id stringlengths 7 11 | text stringlengths 52 10.2k | label int64 0 1 |
|---|---|---|
train_21328 | Stewart Kane (Gabriel Byrne, VANITY FAIR) heads out with his local Jindabyne, Australia fishing buddies for a weekend of rest, recreation, and relaxation. But when Stewart discovers an aboriginal woman's body floating face-down in a river, things appear to have turned out for the worst. The largest casualty of the weekend is the men's commonsense. They don't hike out of the ravine, and instead finish their fishing weekend with some great catches. Then they head out and report the body.The town and the men's lives quickly turn into a mess. The local media swarms them, and accusations of aboriginal prejudices rear up from the local natives. Stewart's wife Claire (Laura Linney, THE EXORCISM OF EMILY ROSE) senses the deeper meanings of what her husband and his friends did, but has to battle with it through her own mental illness.Amidst all this chaos is the life that was this young woman who is now a media spectacle, splayed out on a morgue slab. Her murder and subsequent dumping into the water are symbolic of what lay beneath the town of Jindabyne: a division of men and women, black and white, social and outcast.The only other people who seem to understand some of what is going on are two young kids: Stewart and Claire's son who is being led around by a half-breed Aussie who's mother was killed also just a few years before. The young girl lives with her grandparents and is trying to let go of her mother the best way she can, and the discovery of a new body seems strangely enough a method in which to accomplish this (again, the underlying current of Jindabyne is surmised).Everything and everyone in this Jindabyne township feels what lurks beneath its surface, yet none of them are willing to dive into the murky waters and take a look around (the symbolism here is seen when a nearby lake that is used for recreation and swimming is said to contain the old town of Jindabyne under its surface). None, that is, until Claire forces them to.The movie is interesting if a bit too convoluted. There are far too many story lines that needed exploring and it just doesn't get done; too many loose threads. The acting was okay, but the filming was terrible. Wobbly cameras, grainy or dark shots, and just a generalized sloppiness hurt the overall production.I enjoy symbolic films, NORTHFORK being one of my all-time favorites in that vein. But Jindabyne needed to peak its head above the turbid water so that it could see its own problems, which simply didn't happen. | 0 |
train_3658 | This film is like an allegory of the gospel. It has such direct honesty and innocence you can not possibly believe it was made after the world war when Italy was ravaged and devastated, and was filled with a huge homeless, impoverished population. It is a monument to the best qualities of the human spirit, as well as to the endless creative resources of that land of inspiration. Toto is a character like Doestoevisky's "Idiot", a modern Christ finding his way in a big city. He is goodness and purity fortified by love, and his acts change the people he encounters, as much as the miracle working dove. The story is told in a natural manner and simple style, yet imbued with a magic that is almost a premonition of Fellini's surrealist fantasies. It is one of the most inspiring, uplifting movies ever made. | 1 |
train_682 | This is one of my all-time favorite films, and while it may move too slowly for some, it's well worth seeing. A corporate lawyer (Richard Chamberlain) is dragged into a case involving "city" Aborigines, and this is no ordinary case. OK, a man has died but it wasn't exactly a normal killing. There has also been a greater than average amount of rain lately, and the atmosphere of most of the film is somewhat claustrophobic & oppressive. The Aborigines are harboring a secret and refuse to spill the beans. This has a lot to do with white men making assumptions about "City" vs. "Tribal" Aborigines, and of course no Abo in the big city would practice tribal ways. Uh huh. Chamberlain is having strange dreams and he is somehow the key to what's happening, although no matter how many times I've seen this I can't quite grasp the exact connection. This is a very eerie and creepy film, and is a fine example of Peter Weir's ability to create tension out of nothing. The ending is a little ambiguous but I take it literally, it's the easiest way out and the scariest. 10 out of 10 and highly recommended. | 1 |
train_4215 | In this excellent Twentieth-Century Fox film-noir, the metropolis is a labyrinth of despair in which scavengers and predators survive by living off one another. Brooding cityscapes lower over puny humanity in bleak expressionist symbolism.A prostitute has her purse snatched on the subway. It contains a microfilm, and a communist spy ring will go to any lengths to recover it. Two parallel investigations unfold as both spies and cops hunt down the precious information.Anti-hero pickpocket Skip McCoy is played with scornful assurance by Richard Widmark. He knows the cops to be his moral equals and intellectual inferiors, so he taunts them: "Go on," he says to captain Dan Tiger (Murvyn Vye), "drum up a charge. Throw me in. You've done it before." In this pitiless world, the cops are just one more gang on the streets. Just as Candy the hooker bribes Lightning Louie to get a lead, so the police are busy paying stool pigeons for information.It is hard to believe that when Widmark made this film he was already in early middle age. The 39-year-old star, coming to the end of his contract with Fox, plays the upstart Skip McCoy with the irreverent brashness of a teenager. Today it may not be acceptable for the romantic lead to punch his love interest into unconsciousness then revive her by sloshing beer in her face, but by the mores of the period it signified toughness - and Candy, after all, is a fallen woman.Jean Peters is radiant as Candy. Here, right in the middle of her five-year burst of B-movie fame, she is beautiful and engaging as the whore with the golden heart. She is the story's victim, a martyr to her beauty as much as anything else. She means well, but is constantly being manipulated by cynical men - Joey, Skip and the cops.The real star of this movie is New York. Haunting urban panoramas and snidering subway stations offer a claustrophobic evocation of the city as a living, malevolent force. Like maggots in a rotting cheese, human figures scurry through the city's byways. Elevators, subway turnstiles, sidewalks - even a dumb waiter act as conduits for the flow of corrupt humanity. People cling to any niche that affords safety: Moe has her grimy rented room, Skip his tenebrous shack on the Hudson River. As the characters move and interact, they are framed by bridge architecture, or lattices of girders, or are divided by hanging winch tackle. The personality of the city is constantly imposing itself. The angles and crossbeams of the wharf timbers are an echo of the gridiron street plan, and the card-index cabinets in the squadroom mimic the Manhattan skyline. When Joey's exit from the subway is barred, it is as if the steel sinews of the city are ensnaring him.A surprising proportion of this film is shot in extreme close-up. Character drives the plot, as it should, and the close-ups are used to augment character. When Skip interrogates Candy, the close-up captures the sexual energy between them, belying the hostility of Skip's words. Jean Peters' beauty is painted in light, in exquisite soft focus close-ups. The device is also employed to heighten the tension. The opening sequence, the purse snatch, contains no dialogue: the drama relies entirely on close-up for its powerful effect.Snoopers, and snoopers upon snoopers, populate the film. Moe (Thelma Ritter) makes a living as an informant, and her place in the hierarchy is accepted, even by her victims. When Skip observes, "she's gotta eat", he is chanting a recurring refrain. Just as 'straight' New Yorkers peddle lamb chops or lumber, the Underworld traffics in the commodity of information.And yet even the stool pigeons are superior to Joey and his communist friends. Joey's feet on Moe's bed symbolise a transgression of the most basic moral code. Joey is beyond the pale. Moe will not trade with Joey, even to preserve her life: " ... even in our crummy business, you gotta draw the line somewhere.""Pick-Up" was made in the depths of the Cold War. Richard Nixon had just been chosen as the Republican vice-presidential candidate, having made his name with his phoney Alger Hiss expose - bogus communist microfilm and all. The McCarthy show trials were a daily reality. We see the cops in the movie inveigh against "the traitors who gave Stalin the A-bomb".New York can be seen as a giant receptacle in which human offal cheats, squeals and murders. Containers form a leitmotif throughout the film. Moe carries her trade mark box of ties, and candy's purse, container of the microfilm, is the engine of the plot. Skip keeps his only possessions in a submerged crate, symbolising his secretive street-wisdom. The paupers' coffins, moving down the Hudson on a barge, are containers of just one more cargo being shifted around the pitiless metropolis.The film is a masterpiece of composition. Candy is shown above the skulking Skip on the rickety gangway of the shack, signifying her moral ascendancy. When the gun is placed on the table, the extreme perspective makes it look bigger than Candy - violence is beginning to dwarf compassion. The lovers are eclipsed by the shadow of a stevedore's hook, reminding us that their love is neither pure nor absolute, but contingent upon the whims of the sinister city. Enyard the communist is a shadow on a wall, or a disembodied puff of cigarette smoke. He is like the lone alley cat amongst the garbage - a predatory phantom of the night. Camera shots from under taxi hoods, inside newspaper kiosks and through the bars of hospital beds constantly reinforce in us the awareness that we are all trapped in the metropolis. We are civilisation's mulch. | 1 |
train_20413 | Soulless milking of cash cow franchise. Generic superhero flick. CGI showcase. Gavin Hood's "A Series of Improbable Events." Combinatoric iteration of mutant fight scenes strung together by inane exposition justifying formation/dissolution of arbitrary alliances. I'm not expecting Shakespeare here but the cliché per minute meter was off the charts: Primal scream while looking skyward and kneeling over murdered girlfriend. Renegade military commander. Predictable double crosses. Revenge sought for slain lover. Erased memories. Evil character discovering morality at last minute. Misguided failures to execute nemeses after defeating them in melee. Lover not really dead. Lover actually acting as spy for hero's arch-nemesis. Girlfriend/spy actually falls for protagonist. Good people work for antagonist in order to save kidnapped family members. Evil mastermind fails to honor promises to reluctant employees. Kindly old couple care for weary hero and get murdered for their troubles. Certain deaths averted as third parties arrive on scene before coup de grace. Hero reluctantly joining secret government agency. Abandonment of elite squad in protest over slaughter of innocents. Scientists unable to control indestructible killing machine of their own creation. Outdated but lovable government 'secret weapon' kills off better designed but heartless successor. Hero strolls away from wreck and casually lights a trail of gasoline behind him. After everyone has given up, flatlined heart monitor picks up a pulse. Evil mastermind explains plans to hero he no longer sees as a threat. Hero refuses to kill defeated foe because he's "better than that". Transparent comic relief character makes hilarious understatements and offbeat comments. Cheerful psychopath revels in random murderous rampages. Nigh indestructible Goliaths hurl one another through a series of walls and other physical traumas that would kill a mere mortal. Man dispatches dozens of gun wielding enemies with nothing but skillful swordplay. Common sense and the laws of physics, biology and chemistry temporarily abandoned. Antagonist using loved one's murder as justification for misguided crusade.I could go on but this is just exhausting. If you're over the age of twelve and not living in mom's basement, there's probably nothing here for you. Depressingly enough, it's not too far off of par for superhero movies so discount all I've written if you can't get enough of the genre. | 0 |
train_22806 | After watching a dozen episodes, I decided to give up on this show since it depicts in an unrealistic manner what is mathematical modeling. In the episodes that Charlie would predict the future behavior of individuals using mathematical models, I thought that my profession was being joked about. I am not a mathematician, instead a chemical engineer, but I do work a lot with mathematical models. So I will try to explain to the layman why what is shown is close to "make-believe" of fairy tales.First, choosing the right model to predict a situation is a demanding task. Charlie Eppes is shown as a genius, but even him would have to spend considerable time researching for a suitable model, specifically for trying to guess what someone will do or where he will be in the near future. Individuals are erratic and haphazard, there is no modeling for them. Isaac Asimov even wrote about that in the 1950's. Even if there were a model for specific kind of individual, it would be a probabilistic (stoichastic) one, meaning it has good chance of making a wrong prediction.Second, supposing the right model for someone or a situation is found, the model parameters have to be known. These parameters are the constants of the equations, such as the gravity acceleration (9.8 m/s2), and often are not easy to determine. Again, Charlie Eppes would have to be someone beyond genius to know the right parameters for the model he chooses. And after the model and the parameters are chosen, they would have to be tested. Oddly, they are not, and by miracle, they fit exactly the situation that is being predicted.Third, a very important aspect of modeling is almost always neglected, not only by Numbers, but also by sci-fi movies: the computational effort required for solving these models. Try to make Excel solve a complex model with many equations and variables and one will find doing a Herculean job. Even if Charlie Eppes has the right software to solve his models, he might be stuck with hardware that will be dreadfully slow. And even with the right software/hardware combination, the model solution might well take days to be reached. He solves them immediately! I could use his computer in my research work, I would be very glad.As a drama, it is far from being the best show. The characters are somewhat stereotyped, but not even remotely funny as those in Big Bang Theory are. The crimes are dull and the way Charlie Eppes solves them sometimes make the FBI look pretty incompetent.For some layman, the show might work. For others, the way things are handled makes it difficult to swallow! | 0 |
train_8407 | ...this is, above all else, the typical Crown International Pictures drive-in (read "passion pit") programmer. The 1975 Sammy Johns hit record "Chevy Van" is heard repeatedly on the soundtrack (this movie has even been reissued with the title CHEVY VAN), despite the film's title vehicle being a Dodge. Danny DeVito makes only six minutes of on-screen appearance, but countless VHS reissues falsely credit him as the star of the flick. The movie is a comparatively sexist morality tale -- will Bobby find sexual satisfaction through the one-night-stand his customised van facilitates, or must he wait until Tina, the girl of his dreams, gives him the time of day? Still, it is representative of the prevailing carnal dream of male American high schoolers of the time, and on that basis alone THE VAN has, almost in spite of itself, become an artifact of the period that must be referenced in any honest retrospective of the period's popular American cinema... | 1 |
train_9669 | After reading the original play I thought it would have been much more difficult to adapt to screen than it turned out to be. Donal McCann puts in a once-off great performance as Public Gar, the repressed antagonist who is manifested openly on screen by his extroverted (but unseen to others) alterego- Private Gar. Eamonn Kelly also plays an excellent "screwballs" whose inability to communicate his feelings is matched only by Gar.Definitely worth renting out if you can find it. (Probably unavailable outside Ireland & UK) | 1 |
train_2406 | this is best showing of what i think jesus really was like. most movies show jesus as being effeminate, lobotomized, or tortured. this jesus laughed, played, and was serious when it was necessary. this is the kind of jesus people could be attracted to, not the usually hollywood version.the movie took some liberties, attempting to "fill in the blanks." but the fillers didn't seem impossible, or even improbable. one thing i might argue, was that it never really explained what the romans had against jesus (movie portrayed that the romans were the main driver of jesus' death, not that the jewish authorities were against the idea).it seemed that the movie was researched well. one example was the offhand comment to a teenage boy who was called "mark." it is believed that mark (or john mark) was the boy referred to at the garden of gethsemane whose cloak was pulled off and ran away naked (mark 14:51). i get the feeling that they tried to make the movie as accurate (even in spirit) was much as possible. | 1 |
train_19872 | I'm so confused. I've been a huge Seagal fan for 25 years. I've seen all of his films, and many of those dozens of times. I can only describe this film as "bizarre." Steven Seagal shares screenplay writing and producing credits on this film, but I have a really tough time believing he would choose to dub over his own voice for so many of his lines, with a thin, whiny imposter's voice no less. What I also don't get is, if they had to dub SOME of his lines, why does his own voice appear on the rest of them? I expect Seagal to age like the rest of us. But the Seagal in this movie barely exudes a fraction of the same swagger, confidence, bravado, charm, and sex-appeal he so easily showed us in ALL of his previous movies. What I found myself missing most of all was his cocky, self-assured attitude and his bad-ass sneer that so easily shifts into that adorable grin. Where is that in-your-face attitude and charm that made him such a huge star??? I hope that this film is not an indication of what Seagal has left to offer us - if so, his lifelong fans will have to concede that the Seagal we all knew and loved is gone. | 0 |
train_4761 | An excellent film with great performances from Zack & Lochley. Much to their displeasure (& mine) Garibaldi arrived on station. (All due respect to Jerry Doyle but in Seasons 4 & 5 I lost sympathy for the character.) It doesn't take him long to start criticizing Zack (who I love best of all on the show)and taking charge. I'm sure Zack could have coped. The Soulhunter plot is fascinating, especially if you believe in heaven as Zack does. The humour supplements it nicely. 10/10 | 1 |
train_21365 | The Howling II starts as it means to go on with a bizarre and surreal opening narration by Christopher Lee whose image is imposed over a moving star field, oh and a skeleton appears as well for some reason. He says "for it's written the inhabitants of the Earth have been made drunk with her blood. And I saw her sip upon a hairy beast and she held forth a golden challis full of the filthiest fornication's and upon her forehead was written, behold I am the great Mother of #an inaudible word I couldn't make out no matter how many times I rewound the tape and tried to, sorry# and all abominations of the Earth". This opening narration means nothing at all and is just downright bizarre. After the opening credits which are set over shots of Transylvanian architecture we get an on screen caption that informs us we're in 'Los Angeles, California U.S.A. City of the Angels'. I knew I was in for a long 86 minutes. It's probably not too long after the events of the original Howling (1981) and it's Karen White's funeral. After the ceremony Karen's brother Ben (Reb Brown) is spoken to by an 'occult investigator' called Stefan Crosscoe (Christopher Lee) who says that Karen is a Werewolf and that she will come back to life. Ben dismisses such nonsense. But together with one of Karen's friends and colleagues Jenny (Annie McEnroe) he visits Stefan at his home. There Stefan tells them about Werewolves and how they can be killed, he mentions Stirba (Sybil Danning) who is the queen of Werewolves. Stefan also shows them a photograph taken at Karen's funeral of a woman named Mariana (Marsha A. Hunt) and that she is an extremely vicious and dangerous Werewolf who wants Karen. Stefan says he will stake any Werewoves through the heart with titanium. Ben figures out that Stefan means he will stake Karen as well so together with Jenny he travels to the graveyard where his sister's crypt is to stop Stefan. However lots of Werewolves turn up and attack Stefan, Ben and Jenny. They survive the attack and manage to find out that Stirba is to be found in Transylvania. They all decide to travel to Transylvania and stop Stirba and her Werewolves from taking over the Earth by fulfilling a centuries old curse. Once there they travel to a small town called Vlkava which means 'where wolves live' and meet up with the local priest, Father Florin (Ladislav Krecmer) and his small but loyal group of Werewolf hunters, hey what else can I call them? Oh, and a dwarf named Florica (Ludmila Safarova) helps too. They follow Mariana who they hope will lead them to Stirba. But Stirba knows of Stefan's arrival and has plans for him Ben and Jenny. Will Stefan be able to put an end to Stirba's plans for world domination? Will this film get any more bizarre or surreal? Watch it and find out. Directed by Philippe Mora this is one strange mess of a film. It's poorly edited as certain sequences just jump around incoherently. The single biggest problem is the script by Robert Sano and Gary Brandner based on his novel which is all over the place and doesn't make any sort of sense or introduces us to any proper characters that we like. Luckily it moves along like a rocket and is never dull or boring, unlike the original. Something strange or bizarre is always happening to keep the viewer entertained. Most people will probably hate it, but for those of us who enjoy 'bad' films this is right up there with the best of them. There are Werewolf orgies which are just freaky to watch. We get some cool Werewolf killing weaponry. The sets and locations just seem so out of place and I don't know if this was actually shot in Transylvania but it doesn't look like what I thought mid 80's Transylvania would. Stirba's castle is part dungeon, part Gothic castle and part modern luxury house. Stirba and her servant's costumes are very over-the-top, Stirba wears an outfit that looks like it belongs in a S/M video and to be fair to her she looks pretty sexy, and her minions wear skimpy leather clothing too. The special make-up effects range from good to poor, a dwarf's eyes explode, someone has their hand ripped off and a priest has some creature emerge from his mouth but this isn't a film loaded with gore, although there are plenty of effect sequences with Werewolf transformations and attacks. There is plenty of nudity as well as Stirba and her minions are a real randy bunch of Werewolves! I should also mention the music, the soundtrack is dominated by awful rock music that I hated and I ended up turning the volume down. Acting is weak all round and what on Earth was Christopher Lee thinking about when he accepted this film?! I wonder what he thinks of it. Basically the whole thing is a real mess, but I found it a fairly entertaining mess all the same. Impossible to recommend but it kept me watching through to the end. Speaking of which the end credits run over what appears to be deleted scenes and cut footage, it also features the same shot of Sybil Danning taking her dress off and exposing her breasts probably in excess of 20 times! If that's your thing. | 0 |
train_9038 | I loved October Sky. The thing I loved most had to be the music. It worked two ways: in the first hour of the film, it gives the viewer a time-frame. This is done by playing songs from the late Fifties. In the second hour, an instrumental score takes over. The music now fits the mood of the film perfectly.I did not only enjoy the music, I also quite enjoyed the cast. Jake Gyllenhaal as Homer Hickam was especially a surprise for me. He gave off a first-class performance, as did Chris Owen (Quentin) and Chris Cooper (John Hickam).I've seen this movie about escaping the life already laid out for you twice now, and both times I thoroughly enjoyed myself. | 1 |
train_22089 | This movie is horrible if you pay attention to it. It's a perfect movie if you just watch the colorful images dance across the screen - each one with no apparent connection to the next. I rented this movie because I'm a David Bowie fan, and I really appreciate musicals. In finality, Bowie was in the film for a total of ten minutes and the songs and dance sequences were sparse and left something to be desired. The moral of the story was really befuddling. I couldn't tell if it was about racial issues in London in the 1950s or about not selling out. For the first half of the movie I was chuckling at how cheesy it was but I liked the campiness of the "no selling out" message. When blacks started being murdered I thought my tape had gotten messed up. Maybe I rented half of two different movies? Nope, there was a "Keep Britain White" song and dance sequence. I'm sorry, but WWII is not something you can write a musical about. At least not a musical that could conceivably be described as "campy" as I have several times in this review. Overall I'd say this movie could do a whole lot better if it made up its mind and cast better actors. (And put David Bowie in it for longer goddammit!) My grade: C- | 0 |
train_806 | Star Wars: Episode 4 .the best Star Wars ever. its the first movie i ever Sean were the bad guys win and its a very good ending. it really had me wait hing for the next star wars because so match stuff comes along in this movie that you just got to find out more in the last one. whit Al lot of movies i always get the feeling that it could be don bedder but not whit this one. and i Will never ever forget the part were wader tels Luke he is his father.way too cool. also love the Bob feat figure a do hes a back ground player. if you never ever Saw a star wars movie you go to she this one.its the best.thanks Lucas | 1 |
train_3783 | I admit it's very silly, but I've practically memorized the damn thing! It holds a lot of good childhood memories for me (my brother and I saw it opening day) and I have respect for any movie with FNM on the soundtrack. | 1 |
train_19877 | Even though the plot was very well detailed,and the story line was understandable the fact that Steven Seagals voice was dubbed with some one else's through out most of the movie was distressing as you were unsure who was talking . There were many parts where he would start to talk in his deep raspy voice and then the next some one else's voice was doing the talking for him. I don't know the reason however if he had difficulty with his voice during production of the movie I think they could have re shot the events that did not contain his own voice when he had recovered. I have rated this movie 3 out of 10 based on the quality of the film. When one pays for a movie whether or not its at the theater or on DVD this movie was not worth the admission price that was charged. I have been a long time follower of Steven Seagal and all his movies that he has done over the past years.To date I think this is one of the worst ones we have seen yet | 0 |
train_22359 | This movie is just lame. A total waste of time and money. The jokes are predictable, the characters are so cliché and the way it talks about RPG gamers is not funny as well. The problem is that the writers seems not to know how a RPG game works and, most important, how to make jokes about this game. Of course there are a bunch of losers who play RPG like freaking retards and total losers. But for me this is not the funniest way to make jokes about this game. The story doesn't make any sense at all. Who cares about how long a game is being played? The greatest problem in this movie is that the writers and actors didn't even try to know what RPG is about to make jokes about it. I felt ashamed by watching this lame movie. | 0 |
train_8134 | . . . is just as good as the original. Very nearly achieves greatness because of Cundieff's remarkable ear for music and dialogue. Skewers the self-important swagger of the hip-hop poseurs. The group "Niggaz with Hats" (NWH) are every rap group you ever heard and utterly self-parodic. Wardrobe is unbelievable. Buy the OOP soundtrack if you can. | 1 |
train_331 | This movie of 370 minutes was aired by the Italian public television during the early seventies. It tells you the myth attributed to Homer of the Journey home of Odysseus after the Troy war. It is an epic story about the ancient Minoan and Mycenaean civilizations, told at list 500 years after those events toke place, around 1100 BC.This is a 1969 movie, so if you buy the DVD version you would find that the sound is just mono and there is no other language than Italian, even the close caption is in Italian. Pity. Many people would enjoy this masterpiece if it had at list the English subtitles. But if this is not a problem for you, than I would strongly recommend to watch this movie. | 1 |
train_1526 | Preminger's adaptation of G. B. Shaw's ''Saint Joan''(screenplay by Graham Greene) received one of the worst critical reactions in it's day. It was vilified by the pseudo-elite, the purists and the audiences was unresponsive to a film that lacked the piety and glamour expected of a historical pageant. As in ''Peeping Tom'', the reaction was malicious and unjustified. Preminger's adaptation of Shaw's intellectual exploration of the effects and actions surrounding Joan of Arc(her actual name in her own language is Jeanne d'Arc but this film is in English) is totally faithful to the spirit of the original play, not only on the literal emotional level but formally too. His film is a Brechtian examination of the functioning of institutions, the division within and without of various factions all wanting to seize power. As such we are not allowed to identify on an emotional level with any of the characters, including Joan herself.As played by Jean Seberg(whose subsequent life offers a eerie parallel to her role here), she is presented as an innocent, a figure of purity whose very actions and presence reveals the corruption and emptiness in everyone. As such Seberg plays her as both Saint and Madwoman. Her own lack of experience as an actress when she made this film(which does show up in spots) conveys the freshness and youth of Jeanne revealing both the fact that Jeanne la Pucelle is a humble illiterate peasant girl who strode out to protect her village and her natural intelligence. By no means did she deserve the harsh criticism that she got on the film's first release, it's a performance far beyond the ken and call of any first-time actress with no prior acting experience. Shaw and Preminger took a secular view towards Joan seeing her as a medieval era feminist, not content with being a rustic daughter who's fate is to be married away or a whore picked up by soldiers to and away from battlefields. Her faith, her voices, her visions which she intermingles with words such as "imagination" and "common sense" leads her to wear the armour of her fellow soldiers to lead them to battle to chase the invading Englishman out of France.And yet it can be said that the film is more interested in the court of the Dauphin(Richard Widmark), the office of the clergy who try Joan led by Pierre Cauchon(Anton Walbrook, impeccably cast) and the actions of the Earl of Warwick(John Gielgud) then in Joan herself. The superb ensemble cast(all male) portray figures of scheming, Machievellian(although the story precedes Niccolo) opportunists who treat religion as a childish toy to be used and manipulated for their own ends. The sharp sardonic dialogue gives the actors great fun to let loose. John Gielgud as the eminently rational Earl whose intelligence,(albeit accompanied by corruption), allows him to calculate the precise manner in which he can ensure Joan gets burnt at the stake and Anton Walbrook's Pierre Cauchon brings a three dimensional portrait to this intelligent theologian who will give Joan the fair trial that will certainly find her guilty. Richard Widmark as the Dauphin is a real revelation. As against-type a casting choice you'll ever find, Widmark portrays the weak future ruler of France in a frenzied, comic caricature that's as close as this film comes to comic relief. A comic performance that feels like an imitation of Jerry Lewis far more than an impetuous future ruler of France.Preminger shot ''Saint Joan'' in black and white, the cinematographer is Georges Perinal who worked with Rene Clair and who did ''The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp'' in colour. It's perfectly restrained to emphasize the rational intellectual atmosphere for this film. Preminger's preference for tracking shots of long uninterrupted takes is key to the effectiveness of the film, there's no sense of a wasted movement anywhere in his mise-en-scene.It also marks the direction of Preminger's most mature(and most neglected period) his focus is on the conflict between individuals and the institutions in which they work, how the institution function and how the individual acts as per his principles. These themes get their most direct treatment in his film and as always he keeps things unpredictable and finds no black and white answers. This is one of his very best and most effective films. | 1 |
train_18485 | This film is just a kids against evil genre. Thunderbirds is just the hook to get people to see it, but are almost incidental in use. The fact that the action takes place on Tracy Island is just a ploy to pull in the public. It was interesting to note what the film makers view of future London will be and how the World all fits together.The best part of this film are some of the lines delivered by Lady Penelope which are highly comical. These provided some light relief for those expecting a rerun of the TV series.Having said that it passes 90 or so minutes in a 'fun' way and so may just be worth watching. | 0 |
train_20485 | "Kings and Queen" is a bloated French drama that rambles on for an interminable two hours and thirty-two minutes to no discernible point or purpose.The film features two stories that seem unrelated at first but which eventually connect with one another about halfway through the movie. The first centers around Nora and her struggles with various men in her life, including an elderly father who discovers he has only a few days left to live. The other story involves a young man named Ismael, a violinist who finds himself placed - unfairly, he believes - in a mental institution through the machinations of an unknown third party. After traveling along on separate tracks for awhile, these two narrative strands eventually come together when we learn that Ismael is a former lover of Nora's and the man she has chosen to adopt her son from an earlier, tragic relationship.With a bit more focus and a considerable amount of streamlining, "Kings and Queen" might have been a potent, engrossing drama about modern day relationships. It certainly has moments of tremendous insight and emotional power, and the performances are, for the most part, complex and touching. But, taken as a whole, the film meanders and maunders to such an extent that, quite frankly, it begins to wreak havoc on our patience and to wear out its welcome early on. Even more distressing is the fact that, even though we spend what seems like a mild eternity in the company of these people, we really don't know quite what to make of any of them when the show is finally over. For instance, Nora's father, on his deathbed, writes a withering diatribe against his daughter's character that simply doesn't gibe with the woman we've been looking at for well over two hours. Nora is admittedly no Mother Theresa (then, again, who is?), but she certainly doesn't deserve the invective thrown at her by her very own father. Nora could be accused of being confused, indecisive, a bit self-absorbed at times, but evil enough to have her father wishing he could give her his cancer and make her die in his place? I don't think so.Perhaps this film is simply operating at a level of depth that I was unable to fathom. But my suspicion is that even writer Roger Bohbot and co-writer/director Arnaud Desplechin would have trouble fully explaining their purpose here. This is a well acted, pretentious bore of a film that takes the viewer on a long, rambling voyage through a sea of personal crises, a journey that leaves him no wiser or more enlightened at the end than he was at the beginning. | 0 |
train_960 | This is a movie that has a lot of things that only Japanese people can understand. Even well translated, there are some things that are obviously private jokes or regional symbolism. My guess is that it tried to send a message of some sort, but that just got wasted on me.What I felt that is basically this is a mediocre movie with nice special effects. Some kid becomes "The one" and in the end has almost no relevance to a yokai war that makes no sense whatsoever anyway. It would have been nice to understand what the hell they were talking about, but between the Azumi bean washing yokai and the one that looks like a big tongued umbrella (Rihanna eat your heart out!) I couldn't really discern the plot.Bottom line: nice visuals, the kid screams a lot, the river princess is terrible cute and the rest is crap. | 1 |
train_744 | "Foxes" is one movie I remember for it's portrayal of teenagers in the late 1970's. As I am exactly Jodie Foster's age, I related to this movie. It deals with the frustrations, temptations, relationships & rebellion of youth. The soundtrack is great with inspiring rock eg. "More Than a Feeling" by Boston and sad numbers like "On the Radio" by Donna Summer. The music of my late teens. Yep, I'll always remember this one, even if it wasn't huge. | 1 |
train_20001 | I went to this movie expecting a concise movie relating the effect the Son of Sam had on the society. I didn't expect Spike Lee to force-feed me more garbage on racial tension, mob-justice, or the inability of the common citizen to make a choice under pressure by peers. Lee has presented an extreme opinion.The entire movie could have been more effective if in a 90-min format with more focus, less tangential sub-plots.Don't even bother renting the video unless you passionately enjoy Spike Lee; in such a case, the theatre is worth it. This is not an escapist movie. | 0 |
train_17139 | Eyes of the Werewolf (1999) is a really bad movie. The premise was real good but the overall execution was just terrible. I wished the filmmakers would have taken their time with this project instead of rushing it into production. Some blind dude gets some new eyes, bad thing is that they belong to a mean old werewolf. Nasty things begins to happen to the dude as he turns into a cheesy looking creature. Can he find a cure before his hot girlfriend finds out? Who is that weird little troll who helps him out and what's up with that female cop? If you really want to find out, check out Eyes of the Werewolf!Not a bad idea for a movie. I just wished the filmmakers would have spent a lot for time in pre-production before they decided to shoot the movie. | 0 |
train_9823 | I really thought this wasn't that bad. Not a great work of art but Dermot M was the stronger performer by far. Patricia Arquette was overacting much of the time. He was actually playing cello which was very impressive, and his lines were never forced. Besides, he is an incredibly Beautiful Man. Really sexy. Add that to the talent, and most anything he's been in is a lot more tolerable. He always gives his all even if some of the projects he's been involved in didn't quite hit the highest mark.. Not the fault of the actor in most cases. He's unfortunately been in some strange films that just didn't resonate at the box office. Always with A-list actors but just not always a "hit". But he is "worth every penny" of any DVD rented or purchased. See The Wedding Date with Debra Messing - one of his best overall films. WORTH EVERY PENNY! ; ) (if you haven't seen it yet, do, then you'll understand that quote!) | 1 |
train_14285 | .... And after seeing this pile of crap you won't be surprised that it wasn't published !!!! SPOILERS !!!!This is a terrible movie by any standards but when I point out that it's one of the worst movies that has the name Stephen King in the credits you can start to imagine how bad it is . The movie starts of with two characters staring open mouthed at a scene of horror : " My god . What happened here ? " " I don't know but they sure hate cats " *The camera pans to the outside of a house where hundreds of cats are strung up dead and mutilated . Boy this guy is right , someone does hate cats and with a deduction like that he should be a policeman . Oh wait a minute , he is a policeman and when a movie starts with a cop making an oh so obvious observation you just know you're going to be watching a bad movie The reason SLEEPWALKERS is bad is that it's very illogical and confused . We eventually find out the monsters of the title need the blood of virgins to survive . Would they not be better looking for a virgin in the mid west bible belt rather than an American coastal town ? Having said that at least we know of the monsters motives - That's the only thing we learn . We never learn how they're able to change shape or are able to make cars become invisible and this jars with the ending that seems to have been stolen from THE TERMINATOR . Monster mother walks around killing several cops with her bare hands or blowing them up via a police issue hand gun ( ! ) but if her monster breed is immune from police fire power then why do the creatures need the ability to change shape or become invisible ? The demise of the creatures is equally ill thought out as there killed by a mass attack of household cats . If they can be killed by cats then why did the monsters not kill all the cats that were lying around the garden ? There was a whole horde of moggies sitting around but the monsters never thought about killing them . I guess that's so the production team can come up with an ending . It was that they started the movie my complaint lies We're treated to several scenes where famous horror movie directors like John Landis , Clive Barker and even Stephen King make cameos . I think the reason for this is because whenever a struggling unknown actor read the script they instantly decided that no matter what , they weren't going to appear in a movie this bad so Stephen King had to phone up his horror buddies in order to fill out the cast . That's how bad SLEEPWALKERS is* Unbelievable as it seems that wasn't the worst line in the movie . The worst line is - " That cat saved my life " | 0 |
train_20957 | I only watched this movie because I was so impressed with Olivier Martinez in SWAT. But this is no SWAT. SWAT had a plot and some likable characters and made sense. Bullfighter had none of these. I should have realized that it couldn't possibly be any good, after all, the always painfully bad Michelle Forbes had a starring role.One poster here called the movie incoherent. Another called it the worst movie ever. Both gave the movie far too much credit. I am so glad I got it from the library for free, yet I still feel ripped off.IMDb needs to include a "0" in the "rate this film" vote, just for movies like this one. | 0 |
train_20532 | This had a great cast with big-name stars like Tyrone Power, Henry Fonda, Randolph Scott, Nancy Kelly, Henry Hull and Brian Donlevey and a bunch more lesser-but-known names with shorter roles. It also had Technicolor, one of the few movies made with it in 1939.Now the bad news.......regrettably, I can't say much positive for the story. It portrayed the James boys in a totally positive light....and Hollywood has done that ever since. Why these criminals are always shown to be the "good guys" is beyond me. This film glamorizes them and made their enemies - the railroad people - into vicious human beings. The latter was exaggerated so much it was preposterous. Well, that's the film world for you: evil is good; good is bad.Hey Hollywood: here's a news flash - The James boys were criminals! Really - look it up! | 0 |
train_6914 | This movie contains one of Richard Dreyfuss's greatest performances, as an actor who plays a dictator and does it so convincingly that his own mother does not detect the impostor. Also, this movie is funny, yet has a serious side as well. What is especially intriguing about this movie is the character Madonna, who is the dictator's mistress, but eventually becomes the leader of the country. Madonna's evolution from mistress to political leader added greatly to the quality of the story and to the movie's entertainment value. And the main character, who at the start of the movie is a struggling actor and somewhat of a buffoon, evolves too and by the end of the movie commands respect. I liked this movie. | 1 |
train_18002 | Silly, often ridiculous romp involving the landing of a space ship and the resulting havoc this causes on Tim (Jeff Daniels) and the people in his orbit.Am always amazed by Daniels. He showed such depth and promise in 1983's "Terms of Endearment" as Shirley MacLaine's philandering son-in-law. As the years have passed, Daniels has been unable to get his hands on a good, meaty role. Instead, he is in inane comedies such as "Dumb and Dumber."As for this picture, it fails because of the subject matter. At least, the television show brought about a variety of situations. In the film, we have constant slapstick and people turning into monsters as the government is thwarted into capturing the martian-Martin.The part of Mrs. Brown is a perfect example of the non-success of the film. On television, Pamela Britton portrayed a ditsy individual caught up in situations with the martian leaving her perplexed. In the film version, a blond bomb-shell as Brown, tries romantic entanglement.Television star Ray Walston has a small role as a government agent, or is he really that?A very big disappointment for those who enjoyed the television show so much. | 0 |
train_197 | "Wisecracker," the biography of actor William Haines, offers a gratifying anecdote about the former star when he was past 70 and long retired from making movies. The old gent was not sentimental and rarely watched his own films, but in 1972 he was persuaded to attend a Los Angeles museum screening of SHOW PEOPLE, the late silent feature in which he co-starred with Marion Davies. Beforehand, Haines was worried that this comedy would provoke the wrong kind of laughter, but he was pleasantly surprised (and no doubt relieved) at how well it held up and how much the young audience enjoyed it. Watch the film today and you can see why: SHOW PEOPLE is a delightful Hollywood satire that retains its charm because it lampoons its targets with wit and flair, yet without malice. It's still funny and its satirical points still resonate. Needless to say, the technology of movie-making has changed vastly since the silent days, but the pretensions and follies of the filmmakers themselves haven't changed all that much.SHOW PEOPLE also stands as the best surviving work of Marion Davies, a first-rate comic performer who deserves a prominent place in the pantheon of great comediennes. Where her career was concerned Davies was both blessed and cursed by the patronage of her paramour, the newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst. It's well known that Hearst exerted enormous influence over Davies' choice of roles, and well known too that, despite her gift for comedy, he preferred to see her play dignified heroines in period costume dramas. By the late '20s, for whatever reason, Marion was permitted to strut her stuff in several exuberant light comedies (including THE RED MILL and THE PATSY), but SHOW PEOPLE, directed by the great King Vidor, stands as her most enjoyable showcase. William Haines gives an engaging, likable performance as her boyfriend and co-star Billy Boone, but this is the leading lady's show all the way.Marion plays Southern belle Peggy Pepper, an aspiring actress who storms Hollywood accompanied by her father, determined to become a movie star. (Her dad Colonel Pepper is played by actor/director Dell Henderson, a veteran of Griffith's Biograph dramas whocoincidentally?resembled Hearst!) One of Marion's funniest bits, often excerpted elsewhere, is her audition at the Comet Studio casting office. While Dad helpfully suggests emotions to portray ("Sorrow! . . . Joy!") and drops a handkerchief across her face, Peggy assumes the appropriate expression and posture. She's hired, only to discover that Comet makes low-brow comedies, the kind of comedies where people squirt each other with seltzer and inept cops tumble over each other racing to the rescue. Of course, Comet is intended as a take-off of Mack Sennett's Keystone, but the true nature of the satire becomes clear as the story unfolds. As Peggy Pepper rises in the movie star hierarchy she leaves Comet for the more prestigious High Art Studio, assuming the name "Patricia Peppoire" as more befitting her new station in life as a serious actress. At some point it may occur to us (as it surely did to viewers in 1928) that Davies' rival Gloria Swanson started out in Keystone comedies before rising to prominence in serious dramas for Cecil B. DeMille. And as Miss Peppoire takes herself more and more seriously, giving the high-hat treatment to former colleagues such as lowly comic Billy Boone, Davies' performance takes on an element of wicked parody seemingly aimed squarely at Swanson herself. This is especially notable during an interview sequence, when Miss Peppoire's spokesman spouts pretentious nonsense while the star delivers a spot-on impersonation of Swanson. I suppose this was intended as a friendly spoof, but I have to wonder how friendly relations were between Gloria and Marion after this movie was released.In any event, SHOW PEOPLE is a delicious treat for buffs, who will relish the parade of star cameos throughout. Charlie Chaplin contributes a nice bit, sans makeup and looking quite distinguished, eagerly seeking Patricia Peppoire's autograph! (And in a show of good sportsmanship Marion Davies herself puts in a self-mocking cameo appearance, evening the score for poking fun at Swanson by poking fun at herself.) This is a silent film that viewers not especially attuned to silents might appreciate, at least those viewers with a taste for movies about the movie business. SHOW PEOPLE surely belongs in the company of such classics as SUNSET BOULEVARD and SINGIN' IN THE RAIN, among Hollywood's most expertly produced, enjoyable exercises in amused self-examination. | 1 |
train_137 | After some of the negative reviews i heard on this movie, i was doubtful of giving it a go, but i had £3.99 in my wallet & thought id gamble on buying a budget like movie & saw this and gave it ago & I'm glad i did, i enjoyed it. Directed by The star of films such as Chain Reaction, the Ring, Bourne Identity,(Brian Cox) i had to gamble with this even if it was rubbish but it weren't at all, i found some of the humour quite funny especially Alfred Molina the star of Spider-man 2 the Character Doc Ock. He was excellent the most enjoyable part of the film. Of course like many other people which bought this movie i saw Matthew's name, and that made me get it! and no his part isn't big at all, it's very short at the very end of the film, it's not a big part which makes me believe thats why people hate the film. I suggest you give it a go. Some parts are a pit poor that needed polishing, the acting, and a bit more action. But it's watchable. | 1 |
train_11768 | This movie surprised me in a good way. From the box I got the impression that it was an action thriller but it was too funny to be a thriller, even though it was somewhat exciting.There's a lot of nice one-liners and funny situations in this movie and James Belushi was born to do Bill Manucci, he does a great job. The rest of the cast ain't half-bad either and especially Timothy Dalton is a treat.The story can get pretty confusing at times as new characters shows up during the film. Things get more complicated as nobody seldom tells the truth about things. If you don't pay attention things might get a bit messy in the end but I really liked it.Louis Morneau isn't all that well known but he has done a perfectly OK job with this one and I never really grew impatient while watching the movie.Made men is well worth checking out. | 1 |
train_13010 | This is surely one of the worst films ever made and released by a major Hollywood studio. The plot is simply stupid. The dialog is written in clichés; you can complete a great many sentences in the script because of this. The acting is ridiculously bad, especially that of Rod Cameron. The "choreography" is silly and wholly unerotic. One can only pity the reviewer who saw 23-year-old Yvonne's dance as sexual; it's merely very bad choreography. The ballet scene in the film's beginning is especially ludicrous. If you are into bad movies and enjoy laughing at some of Hollywood's turkeys, this is for you. I bought the colorized version on VHS, making the movie even worse. Yvonne's heavy makeup, when colored, has her looking like a clown all the time. And she's the best part of this film. What a way to launch a career. | 0 |
train_17790 | I'm not usually one to slate a film . I try to see the good points and not focus on the bad ones, but in this case, there are almost no good points. In my opinion, if you're going to make something that bad, why bother? Part of the film is take up with shots of Anne's face while she breaths deeply, and violin music plays in the background. the other part is filled with poor and wooden acting. Rupert Penry Jones is expressionless. Jennifer Higham plays Anne's younger sister with modern mannerisms. Anne is portrayed as being meek and self effacing, which is fine at the beginning, but she stays the same all through the film, and you see no reason for captain Wentworth to fall in love with her. Overall the production lacks any sense of period, with too many mistakes to be overlooked, such as running out of the concert, kissing in the street, running about in the streets with no hat on (why was this scene in the film at all? the scene in the book was one of the most romantic scenes written.). To sum it up, a terrible film, very disappointing. | 0 |
train_21828 | Lucky me! I got a sneak peak at this pathetic little shot-in-Texas 'horror' flick from Artisan Entertainment a week before it hit video shelves and let me tell you...I've rarely laughed so hard in my life as I did watching this atrocious megabomb fly off the rails and steal the title of 'worst killer clown movie ever made' from the insufferably stupid Full Moon fiasco KILLJOY (I'm sure many of us horror fans have suffered through that one!) From all indications, it was shot on DV, and it doesn't really 'look' all that bad quality-wise for digital, but boy does it ever fail miserably in every other area where it counts!The story (slight and cliche as it is) goes as follows... An executive (Ken Hebert, who also scripted and co-produced with the director) takes skeptical co-worker Tracy (Amanda Watson) and horny married couple Mark and Susan (Hank Fields and Chris Buck) along on a weekend getaway to a (yawn) secluded cabin `12 miles' from the nearest town. On the way there, they pick up a bitchy/slutty hitchhiker (Melissa Bale) in a bar and end up at their destination where a nightly campfire tale about a murderous clown stalking the very same wooded area comes true when each of the profanity-yackin, pot-smokin friends' disappears one-by-one, with only mutilated doll parts left behind to tell the tale of their fates.The killer clown doesn't even show up in the film until near the end and it looks nothing like the demonic depiction of it on the video box (aside from being morbidly obese). It basically spends an hour prancing around in the woods, chopping up wood and blabbing nursery rhymes. I cannot say enough bad things about the cast, especially the two guys and the hitchhiker chick, who either deliver their insipid dialogue with a bare minimum of enthusiasm or overact at the most inappropriate times. Doesn't really help that the script is completely and utterly devoid of suspense, originality, intelligence, general coherence or humor. I could go on for days on how inept this film is, how many continuity errors there are and how amateurish the whole production is, but I'll just nod off by pointing out the whole package is quite a riot in that Boy-This-Sucks kind of way.Also noting that the film has been released here in the US as S.I.C.K. (SERIAL INSANE CLOWN KILLER). It's currently catalogued under its (original title) of GRIM WEEKEND.Score: 1 out of 10 | 0 |
train_668 | I just watched "The Last Wave" in my school's fine arts library. It's intriguing, like all Peter Weir's stuff, but it's not always as attention-holding as I would have liked. I found myself fascinated by the ideas being thrown at me (because they are very well handled by the film's director Weir)but at the same time I was not stimulated enough by them. AKA I got a little bored in spots.The plot surrounds an Aussie lawyer who becomes obsessed with certain dreams he has which link him to an Aborigone group he is defending.It starts out with an intense weather sequence and has some very awesome mood effects throughout (most notably the bizarre, "belching" sound design)and strong direction; but it just didn't entertain me like Weir's later films do. I might just need to watch it again though.Good film about obsession and mystery. Because, in the end, the mystery that exists between the whites and the Aboriginies offers some very severe consequences.God bless Peter Weir, though. For him alone this film is worth watching ... very organic director. Like an Aussie response Malick! I'd give it a 7 because it's got enough great ideas to overcome its boring moments. | 1 |
train_14838 | How is it possible that no journalist or critic reminded us of the resemblance with that other better Flemish movie "Congo Express (1986)"? There are also some characters in congo Express put together without having really a relation to each other: Jean, (de Congolees), the workman, the two taxi-drivers, the street-singer, Roger, Guy, Lucienne and Gilbert. Of course, Tom Barman is a star and Luc Gubbels wasn't. That should not be a reason to pardon the flaws in the script (if there is a script) of Anyway the wind blows. The joke (the only one!) at the party about the ice in the refrigerator is taken from that great Flemish movie "De Witte (1934)" where De Witte is putting too much salt on the potatoes. Some accidents happen in the movie but there comes no explanation after. Tom Barman delivers us here a movie that is more like an experiment to watch at the television than a movie for the theatres. Another missed chance for Flemish Cinema. | 0 |
train_18160 | I am glad to read so many negative comments about the Tritter plot. Everyone I talk to says the same thing. They like House's gruff nature and his intelligence, but really dislike the vindictiveness of this continuing plot. It cuts into the real nature of the hospital story and makes everyone angry at police authority. It needs to have a more caring nature instead of the vindictiveness to everyone at the hospital. Also, there seems to be many questionable legal aspects to what Tritter is actually doing. He alone cannot freeze accounts and have the authority to stop doctors from writing prescriptions for patients. A lot of the vindictiveness he is showing also is hurting the very sick patients at the hospital and the is not a good storyline to portray. I voted the episode awful not because of the story itself, but when you insert the Trittor piece it turns me off and the rest of the plot gets hurt by it, People say they hate to watch the story lines anymore. Please change it. Get Tritter out. | 0 |
train_24153 | The first one was different and funny. This attempt should have never left the studio. This movie does not make you laugh. It is a weak attempt at gross out humor. The movie picks out current and old movies to rip-off. This time the jokes seem used and overdone. The audience that I saw it with only re-acted to Hannibal dinner scene and was otherwise asleep. | 0 |
train_20260 | In the Fiji islands, the greedy and unscrupulous owner of the Valalola Resort Primal Park invites investors and guests for an opening party of his compound composed of hotel and zoo aiming to find partners for his discoveries. When a bunch of college smalltime thieves puts a virus in the security system to participate in a scavenger hunt, the greatest attractions of the zoo sabretoothes from the prehistoric age developed from DNA found in fossils escape, killing the hosts and guards for pleasure.The incredibly lame and cheap "Attack of the Sabretooth" is one of the worst movies I have recently seen. The characters are awful and not funny or pleasant and the story is a terrible Jurassik Park rip-off with a bad collection of clichés. Basically all the lines and situations are poor and stupid, but the winner is when the guard explains that the sabretoothes are bulimic and like to kill for pleasure. My vote is three.Title (Brazil): "O Ataque do Dente de Sabre" ("The Attack of the Sabretooth") | 0 |
train_6589 | I loved this show from it's first airing, and I always looked forward to watching each episode every week. The plot, characters, writing, special affects were outstanding! Then the sci-fi channel screwed up yet again and canceled a very entertaining, well written show. I say bring it back, I know all of the actors would come back. I would suggest buying the DVD's, I am. I hope the sci-fi channels executives get word of these comments, and realize that they need to be more involved with their viewers. I only watch one show on that channel now, (Ghost Hunters), but I am fairly sure that shortly they will cancel that too. | 1 |
train_22489 | I had the misfortune to watch this rubbish on Sky Cinema Max in a cold winter night. I am not a big fan of horror movies, because most of them are just trash. This one is even worse: it is one of the dumbest pieces of crap i've ever seen in my whole life. Horror movie? Yes, there are horrible things in this: the acting, the script and the special effects - Gosh, i laughed at this ludicrous attempt to make a flick for 90 minutes. Actually, had it been a comic movie i would've given it a 5. Don't you even think about renting this unless you want to mock at the producers.Vote: 2 out of 10 - didn't vote one because it made me laugh all the time ;-) | 0 |
train_11734 | This has to be one of my favourite flicks, unlike the weak 'Elvira's Haunted Hills'...anyway I love the way the movie is a goth/com 'Wizard of Oz' story...Elvira is a goth Dorothy who is stranded in an unfamiliar town after the death of a Good Witch (elviras Aunt Morgana)...she inherits a "Ruby" ring which is extremely powerful and sought after by the Bad Warlock (Her uncle)...She befriends four Characters whom she inadvertently helps grow throughout the movie all the while with a dog in tow. There is a show down with her uncle (the wicked witch of the West) where Elvira realises that she has the strength within her and ends up defeating him. In the end she gets sent off by the towns folk after winning over their hearts and finally gets to her destination Las Vegas (Dorothy's home in Kansas).There are many references made to the wizard of oz throughout the movie...she and her uncle both quote lines relevant to their parallel characters. Elvira: "Youe must be aunt Em, and you must be uncle Remus....There's no place like home, there's no place like home!" Bad uncle Vinny: "I'll get you my pretty, and your little dog too!"There is a sign that Elvira passes when first on her road trip which mentions the state of Kansas.But aside from this, the fact that one of the sequences she "ripped off, um...I mean was inspired by FlashDance" is pure genius...and if you don't roll around laughing at her titty twirling at the end of her "very 80's" Las Vegas show then you haven't got a camp bone in your body...This movie is a Cult/Camp Classic | 1 |
train_21486 | THIS FILM IS LAME, LAME, LAME!!!!! It takes a lot to bring me to over-exaggeration about a movie, but this movie stunk up my house!! I haven't even finished the movie yet and I had to stop to comment on how bad this movie is. I'VE NEVER DONE THAT!! As a consumer, do not spend your money on this film. Wait until it comes out on a cable channel or something. It's barely TV worthy. I REALLY HATE TRASHING A MOVIE, BUT THIS MOVIE IS TRASH! Barely above porn. Should have and X rating! Good plot, some frontal nudity (if that floats your boat), but HORRIBLE high school level acting. Don't know how this movie received distribution. (Must have been a contractual thing.) Really, if you really like watching good movies, don't waste you time with this one. From one movie lover to another. YOU WILL BE MAD AT YOURSELF! Let me say this as well, if you've been through something like this perhaps you can relate and it will have some value for you. In that case I say watch it, you may take something away from it, if not just seeing something that's happened to you being acted out by someone else (has therapeutic value). | 0 |
train_19842 | "The Man In The Attic" is a movie set in the 1910s. It is inspired by a true story. Unfortunately, it's a story that really didn't need to be told.Looking at the box, the people responsible for packaging the movie tried their best to make this film appear steamy and erotic. They use terms such as "illicit passion", "forbidden affair", and "unlimited pleasures". They even show a picture of Neil Patrick Harris (little Doogie Howser, M.D.) holding a gun!The story involves Krista, played by Anne Archer. She is unhappily married to a gentleman who owns his own business. Edward (Harris) is an employee of her husband's company. Krista and Edward end up falling in love with each other.The supposedly "shocking" part of the movie is this: Krista's husband finds out about the affair and forbids them from ever seeing each other again. So what do they decide to do? Krista ends up having Edward live up in their attic. Wow! Krista ends up seeing someone else and Edward gets extremely jealous. So on and so on and so on."The Man In The Attic" doesn't cover any new territory. It's a Showtime original picture, which explains why the stars are a couple of B-list actors and both appear briefly in the buff. | 0 |
train_19358 | John Huston's Wise Blood was a more horrifying misrepresentation of Flannery O'Connor's book than I could have imagined. From the utterly terrible acting performances (and don't you, "Oh that was done on purpose, you just don't get it" me!) to the musical score that was more suited to an episode of Rockford Files, this film was revolting. I viewed it with no ill-will at the outset, and, in fact, expected a pleasant experience. But the misrepresentation of the southern characters, from the ridiculously fraudulent southern drawl to the lilting, comedic way their faith was portrayed, was inexcusable. Right down to it's end, which was completely devoid of any character sentiment, it failed in every place that O'Connor's book shined and resonated. The actors portraying the "southern" policemen may as well have been eating smothered hot-dogs from NYC street stands and quoting Godfather. The one redeeming acting performance was Ned Beatty's lively and dead-on representation of Hoover Shoates, a religious con-artist who hears Moates preaching the Church of Christ Without Christ and sees dollar signs and business opportunities. O'Connor's powerful book is most well-known for it's creepy, religious undercurrent that jibes the seemingly lifeless cadaver of "Faith". Mr. Huston's film is a shameful mockery of the author's intentions, as they are understood by me and most of her fans, if I may be so bold as to say so. While I acknowledge that I can't know exactly what the author wished to convey, I have enough affection for her and her works to desire to remain a fan. If I viewed Wise Blood the way Mr. Huston apparently did, I would have thrown it in the trash. For Flannery's sake, and mine, I forgive you, John Huston. The forgetting....that will take some time. | 0 |
train_14166 | can any movie become more naive than this? you cant believe a piece of this script. and its ssooooo predictable that you can tell the plot and the ending from the first 10 minutes. the leading actress seems like she wants to be Barbie (but she doesn't make it, the doll has MORE acting skills).the easiness that the character passes and remains in a a music school makes the phantom of the opera novel seem like a historical biography. i wont even comment on the shallowness of the characters but the ONE good thing of the film is Madsen's performance which manages to bring life to a melo-like one-dimensional character.The movie is so cheesy that it sticks to your teeth. i can think some 13 year old Britney-obsessed girls shouting "O, do give us a break! If we want fairy tales there is always the Brothers Grimm book hidden somewhere in the attic". I gave it 2 instead of one only for Virginia Madsen. | 0 |
train_10966 | Grey Gardens is a world unto itself. Edith and Little Edie live in near total isolation, eating ice cream and liver pate in a makeshift kitchen in their (apparently) shared bedroom. Cats loll about while mother Edith insults her daughter's elocution. This is a Tennessee Williams play come to life and should inspire screenwriters and playwrights, as the bizarre and overlapping dialogue is 100% real.The situation in the house reminds me exactly of how my grandmother and her 50-ish daughter lived for a decade (other than that they were poor and clean). They would bicker all day, grandmother talking about her gloriously perfect past while her daughter continually blamed her for missed opportunities with men, work, and self-expression.This film is a must-see for anyone writing a mother/daughter relationship of this kind. It is sad and voyeuristic, but the filmmakers did an amazing job getting the Edies comfortable enough to expose themselves so recklessly. It is rare to see true life this way and all the more special considering the context--remnants of a powerful family fading into nothingness in the skeleton of their own mansion. | 1 |
train_16995 | Spoilers of both this and The Matrix follow.I liked the original Matrix a great deal. It was not a deep movie, despite Fishburne's attempts to philosophize, but it was fairly well paced, fun, and I have a soft spot for Hong Kong fights.In the original, Neo was the secret life of the rather unhappy cube worker Anderson. By day, corporate drone, and by night, brave hacker. Eventually, he eventually is forced to choose between these lives by his actions - does he become an outlaw fighting the machine, or does he go back to the safe, forgettable world he started in. Interestingly, he discovers that once one is shorn of illusions, life rather sucks. He has his girl by his side and his boon companions, but he eats processed swill, dresses in sweats, and lives in a truly skungy bit of machinery. Still, the truth makes him free.At least part of the fun of that first movie lay in the "what if it were me" questions raised in the viewer's mind. What if _I_ were capable of the impossible? What if I were "The One". It does not even matter that much what you are The One example of, with a cool title like that.Further, agent Smith made a wonderful bad guy, as he embodied all of the fear of authority that we carry with us. He was as unstoppable as a terminator, and as merciless.At the end of the Matrix, Neo must return to the Matrix to share his good news of freedom.This movie fails to completely to carry through on the ideas of the original movie, and it does so with such lack of gusto, such poor scriptwriting and such poor editing that I cannot believe they had planned these changes. When the dialog is at a fifth grade level, with various long words dropped in randomly, I find it hard to believe that they understand what they are saying.My short list of characterization failures:The Oracle goes from mildly helpful, if deceitful to utterly obstructionist without any real reason.Major "personalities" of the matrix are introduced without need - the keymaster, for example, was a cute idea, but just not that interesting a character.Fishburne loses his "advisor" role, and gets nothing to replace it with.The people of Zion are not particularly likable, nor would you really _want_ them running the world.Special effects problems:The fight scenes are pointless and intermitable. In The Matrix, you felt Neo could lose, and that he had to become something greater in order to survive. In The Matrix Reloaded, he is merely the viewpoint character of a particularly poorly plotted video game.The fight on the freeway looked quite fake, and not that interesting.Pacing problems.As I mentioned above, the fight scenes were interminable.The rave went on too long - everyone in my row at the theater was looking at their watch. Not because we mind good dancing and good orgies, but because we did not know about the people pictured, nor did we care.Whatever hack wrote the creator's soliloquy should be blacklisted from the business. It meandered, used words that the scriptwriter clearly did not understand, and was a waste of time and a pacing killer. The creator's speech could have been done in a tenth the time, and with more peril as "Zion exists to give rebels a place to go so they do not destroy the Matrix. There are now too many people who do not believe; the matrix is in danger of crashing and killing every person hooked up to it. Further, the earth cannot support even the people in Zion, let alone these others. You may choose one person from Zion to form the new Zion, while I wipe the memories of the people currently in the Matrix."Instead, we got a long, drawn out bunch of twaddle. If someone argues that it is deep, ask for a transcript, and try breaking down the sentences. Each one is too long by several clauses, and uses words with clearer, shorter synonyms.So, in summary, not worth seeing.I have seen the third one, and despite what a number of reviewers have said, skip it. It does not save this turkey.The reviewers who feel that the second and third movies were "deep" should go see some truly deep movies. Perhaps read a book or two on rhetoric and debate, and perhaps a bit of philosophy. This movie is just not hard to understand, but it is hard to stomach.Scott | 0 |
train_3577 | This movie probably never made a blip on the radar screen, but it's got quite a bit of quality. It's pretty lifelike, yet you think "It's only a movie." Duvall and Close portray common people, and you'd never even realize they are now big-name actors. It seems that the jerk in this story is a little too old to be chasing Eugene's girlfriend, but I guess it's possible. It seems unlikely that the kid would travel from Montana to Nevada by himself, but I guess it's possible. You might think that the family troubles in this movie would never happen in your own family, but I guess it's possible. I remember Glenn Close saying something like "You think the work you do is the hardest part of your life, but it isn't." | 1 |
train_18670 | This movie starts out very VERY slow, but when the action finally gets started, it's a little had to follow. I couldn't understand why some of the events were taking place, and a lot of events happened before they were explained, making them sort of confusing. The only thing it really has going for it is the massive amount of blood/gore it has, although most times the special effects are lacking. Blood looks like red Kool-Aid. Skin tearing sounds like somebody is stepping on a pile of sticks. Again, the story has a sort of amateur feel to it, like the writer didn't take a long time to perfect it. I feel like it could be a much better movie if the effects were done better and more time was taken on the script. I honestly wish I hadn't watched it, not because of the gore, but because I feel that i wasted 90 minutes of my life. If you like extremely gory movies, this is for you, if not, stay away. | 0 |
train_17962 | This programme bugs me! There is no humour to it and is far too serious to be called "fun"! It's just far too educational for my liking! The characters are very stereotyped and unappealing. The plots are redundant and the morals are just repeated over and over again. Where's the fun in it? Also I feel this has been on the BBC for far too long and is broadcast way too much. Does it really need to have a slot on T.V every 2 or 3 months when a brand new show runs out of episodes? I think it's time that the BBC starting bringing back some of their older shows like: Inspector Gadget, Bananaman, The Smurfs, Snorks, Moomins, the Raccoons and Count Duckula other than continually giving contracts to these newer shows! I thought the BBC where bring back Danger Mouse, so what's going on with that?! 3/10 | 0 |
train_15030 | This film was abysmal. and not in the good way as some have claimed. First off the main character is a very unattractive gingerman. Second - WTF is going on with this van love. The plot, basically, is: boy wants sex so buys a van (which, in fairness is quite cool). Unbelievably given that he looks like a newt he scores with lots of chicks! And he fails with some. Then he scores with a really hot chick and realises he loves this dowdy bird who played hard to get. Then he drag races with the hot chicks boyfriend. And he tips his van. At which point danny devito saves the day. Although he didn't need to because in tipping the van the ginger kid crossed the line first. I gave this 2 *'s as i'm willing to assume that there's some sort of 70's Vanning subculture i'm not getting and also because there's some 70's boobage too. | 0 |
train_14231 | The Twilight Zone has achieved a certain mythology about it--much like Star Trek. That's because there are many devoted lovers of the show that no matter what think every episode was a winner. They are the ones who score each individual show a 10 and cannot objectively evaluate the show. Because of this, a while back I reviewed all the original Star Trek episodes (the good and the bad) because the overall ratings and reviews were just too positive. Now, it's time to do the same for The Twilight Zone.While I have scored many episodes 10, this one gets a 3 simply because it was bad. The writing was in fact embarrassingly bad. Two people from opposing sides in a great war are seen wandering about through the entire episode. After a while, it's apparent that they are the only two people left on Earth--as you learn in the really stupid and totally unconvincing conclusion. Usually the twist at the end makes the episode great--this one killed it! | 0 |
train_211 | As a study of the frailties of human nature in the context of old age, this film is without parallel. It is, quite simply, brilliant. Full marks to everyone - from the scriptwriter to all involved in the finished product. You can only marvel at the perceptions inherent in the characterisation of the two ageing performers. | 1 |
train_16979 | I'll be honest, this is one of the worst movies ever. If not, then it's VERY close. Ever seen a bad teen soap opera. Well this is like one of those. Except worse. For example: (POSSIBLY SPOILER) girl: I wanna go somewhere else.guy: all we need is here.girl: but I wanna take myself somewhere different.guy: I'll take YOU somewhere else.... Proceeding this line they have sex. The music is bad pop and bad punk rock. If you've EVER read the book, avoid this movie like the plague. They completely change the personalities of the characters and the events. Additionally, they just get rid of things. Also, the movie ends about before the book finishes. It is an AWFUL movie. So, if you haven't read the book, don't watch it. If you HAVE read the book, burn it (the movie). If you like stupid teen soap operas that are lower quality than your average low quality teen soap opera, go for it. Then again, should we expect anything different from MTV? | 0 |
train_21867 | The plot sounds vaguely interesting ... a scientist (Bateman) discovers how to transplant animal eyes and optic nerves into other animals, like humans. A young man (Monteith) is blinded saving a coworker at work - the scientist gets a call from a doctor that the young man is a good candidate to be the first human recipient. The recipient starts becoming more and wolf-like, but the effect is nothing more than "weird eyes" and running at night with dogs! (for the whole movie) The budget is too low, the dialogue too stilted (I laughed out loud at some of the ridiculous talk), and the acting too inept. Long portions of the movie are nothing more than dreamy looks, eerie music and interspersed clips of wolves in the wild. Way too long even at 90 minutes, boring, and devoid of ideas.The military want to use the eye transplants to give wounded soldiers back their eyesight, and presumably want to militarize the technology. There's a silly subplot about a beautiful Indian girl (Korey) who thinks she can help, using Indian wisdom about the wolves. They make love while music heavy on drums and Indian chanting is heard - crazy, man! The love making takes place immediately after a gruesome murder - who edited this turkey?! A grouchy "medicine man" who spouts platitudes seems to do little, except for adding atmosphere.Here's two ridiculous scenes. A worker at the research lab goes into the animal room to discover the monkeys have been let out of their cages. She gets scared, looks left at the monkeys, turns right, turns left, turns right, turns left .. this goes on for a while (who edited this??). RUN OUT OF THE DAMN LAB! It was so stupid I started laughing. Another ridiculous scene - our hero is at home, escapes out a window as the heavily armed military arrive - he leaves the window open, the military guys go to the open window, look out the window, they say "looks like he was here", and LEAVE! He went out the open window, guys!! Crazy.Near the end of the movie, military guys are firing machine guns over and over at trees, when obviously nothing is there - easier to place the squibs I guess. They have 6 machine guns which have cut down trees, but decide to fight our hero with 1 knife!!! Shoot the guy!! Who wrote this trash?? There's a pointless confrontation at the end, and believe me I'm not spoiling anything for you - there's not enough plot to spoil.I figure the whole thing was a tax write-off or a rush job to make use of unused budget money left over from some better movie. | 0 |
train_21024 | It is a Frank Zappa axiom that "music journalism is people who can't write interviewing people who can't talk for people who can't read." If you ever needed proof that musicians can't talk, this is the film for you. Repeated attempts at profundity stumble over themselves to end up in monosyllabic comments delivered in awestruck voices: "Wow." (Thank you, Idris Muhammed.) This film is pretentious but, while much of the pontificating from Youssou N'Dour and his gang of merry men (and one token woman) grates, the music saves the day.The main idea behind the film (what I take to be the main idea, dredged out of the inarticulate commentary) is interesting. To gather a group of musicians from America and Europe and take them on a journey through the different styles of music that grew up in and out of slavery, back to their roots in the music of West Africa, and a concert in the old slave fort of Gorée off the coast of Senegal. We are treated to gospel, blues, jazz and variations of these, including some fantastic drumming both in New Orleans and Senegal. There's also a good deal of N'Dour's own compositions.Sadly, that's another weakness. It's never entirely clear what N'Dour himself wants to achieve. To some degree, the film appears to be an exercise in self-promotion on N'Dour's part. He wants to play his own music, jazzed up to some degree and performed in the company of a bunch of musicians he admires. He's clearly a little embarrassed by this and early in the film obtains the blessings of the Curator of the Gorée museum.The clash between the different agendas shows through in several other places. For example, somebody obviously felt that it was not possible to tell the story of black music without involving a gospel choir, but N'Dour and most of his mates are Moslems (a point made repeatedly throughout the film). The whole early sequence involving the black Christians is uncomfortable and then they disappear from the story until the close harmony group (the only black Christians who can hold a tone?) turn up in Dakar at the end of the film. (To be fair, they turn up triumphantly and perform the best piece in the film.) If the story of black music needs to nod in the direction of gospel, why not also in the direction of Latin America? Where are the black musical influences from the Caribbean and Brazil? Samba? Reggae? Then there's Europe. Here the black diaspora doesn't seem to have produced any musicians of calibre, since N'Dour chooses to draft in Austrian guitarist and a trumpet player from Luxemburg. Are they in the team just because N'Dour has played with him before? What I personally found most irritating, though, was the long sequence which tried to recreate a kind of 60s beatnik/black power/Nation of Islam cultural happening in the New York home of Amir Baraka (a.k.a. Leroi Jones). Hearing people talk about the importance of "knowing your history", and then in the next breath perpetuating ignorance. Why do so many African-Americans believe that taking an Arabic name is an assertion of their African roots? And why do they think Arabic Islam is so much more admirable than European Christianity? Who do they think established the trade in African slaves in the first place? The film doesn't have much to say about the situation in West Africa today beyond the platitude that "present conditions" are a consequence of all the brightest and best having been shipped away for 300 years. The Senegalese appear to be a poor but happy, musical gifted folk, friendly and welcoming, respectful of their elders (and not above fleecing the visiting Americans in the fish market). Is this ethnic stereotyping or just my imagination? There is no comment on the armed guard that N'Dour and the camera crew seem to need in the opening sequence as they walk through the streets of Dakar.There is also a strong implication in the film that the slaves who were taken from Dakar came from Dakar. The similarity between the folk drumming style of New Orleans and the folk drumming style of Senegal is cited in evidence. The last thing the slaves heard before they were shipped away was the drumming of their homeland, bidding them farewell. Except, of course, that by and large, the slaves shipped from Dakar did not come from Dakar. They were captured or traded from the interior by the coastal Senegalese and sold to merchants of whichever European power currently held the Gorée slave fort. The people of Dakar are not the descendents of Africans who escaped the slave trade, they are just as likely more likely to be descendents of the people who sold their black brethren into slavery and exile.The two agenda's clash again in the final part of the film. There are two separate endings. On the one hand, the concert which N'Dour and Co have been rehearsing and preparing along the way and which they deliver in the courtyard of the Gorée slave fort. The other end comes when the Harmony Harmoneers sing the spiritual "Return to Glory", in the seaward doorway of the slave fort. This is deeply moving, even if it is hard to believe the performance is quite as spontaneous as it appears.This is a film that is flawed. Unclear of the story it is trying to tell and tugged in different directions. Irritating, confusing, beautiful and emotional by turns. Watch it (listen to it) for the music and the feeling, but don't expect enlightenment or intellectual rigour. | 0 |
train_23988 | It's hard to imagine that anyone could find this short their favorite if they have seen most of their shorts, but I know that humor is VERY subjective. I have seen all of their sound shorts (by far the best of their stuff IMO) and I found this one of their weaker efforts.In the year this was made (1930) Stan and Babe made 15 shorts and one feature. They were extremely popular and their boss Hal Roach took full advantage by keeping them working constantly. In addition, this was a time of experimentation for the writers and Stan. I would say this was an experiment that really did not work. As someone else said, it does not play to their strengths. Too much dialog and plot.The best part of this one for me is the largely improvised sequence with Stan as Agnes the maid and the great Thelma Todd talking about "girl" stuff.If you really want to see the boys at their most creative and funny check out Blotto, or Brats From the same year.They made so many shorts in such a short time that I think they can be forgiven for turning out a few less then par shorts. They made something like 108 films altogether. Very few (except for the ones made at FOX) were outright failures but there are some. County Hospital, Me And My Pal, The Live Ghost, The Fixer Uppers come to mind as essentially weak ones. But other then those I find something wonderful in just about all their shorts. Quite a record in my book.If you have seen and enjoyed all their other shorts then by all means check this one out, but I would be willing to bet that this one was less then memorable to Stan and Babe. | 0 |
train_20731 | MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS...BUT DOUBT IT CAN ACTUALLY BE SPOILT!!.Five Across The Eyes can be summed up in one word....Amateurish. This film tries it's best to be different from most films by the 'Blair Witch' type of filming....it doesn't work....it just ends up looking and feeling like somebody had a cheap video camera, a van and decided to make a movie. The story has no explanation, the protagonist is given no real motivation (and looks like a lesbian wearing a power-suit compared to the five girls) and there is no violence to speak of...just the sounds of screaming and crunching. The whole film takes place inside a van which means decent scenery is out of the question. The five girls really do their best with what they've been given but on the whole come across as pretty terrible actresses...although with the material given it's hard to judge if they can actually aCt....they spend THE WHOLE movie screaming, squealing and whimpering....so much that half the time it's hard to make out what was said and the cameras are so bad it's actually hard to tell who said it. This video paints itself as a violent torture film but is in fact just five girls in a van screaming in terror...that literally sums up the whole movie.....we then get to the end after what seems like 5 hours of constant screaming and all five girls are still alive... with one minus a finger. The only thumbs up(get it...finger....LOL) is for the poor actresses who tried hard and probably lost their voices(and their pride) after making this terrible movie. Do not judge this by the poster....you'll be very let down. | 0 |
train_24586 | ...this verson doesn't mangle the Bard that badly. It's still a horrible minimalist production, Hamlet's Dutch uncle is inexplicably dubbed by a Spaniard (whether it's Ricardo Montalban or not is subject to debate), and Maximilian Schell overacts like never before. Most of the dialogue makes it through unscathed, and the fact that the MST3K version feels obliged to point out repeatedly that the speeches are long *duh* doesn't strike me as incredibly humorous. Mostly it's just bad acting, though. | 0 |
train_14552 | This waste of time is a completely unnecessary remake of a great film. Nothing new or original is added other than Perry's backflashes, which are of marginal interest. It lacks the documentary feel of the first film and the raw urgency that made it so effective. Also painfully missing is the sharp Quincy Jones soundtrack that added to much to the original film. I can't understand any high ratings for this at all. It's quite bad. Why does anyone waste time or money making crap like this and why did I waste time watching it? | 0 |
train_5638 | I really enjoyed this movie. Britney is an excellent role model for teens and should be more appreciated. This movie is about following your dreams and never giving up no matter what people might do or say to discourage and criticize you. Holly fulfills her dreams just like Britney. There are times in everyones' lives when people judge them for what they are not who they are. Watching this movie will make you understand that you are special in your own way and that you should follow your dreams no matter what happens. I would like to thank Britney for encouraging me and my friends to follow our dreams. She will never know how much that means to me. Bravo Britney. You are the greatest!!! | 1 |
train_16020 | Let me start by stating that I usually do like Renny Harlin's directing style, for the most part, and that the cinematographer should be commended for some the shots. Unlike Harlin's "Elm Street 4", and "Die Hard 2" which I really liked, there is something that is missing from this movie. That, my friends, is a script. The dialogue in movies like this is always pretty awful, but this one takes the gold medal for stupidity. There are so many awful lines in this movie, I don't even want to have to remember any of them. Not just that but the execution of the lines is pathetic and seems more suited toward a bad porn movie than an action adventure. It's almost like Harlin thought that if they slowed down the words being said, they could improve the script. Wrong again.The sad part is that there is some talented actors thrown into bad roles with worse dialogue. Stallone has never been a favorite of mine, but when he is acting circles around Lithgow, Turner, and the worst of the bunch Rooker, there is something wrong with this picture. Lithgow played one of the best villains in "Ricochet", yet comes across as someone who can't act to save his life here. How is that possible? I've always been a huge fan of his and he gets schooled in acting by Stallone, who himself still phoned-in his performance. Turner's part is so small and pointless, but she still manages to appear lost on screen. Michael Rooker CAN act. I know this because I have witnessed it in "Days of Thunder", but he seems like he is READING his lines from cue cards. Has it come to this? When Rooker and Lithgow have scenes together where they are speaking, I just wanted the movie to end right there, or have them both amazingly find their acting ability. Unfortunately, neither of those things occurred.Which brings me back to Harlin, who can be the only one to really blame for this mess other than the screenwriters. It's his fault that I was never drawn into this movie at all, because he should have made the people actually act. The script is not very good, but still the actors' performances are what destroys this movie and that has to lie with the director. I don't care how much was paid for the special effects, which for the most part are good, you still can't just sacrifice the movie with terrible acting. Plus, the pacing of this movie seems to be off. The opening sequence was good and the plane scene was very well done, but how are you supposed to care about the outcome of the heist at all. I mean I understand that they were trying to create tension with all of the bells and whistles of the plane scene, but I really didn't care if they got the money or not in that scene. If the bad guy's would have won early, maybe I wouldn't have had to witness one of the worst movies ever! | 0 |
train_5700 | I've read many negative reviews of this movie and finally got a chance to see it on DVD. To be honest I really don't know what the problem with it is.It's a decent murder mystery thriller, shown from various points of view, from an eccentric cast of often drugged out potential killers/suspects, including the late porn king, John Holmes. Please read the plot synopsis for the exact details of the movie's plot - I wish to contribute more to a review than a synopsis.Many reviewers went so far to give this movie their lowest rating due to violence but I really don't see it. MANY modern movies were worse - Saving Private Ryan was ultimately more violent than this movie, which often relies on implied blood stains than actual brutal slayings (the murders depicted in this film were done with lead pipes, afterall).I was enthralled with both halves of the movie - the first showing John Holmes as a hopeless cash hungry drug addict, and the second half showing his side as a minor conspirator in a senseless bloodbath. The movie has excellent acting, even though Dylan McDemorant looks more than a bit out of place in his biker-esque personia and goatee'ed bad boy personality.The soundtrack was also awesome - a fantastic mix of 70's B-side rock and obscure pop, spread out over a couple of hours in all the right places ala Boogie Nights. | 1 |
train_16374 | This film was so predictable, that during the entire time you're hoping that the obvious suspect is innocent, and there's some other big twist still coming. However... it doesn't. He just continues to act creepy, and she continues to ignore it. Mary found very incriminating evidence at his place, and she still trusted him? And what was that "baiting the trap"? There was no trap. She confronted him, he said "excuse me. I have to go kill someone" He left, and that was the end of it. They make attempts to use other suspects, (like that one older carnival girl at the end) but they're completely underdeveloped. Actually, all the characters are underdeveloped. They have no depth, and the setting is just plain strange... who hangs out in a recycling factory?? Its choppy and nothing is well developed. For example: When she leaves his place after having the beer, and he finds the pics and she runs out and he catches her and they end up having sex in that car... what was that? Her reactions weren't portrayed. In the car she acted scared like it could have been practically rape- but then all we see is her showering the next morning. booooooooo It could have been so much better.. sooo much better. | 0 |
train_13549 | This movie has a very Broadway feel - the backdrop, the acting, the 'noise'- and yet that's all it has. Some 'sense' of a Broadway without the bang. The movie is slow-paced, the picture disjointed, the singing 'pops up' on you so that you suddenly are reminded it's a musical. Disappointing: Sinatra Intolerable: Sinatra's fiancé---surely, the pitch and the accent of her voice was unnecessary. Tolerable: Mr "i remember the numbers on my dice" Delight: Brando's understated singing (very biased!)Surprise: how much Jean Simmons looks like Vivien Leigh in her Havana scenes. It's the bone structure! How i would've killed to have seen Miss Leigh in a role challenging Brando again. | 0 |
train_9536 | Deranged and graphically gory Japanese film about little beings taking people over and turning them into necroborg-zombie like machines- which beat and hack each other apart so that the winner can eat the loser. In the middle of this a pair of lovers become infected.Technically superb horror comedy(?) is only for those with strong stomachs as blood and body parts go flying. Good taste prevents me from describing what happens here, but lets just say its pretty gruesome. If you like this sort of thing with form several steps above slender content by all means see this film. Personally I'm not normally one to enjoy films like this on anything but the how sick and twisted do they go level. Here I was intrigued enough that I can suggest it to people I know who like really gory movies.. Its also a film with enough going on in the details that I want to see it again since now that I know what was going on-as revealed in the end-I want to go back and see what it was I didn't catch on to. There is an internal logic rare in these films.7ish out of 10 for those who like blood and severed limbs, its a zero or more precisely a run and hide alert for everyone else. | 1 |
train_23812 | This movie deserves credit for its original approach. It combines elements of theater, film, and epic storytelling. Unfortunately, it falls flat on all levels. The films biggest weakness is it's unwillingness to commit to anything; it has camp, moralistic, and epic elements without ever committing to any of them. As for the story itself, Chretien de Troyes is spinning in his grave at this horrible adaptation which turns the lovable, unbearably innocent Percival into a most ungallant and rude churl.Most likely two types of people will see this, francophiles or Arthuriophiles. Speaking as one of the latter, I found the movie unwatchable and an incredibly shabby, disrespectful treatment of a beautiful story. | 0 |
train_23308 | i was given the book version of Kazaam for my 8th birthday, and people always say the book versions are always better than the movie, but this time they were wrong. At least with the movie it's over soon.The acting in this is terrible, which i expected from a film with Shaq who plays a magical rapping genie that comes out of an old ghetto blaster (which there was probably a good reason he was trapped in there). The kid in the film that plays Max is whiny and a terrible actor. He's bullied by neighborhood kids, which i don't blame them because he's a little douche bag.The story is just plain stupid and extremely cliché. About a boy who's father is always working and never around who finds a new friend who makes his life better and eventually helps him reconnect with his father.Even at 8 years old i thought this was a stupid idea. It's a surprise any of the people whom worked on this film had careers after wards because it's an embarrassment and should have never been made. i could ramble on even more about how this movie sucks, but you should already know just by reading the plot. | 0 |
train_2696 | Police, investigations, murder, suspicion: we are all so acquainted with them in movies galore. Most of the films nowadays deal with crime which is believed to involve viewers, to provide them with a thrilling atmosphere. However, most of thrill lovers will rather concentrate on latest movies of that sort forgetting about older ones. Yet, it occurs that these people may easily be misled. A film entirely based on suspicion may be very interesting now despite being more than 20 years old...it is GARDE A VUE, a unique movie by Claude Miller.Is there much of the action? Not really since the events presented in the movie take place in a considerably short time. But the way they are executed is the movie's great plus. Jerome Charles Martinaud (Michel Serrault) is being investigated by Inspector Gallien (Lino Ventura) and Insector Belmont (Guy Marchand). It's a New Year's Eve, a rainy evening and not very accurate for such a meeting. Yet, after the rape and murder of two children, at the dawn of the old year, the door of suspicion must be open at last. In other words, (more quoted from the movie), it must be revealed who an evil wolf really is. To achieve this, one needs lots of effort and also lots of emotions from both parties...Some people criticize the script for being too wordy. Yet, I would ask them: what should an investigation be like if not many questions and, practically, much talk. This wordiness touches the very roots of the genre. In no way is this boring but throughout the entire film, it makes you, as a viewer, as an observer, involved. Moreover, the film contains well made flashbacks as the stories are being told. Not too much and not too little of them - just enough to make the whole story clearer and more interesting. The most memorable flashbacks, for me, are when Chantal (Romy Schneider), Martinaud's wife, talks about one lovely Christmas... But these flashbacks also contain the views of the places, including the infamous beach. It all wonderfully helped me keep the right pace. And since I saw GARDE A VUE, I always mention this film as one of the "defenders" of French cinema against accusations of mess and chaos. But those already mentioned aspects may not necessarily appeal to many viewers since they might not like such movies and still won't find the content and its execution satisfactory. Yet, GARDE A VUE is worth seeing also for such people. Why? For the sake of performances. But here don't expect me to praise foremost Romy Schneider. GARDE A VUE is not Romy Schneider vehicle. She does a terrific job as a mother who is deeply in despair for a lost child. She credibly portrays a person who is calm, concrete, who does not refuse an offered cup of tea but who does not want to play with words. Her part which includes a profound talk of life and duty is brilliant, more credible than the overly melancholic role of Elsa in LA PASSANTE DE SANS SOUCI. It is still acted. However, Romy Schneider does not have much time on screen. Practically, she appears for the first time after 45 minutes from the credits; she, as a wife and a different viewpoint, comes symbolically with the New Year, at midnight. Her role is a purely supporting one. Who really rocks is Lino Ventura. He IS the middle aged Inspector Antoine Gallien who wants to find out the truth, who is aware that his questions are "missiles" towards the other interlocutor but does not hesitate. He is an inspector who, having been married three times, is perfectly acknowledged of women's psyche. He is the one who does not regard his job as a game to play but a real service. Finally, he is a person who does not find it abnormal to sit there on New Year's Eve. Michel Serrault also does a fine job expressing fear, particularly in the final scenes of the movie. But thumbs up for Mr Ventura. Brilliant!As far as memorable moments are concerned, this is not the sort of film in which this aspect is easily analyzed. The entire film is memorable, has to be seen more than once and has to be felt with its atmosphere and, which I have not mentioned before, gorgeous music. For me, the talk of Chantal and Inspector Gallien is the most brilliant flawless moment. You are there with the two characters, you experience their states of mind if you go deeper into what you see.GARDE A VUE is a very interesting film, a must see for thrill lovers and connoisseurs of artistic performances. New Year has turned and...is it now easier to open the door? You'll find out when you decide to see the memorably directed movie by Claude Miller. 8/10 | 1 |
train_4016 | This wonderful little film has all of the elements that made the Spaghetti Western so exciting and fun: GREAT music (by one of the few..if not the only..female composer to work in the genre, Nora Orlandi), EXCITING action sequences (and very vicious ones for the day!), and BEAUTIFUL scenery and sets (all in Almeria, Spain, of course). It also has a very good story with a nice tragic romance edge to it. The actors do marvelous jobs--with truly standout performances from Lawrence Dobkin and Rosalba Neri (in the most vital role for a female in a Spaghetti Western..outside of Cardinale in Leone's "Once Upon a Time in the West"). Without posting any spoilers, let me just say that this movie contains one of the best endings of any film I have EVER seen! | 1 |
train_6570 | This film is harmless escapist fun. Something the recent Tomb Raider film lacked. I can't wait to get the DVD. How can people give this a low score and still go and see Titanic without a guilty conscience I do not know. Anything with Karen Kopins in her underwear has got to rate an extra point or two! | 1 |
train_7156 | Holes is an awesome movie. I love it a lot and it's one of my favorite films. It's one of the few flicks produced by Disney that isn't cheesy. Holes is generally a very cool motion picture. I wish Disney would make more pictures like it. Holes is indeed a rare breed of Disney flicker shows that is cool. Don't get the wrong idea, I don't mean to bad mouth Disney but most of it's stuff is aimed towards kids and THAT'S OKAY. Children deserve to have their entertainment too. But Disney has been guilty of trying to appeal to the teen audience and they usually fail. But not with Holes. It's the type of movie anyone of any age can watch and enjoy and not once think it's corny. Really, it's the kind of movie that even a lot of young hoods might enjoy since there are characters in it that they can relate to.Holes does a good job of being a mix of good family entertainment but not being too cheesy and living a little on the edge. I hope Disney takes more risks and makes more edgy flicks like this. | 1 |
train_5777 | A meteor crashes into Crater Lake, the heat from the impact causing a prehistoric egg to hatch.Alright, so the plot is just trash. But despite its obvious low budget, this comes across as one of the most gripping and entertaining monster-on-the-loose films in existence. There are also some good moments of humor. In an age filled so-called 'monsters' which are no more than laughable men-in-rubber-suit creations or lizards dressed up in frills and forced to rip each other to pieces (cheap exploitation-style), it's refreshing to discover that the Plesiosaur in this little gem is an excellent Harryhausen-style stop-motion creature.Quite a hard film to find, but it's worth finding. | 1 |
train_15717 | A missed train. A wrong phone number. An extra cup of coffee. What happens to those around you when you make a seemingly innocuous decision? Most people don't give it a thought as they absorbed in their own thoughts and actions."Happenstance" tells the story of the interrelations and cause-and-effect of the mundane as it pertains to a group of normal Parisian folk. It has all the components of what passes for contemporary theater, with the full cast of the dysfunctional and disillusioned.There's a cheating husband, an illegal immigrant, a classic slacker, a pickpocket, a crazy grandmother, an annoying girlfriend, a selfish roommate, and a homeless man. Audrey Tautou serves as the erstwhile protagonist (in the sense that she's on camera as much as anyone else and opens and closes the film) and normal girl who just can't seem to find the right rhythm in her life.She learns at the beginning of her day from a stranger on a train what her horoscope holds for her. What happens to her in the course of the day is told through various characters. Does the prediction come true? The concept is good, but the storytelling is flimsy. The connections from one event to the next are weak. There's better storytelling in 15 seconds of the Liberty Mutual insurance commercial where one person sees a good deed and passes it along to another than there is in two hours of Happenstance.If you enjoy Audrey Tautou, then you certainly can sacrifice the time for this film, but you'll finish it dissatisfied and wondering what this same storyline could be if it were handled by a better producer and director. | 0 |
train_10527 | This is one of the best films I have seen in years! I am not a Gwyneth Paltrow fan, but she is excellent as Emma Woodhouse. Alan Cumming is superb as Reverand Elton, and Emma Thompson's sister, Sophie, is hysterical as Miss Bates. And check out the gorgeous Jeremy Northam as Mr. Knightley; what a gentleman! Whoever said you need sex and violence in a movie to make it good has never seen Emma. I think that is what separates it from so many others--it's classy.If you're looking for a film that you can watch with the whole family, or looking for a romance for yourself, look no further. Emma is that movie. With a beautiful setting, wonderful costumes, and an outstanding cast (have I mentioned the gorgeous Jeremy Northam?), Emma is a perfect ten! | 1 |
train_14241 | The Priyadarshan/Paresh Rawal combo has been golden before with the likes of HERA PHERI and HUNGAMA so I went into the movie (at an Indian multiplex) with high hopes, especially after the slick promos. Unfortunately, like HULCHUL before it, this movie was a huge disappointment.Like others have commented, the premise of the movie, which was already stale to begin with, just gets stretched on and on without any development or additional layering. After a while, you just want the movie to end so you can go home (if I had been watching this at home, it would have been much easier to cut my losses). Akshay Kumar's performance is average at best and John Abraham should not try doing comedy again. The comedy aspects of the movie overall were pretty week. I only remember giggling like twice the entire movie. Definitely no sidesplitting belly laughs that consumed me in HERA PHERI or even to a lesser extent in AWARA PAAGAL DEEWANA. Paresh Rawal had a few of his expected classic moments, but overall, because his role and character wasn't given much room to grow, he didn't make much of an impact in this film.Neha Dhupia, who makes only an appearance in the movie, was fun to look at while she was on screen. And some of the songs are fun. Especially the opening and closing songs of ADA and KISS ME BABY, respectively. Otherwise, you're better off just passing on this movie. | 0 |
train_20212 | Attack Of The Killer Tomatoes is a "parody" of bad monster movies which ends up being worse than the movies it spoofs. The (very meager) story tells of tomatoes who revolt against those who treat them badly. Basically,they spin and growl (yes,they growl) and the next thing you know the person is covered in ketchup. The actors are no-names who never made movies after this,so there would be no point to name them. There's a guy who's hired by the governement to try and stop the menace of tomatoes. He's accompanied by a black guy who's master of disguise and a girl and a guy who dives. Anyway, there's another woman who spies on the first guy that works for the government. if this isn't making much sense to you, you understand. This movie never would have been very good in the first place, but it even lacks the fun of laughing at stupid attack scenes. The movie is horribly cheezy, which although being the whole point,really really hurts what could've been a (reasonably) entertaining movie. At one point, a giant wax tomato "slides" on an unconcealed plank of wood with wheels on it! Maybe I would've recommended the movie if it would have enjoyable camp value, but even this is lacking from this terrible movie. 2/10 | 0 |
train_13318 | This film is notable for three reasons.First, apparently capitalizing on the success of the two 'Superman' serials, this low budget feature was made and released to theaters, marking George Reeves' and Phyllis Coates' initial appearances as Clark Kent / Superman and Lois Lane. Part of the opening is re-used in the series. Outside the town of Silby, a six-mile deep oil well penetrates the 'hollow Earth' allowing the 'Mole-Men' to come to the surface. Forget about the other holes (those in the plot).Second, unlike most SF invasion films of the fifties, the hero plays a dominant (and controlling) force in preaching and enforcing tolerance and acceptance of difference against a raging mob of segregationist vigilantes. No 'mild mannered reporter' here! Clark Kent, knowledgeable and self-assertive, grabs control of the situation throughout ("I'll handle this!"), even assisting in a hospital gown in the removal of a bullet from a Mole-Man! As Superman, he is gentler than Clark towards the feisty Lois, but is also the voice of reason and tolerance as he rails against the vigilantes as "Nazi storm troopers." Third, you will notice that the transition from the Fleisher-like cartoon animated flying of Superman in the two serials to the 'live action' flying in the 'Adventures of Superman' had not yet been made. | 0 |
train_850 | THE MATADOR (2005) *** _ Pierce Brosnan, Greg Kinnear, Hope Davis, Philip Baker Hall, Dylan Baker. Brosnan gives one of his best non-Bondian roles as a middle-aged assassin facing a mid-life crisis while on assignment in Mexico where he befriends a square yet likable American businessman (Kinnear at his most affable) and discovers there is more to life than death. Newbie filmmaker Richard Shepard makes a solid big screen debut with a pointedly wicked black comedy with a sharp eye for visual detail and nuanced dialogue and character development that makes him a talent to watch in this breath-of-fresh-air into the 'buddy comedy' formula skewering what is anticipated of his leads and allowing Brosnan to get his ya-yas out with devilish glee. A sleeper gem indie hit. | 1 |
train_8848 | I watched this film in a very strange way -- I had put it on my Netflix list and couldn't remember why (other than that I knew Philip Seymour Hoffman was in it). Since the film has no opening credits, I couldn't even remember who had directed it.As my wife and I watched it, I turned to her about 45 minutes in and said, "You know, I keep wanting to decide that I hate this film, but something about it just won't let me stop watching it." Then there's a stretch of about half a dozen scenes in the middle of the movie that are truly electrifying in the actors' performances.It was only as the end credits rolled that I realized it was a Sidney Lumet film. And I thought -- wow. I'm surprised that Lumet took on what was really a dirty, petty little story about really mean, broken people. But it's a testament to his talent that I was so taken in when I didn't even realize it was him.Philip Seymour Hoffman is really, really good in this movie. Like scary good. Put this up against Capote and I would argue the Oscar should have been for this film instead.I also highly recommend the narrative special feature with Lumet, Hawke and Hoffman talking about making the movie -- it's entertaining and educational, with Hawke playing the student eager to learn at the master's feet. Lumet definitely teaches you the first rule of working with actors -- kiss their asses constantly!!There are a lot of violent, melodramatic movies out there that are empty ciphers when all is said and done. And there is an element of that in this film -- that the actors fill the air with sulphurous blasts of emotion, and when the smoke clears there's nothing left. Nothing resonates on a deeper level.But Lumet has given us Network and Twelve Angry Men -- films that, each in their own ways, have been elevated into the highest echelons of cinema.This movie isn't at that level. But there's something about it that lingers. And maybe that's enough.My final comment is about the comments -- if you look at the number of comments about this little movie here on IMDb -- and the depth and intelligence of the comments, pro and con -- it's a pretty good indication that something special is going on with this film. | 1 |
train_5602 | Roman Polanski plays Trelkovsky who rents an apartment in France.The previous tenant is in a hospital after a suicide attempt.He goes to see her there where he also meets Stella (Isabelle Adjani), the friend of Simone.He and Stella become pretty close.Later Simone dies.Trelkovsky begins to think the landlord and the neighbors are trying to change him into Simone so that eventually he would also jump out of the window.Le Locataire (The Tenant) from 1976 is the last film of Polanski's apartment trilogy.The previous ones were Repulsion and Rosemary's Baby.Roman Polanski does not do good job only as the director but his acting is also superb.Isabelle Adjani with her big glasses is wonderful.The landlord, Monsieur Zy is played by the great Melvyn Douglas.Jo Van Fleet plays Madame Dioz.The fantastic Shelley Winters is The Concierge.The Tenant is something very scary from time to time.It gives a lot of that psychological scare.This film is not the easiest one to understand or explain but that makes it all so fascinating. | 1 |
train_4194 | Samuel Fuller brings his customary playful and stylish direction to this seedy, pulpy story and manages to create one of the undiscovered gems of 1950s cinema.Richard Widmark plays a petty thief tough guy (a role he perfected over the course of many movies), who snatches a young lady's (Jean Peters) wallet on a New York subway and with it a piece of much-wanted microfilm. This is 1953, so of course the microfilm is property of Commie spies who will stop at nothing to get it back. When the girl shows up at Widmark's waterfront shack, sent by an abusive boyfriend to reclaim the film, Widmark senses the opportunity to shake her and her "comrades" down for big money. The plot thickens, people start dying, and Widmark and Peters fall in love.Fuller handles the love story clumsily, but more from a sense of indifference than bad writing or direction. It's as if he included a love story under duress, and so made it intentionally unbelievable, as love stories so frequently were and still are in Hollywood films. Peters gives a remarkable performance as a tough New Yawk cookie, part gangster moll and part damsel in distress. When violence occurs against her, we genuinely care about her well being, and it's typical of Fuller's renegade, ahead-of-his-time style that a happy ending is not necessarily a foregone conclusion.But the ultimate success of "Pickup on South Street" rests squarely on the world-weary shoulders of Thelma Ritter, who plays Moe, a feisty lady who makes money any way she can, whether that be selling neckties or acting as a police informant. Ritter gives the performance of her career; in a breathtaking monologue, she conveys without ever directly addressing it the entire sad trajectory of her character's life, and the hopelessness she feels waking up every morning to a world of struggle, crime and hardship. It's as if every character Ritter ever played converges for one brief instant to give vent to all of the emotions they weren't given a chance to vent in those other movies. The scene is the highlight of Fuller's film, and a highlight of 50s cinema, period.Grade: A+ | 1 |
train_4107 | I loved this movie! It's truly bizarre, extremely funny, morbid, witty... It makes no sense to tell about the contents of the movie, because then I'd be giving out the outcome! You have to see it without knowing what is it about! Everything is connected and has its why & because. It starts subtly and then the things start rolling faster and faster until they culminate in the most insane outburst you can imagine! It's even more fun to watch the movie the second time, once you know all the "tricks". The actors are excellent, especially Ivan Trojan, whose final scenes are a real master piece! I highly recommend this film, it's one of the most original ones I've ever seen! | 1 |
train_17562 | This movie is bizarre. Better put, it's "freakin' weird". I could give you a plot summary, or some hoity toity analysis, but I would consider it a waste of your time. All anybody needs to know about this movie is two young sisters, one incestuous relationship, homicide, post mortem mutilation, and one really disturbing infatuation. At the end of the movie you feel like you need to go take a shower to wash the filth off yourself, but not in a good way like after "Pulp Fiction" or "Fight Club". It's like you're a teenager (or high schooler being that i am myself still a teenager)and have just done something you A: wish you hadn't done, and B: hope to the Good Lord of Heaven and Earth that your parents never find out about. And nobody likes that. My advise is that rather than defiling your mind and by watching piece of wanton cinematic filth, just go waste your time on something a little less horrible and watch "Kazaam"(yes, I would rather watch "Kazaam" than "Murderous Maids", read into it what you want). | 0 |
train_12990 | Artemesia takes the usual story about the art world, eg, "You can't paint that! But I want to!" and plasters it with sex and scandal to make the whole film, well, interesting, but not remarkable.The story is about one of the first female painters around, Artemesia who course, is fiercely independent, but just can't stop thinking of men, and their bodies
for artistic purposes of course. She soon gets private tutoring from one of a well known artist, but soon tutoring becomes much more then art, and soon after that, scandal erupts! Funny how they could take a historical biography and make it almost into a soft-porn fantasy. I mean, was Artemesia THAT much of a man-hungry person? Also, it's quite funny when she's insisting that she "paints for herself!" yet falls for the first person she sees.Actually, the story itself is quite fascinating, and it ends with a trial, which I always love. But I wasn't too crazy about the male lead who played her teacher, who looked rather like the person someone like that wouldn't fall for. I woulda gone for the young fisherman :P | 0 |
train_24392 | Sadly, the print of the film we were going to watch burned in the fire at Universal Studios last week, so we were stuck with video. That could even be a metaphor for this second-rate King Kong movie from Toho studios' stalwart director Ishiro Honda. Essentially it's a warm up for "King Kong versus Godzilla". It even uses the idea of a Mecha-Kong, like Mecha-Godzilla. Of course the movie climaxes with King Kong fighting Mecha-Kong on top of the expo tower in Tokyo, but if you didn't know that already then maybe you're in the age group that this movie was intended for.The cast is headed by a guy named Rhodes Reason who we had never heard of... glancing over his list I see mostly a lot of scattered American TV credits, so it's interesting that they dragged him all the way to Japan so that they could have a nominal American hero. The real hero of the movie is the more sensitive Japanese commander played by Akira Takarada, who I recognized from Hiroshi Inagaki's iconic version of "Chushingura" (47 Ronin) and also from the original Godzilla films by Honda. I'm sorry Rhodes Reason whoever you are, but this guy has way more screen presence and you can bet that everyone wants him to end up with the cute little blonde, played by Linda Miller. We laughed at the way Reason would always find a way to interject himself between Miller and Takarada, who it seemed like she kind of preferred. Of course like all Kong leading ladies her primary relationship is with the King himself. She discovers a nice trick: if you talk to a giant ape really..... really.... slowly..... he'll understand what you're saying. And if you're a blonde gal, that means that he'll do whatever you tell him to do. That fact is not lost on Dr. Who (Eisei Amamoto) and Madame Piranha (Mie Hama) -- representing a "nation which shall not be named" -- who plan on using her as bait to get Kong to dig up mineral deposits that are trapped at the North Pole.Yes, this is truly the plot of the whole movie -- apparently only a giant ape is going to be capable of digging out these minerals which can be used to make super powerful weapons. Dr. Who builds Mecha-Kong to get it but the circuitry gets in the way, so they decide to go for the real Kong. Kong himself seems momentarily infatuated with Mecha-Kong, a story element that might have made the film more interesting but wasn't followed up on.By the end of the movie, the cute blonde has shouted "Kong" or "King Kong" in her chirpy voice so many times that when the two heroes tell her to let him go at the end they're speaking for all of us. Basically this movie squanders whatever majesty was possible in the Kong character by making him a heroic and friendly figure much too early, just like the newest version of the story. Kong is just a guy in a suit in this movie, and they show quite a lot of him to the point where the goofy face becomes impossible to take seriously. It's a nice looking movie, I'm sure it satisfies the demands or desires of fans of this type of thing, which is really more of a wrestling film than a monster film in a lot of ways. The monsters don't ever really scare in these films, they just jump around and push each other around a lot. It's not a worthless movie, but it's extremely predictable and formulaic so for anyone under the age of 10 or so it probably will only be entertaining as comedy. | 0 |
train_12047 | The first and only time I saw the woman in black was I think the only time to my knowledge it appeared on TV back in 1989. It was Christmas eve and my father and i were watching it in the living room shortly before we all went to a midnight service in the village church. I was quite young at the time but i'm not sure who was more terrified walking through the church yard to the entrance of the church that night me or my father!.There are many factors about this film that make it so creepy but i think 0ne of them is the fact that there's not much in the way of a sound track that plays in the background of nearly every Hollywood movie, so every creak, thump and bang is more amplified in your head as there's no distraction. Another factor that makes it different from other ghost stories there's no jump factor involved like things bouncing out the closet so it makes it not necessarily what you see but what you hear and what you think is going on. This is a clever medium as nothing scares you more than your own mind running riot thinking whats around the corner or behind the door!A superb ghost story, I've never seen anything that can match it and with all the dross thats repeated over and over on TV i cant believe the BBC has deleted it after (to my knowledge) only one showing! | 1 |
train_16294 | The recent boom of dating show on U. S. television screens has reached a fevered pitch since the first episode of "The Bachelor." Unsuspecting audiences have since been subjected to countless clones and variations, including "The Bachelorette", "Joe Millionaire", "For Love Or Money", and the execrable "Married By America." Hoping to cash in on this trend, and simultaneously tap and exploit a new demographic, Bravo has unleashed the disastrous "Boy Meets Boy" upon the world. And may they have mercy on us all.The premise is simple and is designed to be light-hearted: an eligible gay man is courted by a number of suitors, eliminated show by show until one is left, but there's a twist. Half of the men are actually straight. This is not much of a big deal, but the inherent viciousness of the scenario kicks in after hearing the pay-off: if, at the end of the show, the gay man picks a straight man in disguise, the straight man wins a cash prize. The gay man gets nothing, or at least nothing more than a few parting gifts, a pat on the back, and a hearty round of "Aren't you embarrassed? Well, thanks for playing!"Just the like the equally painful "Queer Eye For The Straight Guy" (another Bravo program), this show is another example of stereotypes run amok. What makes it even worse, though, is the fact that straight men are playing UP these stereotypes for cash. The producers of this show believe that all you have to do is put enough hair gel in a man's hair, dress up in Abercrombie & Fitch with a pair of designer sandals, strip him of all body hair and fat and voila! It's the gay equivalent to putting a white performer in blackface, and just as offensive to those of us -- like myself -- who are genuinely gay and don't dress/act like that. It implies that gays have no variance or chance for individuality, that they can't behave like real people, only like stereotypes. Never mind the fact that the bank of suitors is sorely lacking in any kind of diversity. All are gym-toned, most are white, and all look far too scrubbed and cleaned.This is another example of how, instead of fostering acceptance of gays as dynamic individuals capable of variance and change, Hollywood has again taken a stereotype and run with it all the way to the bank. I feel genuinely dirty watching this show, as show any gay man who sees this unabashed parade of soft-core pornography masquerading as legitimate television. 1 out of 10. | 0 |
train_12730 | This was awful. Andie Macdowell is a terrible actress. So wooden she makes a rocking horse look like it could do a better job. But then remember that turn in Four Weddings, equally as excruciating. Another film that portrays England as full of Chocolate box cottages, and village greens. I mean that school, how many schools apart from maybe Hogwarts look like that? The twee police station looked like the set from Heartbeat ( a nauseating British series set in the 60s).This film just couldn't make its mind up what it wanted to be- a comedy or a serious examination of the undercurrents in women's friendships. If it had stuck to the former then the graveyard sex scenes and the highly stupid storming of the wedding might just have worked( i say just). But those scenes just didn't work with the tragedy in the second half. I also find it implausible that Kate would ever speak to Molly again after her terrible behaviour. A final note- what is a decent actress like Staunton doing in this pile of poo? Not to mention Anna Chancellor. Macdowell should stick to advertising wrinkle cream. | 0 |
train_19494 | When I went and saw this movie, I had great expectations. But I had so wrong. This movie was exactly as every other horror movies. It's a virus, zombies etc. Exactly as Resident Evil and many, many other movies. But the difference with this, and other movies, is that the story is very week. It's bad actors and boring music. The photo is OK but the rest is total crap. Don't see this "horror" movie, go and see the Ring 2 or any other movie who's much more of a story. I hope they will stop making horror movies who has a virus and the virus spread and make people to zombies. We have seen enough of that. The only good thing in the movie is when they are standing at a roof and shoot famous, infected celebrities. | 0 |
train_23197 | First of all I thought it was naughty of them to say in the credits that the story and screenplay were by Preston Sturges. Sturges was one of the better Hollywood screenwriters until his talent faded and he retired. However, it wasn't the Preston Sturges, it was Preston Sturges, Jr. The story was essentially based on Robert Louis Stevenson's short story "The Bottle Imp". A good man comes into possession of an evil object that will grant him any wish but which will ultimately doom him to hell. That's fine. Nobody said screenwriters had to be original. The actors are generally pretty competent given the mediocre writing that they had to translate onto the screen. My biggest complaint comes with the ending. The hero thinks he has discovered a way out of his dilemma but tries to solve the problem in a somewhat different way in an attempt to save an innocent person. At first this seems to have worked but true to the code of the modern horror film, they feel they have to provide one last dollop of horror at the very end of the film. This is a stupid convention. The older horror films got along just fine with allowing the hero to win out at the end. There is nothing wrong with good triumphing over evil no matter what the current crop of film makers seems to think. You can give the audience a good healthy scare and still make them feel happy at the end. In fact, I think it's preferable. | 0 |
train_10930 | "In the world of old-school kung fu movies, where revenge pictures came a dime a dozen, it took a lot for a film to stand out -- and even more to make it a fan favorite after all these years. What is arguably Chang Cheh's finest movie continues to hold influence over the Hong Kong movie industry, from the themes of loyalty, brotherhood and revenge as explored by John Woo (who got his start in the HK movie industry working for Chang) during the heyday of heroic bloodshed during the late 1980's, to more modern movies like A Man Called Hero, which sports a character in a costume inspired by this film. The influence has also carried into other areas as well, from music such as the Wu-Tang Clan, TV commercials for Sprite and video games such as "Mortal Kombat." So what makes this movie so special? The plot -- on the surface -- is pretty simple. It deals with members of a rogue group known as the "Poison Clan" who are searching for a treasure hidden by their sifu. All of the members of the clan have extraordinary kung fu abilities, denoted by their animal styles, or "venoms" (the lizard can climb walls, the scorpion has a deadly strike, etc.). The twist is that since the clan always wears masks, not all of them known who the others are. Thus a simple plot becomes almost a suspense thriller. We're not talking The Usual Suspects here, but it's far above many other kung fu movies of the time. Supposedly, Golden Harvest was not too happy with Chang's script -- like most of his movies, they felt it was too dark and violent -- and they actually wanted him to add broad comic relief to it. Thankfully, Chang stuck to his guns and stayed with his original script, which has since has become revered as one of the best for the films of its time, if not ever, completing an almost perfect dramatic arc and providing the perfect backbone for the extraordinary action sequences.But what really solidifies the movie are the venoms themselves. Chang Cheh hit upon a magical formula with the cast -- not only did he gain talented martial artists (whose moves, competed without the aid of wires or other special effects, put most modern martial artists to shame) but great actors as well. The formula proved so popular that Chang usually had one or more of the venoms in his later movies. Getting back to matters at hand, in most old-school movies, the actors seem to playing out cardboard cutouts, but here the actors actually create characters. It seems that everyone has a favorite venom (mine is Philip Kwok -- best known to many as Mad Dog from Hard-Boiled -- as Lizard) and it is this personal connection to the characters that The Five Deadly Venoms generates which makes it a true classic of the genre. Even if you're normally not a fan of old-school movies, you need to check The Five Deadly Venoms out, if for nothing else to see where modern movies got their inspiration from." | 1 |
train_14500 | I found the pace to be glacial and the original story blown way out of proportion to the content. My wife slept through most of it and I did not try to wake her because I felt she was not missing anything.When Holmes and Watson enter the house and then are potentially caught, it is unclear how they could hide all of their entry and burglary tools so quickly. It is also unclear how the door to the study is locked, preventing the servants from getting in.The thing that puzzled me was right at the end when there was a glint in the eye of the broken statute. I have no clue what this was supposed to represent. | 0 |
train_4283 | A milestone in Eastern European film making and an outstanding example of Serbian mentality. A group of completely different people are doomed to die because of their discord. With "Maratonci trce pocasni krug" makes two mythological movies everyone here knows word by word. | 1 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.