id stringlengths 7 11 | text stringlengths 52 10.2k | label int64 0 1 |
|---|---|---|
train_17714 | METAMORPHOSIS I am working my way through the Chilling Classics 50 Movie Pack Collection and METAMORPHOSIS is the seventh movie in the set. Released in 1990, METAMORPHOSIS seems to be a remake of "The Atom Age Vampire," which also featured a scientist striving for similar results. Set in modern times, METAMORPHSIS is not my kind of horror movie.A university researcher is working to crack the human genome in order to create a serum that would prevent aging. Pressured by the administration to publish his papers; and, produce some results (or risk losing funding), the scientist decides to use himself as a guinea pig! At first thinking that he suffered no adverse side effects, he eventually discovers that the serum has indeed altered him in the most unexpected manner! The acting is stilted; and, the performances left me with a much diminished interest in the film. The score is pandering. And, the science behind the experiments and their findings is not only fallacious; it's absurd; it's ridiculous at best. As others noted, the end turns into a 30+ minute gag, which is seemingly endless. Without giving too much away, I'd call this one, "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde meet the Creature From the Black Lagoon meets Home Alone." | 0 |
train_24203 | You'll notice that the chemist, who appears in two scenes and gets to speak, is played by Stephen King. "Don't give up your day job" is the standard thing to say, but that's not fair. King acquits himself reasonably well: he's no worse than any other member of the cast, and better than most. The story, on the other hand, is pure rubbish. Please, give up your day job.Never have I seen so many dreadful performances - of which the lead actor's (the LEAD ACTOR'S!) is probably the worst - gathered together in the one film. Everyone acts hammily, but not in any entertaining way; they all somehow manage to go over-the-top without expending, or manifesting, energy. I blame screenwriter/director Tom Holland. It can't be that ALL the actors are REALLY this bad. What are the odds against that? Admittedly, I've never heard of any of them before, but still, I don't think I could walk into a talent agency and walk out with this many bad performers if I tried: ONE actor, despite my best efforts, would turn out to have talent. So what's more likely - that Tom Holland rolled a dozen consecutive snake-eyes, or that he wrote a lousy script and then directed it poorly? That would also explain why actors are bad in direct proportion to their prominence in the script. The more direction an actor got, the worse he performed. ("You want me to bend over like a hunchback, talk from the back of my throat, show all my teeth, and look bored, all at the same time? Okay...")This theory is confirmed by the fact that Holland undeniably managed to co-write a lousy script. Several writers here have commented on the fact that Billy Halleck is not a likeable character, but that's a misleading way of putting it. He's not a knowable character. All we find out about him before the supernatural stuff starts happening is that he's fat, and that all he can think about is food. ("All I can think about is food," he tells us, helpfully.) And in the end...(Sigh) I suppose I ought insert a spoiler warning here...In the end he becomes evil. Why? I can only shrug. Perhaps he's under some kind of enchantment. Yeah, that's probably it. By "evil" perhaps I mean "inexplicable" - it's not so much badness as a socially undesirable suspension of ordinary means-end psychology. Anyway, his actions at the end make no sense, nobody's actions make much sense, and this is despite the fact that the characters do little but explain their motivation for the benefit of the audience.By the way, here's my nominee for hammiest line/delivery: "I don't think you'd like it. IN FACT..." [big dramatic pause] "...I don't think you'd like it at all." | 0 |
train_14057 | The movie is basically a boring string of appalling clichés which do not offer a real cross-cultural insight. The Middle Eastern leg of the journey is described in a particularly irritating way: there obviously are mud brick villages, dirt tracks in the middle of the desert, women clad in black robes and belly dancers. I wonder how camels and date palm trees were missing from the whole picture. The personality of the two main characters is very clumsily sketched and many situations are hardly credible. The original idea might have been interesting, but at the end of the day if you are looking for cultural insight, you should skip this movie. | 0 |
train_19213 | But this movie was a bore. The history part was fine but the musical part was not. Not one song I cared about and no soundtrack to be heard.If Sweet Jesus" was suppose to be comic relief it never work. If John Adams was suppose to be the obnoxious annoying one, the rest of them were trying to overthrow him in every scene.Hancock and Jefferson were the only bearable characters in the whole movie.The historical quotes and the debate about slavery in their historical context were interesting enough but not enough to overcome the lack of music in a musical.Shouldn't you be humming the songs after a musical, except for a few chirps, nothing else was worth the breath. | 0 |
train_19790 | What a long, drawn-out, pointless movie. I'm sure that historically this film is delightful but as entertainment goes it just doesn't make the grade. Ralph Fiennes has been in some fantastic movies, the English Patient, Schindler's List, but this one was such a let-down. It didn't seem to be going anywhere, his character at the beginning was so shallow and uptight it amazes me that his "sister" would ever have been interested at all. Don't bother paying to rent this movie, buy yourself a copy of the English Patient instead. | 0 |
train_7939 | How nice to have a movie the entire family can watch together. Josie Bissett and Rob Estes (who are married in real life) play a couple who marry in Las Vegas on a whim and then not only have to break the news to their kids but then have to try to meld their respective households (each has two boys and two girls)into a cohesive family unit. What transpires when the group, which includes four teenagers, two preteens and two younger children, makes one wonder at first if there can ever be true happiness for Carrie and Jim. The fights between the kids (and one little love affair between two of them) make one wonder if everyone will ever be able to get along. More interesting than the Brady Bunch, what this is a totally enjoyable way to spend a couple hours. Recommended as a feel good movie for all ages. | 1 |
train_3737 | First off, this movie was a wild ride the whole way. The story of the training of the soldiers, fighting with their superiors, and in the end grouping together.From the very beginning to the very end. This is one War Drama worth seeing if you are in for the constant cussing (at times beyond reason) and the horrors of what boot camp are.The dynamics of how the actors interacted was quite amazing at times, and sometimes humorous. How Bozz (Colin Farrel) deals with Paxton (Matthew Davis) throughout the storyline, from camp to Tigerland, and even in the end helping him.The innovative free-hand filming did add a certain taste or flavor to the film. Constant moving, constant action, and just constant confusion. At times, it was a help. Others, not so much.Throughout the film, it was increasingly realistic. Some points in the film (the sex scenes in particular) seemed to be just a tad too realistic even though they added an effect to the movie that wouldn't have been there without them. it was a very gritty movie, through and through.In my opinion, this is one of Colin Farrel's better movies (if not his top performance). The acting for every character was superb. 9/10 -sysnuk3r | 1 |
train_1961 | Just came back from the first showing of Basic Instinct 2. I was going into it thinking it would be crappy based on preview critics and I was pleasantly surprised! If you liked the original Basic Instinct I think you will enjoy #2 just as much if not more. Great story that always keeps you wondering and thinking. The music is superb, reprising the original's theme. Don't go expecting Academy Award material, go to see it for enjoyment and fun. That's what movies are designed for -- escapism. I can't think of a better way to escape than to escape with Sharon Stone who is as sexy as she ever was. Am thinking about going to see it again this weekend. Go see it! | 1 |
train_16202 | irritating, illogical flow of events. pretty much every joke is so simple that it can hardly be regarded as one. no wonder the cinema was empty and people actually walked away, yes away. I stayed, since I was enjoying a wonderful ice-cream with nuts during the whole movie. | 0 |
train_21897 | I saw most of the episodes of RMFTM as a teenager on "Cliffhanger Theater" running after midnight on a local station some years ago, and then again when Mystery Science Theatre riffed on it in the early 90's. Time has not been kind to it. I can certainly make allowances for the special effects, which were quite impressive for a low budget 50's serial (IMO Commando Cody's flying scenes were better than George Reeves/Superman's in his TV show). And I can also make allowances for the ahem, "acting", and fight choreography -. except for the guy who plays the ruler of the Moon Men. He is incredibly miscast. He looks and acts like the fellow who comes to fix your plumbing, not the despotic ruler of an alien race. Even the corny dialog works all right - everyone rattles off their lines like strings of firecrackers, with no wasted time or pauses for things like "thought" or "introspection". Since everyone does this, the viewer finds it immersive after awhile, and even to my modern sensibilities, it doesn't bother much. What really irritates me is the writing and the plotting. I'm not talking about the sunny weather on the moon, or baking soda powered rocket ships, or a flying suit that has controls labeled "up/down" and "fast/slow". I'm not even bothered by the cheesiness of the resolutions to the cliffhangers that end each chapter. I'm talking about the fact that our supposed heroes are dumber than fence posts and have no cumulative memory. And by the fact that although that the dialog clips along like an express train, the plot goes through the same motions again and again. Dig it: Commando Cody and his pal are the spearhead of a top secret hi tech science lab charged with protecting Earth (or at least the USA) against an insidious alien invasion. But his office has no guards or security checkpoints. They don't even have locks on the front doors. So the bad guys walk RIGHT IN and beat the crap out of the Cody and his staff ...not once (perhaps understandable) but SEVERAL times. They even kidnap his female assistant on the second try. And they never get any smarter. To further prove my point, allow me to point out the way that Cody jumps in his flying suit and flies around getting into trouble and never actually seems to succeed in catching anyone. He does this over and over and over. Cody also flies his ship to the Moon (the woman assistant comes along to cook), stays for about 30 seconds and immediately turns around and comes back. Cody captures one of the Atomic Ray guns...and immediately loses it again to the bad guys because he couldn't be bothered to lock it up. And so on.And you would think that if Cody's efforts were so vital to saving the USA from the Moon Men, that he might ask for a few soldiers with carbines, a few helicopters and a tank or two to back him up, instead of just working with the local police all the time. This was supposed to be a military operation, but they act like it's another episode of "Gangbusters". It's all rather hard to stomach. I appreciate that the creators were severely limited in the scope of their story by budget and time constraints...and I appreciate that Cody is actually a reasonably tough hombre (even though he loses half of his fistfights). But I just can't help yelling "DOOR! LOCK THE DOOOOR!!" when the gangsters simply walk into his lab, or try to blow up the ship and there are NO security measures at the landing site in place...not even a fence (!). Still, it's OK. Of the three Republic serials I've watched, "Phantom Creeps" had a better plot, and "Undersea Kingdom" had more atmosphere (hah!) and a better hero than "Radar Men", but it's an OK time-waster. BTW...why "Radar" men? They didn't use radar, they used Atomic Ray Guns. Shouldn't the title have been "Atomic Ray Gun Men From The Moon?" | 0 |
train_2835 | Thanks should be given to the Hong Kong VCD/DVD distributors that I only paid US$1.4 and I could have such a surprisingly delightful enjoyment.Adultery? How common in our modern days. Eva grabbed her two children and kidnapped Nick to chase after Luis and Charlotte to Italy. She wants her revenge done but at the end, she also commits the same crime of Luis: she had sex with Nick.In this small indie production, Vivian Naefe dealt with the teething problems in modern marriage with a light heart. How can one dare treat marriage seriously in this fast-food time where people are now of higher mobility in physical, mental and technology areas? Conjugal commitment asks for too high a price that most people would choose to succumb to circumstances. Nick once trusted Charlotte but he fell for Eva after that kidnap journey which forced him to experience much growth.Most viewers may feel happy about the ending because Eva and Nick come together, well, this should be the greatest retribution to the unfaithful act of their spouses. However, I want a sequel, I want to see how the four would develop after this exchange. Perhaps they may exchange back, how can one be so sure about the shaky love relationship.Good acting and good scenery. The two little child-actors should not be neglected especially the boy when he cries at the reception of the hotel in Venezia. And of course, how can we forget the "bella, bella" scenery of the city. | 1 |
train_6880 | You know what they say about the 70's..if you can remember them you weren't there. One of the few things I do remember about the 70's was the very first hippie and hip social satire as seen from a totally 'underground'or counter-culture perspective..The Groove Tube. If the humor seems faded or witless now to some viewers it can only be because a lot has happened in the last 30 years and the comedy isn't 'fresh' anymore..but hey! When this movie came out it was a first..and some of these skits were being done for the very first time...at a time when Nixon was in office, the Vietnam war was raging, the sexual revolution was in full swing..and J.Edgar Hoover was still in charge of the FBI. This is a film made before Watergate broke and as such it was one of the first to take a big swipe at the establishment..to make fun of it and the hippies at the same time. And frankly, some skits are still dead funny. If you liked Cheech and Chong's "Up In Smoke"..you will LOVE this film.If you want to know what the 70's were really like..check out the Groove Tube.. if you liked the Oscar winning "Network" from about the same year and thought it was right on the mark in its savage look at TV, you will dig the Groove Tube..which picks up on the theme but plays from the angle of the viewers...the young viewers who were turning off the TV in favor of other entertainments.... We had been raised on Ozzie & Harriet "Leave It to Beaver", Father Knows Best, My Three Sons..Happy Days...so imagine our glee when those of us who were experimenting with the new life-styles got to see a send up of the box as seen from our perspective! The commercials by the Uranus corporation alone are priceless.."Good things come from Uranus"....and the sudden break from straight film into Fritz the Cat-style animation when the hippies eat the weed is still one of the best segues in and out of sanity i have ever seen on film.If you liked the Kentucky Fried Movie, you will LOVE this film. And if you ever wondered why your weird uncle Harold still gets a wicked gleam in his eye when thinking back to his college days..this would be the perfect film to watch.Take it for what it is..a memento of the times...and a sassy little film that will help all of us who did forget the 70's to remember them anew. | 1 |
train_3499 | Raising Victor Vargas is a movie you definitely need to see. It was very heart felt and had a lot of humor that gets you sucked right in. It is so much like real life with what teenagers have to go through. Victor, a cocky teen, but with a good heart at the end deals with love in all the right places dealing with girls and family. At the end Victor learns the true meaning of love after dealing with a old fashioned grandmother and a girl who he wants to use is actually using him too.I recommend people to watch this movie because it will be like you are watching a real family. Thats how much feeling this movie has. One heart felt moment was when Victor's grandmother throws victor out over something simple. Victor was really heart and couldn't believe that she would do something like that. It made me feel real sorry for him like it was real. Overall I give this movie a B+ | 1 |
train_15624 | "House Of Evil" aka "Dance Of Death" of 1968 is the first of four infamous and odd last movies starring the great Boris Karloff and directed by Jack Hill and Juan Ibánez. Unlike "Snake People" (1971), "The Incredible Invasion" (also 1971) and "The Fear Chamber" (1972) which were all released after Karloff's death in 1969, "House Of Evil" was released in 1968, when Karloff was still alive. "House Of Evil" is regarded by many as the worst of these four movies, which are without doubt all rather crappy, but definitely have their entertainment value as the unintentional comedies they are. I personally prefer "The Fear Chamber" and "House Of Evil" over the other two, simply for the reason that the lack of the slightest logic is even more extreme, and since there is no suspense whatsoever in any of the movies, the lack of logic increases the unintentional fun factor.The odd story (I don't know if I can really call it a 'plot') is set somewhere in Europe in the 19th century. After some girls are murdered and found with their eyes ripped out, Mathias Morteval (Karloff), an enthusiastic organ player, invites his few remaining relatives to his bizarre mansion, which is full of eerie toys. His kinfolk includes Lucy Durant (Julissa), who is engaged to one of the police inspectors investigating the murders.I won't give away more of the story, but I can assure you that it is quite bizarre throughout the movie. There are some very funny moments, especially some things Karloff's character says. Boris Karloff was without any doubt one of the most brilliant and important icons of the Horror genre who ever lived, and he manages to award this odd movie with a tiny bit of his greatness, and although (or because) his role is (due to a poor script and and directing) in no way scary, it looks like he deliberately plays it with a sense of humor. Just like in the movie's successors "Snake People" and "The Fear Chamber", the female lead is once again played by Julissa. Most of he supporting performances are hilariously amateurish, the cinematography is terrible and the locations and sceneries are beneath contempt. The storyline lacks the least bit of logic and the dialogue often does not make the slightest sense. It is the poor story and dialogue, however, that makes this movie so entertaining to watch. "House Of Evil" may be an extremely crappy attempt of a movie, but it is certainly as (unintentionally) funny as it is bad. Fans of Ed Wood's movies should be very amused, I personally found it hilarious. Crappy but entertaining nevertheless, and definitely worth watching since there's Boris Karloff in it and due to the fun factor. 3/10 | 0 |
train_1655 | Mendez and Marichal have provided us with a serious, cogent and painful analysis of the social, spiritual, economic and political crisis that 108 years of colonialism have spawned in Puerto Rico. A beautiful island with the most hospitable people I have met and yet because our nation refuses to faces its imperial responsibilities, Puerto Ricans are allowed to wither and die.The spiritual crisis that the colonial situation of Puerto Rico has created, if undermining families, and the basic institutions that sustain any society. Corruption is rampant to the extent that people are not paying taxes (which has led a fiscal crisis for this nation) and a sense of cynicism and distrust permeate the island's culture.Fortunately, a grant allowed this painful yet powerful film to be produced.A must see . . . | 1 |
train_15609 | This movie wasn't awful but it wasn't very good. I am a big fan Toni Collette I think she is a very beautiful and talented actress. The movie starts off about Robin Williams who is a writer and gets a book from a 14 year old kid. The book is great and he cant't believe a kid wrote it. Toni Collette plays the kids guardian who you don't know if this kid really exists or if she's making it all up. I am not gonna ruin the movie but I will say this the movie is not scary.The acting is pretty good and Toni Collette's performance was awesome as well as Robin Williams. The movie was a huge disappointment in my opinion I would wait for it to come to DVD. | 0 |
train_16966 | Spanish horrors are not bad at all, some are smart with interesting stories, but is not the case of "Second Name". It is badly directed, badly acted and boring...boring...boring, a missed chance for an interesting story. | 0 |
train_22623 | I imagine when Hitchcock scholars and experts find themselves together, the talk is not of the Master's great films like "North By Northwest" or "Strangers On A Train", but a lesser-known effort like this one from 1931, obscure and seriously flawed, which showcases the great director in fledgling form.Emily and Fred Hill (Joan Barry and Harry Kendall) are a middle-class London couple scrimping to stay ahead. He begrudges their lot; she accepts it. Change comes in the form of a letter from an uncle, saying he will set them up so they can enjoy a life of globetrotting luxury. They make plans for a world cruise. But their problems have only begun.Just ask Richard Hannay, Roger O. Thornhill, or Marion Crane. Well, Marion's indisposed at the moment, but you get the idea. Travel and Hitchcock go together like moths and candlelight, setting one up for a perilous journey at best. This is perhaps Hitchcock's earliest foray into this theme, and not his most successful or memorable. Hitchcock tries to mix comedy with another element, in this case domestic drama rather than suspense, but the two do not cohere, at least not here.The Hills are a dull, flat couple, with no chemistry or personality. When they find themselves at the Folies Bergère, in the form of cross-cutting with footage that looks ten years older than the rest of this film, they are abashed at the outfits of the female performers. "The curtain's gone up too soon!" gasps Emily. "They aren't dressed."When the Hills drift away from each other on an ocean cruise, it seems a mercy killing more than a tragic thing, even if the people they partner off with are drips, too. Emily's man, Gordon (Percy Marmont) carries around photographs of himself sitting next to empty chairs, which he suggests be filled by Emily. Fred's girl "the Princess" (Betty Amann) has Clara Bow's eyes and Wallace Beery's five o'clock shadow. There's also an obnoxious fellow passenger, a dowdy spinster whom Hitchcock always introduces with a cartoonish horn cue. Subtlety was still to come.Everything is shot in an abrupt manner, with confusing blocking and strained dialogue. Hitchcock tries for some early comedy with Fred and his umbrella that doesn't come off, and Kendall seems to aim for laughs while Berry plays for tears. When Fred and Emily break off, they are seen being jostled on a pair of wedged-together rickshaws, one of many clunky attempts at symbolism.Emily's the only vaguely sympathetic character, in part because she really cares about her husband and agonizes over her affair with Gordon, but mostly because she's among the first of Hitchcock's many magnetic blondes, her platinum ringlets whipping around her face like a Botticelli aboard the open deck of a Chinese junk near the film's conclusion.Matters conclude with a dangerous situation as set-piece for the protagonists to come to grips with, and presumably repair their relationship. Only they aren't active participants in the resolution, and except for the fate of a friendly cat, nothing about the ending resonates.At least you get some enjoyable views of London in the early 1930s, and a chance to see Hitchcock when he was still working for food. "Rich And Strange" is Hitchcock paying his dues, and learning his trade, one for scholars but not casual film goers. | 0 |
train_16596 | This was a classic case of something that should never have been. Gloria was now a single mother, her husband had left her because she wouldn't live in some commune with him (he was mad that Reagan had been elected and wanted to turn his back on society). Right then and there I had problems with the series - come on, I say to myself, is this the same noble Michael Stivic that countered Archie Bunker's right winged philosophies? The series went on, but it just didn't have any pizazz. Whatever momentum Sally Struthers gained from All the Family was long gone. Maybe, if the series had been given another name and presented as being totally independent of All In The Family, it might have worked out. Ah well, that's show business. | 0 |
train_2117 | Every time I watch this movie I am more impressed by the whole production. I have come to the conclusion that it is the best romantic comedy ever made. Everyone involved is perfect; script, acting, direction, sets and editing. Whilst James Stewart can always be relied upon for a good performance, and the supporting cast are magnificent, it is Margaret Sullavan who reveals what an underrated actress she was. Her tragic personal life give poignancy to her qualities as a performer where comedy acting skills are not easy to achieve. Lubitsch managed to get the best and he obviously gave his best. Watch for the number of scenes which were done on one take - breathtaking. | 1 |
train_9724 | I love Kristen Dunst, especially in Elizabethtown. I guess she's the kind of actress who had better not act before camera, but just be herself. She did that, and she looked so natural in Elizabethtown. In this movie, however, she did try to add in more artificial performance, especially in the first half of the film, so that she looked more like a sober editor. While in the other half, she totally set herself back in her daily track, and I just couldn't tell her to be an editor any way. Therefore, her performance is not enduring in this film. The film,on the whole, is attracting and inspiring. the character of Young is full and reasonable. Anyway, the film tells a big and sophisticated story. The only big defect is that it didn't show a turning point of the hero and heroine's love story. I am totally confused when they kiss at the end of the story, because that is rather unclear for the two persons. | 1 |
train_22739 | Jude Law gives his all in this beautifully filmed vampire flick which offers little else of value. Completely lacking in eroticism, excitement, or leading ladies with appeal. One decent fight, a few moments of mild suspense. And a one-note plot.The movie waxes philisophic in a series of conversations between Law's character and a dogged homicide detective, well played by Timothy Spall. But despite their best efforts, both actors are staked to the cross of the film's banality.With a lesser actor in the lead role -- and without the benefit of Oliver Curtis's cinematography -- Crocodiles would blend into the sea of low-budget vampire quickies. | 0 |
train_21124 | The acting wasn't great, the story was full of simplistic turns and transparent characters. It's about the repercussions of the struggle between right-wing Flemish block voters on the one side and the Moroccon people living in the Belgian city Antwerp on the other side. Is it a political analysis ? Is it some kind of Belgian West Side Story or modern Romeo and Juliet ? The film just isn't strong enough to answer both questions (supposing those were the director's questions, too). Still, some of the scenes could function as a kind of Ken Loach film, set in Antwerp. After all, this city has been the starting point of the extremist right-wing Flemish Block party and is struggling with a lot of problems and tensions between different populations and cultures. It's very difficult to make a film about this situation, and this one isn't successful, unfortunately. Still, it's telling a story about a very real and complicated situation in present-day Belgium. The few foreign viewers watching should try and enjoy it and realise it's not the actual film that is important but the social dividing lines behind it that haunt Belgium, a 10 million people country, in the 2000sDries Van Dongen | 0 |
train_18718 | My thoughts on the movie, 9It was not good, not good at all. Visually, it was great. I was pleased with the pacing, the camera angles, etc. However, the characters? eh, kinda bland. Plot? It sucked.This movie seemed more new age crap than anything else. Organized religion is presented as cowardly and fearful. Science isn't portrayed any better. It creates a monster weapon that kills everything... but "souls" have the power to destroy monsters and bring life? Really?That's something that bites my ass a bit too. Here we have a CGI movie... created with science... and they're using it to give us the message that science will destroy the world while promoting the idea that spirituality will save us? At least they had the decency to have one of the characters ask,"Okay, so now what?" (or something similar). I couldn't hear it too well because of the crowd immediately getting up and making a break for the exit. It was a "okay... it was just barely entertaining enough to sit here for the entire movie but now let's get out of here as fast as possible!" type of exit.This is one of those movies where you can't think if you want to enjoy it. Just look at the visuals and nod your head prettily. Any thought as to, "what's the point of that?" will suck you out of disbelief and make you eye the exit sign with longing.Okay... SPOILERS follow.So, basically, a scientist creates "the Machine" that is capable of creating other, intelligent, robotic life. Evil humans use it as a weapon. However, the scientist realizes that he is also at fault. He gave the Machine his intellect, but didn't give it his heart. The Machine goes Skynet on humanity's collective ass and wipes out all life on earth, finally slowly powering down. However, the scientist manages to survive and create walking sock-puppets. Each one, containing a piece of the scientist's soul.The last one, #9 wakes up not knowing anything about the world. He sees a strange device nearby and picks it up. He meets up with another like himself, #2. Well, #2 gets captured by a last surviving robot of the Machine. #9 finds more like himself ands sets off to rescue #2. They succeed.#9 notices that there is a matching hole that fits the device perfectly. He inserts it and the Machine comes back to life... pulling out #2's soul in the process.The movie then continues with action scenes with #9 trying to rescue his soul-yanked compatriots. They eventually succeed and destroy the Machine. They release the souls of their fallen friends, who go up into the clouds. It then rains and we see life returning back to the planet.Hunh?!?That makes no sense. None at all. Why the heck did the scientist want to split his soul into 9 homunculi? What did it accomplish? Were they created to stop the machine? Everything is dead! The machine was dead! Why bother?!?Why did he expect nine little critters to succeed when nothing else had? Why not create a second intellectual machine, but with a "soul" to fight the first.. at least that would have seemed like it would have had a reasonable chance at success.Why did they have to have their souls sucked into the device by the Machine and then destroy the Machine and then release the souls in order to bring life back to earth? Why not just wait for the machine to power down and bring life back without all the rest of the insane steps? | 0 |
train_23916 | The fact that this movie has been entitled to the most successful movie in Switzerland's film history makes me shake my head! It's true, but pitiful at the same time. A flick about the Swiss army could be a good deal better.The story sounds interesting, at the beginning: Antonio Carrera (Michael Koch) gets forced to absolve his military training by the army while he is in the church, wedding his love Laura Moretti (Mia Aegerter).The Acting in some way doesn't really differ from just a few recruits getting drunk and stoned in the reality. Melanie Winiger plays her role as the strong Michelle Bluntschi mediocre, personally i found her rather annoying. The storyline contains a comedy combined with a romance, which does not work as expected. The romance-part is too trashy, and the comedy-part is not funny at all, it's just a cheap try and does not change throughout the whole movie whatsoever. It's funny for preadolescent 12-13 year olds, but not for such as those who search an entertaining comedy. The humor is weak except for some shots.Dope? Cool! Stealing? Cool! If you want a proper comedy about the Swiss RS, make sure you did not absolve your military training yet, and even then don't expect too much!I'll give it 4 out of 10 stars, because Marco Rima is quite funny during his screen time. Not a hell of a lot screen time though | 0 |
train_15369 | Story goes like this, Netflix was late sending me my dvds so I went on down to the the analog rental place known as "Blockbuster Video" They suck you know. Real bad, They have 150 copies of the latest lame movies for your viewing pleasure yet I never want to see any of those. So I saw BTK Killer there on the shelf, all by its lonesome self. I like seeing films based on serial killers. Its just a part of humanity that I will never understand, therefore I wanna see that kind of stuff. Anyways I put this DVD in and all the sudden from the very first second, it sucks. I'm sitting there with my b.f. and we are like, "what is this kind of crap?" Unsteady camera operation, horrible acting,- the first scene in which a woman gets killed you wonder if she would rather just calmly gab instead, Then a rat gets stuffed down her throat. I really wonder if the director has a hard-on for this crap. There is nothing decent about this "film". All I have to say to the director is "do you own a freakin' tripod?" Every shot was brutally unstable. The music was awful. It was like they just decided one day to make a movie. They were probably gathering people from WalMart to show up and "act" for them. Just plain awful. If you make a movie like this then directing is your hobby-NOT what you should be doing for a living- SHould not make it to the DVD renal outlets for movie buffs like myself. Better left at home for your friends when you are having a party and run out of interesting things to entertain them with.... Then you break out your BTK KIller film and say, "Wanna see this crappy movie I did once?" | 0 |
train_12454 | magellan33 said: "You can only do so much when the two stars of the show can only be seen by one fellow cast member."I assume, then, that you never heard of "Topper".Which, in addition to the two stars who could only be seen by one member of the cast, had a dog, ditto.This was the kind of program that had "Not Gonna Make It" written allover it from the first episode - it was like an arcade video game where you actually have to read the instructions to play; no-one (well, very few of us, apparently) wants to watch a comedy program that has a basic premise that actually requires *thought* to grasp. | 1 |
train_24083 | This movie introduces quite an array of characters and their relationships in the first half-hour or so. None of them generate any interest or positive response. I waited for the intrigue to begin, hoping things would get better and ended up sticking around until the bitter end, but there was no reward for doing that.If you want a synopsis, look elsewhere. To me the action isn't worth recounting. Not that the story was that bad, I guess you could say I had some problems with the script--i.e. I thought it stunk. A look at the credits will show you that there's a pretty strong cast here, used to no avail. Most of the old pros in this flick do good jobs; of the actors I hadn't seen much of before I especially liked Deborah Kara Unger. That's about all that I can find good to say about this picture. | 0 |
train_4913 | The title overstates the content of this movie somewhat, which might lead to some unrealized expectations. Frankly speaking, there's very little "panic in the streets" to be seen here. In fact, throughout the movie very few people actually know that there's a murderer on the loose who may well be spreading the plague to everyone and anyone he encounters. Having said that, what we do have here is a very well done story with a level of suspense that starts out reasonably high anyway (because, unlike the people "in the streets", the viewer knows what's going on) and that director Elia Kazan builds very deliberately. As the plague-infected killer is sought, one of the more interesting sidebars I found was the developing relationship between Dr. Reed (Richard Widmark) and Police Captain Warren (Paul Douglas). At the beginning, the two really don't like each other, even though they have to work together. By the end, they've forged a real bond of respect for each other. Kazan did a good job with that.Pretty much all the performances here were excellent. Widmark and Douglas were great, and I was quite taken with a very early look at Jack Palance playing what would become his typical "heavy" role. I found very little to criticize here. Perhaps Barbara Bel Geddes came across as a little bit flat as Reed's wife Nancy, but her role wasn't really central to the story. All in all, an excellent piece of work. 9/10 | 1 |
train_16093 | This is a German film from 1974 that is something to do with some women who come to a castle and beyond that, I can't really tell you their purpose or even what the purpose of the movie is. I can tell you that there's several women who also moonlight as servants at this particular castle who strip, put on body paint and gyrate to bongos like they were at the Goth Kit-Kat Klub, though, and that seems to be a good portion of the run time of this film. Yeah, there seems to be something with devil worship and vampires, and there's some girl on girl stuff, etc., but the main focus seems to be the painted babes gyrating away in the basement. I did rather like the eye-rolling of one of the main housekeepers/devil worshipers, that lent an authenticity to the proceedings and made her even more evil-looking. Was that Wanda the Evil Lesbian (as billed in the credits)? No matter. If you aren't too picky about your lesbian devil worshiping movies, you might like this, otherwise it's pretty dull stuff and I couldn't even finish it, I was so bored. 3 out of 10. | 0 |
train_16641 | Well...the movie was a fun watch. The main problem with this movie is the fact that it goes against everything that most vampire myths abide by. Like vampires that walk in the sunlight. Though there are parts that just make you enjoy the way society makes movies. A scene where a vampire gets stabbed and screams "Ow this hurts...It's really stuck." Then there seems like there might be scenes missing but you get used to after a while. And there are random dream sequenes' that really don't help with the plot. Come to think of it, nothing really made sense, but i just got a bunch of friends and watched it twice to get the full effect. Come to think of it the fight scenes were aweful, and the zombies were just fun to watch. Slowly as i write more of this I like this movie more. But you know, all in all you can't expect Schindlers List but its a fun watch. | 0 |
train_12828 | I am a HUGE Adam Sandler fan, and one day I was looking at the Cast&Crew selection on one of his DVD's and saw 'Going Overboard' and decided to go out and rent it. So I went out with a few buddies of mine and rented it. We put it on and we were shocked to see an Adam Sandler that didn't hit puberty yet, he looks as if he was 12 when this movie came out. I couldn't even watch 30 minutes of this crap, I didn't laugh, chuckle, or even smirk at this movie, actually the only time I smirked was when I saw how horrid this movie was. I could not believe how hard he tried to make the viewers laugh in this movie...and it didn't work once. Although from seeing the horribly awful camera angles and hearing the disgusting script I realized why I had never heard of this movie,...because it sucks more than anything has ever sucked before. This movie, in my opinion, was the WORST movie EVER made,....EVER! | 0 |
train_9139 | The movie is okay, it has it's moments, the music scenes are the best of all! The soundtrack is a true classic. It's a perfect album, it starts out with Let's Go Crazy(appropriate for the beginning as it's a great party song and very up-tempo), Take Me With U(a fun pop song...), The Beautiful Ones(a cheerful ballad, probably the closest thing to R&B on this whole album), Computer Blue(a somewhat angry anthem towards Appolonia), Darling Nikki(one of the funniest songs ever, it very vaguely makes fun of Appolonia), When Doves Cry(the climax to this masterpiece), I Would Die 4 U, Baby I'm A Star, and, of course, Purple Rain(a true classic, a very appropriate ending for this classic album) The movie and the album are both very good. I highly recommend them! | 1 |
train_6878 | Tho 35 years old, Groove Tube looks a lot like actual TV today! Specialty niche networks (nude sports), a TV show about stoner drug dealers called the Dealers (ala Weeds, and even predating 1978's Cheech & Chong Up In Smoke), weird beer commercials (Butz Beer, no less bizarre than Bud Bowls), dirty-minded kid's clown Koko (shades of Pee Wee Herman), even Chevy Chase doing slapstick humor (a violent barbershop vocal duo) a year before his 1975 debut on Saturday Night Live. And thanks to the infamous opening sequence that earned Groove Tube an initial X-rating, I still can't hear Curtis Mayfield's "Move On Up" without thinking of naked dancing hitchhiking hippies ---- For similar sketch-style movies, see TunnelVision, Kentucky Fried Movie, Amazon Women on the Mood, Monty Python's Beyond the Fringe, Dynamite Chicken, and the Firesign Theatre's Everything You Know is Wrong. | 1 |
train_15765 | I have no idea as to which audience director George Schlatter hoped to sell this comedy-of-ills. With Redd Foxx in the central role and enough pimpy outfits and polyester to carpet the entire 1970s, "Norman" plays like a blaxploitation picture combined with any number of silly sitcom episodes involving comic misunderstandings, not to mention an elongated cameo by Waylon Flowers! Based on a play by Sam Bobrick and Ron Clark, this tale of an estranged married couple (Foxx and Pearl Bailey) learning the hard way that their son is secretly gay--and living with a mincing, prancing white homosexual--has enough limp-wristed jokes to shame any early episode of "Three's Company". Bailey keeps her dignity, and Foxx's sheer confusion is good for a couple of chuckles, but the rest of the performers are humiliated. * from **** | 0 |
train_18256 | This should be a great film... Meryl Streep and Jack Nicholson co-starring as two newspaper writers. Mike Nichols directing. Uh uh. It's dull dull dull! Pointless and predictable! Slow and unfocused!It's a cookie cutter 'boy meets girl, boy marries girl, boy has affair, girl leaves boy' story. Now theres an original concept! After squirming through two hours (was it only two? It felt like six.)I wasn't sure whether it was a comedy, a romance, a tragedy or a soap opera. It was done in 1986. I'm sure all of us did things sixteen years ago that we rather would forget. I hope the damage to the reputations of Streep et al is beginning to heal and that the emulsion on the master is beginning to fade. It's not that it's such a bad picture. It's just that it's such an un-good one. | 0 |
train_16358 | What a terrible, TERRIBLE, film! One of the worst movies I have seen in my life. I usually love movies like this, the whole "A guy meets an eccentric woman who he likes, but he happens to already be involved with someone, who not right for him....". I expected something predictable and I didn't mind. The movies are always entertaining mixing the right amount of romance with comedy, but not this one! Every single joke falls flat and the "romance" makes me want to vomit. The title character is one of the most "please kill me" characters that I have ever witnessed on my television, the "eccentric woman" isn't very eccentric, more like quirky and annoying. The "other someone" is the most reasonable, mature person in this film but also happens to be just as annoying. This films flat out sucks, there's no way around it, don't waste your time. | 0 |
train_9280 | In Iran, women are officially banned from men's sporting events. In June 2005, the Iran's national soccer team has an important game against Bahrain in the Azadi Stadium for the qualification of the World Cup. A group of Iranian girls and lovers of soccer dresses like boys and unsuccessfully attempts to enter in the stadium being arrested.Soccer (and Flamengo's team), beach and movies are my greatest passions; therefore I loved this little gem about a group of girls and their passion for soccer. The director Jafar Panahi, from "The White Balloon", "The Mirror" and "The Circle", shot this movie on the day that Iran defeated Bahrain and qualified to the World Cup in Germany. The dramatic and funny adventure of these Iranian girls is one of the most delightful movies I have ever seen. My vote is nine.Title (Brazil): Not Available | 1 |
train_9797 | Batman: Mystery of the Batwoman is the latest animated Batman straight to video/DVD movie to be released. (Minor Spoilers Ahead) The plot revolves around a new crimefighter, the Batwoman, who seems to be personally involved, for whatever reason, in stopping a major arms shipment.Although the movie is interesting enough, it's not as good as 'Mask of the Phantasm,' 'Sub-Zero,' or 'Return of the Joker.' The main reason being is that it doesn't give off the emotional appeal the other movies did. At the end of this movie, we don't really feel sorry for anyone as we did in the others, especially, 'Sub-Zero.' There is no real tragedy that made the other animated movies special for us. Even the Batwoman is not really a 'tragic' character (as Mr. Freeze or Phantasm were). Not only that, but Batwoman's alter ego seems so incredibly 'stiff' and dull that the viewer doesn't really care what happened to her that caused her to put on the mask or what happens to her at the end and therein lies the main reason we don't get this special emotional appeal.Don't get me wrong, I did find the movie enjoyable. It does have its moments, such as, when the audience finds out who Batwoman really is and seeing an old villain return who was last seen in the original 'Batman: The Animated Series.' The action is also very enjoyable with some very suspenseful moments.If the Batwoman's background was more interesting, this movie would have been better than 'Return of the Joker' in my book, but as it is now, it's in 4th (out of 4).As for the animation, it's the same as The New Batman Adventures' cartoon from the mid to late 1990's. The score is not as memorable as the previous 3 animated Batman films, but it's still good nonetheless.I do recommend buying this DVD because, despite its flaws, it is enjoyable. But just remember, it's not as good as the other Batman animated movies.7/10 | 1 |
train_22403 | This true story of Carlson's Raiders is more of a Army training film than anything else.Obviously thrown together quickly on a miniscule budget about the only thing it has to recommend it is an early performance by Robert Mitchum,who's the only decent actor in the cast,and actual footage of the wreckage at Pearl Harbor which gets your blood boiling,as it was obviously intended to do. | 0 |
train_12030 | hi, im scott (A.K.A woody7739) i Love the film Twisted Desire, And i love watching Melissa Joan Hart on the t.v as i think she is fine. I am a real fan of sabrina the teenage witch too, so this helped my watch it (don't ask). i love the way that nicole plans out her parents murder very carfully, as she makes sure that someone else pulls the trigger and practices on the bottles, so she wont give away her fingerprints (a very well planned out idea), back i guess it all backfired on nicole as she got caught as her old boyfriend comes along and puts a hidden camera under his shirt. i give this film a nine out of ten, and put it in MY top 10 films list. And last but not least if anyone see's this film in the shops please tell me as i seen it on tv and didn't record it. bye | 1 |
train_17426 | I saw this movie for 2 reasons--I like Gerard Butler and Christopher Plummer. Unfortunately, these poor men were forced to carry a pretty dumb movie. I liked the idea that Dracula is actually a reincarnation of Judas Iscariot, because it does explain his disdain for all things Christian, but there was so much camp that this idea was not realized as much as it could have been. I see this movie more as a way for the talented Gerard Butler to pay his dues before being truly recognized and a way for the legendary Christopher Plummer to remind the public (me and the 5 other people who saw this film) that he still exists. I actually enjoyed the special features on the DVD more than the movie itself. | 0 |
train_9459 | I watch romantic comedies with some hesitation, for romantic comedies feature age old clichés which make a movie uninteresting. Typically in a Romantic Comedy, there is a girl and there is a guy, both fall in love, then have troubles, and then win over the troubles to marry or whatever. But, this movie is a different story, it is really very different from the Romantic Comedies I have seen of lately. There is a widowed guy(Dan), there is a girl(Marie). Dan meets Marie in a bookshop and talk for sometime, after sometime Marie has to leave. Dan develops something for her, and when this something starts to turn meaningful, we get a twist. Marie is the girlfriend of his brother. Unheeded of the circumstances, Dan flirts with Marie and realizes that he loves her, and even Marie loves him, but their love would not just be possible. How it is made possible forms the rest of the story. Steve Carell performs well, Juliette Binoche is good as Marie. And every other stuff is done well. It is a good movie, watch it. | 1 |
train_8434 | I have always been a fan of the show so I'll admit that I am biased. When the show's run ended, I felt like too many questions remained unanswered. This movie to me felt like closure. To see all the people I'd followed over the past few years together at last was most rewarding. I have heard that this is probably the only Homicide movie that we can expect. If that is so, this is the appropriate way to go out. This movie is sometimes poignant, sometimes upsetting, but always satisfying. If you are or ever have been a fan of the show, watch this movie. | 1 |
train_7057 | As an adult I really did enjoy this one. I watched it with my 2 granddaughters and the 3 1/2 year old was fascinated and the 15 month old giggled at the mice.The music is fun and the animation is wonderful. This sequel does what Return to Neverland didn't accomplish. A good follow-up to the Cinderella story; but what becomes of Drusilla? Another sequel? I hope so! | 1 |
train_13501 | I rented this on DVD and I kind of feel bad since Dawson and Lugacy are so earnest about it in the DVD comments. It's not a bad movie exactly, but it's one of those films that desperately wants to be a deep comment on human nature while not realizing that its story is practically a genre. Plus, it is a little simplistic about the issue in a lot of ways, and the characters' behavior often strains belief. I'd say its a film that you would get something out of if you don't have a lot of film/TV/literature/life behind you (to be honest, I've seen almost exactly the same story in horror comics even). Otherwise, its point has been made before and more artfully. And that gets to the big problem, which is that it really doesn't have much of cinematic interest to it besides the point. It ends up being a fairly bland movie overall that invests everything in the idea that the basic story will be shocking and compelling, and it doesn't really pay off. | 0 |
train_13319 | "The Domino Principle" is, without question, one of the worst thrillers ever made. Hardly any sense can be made of the convoluted plot and by the halfway point you'll want to throw your arms up in frustration and scream "I give up!!!"How Gene Hackman and director Stanley Kramer ever got involved in this mess must only be summed up by their paychecks.I hope they spent their money well. | 0 |
train_18951 | "Steve"(Chris Hoffman)gathers a group from high school for a reunion at the cabin location where his twin brother Wes went missing. While they are there, a reptilian creature in the shape of a man(reminded me a lot of the Gillman from CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON)awaits in the wilderness choosing the right time to pick them apart one by one. A biker, Ellen Ripley-type time female bad-ass, Kat(Chase Masterson)has an underground military bunker she practices experiments in, while it also serves as a place of safety from the thing on the bloody rampage. Kat knows more than she's telling(she also suffered the loss of a child), but there's another novelty twist most of the group have no idea of. This creature might just be more human than they realize..and it's former identity might shed some light on a deception only one other person has been hiding since Wes' death. Kat holds the key to many of the mysteries that unlock as the group remains near the cabin.Thankfully, a large portion of the film stays away from the creature which leaps in the air while we also see a hazy screen when we look through it's eyes. The film has Dawson's Creek-type melodramatics which often hinder any real tension that needs to build in a little monster movie. The direction is very bland leading to a relatively dull experience instead of eliciting scares. The cast is rather life-less and uninteresting. Pretty Maggie Grace(THE FOG remake) might be the only draw for this film. | 0 |
train_10646 | This great film is composed mostly of documentary footage is currently contained on a DVD along with Prelude to War. The great American filmmaker and story teller Frank Capra made these films which simply and clearly call attention to the main points that caused World War II and Hitler's rise.Every school child, nay, every American should watch these films today because they are so apropos. History has been repeating itself over and over again! The Lord Chamberlains are still alive and kicking; the tactics used by the Nazis of infiltrating countries through sympathizers and then the Communists and now by Muslim terrorist groups, are still working to these evil group's advantage.By sitting back and letting Hitler as early as 1935 be aggressive - France, America and England caused over 50 million people's deaths. Americans, French and British today would happily let Hitler do exactly the same thing despite the fact that we should have learned from history what happens when you let dictators break treaties.These great films may be too simplistic for World War II history buffs. They don't tell the horrors that the Soviet Union caused simply because at the time America was teamed up with them, fighting Hitler. This film does tell the plain facts and motives that led to the terrible war. | 1 |
train_12982 | It figures this is a French film, LOL, with the emphasis on young girls with much older men...why is it the French are so fixated on this kind of thing? When the age difference is this great, it really comes off as pervy! Valentina Cervi is beautiful (she bears a strong resemblance to Olivia Hussey, of Zeffirelli's '68 Romeo and Juliet, set in a similar period), but she looks about 15 and the actor playing Tassi, her painting instructor, looks...well, 50 is KIND.Other posters have done the work of explaining the historical record (unusually detailed in this case) of the real Artemisia, a great artist and one of the earliest recognized female painters of this period (17th century). Her story speaks to us in modern times particularly because of the age-old accusation that "all great artists were men" -- she pretty much blasts that assertion to bits -- and because the story of her rape trial is so poignant. Not only was she clearly assaulted, and forced into a degrading sexual relationship (because in those days marriage to your assaulter was the only way to avoid social shame), but Tassi was a serial rapist and possibly killed his wife and child.The movie does a terrible disservice by inverting this truly fascinating and remarkable real life story -- very dramatic and not in need of any "spicing up" -- because in some weird Frencified way, it's "hotter" to have an oversexed teenager drawing male sexual organs and having a hot love affair with a man old enough to be her grandfather. That's "sexy" -- the truth is boring and seems too feminist/politically correct.It also disturbs me that this is ONLY part of Artemisia life considered interesting enough to film. The fact that she painted for decades (her famous painting of Judith beheading Holfernes was painted AFTER, not before the rape), that she was the first woman admitted to the prestigious Florentine Academy, that she went on to have children...oh that's boring stuff. After all, that's about a middle aged woman and they aren't "hot" like teenagers.I understand that there is a lot of creative license in making a film (or a book) about a real historical character. You need to create dialog, have subplots, create dramatic structure. Certainly some details can be sacrificed -- it's no big deal if the dates are moved a few years, or if Artemisia is played by a blonde actress (when we know from her self portraits that she was a brunette...and a big boned one, not a skinny minny), or something like that. But to turn her story around on her, and make rape into a romance is actually sick and disturbing. It's even worse because the director is female. She should be horribly ashamed of herself!If you LIKE this (and I know some people could care less about the real woman artist and just like period costumes and hot sex), you will probably like "Dangerous Beauty" with Rufus Sewell and Catherine McCormack. Similarly based on heavily re-written history, with lots of heaving bosoms and jewel encrusted goblets: Bon Appetit! | 0 |
train_24029 | Yeah, unfortunately I came across the DVD of this and found that it was incredibly awful.First of all, the characters suck. I mean, come on, if some dork in an orange hat who calls himself 'Orange Sherbert' is the best creative idea these guys could come up for a character, then they should definitely not be in the film-making scene. Poor "costumes", bad "interviews", and basically there is not one "wrestler" on this whole disc with any shred of charisma.The "wrestling" in Splatter Rampage Wrestling is nothing more than these idiots gently and playfully bouncing together on a trampoline. They make sure to giggle together all the while, too, making the experience seem more like a toddler's playtime than a "wrestling deathmatch".Basically, Splatter Rampage Wrestling is a pretty lackluster Backyard Wrestling clone. Only, instead of blood, weapons, mayhem, and WRESTLING, we get a trampoline, giggling kids, TERRIBLE audio, and some guy called Orange Sherbert.Wrestling fan or not, avoid this DVD. It's awful. | 0 |
train_11628 | "I didn't want this to get complicated, Leese. I have to assume she's gonna read that." Fear takes flight at 30,000 feet in this taut, action thriller. An overnight flight to Miami quickly becomes a battle for survival when Lisa ( Rachel McAdams) realizes her seatmate ( Cillian Murphy) is planning to use her as part of a chilling assassination plot. As the minutes tick by, she's in a race against time to warn the potential victims before its to late.One of the many reasons I love this movie, is because of the chemistry between the two stars, McAdams and Murphy, who are also two of my top favorite actors. For example, the early scenes at the airport play more like a romantic comedy: two people keep running into each other.... I got to hand it to the two as well, for making a film like this work. Especially, Murphy's character.. Jackson who really seems to be sort of complicated in that way that he acts charming and innocent, yet he's trying to do his job and make Lisa feel trapped physically and mentally. I mean, in certain parts he really seems to be concerned for Lisa.A great thrill ride all the way through. A lot of films I would hate to see a prequel or a sequel about, but actually I wouldn't mind a prequel to this one, which would take place with Jackson surveilling Lisa. Favorite scene is probably that headbutt scene, because it was so unexpected. There was also that nice buildup to the famous 'pen' scene. When is she going to make her move? There was also that nice change in McAdam's Lisa, where she changed herself from being a victim into fighting back. I also loved the scene where she sits down in the food court and pretends to ask some ladies a survey about the food court. How great was Murphy with his whole weezing..... | 1 |
train_18954 | The monster from Enemy Mine somehow made his way into a small mountain community, where he has taken up residence. He's being hunted by a female doctor-turned-vigilante who is out to exterminate him. This female assassin, who looks like a refugee from a Motley Crue video, rides around on a motorcycle and tries to save a bunch of kids who have chosen to have a Big Chill weekend right smack dab in the middle of the monster's turf. Decapitations and lots of blood are primarily in place to draw attention away from the story which limps along like a bad version of the Island of Dr. Moreau (and yes, it's worse than the one with Val Kilmer). | 0 |
train_342 | I gave it an 8 only because it had received such low votes... this is definitely really about a 5.5..... Ummm.. it was kind of bloody, had likeable, shallow characters, and it had some really hot babes in it. I like the eclectic killer, because he didn't kill people the same way everytime... that sometimes gets old. | 1 |
train_1568 | Catscratch is the best thing to come out of Nickeloden, including Wayne Knight. This show doesn't just appeal to Maoris and PI's. some people love it, and they're all aussies. At first glimpse I admit it seems a little crude, but it grows enormously on you. Also, to correct something that one of the other critics has said In_Correct (Tv.com) doesn't say "Does that mean you're homo now?" he says "Does that mean you're homo, owww?" This is his phrase in the show. Mr. Blik is, i think,the funniest of all like Peww-Weww's PlayhouseFirstly, I'll admit that the early episode were a bit good. But after a while the episodes became great! And just when the series had found it's surreal, whacky ...Nickelodeon cancels it!I know Nick is meant for kids, but every once in a while a brilliant show appears that can be enjoyed by teenagers and adults. These shows include Mr. Bean the Animated Series, Charlie Brown, Pelswick, Rocko's Modern Life (at times), and Invader Zim. All of these must have been considered too good, with the exception of CatDog, 'cause Nick felt the need to cancel them.What I like the famous final episode, where Gordon fight a duck.I'd also like to see a DVD, with plenty of audio-commentaries and behind-the-scenes docos, and including the final episode.But of course, what I'd definitely like to see is the show come back on the air. Wake up NICK!I wish there was a list somewhere on the internet with all the gag closing-credits. That would be great. | 1 |
train_1678 | Sergio Martino is a great director, who has contributed a lot to Italian genre cinema and, as far as I am considered, his Gialli from the 1970s are the undisputed highlights in his impressive repertoire. "La Coda Dello Scorpione" aka. "The Case Of The Scorpion's Tale" of 1971 is one of these impressive films Martino has contributed to Italian Horror's most original sub-genre, and another proof that the man is a master of atmosphere, style and suspense. My personal favorite of the Martino films I've seen so far is still the insanely brilliant "Your Vice Is A Locked Room And Only I Have The Key" of 1972, followed by "Torso" (1973) and "The Strange Vice Of Mrs Wardh" (1971), all of which I personally like even more than this one. That's purely a matter of personal taste, however, as "La Coda Dello Scorpione" is an equally excellent film that is essential for every fan of Italian Horror cinema and suspense in general.The film, which delivers tantalizing suspense from the very beginning has a complex and gripping plot that begins with the mysterious demise of a millionaire who has died in a plane crash. Insurance investigator Peter Lynch (George Hilton) is assigned to verify the circumstances the insurance company which is due to pay a large sum to the deceased man's wife. Soon after Lynch begins to investigate, a person is brutally killed, which is just the beginning of a series of murders..."The Case of the Scorpion's Tail" excellently delivers all the elements a great Giallo needs. The film is stunningly suspenseful from the beginning, the score by Bruno Nicolai is brilliant, the plot is wonderfully convoluted, and the killer's identity remains a mystery until the end. Regular Giallo leading-man George Hilton once again delivers an excellent performance in the lead. Sexy Anita Strindberg is absolutely ravishing in the female lead. The includes the great Luigi Pistilli, one of the most brilliant regulars of Italian genre-cinema of the 60s and 70s, and Alberto De Mendoza, another great actor who should be familiar to any lover of Italian cinema. Athens, where most of the film takes place, is actually a great setting for a Giallo. The atmosphere is constantly gripping, and the photography great, and Bruno Nicolai's ingenious score makes the suspense even more intense. Long story short: "La Coda Dello Scorpione" is another excellent Giallo from Sergio Martino and an absolute must-see for any lover of the sub-genre! Stylish, suspenseful, and great in all regards! | 1 |
train_16584 | Every now and again you hear radio djs inviting listeners to nominate movies that the listener can't stand or never watched all the way through. This is the movie that I think of...days later.It's got something to do with a play by Shakespeare. Not sure, but I think I bailed on this movie some 20 odd minutes into it...think I realised that my toenails wouldn't clip themselves, and they were looking at me imploringly to get cut.This movie just seemed boring and pretentious to me.Even though this is the first movie I've given such a low score to (which I've actually attempted to watch), I wouldn't want to put you off other movies by it's English director, Peter Greenaway. I remember thinking that his "The cook, the thief, his wife and her lover" was a truly great British film even though its content was at times stomach churning-a brilliant movie, but I can understand why people would balk at seeing it.Another good film by Greenaway was "A zed and two noughts". Again, it had some content that pushed the boundaries of good taste, but was intriguing nonetheless.The other film that I usually think of too late for such radio show topics is "Brazil". Never managed to watch that all the way through either-kept falling asleep!Unless you have a taste for self-important movies which are off-puttingly highly stylised, laboriously paced and difficult to follow, then steer clear of Prosero's Books. | 0 |
train_8464 | Dear Readers,With High Expectations, Human Beings leave Earth to begin a new life in Space Colonies. However, The Allied Forces of the United Earth Sphere Alliance gain great military control over the colonies and soon seize one colony after another in the name of Justice and Peace...The year is After Colony 195. Operation Meteor. In a move to counter the Alliance's tyranny, Rebel Forces from several colonies send new arsenals to Earth disguised as Shooting Stars...However...The Alliance forces catch on...Gundam Wing is the most popular and most successful of the entire Gundam Series. With cutting-edge Anime animation, stunning action, amazing Mobile Suits, Breathtaking scripts, and some of the most unforgettable characters in Anime History.I'll try to explain the plot of Gundam Wing as best as possible. Earth has now colonized space, but the UESA forces have forcibly occupied them along with the help of the mysterious Elite Force OZ and their shadowy leaders, Treize Kushrenada and the Romefeller Foundation. Five pilots are sent to Earth piloting Mobile Suits with extraordinary power known as the Gundams. Pursued by the Mysterious Lieutenant Zechs Merquise, Treize's second-in-command, a young teenager named Relena, and the Alliance military, the Gundam pilots unleash hell upon Earth for the Freedom of the Colonies while all the while, a plot most sinister architected by Treize begins to start.Signed, The Constant DVD Collector | 1 |
train_8160 | Brian Yuzna is often frowned upon as a director for his trashy gore-fests, but the truth is that his films actually aren't bad at all. The Re-Animator sequels aren't as great as the original, but are still worthy as far as horror sequels are concerned. Return of the Living Dead 3 is the best of the series; and Society isn't a world away from being a surrealist horror masterpiece. This thriller certainly isn't a masterpiece; but it shows Yuzna's eye for horror excellently, and the plot moves in a way that is always thrilling and engaging. I'm really surprised that a horror movie about dentistry didn't turn up until 1996, as going to the dentist is almost a primal fear - it's running away from a tiger for the modern world. Dentistry doesn't frighten me, but surprisingly; I would appear to be in the minority. The plot follows perfectionist dentist Dr Feinstone. He has a nice house, a successful career and a beautiful wife - pretty much everything most people want. However, his life takes a turn for the worse when he discovers his wife's affair with the pool cleaner. And his life isn't the only one; as it's his patients who feel the full brunt of his anger...When it comes to scaring the audience, this movie really makes itself. However, credit has to go to the director for extracting the full quota of scares from the central theme. The fact that he does a good job is summed up by the fact that I'm not squeamish about going to the dentist - yet one particular scene actually made me cover my eyes! The film follows the standard man going insane plot outline, only with The Dentist you always get the impression that there's more to the film than what we're seeing. It isn't very often that a gore film can impress on a substance level - and while this won't be winning any awards, the parody on the upper class is nicely tied into the plot. The acting, while B-class, is actually quite impressive; with Corbin Bernsen taking the lead role and doing a good job of convincing the audience that he really is a man on the edge. I should thank Brian Yuzna for casting Ken Foree in the movie. The Dawn of the Dead star doesn't get enough work, and I really love seeing him in films. The rest of the cast doesn't massively impress, but all do their jobs well enough. Overall, The Dentist offers a refreshing change for nineties slasher movies. The gore scenes are sure to please horror fans, and I don't hesitate to recommend this film. | 1 |
train_8387 | This first part of the BRD Trilogy has more passion and plot density than Lola, but less of the magic of Veronica Voss. The political musings have point to them: we see the shortages after the war, how the blackmarketers were able to control so much of the day-to-day life (delicious moment when Fassbinder, playing a grifter, tries to sell a complete set of Kleist to Schygulla, who remarks that burning books don't provide much warmth: she really wants firewood).There's some clumsiness in the first hour. The scene in Maria's room with the black soldier, interrupted by Hermann's appearance should go quicker. The train scene when Maria meets Karl Oswald falls flat when she insults the GI--I cringed, it was so bad. But as the story develops and the years go by, I was drawn more and more into this glossy, cold world. | 1 |
train_14404 | ===minor spoilers=== I am, like many others, a huge Jerry Bruckheimer fan. So when I saw all the beautiful posters hanging out front, and the trailer coming by before MI:2, expectations were rising. A Jerry Bruckheimer production. Big cars. Nic Cage and fresh from an Oscar- Angelina Jolie. What can possibly go wrong? A lot. The script is neither funny (which it tries really hard to be) nor exciting. You put in a black person who is constantly making racist jokes about himself and Wooh-haa!! you've got comedy? I don't think so. Excitement is totally out of the picture. First of all (and this is probably said many times) there are no sympathetic characters so who cares who gets killed? IF you can stomach the premise that a psycho is gonna kill Nic's brother unless he steals 50 cars in 4 days, next thing you know is that Kip (the brother) is walking with Nic in the streets again. Is this excitement? Think not. Then comes the best bit- the romance between Nic and Angelina. She actually looks bored having to utter all these stupid lines to Nic. 'Do you have a girlfriend?' 'Are you seeing anybody?' 'What went wrong?' etc.Then there's only one sparkle of hope left: the car chases. They're disappointing to say the least, because the trailer made it look like it was full of them, and there's only one. A very long one, caught in irritatingly hectic camera movement. I really had trouble following the action.So is it an action movie? a thriller? a romantic comedy? - there's no need to decide, just avoid this horrible mess. I'll give 3 out of 10 stars, and I feel like I'm being generous. | 0 |
train_11689 | Hopefully the score has changed by now due to my brilliant and stunning review which persuades all of you to go and watch the film thereby creating an instant chorus of "8"s, this movie's true score.As mentioned before Chris Rock is The King! Previous to going to see this movie I wasn't that over the top about him but now I'm banging on the doors of Chris Rock's website begging him to take me on as his protege. This film is truly funny, if you don't find this movie funny you REALLY need therapy and it's humour which targets all areas of society including race(predictably), class division, love, wealth, employment, dreams, stand up comedy... the list goes on.There was one slight disappointment for me however. This was that in going into this film I didn't realise that it was actually a remake of "Heaven Can Wait" another quite good movie made in 1971 with Warren Beatty. As such I was quite surprised when I watched this movie and suddenly the plot began to unravel to be distinctly similar to an older movie I had watched on TV a few weeks ago.. Regardless this movie is in my opinion the better version out of the two of them simply because of the different areas it covers and the fact that Chris Rock is funnier than Warren Beatty any second of any day of any week of any year of any...you get the picture.Well to the actual plot of the film.Don't spoil the experience for yourself! Don't read the plot! Just go and watch a movie because there have been two reviews on IMDb so far that have raved mad about it, go see it because it is the funniest thing you would have seen in a long time, go and see it because it's a cinema experience that doesn't leave you grumbling ad nauseum at the cost of cinema tickets. Go see it because it is a good movie! | 1 |
train_10740 | Made by french brothers Jules and Giddeon Naudet, and narrated by Robert De Niro and Firefighter James Hanlon this is a compelling and heartbreaking tale of how New York's finest shone on it's darkest day. I first saw this when I was a young naive 12 year old, and at that age it still touched me. Knowing how serious 9/11 really was seeing this expanded the whole effect of 9/11. We were finding out who the heroes were, how there everyday lives were composed, and how they put their lives on the line in a situation where most people would just run and save their selves. These brave men put their lives on the line and watching this just increases my admiration for them. Watch if you can,this is the best documentary I have personally ever seen. | 1 |
train_3958 | Moe and Larry are newly henpecked husbands, having married Shemp's demanding sisters. At his music studio, Shemp learns he will inherit a fortune if he marries someone himself! "Husbands Beware" is a remake of 1947's "Brideless Groom," widely considered by many to be one of the best Stooge films with Shemp. The remake contains most of the footage from that film. The new scenes, shot May 17, 1955, include the storyline of Moe and Larry marrying Shemp's sisters, along with their cooking of a turkey laced with turpentine! A few new scenes are tacked onto the end of the film as well(a double for Dee Green was used; if you blink, you will miss the double's appearance.) "Husbands Beware" would have made for a good film with just the plot line of marrying the sisters. Budget considerations, coupled with fewer bookings for two-reel comedies, influenced the decision to use older footage.Although completely new films were still being made by the Stooges, most of their releases by 1955-56 were made up of older films with a few new scenes tossed in. "Husbands Beware," while one of these hybrids, is watchable and entertaining; we get to see most of "Brideless Groom" again, and the new scenes are funny enough to get the viewer through the film. This film is one of the last Stooge comedies to feature new footage of Shemp, and it was released six weeks after his death.7 out of 10. | 1 |
train_9733 | 'How to Lose Friends and Alienate People' is an entertaining, if loose, adaptation of Toby Young's memoir of the same name. It's also a great title for helping to fill up the line requirement in IMDb reviews! The basic gist is the same as the book with certain incidents dramatised, but a romantic plot is added and the ending is certainly Hollywoodised. Simon Pegg, despite playing an essentially irritating person, is his usual likable and funny self and pretty much carries the film. Strange to think only a few years ago he was just a TV sitcom guy and now he's rubbing shoulders with Hollywood names. There's a good supporting cast and it's an amusing, easy watch - kind of a male 'Ugly Betty', but funnier. | 1 |
train_10022 | Aro Tolbukhin burnt alive seven people in a Mission in Guatemala in the 70's. Also he declared that he had murdered another 16 people (he used to kill pregnant women, and then he set them on fire).This movie is a documentary that portraits the personality of Aro through several interviews with people that got to know him and through some scenes played by actors based on real facts."Aro Tolbukhin" is a serious work, so analytical, it's not morbid at all. Such a horrifying testimony about how some childhood trauma can turn a man into a monster.*My rate: 7/10 | 1 |
train_15796 | Film makeovers of old TV shows seems to be the norm in Hollywood these days, but this disrespectful, toilet humor, do-you-kiss-your-mother-with-that-mouth foul language, rip-off is a blatant middle finger to all Dukes of Hazzard fans both north and south of the Mason-Dixon Line. From the opening sequence of Bo and Luke Duke making a moonshine run for Uncle Jesse (no shine running in the show because it would put the boys back in jail as a parole violation) to the closing sequence of Uncle Jesse smoking weed with the Governor of Georgia (Uncle Jesse was the moral compass despite his previous moonshining ways) this disappointing waste of film is an open faced insult. I can't tell you how many parents I saw get up and remove their children from the theater within the first 15 minutes of the movie when they realized that they had been horribly deceived. The Original Dukes of Hazzard was a family show with basic moral values. The Original Dukes of Hazzard was a kid safe, Hemi powered, show of fun that parents didn't have to worry about teaching their kids George Carlin's seven words. I have read reviews stating that the show and the movie are nothing but racist. Those commits might be correct about the movie. Those commits are ABSOLUTELY incorrect about the show. The show, if anything, was about how to get along and be friends with ANYONE. Hollywood has finally come out in the open about their disdain for those of us, Yankee, Rebel, or otherwise, who still believe in honor, loyalty, trust, family, and doing the right thing even if it is not the popular thing. Hollywood has finally brought to light its belief that those of us in the heartland are stupid, uneducated, beer swilling, foul mouthed, trash that will buy any piece of garbage they are willing to sell. Prove the Hollywood Elitist that they are wrong. DO NOT GO SEE THIS MOVIE. Boycott the sponsors. Fill Warner Bros. email and snail mail boxes with complaints that we don't appreciate them destroying one of the greatest T.V. shows of all time. Save your money and buy the DVD's of the original show, but whatever you do
DO NOT GO SEE THIS MOVIE | 0 |
train_19893 | I'm a huge Steven Seagal fan. Hell, I probably weigh as much as he does although I don't have the street cred to sport the frizzy-mullet-ponytail. Having stated my own bias and affection for America's favorite corpulent stage and screen hero, it is with a heavy heart that I must declare this to be his worst movie ever. I'm not sure he could make a movie any worse than this.In his defense the major problems with this film seem to occur in post-production. It's painfully obvious that this movie was supposed to have a different storyline. That results in woeful voiceovers in which Steve's voice doesn't nearly sync up with that of the dubbed voice. The editing is pisspoor and overall this starts bad, gets even worse, and by the end you'll wish you had rewatched The Da Vinci Code instead. Yes, it's that bad.After this I don't know what to expect from Steve. My friends still laugh at me for listening to his CDs. Is it time I start checking out some of the Van Damme direct to DVD nutty logs? If you are tempted to watch this movie, rip your eyeballs out and flush them down the toilet. A lifetime of darkness is better than 89 minutes of this. | 0 |
train_20375 | Les Visiteurs, the first movie about the medieval time travelers was actually funny. I like Jean Reno as an actor, but there was more. There were unexpected twists, funny situations and of course plain absurdness, that would remind you a little bit of Louis de Funes.Now this sequel has the same characters, the same actors in great part and the same time traveling. The plot changes a little, since the characters now are supposed to be experienced time travelers. So they jump up and down in history, without paying any attention to the fact that it keeps getting absurder as you advance in the movie. The duke, Jean Reno, tries to keep the whole thing together with his playing, but his character has been emptied, so there's not a lot he can do to save the film.Now the duke's slave/helper, he has really all the attention. The movie is merely about him and his being clumsy / annoying / stupid or whatever he was supposed to be. Fact is; this character tries to produce the laughter from the audience, but he does not succeed. It is as if someone was telling you a really very very bad joke, you already know, but he insists on telling that joke till the end, adding details, to make your suffering a little longer.If you liked Les Visiteurs, do not spoil the taste in your mouth with the sequel. If you didn't like Les Visiteurs, you would never consider seeing the sequel. If you liked this sequel... well, I suppose you still need to see a lot of movies. | 0 |
train_22378 | There has been a lot of love that has been put into Wes Anderson's "Fantastic Mr Fox", unfortunately all the love is for himself. Granted, there has been a lot of time and effort been put into making this ever so self-consciously quirky universe but if only the same time and effort had been put into the script to try and make it funny. The worrying thing is that I think it was, and this is the best that Wes Anderson could come up with.The animation is good in the close-up shots of the animals, however when the camera is further away everything becomes really harsh on the eyes and to be perfectly honest looks like a bit of a mess. There wasn't really anything special about the acting either, with Wes opting to choose his buddies and big names over more specialised voice actors that could have probably made the film better. I'm pretty sure George Clooney's voice acting resume consists of two cameo appearances in South Park, one of them where he played a dog.The film is too smug and trying way too hard to be clever and different and is typically, despite the film being set in England, all the good animals are typical Americans playing baseball, whilst the bad guys are stereotypical English with the most insulting English accents. I cannot stress how much of a waste of time this film is. I didn't laugh once. | 0 |
train_12498 | this movie is the best movie ever it has a lot of live action It's just great everyone should watch it and the actor are great the location is Rome Italy thats the best place ever the actors are great Mary-Kate Olsen is such a great actress she plays Charlie and thats a great character and Ashley Olsen play Leila and thats a great character to love When in Rome love it. | 1 |
train_8224 | "Toi le Venin" is Robert Hossein's masterpiece,and one of the great thrillers of the fifties.Based on a Frederic Dard novel,a writer the director often worked with (see also "le Monte-Charge" which Hossein did not direct but in which he was the lead too),the screenplay grabs you from the first pictures on a desert road by night where a beautiful blonde might be the fieriest of the criminals to the mysterious house where he finds his femme fatale ..and her sister.Then begins a cat and mouse play .One of the sisters is in a wheelchair .But is she really disabled?Which one is the criminal who tried to kill the hero on that night? The two actresses,Marina Vlady and the late Odile Versois were sisters.Turn off all the lights before watching.Highly suspenseful. | 1 |
train_15303 | Considering the limits of this film (The entire movie in one setting - a music studio - only about 5 or 6 actors total) it should have been much better made. IF you have these limits in making a film, how could the lighting be so bad? And the actors were terrible, were talking a hair below the acting in Clerks, except that was an enjoyable movie, this had no substance. Well it tried to, but really fails.It makes attempt to be self-referencing in a couple parts, but the lines were delivered so poorly by the actors it was just bad. And the main character Neal guy, what a pathetic looser. Clearly like 10 people total made this 'film' and they all knew each other, and it probably was a real rock band that they had, but unfortuntly these people really have no idea how terrible they are all around. This was made in 2005, but they all look so naieve it smacks of just pre-grunge era.Thankfully I didn't pay to see this (Starz on Demand delivers again!) but it was under the title "The Possessed" not Studio 666, it doesn't matter what you do to the title, it can't help this. This could have been a much better made movie - there is no excuse for this bad film-making when you have the obvious limited parameters the filmmakers had when they made this, working within those limits you should make the stuff you can control and the stuff you can work with the best you can. Instead they figured mediocrity would be good enough. And that music video, wow that was bad, I fast fowarded through that.So 2/10 is fair, if you are into the whole b-movie crap I suppose you'll go and see this. | 0 |
train_20474 | It's interesting at first. A naive park ranger (Colin Firth) marries a pretty, mysterious woman (Lisa Zane) he's only known for a short time. They seem to be happy, then she disappears without warning. He searches for her and, after a few dead ends, stumbles upon some of her abused childhood and sleazy recent past, which may include criminal activity. And then, it seems the filmmakers didn't know what to do with the story. The beginning, while not as suspenseful as it sounds, is at least watchable. Then it ceases to be interesting or even make much sense. And the ending is so lame, so dull, and so devoid of any excitement or intelligence, you'll think the screenwriters didn't know what to do with it and got bored trying. What a sorry waste of a good idea! | 0 |
train_18106 | I believe Shakespeare explained what I just read beautifully. Me thinks he (the lady) doth protest too much. The whole thing sounded to me as if the author was trying to convince himself! He sites profane literature (writings from the same time period but not connected with the bible) a number of times however I can think of at least three references off the top of my head which lend historical accuracy to events contained in the bible. Anyone can skew data & prove anything they like but it doesn't make it true. Customs change, word definitions change over time (look at English & German where it is very obviously a common root) nothing stays the same, it's always growing and changing. The bible has many different translations but the King James version is the one I've found to be the best when it comes to any kind of research. In the King James version you will notice there are certain words written in italics. These words have been added by the translators and can be dropped & the mean of the entire verse changes. Writings from around the time of Christ were written without spaces, without punctuation, without paragraphs & without numeric verses. These writings look like one long word & the translators added all of the above. For example how would you read this: GODISNOWHERE do you read it as God is nowhere or do you read it as God is now here? Same string of letters two entirely different meanings. This is why many biblical researchers use a 'Lexicon' to assist them in translation as it provides a word for word translation from the original Arabic, Greek or Hebrew depending on the language in which the scripture was originally written. It's also interesting to note that when translated into symbolic logic you can prove God exists but you can not prove He doesn't exist! In the end I just love listening to people who think they are so smart that they are qualified to judge the almighty. Talk about ego! Putting soapbox away, God Bless Maegi | 0 |
train_11740 | I don't doubt that the critics panned this movie, especially the artsy fartsys who need a laxative. This is a great vehicle movie in the tradition of Abbot & Costello or more recently Don Knotts. It won't shake the world or change movies forever. What it will do is entertain. When all is said & done that's the most important thing anyway. Watch this movie & forget your troubles. It even has a simple & kind moral message at no extra charge. I always loved Elvira's TV show when I lived in LA. She did not really steal her schtick from Vampira any more than Vampira did from the original, Theda Bara. This sort of mythic character belongs to whoever does it best; & Cassandra Peterson does it best. Long live Elvira; we need more of these kind of movies. There are never enough. The villain, William Morgan Sheppard, was also excellent. He exudes a wonderful refined malice. I could find no technical faults. The execution is as close to flawless as the art form gets. My profound compliments to the director,James Signorelli,& all his crew. | 1 |
train_8865 | Two dysfunctional brothers (Philip Seymour Hoffman and Ethan Hawke) get tired of competing for who is the bigger f***-up and who Daddy (Albert Finney) loves more, so they hatch a hair-brained scheme to rob Mommy and Daddy's jewelry store so that they can clear their debts and start fresh. Sounds like a great plan except that this is a suspenseful 1970's style melodrama about a heist gone wrong, and boy, do things really go wrong here for our hapless duo and everyone involved. Lasciviously concocted by screenwriter Kelly Masterson and classically executed by director Sidney Lumet, "Before the Devil Knows You're Dead" uses the heist as its McGuffin to delve deep into family drama.Contrary to popular belief, Sidney Lumet is not dead. At age 83, he has apparently made a deal with the Devil to deliver one last great film. Lumet was at his zenith in the 1970's with films like "Dog Day Afternoon," "Serpico," and one of my favorite films of all time, "Network". He has somehow managed to make a film that bears all the hallmarks of his classics while intertwining some more modern elements (graphic sexuality, violence, and playing with time-frames and POV's) into a crackling, vibrant, lean, mean, and provocative melodrama. One can only hope that some of the modern greats (like Scorsese or Spielberg) who emerged during the same decade Lumet was at the top of his game will have this much chutzpah left when they reach that age.Lumet is a master at directing people walking through spaces to create tension and develop characters. As the cast waltzes through finely appointed Manhattan offices and apartments his slowly moving camera creates a palpable sense of anxiety as we never know who might be around the next corner or what this person might do in the next room. Also amazing is how Lumet utilizes the multiple POV and shifting time-frame approach. The coherent and classical presentation he uses makes the similarly structured films of wunderkinds Christopher Nolan and Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu seem like amateur hour.Of course, what Lumet is best at is directing amazing ensemble casts and tricking them into acting within an inch of their lives. Philip Seymour Hoffman has never been, and most likely never will be, better than he is here. Albert Finney's quietly searing portrayal of a father betrayed and at the end of his rope is a masterpiece to watch unfold. Ethan Hawke, normally a nondescript pretty boy, is perfect as the emotionally crippled younger brother who has skated by far too long on his charms and looks. The coup-de-grace, however, is the series of scenes between Hoffman and Marisa Tomei, eerily on point as his flighty trophy wife. Lumet runs them through the gamut of emotions that culminate in a scene that is the best of its kind since William Holden taunted Beatrice Straight right into a Best Supporting Actress Oscar in "Network." The Devil of any great film is in the details, from Albert Finney's tap of his car's trunk that won't close due to a fender bender, to the look Amy Ryan (fresh off her amazing turn in "Gone Baby Gone") gives her ex-husband Ethan Hawke at his mawkish promise to his little girl all three of them knows he won't keep, to the systematic unraveling of a family on the skids, to the dialog begging for cultists to quote it (my favorite line being the hilariously threatening "Do you mind if I call you Chico?") to the excellent Carter Burwell score. "Before the Devil Knows You're Dead" is the film of the year. If something emerges to best it, then we know a few other deals must've been brokered with Old Scratch. | 1 |
train_17788 | My God, was this the "Run, Lola, Run" adaptation of Persuasion? It was horrible. Bad enough that the "screenwriter" (and I use the term very loosely) cut and pasted dialogue from one character onto another, often completely out of context and to rush the story along: but Anne Elliott running from location to location in pursuit of Wentworth near the end of the piece was an abomination! Austen must be spinning in her grave. No respectable young woman would have acted in such an atrocious fashion. And the actress that played Mary? Horrors. Needless to say, if the rest of the Austen remakes are this bad, they will be turning off a new generation of watchers.If you want to see an impeccable version of this (otherwise) wonderful novel, get the 1995 Roger Michell directed version starring Amanda Root (whose expressions alone can speak volumes) and Ciaran Hinds. It is superb. | 0 |
train_13645 | Not much to say beyond the summary, save that this is an example of J. Edgar's Hoover's constant attention to maintaining a good "PR" profile. They don't make movies this bad very often, especially with the likes of Jimmy Stewart and Vera Miles in the blend. Too bad. | 0 |
train_20725 | DO NOT WATCH THIS SAD EXCUSE FOR A FILM. I have wasted time and money on this and am pretty p**sed off about it.The acting is comparable with high school plays. The script is shocking. There is no plot. Twenty minutes from the end (which I believe I should be rewarded for reaching) I had a headache from all the screaming, crying and wailing the five girls make.The majority of the violence is (rare for a film nowadays) suggested rather than graphically depicted but I found the characters so damn irritating that I wanted to see them, and indeed every single person involved in the making of this piece of s**t, die in the most horrible ways possible.I spend ten more minutes of my life saving you from a very poor 100 minutes of yours. Don't do it. | 0 |
train_981 | Sterling and younger brother try to survive on land, being squeezed by big cattlemen. When 'rogue' brother Preston arrives, a moral dilemma ensues. John 'Drew' Barrymore steals the show as the younger, impressionable brother-Barrymore shows signs here that he could have been an acting powerhouse. Moves at a nice pace to an exciting climax. | 1 |
train_6221 | Had this film been put together a tad better, it would be up there with the best of Astaire and Rogers. As it is, it's a fine movie but overly long with a tedious subplot, i.e., Randolph Scott romancing Rogers' sister, played by Harriet Hilliard (that's Ozzie Nelson's wife to you baby boomers).Astaire and Scott are two Navy men. Scott meets Hilliard the first time when she looks like a stereotypical librarian, and later on after Ginger Rogers has asked her friend (a blond but unmistakable Lucille Ball) to glamor her up. Meanwhile, Astaire tries to pick up where he and his old dancing partner left off. The result is some wonderful dance numbers, with Astaire and Rogers as a team as well as separately: "I'm Putting All My Eggs in One Basket," "Let Yourself Go," and "I'd Rather Lead the Band." Hilliard is sweet but a little lethargic as a plain Jane turned glamor girl, although she sings her two songs well, "But Where Are You?" and "Get Thee Behind Me, Satan" - one poster didn't care for that song, but I love the title. Rogers is vivacious, and a youthful Astaire is a dynamo.The highlight of the movie comes at the end with "Let's Face the Music and Dance," one of the most achingly beautiful songs ever written and certainly one of the most brilliantly executed by Rogers and Astaire. In it, they epitomize '30s glamor and fantasy. It is truly to be treasured and watched again and again. | 1 |
train_11710 | Long before Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins would shake the world of the Christian subculture (and make millions in the process) with the LEFT BEHIND books, MARK IV Pictures, the Christian film distribution company of the Billy Graham evangelistic association, gave us this masterwork. What I love most about this genre is its incredible attention to detail, sitting in a living room. Instead of taking us to the dramatic scenes of this "post-rapture" tribulation, we sit in the living room, hearing about it on the news because the filmmakers can't afford to show it. The film's premise is grounded in Pre-Millenial, pre-Tribulation eschatalogy, believing that Christ comes once for the secret taking of the true church, and then comes again at the end of the seven years of hell on earth. What used to terrify me in junior high now makes me laugh. The intriguing adventures of Patty and her journey throughout the tribulation (and two of the film's three sequels) tells her remarkable story of unbelief and ultimately damnation. I hate to admit it, but I still thoroughly enjoy watching this. It even has the SAME EXACT score of Monty Python and the Holy Grail. I think I'm the only person in history to make that observation. | 1 |
train_2046 | While the soundtrack is a bit dated, this story is more relevant in the U.S. now more than ever. With not only blue collar jobs but everyone's jobs being outsourced by U.S. corporations while the government profits and American suffer.Peter Strauss is Emory, a steel worker who works the same job his father did for 35 years. His wife is well-portrayed by Pamela Reed, who is very realistic, trying to support the family with two children when Emory loses his job. The mill is closed under the pretext of mismanagement, but there is also embezzlement and cheaper wages where they can pay one steelworker in one month (outsourcing) what they would have to pay Strauss/Emory in a day. Never mind that these men are all good loyal workers who have values and try the best for their family.John Goodman, Gary Cole (as Strauss' brother) and a few other co-workers are also affected. It is very disturbing and realistic. Some scenes between Emory and his father are moving. Emory hopes his local union will be able to re-open the mill, as they promise to do so.Emory's brother, Lee already sees the writing on the wall. There are no jobs left in the rust-belt (Ohio) and they must move on. However where in the U.S. can they move to?. Where will it be better for a blue-collar steel worker?.There is a triumphant scene at the end where Emory and his crew fill the loading dock with steel products. The guard allows them to do this as a final gesture, one of the men committed suicide and he has empathy.Overall, a good message film about hard times right here in America. Something that few care to face until personally affected. 8/10. | 1 |
train_8535 | This work is a bold look into the mindset of men who find themselves in wheelchairs. This film never tries to tone it down, cotton candy-ize, or soft soap the angst, confusion, and pain of what these guys live with. That is its strength, I think.But more so, the performances are fantastic, with well conceived and delivered dialog, which draws you in and makes you feel a part of the experience. The characters never attempt to block out the audience from knowing what's on their mind-what's in their hearts.I found it plodding, but enjoyable.It rates a 6.6/10 from...the Fiend :. | 1 |
train_12482 | I read nothing but good things about this movie and finally had a chance to watch it late last night and it was everything I expected it to be and more.This is the way a proper horror movie should be.I think the reason it was so scary was because it was so realistic. The spooky sounding score was perfect for setting a dark mood.I liked the dramatic opening scene and enjoyed how the rest of the movie played out.It was very easy to follow and understand unlike some movies which are way too complicated.The special effects were very good.I would love to see more horror movies like this one.This is easily one of my favorite's.A realistic thunder and lightning storm would have set a nice atmosphere for this movie.Other then that it had all the elements a good horror movie needs.I highly recommend this movie to anyone who can appreciate a good scary movie that pulls no punches.I will be adding it to my collection.The DVD has some interesting special features. | 1 |
train_9227 | Post-feminist depiction of cruelty and sadism.Spoiler alert! This underrated gem of a film tells the story of Flavia, a Fifteenth Century girl of Noble birth walled up in a convent after defining her father and indeed the whole of Medieval Christian society by viewing a fallen Islamic warrior as a human rather than demonic figure.Unable to accept the patriarchal rule of the convent (explicitly stated in a scene where the Bishop arrives flanked by soldiers and monks) Flavia begins to explicitly question the society in which she finds herself and, through butting up against a whole system of subjugation, repression and violence, inevitably brings a tragic end not only to herself but all those around her.Billed as a piece of nunsploitation this is far from the truth. This is a film depiction the consequences of violence, the effects of patriarchal dominance, the nature of rebellion and the corruption of the human spirit.I described it in the title of this piece as 'post-feminist' and in the end Flavia's triumphs must always be corrupted, compromised and perverted by men. Even Flavia's gruesome end is perpetrated by men for men (the women turn away and only the monks look on without horror.As to the much discussed violence: this is a depiction of the effects of violence and the horrors of a world driven mad by religious excess. To have shied away from the violence would have limited the film's impact, would have cheapened the film and allowed it to be assimilated within the Patriarchal discourse it is exposing. In addition it is a realistic portrait of medieval society.Beautifully filmed, brilliantly acted (notably by Florinda Bolkin and Maria Casares), containing a wonderful score by piovani and still challenging after all these years Flavia is a classic of European Cinema. | 1 |
train_16423 | With the exception of about 10 sublime minutes with HB Warner on the celestial train, this was 94 minutes of jaw-dropping horribleness! The acting was atrocious, but the story is what I really found appalling. The acting was wooden and stilted, even by early talkies standards (the exceptions being Lee Tracy and HB Warner, neither of whom can do wrong). Rose Hobart was absolutely horrid and lifeless as Julie (as she likewise was in 1932's Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, an otherwise excellent flick). And the rest of the cast was worse, there being no words to describe their awfulness. Worse than the acting, however, was the story. For some unknown reason, Julie loves Liliom, a cad and user of women with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. He marries Julie but doesn't support her, instead lying in bed all day or hanging out with his low-life criminal pal (Lee Tracy). And, oh yeah, he never has a kind word to say to Julie and he regularly beats her. Julie loves him nonetheless and continually makes excuses for him, which only seems to make him more abusive. What's even sicker is that this movie presents this story to us as a love story. Somehow we are supposed to see Julie as a noble character whose pure love redeems Liliom. WTF? The last 1/3 of this movie takes place after Liliom has killed himself (a robbery plot goes awry and Liliom plunges a knife into himself rather than being taken in by the police). As he lay dying, he tells Julie "I beat you all the time, but I'm not sorry for it." When he at last dies, she finally tells him she loves him. (Neither character ever said "I love you" to the other while they were alive.) After his death, God's Chief Magistrate gives Liliom one more day on earth so that he can "do something good" for his unborn daughter. The price for this is 10 years in hell. After 10 years, Liliom is allowed one day on earth to see his now 10-yr-old daughter. He approaches her in the front yard of her home and tries to cajole her into letting him "do something good" for her; he tries to get her to play cards, he tries to give her Gabriel's horn, but she's not interested and rebuffs him. So he slaps her. He. Slaps. Her. And then he disappears back to the afterlife. Looking on, we see his daughter tell Julie about this. The girl says the slap didn't hurt, that it felt like a kiss. This is supposed to be the movie's magical moment. The girl asks her mother if such a thing is possible, and Julie replies that "someone can be beat you and beat you and beat you and not hurt you at all." Then the music swells and Liliom rides up to heaven in the celestial train. BLECH! There was one saving grace to this film, and that is the interview between the Chief Magistrate (HB Warner was truly magnificent here) and Liliom on the celestial train. The Magistrate had some very profound things to say to Liliom about life and second chances and death. This scene alone made me bump this rating from 1 to 2 stars. Regarding Liliom's suicide as a means for escaping his problems, the Magistrate says "People suppose that when they die, their difficulties are ended for them. You thought that by killing yourself that you would cancel all your responsibilities. It is not as simple as that. On Earth your name is still spoken; your face is still remembered. As long as one is left who remembers you, so long is the matter unended. Until you have been completely forgotten, you will not be finished with the Earth, even though you are dead." Some great sublime transcendental stuff amongst some of the most horrible trash I've ever seen. By the way, this story has apparently been filmed many times both as "Liliom" and as the musical "Carousel." | 0 |
train_19940 | I'm going to go on the record as the second person who has, after years of using the IMDb to look up movies, been motivated by Nacho's film, The Abandoned to create an account and post a comment. This was hands down the worst movie I've ever seen in my entire life. The plot was on the verge of non-existence, and none of the "puzzle-pieces" added up in any way whatsoever. The acting was laughable and the writing was embarrassing. How this film got backed and came to be is completely beyond me. The only saving grace I could find was Anastasia Hille's cunning and repetitive use of the f word. (and brilliant sound design) If I were faced with the option of seeing this film again or being mauled by wild bores I would be up against a difficult decision. I'm disappointed that I am unable to give it 0 stars. | 0 |
train_24072 | Slow, boring, extremely repetitive. No wonder the Weinstein Company did not buy this. This Spurlock should eat more McDonalds while filming himself, and quit producing. There is no way you can watch this and enjoy. The preacher is a joke. The whole idea is not funny. You can make a 2 minute film with this idea not a feature. I am so sorry I rented this movie. I will never watch anything with the name Spurlock on it. It is completely garbage. Filmmakers like this should be on youtube and never be granted a distribution deal. The film states that the American Consumers and their shopping are at fault for the current depression when shopping and buying products, making money circulate in the system are the base of a healthy economy. | 0 |
train_24293 | Deep Shock plays out like a TV movie: a whole cast of commercial-quality actors, a poorly designed creature to be the "bad guy," and a script that is more full of technical, political jargon and importances than it knows what to do with.I checked out the movie because of the creature (I love to see what filmmakers have in mind for their designs in these cheaply made videos), and right off the bat, I got disappointed because the creature on the box was not the one in the movie. The actors I expected because of the type of film it is (really quite generic and not thought out past a certain point). The music was typical, not-thought-out action symphonic music.I liked the design of the computers and technical equipment, along with the mini-sub design. The movie even flowed really well, with guiding screens letting you know which set you're watching the story unfold in. But there isn't much of a story here anyways.This movie gets a 3/10 stars IMO. The boring search and destroy mission to blow up the North Pole and these creatures protecting it...kinda lame. Even lamer is the tagged-on love relationship between two of the characters that you don't see coming. Chalk this one up to being a movie which tries to get actors' careers off the bench and into a video. Don't bother. | 0 |
train_340 | I loved This Movie. When I saw it on Febuary 3rd I knew I had to buy It!!! It comes out to buy on July 24th!!! It has cool deaths scenes, Hot girls, great cast, good story , good acting. Great Slasher Film. the Movies is about some serial killer killing off four girls. SEE this movies | 1 |
train_24339 | "The Cat's Meow" contains a few scenes that boast intelligent dialogue, and some fine performances, a few of which surprised me. Eddie Izzard is more effective than I expected as Chaplin (partly thanks to an excellent hair and makeup job by some talented designer); Joanna Lumley is compelling as novelist Elinor Glyn; and Kirsten Dunst is winning as Marion Davies (though why movies never use her real-life stutter is difficult to explain). But these elements don't add up to a successful whole. The screenwriter seems to have worked very hard on certain scenes--the meetings between Davies and Chaplin are particularly well crafted--but not so hard on the big picture. Several minor characters don't need to be there, and don't behave consistently. The basic plot is full of illogic (e.g., why does Thomas Ince think it's a good idea to tell Hearst something he really doesn't want to hear?), and the party scenes are repetitive and tiresome. I'd like to think a trip on Hearst's yacht was more fun than the movie indicates. Davies is characterized as a standard bubbly Flapper type, which isn't really accurate, and the screenwriter's ideas about Chaplin and love are implausible. Strangely, Bogdanovich, who seemed so connected to the Thirties in "Paper Moon", lacks a similar affinity for the Twenties. He insisted the excellent costume designer use only black and cream, which gives the party guests a very artificial look, and plays only the most stereotypical songs of the period (e.g., "Yes, We Have No Bananas"). When Hearst insists everybody "Charleston, Charleston!" it looks as if the actors had a ten-minute dance lesson just before the scene was shot. The lives of silent film stars can make fascinating movies, I'm sure, but not this time. | 0 |
train_23865 | This is a very sad movie. Really. Nothing happens in this movie. The Script is bad!!! I guess they've just copy-paste the first 15 pages to 90 pages. The Producers must have thought let's create a Hollywood movie here in Belgium. They didn't succeed. Now in the third week it is only running in Antwerp and Brussels at 22h45 or something. In the past we have had really good movies in Belgium, like Daens. Shades is a waste of your time. Maybe you could sneak in the theater after you've seen a real movie. If you've seen 10 minutes of Shades, you've seen it all. It was advertised to death on local radio and TV. I hope it will disappear in the Shades soon. | 0 |
train_785 | Me being of Irish origins, loved this movie, Not only was the guy hot and funny he was also sincere and honest. I loved the girl who he fell in love with too, she was pretty. They were such a cute couple. The ending was so sad. Love this movie! Although it is a little dirty, it reminds of a British or Irish version of Prime. If you liked this movie you should watch prime. Same story line young guy falls for older women, older women falls for young guy to. A lot of paths cross, in the end, the best decision is made or task is completed. Don't have anything else to say, without ruining the whole movie, all though I thought the french guy was ugly, less appealing to me. Umm...if you like Irish movies, I would recommend "Circle of Friends" ,that movie is so good. Quick quote, you might not get unless you watch it" well, thats my dinner ruined." LOL | 1 |
train_7752 | Barman just wanted to make a movie because he wanted to. Just as simple as that, and he succeeded. Not only in his goal, but also in making a wonderful movie, especially visually. He knows how to use pans, slow-motion sequences, tracking shots, crane shots, etc. in a beautiful, smooth way. This gives the movie a very relaxing feel to it.The story is about the lives of 8 very different characters who have nothing in common except one thing: a party that they all attend to, which also is the turnpoint of this movie. The beauty of this picture lies not in the question how the characters have effect on eachother (in comparance with a similar, of course better movie like Magnolia). I simply don't think that that was Barman's idea. The beauty lies in the different details of experiences that people go through which makes or breaks their lives. Barman is very successful in telling those little stories that describe little experiences. He knows people..... and Antwerp.The soundtrack of the movie is also excellent, but not a surprise as we know that Barman is also a very succesful songwriter and musician with his band dEUS. The music is sometimes hot and at the same time relaxing which contributes to the sunny, smooth feel of the movie. Other times we hear funky pop/rock-melodies which give some scenes the strength that they need.There's only one flaw, and that's the last half an hour. Was it the runtime, which was breaking me up? Or weren't the last scenes that fresh and accurate than the scenes until then? I can't figure it out...All in all a beautiful sunny movie which lifts the Belgian cinema up.8 out of 10!(It's the breeze that flows through a girl's hair on a sunny afternoon making her even more beautiful; it's the fresh breeze that makes you relax when it passes you at a crowded party when someone opens the door; it's the breeze that carries the perfume from that beautiful girl sitting next to you in the park who you just met a week ago; it's the breeze.....) | 1 |
train_14039 | I'm a big fan of Westerns but this one.... whew, what a stinker! I think what turned me off almost right off the bat was the inane dialog. I think I could have written better dialog than this when I was in eighth grade. And the poor actors! Given this terrible dialog, none of them came across looking anything but ridiculous. Really, I'm not kidding. Some of this is little better than what you'd get in an Ed Wood film. The biggest tragedy is Sterling Hayden. He was probably THE "big" star in this movie which if you called it a B-Western, you'd be lavishing praise upon it. This is what should be called a B-minus Western perhaps. Pity Sterling Hayden, who appeared at other times along with Joan Crawford, Bette Davis, Frank Sinatra, and other major talents. For him to appear in a vehicle this poor must have been something he tried to downplay for the rest of his life.One annoying thing about this movie is all the men look like they haven't shaved in a week and their faces are all greasy. I know in the old West guys weren't always well groomed but to a man this is a movie that makes you want to just go 'EWWWW!' Really, this is a crummy Western. Denver Pyle also had to live this one down, especially after appearances in so many great Westerns. Bad, bad movie. | 0 |
train_10726 | To my surprise I quite enjoyed 'Spacecamp', i remember seeing it about 13 years ago, and recently I hired it again. I was quite impressed. Obviously the special effects in todays space films such as Armageddon and Deep Impact are far superior to those in SpaceCamp. However, this film had a story- a very stereotypical eighties story where you could almost recite the next line of dialogue before hearing it. But thats what I liked about it- they don't make films like this anymore, so it was a refreshing change. It was interesting to see Kelly Preston, Leaf Phoenix and Lea Thomson in early roles, with Tom Skerrit and Kate Capshaw to add substance to the light & fluffy plot. Absolutely loved the robot named Jinx, it was very cute, but it unfortunately had more emotion than some of the main characters. The film was almost inspirational in its own way, and it was interesting to note that it was filmed at the NASA Spacecamp in Alabama (i think). | 1 |
train_1529 | Diagnosis Murder is one of the only programs i watch regularly on TV now. The way all of the main characters have something to do in each of the episodes makes it so unlike today's shows where they concentrate on 1 or 2 people per episode and everyone else is shoved to the side. The way mark's brain works is also so obscure that you never really know what he is thinking, and if you think you do, you are wrong.Diagnosis Murder has tackled a diverse range of topics, not just in the cases but in each of the characters personal lives. Everything from racism and adoption, to terrorists and technology.As for it being for old people? I am 24!! I don't think i can be classed as old yet.I just want to know when they will be releasing all 8 seasons on DVD (not NTSC) so that i can watch them all in order. They seem to be doing it with lots of other programs from the same era so can they hurry it up a bit! | 1 |
train_7287 | THE BRAIN THAT WOULDN'T DIE was considered so distasteful in 1959 that several cuts and the passage of three years was required before it was released in 1962. Today it is difficult to imagine how anyone could have taken the thing seriously even in 1959; the thing is both lurid and lewd, but it is also incredibly ludicrous in a profoundly bumptious sort of way.The story, of course, concerns a doctor who is an eager experimenter in transplanting limbs--and when his girl friend is killed in a car crash he rushes her head to his secret lab. With the aid of a few telephone cords, a couple of clamps, and what looks very like a shallow baking pan, he brings her head back to life. But is she grateful? Not hardly. In fact, she seems mightily ticked off about the whole thing, particularly when it transpires that the doctor plans to attach her head to another body.As it happens, the doctor is picky about this new body: he wants one built for speed, and he takes to cruising disconcerted women on city sidewalks, haunting strip joints, visiting body beautiful contests, and hunting down cheesecake models in search of endowments that will raise his eyebrow. But back at the lab, the head has developed a chemically-induced psychic link with another one of the doctor's experiments, this one so hideous that it is kept locked out of sight in a handy laboratory closet. Can they work together to get rid of the bitter and malicious lab assistance, wreck revenge upon the doctor, and save the woman whose body he hankers for? Could be! Leading man Jason Evers plays the roguish doctor as if he's been given a massive dose of Spanish fly; Virginia Leith, the unhappy head, screeches and cackles in spite of the fact that she has no lungs and maybe not even any vocal chords. Busty babes gyrate to incredibly tawdry music, actors make irrational character changes from line to line, the dialogue is even more nonsensical than the plot, and you'll need a calculator to add up the continuity goofs. On the whole THE BRAIN THAT WOULDN'T DIE comes off as even more unintentionally funny than an Ed Wood movie.Director Joseph Green actually manages to keep the whole thing moving at pretty good clip, and looking at the film today it is easy to pick out scenes that influenced later directors, who no doubt saw the thing when they were young and impressionable and never quite got over it. The cuts made before the film went into release are forever lost, but the cuts made for television have been restored in the Alpha release, and while the film and sound quality aren't particularly great it's just as well to recall that they probably weren't all that good to begin with.Now, this is one of those movies that you'll either find incredibly dull or wildly hilarious, depending on your point of view, so it is very hard to give a recommendation. But I'll say this: if your tastes run to the likes of Ed Wood or Russ Meyers, you need to snap this one up and now! Four stars for its cheesy-bizarreness alone! GFT, Amazon Reviewer | 1 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.