id stringlengths 7 11 | text stringlengths 52 10.2k | label int64 0 1 |
|---|---|---|
train_617 | Greetings again from the darkness. This one will be compared to "The Princess Bride" and although it doesn't measure up to that classic, it is extremely entertaining and well made in its own right. The story line is a bit odd and the whole wall thing is never really explained, but the execution is fine, even building up strong suspense.Charlie Cox plays Tristan, who falls for the wrong girl (Sienna Miller), and agrees to fetch her a fallen star ... who happens to be played by the stunning Claire Danes. Not much suspense on what happens with these two, but the suspenseful part comes in with the wicked witch played by Michelle Pfeiffer and the prince son of King Peter O'Toole looking to reclaim the ruby necklace our "star" is wearing. Lots of bad chasing the good.Along the way, an encounter with the strangest pirate you will see (including any from the Carribbean). Robert Deniro plays Captain Shakespeare - tough on the inside, and shall we say in touch with his feminine side. Another encounter involves the brilliant Ricky Gervais as a fast talking trader and that is good for a couple of laughs.Not your typical chase, coming of age, or fantasy film, but director Matthew Vaughn's ("Layer Cake") effort deserves an audience. Sadly the poor marketing campaign will probably prevent it from making any money. My guess it will find big success on video. | 1 |
train_3140 | This is a bad movie in the traditional sense, but taken for what it is meant to be it is quite good. Very funny and well made, although there are a few death scenes that are in bad taste, what with jiggling breasts as a girl suffocates and so on. | 1 |
train_8390 | My first Fassbinder was a wonderful experience. Film and alternative cinema (small hall, with uncomfortable seats; public had to wait while filmrolls were changed ) were perfect match.There were many cliches used in the film, but Fassbinder presented them so cleverly that I found them really amusing. Sound was also brilliant (sometimes back being louder than dialogue).Everything seemed to be in right place. And I loved the way how after-war-time was presented. Real fun! | 1 |
train_15777 | If you ever watched the Dukes of Hazard you know that you never had to worry about drugs or cussing or crude behavior being seen by young children. If you've seen the movie you know that is no longer the case! This movie was HORRIBLE! Main characters doing drugs and thinking it is funny and cool is certainly not what I call entertainment. They took a wonderful show and just turned it into trash. Daisy who was a little flirtatious in the original show now looks and acts like she belongs on the street corner getting paid for her services. I was so excited about seeing this movie before it came out, 15 minutes into the movie I was ready to leave. I stayed thinking it had to get better but instead it got worse by the minute. I wish I had never seen this movie. It trashed a good show and left nothing but horrible taste in my mouth when I left. Do yourself a favor, go see something worth your money, cause it's not only a waste of money but a waste of 2 hours of your life you will never get back! | 0 |
train_13478 | I watched this movie recently together with my sister who likes the performances of Sophia Loren. I'm a person who they call a Cultural Barbarian. I hate art in any kind of shape or form. Rambo is more my kind of movie, action, kills, blood, horror. If you recognize yourself in this avoid this movie like the plague. No one dies, no action, no nudity, nothing of the kind. Let me give you a résumé in a few sentences. It starts out with 5 minutes in black and white Nazi propaganda. Every Italian in a housing block attends a parade in honor of Hitler, except for a housewife, an anti fascist and a caretaker. The housewife who is cheated by her husband, meets the anti fascist. She falls in love with him, wants to make love to him, but the anti fascist is gay. Despite of this they make love with each other. At the end of the day, the housewife reads a book from her gay lover, and the guy himself is deported by agents. The end. You want an even shorter résumé? BORING... That short enough? The guy should have used his gun in the beginning of this movie and shoot himself, to save the audience from this atrocity. On a side note my sister loved this movie. Like I said, I'm a Cultural Barbarian... | 0 |
train_7172 | Gruveyman2 (comment below)you are a complete idiot...blinded by ignorance by the very city you have allegiance to. Its that whiny arrogance, that you are ironically claiming the film exudes about SF, that makes you seem like such the typical LA A**hole! The only reason you felt the film was so self congratulatory about SF is because you are jealous. Of course you don't know it because you are so LA jaded. First of all the film was completely factual about a beautiful city; what has been filmed there and what has been filmed by some of its more famous locals. It says nothing bad about LA; and these accomplished directors choose to live in a beautiful city over LA. They recognize that they went to film school in LA and are obviously proud of that fact. They recognize that SF is close to LA which is a benefit. The only negative thing that was said that relates to LA, was about the studio executives. The same studio executives that hated these guys movies when they first saw them, but then those same movies went on to be huge world-wide grossing films. So why wouldn't they have animosity towards the studio executive establishment and studio system? These are the only people they are trying to "disassociate from" and for good reasons! Don't be so sensitive! How can you say that Francis Ford Coppola is the "so called" San Francisco director? How is he not to be considered that? And who directed The Godfather? Coppola did. It was his vision that told the story on the screen that won it a best picture award. So what who gave him the job? He admits it in the documentary that he didn't even want to do the movie....so what's your point? And so what if Sophia wants to live in LA? And that proves your point how? And tell me how they are not truly independent when they are funding a lot of their own movies. Movies that are now considered classics. And, when they made movies from studio funding, one, it was LA that came to them and said we want you to make these pictures and two, they used the money that they made from doing these pictures to fund their own. They said exactly that in the film."Your bitchy and self congratulatory whining would take on an air of greater self respect and credence if you never set foot on the ground you so claim to be superior to in this film."How the hell can "bitchy-ness" and "self-congratulation" suddenly have an "air" of self respect and credence....if they never go to LA again? What a stupid and senseless comment! You inserted some big words in there....and just don't know how to use them! And, by the way, they never claimed nor implied they were superior to LA! So what if they are giving a guy from New York an award in LA....again what the hell is your point? So if they go to LA or New York they are hypocrites by simply preferring to live in SF? You make no sense.San Francisco is proud of itself and its heritage and the people who make it what it is today. This film just focused on one aspect...film-making. For you to take the time and type up such nasty comments about the city (not the movie! But the city and its people) only proves what it is we Northern Californians hate about people from LA! THIS IS A GREAT DOCUMENTARY...VERY INTERESTING, ESPECIALLY IF YOU ARE FROM THE BAY AREA...BUT I RECOMMEND IT TO ANYONE. | 1 |
train_13431 | I cannot believe this woodenly written and directed piece of cliche film got made. There are about four good looking shots (the director should think about switching to still photography) and that's it. A strong cast is utterly wasted, scenes repeatedly end at the least interesting moments and the script says nothing new. Please spare yourself this movie. | 0 |
train_6143 | Never viewed this 1971 film and was greatly entertained by this great production created by the Walt Disney Studios and great animation creations. Angela Lansbury, (Eglantine Price) played an outstanding role as a woman who had taken a course in witch craft and was an apprentice who was beginning to fly on a broomstick and had quite a few difficulties taking off. Eglantine discovered many tricks and was able to make a bed travel to different parts of the world. However, Eglantine missed her final exams to becoming an accomplished witch. Mr. Emerlius Browne, (David Tomlinson) was the person who sold Eglantine this course in witchcraft and he tries to help her in every way possible to find her solution. Eglantine has a purpose to her madness and that is to stop the Nazi's from evading England. Great family entertainment and we need more films like this today. | 1 |
train_11858 | this movie is just great. if you have a chance to see it, then you should run to see it. even though the movie has almost nothing to do with its original from 1932, Pacino does a great job playing as Tony Montana to get around. Pacino has this way about him where he can say anything in anyway and make it sound just great. if you thought that Pulp Fiction was good with the swear words (if you saw it) then you should also see Scarface to see another angle at how an actor can say them. (its quite sweet) even though the movie is has a lot of action and the plot moves very fast through time, not keeping the realtime aspect ratio correct, it is still easy to follow along, but you must keep your eyes peeled at all times to not lose anything. personally, i have found that watching this movie makes three hours seem like a breeze, it is really just that great. this movie is one of thoe movies that is acted and directed so well that not only do you forget that this movie was made in the crappy 80s but that it makes you actually root for the bad guy... "So say good night to the BAD guy" | 1 |
train_24434 | I sat through almost one episode of this series and just couldn't take anymore. It felt as though I'd watched dozens of episodes already, and then it hit me.....There's nothing new here! I've heard that joke on Seinfeld, I saw someone fall like that on friends, an episode of Happy Days had almost the same storyline, ect. None of the actors are interesting here either! Some were good on other shows (not here), and others are new to a profession they should have never entered. Avoid this stinker! | 0 |
train_16561 | While not quite as monstrously preposterous as later works, this slow-moving, repetitive giallo offers some nice touches in the first half, but grows more and more lethargic and silly as it stumbles to its lame denouement.To be sure, the actors are above average - considering this is an Argento movie - and some moments show the director's visual skills, but whole sequences should've been cut and, basically, it's just the same exploitative trash as ever, wallowing in fake science and abnormal sexual depravity.3 out of 10 genetic disorders | 0 |
train_23234 | I have yet to read a negative professional review of this movie. I guess I must have missed something. The beginning is intriguing, the three main characters meet late at night in an otherwise empty bar and entertain each other with invented stories. That's the best part. After the three go their separate ways, the film splits into three threads. That's when boredom sets in. Certainly, the thread with the Felliniesque babushkas who make dolls out of chewed bread is at first an eye opening curiosity. Unfortunately, the director beat this one to death, even injecting a wild plot line that leads nowhere in particular. Bottom line: a two-hour plot-thin listlessness. If you suffer from insomnia, view it in bed and you will have a good night sleep. | 0 |
train_4178 | This movie is a true reflection of the Australian resourcefulness that has been required to make this country what it is over the last 200 years. Not pompous like the British, not Gung-Ho like the Americans. If either of those countries had attempted what this crew did, it would have failed dismally. Either due to ignorance on the British part, or too much faith in superior firepower on the American side. "True" Australians (i.e. non-imports) are the only ones who can excel in modern military conflicts because they have had to improvise most of their adult lives. Just look at examples like Gallipoli; Paschendale; Tobruk; New Guinea and Vietnam. | 1 |
train_14070 | Comment this movie is impossible. Is terrible, very improbable, bad interpretation e direction. Not look!!!!! | 0 |
train_19971 | Though I'd heard that "Cama de Gato" was the worst Brazilian movie of the decade, I watched it giving it a chance; after all, first-time director/producer/writer Alexandre Stockler managed to make his debut feature (shot in video) for just US$ 4,000 and -- though it looks even cheaper -- I can't begin to imagine all he went through to finally get it exhibited in theaters with no big sponsors or production companies behind it (then as I watched it I realized why). But whatever chances you're ready to give to "Cama de Gato", they shrink to zero within 10 minutes: it's an unbelievably preposterous, verbose, ideologically fanatical and technically catastrophic attempt to portray Brazilian upper-middle class youth as a bunch of spoiled neo-Nazis hooked on bad sex, drugs and violence (and they're made to look like closeted gays too), made with no visible trace of talent, imagination, expertise or notion of structure. Visually and aurally, it recalls the worst amateur stuff you can find on YouTube -- only here it lasts NINETY TWO (count'em) minutes of unrelenting hysteria and clumsiness, and it's not even funny-bad.We've all seen the story before: bored young guys want to have fun, go partying, take drugs and everything goes wrong -- there's gang-rape, spanking, murder, the accidental death (falling down the staircase!!) of the mother of one of the boys, culminating with the boys deciding to burn the corpses of the girl and the mother in a garbage landfill. Moral and literal garbage, get it? The film is heavily influenced by Larry Clark (especially "Kids" and "Bully"), but Clark's films -- though also moralist and sexploitative -- are high-class masterworks compared to this crap.I don't think there was ever such monomaniacal drive in a filmmaker to stick his ideas down the audience's throat: Stockler grabs us by the collar and tries to force his non-stop moralist rant into our brains by repetition and exhaustion -- you DO get numb-minded with so much babbling, yelling, inept direction, shaky camera and terrible acting going on. Stockler doesn't care a bit about technique (the quality of the images, framing, sound recording, soundtrack songs, dialog, sets, editing, etc is uniformly appalling), but he's a narcissistic control-freak: he anticipates the criticisms he's bound to get by adding subtitles with smartie/cutie comments, and by making the protagonists comment at one point how far-fetched and phony it all is (I could relate to THAT). Despite his megalomaniac ambitions, Stockler seems incapable of giving us a minimum of visual or narrative structure -- he can't even decide if he wants gritty realism (hand-held video camera etc) or stylization (repetition of scenes, use of alternate takes, etc). Damn, he can't even decide WHERE to put his camera (there's use of subjective camera for the THREE leads)! The dialog features some of the most stupefyingly banal verbosity ever; the plot exists simply to justify the director's profound hatred for his characters and what they stand for. All you see is a filmmaker being hateful, preachy, condemning, moralizing without the benefit of a minimum of talent (or technique) to go with it.It's very disappointing to find Caio Blat in this mess. Certainly one of the most promising young film actors in Brazil, with his sleepy-eyed puppy dog looks and emotional edge that often recall Sal Mineo's, Blat can be highly effective under good direction (as in "Carandiru", "Lavoura Arcaica", "Proibido Proibir"). Here, he's told to go over the top and he has to play with some of the most embarrassingly under-equipped "actors" in recent memory. He also enters the risky realm of graphic sexploitation scenes (so goddawful they look rather like web-cam porn).The film opens and ends with real interviews with "typical" (?) middle-class youth -- Stockler wants us to take those interviews as "proof" of what he's trying to preach in fiction. But he blatantly despises and makes fun of his interviewees, selecting a highlight of abject, racist, sexist, stupid statements (which only shows assholes exist everywhere). Stockler wants to prove that Brazilian middle-class youths are ALL present or future fascists BECAUSE they're middle-class and enjoy recreational drugs (is he saying all neo-fascists are on drugs?? Or that drugs potentialize fascist behavior?? I couldn't tell). With its dogmatic self-righteousness, headache-inducing technique and mind-bending boredom, "Cama de Gato" is bad for a 1,000 reasons but, above all, it's harmful in a very insidious manner: it gives detractors of Brazilian cinema a powerful case of argument. "Cama de Gato" is best unwatched, unmentioned, buried and forgotten. | 0 |
train_15684 | I've never been impressed by JD anyway, and Final Justice (which I hadn't seen prior to its MST3k airing) proves to be no exception. It's not that the character is any less likeable than Mitchell: it's just that there's less that Geronimo ("Call me 'Heronimo') to dislike.In fact, one suspects that Mitchell and Final Justice were all schemes of a revenge-seeking agent of Joe Don's trying to get the "star" killed by inducing a heart attack.Joe Don must have found a new agent, since he's now graduated to "comic relief" in James Bond movies. The problem is, it's hard to tell the difference between his comedy characters there, and his "serious" characters in his action-movies like this one.As for the plot...umm, what plot? They repeat the same set pieces so repeatedly you'll think you were watching Groundhog's Day 2. Presumably, the fact they keep using the same scene of Geronimo getting out of jail is supposed to be comic relief of some sort. Ummm, yeah, whatever.On the plus side, the Malta scenery is pretty gorgeous, so that kicked it up to a 2 for me. One suspects this flick set Maltese tourism back a couple of decades, though. | 0 |
train_15434 | Simon Pegg stars as Sidney Young, a stereotypically clumsy idiot Brit working as a celebrity journalist in this US comedy. After getting a very lucky break he starts work at the highly respected Sharps magazine run by a reliably on form Jeff Bridges in New York. It's more The Devil Wears Prada than Shaun of the Dead. The unlikely love interest is provided by Kirsten Dunst who works well with Pegg for the laughs but they don't exactly set the screen ablaze with their passion.Sidney goes through some emotional challenges while trying to decide if he should forget about his journalistic principles in order to get material in the magazine. Of course he's eventually seduced by the glitz and glamour of the world of celebrities especially the young starlet Sophie Maes (Transformers' Megan Fox). Fans of Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz and Spaced will wonder if Pegg himself ever experienced similar feelings in real life with this film and to an extent Run Fat Boy Run as one of the UK's best comic talents being ruined by the US.All in all this is a forgettable comedy. Please come back to us Simon, we can forgive and forget. | 0 |
train_18064 | Probably the worst Dolph film ever. There's nothing you'd want or expect here. Don't waste your time. Dolph plays a miserable cop with no interests in life. His brother gets killed and Dolph tries to figure things out. The character is just plain stupid and stumbles around aimlessly. Pointless. | 0 |
train_15550 | Just when I thought I would finish a whole year without giving a single movie a "Bomb" rating, a friend brought this notorious turd to my house last night. I feared the worst knowing its reputation, and it was as God-awful as I'd anticipated. This is a Mexican-made mess, dubbed into English, and produced by K. Gordon Murray. It's got terrible sets and effects, and features a rather frightening Santa who doesn't operate at the North Pole, but instead from a cloud in outer space, and who doesn't have little elves helping him make his toys but rather all different groups of children from practically every country there is. The opening sequence, where St. Nick chuckles heartily as he observes monitors showing all these kiddies working hard while singing terrible holiday songs in a variety of languages, seems to go on forever, and with no story. Obviously, THIS Santa Claus doesn't observe the child labor laws!Eventually we get some nasty and slinky red-suited apprentice of the devil himself traveling from hell to Earth, just to make little kids naughty and turn Santa's Christmas Eve rounds into a nightmare. Watching this movie is a trippy and twisted experience, and it's bound to frighten little children and turn them off Santa Claus and the holidays forever. Oddly, the name of Jesus Christ is mentioned often in this Christmas film, which somehow makes it all the creepier in the context of all the bizarre things that are going on. This easily makes my personal list of the "Worst Movie I've Ever Seen", but I'm sure that's nothing unique. | 0 |
train_17075 | I will admit that I'm only a college student at this present time, an English major at that. At the time I saw this film I was a high school student--I want to say junior year but it may have been senior, hard to remember. My experience with quantum physics goes pretty much to my honors physics course, an interest in quantum mechanics that has led me to read up on the subject in a number of books on the theoretical aspects of the field as well as any article I can find in Discover and the like. I'm not a PhD by any means.That said...This movie is simply terrible. It's designed to appeal to the scientific mind of the average New Age guru who desperately wants to believe in how special everybody is. My mother is such a person and ever since she's seen this movie she's tried to get all her friends to see it and bought a copy of the film. I attempted to point out the various flaws and problems I'd seen with the films logic and science--and they are numerous--and she dismissed my claims because "oh, so a high school student knows more than all those people with PhDs." In this case, apparently so.Leaving behind the fact that earning a PhD doesn't necessarily require that a person be correct or, in fact, intelligent. Leaving behind the fact that my basic understanding of physics is enough to debunk half the film. Leaving that behind, the film makers completely manipulated their interviews with at least one of the participants to make it appear that he supported their beliefs when, in fact, he completely opposed them.I could go on and on but I think intuitor did a really good job of debunking the film so feel free to read that if you care to do so.http://www.intuitor.com/moviephysics/bleep.html | 0 |
train_14985 | There is only one use for a film such as Bulletproof: it reminds you just how bad bad can be. We often see films which we describe as "pretty awful" or "not much good", but then you come across a film like this and you can see that although all those other films aren't "good" they are no way as stinkingly bad as Bulletproof. This was a birthday gift from someone who spent less than two seconds rummaging thru' the DVD bargain bin at our local superstore to fulfil an obligation (i.e. to give me a present). It could have been a serendipitous find but it wasn't: this is so utterly clichéd, so badly written, so poorly directed, so badly acted that I'm surprised everyone involved hasn't been arrested and sent down for 10 years. God, it's awful. I suspected as much from about 30 seconds in, but carried on because sometimes - sometimes - bad films are so bad they can be enjoyable. This isn't one of them. It is simply bad. I stopped watching after 45 minutes, and tomorrow I shall throw it in the bin. | 0 |
train_319 | Wonderful film that mixes documentary and fiction in a way that makes the spectator question: what is the extent of truth in documentary films or is there such a thing as an objective documentary. | 1 |
train_22775 | The premise is amazing and the some of the acting, notably Sally Kellerman and Anthony Rapp, is charming... but this film is near unwatchable. The music sounds as if it comes from some sort of the royalty free online site and the lyrics as if they were written with a rhyming dictionary open on the lap. Most of the singing is off-key. I think they may have filmed with the singing accapella and put in the music under it... The dialogue is really stupid and trite. The movie works best when it is actually talking about the real estate but unfortunately it strays to often into stupid farcical sub-plots. I found myself checking my watch after ther first twenty minutes and after 40 wondering 'when is it ever going to end.' | 0 |
train_16334 | Watched this film having really enjoyed Gregory's Girl many years ago. This was drivel. The plot was vaguely distasteful with the teacher and his friend perving over 14-15-year-old girls in very short skirts. Previous commenters seem to think that this doesn't matter, but I found it rather nasty. If you have children at school then the last thing you want is to think that every youngish teacher is lusting after his pupils. We were surprised that the censor let that through. Apart from that the film was just a waste of time. The script was poor and John Gordon Sinclair trying too hard to recreate his schoolboy image, slightly wacky and off the wall. Why anyone would want to lust after him in this performance is incredible. This film failed on all counts for me. Dreadful. Please don't waste your time watching it. Life's too short | 0 |
train_17681 | This is the first film of the Horrorfest I have watched and after Im almost thinking I don't need to see any of the others. I was told its a "thinking mans horror movie" and have to say that if this was supposed to make me think I shutter to think what the splatter/gore films in the collection will be like. Don't get me wrong not even the gore in this film is worth sitting through.The plot is very washed out with way too much art for arts sake. The camera effects and music are out of place most of the time and the characters are banal to say the least. Several characters and scenes seem worthless in the end when they start to reveal some of the hooks of "The Hamiltons". I figured out who Lenny was about half hour in when I figured out the movie. I was so visually under whelmed and confused by the Lenny reveal that I completely felt ripped off. I expected what I got but they could have gone so much further, in fact all the gore falls completely flat. With movies out there like "Hostel" and "Saw" you need to come a little better for a film that is "considered to graphic or too disturbing for general audiences". | 0 |
train_7985 | This comment does contain spoilers!!There are few actors that have an intangible to them. That innate quality which is an amalgamation of charisma, panache and swagger. It's the quality that can separate good actors from the truly great. I think George Clooney has it and so does Jack Nicholson. You can look at Clooney's subtle touches in scenes like his one word good-bye to Andy Garcia in Ocean's 11 when they just utter each other's name disdainfully. "Terry." "Danny." You can pick any number of Jack's performances dating as far back as Five Easy Pieces in the diner to A Few Good Men and his court room interrogation scene. These guys just have it. You can add Denzel Washington to the small and exclusive list of actors who exudes that terrific trait in everything he does. If you look at some of his explosive borderline diatribes in The Siege to his impressive tribute to Malcolm X in Spike Lee's film of the same name, you can see that there is no finer an actor working today. I don't mention all of this to insinuate that Man On Fire is perfect just because of Denzel's work, but he is definitely the cog of the production. I was literally mesmerized with some of his scenes that are raw, emotional and incendiary all at the same time.Washington plays Creasy a former spy or CIA agent or one of those covert government operatives. He has pretty much hit rock bottom as he has become disillusioned with the life that he has led. He has killed and perhaps done things that are best left unsaid and this has made him a hardened and bitter man. His friend and perhaps mentor, played very reservedly by Christopher Walken, is living in Mexico making a very comfortable living by providing body guard services for the rich. Apparently the kidnapping business in Mexico is so vibrant that these paid former S.E.A.L.s and such can do very well while providing a needed service. Creasey needs the work and accepts a job with a well to do family who seems to be in some financial difficulty. Marc Anthony is fine as Samuel, Radha Mitchell is tantalizingly sexy as his wife Lisa and Dakota Fanning is just unbelievably and precociously brilliant as Pita. I don't know how a child of her age can have such range to play the characters that she does but her interpretation of Pita is nothing short of Oscar worthy. The film's entire first half is dependent on the relationship between Pita and Creasy and if there was a weaker actress in the role, perhaps that emotional synergy would not have come across so succinctly. But Fanning is nothing short of remarkable in the role.It is the relationship between Pita and Creasy that drives this film to the apex of cinema. Together they are perfect and there is a real bond developed between them. Tony Scott directs with a frenetic urgency and his eye for visual flare has never been better. I am interested to see how his next film, Domino, turns out. I think Scott is one of today's under rated directors and with more films like this one, his name will surely be elevated to icon status.The story has Creasy really taking to Pita, and vis-ca versa. There is a definite connection between the two of them and perhaps it stems from the fact that although Pita loves her dad, he is not around much. He is a philanthropist and obviously has little time to spend with his family. Soon, Creasy is taking Pita to her swimming competition. He is reading her bedtime stories and she is naming her teddy bear "Creasy". It's not just a friendship between them, it is more of a kinship, and a deep parental love seems to be present. The film changes gears when Pita does get kidnapped and held for ransom and Creasy is is almost fatally injured trying to protect her. This is where the story becomes thick with innuendo and ripe with deceit as the plot pieces get unraveled like an onion. And this is where Denzel becomes a tour de force. Like I said earlier, I have seen Denzel give some outstanding performances in films like Crimson Tide and Training Day, but never have I seen him like this. He is a man possessed and with the possibility of Pita being dead, he becomes a literal man on fire. It rages in him as he hunts down and dishes out his brand of comeuppance. Denzel's anger and acerbity are ubiquitous and not easily quelled as he hunts down each person responsible for Pita's violation. This all vigilante justice as the Mexican authorities always seem to be one step behind. Also what is paramount to this film's audacious brilliance is that there are few films that actually give the criminals their due comeuppance. I have often been frustrated to watch films where the bad guys get let off easily. They inflict all kinds of torment for the entire film and then they take a bullet and die. But not in this film. Writer Brian Helgeland sees to it that retribution here is unequivocal and it is painful. The perpetrators here feel Creasy's wrath and they experience the torment that he unleashes. There is nothing gimmicky about his brand of justice. He needs information and someone loses a finger. He wants answers and a homemade bomb is placed in places that are meant for other things. There is no punches pulled here and this is one of the true strengths of the film.Man on Fire is one the five best films of 2004. Now that it is out on DVD, my recommendation is to get the SE. It is loaded with bonus features that include about 6 hours of documentaries and different commentary tracks. 10/10 | 1 |
train_11206 | I have not seen this movie! At least not in its entirety. I have seen a few haunting clips which have left me gagging to see it all. One sequence remains in my memory to this day. A (very convincing looking) spacecraft is orbiting the dark side of the moon. The pilot releases a flash device in order to photograph the hidden surface below him. The moon flashes into visability . . . . and for a few seconds there it is. Parallel lines, squares, Could it be .. then the light fades and the brief glimse of ...what... has gone and it is time for the spacecraft to return to Earth. Wonderful. I have seen some other clips too but would LOVE to obtain the full movie. | 1 |
train_4887 | How can you resist watching a film with some swing? It's a delightful little film full of wonderful actors and a wonderful story line. Too bad they don't tour out here...I'd go see them. See it if for no other reason than to hear some good music. | 1 |
train_21501 | When I am watching a film, I am aware that it is `just a movie,' but nonetheless I do like to allow myself to become engrossed as much as possible under the circumstances. I think this is what makes us cry, scream, laugh, or otherwise react emotionally as audience members, even though, deep down, we know it is `just a movie.' What I don't want is for the movie to remind me it is just a movie so that I am unable to slip into the aforementioned engrossment regardless of the quality of the film. This film's director chose to frequently use multi-angle camera shots simultaneously on the screen. Maybe it is just me, but I find this to be terribly distracting and downright irritating. They might as well run a continuous banner across the bottom of the screen reading, `Attention: This is just a movie. Do not allow yourself to become too interested or engrossed'. If I want `picture-in-picture', I'll activate it from my TV remote, but never during a movie I want to enjoy. | 0 |
train_16286 | This is not really a proper review since I did not see most of the film. I stopped watching it. The film is very violent, with nasty drug dealers and street punks, but that is not why I stopped watching.Here was the problem: I watched just enough to be introduced to several characters, all of whom were not interesting. Everyone was a tedious, despicable psychopath, with no engaging personalities, giving me nothing to look forward to. I found myself not the least bit curious about what they would do next or what might happen to them.If there had been even one person of interest, and I don't mean good or nice person, I mean an interesting person, I could have stayed with it. Watch "State of Grace" to see what I mean. In that film the Gary Oldman character is a complete lunatic, but he is *very* interesting. Al Pacino perhaps did a good job in Scarface, but his character just did not engage me. | 0 |
train_1230 | after seeing this film for the 3rd time now i think it is almost Adam's worst film PUNCH DRUNK LOVE IS POOR in comparison to this i must say at the end when Dickie gets thrown of the boat it is so funny (the hair is different to his and i like it when he flips everyone off. This film should only be brought if your a true Adam Sandler fan.the characters are poor in comparison to his funny films like the Waterboy, which has the same people in it (Peter Dante) who is one of the assassins trying to kill the Australian bird.this film lack depth and a decent story line and deserves to be in the bottom 100 | 1 |
train_4544 | Okay, I know I shouldn't like this movie but I do. From Pat Morita's loveable interpretation of a Japanese stereotype to Jay Leno's annoying yell, I laughed throughout this movie.As long as you take into account that this is not the best movie in the world, it's a good mvie.My favorite part is Morita talking to his boss in Tokyo with the drinking a close second. | 1 |
train_18688 | This is by far the worst adaptation of Jane Eyre I have seen. It is uncertain whether or not the writer of the screenplay ever read the book by Bronte. George C Scott is ridiculous and bumbling as Rochester -- when not just plain old acting angry. Susannah York has the most dated 1970's hairstyle I have ever seen in a Victorian movie. The characters hardly speak to each other, so the rich banter enjoyed in the book that is the basis for their deep intellectual and abiding love, is gone. The ending is ludicrous.Please, rent the Timothy Dalton version instead. It is so true to the book, it's like having the novel read aloud to you. Dalton is superb as Rochester. G. C. Scott is laughable. | 0 |
train_18647 | I really don't get all the adulation that this film has received. It's mawkish, unnecessarily manipulative and dodges many of the big issues - ie Nash's affairs and his predilection for having sex with men in public places. That, I suppose, in the context of a commercial Hollywood film is just about tolerable, but what's with all the praise for Russell Crowe's performance? The man just seems to shuffle about, clutching his briefcase and wearing a grungy hat and somehow that seems to qualify as fine acting? Anyone who has ever known a person with mental health problems will realise that Crowe's performance is little short of caricature. It is also rather offensive. And, dare I say, just on the right side of being truly terrible | 0 |
train_10571 | James Cagney is best known for his tough characters- and gangster roles but he has also played quite a lot 'soft' characters in his career. This musical is one of them and it was the first but not the last musical movie Cagney would star in.Cagney is even doing a bit of singing in this one and also quite an amount of dancing. And it needs to be said that he was not bad at it. He plays the role with a lot of confidence. He apparently had some dancing jobs in his early life before his acting career started to take off big time, so it actually isn't a weird thing that he also took on some musical acting roles in his career. He obviously also feels at ease in this totally different genre than most people are accustomed to seeing him in.The movie is directed by Lloyd Bacon, who was perhaps among the best and most successful director within the genre. His earliest '30's musicals pretty much defined the musical genre and he also was responsible for genre movies such as "42nd Street". His musicals were always light and fun to watch and more comedy like than anything else really. '30's musicals never were really about its singing, this was something that more featured in '40's and later made musicals, mainly from the MGM studios.As usual it has a light and simple story, set in the musical world, that of course is also predictable and progresses in a formulaic way. It nevertheless is a fun and simple story that also simply makes this an entertaining movies to watch. So do the characters and actors that are portraying them. Sort of weird though that that the total plot line of the movie gets sort of abandoned toward the end of the movie, when the movie only starts to consists out of musical number routines.The musical moments toward the ending of the movie are also amusing and well done, even though I'm not a too big fan of the genre itself. Once again the musical numbers also feature a young Billy Barty. he often played little boys/babies/mice and whatever more early on in his career, including the movie musical "Gold Diggers of 1933", of one year earlier. A recommendable early genre movie.8/10 | 1 |
train_12752 | Uninspired direction leaves a decent cast stranded in a handsome but bland adaptation, in which dialogue seems recited rather than heartfelt, and cash strapped appearances by the ghosts fail to round up any sense of awe or magic; Edward Woodward, as the Ghost of Christmas Present, wobbles around on stilts and seems to be doing an impression of Bernard Cribbins. As Scrooge, George C. Scott is too wry, and he never seems to truly believe in it, which robs his performance of its effect. The scenes in which he's shown his past have as much impact as if he was half-heartedly flicking through his family album. No one else seems to be putting any effort in, except Frank Finlay, who chronically overacts. | 0 |
train_14031 | This film is so bad, it made me want to vomit. Poorly produced, a complete laugh free zone. Why in the name of god would you spoof a movie which to a degree is a spoof (and a damn funny one at that) as it stands? The sets are laughable, the effects so bad that they aren't even laughable, and the acting farcical. It is a complete mystery why you would even consider watching this lump of garbage. National Lampoon once made Animal House, which people still consider to be completely and utterly hilarious. Now they've been relegated to making TV movies like this lump of ****. Name your expletive, and it could be accurately used to describe this film. | 0 |
train_4954 | A great, funny, sweet movie with Morgan Freeman (who plays himself) and who meets a Spanish girl named Scarlet (Paz Vega) at a small store whilst researching a potential independent film. I was a bit dubious about the film for the first ten minutes but as soon as he was in the store I really started to enjoy the film. It shows how a positive attitude can change anything. It does not contain any complex plots and it is easy to follow but will lift the saddest of moods and make you smile all the way through without the need for petty cliché romance. It includes several scenes all the way through which make you clutch your sides with laughter. A very rare masterpiece! | 1 |
train_24368 | At first glance, this movie has got everything a psycho wants: a vampire story with a "not under 18" restriction, filled with hyper-violence, drugs, gore, sex (including lesbian sex), some fanatics zealots and even a gay necrophiliac cop! But then, this movie is a succession of bad story (so thin), bad acting -with a ridiculous english accent making you believe you're watching a bad Monty Python -, bad music ('80s hard rock), the videotaping is awful, the ending is a real shame... Plus the scenes of sex are ridiculous, the gore not very impressive. And those vampires reflect in a mirror, and don't even fear daylight! You get to be very disappointed, unless you see it as a "Space Mutiny" or "Troll 2". I hope Bloodlust will one day reach the bottom 100, because that's its real place.I'd say it can still be fun to watch, if you have friends and enough beer.3/10 | 0 |
train_18331 | This film is massively boring and pretentious. There is only one good moment when a sailor shaves Mr Barney's(think the purple dinosaur-less pretense) eyebrow. The music is relentlessly cloying-it is sad that Bjork, someone with so much inner beauty, has been brought down to pretentious falsity in her art. The pomp of the tea service makes a beautiful ritual seem vapid. the mythology and culture are not respected in this film they are lifted. Not just from Japanese culture but from another filmmaker...(stay tuned) In a perfect "art imitates life" moment-the crew of the ship finds a giant piece of sh*t. Which is what the audience found in the theatre. There are some set pieces which are very composed and arty without heart---then
prepare for spoilers-I'm talking to you MR BARNEY.The Emperor has no clothes! Mr. Barney you have been outted! I have seen Jodorowsky's HOLY MOUNTAIN. And your thin, fake veil of BS has been lifted. You have stolen your images your style and your ENTIRE ART CATALOGUE from this man. Now that HOLY MOUNTAIN has been released FINALLY let's hope the powers that be at the Art Councils of the world STOP FINANCING YOU! Poor Jodorowsky-lost in a financial battle with the Beatles Lawyer when he is the Lennon/McCartney of film-making. And BTW while Jodorowsky is the Beatle-YOU ARE THE MONKEES! A cheap thin soulless rip off only liked by facile kitschy college freshmen. And BTW I am a filmmaker. If you are interested in making a reality film-I will legally fight you in a ring defending Jodorowsky-you, defending outright thievery. | 0 |
train_13279 | Seriously, I mean very seriously, when I first started watching the show I thought it was good. But the plots just got worse. The storyline were either too boring or predictable. George isn't always funny, he sometimes acts stupid. His jokes are overdone. His mom is the silliest character of the show. How can a mother treat her own son that way, okay if it was the daughter in law, but this was her own son. I give this show a 4/10 just because the first few shows were a little funny. The actors Constance Marie and Masiela Lusha do a great job. Don't know how these shows get to play for so long. If you're really bored like I was and have nothing else to watch, I'd suggest you watch this. | 0 |
train_3878 | ROUEN PRIZES AND THE TRIUMPH OF "VILLA PARANOIA" The favorite film of the general public, actually more important than the jury prize, was Erik Clausen's brilliant bittersweet dramatic comedy, "Villa Paranoia", which was also selected by the European Youth Jury indicative of its appeal to cinephiles of all ages. The following day director-actor Clausen traveled to the remote Town of MAMERS, Pays de Loire, for a provincial festival of new European cinema, where "Villa Paranoia" picked up three more prizes -- Best film, Professional Jury; Best Film, Audience prize; and Best film of another youth jury composed of "lycéens", French high school students. Five prizes in a single weekend -- not a bad scoop for a film from a small country with unknown actors. In addition, "Villa" was awarded the Grand Prix, the MAVERICK SPIRIT AWARD, at San Jose, California, just a week ago, by distinguished British actor Sir Ben Kingsley ("Ghandi"), making for a grand total of six prizes in a single week. If Lars van Trier has put Denmark on the offbeat-oddball Dogma Cinematic map in recent years, there is now a good chance that Veteran Maverick Erik Clausen (62) and his capable crew of actors will soon show the world that Denmark has more to offer than dogmatic drivel, which is to say, a mass audience pleaser for young and old alike. Moreover, the female lead of his film, Sonja Richter, has such a magical screen presence that, with a little more exposure, she stands a good chance of becoming the next international Scandinavian Diva. For the record, "Villa Paranoia" is a fiction film, written, directed and acted in by Mr. Clausen, and employing certain motifs from Moliere's "The Imaginary Invalid". Anna (Richter), an ambitious young actress, has lost a deeply coveted role in the Moliere play and, reduced to making an utterly stupid TV chicken commercial, is on the verge of suicide. However, Jorgen (Clausen) who runs a massive chicken farm sponsoring the spot, offers her a job with room and board taking care of his cantankerous, senile, wheel-chair ridden father, Walentin, who has not spoken a word since his wife Stella committed suicide years before. Anna is the only one who eventually finds a way of communicating with the hostile silent old grouch -- and moreover, discovers that he has been faking deafness and immobility all these years -- a living "Malade Imaginaire". This will lead to her playing the greatest role of her own life in order to uncover the dark secret which led to Walentin's total withdrawal from life and reality. Villa "Paradise-Paranoia", true to the Moliere tradition from which it is partially derived, is a heartwarming, multi-layered, serial-comic psycho-drama that literally has something for everybody and only needs proper placement to attain the kind of general international outreach it richly deserves. Alex Deleon, Paris / 21 MARCH, 2005 | 1 |
train_15261 | Everyone does things that they later regret. Things that they wish they could blame on drugs or alien possession. Things that although seem rational at the time, later reveal themselves to be engraved invitations for suffering and endless recriminations of stupidity.For some people it is signing the note for the new Hummer, for others it is picking up a homicidal hitchhiker, for still others it is sending their bank account information to third world millionaires mysteriously strapped for cash.For me it was a film.D-War: Dragon Wars In hindsight, I should have guessed how environmentally friendly and thoroughly recycled this movie would turn out to be from its stuttered and repeating title. But with my willing suspension of disbelief intact, and a naive faith stemming from the cool looking poster in the lobby, I really wanted this film to work. Sadly, by the time the old man in the pawnshop explained the entire backstory, fifteen minutes into the picture, I had the sudden, sinking revelation that comes from knowing every plot point of a still unseen film. And worse: I knew just how badly every point would all suck.Let me be perfectly clear here, the English language lacks sufficient nuance and depth in the field of ultimate evil to properly describe just how bad this film really is.As for knowing all the twists of movie, I was wrong. In the spirit of the old Godzilla films, whose scales this one is not worthy to fill, it conveniently sprouted extra sub-plots every time the main characters were threatened by the specter of meaningful dialogue.It was infested with close calls, miraculous escapes, and concentrated deposits of poorly explained angst.This film is what would happen if you gave the produces of the Mighty Morphing Power Rangers access to the national defense budget. And lots of liquor.Let me try to explain.Imagine you could get a hold of all the coolest-looking set pieces from successful action movies of the last decade: First take the rasta-talking army of amphibians from Star Wars Episode One and remove their Prozac until they are ready to club Navy Seals.Next, take close approximations of Kira Knightly and Tom Cruise (You can even call him Ethan as a "subtle" nod to the Mission Impossible franchise.) and give them lots of film noir narration, so no one get confused while trying to follow the wading-pool depths of their thoughts.Finally add a raspy-voiced villain in pointy armor worthy of a Lord of the Rings yardsale and a couple of giant cobras, angry at having their scenes deleted from latest edition of King Kong, and lay them all out in no particular order in modern day Los Angeles.Now run to the drugstore to find something for your sudden migraine. When you return, puree these ingredients until any overlooked hint of originality is dissolved into a homogenized mass of cheese and serve semi-gelatinous.At several points during this picture, I found myself saying out loud, "Make the bad movie stop," and breaking into tears.To call this a B-movie would be giving it an undeserved promotion. After summer school, and a lot of physical therapy, it might possibly pass for a C level film if you could somehow sleep through most of it.In short, if you ever find yourself with money and brain cells to burn, and the need to punish yourself for hideous, unspoken sins against humanity, Dragon Wars might just be the film for you. | 0 |
train_16142 | Unfortunately the movie is more concerned with making lame social commentary on a real event, but doesnt have the balls to legitimately document what happened. The constant rhetoric of how violent video games are not to blame (I get the impression Ben Coccio is an avid gamer), or how media and music is completely devoid of influence is the obvious message (we even get a laughable scene of the two boys burning ALL their cd's, talk about subtlety!), but the movie only gets away with it because its 'fiction'. Nice try. Yes its a great idea to relieve media of influence, but how do we know the kids that have actually planned and executed a school shooting werent influenced by media? or video games? We dont, and we wont with this movie because once again these kids are smart enough to completely relinquish the media, yet dumb enough to scorch a nazi symbol on the ground? haha I somehow dont think so.The movie bats you over the head with its portrayal of the normalcy of the families, its almost doing a disservice to think that there wasn't a serious flaw in the family dynamic of kids that have actually gone out and shot their fellow schoolmates. Why is everyone so concerned with making killers seem "normal", when they are so obviously not? A completely false and phony depiction. | 0 |
train_9556 | When our local TV station first launched, it filled a lot of its schedule with old British programming. "Lock Up Your Daughters!" was duly aired, and I -- swayed by the opening few seconds of the film -- popped in a blank tape. Best thing I ever did.The actors are beautifully suited to their characters and bring them to delightful life, complete with appropriate accents (Christopher Plummer's Foppington will leave you in stitches, as will Hoyden and her family). Double entendres abound, plot-line wheels within wheels mix and match the characters, hilarious sight gags lurk in every scene, and risqué comments are made on a regular basis.I showed the film to friends a few years ago and they called the piece "a lost treasure," as much for the cast as for the story. To this day I can crack up just thinking about the dialog. Should this gem ever find its way to a DVD release, I'll be at the front of the line. | 1 |
train_4558 | MY LEFT FOOT, in my opinion, is a great biopic about one of the world's most talented authors and painters. The performances were smashing, the soundtrack was great, and the casting was perfect. I thought that Christy (Daniel Day-Lewis) was a very talented man, although I couldn't understand what he was saying most of the time. In addition, when he threw a tantrum, I got a little scared. Also, it's just so sad that he suffered from cerebral palsy. In conclusion, if you are a die-hard fan of Daniel Day-Lewis or like biopics, I highly recommend this great biopic about one of the world's most talented authors and painters. You're in for a real treat and a good time, so don't miss this one. | 1 |
train_13367 | I had quite high hopes for this film, even though it got a bad review in the paper. I was extremely tolerant, and sat through the entire film. I felt quite sick by the end.Although I am not in the least prude or particularly sensitive to tasteless cinema--I thouroughly enjoyed both Woody Allen's 'Everything You Ever Wanted To Know About Sex,...' and Michael Hanneke's 'Funny Games'--I found the directors' obsession with this ten-year-old wanting to drink women's milk totally sickening. And when the film climaxed in an "orgy" where the boy drinks both his mother's milk, as well as that of the woman he has been lusting after for the whole film, I almost vomited with disgust for the total perversion and sentimental pap that it is.Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the vast majority of European cinema, as well as independently made films, so this flick should have pleased me enormously. Avoid this film at all costs, it should be relegated to the annals of History as a lesson in bad cinema. | 0 |
train_13976 | This rather formulaic swords and flying fists movie is a decent early display of John Woo's talents. The cinematography is excellent and some of the sword work is truly remarkable. Unfortunately the film labours under the burden of a dull story and a glaringly low budget (check some of the setbound fight scenes if you doubt me). Nonetheless, it's worth seeing, especially if you can catch in letterboxed. | 0 |
train_2286 | The folk who produced this masterful film have done fine service to a novel that stands as perhaps the best fiction work centering upon human guilt and human responsibility ever published. Nolte takes the role of Howard W. Campbell, Jr., and makes it his own, remaining true to Vonnegut's depiction of a man who has lost ALL (to and) for Love.No weaknesses in this fine adaptation. | 1 |
train_15725 | Children love dinosaurs. It's somewhat part of their culture. But they've got The Land Before Time. The original. At least that movie had heart. This. This movie is just plain pathetic. Just because kids love dinosaurs doesn't mean you can just slap together any old story and show it to the children. This movie has no plot, the whole premise is stupid, and it's more by the numbers stuff. Not as soul sucking as Theodore Rex, but it's lightyears away from being a Land Before Time. | 0 |
train_9915 | I had nowhere to go. I was on a flight to Vancouver. I would probably have missed this film if I hadn't chosen Air Canada. Watched on a small screen in the back of the seat in front, I found this captivating and mesmerising. I did drift in a couple of places and had to skip back but I had to watch to it's end. Now I'm looking forward to the DVD release in Europe though whether I'll be quite as transfixed when I can walk out the door, is yet to be discovered!The photographic composition is stunning and the film gives so much insight and 'fills out' the story the photographs tell.Recommended (if you have time on your hands). | 1 |
train_655 | Unfortunately, Jean Eustache (1938-1981) belongs like so many once leading French film makers nowadays to the great unknown ones whose movies are hard to find and are not released on international DVDs. Since we have a good old-fashioned video-store in Tucson, I had the chance to watch this 3 1/2-hour marathon masterwork that is not boring for ten seconds.Since we speak here about one of the most discussed (and most controversially discussed) movies of all times, let me tell you my impression that the endless dialogs, originally typical for the early "Nouvelle Vague" of a Jacques Rivette or Alain Resnais appear almost ridiculous in this movie. The dialogs are basically monologues, mainly the longest ones spoken by Jean-Pierre Léaud. The most characteristic feature is that the intersections of the speeches of two people is almost zero. Léaud, or his character, Alexandre, pleases to tell more about himself than about the topics he is seemingly to speak. Therefore, one can hardly speak about communication in this movie. It is well possible that the director had a gargantuan satire in mind against the idle running of the once so hotly discussed political and sociological ideas, but the type of man Alexandre exists to all times, we find him already in Petron's "Satiricon", which work has actually great resemblance with "The Mother and the Whore".Alexandre does not only nothing, but he has developed an own kind of metaphysics about the absence of acting, at least acting in the sense of responsibility toward the society whose part he is. He mocks at the people who run to work at 7 c'clock in the morning, when he is just busy having his last drink before he goes to bed in the apartment of one of his girlfriends from whose money he lives. He is unable to speak one sentence without quoting one of the leading thinkers between Nietzsche and Bernanos. Especially Sartre who is shown quickly in the French intellectual café "Aux Deux Magots", where Alexandre, too, is sitting all day, must serve as excuse for the life-style of Alexandre and his colleagues, because they suffer existential crisis from bourgeois nausea. However, the intellectual speeches of Alexandre seem to be rather pseudo-intellectual, and the sentences and quips he cites seem to come rather from a dictionary of quotations than from his actual reading of the respective books.It is true: This movie demands an extremely broad European knowledge, especially the connoisseurship of French existentialist philosophy and there consequences to the 68 student revolution movement, but if you have this knowledge, than you will enjoy 215 minutes of your life by staring amazed into the TV and crying out with laughing like you have probably not done it since a long time. | 1 |
train_15085 | This was the worst film i have seen for a long time. Not only that it has nearly nothing to do with the other American Pie movies, the story is obvious, flat and absolutely not funny. The girls are nice though, but spending your time watching a cheap soft porno would possibly be greater than watching this film.This film seems to be a very bad made sex ad, made for an audience that is not older than 12.I never visited an American college, but i would seriously doubt that anyone who did could really laugh about any of the scenes.Save your time, do something else. | 0 |
train_19844 | This is the story of a young woman seduced and then dumped by her older, married lover after she gets pregnant; she avenges herself against him, and his entire family, through black magic which, disappointingly, she doesn't do herself but has someone else do for her. Good production values for a Thai horror flick. But the bland script never generates suspense, the director approaches the material entirely conventionally, and the final act loses viewer sympathy for the victims by throwing logic to the winds. At one point, a character has a prime opportunity to simply shoot the villainess dead, and instead she gets up and runs away without picking up the gun. Bad writing you're soaking in it! Some icky gore effects, including a really tasteless late-term-fetus corpse and one guy dying from having hundreds of live eels burst out of his stomach. Only recommended for genre completists who simply have to see every horror film produced in Asia in the last 15 years. | 0 |
train_7459 | I am a huge fan of Say Anything, Jerry Maguire, and Almost Famous (I wasn't that big on Singles), so it's safe to say that I look forward to anything that Cameron Crowe attaches his name to. I went to see Vanilla Sky having been told that it was a very weird movie and that I probably wouldn't like it if I was expecting anything similar to Crowe's other films. Well, having just seen it, let me say that the former was correct, and the latter couldn't have been more wrong. It is a very weird movie, and nothing really comes together until the end. Anyone who tells you that they saw it coming halfway into the movie is either lying to you or is unable to detach their hindsight from their memory. Anyway, the movie was stellar, and I look forward to owning it as soon as the DVD is released. I was moved by the film, and felt emotionally spent by the end. This is an experience that will draw from the viewer the entire spectrum of human emotion, if the viewer allows him/herself into the plot. In the theatre in which I saw the movie, there were more than a few people who clearly lost track of the movie and were bored by it when they found that they were unable to get back into the plot. I'm sure others just lack the ability to properly follow any movie like this. I don't mean that to sound pompous, but some people are more cut out for the Seagal, Chan, Van Damme genre of movies, and these are the types that probably would not enjoy this movie. It is very cerebral, so make sure you are prepared for a two hour mental bender, as well as much thought afterwards.As far as comparing this film to other Crowe movies, it is very similar in at least one regard, in all Crowe movies, the soundtrack is a character unto itself. This is almost definitely due to Crowe's longstanding ties to music, as anyone who has seen Almost Famous knows, and to his marriage to Heart star Nancy Wilson. It was also worthy to note that there was a definite chemistry between Tom Cruise's acting and Crowe's directing that made the movie seem familiar to anyone who has seen Jerry Maguire. In my mind, that is not a bad thing.Anyway, if I had to compare this movie to any one other film, I would say this: if you enjoyed David Fincher's The Game, you will almost certainly be a fan of Vanilla Sky. | 1 |
train_18568 | Vodka Lemon is a charming, yet extremely uneven Arminian film that will delight some and bore others. Though reasonably well-crafted, the film lacks any real "zing", relying instead on many scenes that will seem commonplace to the astute art-house viewer. The film contains a handful of moments of sheer cinematic brilliance, unfortunately, they deserve a film worthy of their genius. Too dark to be a dark comedy and to light to be a serious drama, Vodka Lemon will leave many views disoriented and ultimately disgruntled. You may laugh, but these moments will be few and far between amid a sea of washed out snow filled landscapes and a seemingly endless series of bus rides. A noble effort, ultimately done in by lack of narrative cohesion. | 0 |
train_9145 | Prince stars as 'the Kid' in this semi-autobiographical film of a talented, but narcissistic young musician who has a less then stellar home life. True the acting leaves a tad to be desired (barring Morris Day and especially Clarence Williams who are both pitch perfect), but the movie is still great and among the best to come out of the 1980s. It has the best soundtrack of ANY movie of the last 50 years at least, highly quotable lines, and the dumpster scene is HILARIOUS!! Plus Apollonia is just simply STUNNING. On an unrelated not, when I saw Prince in concert in 2004 he blew down the stadium. He is an expert showman and it was one of the best concerts that I've experienced.My Grade: A DVD Extras: Disc 1) Commentary with Director Albert Magnoli, Producer Robert Cavallo, & Director of Photography Donald Thorin; Theatrical Trailer; Trailers for "Under the Cherry Moon" and "Grafitti Bridge" Disc 2) A 12 minute featurette on the First Avenue Club; "Purple Rain: Bachstage Pass (a half hour featurette on the movie which i'll review later on it's page); "Riffs, Raffs, and Revolution: the Impact and Influence of Purple Rain" 10 minute featurette; 30 minutes of MTV's Premiere Footage (when MTV didn't suck donkey balls); 5 Prince music videos (Let's Go Crazy, Take Me With You, When Doves Cry, I Would Die 4 U/ Baby I'm a Star, and Purple Rain); 2 Videos by The Time (Jungle Love and The Bird); and a music video for "Sex Shooter" by Apollonia 6Eye Candy: Apollonia shows her fine ass titties | 1 |
train_6322 | This movie was recommended to me by a friend. I never saw an ad or a trailer, so I didn't know Clooney was in it and was not bothered by the fact that his role was so small. I thought the whole cast was suitable, and found the film pretty enjoyable, all in all. The opening scene, with the small crew of bandits standing at the side of the road, looking whipped and haggard, caught my attention immediately. It had a way of telling you, "don't go away; this won't be boring", and it really wasn't. It turned out to be an interesting, light-hearted comedy with enough twists and turns to keep you in your seat to the very end, but when the ending did arrive, I felt a little bit cheated....just a little bit. The events kept building up so that you expect them to continue building, but at a point that I can't define, it sort of levels out, making the ending a slight disappointment. I reckon I expected a bigger bang of a climax, but it turned out sort of low-key. If you watch the movie with that in mind and you can live without high dosages of George Clooney, you should find this flick very entertaining and well worth watching. Now I'd like to see the original (Big Deal on Madonna Street), but it's probably a rare find in the United States. | 1 |
train_12589 | I've seen all four of the movies in this series. Each one strays further and further from the books. This is the worst one yet. My problem is that it does not follow the book it is titled after in any way! The directors and producers should have named it any thing other than "Love's Abiding Joy." The only thing about this movie that remotely resembles the book are the names of some of the characters (Willie, Missie, Henry, Clark, Scottie and Cookie). The names/ages/genders of the children are wrong. The entire story line is no where in the book.I find it a great disservice to Janette Oke, her books and her fans to produce a movie under her title that is not correct in any way. The music is too loud. The actors are not convincing - they lack emotions.If you want a good family movie, this might do. It is clean. Don't watch it, though, if you are hoping for a condensed version of the book. I hope that this will be the last movie from this series, but I doubt it. If there are more movies made, I wish Michael Landon, Jr and others would stick closer to the original plot and story lines. The books are excellent and, if closely followed, would make excellent movies! | 0 |
train_1206 | This movie is great, the music "with the exception of the very first song in the movie" was awesome. The story line is awesome too, it's just basically a wonderfull movie, for ALL ages. I found the last battle scene awesome! Basically this was a great flick! | 1 |
train_1452 | Being a transplanted New Yorker, I might be more critical than most in watching City Hall. But I have to say that before even getting to the story itself I was captivated by the location shooting and the political atmosphere of New York City that Director Harold Becker created.For example there's a reference to Woerner's Restaurant in Brooklyn where political boss Frank Anselmo likes to eat. There is or was a Woerner's Restaurant on Remsen Street in downtown Brooklyn when I lived in New York back in 1996. It was in fact particularly favored by political people in the Borough though they did have a couple of other hangouts.No surprise because the script was co-authored by Nicholas Pileggi who still writes both political and organized crime stories. He knows the atmosphere quite well and he sure knows how those two worlds cross as they do in this film.A detective played by Nestor Serrano goes for an unofficial meeting with a relative of mob boss Anthony Franciosa and things erupt and three people wind up dead, including an innocent 6 year old boy whose father was walking him to school. The story mushrooms and at the end it's reached inside City Hall itself.Al Pacino plays Mayor John Pappas and John Cusack is his Deputy Mayor a transplanted Louisianan, a state which has a tradition of genteel corruption itself. He's the outsider here and in trying to do damage control, Cusack finds more than he bargained for,Danny Aiello plays Brooklyn political boss Frank Anselmo and for those of you not from New York, his character is based on the late Borough President of Queens Donald Manes who was also brought down by scandal. He's very much the kind of Brooklyn politician I knew back in the day whose friendship with organized crime and favors done for them, do Aiello in. City Hall was the farewell performance on film for Anthony Franciosa, one of the most underrated and under-appreciated talents ever on the screen. No one watches anyone else whenever he's on.Al Pacino's best moment is when at the funeral of the young child killed, he takes over the proceedings and turns it into a political triumph for himself. His is a complex part, he's a decent enough man, but one caught up in the corruption it takes to rise in a place like New York. For those who want to know about political life in the Big Apple, City Hall is highly recommended. | 1 |
train_21317 | No, I've never seen any of the "Santa Slasher" series, i.e. 'Silent Night, Deadly Night,' the original 'Black Christmas' or this one, 'Christmas Evil.' I've heard all about their reputation, or, MADS (Mothers Against Deranged Santas.) I thought I would rent this one as I've heard it pop up as a reference on a 'Fat Guys At the Movies' segment.Mothers should be against this, but not for the ooooohhhh "killer" Santa, but for the fact this movie was just plain crap. Boring, long even at only 92 minutes, crap.Little boy sees Santa arrive down a chimney in 1947, deliver presents, eat some goodies and miraculously, float up the chimney. Boy goes to bed, but returns to living room to witness Mommy and Santa (sort of) getting it on. Apparently this messed up that kid for the rest of his life, though the scene was about as steamy as when Ralphie's dad got the "Leg Lamp" in 'A Christmas Story.' He was sooo disturbed, he went to the attic and, well cut his own hand.Fast forward to the future! Now, it's 1980 and messed up boy works in a toy factory. We get a whiff of him being a little off-kilter, and he stalks both kids and parents alike. Who's naughty, who's nice, blah blah. It takes a good two-thirds of the film to get him to finally snap as if that's not foreshadowed from frame one. NO MOVIE should take that long.I will admit, this movie had its tension building, but only because I kept expecting him to do something, anything to anyone. When he finally does, well, punish "who's naughty," it's as graphic as a "Garbage Pail Kid" card. And I haven't mentioned the WTF ending. I'm thinking it was a metaphor, but in reality, it's just as weird as the rest of the movie. (Take the brother who's upset his sibling is killing, and his solution is
uh, killing.) Don't open this mess, even on Christmas Eve, or Evil. Again, I didn't watch the other "Santa-Slashers" but this one sucked bad. It built up suspense due to the nature of the movie and never once delivered a decent present. | 0 |
train_11519 | The only reason that I did not give this 10 stars was the DVD format-no menus, extras, etc. However, if you have ever had a dream to do something with your life, this film is for you. If you believe in yourself and your dream do not let anyone or anything stop you. This is one of the most life-affirming films that I have ever seen. And magical. The acting is superb, the plot serves the purpose, and the opening sequence is fantastic. This is one of those films that "cult" status used to be about. I have recommended this film to all of my friends. Some love it, some can't finish it. Whenever I think, or feel , that something is impossible I think about Alan Arkin's role in this film. Sure wish he'd make more films. | 1 |
train_1236 | Eddie Murphy spends his time looking for lost children, so when a very special magical child is kidnapped in Tibet, the sexy Charlotte Lewis asks for his help to rescue this child from the clutches of evil itself.Although the story is a bit silly, it never quite feels corny, despite the hilarity of the comedy throughout the film; Charles Dance off-sets the comedy with his very serious and dark characterisation of the evil that holds the child hostage.The Golden Child is very funny, action packed and really quite compelling in a charming, almost magical way.7/10 Great for all generations. | 1 |
train_12729 | Caught this on IFC yesterday, and can't believe the positive reviews! Am I the only one who thought these "ladies" were anything but? Kate tells Jed she could get fired because she's supposed to be a pillar of the community, but puts out for him! Then they suddenly decide they're in love? And she's SO devastated over his death, she doesn't go to his funeral, much less, tell his family the "good news"! By the way, how did an American get to be the headmistress of a very proper British school? Janine should have been kicked off the force for her inexcusable abuse of power, but nothing happens! And she winds up boffing a con she brought in for questioning! And the less said about Molly, the better!As for the guilt Janine and Molly feel over Jed, please! It's the punk's own damn fault he got turned into roadkill! Where's the guilt over poor Gerald, who gets puked on? If only I could do the same to the bozos behind this "movie"! | 0 |
train_24185 | This is a dumb movie. Maybe my judgment wouldn't be so harsh if the film didn't promise so much, but I just felt like this movie cheated and played me for a fool at every turn.I didn't have any beef with the acting, but I thought the characters were awful. The movie starts off with Clive Owen's character telling us what a criminal mastermind he is, and how he planned the perfect bank robbery, something he frequently reminds us of later. Oh yeah, he also tells us he's in a prison cell, although that turns out to be a dumb metaphor. Any idiot knows that the best bank robbery is one where a minimum number of things could potentially go wrong, and you're long gone before the police show up. But Clive Owen's scheme requires hanging around the bank for hours - for no reason but to stalk around and look scary as far as I can tell. He also has to control hostages, negotiate with cops, and most fantastically of all, perform a This-Old-House job on the bank's stockroom and hide out there for a week (I hope he brought enough food, and a bucket to pee in) and then sneak out again. Yeah, that sure sounds like the perfect crime to me, Clive! This plan has so many moving parts that the only reason it didn't fall apart was the screenwriter said so.And then there are the many unexplained details: Why were the cops so convinced that the crooks had accomplices among the hostages? Who the hell is Jodie Foster's character, and why is she so important that she has the mayor at her beck and call and she doesn't have to tell Denzel Washington her agenda because "it's above his pay scale?" How dumb are these cops that they can't figure out one guy speaking in a foreign language for hours is not the sound of a criminal gang planning a robbery? How did the robbers slip away, and why did Clive Owen stick around for a week? How did they find out about the bank chairman's past, and the number and contents of his safe deposit box? Why the hell would Clive Owen let in Jodie Foster or the cops? Since when do they make toy AK-47s that look real up close? How the hell do you bug a pizza box, anyway? How did Clive Owen manage to sneak out of a secure area of the bank during working hours, undetected? Did this dispassionate criminal really feel bonded enough to this cop Denzel to slip him a diamond?None of these questions are ever answered. There are films that achieve depth by leaving you to wonder about events that happen off-screen, but I never felt that way about Inside Man. It felt like the scenes that explained these things were cut from the movie, or these questions never had any answers in the first place, and that's weak. Particularly annoying is Jodie Foster's character, who won't disclose what she does, but never seems to tire of reminding us how important she is. We're just supposed to take her word for it, I guess.The only reason I gave this movie two stars is I laughed at Denzel's "taxi cab" and "pina colada" gags, and at the kid's outrageous video game. Other than that, this movie has no redeeming features. | 0 |
train_13289 | five minutes after watching this i logged on to IMDb to warn all of you out there not to bother with this movie... genre:horror? it had moments of mild suspense and throughout the whole movie i was thinking to myself "somethings gotta happen soon" it did not...when the movie ended i felt so embarrassed for the writer/director i've never been the biggest fan of patrick rea this guy just does not know how to make movies and after watching this sorry excuse of a horror flick i've gone from not been the biggest fan to will not watch another of his works..i was taken in by the plot summary please don't make the same mistake.i gave this movie a 2 for the actors..they were not bad and it wasn't there fault they got such bad direction... | 0 |
train_23713 | OK ...I watch a lot of bad movies. I pride myself on that fact. many times there are some gems in the B rated bombs. But this movie is one of the worst I have watched. I like a good horror movie...but one with a plot of and sense of movement. The opening scenes seemed pretty good. Decent music and imagery. Then it goes down hill from there. One of the main characters has a disability (Ringing in the Ears called Tinnitus). Now this will in turn threaten to reveal his secret. They made that too much of a focus of the movie. So what he has ringing in his ears and accidentally left an ear plug somewhere where that he shouldn't have been. No need to keep bringing it up. So this guy is having an affair with this girl and in a motel she falls and hits her head on the end table. So instead of letting everyone know of his affair he decides to dump the body. Now her twin sister is trying to find out where she is and what happened to her. Well after seeing her sister over and over again (as a zombie like ghost) and even pointing directly to the location of the body she finally finds her. Now the body is recovered and she is set out to deal with the one and only suspect that killed her. Bad thing is that she didn't have much of a plan. Only to pretend to be her twin and met the guy where the body was dumped. The idiot didn't even believe he killed her. So all is revealed there and even though she had a gun....somehow she manages to get herself strangled. So the last scenes of the movie are of the "spirits" of her and her twin walking out of the water. So you mean to tell me in this movie the bad guy wins. And not one but two innocent people die.Good things about the movie: imagery Bad things about the movie: music sound effects long and drawn out misdirection of plot low grade acting from some not all actors | 0 |
train_23391 | I saw the trailer to this film and it looked great, so I went out and bought it. What a mistake, the acting is a shambles, the special effects (if you could call them that), look like something that wouldn't be out of place at a school play. Some of the characters are so stupid in this film you will cringe the minute they are on the screen, which unfortunately is all to often. As for a story, forget it. This is a warning, don't waste any money at all on this film it has to be one of the worst things I have ever seen. If, for some reason, you like this film watch Troll 2, you will probably enjoy that as well. | 0 |
train_21680 | Okay, let me start off by saying that nothing in this will come as a surprise to anyone who's read the other comments. That being said, MY G-D, THIS MOVIE REEKED! I mean, WOW, I didn't know it was possible to throw as much money as they obviously did at something and still come out worse than ANY Roger Corman movie! Corman was probably pitched this movie at some point but declined due to the poor quality of the script! The only reason this movie got made in the first place is that someone said, 'Hey, Zombies are popular. Video games are popular. What game can we get a hold of that has zombies in it? Resident Evil? No, someone else got there first. Silent Hill? No, too silent. People will never sit in a dark room just to be scared silly. Hey, didn't Sega have a game where people ran around shooting zombies? They're out of the platform biz, we could get that for pennies!'Basically they tried their best to make a movie that felt like the video game, even down to shooting the combat as if the characters were actually playing the game.The first and major problem is that the original game was horrid. I mean,bad-movie-merchandising-made-into-a-worse-game-in-two-weeks-and-then-shippe d-out-and-bought-by-morons-and-their-parents-for-christmas horrid. The graphics were boring. The monsters were boring. The levels were boring. The interface was boring. The CASE was boring. In other words, this was a boring game. And that was the ARCADE version. The home version was even worse! With the home version, you didn't even get the shotgun to hold in your hand while you were being bored silly by this pointless game! But I digress.The second problem is that they went so far as to actually intercut scenes from actual gameplay during the fight scenes. HUH??? Didn't the editor have enough confidence in the effects to indicate that there was an actual fight going on? Not to mention that EVERY fight was shot from the perspective of a video game, which may explain the tedious use of Matrix-style effects. The problem with this is that the game was a first-person shooter (the player proceeds from the POV of the character). Maybe that's why they put in the game graphics, to let you know that they were alluding to the game... Right, whatever...Anyway, the only thing that made this ENTIRE experience remotely enjoyable was the fact that everyone in the theatre was making fun of the movie out loud, so my sudden fits of hysterical laughter and general incredulity were taken as commonplace and didn't get me kicked out.To sum up, DON'T GO SEE THIS MOVIE! Don't even deign to rent it when it comes out on video in a couple of week. Run. Just run. | 0 |
train_13765 | I first didn't want to watch this film, for the trailer gave the impression of a common and too expected film...but as I recently had the pleasure to discover the surprising "Mensonges et trahisons et plus si affinité"" which was beautifully directed and written by Laurent Tirard (screenwriter of "prête-moi ta main"), I changed my mind and decided to try it, thinking that "Prête-moi ta main", would be as good as "mensonges...". And it is absolutely not. The script is not bad, but it is not as well directed as "Mensonges...", the actors not as generous (especially Charlotte, as boring as she usually is) as Edouard Baer or Clovis Cornillac, and too be honest, I still don't understand how such crap can have such a success, even with such a casting... Anyway the story could have been a pretext to create so many interesting plots, but it is not as good as Tirard's "Mensonges..." though it's also written by him. Easy, unsurprising, and lazy work. Totally overestimated! | 0 |
train_5921 | I was the Production Accountant on this movie, and I also got to do some voice-over work on it, so I'm not entirely unbiased, but if it were awful, I would say so. I thought it was a fun film, not a critically acclaimed masterpiece, by any means, but there were plenty of laughs along the way. The Bible states that laughter does good like a medicine, so watching this movie could be good for your health.So many of the actors in this picture hadn't yet reached their peak at the time we made this film. Susan Sarandon, of course, is one who has since gone on to much greater fame. Melanie Mayron was seen on TV on a weekly basis as a photographer in the "Thirty-Something" TV drama series. Robert Englund later became known as Freddie Krueger, still haunting people's dreams. One of my personal favorite actors on this show was Dub Taylor, who played the sheriff. He was an excellent comedic actor, and a truly nice, sincere person. We all had fun working on this show, and I think that fun comes through. | 1 |
train_21533 | It seems a shame that Greta Garbo ended her illustrious career at the age of 36 with this ridiculous mistaken-identity marital romp. Coming off the success of her first romantic comedy, Ernst Lubitsch's masterful "Ninotchka" (1939), where she was ideally cast as an austere Russian envoy, Garbo is reunited with her leading man Melvyn Douglas for a sitcom-level story that has her playing Karin Borg, a plain-Jane ski instructor who impulsively marries publishing executive Larry Blake when he becomes smitten with her. Once he makes clear that work is his priority, Karin inadvertently decides to masquerade as her high-living twin sister Katherine to test her husband's fidelity when he is back in Manhattan.It's surprising that this infamous 1941 misfire was directed by George Cukor, who led Garbo to her greatest dramatic performance in 1937's "Camille", because this is as unflattering a vehicle as one could imagine for the screen legend. Only someone with Carole Lombard's natural sense of ease and mischief could have gotten away with the shenanigans presented in the by-the-numbers script by S.N. Behrman, Salka Viertel and George Oppenheimer. MGM's intent behind this comedy was to contemporize and Americanize Garbo's image for wartime audiences whom the studio heads felt were not interested in the tragic period characters she favored in the thirties.However, Garbo appears ill-at-ease mostly as the bogus party girl Katherine and especially compared to expert farceurs like Douglas and Constance Bennett as romantic rival Griselda. Photographed unflatteringly by Joseph Ruttenberg, Garbo looks tired in many scenes and downright hideous in her teased hairdo for the "chica-choca" dance sequence. The story ends conventionally but with the addition of a lengthy physical sequence where Larry tries to maneuver his skis on a series of mountain cliffs that unfortunately reminds me of Sonny Bono's death. Roland Young and Ruth Gordon (in a rare appearance at this point of her career) show up in comic supporting roles as Douglas' associates. This movie is not yet on DVD, and I wouldn't consider it priority for transfer as it represents a curio in Garbo's otherwise legendary career. She was reportedly quite unhappy during the filming. I can see why. | 0 |
train_16590 | Shlock-merchant Leo Fulci takes a change of pace by making a trashy, barely coherent sword and sorcery fantasy movie instead of his usual trashy, barely coherent horror. A wimpy Orlando Bloom type called Ilias, from some society vaguely resembling Ancient Greece travels across the ocean to caveman territory on some vaguely defined quest to battle evil, where he joins up with a animal loving hunter to battle the wolf-man and mutant minions of a vampiric topless evil sorceress. Wackiness ensues. The sorceress, is oppressing the local cavemen and wants the magic bow for herself. She sends various minions, each weirder than the last, after our heroes who win through in the end, striking a blow for oppressed cavemen everywhere. This movie contains a steady stream of WTF? elements and moments.For some reason the entire movie is shot in soft focus and the picture is further blurred by the constant presence of mist on screen. This may have been an attempt to create atmosphere or to hide how fake everything looks. Either way, it failed. There is no atmosphere, unless it is one of scuzziness and mild bewilderment and there is no hiding how lame everything looks. The wolf-man minions look like a poor man's wookie. For some reason the director fell in love with shots of them leaping through the air in slow motion, Six Million Dollar Man style, toward our heroes when they attack. There are probably about a dozen of these shots throughout the movie and it gets goofier every time. The other minions of the topless sorceress, other than the generic leather clad humans, are some lumpy white mutants who appear to be covered in cobwebs. Needless to say they are slow and unthreatening and when they speak sound like gay Hispanic, lisping Daleks. The fights are stilted and unconvincing and the special effects are woeful. Oh yeah, the music is cheap synthesiser stuff that the makers of Doctor Who would have been embarrassed to have used.Ilias, our nominal hero is bland and forgettable. He also looks a complete wuss, especially with his midriff revealing leather outfit and big hair, and is clearly a moron. Sure, he's a dynamite shot with his magical bow but he only takes about three or four arrows with him in his mission to battle this entire continent of evil. Needless to say he runs out of arrows within a few minutes and has to be saved by more traditional sword and sorcery hero, Mace. When he meets Ilias he establishes himself as the taciturn loner type, claiming he has no friends but no sooner can you say latent homoerotic subtext they are bosom buddies, traipsing the misty hills together. Mace promises to take Ilias with him in return for bow related favours. Ilias asks where he is going. "Wherever my legs take me," is his reply. Good enough for Ilias. Mace is also animal lover and outrageous hypocrite. He proclaims his great love of and affinity toward animals, citing the usual stuff about how he prefers them to humans because humans can be soooo mean. He says he would never hunt and kill an animal to feed himself but he will steal meat off other people who have hunted down animals. He is also not above randomly killing innocent passers by for no good reason. Not long after they meet, he is testing out Ilias' bow and the movie cuts to some random caveman, minding his own business, walking along and Mace shoots him dead. There is no indication this poor soul did anything to deserve this and even Ilias, who supposedly hails from a more moral and civilised society doesn't even raise an eyebrow. The films villainess is quite unusual. For the entire movie she is completely naked except from a g-string and a golden mask that encompasses her entire head. It's like Fulci included her to make the movies obligatory T&A quotient but decided she was bit too much of a butterface at the last minute. She spends a lot of time seemingly being pleasured by her pet snakes and dreaming about being shot by a faceless bow wielding man who is dressed like Ilias. Wow, such symbolism! Later on in the movie she wimps out when she can't beat Ilias and Mace and promises to make herself the sex-slave of some ancient warrior dude if he kills them for her. Hardly the world's most scary villain and not really a step forward for women's rights. I think he sic's the cobweb creatures on our heroes and impersonates Mace in a situation where there is no no-one else around but Mace to fool. Was he really worthy trading your self respect for, Ocron? There are quite a few other WTF? moments. Most of them come toward the end of the movie. Ilias wusses out, I forget why, possibly his permed hairdo got mussed, but realizes the error of his ways and returns to aid Mace in fighting the forces of evil. All of a sudden, for no reason, his bow can suddenly fire out multiple target seeking bolts of energy. The bolts can also shoot through solid rock when necessary. Needless to say his makes short work of the hordes of bad guys who have captured Mace.The climax is also rather nonsensical. Mace decimates Ocron's remaining forces using the bows targeted laser attack capability. He then is able to shoot Ocron from a kilometre away using its shoot through rock capacity. She starts dying. Her mask is ripped of revealing a hideous Muppet head. She staggers around screaming and turns into a dog and wanders off with another dog. Mace smiles. Roll credits.Strangely enough as far as these dodgy low budget sword and sorcery movies this one is reasonably lucid and focused. Any one who has seen Wizards of the Lost Kingdom can tell you how nonsensical and meandering these movies can truly be. | 0 |
train_15506 | The movie opens with a flashback to Doddsville County High School on April Fool's Day. A group of students play a prank on class nerd Marty. When they are punished for playing said prank, they follow up with a bigger prank which (par for the course in slasher films involving pranks on class nerds) goes ridiculously awry leaving Marty simultaneously burned by fire and disfigured by acid for the sake of being thorough. Fast forward five years, where we find members of the student body gathering at the now abandoned high school for their five year class reunion. We find out that it is no coincidence that everyone at the reunion belonged to the clique of pranksters from the flashback scene, as all of the attendees are being stalked and killed by a mysterious, jester mask-clad murderer in increasingly complicated and mind-numbingly ludicrous fashions. It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to solve the mystery of the killer's identity, as it is revealed to be none other than a scarred Marty who has seemingly been using his nerd rage and high intellect to bend the laws of physics and engineering in order to rig the school for his revenge scenario. The film takes a turn for the bizarre as Marty finishes exacting his revenge on his former tormentors, only to be haunted by their ghosts. Marty is finally pushed fully over the edge and takes his own life. Finally, the film explodes in a crescendo of disjointed weirdness as the whole revenge scenario is revealed to be a dream in the first place as Marty wakes up in a hospital bed, breaks free of his restraints, stabs a nurse, and finally disfigures his own face.The script is tired and suffers from a terminal case of horror movie logic. The only originality comes from the mind-numbingly convoluted ways that the victims are dispatched. The absurd it-was-all-a-dream ending feels tacked on. It's almost as if someone pointed out the disjointed nature of the film and the writer decided then and there that it was a dream.Technically speaking, the film is atrocious. Some scenes were filmed so dark that I had to pause the film and play with the color on my television. The acting is sub-par, even for slasher films. I can't help but think that casting was a part of the problem as all of the actors look at least five years older than the characters they portray, which makes the flashback scene even more unintentionally laughable. Their lack of commitment to the movie is made obvious as half of them can't bother to keep their accents straight through the movie.All of this being said, if you like bad horror movies, you might like this one, too. It isn't the worst film of the genre, but it's far from the best. | 0 |
train_15621 | This movie is trash-poor. It has horrible taste, and is pedestrian and unconvincing in script although supposedly based on real-events - which doesn't add much of anything but make it more of a disappointment. Direction is not well done at as scenes and dialogue are out-of-place. Not sure what Robin Williams saw in this character or story. To start, Williams is not convincing as a gay in a relationship breakup nor is the relationship itself interesting. What's worse, his character is compelled by an ugly pedophile story that is base and has no place as a plot device. You have an older Rory Culkin tastelessly spouting "d_ck_smker" - in good fun- which is annoying enough and then laughed up by the Williams character. Finally you have Sandra Oh as a guardian angel adviser to Williams and a thrown in explanation of the whole fiasco towards the end. Toni Collete's character is just plain annoying and a re-hash of her 6th Sense performance with poorer direction. Very Miss-able. | 0 |
train_8445 | Homicide: The Movie proved to be a good wrap-up to a well-written, well-directed, and well-acted series. Loose ends were tied up that weren't properly addressed at the end of the final season. The entire series, and especially the movie, provided a life-like look at life (and death) in Baltimore, a culturally unique city with an extremely high murder rate. My attraction to the series began long before I moved to Baltimore, but once I experienced life here for myself, I realized how realistic it was. And the movie certainly retained that spirit. I will certainly miss new original episodes of the series, but am very grateful to NBC and the producers and cast for giving us one last glimpse at the dark side of Charm City. | 1 |
train_6170 | I saw this film at the Taos Film Festival last year, and was just overwhelmed by it. It's a rich, warm novel brought to the screen, beautifully acted, and well directed. More than anything, it reminded me of the films of David Lean, both in its ability to handle a complex story, and its knack for creating powerful scenes that affect you on several different levels. The best movie I've seen in years. | 1 |
train_21281 | I saw the trailer for this film a few months prior to its release, and MAN, did it look scary, Especially how this film was based on a real life phenomenon. I was incredibly interested, and thought that this could finally be a decent horror/thriller film after years if crap. Well you know how movie trailers make a film look better than it is: maybe by showing all of the creepy parts or by overdramaticizing certain elements. The advertisements for the movie did both, which lead to my ultimate disappointment.By no means is this "the most disturbing movie in years". Hell, I doubt it was the most disturbing movie of that week's release. This movie takes the whole "based off of fact" thing too far.This movie wasn't complete crap. I must admit, it held my interest and Micheal Keaton was believable as a man searching for answers by supernatural means. Other than that, though, this film is one big cliché. After John's wife dies, he learns about EVP, which transmits the voices of the dead into everyday electronic appliances. He all of the sudden receives messages from his wife! My God! It's not just his wife reaching him, it's other dead people. Gee, imagine that. A movie about helping dead people. Come on, give me a break! The clichés don't stop there. There's also the obligatory clock-stopping-at-the-same-exact-time-every-night trick and three evil spirits that menace our hero. Not only was the movie cliché, it WASN'T SCARY. The film literally had two jump scenes, and those two scenes are almost identical. The ending is horrible, as it leaves the door WIDE OPEN for a sequel. There's also an ending message with a message saying how only 1 out of X voices heard through EVP are threatening, with a nice happy tune playing. Way to break the mood, you guys. Jeez! In the end, if you want another forgettable horror film, see White Noise. The only reasons I could possibly think anyone would watch this film for is that either that the person is a Keaton fan or that they are interested in EVP. Sure, the EVP aspects may be slightly interesting, but I don't like my movie concepts to be shoved down my throat and blown up in my face. This film tries to be scary, original, and disturbing, but it's just the opposite. You know you have a lame movie when the commercials use the ghosts to talk about there film. "I WILL SEE THIS FILM NO MORE." | 0 |
train_15773 | The Dukes of Hazzard is quite an achievement a $53m film that's worse than any given episode of a downmarket 25-year old TV show. The plot is serviceable enough but the mindless fun is rarely to be found and the casting is pretty atrocious: Johnny Knoxville is more passenger than protagonist, M.C. Gainey's Sheriff Roscoe is a bland thug, Michael Weston's Enos tiresome, a seemingly ideally-cast Willie Nelson just seems to be waiting for the check to clear and Burt Reynolds, stuck in some purgatory where he's doomed to relive his old movies as a bit player, is a curious choice for Boss Hogg to say the least but does have one good moment with a heckler and a hundred dollar bill. You know a film is in trouble when Seann William Scott and Jessica Simpson are the most charismatic screen presences
But worse than the script or the casting is Jay Chandrasekhar's hopeless direction: seemingly born with no conception of comic timing, unable to do much more than basic two-shots and seemingly clueless as to how to shoot a car chase let alone the couple of decent stunts in the film, he seems determined to sap the film of any signs of life before they materialise. There are a couple of neat post-modern moments revolving around the Confederate Flag and Daisy's stereotypical role in every episode, but no film that makes you pine for the days when Hal Needham was directing this sort of thing (and badly) can be a good thing. | 0 |
train_9232 | Too many sources routinely lump this thought-provoking period drama in part based on historical fact together with the superficially similar "nunsploitation" which was a mainstay in '70s Euro trash cinema, overlooking the righteous anger that drives the whole endeavor. Perhaps coincidentally it was also director Gianfranco Mingozzi's singular attempt at narrative film-making outside of many well-received documentaries.Safely set within a historical context, FLAVIA charts the growing rebellion of an early 15th century Italian nun (Florinda Bolkan's career performance, even surpassing her sterling work in Lucio Fulci's devastating DON'T TORTURE A DUCKLING), locked away in convent by her not so nobleman father in a desperate attempt to curb the girl's budding sensuous nature. Wondering why women are relegated to secondary roles at best in life as in holy scripture, she is confronted by ways in which male domination can rupture female lives, inspiring revolt fueled by the ranting of semi-crazed older Sister Agatha (indelibly portrayed by veteran actress Maria Casarès from Marcel Carné's LES ENFANTS DU PARADIS) and - more constructively - by a Muslim invasion. Joining the oppressors and perhaps unwittingly manipulating them to do her bidding, Flavia truly becomes the outcast she already felt herself to be, with expected tragic results.With its breathtaking widescreen compositions by Alfio Contini, who shot Michelangelo Antonioni's ZABRISKIE POINT, this is an uncompromising and austere account of one woman's fierce yet ultimately futile fight against patriarchal society which allotted her no rights beyond childbearing or whoring as Sister Agatha wryly remarks. A lengthy drug-induced fantasy sequence clearly modeled on Ken Russell's otherwise far more flamboyant DEVILS notwithstanding, the movie turns out relatively stingy in the skin department, making something of a mockery out of its semi-porn reputation. This is a serious work deserving rediscovery and restoration of its unjustly tarnished reputation. | 1 |
train_5808 | Moonwalker is such a great movie, from start to finish you cant take your eyes away. i love all the clips of Michael singing and dancing and I just love the 'studio tour' bit...soo funny :) And the 'mini movie' is to cool, with all the special FX etc...Michael is a genius and always will be!!! | 1 |
train_15470 | I am a back Batman movie and TV fan. I loved the show (new and old) and I loved all the movies. But this movie is not as great as some people were hopeing it to be. In my opinon, it is a big let down. I think the problem was it had no drama. Batman: Mask Of The Phantasm and Batman Beyond: Return Of The Joker had a lot of drama. and Batman & Mr. Freeze: Sub Zero had some drama too. Also, I think this movie is to light for Batman. The only scene that seems a little dark is the big fight with Bane at the end. Anyways, it's an ok Batman movie. But I would just rent it. | 0 |
train_14708 | Jeffrey Combs is an insane scientist whose stem cell research has morphed into a diabolical scheme to create a hybrid hammerhead shark humanoid life form, hoping to breed a brand new species using Hunter Tylo's womb. It won't be easy for Tylo is a tough broad and her boyfriend, William Forsythe, isn't about to give her up without a fight.You see Tylo and Forsythe are two of business executive Arthur Roberts' employees, brilliant minds who meet Combs(..a scientist who once worked for Roberts, and whose vacated position went to Tylo)at his island fortress where he conducts his research and experiments. This island affords him the opportunity to recruit fresh victims for his work and "son". They think it's a professional affair in regards to a breakthrough in stem cell research which could lead to cures for a variety of diseases. Combs' son was dying of kidney cancer when he decided to perform his mad science on him, creating this blood-thirsty, flesh-eating creature which can both swim and walk on dry land(..although, at first the hammerhead could only remain outside for short time periods). Tylo was dating Combs' son, hence the connection besides the two having worked for Roberts, who brings along his trophy wife, Mariya Ignatova. Also accompanying Tylo and Forsythe, Roberts and Ignatova, are their colleagues, Elise Muller and GR Johnson. Combs traps them in a conference room, but they are able to escape onto the island as he sends after them his well paid mercenaries and hammerhead shark son.Like similar sci-fi channel creature features of it's type, Hammerhead:Shark Frenzy has some rather unappealing computer generated effects and the attacks(..where the shark rips apart limbs)are shot in a quick-edit, frenzied camera format where you have a hard time ever seeing any of the ensuing gory carnage. You have this vague notion that a person is being eaten(..ripped to shreds), but the attacks themselves are shot in a very erratic fashion which, truth be told, is rather infuriating. The monster itself is never seen in it's entirety, just momentary glimpses of an eye or a body part being gnawed on as the victim screams out in horror. One thing's for certain, you do see teeth. We do get cgi shots of the hammerhead shark swimming toward the screen, all menacing, ready to feast on flesh. A constant is while(..and after)victims are attacked, we see a great deal of blood and bits of flesh bubbling to the water's surface(..this is really director Michael Oblowitz's main cue as to inform the viewer that those being torn apart are goners).Combs doesn't break new ground as the scientist, but he's always had an ability to convey a quiet madness under this cold-blooded resolve. It's fun seeing Forsythe in a rare clean-cut hero role, very against type as an electronics wiz(..to his credit, he actually pulls it off)who must assume a leadership position when the group faces unprecedented peril. Tylo is also in a very different kind of role, a scientist who can defend herself quite well. Roberts can play the millionaire businessman roles in his sleep, and it's kind of neat seeing him firing off a machine gun at Combs' soldiers(..although, his fate is not pleasant). Mentioning that, it was also really entertaining watching Forythe and Tylo downing Combs' hired goons with confiscated automatic machine guns. As expected, the screenplay allows those who created the murderous fiend to put themselves in unnecessary danger just so that they can pay for their sins..I mean, seriously, would these people knowingly leave themselves so vulnerable to attack after seeing just what damage to the human anatomy it could do? Beautiful exotic setting is quite a nice backdrop. | 0 |
train_14310 | Think of this film as a Saturday morning live-action program from ages ago. Even the small tykes will find this one hard to please because it runs like molasses! I can't fully understand how god awful it is to make something too typical and uninteresting, especially in the costume department! Too many warrior-wizard movies out there have used the same old plotline numerous times over, but this is mighty scarce considering its appeal to the little darlings. And who in the world would've let a topless mermaid be cast in the first place? I thought this was a "family" movie! MST3K, here's another fine gem for your 1999 TV season! | 0 |
train_11801 | I read a few reviews of this TV movie which all said that the film dragged on for too long and that it was basically only sensationalistic entertainment. I agree that perhaps, the film goes on a bit too long (2h30 would have been enough...) but I certainly do not think it sensationalize the subject matter. Jim Jones' expansive power trip and slow degradation into mental illness, paranoia and drug abuse are never treated in a voyeuristic manner. The movie takes its time in showing how Jones recruited followers (Brenda Vaccaro's and Brad Dourif's character are stand-outs in that matter) but also in observing an uncanny shift in Jones' perception of reality. It is mind-boggling to see an egalitarian, left-wing and compassionnate preacher become such a destructive and cruel dictator. Perhaps the movie doesn't explore Jones' motivations enough, which can make the whole ordeal a bit superficial at times (may have to do with censorship as well...) But Powers Boothe's mesmerizing performance makes it all come true. I am not familiar with the details of the real Jim Jones' life, but Boothe sure makes the monster he plays believable and real. The movie features many strong scenes, among them the preaching messes of Jones, Jones's meeting with Father Divine (a remarquable James Earl Jones), Congressman Leo Ryan (Ned Beatty)'s visit to the Guyana camp and of course, the suicide scene. It is quite a gloomy spectable to watch and Boothe is quite commanding in those last moments. Madge Sinclair shines in this scene as one of the suddenly sceptic follower, and so do Veronica Cartwright (as Jones' wife) and Brad Dourif, especially when their time comes to drink the murderous potion. The relative calm of the end of this scene, the tasteful direction and the contrasting beauty of the natural surroundings all work in making those images quite impossible to erase from one's mind. A disturbing reflection on human nature and its weaknesses. Worth watching, if only to keep in mind one of the truly horrific events of the 20th century. Not to let it be repeated again. Like, ironically, the inscription in Jim Jones' camp: "Those who do not know the past are bound to repeat it". | 1 |
train_5182 | A quiet, sweet and beutifully nostalgic movie on how it is to be confronted with old friends and surroundings from your youth with all that memories and the problems and sorrows of the present with you. A movie that makes you feel good. All the ingredients are here: old jelousy, rivalry, friendship and loyalty. Mischief, nightly fridge-raids and all the other fun stuff that we all remember from our summer camps. All the characters get the opportunity for a week to experience this again as the old camp-leader now is retiring and want to meet the children from the golden years of the camp. All of them are now in their thirties and in the middle of their careers. | 1 |
train_2787 | Originally I rented this film for my daughter since she is keen on soccer - and I was not disappointed that way (except the plot interfered with the soccer scenes). As a dad I suppose I was a little surprised at the introduction of the topic of lesbianism - but I have to admit that as a parent these issues are completely available to children nowadays (as uncomfortable as I feel with the topic). In a way this emotion was a segue right into the main premise of the film - that at some age you must trust your children to make their own choices. This dilemma is introduced by a young British-born teen girl - Jasminder (Jess) - of east-Indian heritage who dreams of playing professional soccer. The pending marriage of her older sister in a traditional Hindu marriage provides many rich opportunities for her to explore (in a nice way) her hopes and fears for her future. The multi-cultural challenge was a very interesting technique to explore Jess's frustration with her parents expectations for her - again no different in substance than most child-parent relationships. In SUMMARY, the soccer scenes are GREAT (lots to learn in slowmo) and while I didn't need the storyline - something was needed to keep the movie going. | 1 |
train_6538 | I really enjoyed this movie. It succeeded in doing something that few movies do now; it provided family values while entertaining me. Nancy Drew is a heroine for all generations and a role model for young girls to look up to. The little girls I was with throughly enjoyed the movie and kept talking about Nancy as we walked out of the theater. The movie has relatively few problems for families and I don't think parents will get bored sitting in the theater. No, it won't win an Oscar and it did not showcase magnificent special effects or even provide a horribly spooky mystery, but it entertained me and it stood true to the the spirit of the books. I would definitely recommend this movie to anybody with a young girl (she will love it!) or any fan of the books. You will not be disappointed. | 1 |
train_6131 | This is one of the funniest movies that I have seen this year. The people that made it must be so incredibly whacked and twisted. It is a beautiful thing. There were a lot of quality one-liners. This movie blew Uncle Sam out of the water (it was made by tha same people, i think) | 1 |
train_19978 | When I saw previews of this movie I thought that it may be dumb, but it will at least be funny. Well I was wrong. Even though somewhere deep down the producers had an interesting message to convey about parents being left alone and re-evaluating their life, the way they tried to deliver that message was horrible. The first fifty times something silly happened to the couple was relatively funny. But by the end, I could almost predict what stupid mishap is going to happen next.Throughout the movie I like a total of maybe five lines of dialogue and everything else was at best mediocre, which is still more than I can say for the movie itself. | 0 |
train_12381 | A young woman who is a successful model, and is also engaged to be married, and who has twice attempted suicide in the past, is chosen by a secretive and distant association of Catholic priests to be the next "sentinel" to the gateway to Hell, which apparently goes through a creepy old, but well maintained Brooklyn apartment building. Its tenants take the stairway up and can reincarnate themselves, but apparently can't escape as long as a sentinel is there to block the way. The previous one(John Carradine) is about dead, so she, by fate or whatever, becomes the next one, and the doomed must get her to kill herself in order for them to be free. Lots of interesting details lie under the surface, her relationship with her father, the stories of the doomed, her fiancé, so one can pass this off as cheap exploitation horror, but given the sets, the great cast, and overall level of bizarreness, this is definitely worth seeing. | 1 |
train_18469 | ***SPOILER*** Do not read this, if you think about watching that movie, although it would be a waste of time. (By the way: The plot is so predictable that it does not make any difference if you read this or not anyway)If you are wondering whether to see "Coyote Ugly" or not: don't! It's not worth either the money for the ticket or the VHS / DVD. A typical "Chick-Feel-Good-Flick", one could say. The plot itself is as shallow as it can be, a ridiculous and uncritical version of the American Dream. The young good-looking girl from a small town becoming a big success in New York. The few desperate attempts of giving the movie any depth fail, such as the "tragic" accident of the father, the "difficulties" of Violet's relationship with her boyfriend, and so on. McNally (Director) tries to arouse the audience's pity and sadness put does not have any chance to succeed in this attempt due to the bad script and the shallow acting. Especially Piper Perabo completely fails in convincing one of "Jersey's" fear of singing in front of an audience. The only good (and quite funny thing) about "Coyote Ugly" is John Goodman, who represents the small ray of hope of this movie.I was very astonished, that Jerry Bruckheimer produced this movie. First "Gone In 60 Seconds" and now this... what happened to great movies like "The Rock" and "Con Air"? THAT was true Bruckheimer stuff.If you are looking for a superficial movie with good looking women just to have a relaxed evening, you should better go and see "Charlie's Angels" (it's much more funny, entertaining and self-ironic) instead of this flick.Two thumbs down (3 out of 10). | 0 |
train_14115 | Same old same old about Che. It completely ignored the really interesting facts of Che's true character. Sodeberg redid the same boring narrative of Che. The silly seductive tale of an Argentinean rich-boy who was so shocked by poverty he became a Robin Hood fighting alongside the poor, until eventually he was murdered by the CIA. Yeah, yeah, heard it all before, BORING AND UNTRUE!. The reality of Che Guevara is very different and far more explosive! The facts show that he was a totalitarian with a messiah streak, who openly wanted to impose Maoist tyranny on the world. He was so fanatical that at the hottest moment in the Cold War, he even begged the Soviet Union to nuke New York, Washington or Los Angeles and bring about the end of the world. CHe urged Khrushchev to launch a nuclear strike against US cities. For the rest of his life, he declared that if his finger had been on the button, he would have pushed it. When Khrushchev backed down and literally saved the world, Che was furious at the "betrayal". If Che's recommendations had been followed, you would not be reading this review now. How a homicidal maniac became a pop icon would have made a much more interesting film. Incredible that no filmmaker has been daring enough to show the real side of Che and his posthumous media transformation. THAT WOULD MAKE AN Oscar WINNING FILM! I thought making independent film meant taking REAL RISKS and being GROUNDBRAKING! They only stick to "safe counterculture themes", to wit, "Che cool", "Wall Street bad", "Republican= Nazi", "Bush ex Hitler", "NRA is worse than KGB", "Christians are fanatics and stupid", etc...ad nauseum. Oooh, how daring, how mind blowing. Tres anti-mainstream and edgy. I wish they would have some real cojones and tackle the Independent Film Oligarchy! That would be truly daring! | 0 |
train_14118 | I went to see this movie with the most positive expectations. I had seen Jacquet's previous movie (march of the penguins) and had heard a very positive review of this one on the radio. However, I was severely disappointed. Most of all, this movie is terribly boring. Literally NOTHING happens. I tried to describe the content of the movie to a friend, and we both ended up laughing because I could only stammer things like "well then the winter comes, and then spring, and then there's an eagle, and a river, and one time it is dark, and the girl goes into a cave, and another time the fox has babies" and so on. After about half an hour I began sighing, yawning, rolling my eyes, cursing the reviewer at the radio station, and hoping that it would be over soon. But the movie went on and on. When it finally ended I had sunken so deep into my chair that I must have looked somewhat similar to Stephen Hawking. The most annoying parts of the movie are (a) The girl, who is obviously there to give children someone to identify with. She wears the same clothes throughout the entire movie (one year), and shows exactly two facial expressions: Joy and Seriousness. She is cute, no question about that. However, a movie about the beauty of nature like this one would have done better without her all-too-human presence. I found myself constantly hoping that she might get eaten by a bear, drown in the river, or something similarly terrible. (b) The commentary by the girl's adult voice, which tells us nothing but negligible, obvious, boring, redundant things. (c) The music, which is desperately lacking subtlety. When the girl is happily jumping around, the music jumps around, too. When the fox is threatened by an eagle, the music becomes threatening, too. It reminded me of the very early days of film-making, and was just too predictable to enjoy. Admittedly, many of the children who saw the movie with me did obviously like it, at least they got somehow involved. Thus, my warning concerns adults only: If you are over ten years old, avoid this movie. You can get a better (and cheaper) sleep in most other places. | 0 |
train_13457 | So, I got a hold of this as an assignment for Trent Harris, who teaches occasionally in the film dept at the U of U. I guess this is his only real way to get anyone to see his film...The documentary section at the beginning dragged on. Yes, the kid is a nut-job from no where, but that's not good enough to keep it interesting.Seeing Sean Penn dressed as a ONJ is the only highlight... and after about thirty seconds it loses all humor.When Crispin Glover takes on Larry, the story-telling was better, but I just couldn't take anymore... | 0 |
train_10167 | i wasn't a fan of seeing this movie at all, but when my gf called me and said she had a free advanced screening pass i tagged along only for the sake of seeing eva longoria and laughing at jason biggs antics.overall it was actually better then i expected but not by much. this was like a hybrid of how to lose a guy in 10 days and just like heaven. a typical romantic comedy with its moments i guess. the movie was quite short though (around 85 min.) but it was enough to tell the whole story, build some character development and have a decent happy ending. the whole idea of a ghost haunting its former husband was a interesting plot to follow. eva did a good job of keeping up the sarcasm and paul rudd and the rest of the supporting cast (especially jason biggs) kept the laughs coming at a smooth pace.overall i liked the movie only because it had a good amount of laughs to keep me going otherwise i would have given this movie a lower rating. hey its a chick flick and i'm reviewing this movie from a guy's persepctive alright, it would be more of a fair fight if females reviewied this movie and gave there thoughts about it. | 1 |
train_22851 | This movie barely followed the story line of the movie. All of the fascinating points in the book didn't even exist in the movie. They ended up turning it into a cheesy "tween" Disney movie "crush" story between Meg and Calvin. It was so bad it should have been Hillary Duff playing the part, or one of the likes. This movie was nothing more than an insult to the intelligence and mysticism of the book. I can't believe Disney could even get away with making such a cheap, basic rendition. If you've ever read the book, I think you would agree it could easily be made into a movie of "Lord of the Rings" equivalence. This movie should have never been able to use the title of A Wrinkle in Time. Poorly done. | 0 |
train_19813 | I wasted 5.75 to see this crappy movie so I just want to know a few things:What was the point of the dog being split in half at the beginning of the movie, the disease had nothing to do with being split in half.What was the point of dragging Karen into the shed, she already totally infected her room, they could have just locked her in there where she would have been safer.Why would the Hermit be running around the forest asking strangers to help him when he could have just asked his relative, the hog lady, to take him to the hospital?Why didn't any of the characters bother to walk into town to get help when things started getting bad, are they all really that lazy?Even if Paul was threatened by the guy w/ the shotgun for peeping on his wife, Paul could have just sent Jeff or Bert back to the house to ask for help. the girl he loves is deteriorating.What was the point of the box?Why did Jeff go back to the cabin after he left when everyone else was getting infected, if he was that big of a jerk to leave in the first place wouldn't he have just gone back home?If the police went to all the trouble of gathering up the kids and burning them on the fire pit, why did they throw Paul halfway into the river, it wasn't even necessary for the plot because the water was already contaminated.Who makes lemonade out of river water, that crap has dirt leaves and bugs in it. Why couldn't the two kids have just use the tap water, it was contaminated too, so the stupid ending would still work. | 0 |
train_8662 | I liked this a lot. In fact, if I see it again(and I plan to) I just may love it. I'll echo other reviewers in saying that this movie really does grow on you as you watch. It starts kind of slowly but the way in enfolds is very natural and has a mood to it. You just get into it.I really liked the summery atmosphere to the movie and thought the movie was very touching as a whole. The characters have a strong element of realism and the movie very slowly and gently weaves a spell as you get involved in the various interactions between them all and want to know how it will ultimately turn out and what paths the characters will choose to take. I am very surprised that there are less then a dozen comments on this-there are obscure TV movies that have more comments then Rich In Love.One thing that I will say is I missed the ending which is driving me crazy and I HAVE to watch it again to see that. This is a movie that may not be for everybody but that I feel is strongly underrated(even some of my most film buff purist friends who have seen almost every movie there is haven't seen this) and it doesn't even seem to have much of a message board but I liked it a lot and to all those who like family dramas that are warm on scenery, atmosphere and an unhurried languid pace should probably take a look at this. Especially note worthy is that it takes place in South Carolina so for those (like me) who love the south, and movies that take place there, this is a gem. I'll add my vote to the woefully few comments and recommend this little known flick. | 1 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.