form of Christianity as the operators of the bathhouse represent the purest form of Daoism. I would not in any way argue against such an interpretation. Both movies are visual joys in their integration of idea and image. Yet, Shower presents such an unstylized view of the sacredness of everyday life that I give it the nod. I revere both. | 1 |
train_8366 | From the start I knew I would be in for the best movie watching experience of my life. The idea of two giant robots, manned by brilliant humans, fighting each other for control of the world was the most intense and well thought of plot I have ever experienced. I can't even begin to describe the brilliant acting and well written script. Let's just just say it compares to both Lord of Rings pictures , combined. The Academy had a grave oversight in not celebrating the joy that is.....ROBOT JOX. | 1 |
train_14811 | The acting may be okay, the more u watch this movie, the more u wish you weren't, this movie is so horrible, that if I could get a hold of every copy, I would burn them all and not look back, this movie is terrible!! | 0 |
train_23134 | Writer/Director Bart Sibrel bases his work here around a can of film that he says was mistakenly sent to him by NASA. He says it shows the astronauts faking the television footage of their trip to the moon by employing camera tricks. The astronauts were in low Earth orbit all the time, and editors on the ground composed this raw footage into just a few seconds of finished film.Unfortunately Sibrel's research is so slipshod that he doesn't realize his "backstage" footage is really taken in large part from the 30-minute live telecast (also on that reel) that was seen by millions, not hidden away in NASA vaults as he implies. And we have to wonder why Sibrel puts his own conspiratorial narration over the astronauts' audio in the footage, because hearing the astronauts in their own words clearly spells out that the astronauts were just testing the camera, not faking footage.Finally, anyone can see the raw footage for themselves without having to buy Sibrel's hacked-up version of it. (He shows you more of the Zapruder film of JFK's assassination than of his "smoking gun".) Sibrel thinks he's the only one who's seen it. What's more revealing is the clips from that raw footage that Sibrel chose NOT to use, such as those clearly showing the appropriately distant Earth being eclipsed by the window frames and so forth, destroying his claim that mattes and transparencies were placed in the spacecraft windows to create the illusion of a faraway Earth.As with most films of this type, Sibrel relies on innuendo, inexpert assumption, misleading commentary, and selective quotation to manipulate the viewer into accepting a conclusion for which there is not a shred of actual evidence. | 0 |
train_18640 | This movie is hilarious. The problem is that it's not a comedy. One classic scene involves Kurt Thomas just happening to find a pommel-horse in the middle of a village square (which he uses to pummel the bad guys.) Another is the trek into the "Village of Crazies." Too bad this movie wasn't made to be a farce, or it may have gotten better ratings. | 0 |
train_20934 | This movie displayed more racial hatred of Jews by David Mamet than I havehave ever encountered in an American film. The sterotypes are so over the top that my ability to continue watching died. I was so disappointed at JoeMantegna calling a bunch of men ,sitting in a New York Jewish center cleaning weapons ,heros that common sense prevailed and I stopped. I am deeplydisturbed at the concept that Jews are not Americans and "different". I suggest that Mr. Mamet is one of the causes of hatred not a healer of same. | 0 |
train_17767 | The progression of the plot is enough to "rope one in" and create curiosity about the outcome. However, ultimately, the feeling that remains is that the producers of the movie forgot to end it. If the intention was to create a perpetual circle (occasionally done in the Twilight Zone), it was too sloppy to view as a positive effort. | 0 |
train_21149 | This movie fails miserably on every level. I have an idea, let's take everyone involved in this movie and ship them into a hot zone in the middle east. Maybe if we're lucky they'll all be shot and killed and we won't have to ever have our time wasted by them again. Did I mention that I have never been so bitter about a cinematic pile of crap in my entire life? My god, I can't think of anything I've ever seen that was this bad. I'd rather watch Ishtar 25 times in a row than sit through 10 minutes of this sorry excuse for a film. If I ever happen to meet anyone who was involved in this film, I'll spit in their face and then beat them senseless. That's my two cents. | 0 |
train_14597 | I was expecting a lot better from the Battlestar Galactica franchise. Very boring prequel to the main series. After the first 30 minutes, I was waiting for it to end. The characters do a lot of talking about religion, computers, programming, retribution, etc... There are gangsters, mafia types, who carry out hits. However, Caprica doesn't have the action of the original series to offset the slower parts.Let me give you some helpful advice when viewing movies: As a general rule, if there is a lot of excessive exploitive titillation, then you know the movie will be a dud. Caprica has lots of this. The director/writer usually attempts to compensate for his poor abilities by throwing in a few naked bodies. It never works and all it does is demean the (very) young actresses involved and I feel sorry for them. Directors/writers who do this should be banned from the business.If you want to be bored for an hour and a half, by all means, rent Caprica. There's (free) porn on the 'Net if you really want to see naked bodies. Otherwise, move along, nothing to see here. | 0 |
train_17902 | This film is so unbelievable; - the whole premise is bunkum; the fact that a serial killer (vampire or otherwise) could fly around untraced and kill as many people as the film implies is laughable. The vampire himself would not look out of place in a Bela Lugosi film. Most of the acting is so wooden the actors should be treated for dry rot. I await the day when someone makes a decent film from a Steven King novel (with the exception, possibly, of Stand by Me). This film suffers from what most Stephen King films do - lack of money used for the "special" effects, poor actors, appalling characterisation and dialogue. This film is cheap, tacky and fails in everything it tries to do. | 0 |
train_98 | For me too, this Christmas special is one that I remember very fondly. In 1989, I snatched up the 2 CDs I found of the soundtrack recording, giving one to my sister and keeping the other for myself. It's part of my family's Christmas tradition now, and I would love to be able to actually see the show again rather than just remember it as I listen.It has been noted elsewhere that John Denver made a number of appearances on the Muppet Show, and they did more than one special together. The good rapport between Denver and his fuzzy companions comes through clearly here, in a charming and fun show that is good for all ages. | 1 |
train_5410 | Another Pokemon movie has hit the theaters, and again, I'm hearing the same old, "Pokemon is dead, blah blah blah." The franchise's detractors couldn't be more wrong. Kids are still playing the trading card game, they're still watching the TV series, they're waiting for the Game Boy Advance games, and they want to see "Pokemon the 4th Movie."That said, "Pokemon The 4th Movie" introduces us to two more "legendary" Pokemon: Suicune, the "north wind" of lore, and Celebi, guardian of the forest (and star of the show). Celebi transports itself and a boy named Sam 40 years into the future, to the present day, where Pokemon trainer Ash, his faithful Pikachu, and his friends Brock and Misty are traveling through Johto. Sam and Ash become fast friends, once they discover the other's mutual love for Pokemon (Sam's vintage Pokeball with screw-on top is a great moment). Together, they decide to protect Celebi from the villain of the story, the Team Rocket agent aptly named Vicious, who is hell-bent on capturing Celebi for his own ends. Will Ash and Sam be able to protect Celebi from Vicious' Dark Balls? Where does Suicune fit into the picture? Will Jessie, James, and Meowth have bigger parts in this movie than before? And just who is Sam, really?Like with the first 3 movies, if you go into the movie deciding that you're automatically going to hate it no matter what simply because it's Pokemon (or just because your child/niece/nephew/younger sibling/et cetera "dragged" you into it), then you're going to hate it because you've decided that you want to hate it. That may be, but to blindly trash "Pokemon The 4th Movie" simply because it is a Pokemon movie, and especially without having seen it, is just plain stupid. Even non-fans can enjoy this movie without having to know every last detail of the world of Pokemon. I'm not saying that you WILL become a Pokemon fan because of this movie, but you CAN indeed enjoy it, if you'll let yourself.Unlike the first 3 Pokemon movies, "Pokemon the 4th Movie" is being distributed by Miramax, who I've heard is also working on securing the rights to the 5th Pokemon movie, which was released this past summer in Japan. Miramax claims to have some boffo-aggressive marketing strategy for "Pokemon The 4th Movie," but all I've seen so far is a feeble limited release, which doesn't include the usual Pikachu short in the beginning, which I was really looking forward to this time. I hope that Miramax will see fit to put the Pikachu short, called "Pikachu's Exciting Hide-and-Seek," onto at least the DVD/VHS release, if not with a future wider release of "Pokemon The 4th Movie." I hope that the current release is just the tip of the iceberg for this very entertaining film. | 1 |
train_9541 | Wow baby, this is indeed some fine Asian horror/gore, and a crazy outlandish movie. This is a Japanese splatterfest that reminded me a little of Tetsuo, except in this case with all the blood and guts, there is a bizarre love story. It's hard to imagine how they even dreamed up this visually stunning movie, with some unique alien creatures that infect humans as parasites, turning them into part machine or I guess cyborgs. The only thing wrong with these creatures after they take over a human, is they need to kill each other and eat the other. hmmm, yum yum. This would probably be called industrial splatter or something like that, with a superb soundtrack to add to all the fun. The movie also borrows a little from Carpenter's "The Thing" in creature design and effects. I would put this in the must-have category for gorehounds, as there is non-stop carnage and some very fine gore. And a must-have for stoners, because you don't even need to read the sub-titles, the visual images alone are enough of a mind trip. The design of the little creatures that inhabit the human body like a fetus reminded me a little of Frank Henenlotter's movies, which is another homage to some excellent gore films with a sense of humour. "Meatball Machine" is great fun for gorehounds, there is no doubt about it, and I simply loved it. | 1 |
train_12968 | Before I comment on this movie I just watched on YouTube, I have to admit that the reason I checked this out was to rewatch something I first saw on the TV ads in 1980: Barbara Bach's cleavage. And since the movie received an R rating, I expected to see her nude. Alas, no dice for her or of the other gorgeous actress that appeared here: Stacey Nelkin who's supposed to be a teen but was actually 20 when she made this. Seeing her in a bra and panty and later in a belly dancer outfit was just as arousing as Ms. Bach. They provide some of the scattered laughs this movie provides. In fact, I don't blame Ron Leibman for having his name removed from the credits since his role as the tight-fisted Liceman is pretty embarrassing though I did like the "seduction" scene he did with Ms. Nelkin. This also happens to be the debut of Ralph Macchio who's the loner among the misfits sent to an academy school. The others are a black kid who really loves his stepmother and Ms. Bach, an Arab who worships motor oil, and a politician's son who loves his girlfriend Candy (Nelkin's character) so much, he risks sneaking in the middle of the night see her in the girls academy. Among the supporting cast, Tom Poston plays a swishy character named Sisson who I found partly amusing. With a screenplay by Tom Patchett and Jay Tarses and direction by Robert Downey Sr. (whose son Robert Downey Jr. has a cameo early on in a soccer scene), Up the Academy is uneven with the politically incorrect humor but unless you're really offended at the scatological and sexual content, this is actually a pretty harmless comedy that Mad Magazine and its trademark cover boy-Alfred E. Newman-shouldn't be ashamed of even though they once had their name and character taken off the picture...P.S. Another one of the "misfits" was Harry Teinowitz who was born in my birth town of Chicago, Ill. He played Rodney Ververgaert. He also says one of my favorite lines: "I'm trying to come." | 0 |
train_19773 | This early role for Barbara Shelley(in fact,her first in Britain after working in Italy),was made when she was 24 years old,and it's certainly safe to say that she made a stunning debut in 1957's "Cat Girl." While blondes and brunettes get most of the attention(I'll always cherish Yutte Stensgaard),the lovely auburn-haired actress with the deep voice always exuded intelligence as well as vulnerability(one such example being 1960's "Village of the Damned," in which her screen time was much less than her character's husband,George Sanders).She is the sole reason for seeing this drab update of "Cat People," and is seen to great advantage throughout(it's difficult to say if her beauty found an even better showcase).Her character apparently sleeps in the nude,and we are exposed to her luscious bare back when she is awakened(also exposed 8 years later in 1965's "Rasputin-The Mad Monk").The ravishing gown she wears during most of the film is a stunning strapless wonder(I don't see what held that dress up,but I'd sure like to).All in all,proof positive that Barbara Shelley,in a poorly written role that would defeat most actresses,rises above her material and makes the film consistently watchable,a real test of star power,which she would find soon enough at Hammer's studios in Bray,for the duration of the 1960's. | 0 |
train_4011 | After the SuperFriends and Scooby Doo left the Saturday morning airwaves in the fall of 1986, I pretty much stopped watching Saturday morning cartoons at that point since those were the only two that kept me tuning in. And since neither the Real Ghostbusters nor the Flintstone Kids seemed very promising to me, I "retired" and started sleeping in on Saturday mornings. I only returned to Saturday morning TV in 1988 for that one year only for one and only one animated show. A new animated show of Superman was something I was not going to pass up. I was 17 and in high school at the time, but so what! I loved this show. From what I can recall, this series was a gift to fans I suppose in celebration of Superman's 50th birthday that particular year. It had the theme music and the music style reminiscent of John Williams movie score from the Richard Donner/Christopher Reeve Superman movies. I honestly felt that the animation style Ruby Spears did was reminiscent of the Super Powers Team: Galactic Guardians series by Hanna Barbera a few years before. Sadly, Danny Dark was not back as Superman, but I felt Beau Weaver did a very impressive job as the voice of Superman and his Clark Kent was nerdy like the Chris Reeve version. After hearing him as Reed Richards/Mr. Fantastic on the 90's Fantastic Four, I could still see this version of Superman in my mind. Ginny McSwain as Lois Lane. LOL! What a rhyme. She was a voice director for Hanna Barbera and Ruby Spears and I guess she took it upon herself to do Lois. Memories of the SuperFriends lingered in this series when it came to the voice over cast. Jimmy Olsen is Mark Taylor, who on the SuperFriends was formerly Firestorm. Perry White is none other than former Batman TV writer Stanley Ralph Ross, who on SuperFriends was Gorilla Grodd and Brainiac in the Super Powers shows. And Lex Luthor, now a wise cracking billionaire tycoon is none other than SuperFriends voice alum, Michael Bell, whom I know best as Zan and the Riddler as well as many other characters on many other series. I felt this series was a combination of the movie Superman along with the post crisis John Byrne re envision of Superman, with Lex Luthor as a billionaire tycoon, Jonathan and Martha Kent being alive to see Clark as Superman. The Bruce Timm series and Lois and Clark would also do this. Unfortunately, we never saw Brainiac, Bizarro, Toyman, Metallo, or Darkseid. Other than Luthor, we saw only the Prankster and we did see General Zod. I especially enjoyed that one episode with Wonder Woman, who was voiced over by BJ Ward who played her on the Super Powers Team as well. The episodes were smashing and I also enjoyed Clark's growing and development stories from infancy to childhood to adolescence to an adult moving to Metropolis in the short little segment, Superman's Family Album. The only two things I didn't like. It only lasted one season. And after Wonder Woman's guest spot, I was hoping Batman would turn up voiced over by Adam West (Still thinking about the Super Powers Team episodes I guess). I also hoped for it because on the Prankster episode, the Metropolis baseball team was pitted against the Gotham Goliaths. Every popular Super Hero has one cartoon series that is ultra rare. For SpiderMan, I feel it's the 1981 solo series that aired the same time as Amazing Friends. For the Incredible Hulk, it's the 1982 cartoon. For the Fantastic Four, it's the 1978 series with HERBIE the Robot. For Batman, it's the New Adventures of Batman 1977 by Filmation featuring BatMite. But for Superman, the rarest series is this one. Superman books and documentaries never cover or mention it. This is another series that WB should consider for DVD release. All in all, this 1988 version of Superman is well....Super!! | 1 |
train_8720 | All of you who despaired looking at the emptiness and weaknesses of Disney Studios' last productions, here comes something that should heal your wounds... Once and for all, A Bug's life brings the proof that purely synthetic pictures conducting a good scenario provides more interest than fake "hand-made-old-Disneys-like" drawings (see the Lion King, Pocahontas, and all the latest productions where you sadly regret that Bambi's magical background and atmosphere are gone forever).A bug's life (1001 Pattes for my fellow french cinemaniaks !) succeeds in avoiding all the imperfections that make you awaken in the middle of the movie and say "Hey, this thing is computer generated !". No weak parts, a tremendous effort showing its efficiency in the backgrounds and the general look of the sets, an astonishing 3D bird (close to perfection in its imitation of reality)... and that's only to mention the technical aspects.The scenario, my friends, the real backbone of a motion picture, has some thickness ! Curiously, and obviously thanks to Lasseter's team, there is practically no musical sequence in A bug's life. Which means the story is long and rich enough to free itself from these 3 or 4 minutes that some kids appreciate, but most others dislike (same thing for the parents or the anime fans, like me). This movie reminded me of a really old movie featuring Steve Martin and Chevy Chase : the 3 Amigos ; it had basically the same background story (a whole mexican village living in the fear of a few bad guys hires gunmen (who finally turn to be actors) to protect them, etc...). Simple, but efficient, and brilliantly adapted to a colony of frightened ants facing the wrath of vicious insects.Since Microcosmos, many movies tell tales of insects, their lives, fears and hopes, but I do think that A bug's life is the funniest and best directed of all. The humanisation process has been perfectly well achieved... And the whole audience was captivated by Flik's (aka Tilt in France) adventures.A big thank you for Lasseter's team, especially for the last 30 seconds... it's so strange and great at the same time to see a whole theater caught in laughter while the bugs/actors forget their lines or hit the camera...And finally, especially for those of you who have seen the french version, other congratulations go to the dubbing actors who made a great synchro work on this movie. A bug's life is a really good piece of entertainment, and I think it will soon become part of my collection of videos (a privilege granted to extremely few movies, and that's not a problem of storage room :). Go and see it, that's an order. | 1 |
train_8768 | I saw this film at a store in the cheap section. I actually vividly remembered seeing the commercials and trailer for it years ago. I thought "What the hey' and bought it, basically because the plot sounded interesting and Claire Danes has always been someone of talent in my eyes (this was also before I became a huge Kate Beckinsale fan).So it's about two girls who sneak off to a vacation in Bangkok, get busted for narcotics (which they are innocent of) and then are sent to a Thailand prison. The film follows what will happen to them and at times questions their innocence.Both Claire Danes and Kate Beckinsale give great performances, and the plot of this film wraps itself up unconventionally, and raises some nice moral discussion questions.I think this is a solid good film, but there could have been some improvements. It could have been longer...it would've helped to solidify these characters and more insight into the politics of Thailand's justice system would've helped.Nevertheless, other than that, it's a good film with some great performances.P.S. For all you pop-culture junkies be on the lookout for a two-minute role by Paul Walker. I didn't even notice him the first time I saw the film. | 1 |
train_11282 | This was the second of the series of 6 "classic Tarzan" movies featuring Johnny Weismuller in the title role and Maureen O'Sullivan as Jane.As usual, this was a wonderful film in this series; and perhaps stands out as an "in between" film in a progression that could almost exemplify the development of cinema from the early 1930s into the 1940s. As such, it displayed good pace, though not as good as subsequent films. Likewise, the cinematography is less accomplished than later Tarzan films in this series. The stock I saw was of uneven quality, containing some grainy scenery and some under-exposed and over-exposed scenes. The crisp display of later Tarzan films is lacking here. On the other hand, there is one scene, very early on, in which the jerky movements of a camera with foliage swishing in front of it as the camera backs up, showing safari men forging ahead into the jungle, was really almost modern in its style, and stands in strong contrast to the stationary shots that make up the rest of the movie.Regarding plot, one interesting feature here was Jane's near-fickleness and inconstancy, when she was being subject to Martin's flirtations. The kiss and Jane's stunned, and partly guilty, reaction foreshadow something of the Jane we see in the future as well in these films. Compare, for example, in Tarzan Finds a Son! Jane's duplicitous actions tricking Tarzan and delivering Boy to his family. Later she admits to Tarzan that she was wrong. Here, nothing quite so explicit, but we have Jane "returning" to the Jane Parker of yesteryear, and in an almost repentant series of actions, stripping herself of the evening gown brought by Martin and Harry to entice her away from Tarzan.There were a whole series of depictions and sequences that especially struck me in this viewing.For one thing, the picture we get of the domestic life of Tarzan is here, as later, a combination of sensual idyll with always the nearby possibility of violent death. This to me is very much at the core of the Tarzan experience.I was really surprised by some quite violent scenes even by today's standards.There were a whole series of scenes that gave me special pleasure: Tarzan leading the elephants into the Valley of the Elephants' Graveyard; Tarzan being rescued from watery death by the hippo, and then nursed to health by the apes; Cheetah going to find Tarzan when Jane and the other men are trapped at the foot of the escarpment; Cheetah in particular crossing the river on the log. The final battle scenes of savages & lions on the ground and savages & apes in the trees. Jane, showing us that she is truly of Tarzan's world now, quickly displaying her enterprising woodcraft to work up a line of fire to keep the lions away.The final series of scenes is splendid: suddenly Tarzan is on the scene, flinging savages from the trees and taking charge of the lions, and summoning the elephants to the rescue! That final cry of Tarzan in triumph, holding a happy Jane in his arms, with a dancing and delighted Cheetah beside them, is a memorably picture and really a fine summation of the story of Tarzan and Jane.All in all, this is another wonderful classic Tarzan movie. I would recommend this movie strongly to anyone. | 1 |
train_22926 | I hate this movie. It is a horrid movie. Sean Young's character is completely unsympathetic. Her performance is wooden at best. The storyline is completely predictable, and completely uninteresting. I would never recommend this film to anyone. It is one of the worst movies I have ever had the misfortune to see. | 0 |
train_3591 | I never bothered to see this movie in theaters although I remember hearing the name over and over. I finally watched it this week and what a delight. For some reason, I was expecting it to not be very good so I was completely surprised when I sat down and stuck with it and then found myself completely pulled in. I read a lot of the other user comments and it impressed me how much people talk about her fighting in the ring, but what was wonderful about Diana is that she's a true fighter in life. All she needs to do is find her place where she be who she is and the ring helps her to get there. A very intelligent story and I'm amazed that this is the first time up for Michelle Rodriguez - what an excellent job she did. Adrian and her coach were also quite good.This film is a little rough around the edges, but it doesn't matter in the slightest. The story, the will, and the performances completely outweigh any flaws (that usually come with indie filmmaking anyway). A compelling portrayal of a girl finding herself and triumphing over her circumstances and a K.O. for Michelle Rodriguez! | 1 |
train_10119 | Anyone new to the incredibly prolific Takashi Miike's work might want to think twice about making this startling film their first experience of this truly maverick director. In keeping with Miike's working practice of taking any work that comes his way and then grafting his own sensibilities onto the script, this is at heart a fairly basic yakuza thriller, with a morally ambiguous cop chasing a gang which his lawyer brother has fallen in with. What takes the movie out of the realms of the same-old same-old however, is the utterly unflinching attitude so some of the most sudden and horrific violence seen in today's cinema. And this isn't that nice cool, clean violence so beloved of US cinema - this stuff is nasty, painful and HURTS! That said, the pace is breakneck, the characters are unusual without being just being burdened with stock eccentricities, Miike's sense of humour reveals itself and the most unexpected moments, and his camera is never quite where you expect it to be, making it hard to look away from the screen, whatever he might be showing you! It doesn't have the "Ohmigod" ending of "Dead Or Alive," but if you're not squeamish, now's the time to get on board the Miike bandwagon before he ends up on some Hollywood studio's "new John Woo" shopping list... | 1 |
train_18267 | As said before, the visual effects are stunning. They're breathtaking. I personally use Blender and graphics like that are not easy AT ALL. But that's all this movie is. Not only is the plot confusing, but the overall conflict is not clear. For example, in the first scene, Proog and Emo are trying to run away from who knows what. The conflict seems to be between man and nature here. Later, when they enter the room of the bottomless pit, Proog explains that "one step out of place and (you're dead)". Here, there's a more precise conflict between the careless man and nature. As the movie progresses, it's clear that a conflict exists between man and nature. But suddenly, a conflict exists between man and man when Proog, out of nowhere, murders Emo. Proog immediately changes from being a caring guardian looking after a lost child to being a "sick man". He betrays us. Not only is this depressing, but we don't care because the conflict between the character's thoughts and actions is not developed. It's not a story about someone, through struggle, emerging stronger. It's depressing and has not point because there's no great truth about the human soul or about the world brought to light like a great drama does. In my opinion, the movie is severely underdeveloped in all aspects. However, the graphics are stunning, but a movie is so much more than mere eye candy. There's no truth, no struggle and a bad surprise ending. In conclusion, an underdeveloped movie without a point. ...but the graphics are good. | 0 |
train_16830 | Last night I decided to watch the prequel or shall I say the so called prequel to Carlito's Way - "Carlito's Way: Rise to Power (2005)" which went straight to DVD...no wonder .....it completely ...and I mean completely S%&KS !!! waist of time watching it and I think it would be a pure waist of time writing about it.... I don't understand how De Palma agreed on producing this sh#t-fest of a movie....except for only one fact that I tip my hat to... Jay Hernandez who plays the young Brigante.... reminded me how De Niro got into the shoes of Brando to portray the young Don Corleone in Godfather II ...but the difference De Niro was amazing and even got an Oscar for it !!! Jay Hernandez well he has guts for trying to be a young Pacino.... too bad for him I don't think he will be playing in film anymore and by the way after I watched this sh#$%ty movie, I sat down and watched the original Carlitos way to get the bad taste out of my mouth. | 0 |
train_16122 | I caught this a few months ago on Family Channel, and having some memories of the TV show from my youth, decided to watch it along with my 4 year old daughter. I should have got some psychedelic mushrooms to go along with it, 'cause this is just bizarre! Not only is it a musical with annoyingly forgettable tunes, the requisite cheesy effects and cameos by stars long past their collective primes, it seems to have been produced as somebody's good acid trip. Talking flutes, British children far too old for this kind of crap... in the words of Krusty the Klown "uuuuuugggghhhhh! What was I on?" If you're a huge fan of the whole Sid and Marty Krofft oeuvre, go for it; otherwise, unless you're willing to get looped before watching, stay far, far, FAR away. | 0 |
train_702 | This film is one of the best shorts I've ever seen - and as I make it a point to be at all the major film festivals, I've seen a lot, especially of what the industry considers "the best." I'm not a fan of Monaghan. His acting generally tends to be overdone and uninteresting to me, his only decent performance being in Lost, so I generally try to avoid his films. I did, however, happen to see this at a film festival a few years back and was completely awed. This director really knows what she's doing. Of course, you are going to get the trolls (or just ignorant people) who don't understand what constitutes a good film and rip on low budget work because they have no idea what went into it. But luckily, from what I've seen, they are in the minority when it comes to this gem.Let's not deny that the film was working on no budget, and that a couple of the supporting actors could still use work, because that's certainly true. The production value is very low, but what can you expect for a first real film from someone still in high school? Pretend for a moment that the budget doesn't matter. If you take away a bit of the acting, the sound quality (which actually wasn't the fault of the filmmaker; I saw this at a festival and the sound was fine...I guarantee whoever made the DVD itself screwed up), and the fact it was shot on mini-DV, then what are you left with? The story, the visual composition and the soul of the film, which are indisputably flawless.Nanavati can tell a story. That much is clear. She can write substance-heavy, engaging scripts better than most people in Hollywood, create a shot list that perfectly compliments that story, and bring it to life in a fascinating, creative way that, were this higher budget, might have won awards. Give it more experienced actors, better sound post-production, and 35mm instead of mini-DV and even the trolls couldn't complain. This girl is incredible, and keeping in mind that Insomniac was made a good few years ago, she's done some amazing work since. The trailer for Dreams of an Angel shows that, and I can't wait to see the higher budget stuff she's done. 9/10 stars, this is one hell of a movie from one hell of a filmmaker. | 1 |
train_8566 | I really like 101 Dalmations when it came out in 1996, now 5 years later i went to see 102 dalmations in 2001, i thought it was fantastic but i think 101 is better because i think it's more funnier, more humor, and also that movie was based on the same story as the cartoon version (one hundred and one dalmations (1961) i wonder if there are plans for 103 Dalmations. I hope there is, maybe yes, maybe no, all of us dalmation fans will have to find out if there is going to be 103 dalmations in the future. | 1 |
train_12139 | This movie, even though it is over 70 years old is still a very moving, strong film. Bette Davis, as the slutty, vicious Cockney waitress Mildred is absolutely believable. Watching her performance is still spellbinding. She makes the viewer absolutely despise her and pity her at the same time. Leslie Howard's performance as the weak, obsessed Phillip Carey is not as strong, but I don't see how any actor could hold their own against Ms. Davis's performance. She chews up the scenery in every scene she is in, totally stealing the show. This is the movie that sealed her stardom and she deserved to win the Academy Award, but lost. It was shocking for it's day what with themes of unwed pregnancy, multiple sex partners, and Mildred's vicious language so it is somewhat dated, but still an excellent movie. Just to see the scene where Mildred tells Phillip what she REALLY thinks of him ("You cad, you dirty swine....") is still some of the greatest acting I have ever seen on film. | 1 |
train_3807 | My first impression would be this is Beowulf only with all the good bits of fighting Grendel and dragons intact, making it one thrill ride from start to end. Written by Frederic Lanoir and Arthur Qwak, the two of them had created a fantastical landscape that becomes a character in itself within their story, with its ever changing environment made up of small spheres of land floating around, which can either be wastelands, or globes of greenery.The story's a simple one, which tells of a land which is cowering in the expectation of a mighty dragon's unwanted visit to plunder and destroy, and the resident knights have all but been annihilated. Enter the king's granddaughter Zoe (Marie Drion) who gathers Lian-Chu (Vincent Lindon), a huge brute with immense strength but truly a gentle giant, and his partner-in-arms Gwizdo (Patrick Timsit), who balances the partnership with his cunning brain. Lian-Chu and Gwizdo (together with their pet creature which too proudly spews incipient fires) share a common dream of owning a farm land and spending idyllic days tending to their farm animals in retirement, but in order to do that comes the requirement of being financially free, hence their career in monster-extermination which doesn't exactly pay off.That's basically the whole gist of it, but what makes this film a spectacle, is its CG graphics, which is solidly rich, detailed, and an eye-popping marvel to behold. It has some wonderfully crafted set action pieces that were painstakingly designed to draw you into the thick of the action,, and during those fight sequences, there's nary a boring moment. Photo-realistic moments of non-existent landscapes make you put aside the fantasy of make-belief, and it's easy to be in awe of the landscape which goes beyond the usual three-suns and a kaleidoscope of flying thingamajigs (here's having at you George!) And I couldn't get enough of the finale battle as well, though the usual brick-bats will find some fault at the indestructibility of the principle characters.I guess this film had opened my eyes that there are many more computer-animated companies out there around the world that have quality in their product to match that of Pixar's. And this is definitely a movie that the local filmmakers of Zodiac: The Race Begins and Legend of the Sea can learn from to keep the story effectively simple, and let your moving artwork do all the talking. Definitely highly recommended! | 1 |
train_9128 | I have to admit that Purple Rain is one of my deepest guilty pleasures. Purple Rain not only broke boundaries, it set a decade, the costumes, the music, the behavior, and the dancing! To this day, my friends and I still jam to the Purple Rain soundtrack and pretend to be Prince and the Revolution.Now the movie itself, I just meant what I said in the title, because for the most part, this movie itself is made by the music. The acting? Please don't let me judge on that since this is one of my favorite guilty pleasures, because I know that it was not Oscar worthy by any means. But I think the duo that took this movie was Morris and Jarome, their speech about passwords was just beyond hilarious. I just want to rate this movie on the concert sequences because I felt that it was what made the movie.Prince is a musical genius and created beautiful music. While the movie and acting is pretty bad, this movie is still a fun one to watch at night and even dance too. This movie defined the 80's, so just have fun with it. Prince would want it that way, just to party on down! Oh, boy, that sounded lame.9/10 | 1 |
train_17294 | Why watch this? There is only one reason and that is for the greatness of John Saxon. I love his acting. My most favorite appearances by him are in Nightmare On Elm Street 1,3, and 7 as Nancy's father a cop, Black Christmas as a cop, and From Dusk Till Dawn again as a cop. When I was rummaging through my local mall video outlet I came across the film Zombie Death House and I quickly tossed it back but before moving on I noticed that John Saxon was not only an actor in this film but for the first time that I have ever heard of a director. This intrigued me (Also the cheap $9.00 price tag) and I and I had to have it. Upon coming home I realized that this film did not live up to Saxon's other work even his acting, which may have been muddled by the added pressures of directing. But it was not just him the other actors sucked too. It seemed as if they had all been pulled out of a recent porno shoot and told now guys you really have to act. The film even looks of 80's porn quality. I cannot in good faith recommend this film to casual viewers, but if you are an obsessed fan of the 80's who missed out on the culture that came from that era by being born to late, or a fan of crap films than this one is for. Also if you dig John Saxon as I do. | 0 |
train_2518 | This is, by all categories, the best movie I have ever seen. Forget Hollywood - their movies always sucked - this is art! Moon Child's story starts with Kei - a Japanese vampire, who loathes what he has become and lives in denial. His wish for final death leads him to Mallepa, where refugees from several Asian countries live. Here, he meets Sho, an orphan living on the street.From here, the movie is an intense experience which bases on the visual and emotional part of the movie. It has everything; you laugh, you cry, you get angry, excited, sad, happy... Never has a movie touched me the way this movie do. And the actors are amazing - never have I heard anyone speak so many languages without it sounding strange. A big praise to the editor for creating this masterpiece...A last comment on this brilliant movie, is that it stars Gackt (ex-vocalist of Malice Mizer) and Hyde (vocalist of L'Arc~en~ciel) in excellent roles as Sho and Kei. I am amazed at how Gackt can change his way of speaking and acting depending on what age he is acting out.This is a must see. If you never see any films, see Moon Child, the Crow (Brandon Lee) and the newly released masterpiece Final Fantasy VII - Advent Children. All in their original languages, of course! | 1 |
train_7148 | This movie is one I strongly recommend. It's about a boy, Stanley Yelnats (Shia LeBeouf) who is wrongly convicted of a crime and sent to Camp Green Lake, a boys' detention center. There, he is forced to dig holes 5 feet deep and 5 feet in diamiter. While there, he meets the other boys of the camp (Zero, Magnet, Armpit, Squid, x-Ray, and ZigZag). All of them are digging, not to 'build charactor', but to find outlaw Kate Barlow's treasure. Throughout the movie (and book) Stanley learns more about the past, more about himself, and more about digging holes. I give this movie a 9.5, because, I am very picky when it comes to books to movies, (I want the movie to follow the book EXACTLY). But, still it did real well. | 1 |
train_19957 | Chris Kattan is a great sketch actor on Saturday Night Live...but he should probably leave the movie industry alone unless he gets some sort of creative control. He plays an annoyingly peppy character who basically comes off as mildly retarded and on speed. Wanna know the only funny parts? The stuff they showed in the previews. Yes, his rendition of take on me is funny. Nothing else is. ESPECIALLY when you can tell he's trying very hard to be a physical comedian, which he shouldn't have to try at because he is one. And yet, his 'demolishing the vet's office' bit comes off as cringingly bad. This movie made me develop an eye twitch. Avoid it at all costs, and keep watching SNL. | 0 |
train_7936 | most of the bad reviews on this website blame "Hood of the Living Dead" for one (or more) of the following reasons: 1) it is a low-budget movie with virtually no acting; 2) it was so bad it made me laugh 3) it is something I could do myself. I won't even discuss the first point because it is a very subjective matter whether you like low-budget and independent stuff or not. I must say, however, that I still fail to understand people renting such a movie as "Hood of the Living Dead" and then looking surprised when they realize it is not as polished and cute as a romantic comedy with Lindsay Lohan or Matthew Mc Conaughey. As for the second point, I really don't see what's so wrong with laughing. I personally like to laugh, and love movies that make me to, be they comedies or horror flicks. When in "Hammerhead" I saw this girl stepping into a PUDDLE and the shark-man came out of it to eat her, I just cracked up. And I was grateful that the director made such a stupid scene and gave me ten seconds of pure fun. Honestly, laughing just makes me feel good, while it seems that many people writing reviews see it as a bad bad thing. If you only want to feel sad and scared while watching a movie, "Hood of the Living Dead" and low-budget flicks are definitely not for you. But please don't come and tell us that you find them laughable. We already know it. This is most probably why we decided to watch the movie in first place. However, it is the third point that leaves totally baffled. Just several years ago people were lining up out of theaters to see "Blair Witch Project", which is a way more rudimentary, boring, plot-less and bad-acted movie than "Hood of the Living Dead" (and takes itself way too seriously too). Moreover, half a million people go on YouTube every day to see the short films of "Lonelygirl15", which is certainly something everyone with a cute girlfriend, a room and a webcam could do! Not to talk about all of the even more amateurish videos you can find there. Why don't people blame those clips for bad acting and non-existing plot? I think it is one of the best things of our times that everyone, with affordable technology and a bunch of friends, can make their own movies and share them with people that have similar interests. And I feel a certain admiration for people who spend their weekends with their friends making a honestly bad (yet refreshing) piece of trash like this rather than shopping at the mall or playing video games alone. Leave aside your biases and your desire to sound like a smart film critic by attacking b-movies, and you'll see that "Hood of the Living Dead" can bring you almost as much fun as it did to its makers! If you have a taste for refreshing and enjoyable home-made horror movies, I recommend "Zombiez", "The Ghosts of Edendale", "The Killer Eye", "Monster Man", "Don't Look in the Basement", "The Worst Horror Movie Ever Made", "Redneck Zombies", "Jesus Christ Vampyre-Slayer" and "Habit". | 1 |
train_24216 | After watching this I thought to myself, there are either too few good writers & directors or lots of producers.At any rate, this is a terrible movie. Terrible in a way that it's not fun, but rather makes you grit your teeth and quiver. Makes you shout "this is wrong" at the movie. Immersion is zero. By now most of you are probably used to the terrible errors/weirdness-es in movies that has computers hackers etc. in them. This movie is like that in every aspect. The only good thing about the movie is the little girl Emily, brilliantly played by Eliza Bennett. I hope she becomes big, and make this ..thing at least worth something.Do yourself a favor. Don't watch this. There is not even proper action in it. Total waste of time. | 0 |
train_15035 | Just like last years event WWE New Years Revolution 2006 was headlined by an Elimination Chamber match. The difference between last years and this years match however was the entertainment value. In reality only three people stood a chance of walking out of the Pepsi Arena in Albany, New York with the WWE Championship. Those men were current champion John Cena, Kurt Angle and Shawn Michaels. There was no way Vinnie Mac would put the belt on any of the rookies; Carlito or Chris Masters. And Kane? Kane last held the WWE Championship in June 1998, and that was only for one night. It was obvious he wasn't going to be the one either. Last years match was a thrilling affair with six of the best WWE had to offer. 2006 was a predictable and disappointing affair but still the match of the night by far.The only surprise of the evening came after the bell had run on the main event. Out strolled Vince McMahon himself and demanded they lift the chamber. It was then announced that Edge was cashing in his money in the bank championship match right then and there. With no time to prepare and just off the back of winning the Elimination Chamber match John Cena did not stand a chance and dropped the title after a spear to one of the most entertaining heels in WWE. This was the only entertaining piece of action that happened all night.The undercard, like last year, was truly atrocious. Triple H and The Big Show put on a snore fest that had me struggling to stay away. HHH picked up the win but that was never in any real doubt was it? Any pay-per-view that has both Jerry Lawler and Viscera wrestling on the same card will never have any chance of becoming a success really does it. The King pinned Helms (who books this stuff?) and Big Vis tasted defeat against the wasted Shelton Benjamin with a little help from his Mama.The women of the WWE also had a busy night. There was the usual Diva nonsense with a Bra and Panties Gauntlet match which was won by Ashley and the Woman's Championship was also on the line. In a match, I thought would have been left to brew till WrestleMania 22 Mickie James challenged Trish Stratus in a good match. Trish won the contest but it was evident that this is going to continue for the foreseeable future.The opening contest of the night pitted soon to be WWE Champion Edge against Intercontinental Champion, Ric Flair. This could have been better but it was a battered and bloody Flair that retained after a disqualification finish. Edge obviously had bigger fish to fry.So New Years Revolution kicked off the 2006 pay-per-view calendar in disastrous fashion. The only good thing from that is knowing that for the WWE the only way is up. They don't get much worse than this. | 0 |
train_7655 | Having not seen this film in about 20 years I am still impressed with it 's hard -hitting impact and stellar acting. Of course, one Mr. Mickey Rooney is indeed, INCREDIBLE in his role as the ring-leading "Killer".(In reference to another review here-none other than Orson Welles evoked Mickey Rooney's name as the greatest movie actor,also.) I also recall the jazzy-brassy score and the bare black and white photography. I love the Mick's last line before he goes out for his dose of lead poisoning.(I think the Stranglers lifted it for a line in one of their songs-Get a Grip on Yourself.)This is a great film and unjustly buried film. Let's get it out ! Side note-a recent Film Review magazine gave a big write up on Don Segal's "Babyface Nelson" ,made a couple years before "Last Mile" and also starring Mickey Rooney. Another rave of the Mick's intense and sympathetic performance.Perhaps it's the start of a groundswell of a appreciation for some truly superior cinematic performances. | 1 |
train_15406 | -might contain spoilers... but believe me, this movie spoils itself from start to finish.I walked into this movie with high expectations. It was my own fault. I had put too much stock in Steve Carell's record to date. 40 year old virgin... Little Miss Sunshine... The Office. And I also made the mistake of coming to IMDb and seeing a 7.5 user rating before going to the movie. It's always been a very good predictor in the past, but something is definitely off lately. The last time I felt this embarrassed and in this much pain in a movie theater was watching "Blue Steel" in 1990.This flick fumbled from start to finish. The script was flunky material. Awful writing all around. "Murderer of love"? "Love is an ability"? Whoever wrote this crap suffered from the same affliction that struck American Beauty's writer(s)... trying waaaaayyyyyy too hard. The entire flick was peppered with Three's Company'ish moments like the awful and contrived shower scene. Or the pointless/confusing aerobics scene. Or the awful laundry room scene. Right when you think something serious and/or real is about to happen, they toss in one of these terrible moments. And it happens over and over and over again.And what's with Carell's character? The guy meets some lame broad at a book store and is suddenly head over heels in love? Let's face it. Their conversation sucked. They both should have said their goodbye's after a few minutes. Pay close attention to the initial conversation when you have the misfortune of watching this movie.... Carell's character is trying to say something which is absolutely random and un-funny (I think the exact line was "this one time when I was a kid"... that's it. seriously), but both are laughing so hard that coffee is about to spout out of their noses. The actors themselves looked like they were in pain, wondering why they're being directed to do what they're doing.Back to the IMDb thing... you guys need to figure out a way to keep a movie's promotional team off this site. I know it's impossible, but it's painfully obvious the first 20 or so ratings/reviews were either posted by 12 year olds, or by flunky's hired by the studio. Check out The Family Stone's rating... if that's a mid 5, then this absolutely has got to be a 2... and that's pushing it. | 0 |
train_1333 | I love this movie very much i watched it over and over. I don't see why anyone would think this movie wasn't good. Maybe you have seen better or whatever it is i personally love it. It is one of my favorite movies and I am not Hindi at all but i do love it. It might be a little like "Pretty Woman" but i haven't seen that and I don't think it's any better than this. I don't know why you are all trashing about it but maybe you have a good reason but I think i have said it enough but i absolutely love this movie, and to those who say it's not good at all well then I wonder why you watched it and what movies you consider good. As for everyone else that i watched it with they enjoyed it too so it surprises me that this many people don't like it. As for Rani Mukherjee ( i think thats how you spell her last name) she is very beautiful and my favorite actress ever! | 1 |
train_21244 | I sort of accidentally ended up watching this movie. I'm still not sure if I regret it or not. I felt like I was watching the film made by that group of film school students that didn't quite make the cut. It plays up every Hollywood cliché imaginable, all the while flogging us with the 'corporations are the ultimate evil' message. Subtlety this movie does not know. As far as that goes, it even manages to provide it's own spoilers.The story appears to be a computer nerd's fantasy world come true. The lead character is an attractive teenage boy with a girlfriend, yet is a programming genius and apparent hacker (I think), among many other nerd-fantasy-come-true elements that you'll have to see for yourself.As well, I should've known it would be a z-movie when I saw Ned Bellamy... he tends to be a good tip-off.Can't recommend this one, I'm afraid. | 0 |
train_6457 | Kay Pollak's 2004 heart-warmer Så som i himmelen/ As it is in Heaven contains every stereotype of Swedish humanity and inhumanity yet manages to be a crowd-pleaser. It contains plenty of ammunition for cynical critics, continuity error-spotters and for saccharine-debunkers, yet manages to depict the colours of life in a small community evocatively. The film also runs the gamut of proverbial messages about 'finding one's own voice' and 'just doing it despite one's fear', without completely removing the lump from the throats of the cynics.Its success as a crowd pleaser comes from two facts. Firstly, small films about strangers bringing new life to rural Christian communities provide plenty of scope for the exposure of hypocrisy while at the same time allowing repressed characters to break out of their hairshirts. The same year and with a similarly Swedish breeze, The Queen of Sheba's Pearls did it, and Babette's Feast also comes to mind. Secondly, any film about small communities taking on the whole wide world will strike a human chord in our increasingly individual/self- focused and impersonalized world. This film's structural similarity with the likes of The Full Monty, Brassed Off, Calendar Girls and On a Clear Day shows its indebtedness to the formula. But it is a formula with life left in it yet, and this seems to be because people need positive- message films that evoke a sense of community almost in spite of themselves.The stranger is burned-out maestro Daniel Daréus on a quest for self-rediscovery. The town he visits, or rather revisits, is, unbeknownst to the townsfolk, the place of his childhood. He was bullied mercilessly by classmates here, supposedly because he was a sensitive musician without aspiration to drive a truck. Here, he takes the job of cantor/choirmaster, despite the usual suspicions of artists and outsiders. The place is, of course, populated by a wide range of recognizable types whose character arcs can be predicted: the broken-hearted, fair-haired girl so beautiful she nearly glows; the cellphone-ringing local businessman; the woman whose beauty is lost amidst domestic abuse; the steely pastor and his less austere wife, who at first seem right out of Ingmar Bergman. Also present: jealous, uptight spinster (Siv) (check); geriatric whose soul still sings (check); elderly couple who may have repressed desires for each other since kindergarten (check); obese person whose function is to point out we should not laugh and say 'fatty' (check); intellectually handicapped boy who proves able to sing a good 'A' (check).Pollak's film is not all warm fuzzies, however. It diverts from the 'let's put on a show despite setbacks and moral opposition' sub-genre. It contains violence and an ending that might well be a metaphor for dying after achieving creative nirvana. The violence of the film is mostly a function of male anger and repression, but in never delves deeply into why the school bully who grows up into a wife beater is like this. Similarly, the small town Pastor so closely adheres to the moralistic, black-wearing super-Protestant stereotype, that his secret indulgence in girlie magazines is hardly surprising. His repressions and hypocrisies are just there, dangling unrelated to psychological reality. Perhaps the unexplained photograph of a young boy, a lost son perhaps, glimpsed once over his shoulder, holds the secret.Perhaps these holes are functions of the editing, like several inconsistencies and continuity glitches that can be spotted, such as Siv's unexplained reappearance in the choir (twice) after moralistic outbursts. In fact none of the hitches in the film last very long and all seem resolved within a scene. Apart from in some awkward love scenes, the film's 127 minutes seldom drag, but there is a feeling that things may have been left on the cutting room floor.The film remains solid three-star-fare despite the holes that can be picked in it. This is simply because in a world of technology-focused flicks and materialistic self-seeking, any glimpse of human community is, deep down, welcome for anyone, even the cynical. | 1 |
train_21243 | Antitrust falls right into that category of films that aspire to make some great point while being uplifting yet falls completely flat. I don't hate the film, but it is missing key elements, such as suspense. There have been other attempts to make an engaging film about computers, such as Hackers and The Net. They all fall short. The improbable ending of both The Net and Antirust seem to be nearly identical. These movie endings suffer from one huge error in perception: People in the PC business having this over-indulgent self ego that assumes the general population lives it's life waiting to hear the latest news about PC's and software. I have worked for many companies and industries, and they all seem to suffer from an expanded view of their own self-importance, as does this film.The way they introduced plot lines was pathetic. Showing Milo, who is deathly allergic to Sesame Seeds, almost ingest one from a restaurant breadbasket crossed the line of stupidity. Only his 'girlfriend' prevented him from sure death. This makes one wonder how Milo could have survived as long as he did, braving the perils of Big Mac buns and Sesame Seed breadsticks, as they cloak themselves as, well.... Sesame Seed breadsticks and Big Mac buns.Antitrust also doesn't provide much suspense. The patterned and predictable plot twists are easily figured out long before they are revealed (come on, was anyone REALLY stunned when Yee Jee Tso was killed?), thereby destroying any real shock value. And here again we have yet another film/story where at the end, the bad guys are chasing the good guys to 'get the disk'. We need to have a moratorium on this Simple Simon plot line for about 20 years. Still, I pressed on. Maybe the ending would be the payoff, but no. The completely ridiculous ending where we have the head of company security, another supposed evil guy, turn around and be the good guy that enables Milo to bring down N.U.R.V CEO Gary Winston was laughable. And of course, the news coverage of the arrest of Gary Winston is more fevered than when Hinckley or Oswald was brought into custody. Gary Winston, played by Tim Robbins, is a cardboard cutout of the same character Robbins played in Arlington Road. But that fits perfectly here in Antitrust, which should be called 'Anticlimactic' or 'Anti-Original'.In the years to come, this film will likely be banished, to be shown only on your local third rate UHF channel. | 0 |
train_9462 | Clean family oriented movie. I laughed, I cried...I loved it. I was worried I wouldn't be able to see Steve Carrell as anything but goofy Michael from The Office. Boy, was I wrong. He should win an Oscar for his performance. I will definitely buy this on DVD when it comes out. My husband enjoyed it and he isn't into movies of this "type". I saw it with 2 other couples in the 30 year old range and we all agreed it was the best movie we had seen in a LONG time and certainly the cleanest. Only 1 cuss word! Not even sure why it was PG13. I would highly recommend this movie to anyone who likes comedy, drama, romance and more! | 1 |
train_16867 | One of Boris Karloff's real clinkers. Essentially the dying Karloff (looking about 120 years older than he was)is a scientist in need of cash to finish his experiments before he dies. Moving from Morocco where his funding is taken over by someone else he goes to the South of France where he works a s physician while trying to scrap enough money to prove his theories. Desperate for money he makes a deal with the young rich wife of a cotton baron who is dying. She will fund him if he helps her poison the husband so she can take his money and carry on with a gigolo (who I think is married). If you think I got that from watching the movie you're wrong, I had to read what other people posted to figure out happened. Why? because this movie had me lost from two minutes in.I had no idea what was going on with its numerous characters and multiple converging plot lines. Little is spelled out and much isn't said until towards the end by which time I really didn't care. Its a dull mess of interest purely for Karloff's performance which is rather odd at times. To be honest this is the only time I've ever seen him venture into Bela Lugosi bizarre territory. Its not every scene but a few and makes me wonder how much they hung out. | 0 |
train_21797 | I gave this a 1. There are so many plot twists that you can never be sure to root for. Total mayhem. Everyone gets killed or nearly so. I am tired of cross hairs and changing views. I cannot give the plot away. Convoluted and insane. If I had paid to see this I would demand my money back. I wish reviews were more honest. | 0 |
train_15451 | Do not see this movie if you value your mind. At the end of our collective viewing, me and my friends estimated that we each lost 5% of our brains during its course. The only person involved with its making that was not clinically insane was the set designer.Most movies leave a bad taste in your mouth. I realize now that instead of a feeling of revulsion, this movie has bred a deep hatred within me. I hate this movie so very, very much.Some might say this movie is not meant to be taken seriously. If only it didn't take itself seriously. But it does. The plot is a warmed over version of Blade Runner-esque universe melded with the cheap rubber suits so prevalent in bad dinosaur movies. The dialogue is not only puerile and meaningless but often literally painful. Whoopee Goldberg isn't even trying, but George Newbern as the voice of Theodore Rex is like fingernails on the soul. And whether its Juliet Landua with her off again on again British accent or Richard Roundtree (aka Shaft) as the blustering Commissioner, you will sink into an ever increasing sense of incredulity and disillusionment.I recommend this movie only to anyone who wishes to see the depths of stupidity to which mankind may fall. | 0 |
train_23292 | this movie offers nothing but the dumbest conversations possible. as a matter of fact i most probably could not have imagined how meaningless a film, how synthetic the dialogs could be until an hour ago, but then again i saw this video. in a movie that does not depend on a powerful script, one expects to see at least good acting and tasty conversations and even some humor maybe, yet this movie lacks them all. you heard me it lacks them all. there is not a single point i like about this movie, none. i hate it. i'm sure anyone will do so too. the name is intended to give the target audience some thoughts of nudity and stuff, yet it fails even at the nudity. i don't know how but i beared to watch this thing for an hour or so, and i definitely recommend you don't do so. worst movie i've seen in my entire life. if someone offers you to watch it, ruuun awaaaaay saaaaaave your liiiiiiiiife | 0 |
train_19705 | If you enjoy seeing what must have started as a 2 hour movie in unconnected bursts of unwatchability, you'll love this film. Otherwise, you'll just wonder how they could have made such a film from something so simple to translate to the big screen as Inspector Gadget.In the previews for the film, many scenes were shown which were not in the film, and within the film, some scenes just don't make sense. While the movie is slightly less than 1 hour and a half, I can only think of one truly memorable moment, and that is just before or during the credits! | 0 |
train_21452 | After hearing about George Orwell's prophetic masterpiece for all of my life, I'm now 37, but never having read the book, I am totally confused as to what I've just seen.I am very familiar with the concepts covered in the novel, as i'm sure most are, but only through hearsay and quotes. Without this limited knowledge this film would have been a complete mystery, and even with it I'm still no more educated about the story of 1984 than I was before I watched it.On the plus side...The cinematography is amazing, Hurt & Burton deliver fine performances and the overall feel of the movie is wonderfully grim and desolate. The prostitute scene was a fantastically dark piece of film making.Now for the down sides, and there are plenty...There is a war going on, (at least as far as the propaganda is concerned), but why & with who? Nothing is explained. There are a couple of names bandied about (Eurasia etc), but they mean nothing without explanation.Who is Winston? what does he do? where does he come from? where does he work? why is he changing news reports? why isn't he on the front line? Why doesn't he eat the food in the canteen? What is that drink he's drinking through the entire film? Why is he so weak & ill? Why isn't he brainwashed like the rest of them? What's the deal with his mother & sister? What happened to his father? A little back story would have been nice, no scrub that, essential for those like myself that haven't read the book. Without it, this is just a confusing and hard to follow art-house movie that constantly keeps you guessing at what is actually going on.The soundtrack was dis-jointed and badly edited and the constant chatter from the Big Brother screens swamps the dialogue in places making it even harder to work out whats going on. I accept that this may have been an artistic choice but it's very annoying all the same.Also, I know this has been mentioned before, but why all the nudity? It just seemed totally gratuitous and felt like it had been thrown in there to make up for the lack of any plot coverage.I personally can't abide the way Hollywood feels it has to explain story lines word for word these days. We are not all brainwashed simpletons, but this is a few steps too far the other way. I can only imagine that it totally relies on the fact that you've read the book because if this film really is the 'literal translation' that I've seen many people say, I would find it very hard to understand why 1984 is hailed as the classic it is.There's no denying that it was light years ahead of it's time and has pretty much predicted every change in our society to date, (maybe this has been a sort of bible to the powers that be?), but many sci-fi novelists have done the same without leaving gaping holes in the storyline.I guess I have to do what I should have done from the start and buy a copy of the book if i'm to make any sense out of this.All in all, very disappointed in something I've waited for years to watch. | 0 |
train_11851 | In a time when Hollywood is making money by showing our weaknesses, despair, crime, drugs, and war, along comes this film which reminds us the concept of the "Indomitable Spirit". If you are feeling beaten down, this movie will free your mind and set you soaring. We all know how tough life can be, sometime we need to be reminded that persistence and courage will get us through. That's what this film did for me and I hope it will for you. | 1 |
train_12936 | If you've ever been harassed on the Underground by a Christian who says, "Jesus is the answer. What's the question?", then perhaps you should thank God if you've never met a Lacanian. Slavoj Zizek, the most evangelical of Lacanians, would surely exchange the word "Jesus" in that statement for "Lacan/Hegel".Zizek's star burns brightly at the moment, no doubt because we generally view films and pop culture purely as entertainment for our consumption. So it seems impressive when someone - anyone - comes along and says, "Hang on, films may say something about ourselves."The ideas Zizek expounds in this film are "true" purely because he says so. For example, Zizek explains that three Marx Bros are the ego, superego and id (God knows what happened to Zeppo, or Gummo
perhaps they're the sinthome...or is that movies themselves?). This is simply what they are. In Zizek's output, culture is not there to be investigated but merely to be held as an example of his ideology. People may object that he certainly has something to say - but how different is what he says from the Christian attributing everything to God's will?What's wrong with taking examples, from films or anywhere, to illustrate theory? Well, nothing at all. As Zizek seems to believe, they may even serve as a proof. However, it is merely cant and propaganda when these examples are isolated from their context. Without context, you can say and prove anything you want. For Zizek, Lacan is the answer so he goes and makes an example of it. Everything but everything resembles the teachings of the Master and culture is there to bear this out, to serve this ideology. For instance, Zizek's exemplar of the fantasy position of the voyeur is taken from a scene in Vertigo when Jimmy Stewart spies on Kim Novak in a flower shop. But, in the context of the film, this is not a voyeur's fantasy position at all. Stewart has been deliberately led there by Novak. This presentation of examples isolated from their context continues throughout Zizek's two hour and a half cinematic sermon.His analysis of the "baby wants to f---" scene in Blue Velvet is laughable. Touching lightly on what he appears to consider to be the horrific (to the masculine) truth of "feminine jouissance", Zizek says that Isabella Rossilini's character not only demands her degradation but is, unconsciously, in charge of the situation. This is an example of her "jouissance". Well ... possibly. But - sorry to be prosaic - where is the evidence for this? In the film, she partially undergoes her humiliations because Hopper has kidnapped her son. Zizek may object that she also evidently enjoys rough sex with Kyle MacLachalan. But this may be due to any number of things. Isn't that the point of so-called feminine "jouissance"? According to Lacan, feminine jouissance, unlike phallic jouissance, cannot be articulated, it is beyond the phallic capture and castration of language. If this is right, then no example can be made of it. It also means that the entire concept is non-sensical and entirely mystical. It can only be designated by dogmatists such as Zizek: "There's feminine jouissance for you! Why is this feminine jouissance? Because I say so." What example can really be garnered from these films? Only Zizek's psychology. Why does he keep inserting himself into his favourite films, even to the point that, when in a boat on Botega Bay, he says he wants to f--- Rod Steiger too? Is this not the wish-fulfilment of someone who spends his life critiquing films? As the saying goes, Freud would have a field day with The Pervert's Guide to the Cinema - but with Zizek himself, nobody else.Zizek's theory that films show us how we desire may be right on the face of it, but these films cannot be strict universal examples of psychoanalytical laws. This film illustrates how Zizek desires and only extremely vaguely - as to be almost useless - how the rest of us desire. For, as any psychoanalyst knows, how we desire and what we desire cannot be fully separated - and cannot be easily universalised, if at all. Zizek's love of making everything an example of Lacan's Answer bears this out: how do we desire? like this, this is how I do it. Problem is, in Zizek's desire, everything and everyone else is rationalised into his desire. But Zizek is a Leninist and they certainly don't like letting the "subject" speak for itself.The Pervert's Guide to the Cinema is a summation Zizek's love of dogma and is entirely unphilosophical even if it remains very political (what dogma isn't?). Zizek has never questioned exactly what his motives might be when embarking on an analysis, what he is trying to discover, because the terms of his exploration, and therefore his ethics in doing so, are never put into question.Zizek is extremely prolific but all his books and this film say the same thing. He's a kind of Henry Ford of cultural theory: mass-production and any colour as long as it's black. He is perfect for today's highly consumerist society: supposedly critical while giving people the same c-ap over and over and pretending that it is something different. This is popular because people largely prefer readymade answers to their problems - which capitalism always claims to provide - rather than investigating things with any serious consideration at all. Which is kind of like being brain dead. For me, Zizek's third Matrix pill is a suicide capsule.PS: I loved Zizek's solemn remark - presented as a revelation about cinema and humanity - that music in films can greatly affect people's sympathies. Did this only occur to Zizek after he watched Jaws? | 0 |
train_21578 | Wouldn't it be great if Not Another Teen Movie actually put an end to all of these stupid, pointless, I'm getting more sex than you are teen movies? In a perfect world, yes. Yet this one is even worse. This one is not humiliating for the stars, it's humiliating for the distributor. All of the jokes are basically college students exposing stuff that people probably have NO interest in seeing, yet it's "funny." Devon Sawa, who was actually good in Final Destination, is just plain dull in this movie. It makes you wonder if it's being bad on purpose. Grade: F | 0 |
train_933 | I saw this movie in sixth grade around Christmas Time, and I was really excited about seeing it, and when I heard that George C. Scott was in it, I was really excited, because I really love George C. Scott! When me and my class were watching this movie, I was really into it, and when it was over, I was really impressed, I thought that it was totally fabulous! This is the best version of Charles Dickens' classic novel that I have seen so far! George C. Scott's performance as Scrooge is something else, I thought that he was the perfect choice, he was Scrooge, he is the definitive Scrooge! I've seen two different versions of A Christmas Carol, the other is the one with Patrick Stewart, but this is the better one! What it really great about this is the acting, I thought that the actors were fabulous, everyone was, the spirits, Tiny Tim, Bob Cratchit, everyone, they could not have found anyone better than the ones they had doing the parts! But the best part of the movie was George C. Scott! When I saw him, I thought that he was the absolute best! He is the definitive Ebenezer Scrooge, I do not think that they could have found someone better! I don't think that they could have found anyone better to replace anyone in the movie! This movie is probably the definitive movie adaption of the classic by Charles Dickens, and I really think that you will agree, you will think that this movie is fabulous! I am probably going to have to buy this movie on DVD, because I thought that it was totally fabulous! I totally recommend that you see this masterpiece! This is the best version of A Christmas Carol, period. 10/10 | 1 |
train_7090 | A linear travel within a non-linear structure. It's a fact that time, in 12 monkeys, flows in this come-and-go between present, future and past. However, the movie's linearity can't be avoided: it's the very work of the projector, the unfolding of the narrative.What we can see underlying the temporal theme is a reflection on the inevitability of our actions. The world of this Terry Gilliam film is a world with little space for free-will.Right from the beginning we are informed about a schizophrenic's prophecy, according to which a plague would rule the Earth in 1997, forcing the few survivors to live underground - the only place not affected by the virus.Cole's (Willis) mission is clear: return to the mid 90's to investigate whatever and whoever is related to the release of the virus. There's no way to change the past: all that can be done is gather information that can help the scientists of the present (that, for us viewers, is the future) find the cure. Not to change what happened (the past is inevitable), but make the present better.In his "returns" in time, Cole gradually comes near a striking dilemma: his life in the past is better than his life in the present.The latter is dark and dehumanizing, controlled by totalitarian scientists that elect "volunteers" (this word is incisively ironic) to embark on the journeys to the past.The scientists have not yet reached the highest level of achievements in time travel, and Cole ends up on wrong dates - this will, later in the plot, work as a proof of his sanity for the psychiatrist Kathryn (Stowe).We can see, through the evolution of the story, that linearity and non-linearity interlace in a circular temporality.There is more than one moment in which the scene that is the first and ends up being almost the last - and certainly the climactic - appears. It modifies itself, according to the evocation of Cole's memories, that come up in his dreams.In an airport, a man is shot dead while running, armed, toward someone else. A blonde woman runs after the murdered one.This is the scene that connects the past (in which Cole is a kid that visits the airport with his parents), the present (the time of the narrative) and the future (adult Cole) Throughout the narrative, Cole has the feeling of having already lived the reality he is experiencing now. His prophetic dreams are the proof that it is impossible to escape or avoid what happened. The agents that shoot him stop him from killing the mad scientist, doctor Peters (Morse), that is the responsible for the dissemination of the disease.What was can't be changed. And, in Cole's case, what was is what will be. Eternally.A film not quite well understood for many. To me, nothing less than a masterpiece.Other good movies with similar theme: The Back to the future trilogy (that has another angle regarding the "mad scientist" character, and although it shares the atmosphere of decay - particularly in the second film -, it is way more optimistic than Gilliam's work, that is an odd Hollywood picture).In another register, there is "Wild strawberries", one of Bergman's masterpieces, that involves a striking and enlightening travel to the past through dreams and reminiscences.I've never watched "La Jetée", but only because I can't find it. | 1 |
train_12264 | If you as I have a very close and long relationship with the world of Tintin....do yourself a favor and watch this beautiful documentary about Hergé and his life creating Tintin. I'ts so brilliant and a very cool production. The whole background story about Hergé and the people and also very much the many different situations he was influenced by, for good and worse is amazing. There is a very fine and obvious connection between the comic books and just this. I will for sure be in my basement digging up the Tintin albums again. Also, the movie itself are very well told and has a great ambient sound to it. I really do hope people will find this as intriguing as I did! | 1 |
train_6087 | I saw this movie in the first couple of weeks it was out, (I don't remember exactly when.) I thought that it was alright, for a Ben Stiller movie. This movie isn't for a person without a good sense of humor. Like most of Ben Stiller's jokes you have to think about them. Or like I said you have a good sense of humor. From a couple of people on this website I saw that people didn't have anything good to say about it and It didn't get a very good rating, But I would have given it a larger one This movie, I thought, was very good and it should have gotten a better rating. Maybe this isn't a movie for you. I'm just giving you another person's opinion. | 1 |
train_23148 | The finale of the Weissmuller Tarzan movies is a rather weak one. There are a few things that derail this film.First, Tarzan spends much of the film wearing floppy sandals. In my opinion, any footwear on Tarzan, whether it be sandals or boots as sometimes portrayed, takes away from the character, which is supposed to be anti-civilization and pro-jungle.Second, the character of Benji, as mentioned in a previous post, totally derails the movie as the comic foil. To me, his character is unnecessary to the film's plot.Also, while Weissmuller still cuts a commanding figure as Tarzan, it's apparent that he was not in his best shape. Although in his later Jungle Jim movies, his physique had improved somewhat from this film.The octopus battle is a terrific idea, but I think it should have been done in an earlier Weissmuller film when he was at his physical peak. Likewise, the battle, which takes only 30 seconds tops, would be much more thrilling if it was drawn out to 90 seconds to 2 minutes like the classic giant crocodile battle in Tarzan and His Mate.And while Brenda Joyce as Jane and Linda Christian as Mara are overwhelmingly pleasing to the eye, it doesn't manage to salvage this last Weissmuller film - a disappointing ending to a great character run. | 0 |
train_17699 | In the first 20 minutes, every cliche possible was trotted out by the hack writer and director. There was the NTSB primary investigator with the tortured family life; the politically-tortured NTSB board member played by [I can kill ANY TV] Ted McGinley; the tortured father of a crash victim; and the torturing sleazy ambulance-chasing lawyer.Hollywood still has no concept of the fragility of aircraft. The crashed plane was a 737 and it was mostly sitting on the ground like a hippo who decided to take a nap. The first third of the fuselage was intact, the rear half of the plane was intact and the debris field showed no wings or engines. Most of the people should have walked away in light of how many people survived that plane that got shredded in Iowa after it lost its hydraulics. Most of this TV plane wasn't even burned.It reminded me of the scene in "Air Force One" where the 747 hits the water and then skips along like it's made of inch-thick steel.The show was so bad it was impossible to watch. Even my wife, who is more accepting than I, was commenting on technical flaws. What had me stunned was how this POS could ever get made. Are the producers of these things so used to clichés that they can't even recognize them? Somebody read this script and said: Yes, I want to spend a million bucks making this real. I wish I was the guy's next appointment. I have title to a wonderful bridge in New York that I'd sell cheap. | 0 |
train_9424 | For me this is Ealing Studio's most perfect film - as fresh and relevant half a century later as it was the day it was released.As a satire on economic notions of 'growth' and the commercial need for in-built obsolescence, it could scarcely be more up-to-the-minute. And of what other film can it be said that the hero literally wears the plot?Oddly, there are parallels with Jurassic Park, in which messing with the environment will literally turn round and bite you. But Spielberg shied away from the book's brilliant central conceit to tack on some nonsense about 'children'. Hmmm.In The Man In The White Suit, Alec Guiness plays an idealistic young scientist who comes up with a cloth that never gets dirty and never wears out. Suddenly workers and capital at the northern English mill where he is working are united as never before in protection of their livelihoods.Of course, being Ealing, it's a comedy, but it needn't have been. The complex interplay of vested (should that be suited?) interests plays out beautifully, as one by one all parties realize that 'progress' is a threat, and that disposability and waste are what keep the looms turning.But, yes, this is a comedy - albeit a pointed one - and amid the political ironies are delicious performances, and some good old-fashioned knock-about laughs.Nonetheless, it's the biting satire that endures - dazzling and white. | 1 |
train_6052 | Highly recommended!!A well written, funny film which will appeal to everyone out there with a sense of humour!!!. Give it a go, it's good to see an Independent British Movie more than holding it's own against the big established studios!! Definitely worth adding to any film collection. There are scenes in this film that I'm sure a lot of people will be able to relate to. You will laugh out loud at the antics and enjoy the great soundtrack. I especially enjoyed the Orb's version of Jimmy Cliff's Vietnam and The Tower of London's take on Freebird. Go on give it a go............ you won't be disappointed. | 1 |
train_12830 | I wanted to punch the TV. Watching it was torture. I hated it. Never watch this movie. The terrorists are annoying. Adam Sandler is annoying. I normally like him but not in this one. I wanted to break the DVD. This is the most irritating film in the world. The comedian he's jealous of is obnoxious. The only remotely funny part is the rocker with the black teeth getting all the girls. It was so irritating I wanted to punch the TV. DO NOT BUY THIS MOVIE UNLESS YOU WANT TO ANNOY SOMEONE. If you even like Adam Sandler a little bit, Don't buy it. It will just make you hate him. Do yourself a favor, if you see it in the store, hide it to put everyone out of danger of buying it. Its a waste of the $1.99 I paid for it. | 0 |
train_20436 | Yet ANOTHER movie about a group of less-than-intelligent individuals on a road trip who wander off their original travel route for either a short-cut or, in this case, to visit a run-down side show attraction. The results, as expected, are not at all good, as this particular side show is home to a bunch of lunatic, in-bred residents who were escaped prison inmates from years before. The father, who is apparently a professionally photographer, just HAS to stop and take pictures of the place, only to find that it still inhabited. The various members of the family wander off to view the various attractions, only to be scared away. Thinking they made it safely on their way, the van tire explodes (surprise!), leaving them to seek refuge and accommodations in the small town, which we find out is inhabited solely by the freaks (surprise!).This film plays out as expected, with the family being stalked and killed by the freaks. There is some fighting back on the families part, but these are probably among the worst scenes in the film, as they are badly executed. There is nothing remotely original here, unless you count the totally inappropriate soundtrack that is played during particular scenes that completely ruins the atmosphere and mood of the film. The acting is about as bad as I have seen in quite some time by everyone involved (it is pretty bad when your cast is out-acted by the cast of "Camp Blood). The special effects are lousy and the ending made me want to punch my television.Still, though, despite all the negatives, I somewhat enjoyed this film. It definitely has a "so bad it's good" vibe to it. I made it through the entire movie and was even pleasantly entertained once I got past the ridiculously clichéd plot, terrible acting, and cheesy special effects. Though the ending left me feeling cheated and angry, particularly because the film is not that great to begin with and the ending makes the entire film pointless.Bottom line, I can list countless films that if you have seen them, you have seen this. The difference is most of those film are better. Though not a complete waste, this film is pretty bad and not remotely scary.My Grade: D | 0 |
train_10592 | Pleasant story of the community of Pimlico in London who, after an unexploded WW2 bomb explodes, find a Royal Charter stating that the area they live in forms part of Burgundy.This movie works because it appeals to the fantasy a lot of us have about making up our own rules and not having to listen to THEM. A solid cast of British stalwarts, especially Stanley Holloway, makes this more believable.There are some very nice moments in the film, such as when the people have ran out of supplies and other Londoners on the other side of the barricade start throwing food and other things over to them.Even though you always knew Pimlico would become part of the UK again, the people of PImlico and as a consequence the viewer doesn't mind when this happens, leaving a nice happy feeling.It's amazing to think that these low budget movies from a small studio in London still remain so popular over fifty years later. The producers must have got something right. | 1 |
train_12107 | I saw this movie as a kid on Creature Feature when I lived in New York. It was a pretty creepy movie, though not as good as Horror Hotel. I just bought this movie on DVD, and it is different from what I remember because in the DVD that I bought there are several scenes where the actors speak in French and/or Italian and no subtitles are provided. Then the other actors respond in English to what was being said. Kind of weird. Also on the DVD box, the names of some of the actors are spelled differently than on IMDb.Aside from that, this movie is different in that the character of Elsie takes her clothes off and provides a nude shot in one scene and in another scene Julia tries to force Elizabeth (Barbara Steele) to make out with her by pushing her down on the bed and kissing her while Steele resists. That scene existed in the TV version, but it was very edited. I wonder if there is any extra footage that could be incorporated into a remastered ultra-edition? It seems sad that some of these old low budget classics have been spliced to bits and sold in all kinds of edited versions. Where are the master tapes and all the unused footage? Aside from the first boring twenty minutes before Allen is delivered to the Castle, the rest of the movie is pretty good. There aren't too many special effects (but Herbert's face after Julia clubs him is a good one). The creepy atmosphere and the strange, exotic, and seductive look of Barbara Steele make the movie a lot better than it should be. I can honestly say that if Barbara Steele had not been in this film, it would be a big zero. She makes the movie a ten! | 1 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.