id stringlengths 7 11 | text stringlengths 52 10.2k | label int64 0 1 |
|---|---|---|
train_10366 | An unqualified "10." The level of writing and acting in this Australian movie is reminiscent of the very best of "old" Hollywood. Sam Neill and Meryl Streep are very good together. Neill matches Streep line for line, and take for take -- it is one of the best showcases yet of his prodigious acting talent and he is at his sexy and gorgeous best, notwithstanding the intensity of his role. This engrossing film is a treat for any movie fan who loves a gripping courtroom drama, portrayed in the most human but unsentimental terms. The movie -- which won several top awards in Australia -- boasts not only a superlative cast and director, but wonderful and authentic Australian locales. It proves that people are the same the world over. And, after all these years, people still delight in repeating the famous Streep line, accent and all: "A dingo ate moy baby!" Including that imp "Elaine Benis" on "Seinfeld." | 1 |
train_20046 | I'm a big fan of Nicolas Cage and I never thought he would work on a movie like this. I couldn't believe the other reviews and I thought it shouldn't be bad to watch it at least once...but trust me, it is.I haven't seen the old movie..but why would they want to remake a movie like this. The very basic idea of a good horror movie is either it should have an extremely intelligent script or it should be extremely graphic. This film doesn't fall under any of those and just remains dumb.I just kept watching the movie hoping it would get interesting at some point , but it never does. So this movie is a big no no for both Horror movie fans as well as for the Cage fans. You could probably for it show up on television. | 0 |
train_3448 | A documentary without a loss for words... ever...Let us assume that the narration is more than a spoof, let us assume it is a commentary on Japanese society. And as this film is as fast paced an absurdist documentary as they come, the constant wordplay, as fast is it goes, and as poorly translated as it is-- in its current festival screener version as seen tonight at the Copenhagen Cinematek-- It is still quite enjoyable. But for the patient, and ONLY the truly patient and open-minded, I'm talking to you Jim Jarmusch fans with ADD relapses, I believe this is a film for you. It's an intelligent film if you allow it to win you over.Quite beautiful, and quite kitsch, and quite Japanese sub-culture. And quite experimental. Static 2D in a 3D world. All in all, Fun for those that want to see a Japanese film that spoofs Japanese food culture. A thumbs up if you're in the mood for something completely different. | 1 |
train_22898 | There's nothing wrong with a popcorn movie to keep you off the streets. It's just that some are better than others. This is very poor. The acting is awful, the script dire; and the special effects overrated.Why does Hollywood treat it's audience with such contempt? And why have they made a sequel? | 0 |
train_5690 | Just watched this movie on DVD and thought the acting was very good, but the over all story left a lot to be desired. This movie has the same texture and look of Panic in Needle Park or Drugstore Cowboy. Hard to believe that human beings can live this type of lifestyle; on the underbelly of society, in which their total existence is based on hardcore drug use, crime, violence, sex, and a total lack of self-respect for anyone or anything, including themselves.Val Kilmore is outstanding in his role of "burnt-out" former porn star John Holmes. The supporting cast is just as good. However, this is a bleak, dark, disturbing, and depressing film. The murder was brutal, but the daily lives of these people were brutal as well. Unless you have an interest in these murders or were a "fan" of John Holmes, this really isn't a film to see. If you want to see a docu-drama on murder, Truman Capote's 1960s In Cold Blood starring Scott Wilson and Robert Blake is much better. | 1 |
train_17916 | This was director von Stroheim's third effort - it is quite crude and shows none of the exceptional flair for the camera and editing mastery he would display a few years later with his masterworks, GREED and THE WEDDING MARCH. Essentially we have a trio of grifters, masquerading as a Russian count and two Russian princesses who have rented a villa in Monte Carlo. Their aim is to use counterfeit money at the gambling tables and win a fortune. Part of that plan is for the Count (von Stroheim) to insinuate himself between a visiting American ambassador and his "foolish" wife, wooing her and hoping to gain some money by playing on her weaknesses. He makes the mistake of also taking the life savings of the maid, whom he has promised to marry. When she sees them together, she sets fire to the room, (von Stroheim and his prey are on the room's balcony). Here von Stroheim first establishes his persona as "the man you love to hate." He is thoroughly bad and his character flaws eventually bring him to a very bad and deserved end. The film is crude in its cinematography and editing and not worth seeing unless you are fascinated by the director. There is a cute bit- when he first attempts to meet the Ambassador's wife, she is reading a book - we see the title - FOOLISH WIVES by Erich von Stroheim. This was originally envisioned as a 210 minute film, cut down to 140 minutes by the studio and finally released at 70 minutes. The restoration on Kino Video restores surviving footage (damaged in some way in most scenes) from the alternate earlier version to give us a 107 minute print. | 0 |
train_22157 | 1) I am not weapon expert, but even i can see difference between U.S. army riffles in WWI and WWII. In movie we can see privates, armed with "M1 Garand" (invented in year 1932!), not authentic "1903 Springfield" (aka "Silent Death"), who privates use until WWII. Difference - M1 can load 1,5 times more ammunition and 3 times more fire rate! M1 was semi - automatic, Springfield requires reloading after every shot. Little difference?! 2) German army uniforms has borrowed from 1940 Year too. Especially - helmets. German helmets until end of WWI have significant pike on top, we cannot see even one in movie. And if we make little additional search in archives - how much truthful is this "True Story"? I am surprised, how much "truthful" can be film directors in a pursuit of cheap propagation. | 0 |
train_674 | While to most people watching the movie, this will be of little interest, but out of the many hundreds of movies dealing with magic and the occult in one form or another, this one is probably the best in many ways.From The Golem to The Craft the subject seems to be of endless interest to the movie industry. The majority of movies which touch on it in any way do so childishly (for example "Witchboard", a true piece of utter garbage in every way) either taking the transcendental elements as cheap excuses for cheesy special effects or cardboard cutout villians (cf "Warlock"). More frequently the subject comes up in an hysterical religious context (in the various Revelations-oriented movies, the antichrist is inevitably an advocate of some kind of new-age style practice). Rarely, a movie seems to show at least some passing experience with magic as it is practiced in real life, but the presentation of the occult in such movies can at best be described as allegorical and not literal, or symbolic, or ... just not quite right.I watched this movie again after many years tonight. I had seen it before on VHS; it is a dark, moody piece, and after watching it on DVD, I would say if you have any intention to watch this movie, watch it on DVD, don't watch it on VHS.The darkness and moodiness are overpowering in VHS but in DVD the movie takes on a very different tone. I think Weir pushed the dark aspects intentionally for style, but when the movie is converted to the lower color medium of VHS this goes over the edge. DVD brings the movie to life again and I saw it differently.Anyway, seeing it as if for the first time, I realized that the treatment of magic is extremely good in this movie. It's difficult to go into all the reasons why, I don't care to take the time to do so.For anybody who's curious, anyway, if you want to see what it is like in real life, this movie is just very right on countless levels.And for anybody who isn't, you really wasted a lot of time reading to this point. | 1 |
train_24337 | Can anybody do good CGI films besides Pixar? I mean really, animation looked antiquated by 2006 standards and even by 1995 Toy Story standards. Or maybe they spent all their budget on Hugh Jackman. Whatever their reasoning, the story truly did suck.Somehow, Hugh Jackman is a rat - a rat that is flushed down a toilet. Yeah I know, seems stereotypical. But then the sewer mimicked the ways of London - to an extent. Throw in a promise of jewels (????) and an evil(??) frog and you get a pathetic attempt at entertainment.I would like to say something entertained me. Maybe the hookup in the movie? Or maybe the happily-ever-after rat relationship. But nothing did. It had the talent, but it blew up. D- | 0 |
train_19576 | Race car drivers say that 100 mph seems fast till you've driven 150, and 150 mph seems fast till you've driven 250.OK.Andalusian Dog seems breathtakingly bizarre till you've seen Eraserhead, and Eraserhead seems breathtakingly bizarre till you've seen Begotten.And Begotten seems breathtakingly bizarre till you've seen the works of C. Frederic Hobbs. Race fans, there is NOTHING in all the world of film like the works of C. Frederic Hobbs.Alabama's Ghost comes as close as any of his films to having a coherent plot, and it only involves hippies, rock concerts, voodoo, ghosts, vampires, robots, magicians, corrupt multinational corporations, elephants and Mystery Gas. And the Fabulous Woodmobile, cruising the Sunset District in San Francisco, of course.What's really startling is that somebody gave him a LOT of money to make Alabama's Ghost. There's sets, lighting, hundreds of extras, costumes, lots and lots of effects. Somehow that makes Alabama's Ghost SO WRONG. You watch some awful cheeseball like Night of Horror or Plutonium Baby, and at least some part of the weirdness is excusable on the basis that they were obviously making the film off the headroom on their Discover cards. But Alabama's Ghost was made with an actual budget, and that's EVIL. I mean, I've got a script about a tribe of cannibals living in Thunder Bay, Ontario, building a secret temple in the woods out of Twizzlers, and nobody's beating down MY door waving a checkbook - how did this guy get the funds for FOUR of the flakiest movies ever made? | 0 |
train_20818 | I have seen already fantastic stories, but the premises of this one are so unbelievable that it comes very close to being ridiculous. A rich and young guy undergoes a heart transplant the day after his marriage, and he is somehow witnessing his own surgery and the plot of his surgeons to kill him. Even if there is a medical explanation to such a phenomenon what next happens is a mixture of dialog among ... say ... souls? ... maybe and real life where the dedicated mother will do everything to save the life of her son. There is no shade of suspense or thrill, just a combination of a bad and simplistic plot with a series of coincidences that can never happen in life.This is not to say that the film is completely lacking quality - actually first time director Joby Harold does a decent job in directing a good team of actors that includes Hayden Christensen at his first major role after having taken off the Anakin Skywalker costume, fabulous Jessica Alba and super-gifted Lena Olin. All would have deserved a better story. | 0 |
train_2687 | No other movie has made me feel like this before... and I don't feel bad. Like, I don't want my money back or the time that I waited to watch this movie (9 months) nor do I feel bad about using two hours of a sunny summer day in order to view this ______. The reason I say "_____" is because no matter how hard I wrack my brain I just can't seem to come up with a word in ANY of the seven languages that movie was in to sum it up. I have no idea what was going on the entire time and half way through the movie I needed a breather. No movie has ever done this to me before. Never in my life have I wanted cauliflower, milk, and baguettes this much. Thank you. - EdUh. *clears throat* No words. No thoughts. I don't know. I truly don't know. - Cait | 1 |
train_4144 | For a while I was caught in the trap where I found myself watching independent and foreign films and lying to myself that I liked them. Fatty Drives the Bus is the exception. It is the truth. It is the best "bad" movie ever.The "badness" of this movie seems to come naturally. Halfway through Satan's opening monologue, the word "Hell" appears at the bottom of the screen. The glamorous Bridget is an unshaven man in a wig and a thrift store dress. It takes the eccentric couple that keeps trying to kill each other FOREVER to walk down the stairs. Jesus walks to a funk soundtrack.Anyways, Fatty gives the impression that someone lost their tenure for advising a senior's film project. But it's the sincerity of how bad it is that makes it so wonderful. You get the impression the makers knew it was going to be bad, but never forced it.Never to be duplicated in wonder, Fatty delivers. Highly highly recommended. | 1 |
train_23181 | How unfortunate, to have so many of my "a" list, and good "b" list actors agree to do this movie, but they did, and that is what sucked me into watching it. I had never heard of this movie, but there was Cuba Gooding Jr. right on the DVD cover, and James Woods in the background how bad can it be? In a word Very! This movie starts o.k. has some twists and turns, then just lays an egg. The ending was so weak, it was as if the writer got called away and his 4 year old son sat down at the type writer and hacked out the ending. How ironic a for a movie titled "The end game" to have such a poor one. These are the types of movies that can move "a" list actors to the "b" list in hurry. I hope Cuba Gooding JR, and James Woods don't make a habit of this. | 0 |
train_14685 | ... or an audience. A quick recap....So you've got this doctor who's been experimenting with stolen body parts for some vague reason. He wants to perfect transplants, but feels he needs to do this in his basement. WTF??? And then suddenly, unfortunately, and conveniently, his fiancé gets her head cut off in a traffic accident that HE'S responsible for. Agonized with grief, he preserves her head in a lasagna pan (or is it strudel?) and pumps it full of "adreno-serum" (sic) to keep it alive. And then she awakes, talking her head off (so to speak) even though her neck was obviously severed at the vocal cords, and she has no lungs so she couldn't speak even if she had 'em. Seems the ungrateful b*tch doesn't appreciate all that her fiancé has done for her. Just like a woman.....Then his grief turns to horniness as he sees the possibility of grafting his beloved's head onto the body of the first sleazy bimbo he can pick up off the street. Meanwhile, the doctor's assistant, a sort of dime-store Igor, gets into philosophical arguments with the head, who has struck up a telekinetic friendship with the "monster in the closet" (every mad scientist has one). Eventually the screenwriter realizes that he can't keep inflicting his misogyny and fear of intimacy issues on the audience ad infinitum, so he kills everybody, then presumably goes to the bank to cash the check before the movie's financial backers have a chance to stop payment on it. Have I mentioned that I think this is a bad movie?Someone should tell Turner Classic Movies to stop showing that edited version without the gory stuff. The sight of the assistant with his arm ripped off, pirouetting around the house without leaving much blood anywhere is just too precious. | 0 |
train_18597 | Back in 1985 I caught this thing (I can't even call it a movie) on cable. I was in college and I was with a high school friend whose hormones were raging out of control. I figured out early on that this was hopeless. Stupid script (a bunch of old guys hiring some young guys to show them how to score with women), bad acting (with one exception) and pathetic jokes. The plentiful female nudity here kept my friend happy for a while--but even he was bored after 30 minutes in. Remember--this was a HIGH SCHOOL BOY! This was back before nudity was so easy to get to by the Internet and such. We kept watching hoping for something interesting or funny but that never happened. The funniest thing about this was the original ad campaign in which the studio admitted this film was crap! (One poster had a fictional review that said, "This is the best movie I've seen this afternoon!"). Only Grant Cramer in the lead showed any talent and has actually gone on to a career in the business. No-budget and boring t&a. Skip it. | 0 |
train_22727 | This is a well-worn story about a man who marries to escape the hangman's noose, then sets about "taming" his reluctant bride. It manages to be sexist and racist at exactly the same time. We never find out, for example, why a woman who won the respect of an Indian warrior is completely unable to fight back against her erstwhile husband. Or why the members of her team are so eager to get a "real man" in the saddle when she seems to have been taking care of things just fine on her own. This only made sense in fifties Hollywood.There's a really stupid scene where she horsewhips him and he actually catches the whip--the second time--then yanks her off her horse. Never mind that the first time probably would have lost him an eye, which would make it pretty hard to grab that whip! Then, he prevails in a fight against her Indian bodyguard where he spends the first two thirds of it getting beaten to a pulp. That's some second wind. Later, he successfully negotiates with some bloodthirsty Indians (as they all are in these flicks) after they reject her now she's his "squaw". Never mind that he has zero diplomatic skills and she's been negotiating with them for years. And the way he keeps rejecting her attempts to seduce him just to keep her keen and keep her from getting a hold on him--yeah, right. Like the women are just throwing themselves at him all the way down the trail.Finally, neither of the leads is convincing in their roles. Madison is just a jerk who gets unrealistically lucky. Fleming flips her hair and scowls a lot, but is totally unconvincing as a fiery tomboy. The only reason you'd root for her is because you want to see Madison get tied to a runaway horse and dragged over a cliff before the film's end. The way that Madison tames Fleming is so predictable and has so few obstacles that it will irritate the heck out of you if you see women as anything but blow-up dolls. Even if you do see them as dolls, the total lack of suspense will bore you.Total waste of time. Even the scenery's kinda dull. Give this one a big miss. | 0 |
train_896 | Once in a while, you come upon a movie that defines your values and shows you the true depth of human emotions leaving you drained. Vivah is just that maybe more. After watching DDLJ, Saajan, and Lamhey, I really thought that Bollywood has reached its pinnacle and will never come up with anything like that - EVER. Boy was I wrong! I went to the store to buy some groceries and decided to pick this movie up along with the new "DON" (just so I can compare The Great AB with ShahRukh although the decision is already made in my mind). After debating whether I should waste almost 3 hours on a meaningless movie I decided to watch it realizing I had nothing else to do. When I saw the rating of U instead of an A, I was happy that at least it is something where I don't have to watch scantily clad women with bad acting skills doing nothing but dancing on every opportunity they get and making out with every guy to show that they have more skills in bed than a Hollywood B actress. For the first 5 minutes or so I thought I would again be subjected to meaningless story with bad acting. After all everyone who has seen Shahid Kapor know that he as never gained his fame as an accomplished actor. Boy was I wrong about this movie. This movie grabbed my interest after the first 5 minutes and would never let it go. It was a great movie with a good storyline about the vanishing traditions of our society. I liked not only that the director was brave enough to make a movie where younger generation might not relate to the concept (of arranged marriage), but also that he did it with a conviction (that it is the right thing to do). I have no idea why some people think that the acting was not good. I felt that the acting was great and even though the music score might not be considered the best ever, it was still very very good. The good thing is this music will grow on people with time like it did with me after the I watched that movie a second time. The other good thing is that thee songs are not pushed into the script as we have all seen in so many movies. These songs actually tell a big part of the story and are certainly a welcome addition. Just like Ajay Devgan went from being a joke to a great actor (after Company), and Salman found his groove after "Hum Aapkey Hain Kaun"; this movie will help Shahid Kappor jump to being of the better actors and entertainers in Bollywood. This is the first movie of his in which I like him and his role. He acted well and adjusted to being the nice good looking young rich kid. Yes you will not find him playing basketball and scoring every point on a dunk like you saw ShahRukh in DDLJ (even though he is shown to be an Indian in England both countries not big on Basketball by the way), he does come across as very believable as a person who holds true to his values. Amrita Rao, for the first time came across as someone to be remembered. In all her other movies she was competing with big faces which was actually hindering her. No one knew how good of an actress she really is until they watch this movie. Some of the scenes in which she has to cry especially towards the end really shows her knowledge and depth of acting. Although she has been in another movies she is most memorable in this one. I think this movie will and should do wonders for her. Move over Rani there is finally another girl who if given a decent chance to work with good directors can grab the torch from you. She is beautiful with a great voice and has a face that exudes complete innocence. Oh having almost 0% body fat does not hurt either (yes people I will challenge you find even 0.1% fat on her and unlike so many others like Sonali she can actually act too). I thought I will never be enamored by anyone's beauty after Madhuri and early Kajol, but she completely changed that. Shahid and Amrita worked very well together and their relationship fitted their characters and they both did an excellent job (although I was waiting for Shahid to turn into a girl like Salman did every time he uttered "Hum aapkey Hain Kaun"). When I finished watching this movie, it left me so emotionally drained that I decided to watch this movie again (right away). Yes right away. I have never ever done that. Not even with DDLJ, but this movie just had something that had to be understood again and again. I will probably watch this movie a third time over the weekend just so I can watch and relive the traditions we all grew up with. I miss those times where families sat down and had fun. When parents had time for their kids and where kids respected what their parents believed in. I know a lot of people think that movie does not portray real life but deep down don't we all want it to happen. The families, thee tradition, the love and respect. This is what this movie will remind all of us of. I can assure you it is an extremely well made movie which you will enjoy. I am sure some young people will not like this movie but if you are over 28 I doubt that you will be one of them. | 1 |
train_13565 | Based upon the recommendation of a friend, my wife and I invited another couple to this film. I really apologized to them--all 4 of us hated it and spent the whole time looking at our watches waiting for the film to finally end. Half the vignettes are bizarre, with very little entertainment value. There were few scenes of Paris--for example, I was looking forward to seeing some pictures of the Latin Quarter, but I couldn't really recognize anything. Most of the scene was inside a bar. No one in the theater laughed at anything, or reacted in any way. If you like bizarre, pretentious, pseudo-intellectual films, don't miss this. If you are down to earth like me, you will be sorry you saw it. | 0 |
train_1132 | Its Hollywood imitating Daytiem Soap Operas at its finest! Its the fun that we never see. Great characters and great lines. Whoopi is hilarious.....Sally Field is so over the top....Gary Marshalls lines are a riot....this is what I love about good comedies. Never afraid to poke fun at themselves!!!!!!The sets were great....wardrobe was on point and the backstabbing "Montana Morehead" was a devilish delight. Terri Hatcher as "Dr. Monica Demonico" didn't have enough lines but none the less still gorgeous and fun when on screen. I would love to know how the idea for this movie came up. Never have I seen a cast of people have so much fun in making comedy work! Soapdish is a must have and I am waiting for the DVD!!! | 1 |
train_10246 | This movie has to be my favorite of all time. Its not supposed to have a plot, because its makers wanted people (Charlie Sheen, I think)to believe it was a real snuff film. This was an exercise in visual effects, and doesn't cut away when the action happens like every other film does. Movies these days are now all about sound effects, leaving the visuals to be made by computers cause its easier to deal with CGI blood. There still are movie makers who still can't get fake blood to look like the real thing. There is no rape scene because that wasn't the point of making the film. Have you seen the hills have eyes 2? The rape scene was funny instead of shocking. Although i'm sure there are some GONZO porn film makers that have tried to marry porn with horror. But since they probably suck at making films, they probably wouldn't be able to pull it off. The movie "Baise Moi" has a disturbing rape scene because the actresses are actually porn stars and they show everything even though the movie overall sucks.Its too bad that a movie can't be made without thinking of the money aspect of it all, especially when talking about an AO or NC-17 rating. I'm sure Eli Roth has the ability/talent to make his Hostel film series much much better, but he has too tame it down to get an R rating...or at least I hope that his movies sucked because of these limitations.Watch Traces of Death or More than Smashed Pumpkins if you want no frills real footage (accident & crime scenes/footage). Don't forget that this movie was made in 1985. The fact that this film can still stand up against most crap made these days says a lot about this film. That would be like someone saying the 8bit Super Mario Brothers sucks because the PS3 has better graphics. | 1 |
train_16780 | This must be accompanied by a special rating and warning: NOT RECOMMENDED TO NORMAL PEOPLE.The obsession of Daneliuc with the most dirty body functions becomes here a real nightmare. Also, it's evident that the man is a misanthrope, he hates everybody - his country his people, his actors, his job. And this hatred makes him blind and he forgets anymore the profession he knew long ago.This so called "film" is just a hideous string of disgusting images, with no artistic value and no professionist knowledge. It is an insult to good taste and to good sense. Shame, shame, shame! | 0 |
train_4359 | One woman, by herself in a house for 45-minutes of screen time, doesn't sound like a formula to hold you on the edge-of-your-seat... but FUTURE SHOCK is truly as thrilling as they come! Writer / star Vivian Schilling takes on those little fears we all suppress, and enlarges them to terrifying proportions, so don't watch this film alone! | 1 |
train_11468 | I am frankly surprised how little has been done in film on the Columbine Massacre. There isn't a major documentary, very puzzling. Fortunately we are graced with the talent of Ben Coccio who directed ZERO DAY, and Gus Van Sant who did the equally fine ELEPHANT. Two different takes on the event, which have in common the idea that the real cause of the massacre will always be a mystery, that there's something ultimately baffling and unknowable about the motivations of the two killers, and what actually drove them to carry it beyond fantasy into horrible reality. ZERO DAY, purportedly made up of videotapes made by the shooters and found after the event, is absolutely riveting. Even if you know where it's going, you still harbor hope that it WON'T "go there" ... and the tension in the final minutes of the movie is excruciating. The film is terrific from top to bottom, from director to script (not much improvised, though it appears very spontaneous) to the two lead actors, and the supporting players as well. There is only one aspect of ZERO DAY that troubled me. Okay, so we can't fathom why the shooters would do what they did, but certainly one of the contributors was their ANGER. Yet these boys don't really seem angry. They may say some things to indicate that they are, but in fact they didn't convince me that they had SOMETHING inside them that compelled them to kill innocent people. But this still leaves me with the sense of "why???" that director Coccio wants me to have. Anyway, rent or buy this movie, it will creep up on you and stay with you for a long time. The BLAIR WITCH folks could only WISH for the kind of success these guys had at making a mock documentary. | 1 |
train_7660 | This movie is nothing short of a dark, gritty masterpiece. I may be bias, as the Apartheid era is an area I've always felt for. But I'd say it ranks right up with Cry Freedom and Cry the Beloved Country. Sadly up until a few days ago I'd never even heard of this movie. Inside is one of the most underrated films of all time, probably because it was a small film company, I'd never even heard of it before. Eric Stoltz, one of my favorite actors anyway, is believable and dramatic, Nigel Hawthorne plays his dastardly role well. Do not look for humor in this film, there is none. It is real, savage and gritty to the last, and to the sensitive I'd say bring a box of tissues. But movies as great as this make you wonder, why is it that the greatest films are often never heard of? | 1 |
train_13347 | The movie is about two brothers that are supposed to be alike - but are not in any way expect for being smart - one is a surgeon and they other is able to write a computer code. Geniuses as they like to call themselves which sounds very exaggerated if you compare it to personal characteristics can you perceive from the material of the title.I honestly didn't like the style of the movie. I believe that anxiety, confusion and deep blues it brings are there for a purpose, but what I don't get is why there is so much of it. The movie is cheap on scenes and tells the story basically with no human aspect in it at all. It gives the comic book like experience. However it's visually numbing the viewer, it somehow brings him inside the blues with brief dialogs, monotonic scenes, dynamic cut, music and abrupt noises.The movie's storyline is very simple, most of what's going on is being dramatically pictured for long minutes, mostly in confusing delirium simulating effects of drug use and dynamic cuts.I will say openly that this movie didn't meet my expetations a tiny bit. | 0 |
train_1391 | Considering it was made on a low budget, THE DAY TIME ENDED manages to make the most of its budget with some surprisingly good special effects work.The story involves a family who are about to move into their solar-powered home in an isolated part of the Mojave Desert in southwestern California, only to find it trashed--by motorcycle vandals, they think. But their youngest daughter (Natasha Ryan) has begun to see mysterious things--a green pyramid, strange humanoid figures, etc. And only recently, the light from a trinary star explosion has caused extremely unusual auroras to show up in the desert skies. Thus the family, led by Jim Davis and Dorothy Malone, finds themselves face-to-face with strange alien forces who have put them in a time-and-space warp.Mixing in elements of 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY and CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND, THE DAY TIME ENDED, despite its obvious flaws and uneven acting, remains interesting due to the superb special effects work of David Allen. The desert setting is very appropriate for this film's close encounters; and while the movie cannot really be compared with either Kubrick's or Spielberg's films, THE DAY TIME ENDED is much better than many other 2001/CLOSE ENCOUNTERS knock-offs. I give credit to director John 'Bud' Cardos, whose 1977 thriller KINGDOM OF THE SPIDERS made for an interesting precursor to ARACHNOPHOBIA, for at least trying--and on that basis, I give THE DAY TIME ENDED a 7 out of 10. | 1 |
train_17832 | OK, the portrayal of the stereotyped 'indians' in this story is just plain WRONG. I do agree that Elvis looks rather good here, but yeah, his skin color does seem to change during the movie. I was thinking, OK,...he was never THAT tan in real life. It's some of the most obvious brown 'indian' makeup that I have ever seen. It's as bad as the 'indians' on 'F-Troop' and the old Hollywood westerns who were played by Jewish and Italian American actors and not real Native Americans!This movie is o.k., but typically lame story and mediocre songs, like in all of Elvis' later films. He just did them because Colonel Parker had him tied down to long term movie contacts to squeeze as much money out of Elvis as possible! I keep thinking 'thank God' that Elvis stopped making movies forever not long after this movie came out. It is cool to see character actors Joan Blondell, Katy Jurado, L.Q. Jones, Henry Jones and Burgess Meredith in this movie, though.Burgess Meredith's 'indian' makeup is absolutely AWFUL. It's The worst of the bunch for sure. What were the filmmakers thinking? Was Mr. Meredith doing this one just for the money or what? I do love certain Elvis movies, though. For example: 'Love Me Tender', 'Jailhouse Rock', 'Viva Las Vegas'. I can even stand to watch his movie with future TV co-stars Mary Tyler Moore and Ed Asner,'Change Of Habit' in which Elvis plays an inner-city doctor.Oh well, at least Elvis made a FEW good films, but the mediocre and bad ones overwhelm the decent and good ones.I'll always love ELVIS! Thank you, Thank you very much! | 0 |
train_6192 | I've read a lot of comments about the film and how it's so hard for people to believe that it is a sequel to Henry Fool, and even though it technically is, I think that Fay Grim needs to be looked at as an entirely different film. Just because it is the sequel doesn't mean that it has to be a direct continuation of the first, and I enjoyed that so much about it. The whole point of the film was to change direction from the first, which makes sense because the movie isn't called Henry Fool 2, it's Fay Grim. All that aside, the film, I thought, was so well made and thought out that it actually surprised me. I was expecting to rent another nearly-released-straight-to-video film and have to endure 2 hours of bad editing and an almost hard to follow story-line (aka parker's last direct to video feature the Oh in Ohio) but this was so surprisingly well focused that it almost doesn't seem so, which I absolutely loved. There are so many nuances in the film making and writing that I crave to see in films, but never do. The cinematography was brilliant due to it's simplicity and truly making the film seem 'Grim' throughout - in terms of setting. The writing was so well put together as well, whoever said this movie isn't as witty as Henry Fool needs to watch again and actually listen; I almost can't even begin to explain how actually hilarious it was, and pertinent. And well, Parker Posey, who could complain? The scene in which Fool and Jalal were talking in the dark was so captivating and emotional. And I thought the spy-ness throughout the film was just so hilarious and spot on (in hindsight because i do agree that at times during you kind of felt lost). The main thing that struck me so powerfully about the film, and i believe the point of the film, was Parker's love and naivety about Fool, which was so endearing and turned, yes very quickly, from denial to outright passion. The last five minutes of the film were perfect. Obviously there were things that weren't excellent, but nothing is perfect; some of the acting was poor, and at times I did think that some of the new back story and dialogue about terrorism got a little hard to follow and out of hand, but in the end you got it and didn't even mind that at the time it may have slipped from your comprehension. (This may also have to do with Goldblum's tendency to talk extremely fast) On the whole I would say that it was probably one of the best films I've seen this year; stylistically pleasing, clever and witty writing, performances that were so impressive I now have gained new respect for some of the actors, and a truly touching film, and don't forget, a complete departure from Fool. Which was the point. | 1 |
train_3727 | Tigerland is one of the finest films that i have seen, and in my opinion it outdoes even full metal jacket, a film of similar nature. Bozz is played exceptionally well by Farrell, and is a character who stays in your mind long after the film ends. The ending is brilliantly cut by schumacher - with the melodic harmony singing and the slow mo of the troops preparing to leave. What a film. | 1 |
train_6859 | Kate Miller (Angie Dickinson) is having problems in her marriage and otherwise--enough to see a psychologist. When her promiscuity gets her into trouble, it also involves a bystander, Liz Blake (Nancy Allen), who becomes wrapped up in an investigation to discover the identity of a psycho killer.Dressed to Kill is somewhat important historically. It is one of the earlier examples of a contemporary style of thriller that as of this writing has extensions all the way through Hide and Seek (2005). It's odd then that director Brian De Palma was basically trying to crib Hitchcock. For example, De Palma literally lifts parts of Vertigo (1958) for Dressed to Kill's infamous museum scene. Dressed to Kill's shower scenes, as well as its villain and method of death have similarities to Psycho (1960). De Palma also employs a prominent score with recurrent motifs in the style of Hitchcock's favorite composer Bernard Herrmann. The similarities do not end there.But De Palma, whether by accident or skill, manages to make an oblique turn from, or perhaps transcend, his influence, with Dressed to Kill having an attitude, structure and flow that has been influential. Maybe partially because of this influence, Dressed to Kill is also deeply flawed when viewed at this point in time. Countless subsequent directors have taken their Hitchcock-like De Palma and honed it, improving nearly every element, so that watched now, after 25 years' worth of influenced thrillers, much of Dressed to Kill seems agonizingly paced, structurally clunky and plot-wise inept.One aspect of the film that unfortunately hasn't been improved is Dressed to Kill's sex and nudity scenes. Both Dickinson and Allen treat us to full frontal nudity (Allen's being from a very skewed angle), and De Palma has lingering shots of Dickinson's breasts, strongly implicit masturbation, and more visceral sex scenes than are usually found in contemporary films. Quite a few scenes approach soft-core porn. I'm no fan of prudishness--quite the opposite. Our culture's puritanical, monogamistic, sheltered attitude towards sex and nudity is disturbing to me. So from my perspective, it's lamentable that Dressed to Kill's emphasis on flesh and its pleasures is one of the few aspects in which others have not strongly followed suit or trumped the film. Perhaps it has been desired, but they have not been allowed to follow suit because of cultural controls from conservative stuffed shirts.De Palma's direction of cinematography and the staging of some scenes are also good enough that it is difficult to do something in the same style better than De Palma does it. He has an odd, characteristic approach to close-ups, and he's fond of shots from interesting angles, such as overhead views and James Whale-like tracking across distant cutaways in the sets. Of course later directors have been flashier, but it's difficult to say that they've been better. Viewed for film-making prowess, at least, the museum scene is remarkable in its ability to build very subtle tension over a dropped glove and a glance or two while following Kate through the intricately nested cubes of the Metropolitan Museum of Art.On the other hand, from a point of view caring about the story, and especially if one is expecting to watch a thriller, everything through the museum scene and slightly beyond might seem too slow and silly. Because of its removal from the main genre of the film and its primary concern with directorial panache (as well as cultural facts external to the film), the opening seems like a not very well integrated attempt to titillate and be risqué. Once the first murder occurs, things improve, but because of the film's eventual influence, much of the improvement now seems a bit clichéd and occasionally hokey.The performances are mostly good, although Michael Caine is underused, and Dickinson has to exit sooner than we'd like (but the exit is necessary and very effective). Dressed to Kill is at least likely to hold your interest until the end, but because of facts not contained in the picture itself, hasn't exactly aged well. At this point it is perhaps best to watch the film primarily as a historical relic and as an example--but not the best, even for that era--of some of De Palma's directorial flair. | 1 |
train_24605 | This was a disappointing film. The people seem to have no substance, the lead protagonist Martin Cahil has zero redemptive values, in fact everyone in it including Jon Voight epitomizes sleeze. I would not recommend this film to anyone. The violence is distasteful, though artfully done. The filming is to black, at least the print i saw fit this category. A disappointment. | 0 |
train_4659 | Without Peter Ustinov and Maggie Smith, this could easily have been a turkey. But they are brilliant. Ustinov is at his best, and for fans of Maggie, it is great to see her in her early days, matching Ustinov every step of the way for with and timing. For Englishmen in their fifties (and I am in that bracket), it is always entertaining to see glimpses of and hear sounds of the Swinging Sixties, and although this film spends a lot of time in offices, it has plenty of Sixties nostalgia, including red buses, Carnaby Street, a song by Lulu and a delicious shot up the micro-skirt of a waitress, the like of which England has never seen since in public places. As an I.T. engineer, I know that the computer hacking tricks are laughable, but they are not meant to be taken seriously. Nor are the wonderful stereotypes of Italians, French and Germans. | 1 |
train_8964 | By some happy coincidence the same year that Jimmy Stewart and Kim Novak made Alfred Hitchcock's haunting masterpiece "Vertigo", they also made this light comedy. Perhaps the two actors needed to do it after undergoing the heaviness of the Hitchcock film . At any rate this a great companion piece to "Vertigo" as it again explores a very un-likely but powerful romance. In fact the film can be seen as the flip side of "Vertigo" with it's happy ending. Here again Novak undergoes a transformation, in Vertigo she essentially plays two women and here she 'transforms' from witch to mortal. Stewart is again bewitched and for awhile tormented by his love for her. Unlike Vertigo the two come together in "Bell Book and Candle" , a perfect antidote for the Hitcock movie. Again the dynamics of love and attraction are examined but in an altogether different vein. The cast is terrific. Lemmon hilarious as Novak's warlock brother and Elsa Lancaster giving a classic performance as the Aunt. Ernie Kovacs as the alcoholic cult writer and of course Hermoine Gingold playing Novak's competitor are all great. The scene with Stewart drinking the potion is comedy at it's best. Anyone who has seen Vertigo or even if you haven't should see this memorable light comedy. | 1 |
train_17237 | I loved the first "Azumi" movie. I've seen Ms. Ueto in a variety of her TV appearances and I've seen my fair share of samurai and ninja flicks. I have to say that this movie was much weaker than I'd expected.Given the movie's cast and set up in "Azumi", they should have been able to do a much better job with this movie, but instead it was slow, plodding in parts, and sprinkled with very poor, unconvincing, and wooden acting.When they bothered to reference the first movie, they did so in a manner that was pretty loose and weak. In "Azumi", the title character is the best of a group of superior killers. In "Azumi 2" she seems somehow diminished and less-impressive.That's not to say it was a total loss. There were a few decent fight scenes and some over-the-top characters. Unfortunately, the movie suffers overall from the simple fact that Shusuke Kaneko and Yoshiaki Kawajiri are not Ryuhei Kitamura and Isao Kiriyama. The latter two truly captured the "manga" feel in their screenplay whereas the former never quite "got it." | 0 |
train_5418 | Cary Grant, Douglas Fairbanks Jr. and Victor McLaglen are three soldiers in 19th Century India who, with the help of a water boy (Sam Jaffe) rid the area of the murderous thuggee cult. The chemistry between the actors helps make this one of the most entertaining movies of all time. Sam Jaffe is exceptional as the outcast water boy who is mistreated by all and still wants to be accepted as a soldier in the company. Loosely based on Rudyard Kipling's poem. A must see by anyone who enjoys this type of movie. | 1 |
train_1376 | It sounds as if it should be a biography of Claude Monet but it's actually a highly focused story of relationships between three adolescent girls on a French synchronized swimming team. There are no parents or teachers to speak of, no school, and boys are represented by one peripheral figure, the hunky Francois who enters the story determined from time to time and always leaves confused.Pauline Aquart is the youngest of the three, only aspiring to join the team she so much admires. She's kind of odd looking. She's not yet out of her adolescent growth spurt and has long, bony limbs, big feet, and no derriere to speak of. She's prognathous and sports these plump pursed lips. After a while her appearance grows on you and from certain angles she can come to appear enthralling.Adele Haenel is older -- more, well, more developed physically. What a glamorous figure she cuts in her swim suit, sauntering around, teasing the boys, swishing her long blond hair. But she's not what she seems. Or is she? I couldn't quite figure it out. The French are long on paradoxes and short on consistency. No wonder Francois is always sniffing after her.There's not so much ambiguity in Louse Blachere's character. She's on the team too but she's dumpy and plain, and sensitive about it, and has an intense crush on Francois. Blachere is a good actress and adds to the ungainliness of the character through her performance.The movie deals with the relationships between these three, meaning intrigues, deceptions, hidden feelings, and all the rest of what we associate with young girls who spend much time with one another. This is of course a tricky topic. It becomes trickier during the gradual development of a homoerotic relationship between Pauline and Adele. Not that you should expect this to be a soft porn movie. The only nudity we see is considerably less than a turn on, and what little sex there is under the covers, sometimes literally.I don't think I want to get into the plot or into its analysis too much, partly because it's suggestive rather than expressed through action, partly because it's complex, and partly because I'm not sure I got it all.Let me give an example. Okay. Adele is the girl the others envy. She's also quite distant and self satisfied. On top of that she is apparently schtupping every boy and man in sight if they can be of any use to her at all, from the handsome but dumb Francois to the bus driver she wants a favor from. She brags unashamedly about her expertise in fellatio. When Pauline approaches her about joining the swim team, Adele uses her as a lookout during assignations with the guys. A superior and self-indulgent narcissist, you know? But then the soi-disant slut takes the skinny Pauline under her wing and reveals to Pauline that she's still a virgin. Really? Yes, really. Pauline begins to draw closer to Adele and Adele finally confesses that she'd like to rid herself of her hymen and she would like Pauline to do it for her. Pauline, now drawn sexually to Adele, performs the task with subdued relish. NOW Adele would REALLY like to get it on with a man, preferably older and experienced. So she takes Pauline to a boite where she dances seductively with some guy until she follows Pauline to the powder room. The two girls stand there staring at one another, neither having overtly expressed a sexually tinged interest in the other. But Adele stands so close that Pauline slowly loosens her own reins, reaches up, and kisses Adele on the lips. Adele steps back, smiling, and says, "There now, that wasn't so bad, was it?", and then walks back into the club.That's a pretty close description of whatever is going on between Pauline and Adele -- but what the hell IS going on? Initially, Adele treats Pauline like an irrelevant child, later like a close friend, finally like a potential lover -- and the minute Pauline responds, Adele walks off satisfied. Is she USING Pauline the way she seems to be using men? Does it satisfy Adele to know that she now has another person in involuntary servitude? I don't know.I've slighted Louise Blachere as the third member of the trio, the plain and overripe wallflower whose expression always suggests dumbfoundedness but who at least is thoroughly heterosexual and the first of the three to rid herself of that noisome virginity, but I've only skipped her for considerations of space.Should you see it? By all means. (Just compare it to the typical American movie about high school kids.) For men, some of whom have never penetrated the female mystique, this may give you some idea of what it looks like in medium shot. | 1 |
train_21798 | The banner says it all, this is one really bad movie, which is sad because I normally like Sheffer, and I have been impressed with Andrea Roth in other roles. This, however, is terrible. I wont waste any more time...its just that bad. | 0 |
train_22717 | A badly-acted two-character comedy-drama abruptly transmogrifies into a weren't-we-awful-to-the-Indians polemic, with lousy special effects, exploitative use of nudity, and ugly violence. It's as sincere as a politician's handshake, as obvious as a car salesman's pitch, one of the worst movies in the history of the universe. Absolute and utter dreck. | 0 |
train_11758 | Spoiler This movie is about such a concept. Williams will go to any low in order to replay the football game that haunts his life. Russel plays the ex jock who peaked in high school. Finally the under dog get its shot, and Williams can save face, instead of being the clown. A great reverse tragedy. 7/10 | 1 |
train_11876 | Ya know when one looks at this Brian DePalma film today, I'm sure there has been allot of criticism about how dated it is. Also, about the violence. When I looked at this film on VHS when I was 20, I thought it was ulta-violent and gritty as well. But I didn't get 'it'.A few decades go by and man, how I know how much I didn't get in this film!! This is a remake of an excellent film which was done back in the 30's/40's. How can you improve upon a classic? Ya don't. But you tell a tale that is brought up to date through the eyes of the "new immigrants" during the most greed ridden decade, the over indulgent 80's. DePalma, Stone and the gang present an ambitious, disturbing and darn right good film.Yes....Disco was dying and New Wave/Punk were taking over but these immigrants from Cuba who had to make a new home in Florida couldn't tell the difference. It was exciting, it was what they wanted but how to get it???? To these immigrants, there was only one way to get it in Florida where they were..by having lots of money and to get the money, you had to take over running a drug empire.Al Pacino was fantastic to me as Tony Montana, the "little train that could". What an amazing way to have your lead character look at America: to fight, kill, steal. lie, cheat all to get -- "the money, the women and the power."That's what Tony saw as the American dream.He wanted it, he wanted to live it and in his circle saw nothing wrong with how he went to get it. Tony Montana's command of the English language was heavily saturated with the "f" word but what did you expect, Emily Post's finishing school for him and his co-horts? Look at how they CAME to America, what they knew, what they were exposed to. This is the way Tony and his crew chose to "be all they can be in America." It was all about the power. Tony Montana would and did ANYTHING to achieve it..it all its violent, lying, stealing, crooked, thieving glory.The part of the film that personified the 1980's to me, is the money laundering. Tony's crew bringing sacks of drug money to the bank. Did those around Tony and his crew care? At the clubs where he spent and drank? Nope. Money was money and with money, you get the power. Tony was living high off the hog. He and his pretty blond American trophy he married played well by Michelle Pfieffer.After Tony Montana's rise to power, he finds out its really crappy up there. He's riddled with doubt, he's drug addicted, he's paranoid, he's surrounded by those who want to take him on in a bloody take-over, his trophy 80's American blonde drug addicted wife he finds out is a bore, he needs to keep atop of his empire because...he's going down. And down he goes in a horrific violent fashion, but again I ask, what do you expect?This is the quintessential 1980's film telling you a warped tale of how some misunderstand the American Dream...to obsession. It's violent, bloody, overly so..but it drives the point disturbingly home. Not all Cubans thrown out of Cuba who landed in Florida in the 80's were anything like Tony Montana. Give me a break. But the showing of how miserable the 1980's were with its emphasis on greed and money as the only measures in the USA to "be somebody" and have power took its tool on these poor characters and their lives in America.Makes you wonder -- has anything from then -- been learned today? | 1 |
train_18357 | WWF Survivor Series 2001This was among the worst events of 2001. Perhaps its biggest flaw was the fact that it didn't follow suit to most of the previous Survivor Series'. There was only ONE survivor series match. And that Survivor Series match went on for 45 minutes. What's more, anyone with a working brain would know that it would end with The Rock versus Austin and The Rock prevailing for his team. And don't get me started on the preview before the event. No matter who won it was obvious that no one was going to f***ing die. There was no need for all of that pointless hype. Whatever the storyline, it was just a wrestling event.And as for the rest of the matches: the first match was Christian defending his European title against Al Snow. It was a good fast paced match and its good to see a heel winning a match fairly. William Regal versus Tajiri was boring and we've seen it 2 or 3 times before. Edge versus Test was good but nothing great. The tag titles steel cage match was the best match of the evening. The battle Royal went on for 10 minutes and no one really cared who'd win in the first place. The Women's title match wasn't great. No, not in the slightest. The main event must have been the most hypocritical match in history. The Alliance lost but guess what, after 5 months every single Alliance superstar returned. The match itself was poor. The Rock eliminated 3 of them and Jericho eliminated 2. The Rock was too caught up with his acting to be there when the invasion began. Jericho was the one that jeopardised the whole match. If I wanted any 2 to be eliminated in the early going it would be them. Everyone knew that Kane, Big Show and Undertaker were just fall guys. 7 matches isn't enough for a Survivor Series. If there's ever a Survivor Series as bad as this again I'll | 0 |
train_16492 | Director Spike Lee is famous for making films pointing out racism. In many of films, such "Do The Right Thing," most of the white people are all brutal racists. In this movie, interracial marriage is the subject, with racism once again being the entire issue.What Lee does, however, is once again demonstrate his bigotry against Christianity. It's amazing the double standards that exist in the film world. If Lee or anyone else ever produced this kind of bias against another group he would be vilified, but Christians? Hey, it's "open season" on them.Ossie Davis, a reverend in this film, shoots his son and then puts the smoldering gun down on top of his Bible. They zoom in on that for another closeup just in case you missed it. Hey, folks, here's another Bible reader and look what he''s like! Lee does this sort of thing in just about every movie he makes.He shows the same hatred when dealing with race relations. Who could argue with portraying racism as an evil thing? However, Lee perpetuates it in this film as he has in his other films. His obvious bitterness toward white people doesn't help the situation. It only adds fuel to the fire. Hey, Spike: start "doing the right thing" and leave your prejudices in the closet. Better yet, "get over it."This is too bad because the subject matter could have made for a thought- provoking film if it had been done with objectivity and intelligence. | 0 |
train_2790 | Gurinda Chada's semi-autobiographical film (2002) is a gentle, poignant comedy set in the ethnically diverse community near Heahthrow Airport in West London.Like the airliners which constantly arrive and depart from overhead, we follow the ups and downs of the two main characters Jess Bhamra (Parminder Nagra) and Jules Paxton (Keira Knightley) as they strike up an unlikely friendship which centres around their mutual passion for soccer and their technical infatuation with David Beckham.Much of the comedy grows out of the misunderstandings of the families of these two talented girls as they break all the expectations and conventions of their very different family backgrounds.Somewhere in the middle, as broker, peacemaker and blighted athlete, Joe (Jonathan Reece-Myers) - team coach for the Hounslow Harriers - intercedes in times of crisis, while at the same time remaining the main object of affection of both the main characters.Eventually, and not without many obstacles and triumphs on the way, we finally see our dedicated and beloved soccer heroines soaring away to realise their dreams.With great performances from Bollywood veteran Anupam Kher (Mr Bhamra), Shaheen Khan (Mrs Bhamra), Juliet Stevenson (Mrs Paxton) and Frank Harper (Mr Paxton) this really is a film that captures the urgent passion of adolescence and crosses all ethnic frontiers.Pinky Bamrha (Archie Panjabi) and (Taz) Trey Farley are struggling their own struggles, but nevertheless contribute greatly to our understanding of the main characters in the film.In it's own special way, this film tells an important story that in quite incidental the football. It celebrates the evolution in the understanding of ordinary people in ordinary families and the innate ability of the young to teach the old. | 1 |
train_20814 | I saw Chan Is Missing when it first came out, about four years after moving from San Francisco to New York. Maybe it was the perspective of a few years away, but this movie seemed to capture the essence of the city and its people better than anything else I'd ever seen (still does). It concentrates on one particular community - the Chinese - but that's fine, because so much of the city's soul is refracted through the settings, the faces, and the maybe above all the voices of the characters.This isn't the tourists' San Francisco. The settings are humble and everyday: a taxi cab, the kitchen of a Chinese restaurant, Richmond District row houses, little Chinatown apartments and small-business offices, the piers, a Philippine elder center. This is what the city looks and feels like day to day to the people who live there - even now, in the era of Silicon Gulch urban redevelopment. Unlike, say, Dirty Harry (in its own way an excellent San Francisco movie as well), everything is filmed at street level: We come to understand the characters' points of view from the perspective their surroundings give them, not from some fancy vertiginous shooting.Wang apparently filmed in B&W because he didn't have the money to do otherwise, yet one of the strongest visual elements of the movie is the natural light he achieves. The often harsh, pervasive quality of the sunlight is one of my closest associations with San Francisco: It seems to expose everything, bringing the buildings, the hills, the other landmarks down in scale and, in a funny way, making the people you pass on the streets seem more individual and potentially closer to you than they might in another place. Wang's photography perfectly conveys this, and even helps the story along at points.Wang captures the speech and conversational style of Chinese and other San Franciscans better than anyone ever has, I think. If there's such thing as a true San Francisco "accent," it's what you hear from the balding taxi medallion broker (I think) who appears talking on the phone in one scene (listen to the way he calls the person on the other end "ya dingaling!").The story is poignant and, despite a few very small missteps, makes its points beautifully about the longings that pull at the hearts of people living in old immigrant communities - including the justified political and ethnic resentments, and little ironic amusements, that help to fuel them. All this is communicated delicately - perhaps why some respondents here think the film meanders. It doesn't - suffice it to say that the two cab drivers' quest for Chan becomes a quest for something more personal.Chan Is Missing finishes up with a Chinatown travelogue sequence backed by a goofy novelty song from the 1930s (I guess) about San Francisco and all its crazy diversity. An American caricature, yes, but somehow not entirely off the mark either. | 0 |
train_8560 | Drew Barrymore was excellent in this film. This role is the type of role you don't normally see Drew play. Her typical role is as a woman looking for love. The storyline is also great.When Holly is implicated in her mother's murder she moves to L.A. She moves in with a guy who becomes her lover. But her brother who is in a mental prison hospital for what they believe is murder is almost killed she is wrongfully accused. It is then revealed to her lover that she has Multiple Personality Disorder. After that another woman becomes paranoid when she's around her. In the end though, they find out the truth. | 1 |
train_21849 | This film was terrible. I have given it the high score of 2 as I have seen worse, but very few.From the clichéd start of having the end of the film at the start and going back to the start at the end this film used everything in the box of tricks used in film making just for the sake of it, like a kid with too many toys. There was the endless, boring repetitive narration, slow motion, freeze frame, flashbacks and merged images etc - none of which made a dull film any better.It is called "16 years of alcohol", but there was little drinking or drunkeness and no depiction of withdrawal with the film jumping about all over the place with no coherent sense. The story was badly written and extremely pretentious and the direction was equally poor and it is a shame that people have put up further money for more films by Mr Jobson, previously know for being in a rubbish group and on TV making as much sense as this film does.I found it a major struggle to see this to the end but in the hope of it getting better I carried on to the bitter but it really was a waste of time and I would have been better off not bothering. | 0 |
train_24770 | This Kiyoshi Kurosawa ghost movie is pretty wild, and it did have at least one jump scare that caught me off guard. But all in all, the movie is incredibly stupid, with a detective trying to track down a suspected serial killer, only to find out he may have committed one of the crimes. Then he finds himself haunted by a gorgeous Asian lady ghost, and has no idea why (and neither does the viewer). As other murders are committed, he becomes even more confused as the killers are easily found, and this ghost still haunts him for some reason. Not only is the plot completely stupid, the lady ghost is more funny than anything, especially when she suddenly flies across the city, like Wonder Woman. And the ending makes little sense, in fact, the whole movie makes little sense, and I can't recommend it at all. If it didn't take itself so serious, I would think it was supposed to be a black comedy. Outside of "Bright Future" this is the worst movie directed by Kiyoshi Kurosawa I have seen yet. | 0 |
train_19845 | I absolutely hate this programme, what kind of people sit and watch this garbage?? OK my dad and mum love it lol but i make sure I'm well out of the room before it comes on. Its so depressing and dreary but the worst thing about it is the acting i cant stand all detective programmes such as this because the detectives are so wooden and heartless. What happened to detective programmes with real mystery??? I mean who wants to know what happened to fictional characters we know nothing about that died over 20 years ago??? I wish the bbc would put more comedy on bbc1 cos now with the vicar of dibley finished there is more room for crap like this. | 0 |
train_5534 | THE FOX AND THE CHILD is the latest film from MARCH OF THE PENGUINS filmmaker Frenchman Luc Jacquet. The movie, which boasts just one human being in its cast, young actress Bertille Noël-Bruneau, tells the story of the rather rare, though seemingly believable relationship between a child and a wild fox.Part-nature documentary, and part-fairy tale, the film focuses on L'Infant, the child, who on her way to school one day comes across the path of a wild fox in a picturesque setting, possibly France, though the exact location is never mentioned. Over the coming weeks the child revisits the place where she found her fox hopeful that one of said days she will see said fox, who she begins to call Lily, once again. And so it goes on. Days turn to weeks, and then the summer disappears, turning to fall and then winter, promting some superb cinematography of the sweeping, white winter landscape. Eventually, spring comes around again, and the young child finds her fox, and indeed does strike up a friendship with the animal. And so on.I had little to no expectation for THE FOX AND THE CHILD. I had seen MARCH OF THE PENGUINS and was simply in awe at the film-making contained in that movie. Luc Jacquet is a hugely talented, and indeed rare film-maker, and I was expecting some superb, breathtaking cinematography, sweeping vistas and brilliant footage of the wildlife. This was delivered in spades. But here Jacquet has a screen writing credit, and not knowing anything about the movie prior to the screening, I expected something a little different than what had previously been seen in 'March'. A fictional story.The child and the fox And the story is simple. A young, seemingly lonely child lives in a house in the middle of nowhere and walks to school, seemingly on her own, every day, seemingly without a care in the a seemingly perfect world. Without the hint of an adult in sight. Brilliant. So she strikes up a friendship with a fox.With a film like this, you have to dismiss your own opinion of the movie and put yourselves in the shoes of the target audience. This is a film which is aimed directly at children from the age of, I'd say, six and up. Or to families who fancy a trip to the cinema with their breed one wet Sunday afternoon. Not a 31-year-old male who gets his kicks from films like the recent, brilliant WANTED and the like. But, me being the newbie London critic, I put myself in the shoes of an excited eight-year old girl for the 95 or so minutes of THE FOX AND THE CHILD. Now, I have a few problems with this film. As a 31-year-old lad, and loyal lover of all things cinematic, I loved the wildlife and landscape photography. It's visually stunning. The direction of the animal characters is brilliantly executed -- as good as you will find on any of Attenborough's efforts. As an impressionable, short attention spanning eight year old, I loved about the first half hour -- then I lost interest. It's a little repetitive and in places quite harrowing and bloody scary for a younger child, particularly the rather dark ending. As a 31-year-old male -- I was a little frightened in places. Wuss.So, it's not a child's film. It's not really an adult film and I felt a little let down. Is it a good family film. Depends. It's educational maybe, and the film carries a message. It's definitely not a film I would pay the hard earned green to go see and I'm racking my brains to try and recommend it to a certain type of film goer. It's hard, but I know some will go see and fall in love this film. It's very European in feel and certainly if you are a fan of wildlife themed flicks, give it a try. Unsure? Well I'd wait for the DVD for a wet Sunday afternoon in then. -- Paul Heath, http://www.thehollywoodnews.com, July 2008. | 1 |
train_15975 | I have to admit I laughed a few times during this trivial 2004 holiday movie, but it's already moving out of my short-term memory. In a career that is sliding rather swiftly toward tabloid obscurity, Ben Affleck, once a promising comic character actor who became enmeshed in the Hollywood publicity machine to recreate himself into a romantic leading man. Judging from this film, the transformation doesn't seem to be taking, as he continues to lack the gravitas that would make him credible in such parts. While his buddy Matt Damon takes on smart roles in films like "Syriana", Affleck appears in this type of commercial pap. At least the superficial character of successful but lonely advertising executive Drew Latham suits Affleck better than most of the other roles he has tried.Directed by Mike Mitchell (whose most famous film is 1999's "Deuce Bigelow: Male Gigolo") and scripted by no less than four screenwriters (always a bad sign), the flimsy plot revolves around his character's need to "rent" a family living in his childhood home in order to live out his fantasy of having the old-fashioned Christmas he never had. The concept is actually intriguing because there is something to be said about the cathartic release of sentimentality we are all directed to feel amid the frenzied commercialism around the holidays. The real problem, however, is that the movie feels like an extended sketch lacking any logic or authentic emotional resonance. Affleck seems to be on overdrive attempting desperately to be lovable, but the net result is an exhausting turn by an actor who has an increasingly annoying habit of playing stupid people in ill-conceived films. Fortunately, he has the likes of James Gandofini and Catherine O'Hara playing the Valcos, the couple who decide to accept Drew's monetary offer to pretend to be his parents.Gandolfini plays Tom like a gruff, non-violent relative of Tony Soprano, but he does what he can in the role. From her classic SCTV Days to Christopher Guest's mockumentaries, O'Hara is always a comic gem no matter the vehicle, and unsurprisingly she earns the best laughs as Tom's wife Christine, whether dryly delivering a one-liner or posing in an inch of make-up for a dominatrix photo shoot. In what is becoming her standard screen role, Christina Applegate plays their mistrusting daughter Alicia, who of course becomes Drew's love interest. Despite some good moments where she is enjoying the deceit of playing Drew's sister in front of his girlfriend's family, her character seems to change in lightning-flash strokes making it hard to see what Drew would see in her. The story spins completely out of control by the last third with one contrived situation piled on top of another until plot strands are tied together in short order. It's rumored that much of the movie was improvised since there was no finished shooting script. It shows, but I also have to admit I stuck with it to the bitter end. | 0 |
train_24291 | I don't get this. The movie obviously has a pretty good budget. It has very good cinematography. It has nice pacing, good editing and pretty good directing too. Then WHY OH WHY didn't they hire someone to do a final rewrite of the script so it would not be so damn cheesy and WHY OH WHY did they hire such lousy actors that can't act their way out of a paper bag? This movie could have been good. At most times it LOOKS good and FEELS good but in the end, you realize that the movie was no good at all.So I would say it's a good production but a bad movie. Too bad actually.And eels? Come one, really! | 0 |
train_15028 | The Van is a feelgood movie about a guy who tries to lure girls into his new van, in order to seduce them. The only thing this movie doesn't fail at is precisely depicting the van fad in the US in the late 70s. It looks like it was totally made by amateurs. It's trash, but I loved it! I have to admit I am a fan of 70s trash! Hope this one makes it to the IMDB bottom 100!2 | 0 |
train_9076 | This would have to be one of the funniest TV sitcoms to come out of the States since the demise of "Everybody Loves Raymond". Warburton is always hilarious, and in this complements the rest of the ensemble cast to perfection. David Spade continues to tickle my funny bone enormously with his quite unique delivery of his lines. After having raved over the British series, "Coupling" I can see from just where the creators of "Rules of Engagement" got their original idea, but this is not intended as being a "brickbat" - the absolutely brilliant dialogue and the way in which it is conveyed set this particular series completely apart. But it takes more than a competent cast to bring success to a new series, particularly in the very difficult field of comedy. Having been a part of a professional TV comedy writing team for the best part of 7 years in Australia, I can appreciate particularly, the role of director and the perceptional and creative talent of the camera crew. One of the few grievances I have with the series is the very obviously "canned" laughter. Surely a live audience could have been used in the shooting of the series. | 1 |
train_12340 | There is indeed much to complain about this movie version of Molnar's mystical play --Farrell looks good in his title role, but his line readings, frankly, stink. This also suffers, in large part, from this being credited as the first movie that makes use of rear projection. The sets look phony.There are two great strengths in this show, however: although the dialogue readings limp, the visual performances are perfect. Rose Hobart, as Julie, is little remembered today: mostly for ROSE HOBART, in which Joseph Cornell cut down the programmer EAST OF BORNEO to simply shots of her: credit Melford's stylish visual direction of the original. Her great beauty and simple (although stagy) performance help repair some of the damage to the earth-bound sections of this movie.However, one of Borzage's themes is the mystical power of love, and it is the handling of the celestial sections that make this great, from the arrival of the celestial train to the journey to 'the Hot Place'. H.B. Warner's performance here is, as always, perfect.So we have here a flawed but very interesting version. I think that Lang's 1934 version is better, as well as the celestial scenes in the Henry King version of CAROUSEL, the watered-down musical remake. But I still greatly enjoyed this version and think you should give it a chance. | 1 |
train_4998 | Shannon Lee,the daughter of Bruce Lee,delivers high kicking martial arts action in spades in this exhilarating Hong Kong movie and proves that like her late brother Brandon she is a real chip off the old block. There is high tech stuntwork to die for in this fast paced flick and the makers of the Bond movies should give it a look if they want to spice up the action quotient of the next 007 adventure as there is much innovative stuff here with some fresh and original second unit work to bolster up the already high action content of "AND NOW,YOU'RE DEAD". When you watch a movie as fast paced and entertaining as this you begin to wonder how cinema itself was able to survive before the martial arts genre was created.I genuinely believe that movies in general and action movies in particular were just marking time until the first kung fu movies made their debut. Bruce Lee was the father of modern action cinema and his legitimate surviving offspring Shannon does not let the family name down here.Although there are several pleasing performances in this movie (Michel Wong for one)it is Shannon Lee whom you will remember for a genuinely spectacular performance as Mandy the hitgirl supreme.Hell;you may well come away whistling her fights! | 1 |
train_4991 | It's a shame this movie is so hard to get your hands on in the US. I found it through a rare video dealer, and it was certainly worth it. This is, without a doubt, the best film made during the pre-code era, and the finest film of the 1930s. Masterful director Frank Borzage made wonderful films about the Depression, and with MAN'S CASTLE he created a fairy tale amidst the hardships of the era.Loretta Young and Spencer Tracy have a wonderful chemistry between them, and they help make this movie a wonderful romance. Young's Trina is sweet and hopeful, while Tracy's Bill is gruff and closed-off. The dynamic between the character creates one of the most difficult, but in the end rewarding relationships on film.MAN'S CASTLE is the most soft-focus pre-code film I've seen. Borzage uses the hazy and dreamy technique to turn the squatter's village where Bill and Trina live into a palace. The hardships of the Depression are never ignored, in fact they're integral to the film. But as Borzage crafts the film as a soft focus fairy tale, the love between the characters makes the situation seem less harsh. It makes the film warm and affectionate.MAN'S CASTLE is the crowning achievement of the pre-code era. If only more people could see it. | 1 |
train_231 | This is a very enjoyable film with excellent actors and actresses evoking a range of emotions. It contains some really excellent humour which the whole family can enjoy. You get to know the characters quickly and experience their ups and downs. And, it ends very upbeat | 1 |
train_7650 | Wow, I loved this film. It may not have had the funding and advertising that the latest hollywood blockbusters get but it packs twice the emotional punch. The tale revolves around this one family from Utah and it's the connections between the people in the family that provide the film with its punch. The main lead (Giovanni Ribisi) plays his part very well, at no time does he leave you to believe that he's acting all his feelings. It's his brother (Elias Koteas) who stole the show for me though. When the two were in scenes together they bounded their lines off of each other, giving fantastic performances. Great cast, great film. | 1 |
train_16480 | No ,I'm not kidding. If they ever propose a movie idea, they should be kicked out of the studio. I'm serious. Their movies are exactly the same in every one, and they only consist of traveling to foreign locations, having a problem which they easily resolve, hoping to be popular, and getting new boyfriends. Think about it. If you have ever seen a movie starring them with a different plot, contact me and tell me its name. These "movies" are poor excuses to be on TV and go to other countries. There is a reason that the movies never go to theaters. I'm sure that when they were really young and made some O.K. movies, some studio boss bought all their rights for 15 years, or something, so that now that they're, what, 17, they can make movies in other countries whenever they want using the studio's money. Let me advise you, STAY AWAY FROM MARY-KATE AND ASHLEY! IT'S FOR YOUR OWN GOOD! | 0 |
train_14384 | Fragmentaric movie about a couple of people in Austria during a heatwave. This kind of movie has been done more often, and most of all, better. The stories don't really have anything to do with each other, apart from the pathetic finale: 'people are cruel'. Ugly flesh, unpleasant people and a movie that goes on way too long without really making a point... Ultra-realistic? Hardly... Boring? Indeed. Not even gorgeous Franzisca Weiss can save this one! 3/10 | 0 |
train_16858 | Well I just gave away 95 minutes and 47 seconds that I'll never get back on this piece of trash. I heard someone online describe this movie's villains as "subhuman cannibals", and I thought it was promising because I thought it would be like the Descent. WRONG! The Descent was a psychological thriller with dynamic characters and strong storyline. These villains are totally unrealistic and no part of their performance is enjoyable to watch. This movie isn't so controversial, I've seen this level of gore in many films. This movie plain sucks. SYNOPSIS: A blonde who thinks she's real hot (but she isn't), her admirer, and her admirer's friend (no, I don't remember their names) go into the woods. Their car breaks down. They are warned to leave by a man named Mark. The blonde gets unreasonably hysterical and the next morning they can't find the admirer's friend. Admirer impales his foot (whoops!). Don't worry, he is much more upset when his car won't start than when he gets impaled by nails. After a nanosecond of coaxing, the blond leaves to find help. Events ensue that I cannot remember. During this and throughout the movie, we are shown grotesque torture scenes with no substance including one that made me gag. Blonde goes to save admirer from house of cannibals (even though all they are seen eating is intestines, which would logically be the last choice for real cannibals to eat since they contain actual food). Blonde finds admirer hurt and works very hard (unsuccessfully) to work up tears. Then you get a good laugh when the blonde is in the house and announces she can "out think them". Mark (the man who warned them to leave) has a remarkable change of character when he reveals the cannibals are his family. Then there is some shooting, they leave the house, the shooting continues, then a random guy shows up and says he's been watching them. Before he is shot, we are shown an acid-trip inspired scene of more killing. The blonde or her admirer shoots him because he did not help them. There's more killing, the admirer professes his love for the blonde. Then a mysterious hand covers the camera. What does that imply? I don't know, hopefully not a sequel. | 0 |
train_3992 | While movie titles contains the word 'Mother', the first thing that comes to our mind will be a mother's love for her children.However, The Mother tells a different story.The Mother do not discuss the love between a mother and her child, or how she sacrifice herself for the benefit of her child. Here, Notting Hill director Roger Michell tells us how a mother's love for a man about half of her age hurts the people around her.Before Daniel Craig takes on the role of James Bond, here, he plays Darren, a man who is helping to renovate the house of the son of the mother, and sleeping with her daughter as well. Anne Reid, who was a familiar face on TV series, takes up the challenging role of the leading character, May.The story begins with May coping with the sudden loss of her husband, Toots, in a family visit to her son, Bobby. While she befriends Darren, a handyman who is doing some renovation in Bobby's house, she was shocked to found out that her daughter, Paula, was sleeping with Darren. At the same time, May was coping with life after the death of Toots. Fearing that Harry and Paula do not wanted her, May starts to find her life going off track, until she spends her afternoon with Darren.Darren was nice and friendly to May, and May soon finds some affection on Darren. Instead of treating him like a friend, she treated the man who was about half her age with love of a couple. Later, May found sexual pleasure from Darren, where he gave her the pleasure she could never find on anyone else. And this is the beginning of the disaster that could lead to the break down of a family.The Mother explores the inner world of a widow who wanted to try something she never had in her life, and solace on someone who is there for her to shoulder on. This can be told from May buying tea time snacks for Darren to fulfilling sexual needs from a man younger than her, where it eventually gave her more than she bargained for.Anne Reid has made a breakthrough for her role of May, as she was previously best well known for her various role on TV series. As she do not have much movies in her career resume, The Mother has put her on the critic's attention. Daniel Craig, on the other hand, had took on a similar role in his movie career, such as Sylvia (2003) and Enduring Love (2004). If his reprising role of James Bond fails, film reviewers should not forget that he has a better performance in small productions in his years of movie career, and The Mother is one of them.The Mother may not be everyone's favorite, but it is definitely not your usual matinée show to go along with tea and scones, accompanied by butter and jam. | 1 |
train_549 | The year is 1896.Jeff Webster (James Stewart) doesn't like people.There's only one friend he's got and he's Ben Tatum (Walter Brennan), an old sympathetic man.They're driving a cattle herd with them.That would be their key to richness.In Skagway they run into trouble when Sheriff Gannon (John McIntire) takes the cattle.Now Jeff only has to get it back and drive it through the U.S. Canadian border to Dawson.Now they have a group of other people with them, like the ladies Ronda Castle (Ruth Roman) and Renee Vallon (Corinne Calvet).There the two men get into the gold business.Anthony Mann's and James Stewart's fourth collaboration, The Far Country (1954) is a fine western, indeed.The acting work is superb.Walter Brennan makes a terrific sidekick to Stewart.Ruth Roman is brilliant and Corinne Calvet's delightful.Jay C. Flippen is very good as Dawson Marshal Rube Morris.The great Jack Elam and Kathleen Freeman are seen in smaller roles.It's fantastic to watch how Jimmy Stewart overcome's all the troubles in his way.There's just the man and his rifle.But also he's vulnerable. | 1 |
train_20909 | Eddie Murphy for best supporting actor??? What an insult to Alan Arkin and Djimon Hounsou. Jamie Foxx (who can act) walks through this film like a zombie. Beyonce ??? That was acting??? This movie pales in comparison to CHICAGO or just about any other recent musical. If it were not for the great singing and performance of Jennifer Hudson I would have given this a ZERO.And no I never saw the stage play so I am not making the typical Broadway vs. Hollywood rap. | 0 |
train_19650 | After seeing the previews I felt that this movie was going to be a nice improvement over that fast & furious series. So, I already expected it to have a lacking storyline, but at least this time it won't be loaded with a bunch of powerless civics with fart cans. Unfortunately, I was wrong. If you could only imagine a Fast & Furious movie with a worse story line than by all means this movie is for you.This is the absolute worst movie I had ever seen (I'm being nice - no I would not take baseball bat to my nuts like what others have said). Not only was the storyline non-existent, but the action was crap too. I guess the director thought that they could just throw bunch of females and exotic cars and then call it a movie. For an example, there is a point in the movie where the guy pushes the nos button and his Lamborghini takes off in the air and flies over a SLR McLaren to win. And after the bit where Eddy Griffin got in a fight with one of his "girls" (an Imus comment would work in this case) the girl asks to pull over and get out of the PLANE and of course they do in the middle of the desert. After this wonderful scene I couldn't take it anymore. So, I only got to see half of this monstrosity. This is the first movie I had ever walked out on. Afterwards, I had to stop for some drinks to kill all of my corrupted brain cells.I gave it a 1 because 0 is not an option. You're better off going to the local car show and stopping at a strip joint on the way home. I will keep all viewers in my prayers. | 0 |
train_23330 | 1999 will go down in history as the year the movie critic lead the general public astray. First they sent us to EYES WIDE SHUT. Then they hyped up THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT and now MAGNOLIA which is by far the worst movie of the year. What is it about? Who the heck knows. Its full of self-indulgence and loaded with bad acting. I always like to stay and watch the credits, but when this thing was over I couldn't get out of the movie theatre fast enough. Most of the audience that attended the showing that I was at, felt pretty much the same way. Dates were arguing with each other as well as strangers. It's an ugly and hateful film that will make you feel ugly and hateful. | 0 |
train_12521 | What was with all the Turkish actors? No offense but I thought it was all for nothing for all these actors. The film had no script to test any actors acting skill or ability. It demanded next to nothing I bought this film to see Michael Madsen. He is one of my favorite actors but this film was another failure for him. The script was so bad. Their was just nothing to sink your teeth into and all the characters were two dimensional. Madsen tried to act like a hard ass but the script and direction didn't even allow him to do enough with his character to make it more interesting or 3 dimensional.Even the sound effects of the gunfight at the beginning of the film sounded like the noise of paint ball guns when they are fired in a skirmish. It was really weird and they didn't sound like real guns. A video game had better sound effects than this film. There was also a really annoying bloke at the beginning of the film who was a member of the robbery gang. He had this American whining voice like a girl shouting lines like "Lets get the F#$k out of here" and What are we going to do man". He sounded like a girl. As a positive It was funny to watch and it made me laugh too. For a few seconds. Whoo Hoo ! Dumb Film. Poor Madsen. He will bounce back... | 0 |
train_15887 | On Broadway, A Chorus Line was pure magic. From the second the show opened with a spectacular burst of energy to the truly grand finale, a joyous curtain call of all those chorus members who we grew to love during the course of the show, we were totally engaged - captivated by the intensely personal stories, some funny, some clever, some stirring, of this chorus line. The movie is another matter entirely. The focus is now on the director - and WHAT an ogre he is! Every time the film switches to Michael Douglas, there he is with a bitter, sour expression, barking out questions and orders, screaming and yelling whenever he gets the chance. Yikes!! That changes the dynamics of the story. On Broadway, the director was indeed an imperious offstage presence, but he was also sort of a theatrical device to allow the stories of these amazing strong/fragile/intriguing/hilarious chorus line members to be told with insight and clarity. There is a reason this work won the Pulitzer Prize! And actually in one of the only moments the director appears, he is there to comfort the young Puerto Rican Dancer after we hear that dancer's heart-breaking story. He appears again to ultimately express his genuine affection/ concern for Cassie. But in the movie, from the second Douglas' director starts bitterly barking orders, the chorus line members' stories become secondary. It's like they are in a lousy profession, where a jaded director instead of showing the joy at creating a new exciting theatrical show, is jaded, exhausted, furious at having to audition these chorus members. On stage, there was ALWAYS the excitement of the show. Here in the movie practically from the word go, you feel sorry for everyone involved. During the course of the musical, we desperately wished every single one of those chorus members well, and how happy we would have been if they had all gotten the job! But of course that couldn't happen. But in the Finale when they all came back in glorious costume with those amazing spinning mirrors on stage, sometimes reflecting us in the audience, in our hearts, and we know, also in the hearts of all those chorus members both accepted and rejected, they were on stage forever dancing in a profession they loved so much, bringing magic to the theatre. In the movie, after all the misplaced story lines and emphasis, that magic becomes totally diluted. All we feel (even with the exact same curtain call), is that some of the members got a job with a mean-spirited director. So they all come on the screen and are dancing again. Big deal. | 0 |
train_6730 | I used to write comments at IMDb, but I don't do so anymore. It happens that IMDb has become massive, and consequently subjectiveness has ruined scores. What do I mean? That anyone that is not particularly fond of movies and doesn't have any expertise on the subject, watches some crap (or the opposite), and in case he likes it, delivers a 10, and if he doesn't he goes for a 1. This of course, cannot measure anything correctly. Now for the film. I truly regret ever having delivered any 10s to some very few films, because then I must score this one with 12 or 13, which is not possible. This documentary has something that I don't expect to watch ever again in my whole life in any other film. It is simply mesmerizing, and it's not just a way of saying; it really is. The last 25 minutes have a load of energy, visual rejoice and wisdom -the words spoken by the starring guys-, that really... there's no possible match. I don't keep movies, rarely would I find any sense in doing so, but this one is the kind of film you should buy and keep, and watch from time to time, maybe 10 or 20 times as years go by. I got nothing more to say. This is a genuine, objective 10 for me. | 1 |
train_20021 | I probably give this more credit than it deserves because it's Halloween, I was just at "Knott's Scary Farm" and I was in a mood to watch a really cheesy Halloween movie.Oh, and it only cost me one dollar.Usually I'll ffwd through a movie like this to get to "the good stuff," but I resisted the urge here and I'm still not sure why. It was obvious from the opening shots this wasn't a "real" movie, not even a B-movie. It's more in the category of the DeCoteau "horror" movies like "The Brotherhood" that are shot on film-look video for about 50 cents (in fact, I was half afraid any minute one of his beefy college boys would stagger out rubbing himself in his underpants or something). There were no cutaway shots (too expensive to do multiple camera setups) and flat lighting but...it's hard to pinpoint. There's something refreshing about watching a director with no money pull off a half-decent movie. The fact that he's doing even a half-decent job is commendable, and this movie has it's share of merits--the acting isn't bad, the photography is pretty good (if too bright to be scary), there are some surprises, and the whole thing is sort of...different somehow.A bunch of college kids are (for some unknown reason) stuck in the warehouse where they are decorating the annual haunted house. A creepy old man gives them a satanic book and they accidentally summon up the powers of hell. This results in the costumed people in the haunted house becoming who they are made up to be, and causing a lot of mayhem and human suffering. Along the way we are treated to an oddly complex and thoughtful lesbian relationship subplot--it's interesting that this couple seems to be the most well-rounded in the movie. Yes, there's a sex scene but it isn't salacious--or at least no more so than you'd find in any legit movie about lesbians that shows them having sex. It's rather unusual for a horror film to take the time and effort to do this without resorting to cheap exploitation. The other thing about this that held my interest was how it was clearly trying to emulate the "stupid kids have sex and get killed" vibe of the 80's slashers. It's hard to take that on because there are so many of those films that already exist, the genre has been done to death. I'm not sure if it's good or bad that these filmmakers simply tried to make another entry in that genre, without irony, as if it was still a LIVING genre, but I appreciated the attempt.Which is why I sat through it; sometimes you just want to watch a mindless, no-budget, "A-for-effort" horror film. There really was too much set up, not enough gore, endless plot-holes, dead-ends and clichés and the unfortunate overall feel of a movie that simply did not have enough money behind it to be the film the producers envisioned...but at the very least the haunted house scenes were pretty cool. I'd pay to go to that haunted house if it existed, and didn't mind paying a dollar to see it on DVD even if I'll never watch this again.Oh, and **possible spoiler**, but there was great, brief business with the vampire girl in the coffin: "I used to be claustrophobic. But I've changed." Ha ha, good one. | 0 |
train_12654 | Watched this on DVD in original language with English subs. Either the subtitling was very poor or the actual dialog doesn't make much of story and give any character development. There are quite a few HK stars in this but the movie doesn't need their presence to make it better or worse. It's just bad. The bright and colorful scenes done in CG are attractive for the sheer colors and brilliance but it can get overwhelming before long. If anything this makes me think of a child's movie with its nonstop barrage of cg, fight scenes, and crap plot. I'm certain I grasped what took place in the film but the whole delivery of the story was rather lousy. | 0 |
train_11295 | This movie has always been a favorite of mine since first seeing it as a 12 year old kid in 1962 when it was shown on a Los Angeles television station's "late show". The characters are very engaging from the start of the picture, and it is too bad that the movie has never been released for video tape, nor is it ever shown on television (apparently due to a prohibition by the Estate of Moss Hart, the playwright/producer/director who wrote the story and first presented it on the New York stage during WWII -- the reason for denying its showing is hard to fathom more than 50 years after it was made). I did not see the movie again for over 30 years, when someone who had actually been a major cast member of the movie was able to get me a "bootlegged" copy on VHS (poor video quality, but good audio). My memory of it was correct: it was still an engaging and fascinating movie to watch. An amazing aspect of this film is just how many of its stars, just starting out in their careers at the time 1944), went on to became either major motion picture stars or at least well-known and fully-employed actors (e.g. Judy Holliday, Edmond O'Brien, Jeanne Crain, Barry Nelson, Don Taylor, Karl Malden, Peter Lind Hayes, George "Superman") Reeves, Red Buttons, Lee J. Cobb, Kevin McCarthy, and Gary Merrill). The scenes with the B-24 Liberators are terrific, especially the close-up shots where the details of the giant (for those times) 4-engine bomber (then 18,000+ manufactured, now nearly extinct) can be seen. Good insight into the different levels of training that a pilot-cadet went through on his way to being assigned to a bomber crew (of course, VERY gender-biased as was the trend of the day: only the MEN became pilots, the women just supported them in their roles -- hardly acceptable in today's world). I hope someday it will be released onto video for a new generation to enjoy. | 1 |
train_15152 | I can't believe we watched this total piece of crap but we did and I feel obligated to warn others to avoid it at all costs. When one of the main characters announces that he's gay twice in the first five minutes, don't ignore it as typical PC nonsense and figure it has to get better because it won't. If his faggoty boyfriend hanging all over him doesn't make you sick, then be thankful the freak who wrote and/or directed this grossout is somehow attempting a little restraint. I mean, get real. It's one thing for there to be a gay character appearing in a movie in such screwed up times as these but quite another to have it continually slapped on the screen and examined up close and personal when the the liner notes clearly state the flick's supposed to be about a mother seeking some sort of "closure" over the sudden death of her daughter. What does one thing have to do with the other, one might be tempted to ask? Apparently, the two issues are inextricably interwoven. And if that weren't bad enough, there's the bearded lady at the ice cream parlor. I mean, seriously, hasn't that poor woman ever heard of electrolysis? Why must she go around like that? At the very least, how about shaving the ugly thing off, and while you're at it, have those horrible moles removed, too. Would YOU slurp up some ice cream she just served you? I think not. It must be a New Jersey thing. You'd think Diane Keaton might save this piece of drek, but think again. Was she actually trying to put lipstick on a corpse? I don't even wanna think about it. So what if the body was supposed to be that of her own dead daughter. This grotesque excuse for cinema is slop from the word go and that's all there is to it. One wishes that each of these characters would simply walk out into the waves and just keep going. None of these flaky people even remotely gain our sympathy for an instant. Trust me -- pass this piece of crap up. It's not about death, a mother who inadvertently suffocated her daughter, or even the other much more unsavory issues it keeps bringing up no matter how little you want to hear it. It's a load of perverted trash from a misguided and talentless director. | 0 |
train_92 | This is no art-house film, it's mainstream entertainment. Lot's of beautiful people, t&a, and action. I found it very entertaining. It's not supposed to be intellectually stimulating, it's a fun film to watch! Jesse and Chace are funny too, which is just gravy. Definitely worth a rental.So in summary, I'd recommend checking it out for a little Friday night entertainment with the boys or even your girl (if she likes to see other girls get it on!)The villains are good too. Vinnie, Corey Large, the hatian guy from Heroes. Very nasty villains. | 1 |
train_23653 | Another in a long line of flicks made by people who think that knowing how to operate a camera is the same as telling a story. Within 15 minutes, the entire premise is laid out in just a few lines, so there is absolutely no mystery, which eliminates a whole facet of the suspense. The only half-way competent actor is killed 10 minutes into the film, so we're left with stupid characters running around doing stupid things. Low budget films can't afford expensive special effects, so the CGI portions are unsurprisingly unimpressive, but were at least a valid attempt. The creature suit is terrible, as seen when it falls to the sidewalk, and the director keeps emphasizing the eyes, which aren't even the red color shown in mirror shots. The dialogue is clumsy and uninspired, with some lines reminiscent of Aliens or Terminator. The last action sequence takes place in a police station, also a rip-off from Terminator, with everyone hiding in the one glass lined office that the Darkwolf doesn't smash into. In the end, the girl calls the hero "a good Protector", but he gets both his partners, the original Protector, and at least three other civilians, not to mention a dozen cops, all killed without getting a decent shot off, in spite of an arsenal of silver bullets and a submachine gun. But here's the real clincher for bad writing: They could have killed the beast right after the beginning credits when it was holding the stripper while flashing its red eyes. Instead, they took it into custody?!? | 0 |
train_16283 | It wasn't the most pointless animation film experience ever, but it certainly can't be admired as much as it tries to be good. Combining Dreamworks animation and computer graphics, this is the story of a mustang, later named Spirit (Matt Damon, providing the first person narration), and his journey through across the frontiers of the Old West. Basically he is born free amongst all the other horses in the beautiful countryside, then he is kidnapped to be used as a saddle horse, he manages to throw off all who try to ride him. However when he escapes his cage, along with Little Creek (Daniel Studi), the two of them form a friendship, oh, and he obviously has a thing for Little Creek's female horse. In the end, after a few more escapes, being chased by The Colonel (James Cromwell) and his men, and making a final big leap across a gorge, Little Creek lets Spirit go, and he also releases his female horse, and they run home to their countryside and fellow horses. Also starring Chopper Bernet as Sgt. Adams, Jeff LeBeau as Murphy/Railroad Foreman, John Rubano as Soldier, Richard McGonagle as Bill and Matthew Levin as Joe. I was expecting to see the horses talk in this film, but it turns out to be more like a Dumbo thing throughout, and the songs by Bryan Adams aren't the most engaging, but it isn't a terrible film. It was nominated the Oscar for Best Animated Feature, and it was nominated the Golden Globe for Best Song for Bryan Adams' "Here I Am". Okay! | 0 |
train_17491 | One of the worst movies I've seen shoddy camera work, crappy filter usage, film was grainy, script was terrible, i mean come on, how predictable was the big battle at the end.....some of the fight scenes were okay i guess....some scenes were so bad it was comical ...like Sorbo getting the horse and riding at the end...LOL i mean really ..a horse? Oh cant forget how the bad assassins roll around in the same vehicle throughout the entire movie..one would think that after killling key witness and federal agents, they woulda been tracked down..ETC, ETC really don't bother watching it... | 0 |
train_696 | Surprisingly well done for an independent film, An Insomniac's Nightmare paints a startling picture of what it would be like to suffer from insomnia. Wonderfully well written, and directed, it creates the atmosphere of a dream as the viewer is taken through one night in the life of an insomniac.Starring Dominic Monaghan as Jack, we get to see everything he sees as the long hours of a lonely night drag on. The narration is almost hypnotizing, and from the opening lines, it is impossible to turn away. Fascinating and slightly disturbing, it shows how someone copes with a lack of sleep, balancing on the brink between sanity and madness.With twists and turns around every corner, An Insomniac's Nightmare is provocative and engaging. It comes very highly recommended. | 1 |
train_16042 | Having read the comments on the site I feel compelled to write in for the first time. It seems this movie is like Marmite and has split the audience. I have to say that while I agree films don't have to make sense to be enjoyable (see MULHOLLAND DRIVE) they still have to engage you with the characters. Now while I was totally absorbed by the murderous lesbian affair in Lynch's opus, I have to say I couldn't give a turd about Mr Green or the other cardboard gangsters that inhabited this dayglo world. Also, while so many people seem to try and say you didn't enjoy because you didn't get it I would have to disagree - I didn't enjoy because I was bored. I wanted the film to end and constantly listening to those quotes over and over again did not help. Call it clever if you will - I think it's repetitious.However, my main reason for writing is to ask all the other reviewers a question - there were no end credits on the print of the film I saw. Just music over black. Did I watch a dud print or is this evidence of GR's pretentiousness? Or, did everyone involved in the movie watch the rough cut and have their name removed??? | 0 |
train_17148 | This is a bad B movie masquerading as a mockumentary. The porn documentary filmmaker in the movie has almost as much screen time and dialog as any other character. That completely destroyed any "documentary feel" that they may have wanted to create.The fact that the film is not actually a mockumentary is the least of it's problems. The film is not funny. The film is not sexy. The film doesn't have anything insightful to say about the porn business. It's not even particularly salacious. While there's simulated sex, the amount of nudity is mild for an R rated film.Someday, someone will make a good mockumentary about the porn industry. This is not it. | 0 |
train_21147 | Amateurish in the extreme. Camera work especially overwrought - documentary camera operators needn't spin around ALL THE TIME.The script is truly inane, and the acting is even worse. On top of that, the story is disjointed and meandering - with some gaping holes in logic. At one point the lead wishes to get thrown in jail in order to rub shoulders with suspected Al-Quada operatives, and thus get an interview with Osama. I found the story entirely unbelievable as a result of so many flaws. The "filmmaker"/lead role really portrays a rash, idiot frat boy. The only item of interest really, is that the filmmakers did in fact film on location. It's truly a shame they wasted their opportunity to make something interesting.Who financed this crap? | 0 |
train_21438 | I still can't believe how bad this movie was. If I wasn't a massochist I don't know if I would have survived the viewing. It looks like it cost about $1000 to make, but it wasn't the money that brought them down. The acting was horrid - not just bad, 3rd graders could have read the lines better. Second, the only other reason to watch this kind of movie is the skin, and that is sorely lacking in this flick. We don't even get to see the more attractive chicas in the buff. Ahh well, better luck next time eh? | 0 |
train_6235 | This is one of the best Fred Astaire-Ginger Rogers films, or at least one of my favorites. Most of the A-R movies feature great dancing but sappy romance stories. This still has the courtship corniness but not as pronounced as the other films.This movie features not just great dancing but likable characters and a bunch of good songs. The music is the central theme here and what's nice is the addition of a tap solo by Rogers. She not only was a super dancer but a very pretty woman and one with tremendous figure. She dances also with Fred, of course, and they're always a fun pair to watch on the dance floor.Growing up in the 1950s watching "Ozzie & Harriet" on television, it was a real kick the first time I saw this to see such a young Harriet Hilliard. No surprise than Ozzie fell for this beauty. Although she had that short early '30s hairstyle, I recognized her voice right away. Also in this movie are quick appearances by Betty Grable and Lucille Ball, but I have to admit that I have yet to out Ball. I can't find her, but I know she's in here.Astaire, except for some obnoxious gum-chewing in the first third of the film, was fun to watch and Randolph Scott - although better in westerns - is likable, too.This is simply a nice, feel-good film and good one if you want to to enjoy the great talents of Astaire and Rogers. | 1 |
train_9296 | I love this movie. It's wacky, funny, violent, surreal, played out in a madman's head, and definitely not your usual comedy. If you don't find the film amusing then I guess it's just not for your tastes, so this is a tough one to write a review for.For reference, some other comedies I love are The Big Lebowski, The Princess Bride, and Zoolander (that one only got me the second time around). There are others, but my taste is definitely for the unusual, and I am willing to accept that most people just don't tend to like that kind of thing. I make no apologies for having an unusual sense of humour - at least I have one.The scenes and characters of this particular movie are well put together, the verbal humour is hilarious, the situations are intriguing, the acting is very good (as you would expect of the cast), though the acting demands made of the cast by the script are not particularly high. The overall package makes for fun, funny, watchable yet violent entertainment. | 1 |
train_23168 | This Movie had some great actors in it! Unfortunately they had forgotten how to act. I was hoping the movie would get better as it went along but the acting was so robotic it was doomed from the very start. It actually appeared that maybe the actors were reading from a script the whole time. Maybe it was the Musical score or the Director himself, but one thing is for sure the Make-up artist needs to get another job ! The Facial Powder was so thick you could see it caked on the actors faces ! Would not recommend this movie to anyone, no wonder it never hit the Theaters. Cuba Gooding Jr. / James Woods shame on you guys for not giving it your all. The Plot was great just needed a whole lot more. | 0 |
train_16683 | If it were not for the "Oh So Gourgous," Natassia Malthe, this B- movie would not have been worth one sector of my Tivo disk space! In what low rent, back lot warehouse was the supposed space port filmed in? "Continuity People!" It's a basic principle in real movie making! By night an alleged space port and by day (night and day on a space station?) a warehouse!??!? People Please! The only thing I will commend this movie for, is the wardrobe dept. for continuously, keeping Natassia in those tight shape revealing outfits! Even the women who saw this bomb had to appreciate the outfits that she obviously spent some time getting into, each day of filming! The Sci-fi channel would have been better off showing SpaceBalls! At least there would have been some real humor in watching something so unbelievable.P.S. Michael Ironside, please Fire Your Agent ASAP! You are so much better of an actor, to be even associated with this level of movie making. | 0 |
train_9384 | An excellent example of "cowboy noir", as it's been called, in which unemployed Michael (Nicolas Cage) loses out on a job because he insists on being honest (he's got a bum leg). With really nothing else he can do, he decides that for once he's going to lie. When he walks into a bar, and the owner Wayne (the late, great J.T. Walsh) mistakes him for a hit-man whom Wayne has hired to do in his sexy young wife Suzanne (Lara Flynn Boyle in fine form), Michael plays along and accepts Waynes' money. *Then* he goes to Suzanne and informs her of her husbands' intentions, and accepts *her* money to get rid of Wayne! If that didn't complicate things enough, the real hit-man, "Lyle from Dallas" (Dennis Hopper, in a perfect role for him) shows up and Michael is in even more trouble than before."Red Rock West" gets a lot out of the locations. Director John Dahl, who co-wrote the script with his brother Rick, was smart in realizing the potential of a story set in a truly isolated small town that may have seen better days and in which the residents could be involved in any manner of schemes. It's also an amusing idea of the kind of trouble an honest person could get into if they decided to abandon their principles and give in to any level of temptation. It's an appreciably dark and twist-laden story with an assortment of main characters that are if not corrupt, have at least been morally compromised like Michael. The lighting by cinematographer Marc Reshovsky is superb in its moodiness; even the climax set in a graveyard lends a nice morbid quality to the whole thing. Even if the writing isn't particularly "logical or credible", the film has a nice way of intriguing the viewer and just drawing them right in.Cage does a good job in the lead, but his co-stars have a grand old time sinking their teeth into their meaty and greed-motivated characters. Hopper, Boyle, and Walsh are all fun to watch in these parts. Timothy Carhart and Dan Shor are fine as Walshs' deputies (in one especially good twist, Walsh is also the local sheriff), and there's an entertaining cameo role for country & western star Dwight Yoakam, who also graces the film with an enjoyable end credits tune.It's quite a good little film worth checking out. It moves forward at an impressive pace, and if nothing else is certainly never boring.8/10 | 1 |
train_2123 | Of the three remakes of this plot, I like them all, I have all three on VHS and in addition have a copy of this one on DVD. There is just enough variation in the scripts to make all three entertaining and re-watchable. In addition has any other film been remade three times with such all star casts in each? Of course the main stars in this one are great, but the supporting actors are also superb. I particularly like William Tracy as Pepi. He was such a scene stealer that I have searched to find other movies he is in. He appeared in many, but most are not available. As the other comments, I also say - buy this one. | 1 |
train_13585 | Did anyone who was making this movie, particularly the director, spare a thought for the logic of the story-line? These are not mere plot-holes, but plot graves, that become ever deeper as we lose any sympathy for the main character and his plight. That is, if you are kind enough a viewer to valiantly ignore the fact for most of the movie that the characters are either servants to the grave-hole plot, or boring and unlikeable. Or, in the case of Downey's & Hannah's characters, apparently superfluous. In pondering the reason for existence of Downey's character's significant screen-time in the movie, I decided that either the director had liked his character and unnecessarily increased his screen-time (unlikley, as the director didn't change anything else about the script he actually needed to) or that his character was going to be sacrificed on the altar of bad plotting. I'll leave you to guess which one it was to be.I had to keep checking the cover of the DVD to confirm that this really was made by credible talents. I cannot understand why Robert Altman would take this job. Surely he has some power to pick and chose. Actually, I can't understand why anyone would take this script on, except a first-time director looking for the experience.I suppose Robert Downey Jr. needed the money for his habit. I suppose Kenneth Branagh wanted to try a southern accent. I suppose Robert Duvall was only given a few pages of the script and thought the role in isolation sounded intriguing. These are the only motivations I can see that would coerce good actors to take on roles in this movie. As for Robert Altman, plenty of effort has gone in on his part to making the movie look fantastic. I found myself noticing how he had framed such and such a scene, or used the bright orange float vests in another scene to draw the eye's movements, or imposed a beautiful filter to create a particular mood. I do not typically notice such things in movies, since most movies I bother to watch to the end actually engage me for reasons of good story-telling and interesting characters with understandable motives. I watched this to the end only because some ridiculous element of optimism in myself kept looking at that DVD cover and being convinced that, due to the talent involved, there had to be some redeeming factor in this movie.Nice direction. But that's not why I watch movies. | 0 |
train_17799 | I really like slasher movies,but this one is truly awful.The acting is lame,the script is bad,and the atmosphere is non-existent.The plot is as follows:a deformed gardener Charlie Puckett slaughters people in a small American town.That's right-this is the plot.Very original,eh!"The Night Brings Charlie" isn't even gory enough-if the film ain't gonna be scary,at least they should make it bloody.Avoid this cheap piece of trash at all costs.If you want to see some good slasher flicks check out "Madman","The Burning","The Prowler","Just Before Dawn" or "Humongous"- just don't waste your precious time with this worthless piece of garbage. | 0 |
train_6524 | If you're at all interested in pirates, pirate movies, New Orleans/early 19th century American history, or Yul Brynner, see this film for yourself and make up your own mind about it. Don't be put off by various lacklustre reviews. My reaction to it was that it is entertaining, well acted (for the most part), has some very witty dialogue, and that it does an excellent job of portraying the charm, appeal and legendary fascination of the privateer Jean Lafitte. While not all the events in the film are historically accurate (can you show me any historical film that succeeds in this?), I feel the film is accurate in its treatment of the role Lafitte played in New Orleans' history, and the love-hate relationship between the "respectable" citizens of New Orleans and this outlaw who was one of the city's favorite sons. Don't worry about what the film doesn't do, but watch it for what it does do, i.e., for its study of one of New Orleans', and America's, most intriguing historical figures. | 1 |
train_1223 | about a year and a half ago my dad told me about The French Doors. i thought it sounded interesting enough but i didn't try to find it anywhere. Then about a year ago i remembered that film and thought "hey why not" and tried finding it on the internet. eventually after about a week of looking i found it on atom films. i called my dad over to the computer and said to him" hey dad I've found that creepy film you told me about ages ago!" He smiled at me, turned round turned off the lights so it was pitch black apart from the computer screen and told me to watch it. I started off fine...Then when he started getting worried about whatever was there i found it very unnerving. at the end i pushed back my chair and stood up...it made me jump!:P if you haven't seen this film i highly recommend you do because it is well worth it. even after the fourth or fifth time its still unsettling.GREAT FILM! | 1 |
train_3330 | I was not only an extra in this movie, I got to see it in Boston to a sold out cinema. Over a thousand Boston Red Sox / Farrelly fans jammed themselves into a movie theater near Boston Common to watch a comedy....about them....Red Sox fanatics! Drew Barrymore and Jimmy Fallon star is this cute comedy about love and lust. The love is between the two young lovers. The lust is for the Red Sox winning the world series. Although Fallon is not a great actor, he is the best actor for the role. He is funny enough and gets the most laughs. Barrymore on the other hand is the same old Barrymore. At times, I felt supporting actress Ione Skye would have been a better actor for the role. All in all, all Boston Red Sox fans will love this movie. For the rest of the world, this is just a funny movie. | 1 |
train_4781 | MULHOLLAND DRIVE made me the definitive fan of David Lynch. He's a modern genius, because he's not only a film-maker. His stories and his style have a spell that cross the screen. So THE STRAIGHT STORY was quite a surprise to me, with its easy to follow storyline and sunny sets. Still, Lynch is there, and, while this is far from his best, it's a film not to be missed. Late Richard Farnsworth's performance is one of the reasons.8/10 | 1 |
train_5911 | Remember Ralph Bakshi? The guy that was an animator on Terrytoons, then on Paramount Cartoon Studios, after that, he was a director on Fritz the Cat 1 & 2 and Heavy Traffic? Well, this is Coonskin. And it's actually pretty good. Racist, but good. The movie takes place in Harlem Nights (No, duh, it was a working title.) but with a twist that becomes a lampoon of a Disney movie, Song of the South.It's about Sampson (Barry White) and the Preacherman (Charles Gordone) rush to help their friend, Randy (Philip Michael Thomas) escape from prison, but are stopped by a roadblock and wind up in a shootout with the police. While waiting for them, Randy unwillingly listens to fellow escapee Pappy (Scatman Crothers), as he begins to tell Randy a story about "three guys, I used to know, just like you and your friends". Pappy's story is told in animation set against live-action background photos and footage.Brother Rabbit (voice of Thomas), Brother Bear (voice of White), and Preacher Fox (voice of Gordone) decide to pack up and leave their Southern settings after the bank mortgages their home and sells it to a man who turns it into a brothel. Arriving in Harlem, Rabbit, Bear, and Fox find that it isn't all that it's made out to be. They encounter a con man named Simple Savior, a phony revolutionary leader who purports to be the "cousin" of Black Jesus, and that he gives his followers "the strength to kill whites". In a flashy stage performance in his "church", Savior acts out being brutalized by symbols of black oppressionrepresented by images of John Wayne, Elvis Presley and Richard Nixon, before asking his parishioners for "donations".Rabbit first goes up against Madigan, a virulently racist and homophobic white police officer and the bag man for the Mafia, who demonstrates his contempt for African Americans in various ways, including a refusal to bathe before an anticipated encounter with them (he believes they're not worth it). When Madigan finds out that Rabbit has been taking his payoffs, he and his cohorts, Ruby and Bobby, are led to a nightclub called "The Cottontail".A black stripper distracts him while an LSD sugar cube is dropped into his drink. Madigan, while under the influence of his spiked drink, is then maneuvered into a sexual liaison with a stereotypically effeminate gay man, and then shoved into clothes that women were representative of the racist archetype, adorned in something racist, and finally shoved out the back of the club where he discovers that Ruby and Bobby are dead.Then, while recovering from his delirium of being drugged, shoots his gun around randomly, and is shot to death by the police after shooting one of them.Rabbit, Bear, Fox and the opponent boxer rush out of the boxing arena as it blows up. The live-action story ends with Randy and Pappy escaping while being shot at by various white cops, but managing to make it out alive.This movie was controversial at that time of release, and was re-edited by the director several times under the title, Street Fight, which is obvious, since Street Fight is a 2005 documentary about racism in the streets. In fact, this movie has the same subject as the documentary.That caused Bryanston Pictures, the distributor of this film and the original Tobe Hopper classic, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, to go out of business. Because Paramount wanted to produce and distribute this film, but due to racism, Bryanston took over Bakshi's production.Despite the controversy, it was worth the entertainment. The animation was awesome at that time, the plot makes sense, and it's actually funny too.FINAL VERDICT: 9/10 | 1 |
train_15129 | Hollow point is an alright movie worth a half price rental or if nothing else is on a good time waster with no thought required. There are the requisite explosions and hammy acting and pretty ladies. A pretty good cast with Donald Sutherland, John Lithgow, and the lovely Tia Carrere. This cast plus a light hearted touch make for a not a great movie but a fun one..on a scale of one to ten ..a 4 | 0 |
train_3530 | I can safely admit (as an IMDb geek) that 'Phantom Lady' will never crack into my film noir top twenty. It may not even sneak into the top fifty. But rather than discredit the film for not being as good as so many other classics of the film noir genre, it should be noted that 'Phantom Lady' has enough strong and lasting images in it to make it a worthwhile viewing. All that is required from the viewer is the ability to get beyond the dreadfully slow beginning.The film doesn't get cooking until 'Kansas' (Ella Raines) sets about trying to prove all but single handedly the innocence of her boss, Scott Anderson (Alan Curtis), who has been convicted of murder. 'Kansas' is Anderson's secretary by day and amateur detective by night. As the novice sleuth she does quite well for herself while working the streets of New York at night. Little by little she starts putting pieces of a murder mystery puzzle together. To be honest, the film belongs to Raines and it is only due to her presence that the film works well at all. Somehow she is able to breathe life into a film about a condemned man who is not interesting in the slightest. I'm not sure if this splintered dynamic of a characterless leading man becomes the fault of the actor or the director, but clearly this is where something becomes terribly wrong with the film.As interesting as Raines is as a novice detective, things really accelerate into another hidden gear when 'Kansas' pays a late night visit to a wandering drummer (Elisha Cook, Jr.) in search of some information to help her condemned boss. She and the drummer paint the town a new kind of red while visiting the "all night" jazz clubs. Trying to describe this scene will either prove an injustice to the scene or worse yet, it could ruin the scene all together. You'll know the scene once the last cymbal crash has finished ringing out. If you're lucky enough to have this film on DVD, you'll more than likely be rewinding this scene again and again. As good as Raines is, it is this scene that makes this film noteworthy. It is mainly because of this scene that I rate 'Phantom Lady' a 7 instead of a 6.For the most part this film comes off as tepid and bland with a few great scenes and one magnificent scene. It is the 'drum/sex scene' that separates this film from any others of the same ilk.And just like it is said in the film that "you never go wrong with Vanilla", I would also like to add that "going with Vanilla" is the safe fall back choice when one can't decide on having a tastier treat.7/10. Clark Richards | 1 |
train_24868 | "Well Chuck Jones is dead, lets soil his characters by adding cheap explosions, an American drawn anime knock off style, and give them superpowers". "but sir?, don't we all ready have several shows in the works that are already like this? much less don't dump all over their original creators dreams". "yes! and those shows make us a bunch of cash, and we need more!". "but won't every man women and child, who grew up with these time less characters, be annoyed?". "hay you're right! set it in the future, make them all descendent's of the original characters, and change all the names slightly...but not too much though, we still need to be able to milk the success of the classics".Well that's the only reason I can think of why this even exists. If you look past the horrible desecration of our beloved Looney Toons, then it looks like an OK show. But then there is already the teen titan's, which is the same bloody thing. All the characters are dressed like batman, they drive around in some sort of ship fighting super villains, they have superpowers, only difference is they sort of talk like the Looney tunes and have similar names and character traits.This kind of thing falls into the "it's so ridiculous it's good" kind of category. Think of the Super Mario brother's movie, and Batman and Robin. If you want to laugh for all the wrong reasons, check this out. If you are of the younger generation (what this thing is actually intended for), and can look pass the greedy executives shamelessness, then run with it and enjoy.If you enjoy this cartoon I don't have a problem with you, it's the people who calculated this thing together that I am mad at. You know how they say piracy is like stealing a car; this show is like grave robbing. They might as well of dug up all the people involved with the original cartoon, shoved them on a display, dressed them up in
err pirate costumes, and charged money. If this show wasn't using characters (ones that didn't resemble the Looney Toons in anyway whatsoever) that have already made the studios millions, then this would be fine. But no! For shame Warner brothers, for shame.If I saw this thing as a 30 second gag on an episode of the Simpson's or Family Guy, I would love it. As it is I just can't believe this was ever made. I would bet anyone that 80% of the people who work on this show hate it. But whatever it doesn't really matter, in 10 years this show will have been forgotten, while the originals will live on forever
or at least until the world ends."Coming 2008, Snoopy and the peanut gang are back, and now they have freaking lasers and can turn invisible! Can Charley Brown defeat the evil alien warlord Zapar? Tune in and see." | 0 |
train_13595 | I watched this a few days ago, so details are getting hazy. The film is shot on hand-held cameras, and a lot was made of this at the time it was released originally, since we hadn't had many studio pictures made in this way. I can't help but feel this was more of a gimmick than anything, designed to make the audience think that what we are seeing on the screen hasn't had all the compromises that come with a big budget, and so was more "real". However what we have here isn't much more than a not-as-good rip off of the first half of Full Metal Jacket, so anyone who has seen that, or any one of the other rip offs there of, will know what to expect.The main problem I had was the stereotyped characters, with the weedy soft kids out of their depth, close harmony singing, Ebonics spouting black dudes, world weary sergeants, bitter and twisted psychos etc etc... all being put into the sorts of situations that would provide the most friction and tension at any given time. Maybe this was intentional to highlight the stupidity and injustice of the situation, maybe it was laziness, or maybe it was just a committee trying to appeal to the biggest audience, all I know is it was annoying. One novel thing was the mixture of volunteers and draftees (where normally all the characters would have been forced into the situation,) although only the scenes between the two main characters really make much play of it. This seems to be the main pivot of the plot, with the volunteers coming to their senses and the draftees gaining a sense of duty and self worth, but its all done in a rather forced and unsubtle way. The other big bug I had was how all the characters (with the exception of the psychos and the real softies) would react to each inevitable conflict with at first aggression and threats of violence, faced with Farrell's ubiquitous stoicism, immediately back down and be all reasonable and diplomatic.I guess if I had to find a plus it would be the acting from the two leads, which was strong and very convincing, tho considering the formulaic nature of the characters, this wasn't too hard.In my imagination, Bozz grew up to be Zeke off Tour of Duty, and for my money, 4 episodes of that would be more fun to watch. | 0 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.